...His perception was that every interaction must have a component which will shame the Liberal. It must have some aspect which the Liberal will not want anyone else to see. Of course the reason that such a component would be shameful, is due to the fact that if it became widely known, the Liberal would be out-grouped. It is the threat of being out-grouped which motivates the Liberal to abandon Liberalism.And what exactly *shames* a liberal???
“And what exactly *shames* a liberal???”
Anything which poses a threat ot their social standing in the group. In the video with Mike Wallace linked at the page which is linked in the piece above, Wallace goes on and on about the Liberal’s right to help enemy troops ambush US troops, so as to be able to report on how the enemy operates. Logic won’t persuade him for fifteen minutes.
Then a Marine castigates him as a helpless traitor, ignoring all the moral bull, and Wallace is suddenly a crushed man, and cedes that the Marine has a perfectly valid point. The argument was over. You have to see the video, to see his change in mood, and mental state. I mean, he was done.
When you ignore logic, and outcomes, and focus your argument just on how the Liberal is contemptible by standards of human decency, the Liberal experiences a panic response called an amygdala hijack, and withdraws from the debate.
I have seen it done, and done it myself.
Whatever overturns the self-image he's trying to project. If he's promoting feminism, show his position to be damaging to women. If he's promoting himself as a champion of blacks, expose him as a racist.
At all times, expose him as a coward and worthless human.