Why You Can't Argue with a Leftist.

[JeffreyB]

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.

i'm a republican, not religious in the slightest and am gay and yet i'm still skeptical of anyone who out right attacks religion. religion isn't the enemy of anyone as you simply don't follow the church or you do. Your completely in your rights to not believe in a god or any god but saying the church/religous conservatives is nothing but lies is like saying someone who likes pepsi over coke is a crook.

 

[haymarket]

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

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Anybody not an adoring Trumpkin - obviously.

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

The OP makes distinction between liberals and leftists.

 

[JeffreyB]

politics has become a "there the villain mentality". Most republicans/democrats/independent/liberals are trying to make america a better country, and we just have different opinions on some matters; this mentality that anyone that's of the opposite party is a evil person is a dangerous mentality that plagues both sides.

 

[OlNate]

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 think this is a divisive, dangerous broad brush of a post, Cap'n. If you can't talk to the Left, what's your next play? They are getting more and more mainstream, and in the binary society of the American Left vs. Right phenomenon, there's more of "them" than there are of "you".

This post seems like you're giving up, Cap'n...as if you've accepted a divided America, in which you are increasingly becoming the minority factor. Too bad...politics is just one thing...and even on that front you guys should be a lot more united, given how evenly your governments seem to be screwing you over.

 

[independentusa]

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:

One of your basic problems is that like many Trump conservatives today you see those who do not believe as you do as opponents or the enemy. Someone you have to fight and beat. I live in a large family with people going from the left, not far left, to the far right and I do not see any of them as my opponent, but as brothers with different political ideas from mine. I do not demonize them but when we discuss politics, we do so with facts. A good example is health care. One of my brothers said he did not want any of his money going to pay for other peoples health care. I pointed out to him that our father was military and after college he went into the military, then retired and taught school, the whole time his health insurance was being paid by other people, many did not have health insurance themselves. He stopped arguing health insurance with me. Not that I always won argument, many times one of my brothers won. I have found that even if someone differs in their opinion from me, they are not my opponent, and maybe you should do the same.

 

[Rich2018]

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:

Are you saying that socialism is bad and you won't accept any argument to the contrary ?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

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:

LOL! That same asshat in the video claims that one cannot engage in productive discussions with leftists is the guy who posts this: https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1092427095404437505

There's no sweet, fetid stench of hypocrisy quite like that which surrounds conservatives like a nimbus of stink.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

:inandout:

Did you smell a straw man?

 

[Vern]

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

sorry Amelia, there may be "as many" conservatives who can participate in interesting debate but they are not at this forum. "Interesting debate" requires facts and logic. these are severely lacking in any conservative post. And the OP is just another "accuse the left of exactly what conservatives do". This describes conservatives at this forum perfectly: "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."

Here's an example of a thread by CA based on what could be argued as "total ignorance" or "lie".

A Forum member had mentioned that Mr. Obama had also presided over a government shutdown seeking votes for the ACA.

President Obama presided over a shutdown because republicans were trying to repeal Obamacare. What tells me he knew what he posted was a lie was "a forum member mentioned" was the basis of his narrative. When I pointed his "emotional appeals, ad hominin's, and other fallaceous retorts" he cowardly cut and ran from his own thread. there is one "conservative" here I've dealt with that almost gets it. But that's it.

 

[srexob715]

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:

So you post a video by a fake university? Yeah that gives people the idea that your complaints are legit. WHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Rich2018]

Are you saying that socialism is bad and you won't accept any argument to the contrary ?

I guess the OP has no answer.

 

[srexob715]

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.

Yes are right. Those mathematicians will not let anyone who thinks differently than they do into their group.

I want to discuss how 2+2=105......but they are extremely intolerant people. They just don't allow any outside opinions. I wonder why?

 

[AGENT J]

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:

The very idea that ANYBODY sees that as a one way issue exposes the vast dishonesty and biased in thier views which causes thier whole premise to instantly fail :shrug:
While i agree extremists are an issue you just proved your views are extremists and also part of the problem.

