Русский агент
09-22-2017, 10:13 AM
Today's liberals seem to have abandoned rational public discourse.
I believe that's due partly to the logical indefensibility of many widely-held liberal positions.
Instead of deliberating, weighing the available evidence, and forming a cohesive argument based in fact, they erupt with emotional outbursts like spoiled children whose desires are thwarted when they are questioned or challenged.
Hence the lack of evidence-based discussion obvious in liberal "debate".
They also seem unable to separate individuals from the concept of identity politics. This is group-think. Questioning is hostility in liberal psychology, and must not be tolerated by the truly tolerant. Thus we have liberal double-speak.
Consider these examples (liberals won't):
If a liberal is challenged on any point, the validity of the challenge is not considered. Rather, the group identity of the challenger becomes the focus. For example, if a Caucasian male questions liberal dogma, he must be a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a Nazi, a homophobe, etc., so the challenger may be dismissed as unworthy without any rebuttal of the challenge.
In liberal-land, nothing that a conservative says need be refuted with evidence or logic, because conservatives are "_____" (insert popular pejorative).
In liberal-land it's not the position of an opponent that receives consideration, it's the identity of the "opponent". The "other". The "not-one-of-us". This is the tribal mentality of group-think.
This would also explain the popularity of virtue signaling in the liberal bubble. Liberals seem to compete with one another by striving to publicly exhibit liberal symbology. That's ironic, since modern liberalism does not endorse competition and has sought to erase the concepts of "winning" and "losing".
Liberals have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal woman is deemed "sexist". Naturally, their manufactured umbrage does not compel them to denounce vile slurs against any women who are not liberals. Even more ironically, they pretend to embrace gender equality in theory at the same time their emasculated beta males rush to the defense of the "weaker" sex.
They have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal non-Caucasian or non-Christian is deemed "racist". Of course, they permit themselves to say what they like about conservative non-Caucasians or non-Christians, because they believe that their imaginary moral superiority inoculates them from the putrid taint of hypocrisy.
They have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal idea, policy, or, individual, or group is deemed "Nazi".
Liberals are constantly on the alert for things to be offended by, so that they can apply their catch-all "hate speech" deflection in any discussion.
The criticism of the scared cows of liberalism need not be stated overtly.
Liberals believe they have an ability to detect invisible "institutional" sexism, racism, or Nazism that was never expressed or intended.
They clearly do not posses the ability to persuade by argument and understanding. Instead they have substituted ideological tribalism, which makes it impossible for them to debate effectively or influence people through logical means.
Instead of considering the merits of a report whose fats are detrimental to liberalism, they prefer to dismiss the evidence out of hand, while simultaneously declaring that the old media they prefer are the only reliable sources, despite considerable proof to the contrary.
Liberals are intellectually unable to debate an issue on the facts, so they use emotional defense mechanisms to exclude all information they deem "unpleasant" or "hateful". Then they defend people who march through the streets burning cars and assaulting bystanders while chanting "death to cops", without a shred of irony.
Liberals cling to outdated notions that have clearly failed and insist doggedly that they must and will work somehow.
Their minds are not open to new possibilities or advances in technology. Thus, we see Hillary destroying digital evidence with a hammer, and her supposed "IT" adviser plaintive asking an online forum how to delete emails.
Perhaps the liberal stranglehold on public education and the old media will be enough to propel their identity politicians to power in 2018 and 2020.
Somehow, I'm not convinced.
I believe that's due partly to the logical indefensibility of many widely-held liberal positions.
Instead of deliberating, weighing the available evidence, and forming a cohesive argument based in fact, they erupt with emotional outbursts like spoiled children whose desires are thwarted when they are questioned or challenged.
Hence the lack of evidence-based discussion obvious in liberal "debate".
They also seem unable to separate individuals from the concept of identity politics. This is group-think. Questioning is hostility in liberal psychology, and must not be tolerated by the truly tolerant. Thus we have liberal double-speak.
Consider these examples (liberals won't):
If a liberal is challenged on any point, the validity of the challenge is not considered. Rather, the group identity of the challenger becomes the focus. For example, if a Caucasian male questions liberal dogma, he must be a misogynist, an Islamophobe, a Nazi, a homophobe, etc., so the challenger may be dismissed as unworthy without any rebuttal of the challenge.
In liberal-land, nothing that a conservative says need be refuted with evidence or logic, because conservatives are "_____" (insert popular pejorative).
In liberal-land it's not the position of an opponent that receives consideration, it's the identity of the "opponent". The "other". The "not-one-of-us". This is the tribal mentality of group-think.
This would also explain the popularity of virtue signaling in the liberal bubble. Liberals seem to compete with one another by striving to publicly exhibit liberal symbology. That's ironic, since modern liberalism does not endorse competition and has sought to erase the concepts of "winning" and "losing".
Liberals have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal woman is deemed "sexist". Naturally, their manufactured umbrage does not compel them to denounce vile slurs against any women who are not liberals. Even more ironically, they pretend to embrace gender equality in theory at the same time their emasculated beta males rush to the defense of the "weaker" sex.
They have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal non-Caucasian or non-Christian is deemed "racist". Of course, they permit themselves to say what they like about conservative non-Caucasians or non-Christians, because they believe that their imaginary moral superiority inoculates them from the putrid taint of hypocrisy.
They have embraced the group-think of identity politics to such an extreme degree that criticism of any liberal idea, policy, or, individual, or group is deemed "Nazi".
Liberals are constantly on the alert for things to be offended by, so that they can apply their catch-all "hate speech" deflection in any discussion.
The criticism of the scared cows of liberalism need not be stated overtly.
Liberals believe they have an ability to detect invisible "institutional" sexism, racism, or Nazism that was never expressed or intended.
They clearly do not posses the ability to persuade by argument and understanding. Instead they have substituted ideological tribalism, which makes it impossible for them to debate effectively or influence people through logical means.
Instead of considering the merits of a report whose fats are detrimental to liberalism, they prefer to dismiss the evidence out of hand, while simultaneously declaring that the old media they prefer are the only reliable sources, despite considerable proof to the contrary.
Liberals are intellectually unable to debate an issue on the facts, so they use emotional defense mechanisms to exclude all information they deem "unpleasant" or "hateful". Then they defend people who march through the streets burning cars and assaulting bystanders while chanting "death to cops", without a shred of irony.
Liberals cling to outdated notions that have clearly failed and insist doggedly that they must and will work somehow.
Their minds are not open to new possibilities or advances in technology. Thus, we see Hillary destroying digital evidence with a hammer, and her supposed "IT" adviser plaintive asking an online forum how to delete emails.
Perhaps the liberal stranglehold on public education and the old media will be enough to propel their identity politicians to power in 2018 and 2020.
Somehow, I'm not convinced.