Why You Can't Argue with a Leftist.

[Captain Adverse]

I've noticed some members railing against my opposition to "Leftist" political arguments and positions in the Forum, as if this is a "very bad thing."

That socialism, identity politics, gender dysphoria, globalism, restrictions on free expression to prevent "offense," and many other group-think ideas I disagree with are "inherently good," and anyone who disagrees with them is "inherently evil."

That "tolerance" only applies when one agrees with their goals, and it is not "intolerance" but rather moral righteousness to demean, denigrate, even assault anyone not on board with their goals.

This video points out a few issues (yes, it is a Prager U. video, which means those on the Left will dismiss it as propaganda) with why it is difficult to argue with the Left.

In a word, diametrically opposed goals.



I provide it because IMO the speaker points out one major reason why it is so hard to argue with someone who has bought into the new "Left" ideology. Their end goals are so diametrically opposed to those of true Liberals and Conservatives in our society that there is no common ground upon which to argue and reach a compromise or agreement.

I believe in preserving "Western Civilization" because despite it's tarnished reputation involving some very real past stumbling blocks, it has led to the most free, most open, most well-developed societies on the planet. So much so that most people flee TO "The West" in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. I have no problem with this, as long as the influx is controlled so that our society is not swamped and thereby turned into the morass of problems such potential citizens are fleeing from.

I also believe in the free exchange of ideas, and oppose the tactics of demonization used by so many advocates of Leftist ideology. When you argue with an ardent Leftist, nine times out of ten they will attack you personally, and the tenth time simply dismiss your viewpoint as morally reprehensible and in all cases having no value whatsoever. That's because their goals differ radically from either true Liberals or Conservatives.

Absent shared goals (and make no mistake, as pointed out by some examples in this video the Left has diametrically opposing goals), then IMO disputes on how best to arrive at a solution can only lead to actual conflict without any chance of compromise or mutual agreement.

This is why you simply can't argue with a Leftist; they are "true believers" who don't listen, but only respond with emotional appeals, ad hominin's, and other fallaceous retorts designed to divert from the point in favor of targeting the "imorality" of their opponents. This because their goal is radical change in what they see as a sick and evil social order, which must be replaced with thier more "enlightened" one.

I continue to disagree, but I have no problem in simply not responding when I come to realize my opponent and I have mutually exclusive goals and there is no chance of agreement or compromise.

The danger of this is that when more people than not reach such a point and discussion in hopes of compromise is no longer an option, what then remains? :coffeepap:

 

[Logician Man]

I've noticed some members railing against my opposition to "Leftist" political arguments and positions in the Forum, as if this is a "very bad thing."

That socialism, identity politics, gender dysphoria, globalism, restrictions on free expression to prevent "offense," and many other group-think ideas I disagree with are "inherently good," and anyone who disagrees with them is "inherently evil."

That "tolerance" only applies when one agrees with their goals, and it is not "intolerance" but rather moral righteousness to demean, denigrate, even assault anyone not on board with their goals.

This video points out a few issues (yes, it is a Prager U. video, which means those on the Left will dismiss it as propaganda) with why it is difficult to argue with the Left.

In a word, diametrically opposed goals.



I provide it because IMO the speaker points out one major reason why it is so hard to argue with someone who has bought into the new "Left" ideology. Their end goals are so diametrically opposed to those of true Liberals and Conservatives in our society that there is no common ground upon which to argue and reach a compromise or agreement.

I believe in preserving "Western Civilization" because despite it's tarnished reputation involving some very real past stumbling blocks, it has led to the most free, most open, most well-developed societies on the planet. So much so that most people flee TO "The West" in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. I have no problem with this, as long as the influx is controlled so that our society is not swamped and thereby turned into the morass of problems such potential citizens are fleeing from.

I also believe in the free exchange of ideas, and oppose the tactics of demonization used by so many advocates of Leftist ideology. When you argue with an ardent Leftist, nine times out of ten they will attack you personally, and the tenth time simply dismiss your viewpoint as morally reprehensible and in all cases having no value whatsoever. That's because their goals differ radically from either true Liberals or Conservatives.

Absent shared goals (and make no mistake, as pointed out by some examples in this video the Left has diametrically opposing goals), then IMO disputes on how best to arrive at a solution can only lead to actual conflict without any chance of compromise or mutual agreement.

This is why you simply can't argue with a Leftist; they are "true believers" who don't listen, but only respond with emotional appeals, ad hominin's, and other fallaceous retorts designed to divert from the point in favor of targeting the "imorality" of their opponents. This because their goal is radical change in what they see as a sick and evil social order, which must be replaced with thier more "enlightened" one.

:inandout:

 

[WCH]

Basically, it's a waste of precious time.

 

[Amelia]

There are as many leftists who can participate in interesting debate as there are so-called conservatives who can.


But here I am posting in a thread by someone who calls himself "left" but posts Prager U videos trashing leftists. Logician Man has the right idea. :inandout:

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Why you can't argue against a liberal, liberals have facts. Righties don't

 

[lurchadams]

I've noticed some members railing against my opposition to "Leftist" political arguments and positions in the Forum, as if this is a "very bad thing."