 

[ludin]

Yes are right. Those mathematicians will not let anyone who thinks differently than they do into their group.

I want to discuss how 2+2=105......but they are extremely intolerant people. They just don't allow any outside opinions. I wonder why?

this pretty much proves my point right here.
these leftists are militants that use aggression and force to try
and bully people into backing down.

it is a sad state the the democratic party allowed them to take over.

 

[Sand Castle]

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.

The post is a generalization

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

:applaud My thoughts exactly!

And if anyone doesn't believe it... just take a good look at this forum. :lol:

 

[Grokmaster]

:applaud My thoughts exactly!

And if anyone doesn't believe it... just take a good look at this forum. :lol:

 

[humbolt]

:applaud My thoughts exactly!

And if anyone doesn't believe it... just take a good look at this forum. :lol:

True, but you have to admit that some leftists are kinda cute. Cute like a platypus. Fun to look at and an oddity, but nothing you want to take home.

 

[Greenbeard]

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

They can.

 

[Vern]

True, but you have to admit that some leftists are kinda cute. Cute like a platypus. Fun to look at and an oddity, but nothing you want to take home.

humbolt!?! You're alive!! the way you disappeared from our last discussion I was worried about you. In case you forgot, you were demanding I scour the internet to prove your "claims" but couldn't read the proof I posted directly to you that proved exactly what I was saying. Here's the thread in case you "forgot".

Humbolt, where'd you go? I guess even you have a limit how far your disingenuous (at best) dissembling of the facts will go. I cant say I'm not disappointed. I really wanted to see you explain why I have to scour the internet to "prove" your falsehoods but you don't have to read what I post directly to you. safe travels.

anyhoo, I just want you to know I know you don't believe " Leftists are intolerant, rigid and highly discouraging of individualism, favoring the collective." In spite of your best efforts, you've shown you got smarts most conservatives don't. You're just encouraging Acadia/trix out of some deluded obedience to conservatism. Even you know " rigid and highly discouraging of individualism, favoring the collective" are literally requirements to be a conservative. What is it about conservatism that makes you so casually flush your integrity down the toilet?

 

[JackA]

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.

We have always been this far. Rabid political debate, full of yelling and intolerance, is as old as the nation. If it ever stops we will have ceased being a democracy.

 

[HumblePi]

Seriously, trying to reason with Trump supporters by presenting facts is like trying to rationalize with a bunch of circus clowns juggling conspiracy theories. It's just not within the realm of possibilities. Bye.

 

[JackA]

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



Thank you all for proving my point. :coffeepap:

So exactly why are you and your 11,016 posts here?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think this is a divisive, dangerous broad brush of a post, Cap'n.

Well...that's only true if you presume that I mean anyone to the Left of me...as opposed to anyone to the Left of what I consider to be true Liberals.

If you can't talk to the Left, what's your next play? They are getting more and more mainstream, and in the binary society of the American Left vs. Right phenomenon, there's more of "them" than there are of "you."

That's because of the points made in the video, increasing control over education, the media, etc. IMO a problem that needs addressing before it really becomes too late.

IMO many ardent far-Leftists (or to paraphrase a term 'Alt-Leftists') have taken over the term "Liberal" when they are anything but. They are currently dominating the Democratic Party, although I honestly don't think they make up the majority of that Party. I think they are just the loudest and most violent and thus the most newsworthy.

This post seems like you're giving up, Cap'n...as if you've accepted a divided America, in which you are increasingly becoming the minority factor. Too bad...politics is just one thing...and even on that front you guys should be a lot more united, given how evenly your governments seem to be screwing you over.

Not giving up. I still talk to you.

I can still talk to Liberals, Moderates, Conservatives. I don't talk to extremist on the Right or the Left.

I am simply pointing out that goals have changed, and this makes it' difficult to reach a compromise when none can be offered, it is always "all or nothing."