Posted on 03/16/2018 5:56:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
Free speech has become a conservative idea by default because liberals don’t believe in it any more. Liberals have given up on the idea of coming up with the best argument and now work tirelessly to silence their opposition so they can win the argument by default. Liberals NEED to do this because their ideas don’t work very well in the real world and if their ideas are tested and evaluated logically, they will be rejected by most people. So, how do they get around that?
1) Libsplaining: For every guy out there mansplaining, there are probably 500 liberals libsplaining what some conservative supposedly REALLY MEANT at exactly the same time. If you’re conservative, pretty much anything you say will be reinterpreted by liberals to mean something totally different. Against welfare because you think it encourages people not to work? You must hate black people. We need to cut wasteful government programs? You despise poor people. You weren’t in love with Trump, but really didn’t like Hillary, so you voted for him? You obviously want to turn America into Nazi Germany AND you hate women. None of this would be more than an annoyance except for the fact that liberals then take their completely nonsensical interpretation of what conservatives say and present it to the world as reality. This is how, for example, tens of millions of liberals who have probably never listened to Rush Limbaugh in their entire lives think he furiously spews lies and racist rants against the poor for three hours per day. Liberals seem to be practically incapable of taking common conservative beliefs at face value because that could lead them to intellectually engage in a debate about the best way to handle a problem, which could lead them away from liberal doctrine, which could….uh, YOU’RE A RACIST! THAT’S WHY.
2) Violence: Why are the liberal fascists in ANTIFA violently protesting? They’re violently protesting that people they disagree with are allowed to speak at all. Incidentally, “people they disagree with” runs the gamut from Nazis to mainstream conservatives. Ultimately, the liberals who send death and rape threats to conservative women like Dana Loesch and Michelle Malkin have the same goal as ANTIFA. They want to use the threat of violence to convince them to quit and to intimidate other women who agree with them. The limits on it are determined in large part by what they believe they can escape punishment for doing. Not every liberal will get violent, but violent groups like ANTIFA would be nothing without friendly police departments and college campuses that turn a blind eye to their activities. When they think they can get away with it, liberals are perfectly comfortable with using violence to silence their political opponents. Keep that in mind when they demand that you give up your guns.
3) De-Platforming: If a conservative puts his opinion out there, but no one is allowed to hear it, does it really matter? Liberals have worked hard to take over newspapers, Hollywood and the schools not just to indoctrinate people with their views, but to make sure conservative views can’t get out. You’re now starting to see that same philosophy become more public at Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube (Owned by Google) as those social media giants become increasingly unfriendly ground for conservatives. If liberals can control whom you’re allowed to hear, they can control your thinking:
4) Political Correctness / Safe Spaces / Microaggressions: Safe spaces and microaggressions are the little sisters of political correctness, but they all serve the same purpose. They’re designed to silence people who say things liberals don’t like because “Shut up, that’s why!” You saw a great example of this with James Damore at Google who used an open forum there to make scientifically supported arguments that liberals didn’t like about women in STEM and then was fired for it. That’s the perfect world for liberals. They win by default without having to defend their arguments at all because the other side isn’t allowed to say anything except liberal-approved talking points.
5) Liberal Fakes: Besides Fox News and a few conservative newspapers, it’s rare to see a genuine conservative presence in the mainstream media. The vast majority of people who bring you the “conservative” point of view in the MSM are weak-kneed moderates at best and liberals at worst. The role of these conservatives, who seldom have any real support on the Right, is to agree with liberals about how terrible Republicans are while occasionally making watered-down arguments about issues that won’t offend the Left too much. People like David Brooks, David Frum, Brett Stephens, Max Boot, Michael Gerson, Jennifer Rubin, Kathleen Parker, etc. are not there to represent conservatives; they’re phonies there to give the false impression that even conservatives disagree with conservative policies.
6) False Labeling: In America, there are certain groups that the vast majority of us simply ignore. We don’t pay any attention to their arguments because nobody much cares what an actual white supremacist, Nazi, Fascist or racist has to say. So naturally, if you listen to liberals, other than them, pretty much everyone is a white supremacist, Nazi, fascist or racist. They go on about it so much that you’d think we were simultaneously in the pre-Civil War Years, Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy all at the same time. Typically, the evidence for this Nazi renaissance in America is little more than the fact that there are people who disagree with liberal policies along with comments that would be shrugged off or ignored if a liberal had said them.
7) The Ventriloquist Dummy: See Cindy Sheehan, the Parkland Kids, Graeme Frost and to a certain extent, even Barack Obama. Liberals LOVE to find someone you’re not supposed to criticize to stick up front when there’s a hot political issue. The latest ones are David Hogg and the other Parkland kids they’re putting on TV as much as possible to push for gun control. They make their arguments and…you’re not supposed to respond because other kids who may not have agreed with them at all, were killed. Meanwhile, David Hogg and company are exploiting their dead classmates to get on TV and repeat the same boring talking points every other liberal does. Despite the fact he was President, liberals even tried to do this with Barack Obama. Conservatives are opposing Obama’s gun control? Well, what do you expect since it was proposed by a BLACK MAN? Obama shouldn’t let ISIS run wild in Iraq. Of course you’re saying that since Obama is a BLACK MAN. Liberals treat being black like a get-out-of-criticism free card unless the black American in question is conservative. Then, the liberal knives come out. Otherwise, it’s shut up, shut up, shut up.