That socialism, identity politics, gender dysphoria, globalism, restrictions on free expression to prevent "offense," and many other group-think ideas I disagree with are "inherently good," and anyone who disagrees with them is "inherently evil."

That "tolerance" only applies when one agrees with their goals, and it is not "intolerance" but rather moral righteousness to demean, denigrate, even assault anyone not on board with their goals.

This video points out a few issues (yes, it is a Prager U. video, which means those on the Left will dismiss it as propaganda) with why it is difficult to argue with the Left.

In a word, diametrically opposed goals.



I provide it because IMO the speaker points out one major reason why it is so hard to argue with someone who has bought into the new "Left" ideology. Their end goals are so diametrically opposed to those of true Liberals and Conservatives in our society that there is no common ground upon which to argue and reach a compromise or agreement.

I believe in preserving "Western Civilization" because despite it's tarnished reputation involving some very real past stumbling blocks, it has led to the most free, most open, most well-developed societies on the planet. So much so that most people flee TO "The West" in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. I have no problem with this, as long as the influx is controlled so that our society is not swamped and thereby turned into the morass of problems such potential citizens are fleeing from.

I also believe in the free exchange of ideas, and oppose the tactics of demonization used by so many advocates of Leftist ideology. When you argue with an ardent Leftist, nine times out of ten they will attack you personally, and the tenth time simply dismiss your viewpoint as morally reprehensible and in all cases having no value whatsoever. That's because their goals differ radically from either true Liberals or Conservatives.

Absent shared goals (and make no mistake, as pointed out by some examples in this video the Left has diametrically opposing goals), then IMO disputes on how best to arrive at a solution can only lead to actual conflict without any chance of compromise or mutual agreement.

This is why you simply can't argue with a Leftist; they are "true believers" who don't listen, but only respond with emotional appeals, ad hominin's, and other fallaceous retorts designed to divert from the point in favor of targeting the "imorality" of their opponents. This because their goal is radical change in what they see as a sick and evil social order, which must be replaced with thier more "enlightened" one.

I continue to disagree, but I have no problem in simply not responding when I come to realize my opponent and I have mutually exclusive goals and there is no chance of agreement or compromise.

The danger of this is that when more people than not reach such a point and discussion in hopes of compromise is no longer an option, what then remains? :coffeepap:

Because we're always right. When you're done pushing your 1950's social and racial views and your failed policies, come talk to us. We'll consider taking you in, we're a big tent!

 

[lurchadams]

Basically, it's a waste of precious time.

I know. Ours.

 

[Acadia]

I've noticed some members railing against my opposition to "Leftist" political arguments and positions in the Forum, as if this is a "very bad thing."

That socialism, identity politics, gender dysphoria, globalism, restrictions on free expression to prevent "offense," and many other group-think ideas I disagree with are "inherently good," and anyone who disagrees with them is "inherently evil."

That "tolerance" only applies when one agrees with their goals, and it is not "intolerance" but rather moral righteousness to demean, denigrate, even assault anyone not on board with their goals.

This video points out a few issues (yes, it is a Prager U. video, which means those on the Left will dismiss it as propaganda) with why it is difficult to argue with the Left.

In a word, diametrically opposed goals.



I provide it because IMO the speaker points out one major reason why it is so hard to argue with someone who has bought into the new "Left" ideology. Their end goals are so diametrically opposed to those of true Liberals and Conservatives in our society that there is no common ground upon which to argue and reach a compromise or agreement.

I believe in preserving "Western Civilization" because despite it's tarnished reputation involving some very real past stumbling blocks, it has led to the most free, most open, most well-developed societies on the planet. So much so that most people flee TO "The West" in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. I have no problem with this, as long as the influx is controlled so that our society is not swamped and thereby turned into the morass of problems such potential citizens are fleeing from.

I also believe in the free exchange of ideas, and oppose the tactics of demonization used by so many advocates of Leftist ideology. When you argue with an ardent Leftist, nine times out of ten they will attack you personally, and the tenth time simply dismiss your viewpoint as morally reprehensible and in all cases having no value whatsoever. That's because their goals differ radically from either true Liberals or Conservatives.

Absent shared goals (and make no mistake, as pointed out by some examples in this video the Left has diametrically opposing goals), then IMO disputes on how best to arrive at a solution can only lead to actual conflict without any chance of compromise or mutual agreement.

This is why you simply can't argue with a Leftist; they are "true believers" who don't listen, but only respond with emotional appeals, ad hominin's, and other fallaceous retorts designed to divert from the point in favor of targeting the "imorality" of their opponents. This because their goal is radical change in what they see as a sick and evil social order, which must be replaced with thier more "enlightened" one.

I continue to disagree, but I have no problem in simply not responding when I come to realize my opponent and I have mutually exclusive goals and there is no chance of agreement or compromise.

