- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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'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:
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:
:inandout:
Why you can't argue against a liberal, liberals have facts. Righties don't
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!
Why you can't argue against a liberal, liberals have facts. Righties don't
If that were true, moderate Democrats would be able to run as Democrats rather than having their businesses boycotted by Democrats.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!
I know. Ours.
If that were true, moderate Democrats would be able to run as Democrats rather than having their businesses boycotted by Democrats.
Wow, you moonwalked out of here in a hurry.:inandout:
And with facts to back up there argument Righties go on a personal attack, shot the messenger
Makes a pointthe irony is that you just used a personal attack.
The Righties... their powerless against you're argumentsSand Castle said:And with facts to back up there argument
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?