I despise them and pity them at the same time.
Those sure are three ugly women in that picture.
Bkmrk.
Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis
The one on the left is a male, I think. Of course, these days who knows, right.
8) Wrong Side Of History
aka These Kids Will Be In Charge Soon And They Will Sort Your A** Out.
This may tie into #4 and #7 but absent any cogent argument, point of fact or law, I’m seeing a lot of You Conservative/Constitutionalist Scum Will Be Dead Soon And We’ll Do What We Like posts from fainting-couch lefties.
Obviously, they’re ignoring demographics, Census figures, etc. in order to claim that there will be a mass extinction soon. And will the extinction somehow choose victims by political affiliation?
The Wrong Side Of History argument was a favorite of the gay marriage crowd. They were unable, of course, to explain how humanity survived and thrived with a) actual marriage being the custom in almost every culture regardless of language, ethnicity, geography, etc. and b) how couples whose anatomy matched planned on procreating.
And what does The Wrong Side Of History even mean? Is a Douglas Brinkley going to write nasty things about us? Isn’t he already doing that? Isn’t history simply a record of events? How can there be any right or wrong associated with if IF it’s history and not propaganda? The Wrong Side Of History might be called preemptive virtue signaling ie the political correct types are claiming to be correct before time elapses or they will do their usual thumb-on-the-scale routine to ensure they are on the ‘right’ side.
A good example: some acquaintance of mine was in a snit because the Parkland student, a skinhead lesbian, was described as, er, a skinhead lesbian. The ‘skinhead’ part was obvious to all. The lesbian part came from the student herself as she had been one of these sexuality-before-all types organizing clubs etc. And so, she was a skinhead lesbian by universal agreement including that of the skinhead lesbian.
This simply could not stand for the acquaintance, who railed against the description and, as above, declared that those who referred to the student as such were ‘cavemen who are dying out’ and...wait for it...on the wrong side of history.
I admit, for two days I considered asking simply ‘Which descriptor is inaccurate?’ but the only answer would have been more self-regarding vitriol.
too bad about Kathleen Parker; she was super hot when she was young...
‘The one on the left is a male, I think.’
I’m thinking your sarcasm meter needs recalibration...
Huh? I wasn’t being sarcastic. I mean it. The one on the left is a male, I think. Can’t be 100% sure these days. But the facial features are male, particularly the more prominent brow ridge that is a male feature.
...to the Bone!
“Libsplaining”
Thank you. Been trying to figure out how to deal with the Leftist tactic of “you oppose X? Well then you want to murder puppies!” which is such a rhetorical non-sequitur I have trouble addressing it. Having a label, based on their own invented labels (and thus instantly clear what it means), concisely snaps the delusion into focus.
I would love to see a mag at the check-out isle/counter that is a “Liberal vs Conservative” photo montage issue.
MAD could do it, they are good a trashing everyone but mostly conservatives
Just the cover would do me poor ole heart good.
Item no. 1 shows their power to read your mind. You can’t really be opposed to welfare, we know in your mind, really, you just hate black people. Of course, this is a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the actual value/non-value of welfare or affirmative action. Same thing occurred when people opposed Obamacare when it was proposed ... any arguments against it were not rational, they were simply racist.
A corollary to this logical precept is “the straw man argument”. It was a false argument by Obama and used over and over. It would go like this: “To those racists who oppose improved health care for the poor, I say you are wrong”. But there were few/none who were racist opposed to health care. They opposed it simply based on the non-merits of the proposal.
I suppose “The Children” comes under that mantra big time?
The “Teeny Bopper” leaders and backers of the gun debate are tossing that one around as we speak(type)
Conservatives have to become louder and more aggressive in getting the message out. Far too many times, our side tends to shrink from a fight, when that fight should be taken to the darkside.
None of that crap works at silencing anything. We are on to you in a big way and not shutting up no matter how much of a hissy fit you throw. Collapse on the ground and beat your heads into the cement. It may help improve the sourpuss looks plastered on all your faces. -- Better yet, HOLD YOUR BREATH AND REALLY SHOW US !!
Such uneducated, living-in-the-past, reactionary closed-minded, mean-spirited, unloving low-IQ cultists are simply not fit for membership in the currently emerging. social gospel-integrated, diversity-admiring, gibberish-ranting modernized church of the "real Christ" for modern church-politic-correct Buddha/Mohammed/booze/gay-tolerant congregations.
Eh? Is there an "Amen" on this?
Now that is some quality information!! TY
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.