Posted on 03/28/2005 8:39:13 AM PST by srm913
Why I've Stopped Arguing with Liberals
by Pat Sajak Posted Mar 28, 2005
Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.
Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
Aside from being rhetorically hysterical -- and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis -- it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.
The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative -- one of the bad guys -- complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they -- being the good guys -- will decide exactly what that is.)
Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).
When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.
Name calling....or that ultimate put-down - "You just don't get it."
One of their favorite sly tricks is to pick out the most dumb, outrageous, conspiratorial, vulgar, etc. comments found on so many threads and then point them out as indicative of the radicalism of this forum and freepers in general.
Or they parse an errant word or two, or a few unsourced sentences to death. They ignore broader truth and facts until one's eyes glaze over. You realize they don't want to debate the issue (which they will lose), just counterattack on form over substance.
These are leftist spin tactics right out of books like Sol Alinsky's "Rules for Revolution" (Hillary's bible).
I still forward FR threads to these folks because their replies are so predictable they tickle my funny bone.
Leni
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
"My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt."
Indeed. Where the heck do they get this idea that the only people who travel, read, and speak other languages are people that live in an urban area in a blue state?
I travel constantly, speak other languages besides English, and I live in a town of about 4,000 people in a red state.
These people are sanctimonious idiots.
:"I've been shocked at what I see people willingly believing when it suits their agenda."
Exactly. I see it too here on FR. When you point out the logical fallicies, they too degenerate into irrational namecalling. Quite amusing, really.
I find myself doing the same thing now. They're not worth the trouble.
These city folk are dillusional about WHY "they" vote liberal/democrat. Its not because they are smarter, more cosmopolitan, etc. Its because they have a large number of urban types (blacks, whites, hispanics), idiots pretty much most of them, who vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
Funny, I find that people that think and live like me are better able to make informed choices, too. Gee, what are the odds?!
An excellent rule. You probably won't convert your opponent in the debate, but you might convert the bystanders who hear the exchange.
Tagline:
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. ~Jonathan Swift. brewcrew, 03/08/03
As far as making up the rules as you go along..."(Of course, they -- being the good guys -- will decide exactly what that is.)"
My tagline says it all.
Very hard to argue with the "Kool-Aid" drinkers....because they are true believer's. But there's ton's of Sheeple that are just zoning on the MSM lies...and repeat it as truth. Those people I try and correct......
It's not always easy....but now and again, you get one of them to think.
FRegards,
Wow, that's very interesting (and explains a lot)!
I fear we'll have to let the liberals of our time die out of old age. The younger generation seems much more intelligent, then their parents at the same age ideologically.
I'm in California (Silicon Valley), and I can tell you that we have some brilliant engineers here who can easily grasp the scope of large problems and methodically solve them. Their reasoning ability is excellent.
Yet...when it comes to politics, they are liberal and are just blind to reality. I just can't get it. Some of it does come from anti-Christianity. One of them can't stand the fact that Bush ever mentions religion in his speeches. He thinks that Bush is an idiot and says that he makes him sick to his stomach whenever he speaks (especially in the debates). He thought that Bush was spinning the facts on Pell grants and budget issues.
Another can't get over the poverty that the Palestinians are in. He's been to Israel and can't believe the restrictions put on the Palestinians, or the poverty they are forced to live in. He just can't see that they've created the mess by themselves.
Finally, another good engineer voted for the California extra tax on millionaires. "Why not, none of us have to pay it".
Their ability to analyze data does not seem to extend to reality, even though I consider them smart and effective in their work.
I have a liberal brother too but he's the one that doesn't talk to me, not the other way around. Still, there is an amusement factor. My brother-in-law has a sister in Washington DC that's a union lawyer. After the 2004 elections she told them she wouldn't be sending Christmas gifts this year because Bush was so horrible and killing off people, etc. so she was going to donate the money she would have used for Christmas gifts in *their* name to her pet liberal causes. I suggested that my brother-in-law should buy her some shares of Halliburton for Christmas.
When confronted by a avid liberal wanting to argue, I always remember my father telling me; "son, why punch a skunk when he already stinks?"
You can't have a constructive conversation with a deconstructioninst.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.