The danger of this is that when more people than not reach such a point and discussion in hopes of compromise is no longer an option, what then remains? :coffeepap:

Excellent OP and you make many fine points which the veracity cannot be denied. First, we need to stop calling these people "liberals". They are not. They are "leftists", more aligned with socialism, Marxism and communism than capitalism. Liberals are/were tolerant. Tolerance was a hallmark of their ideology. Leftists are intolerant, rigid and highly discouraging of individualism, favoring the collective.
How to argue with leftists? As we're coming to learn, we can't. Leftists use logical fallacy, ad homs and Goebbells tactics to force their message. They do not seek discussion, or compromise. They are totalitarian and fascist and we need to look back in history to see how fascist regimes have been conquered.

It's not through tolerance and trying to reason with them.

 

[ludin]

This video is spot on and 100% correct.
I know plenty of democrats that are well rounded and very much open to discussion.
might disagree but they are respectful and make good points.

the ones that are more militant are leftists.
they are some of the most intolerant and noninclusive people i know of.

they rail on anyone and everyone that doesn't agree with their world view and get down right not only
angry but almost hostile.

it is a sad state in this country that we have gotten this far.

 

[Captain Adverse]

:inandout:

Why you can't argue against a liberal, liberals have facts. Righties don't

Except you don't seem to be a "Liberal." That is a misnomer, as you would note had you actually read the OP.

Because we're always right. When you're done pushing your 1950's social and racial views and your failed policies, come talk to us. We'll consider taking you in, we're a big tent!

Thank you all for proving my point. :coffeepap:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Why you can't argue against a liberal, liberals have facts. Righties don't

Huh...one man's facts is another man's autistic screeching.

 

[Taylor]

Because we're always right. When you're done pushing your 1950's social and racial views and your failed policies, come talk to us. We'll consider taking you in, we're a big tent!

If that were true, moderate Democrats would be able to run as Democrats rather than having their businesses boycotted by Democrats.

 

[WCH]

I know. Ours.

Yep, can't change the minds of seriously entrenched parroting drones on the Left..

 

[lurchadams]

If that were true, moderate Democrats would be able to run as Democrats rather than having their businesses boycotted by Democrats.

Who? What? Elaborate, please.

 

[Taylor]

:inandout:

Wow, you moonwalked out of here in a hurry.

 

[JeffreyB]

And with facts to back up there argument Righties go on a personal attack, shot the messenger

the irony is that you just generalized a entire party. i know plenty of republicans that use facts in there arguments ( including myself hopefully) and i know plenty that don't use facts in there argument but that isn't only true for republicans its true for any/every party. Its a human thing not a republican thing thank you.

 

[Mach]

Aw, a right-wing propaganda video meant to attack the entire Left. But of course, the poster's identity foreshadowed it.

The reality is that we do not disagree with your ideas, so much as most of your arguments are simply false. Wanting to desperately believe fiction, is definitively something more associated with the right..conservatism, religion.

Maybe one day you will learn to differentiate true from false, reasonable/justifiable opinions vs unreasonable or emotional opinions, science as opposed to conspiracy theory, ethics vs lack of ethics, etc. The current political climate isn't even about leftist ideas in the Trump era, it's about felons, lack of ethics, anti-truth, anti-American, incompetence and lies.

 

[Sand Castle]

the irony is that you just used a personal attack.

Makes a point

 

[Jezcoe]

I am kind of baffled by this strange idea that an amorphously defined thing like “Western Civilization” is somehow under threat to the point where it needs to be defended by anonymous people on the internet.

Very Strange.

 

[bongsaway]

And who is going to pay for the wall? Mexico. Get him outta' here, I'll pay your lawyer bills. I gave the military a ten percent raise.

The right defends every lie trump tells and then they say you can't talk to a leftist. Maybe because those on the left actually see reality and those on the right deny reality.

 

[MrPeanut]

I'd say that one of my biggest gripes about politics is the false idea that one side is logical and the other is emotional. We are all emotional animals that hopefully can make mostly logical decisions when we are presented with the evidence. If you think left wingers are too emotional to have a decent argument with google "Gillette" or "Colin Kaepernick" and get back to me. When we allow extremely wealthy and powerful corporations and politicians to make us think bad things about our neighbors we all lose.

 

[Taylor]

And with facts to back up there argument

The Righties... their powerless against you're arguments

 

[PeteEU]

You have to define what a "leftist" is first...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[OrphanSlug]

Pot... meet kettle.

This is not the first time we have seen someone post something saying you cannot argue with a liberal, or a conservative, etc. Time and time again someone writes an opinion piece or posts a video with the same basic argument entirely ignoring how our political and even social climate has placed us on this course where reason and negotiation are outdated concepts.

I will agree that in their respective extremes liberalism and conservatism are not compatible, but that does not mean all hope is lost for discussion and debate on the topics of importance.

 

[ludin]

Pot... meet kettle.

This is not the first time we have seen someone post something saying you cannot argue with a liberal, or a conservative, etc. Time and time again someone writes an opinion piece or posts a video with the same basic argument entirely ignoring how our political and even social climate has placed us on this course where reason and negotiation are outdated concepts.

I will agree that in their respective extremes liberalism and conservatism are not compatible, but that does not mean all hope is lost for discussion and debate on the topics of importance.

The only hope is that mainstream people shove them back out to the fringes where they belong.