Search Box

Sunday, June 5, 2016

Classic liberal argument

I got a comment from a liberal last night on yesterday's post which illustrates the classic liberal method of arguing perfectly:

at least tv has diversity of opinion. in this blog, john craig, uses his intellect to create the illusion of introspection but all his conclusions are the same and on the wrong side of history. they are rarely criticized here naturally because like-minded people gravitate to this blog to reinforce their right-wing views. the opinions are most exposed for what they are when he lapses into ludicrous conspiracy theories supported by links to the opinions of other nuts.

First of all, the idea that TV has a "diversity of opinion" is preposterous. The only channel which dissents from the mainstream media's liberal viewpoint is Fox, and they do so in a very mainstream Republican sort of way. Fox would never dream of honestly discussing racial differences in IQ, or gender differences in personality, or anything along those lines.

Secondly, note that the commenter does not try to dismantle anything I've said. He (I'll take the liberty of using the male pronoun, although it could just as easily be a woman) merely insults me with ad hominem attacks, using the words "ludicrous" and "nuts." This is what liberals do when they don't have the facts on their side: call someone names. 

The commenter describes the blog as "right-wing," another common liberal technique, attempting to marginalize anyone who doesn't agree with them. (I've argued for gay marriage, for abortion rights, and against extending wars in the Middle East on this blog, and those are hardly right wing positions. But, no matter, to a liberal, if you don't toe their line completely, you must be "right wing.")

He also accuses me of using the "illusion of introspection." In other words, I must not put any real thought into this blog. In fact, most of the thought is hardly introspection, since most of the time I don't write about myself, unless it's in the "Confessions of a beta male" series or the like. And, I've never been particularly skilled at creating illusions. (How I wish that I were.) All I seem to be able to do is blurt out politically incorrect truths.

Also, note that in yesterday's post I clearly state that Ali grew up in a different, segregated era, which made it easier to sympathize with his political stances. And, I noted that he was a "noble warrior" as well as "quick-witted and playful and humorous and charming." (If you ever hear a liberal present a balanced picture of someone on the other side of the political spectrum, please let me know.) 

It must be wonderful to feel that you're on the "right side of history." To be filled with a feeling of righteousness, to have the world so clearly divided into those who are Good and those who are Evil, and to know that you are one of the Good people. 

The only thing the commenter forgot to do was call me a "Nazi" and a "racist" and a "sexist" and a "homophobe." 

Anyway….I was just about to post the above, when I got another comment from (I'm assuming) the same person: 

you forgot to include a scholarly piece on ali being gay based on the color of his wife's skin.
obama is gay. his guards are gay. hillary is gay. bill, not so much?

should we expect any confessions from you soon?


I replied: 

Nah, no confessions from me. I guess I'm staying fully in the closet.

And, have I ever suggested that Ali was gay? This is another favorite liberal arguing technique: putting words into someone's mouth. Please, restrict yourself to arguing with stuff I've said, not stuff you say that I might say.

Also, I never said Obama's "guards" (Secret Service detail) are gay. I said two of his three "body men," Nick Colvin and Reggie Love, are probably gay.

Even after I pointed out in my first reply that the commenter couldn't really take issue with anything I said, but could only insult me, he came back with more childish insults. (Funny how those on the Left who ostensibly support gay marriage insult others by accusing them of being gay.) And, as I said in my reply, he has to put words into my mouth in order to be able to "win" the argument. 

This is a commenter who has visited here before, since he's familiar with the "Is Obama gay?" post. So, in hopes that he will visit once again, I will address him directly: 

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the bankruptcy of liberal arguing techniques. 

14 comments:

Shaun F said...

John - It's funny how they have a standard set of behaviours and responses.

"Funny" in a tiresome way.

I enjoyed your post on Ali

John Craig said...

Shaun F --
Thank you. Yes, the commenter accuses me of only creating the "illusion of introspection" when he himself does nothing but recite liberal cliches. "Tiresome" is the right word.

Steven said...

I might have brought him here. I linked your 'coming out' article to someone I was arguing with about bigfoot on youtube. In that article you mentioned that you don't like Obama so he might just have searched 'Obama' and found the gay article too. He called me insane and this commenter said something about you linking to other nuts.

Sorry if that's the case. I guess you got a blog post out of it.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I got the impression that this commenter was the same one who commented several months ago on the blog; he said something to the effect of, I must think that Ali is gay too, since he fought dark-skinned opponents. (Which made no sense, of course, but he said something similar here.) But I don't know that for sure, of course.

Lucian Lafayette said...

John,
I think I have mentioned it before, but it deserves repeating: those who fall on the lib/prog side of the political spectrum truly think differently than those who have a more "restrictive" vision of the world (to use a term from Thomas Sowell). They constantly conflate disagreement with hatred, project these positions onto those they are arguing with, etc. By the way, not only did he fail to use the "Nazi" pejorative, he also neglected to threaten to use government or military force to suppress your opinions.

Luke

John Craig said...

Luke --
So true. Essentially, they argue like children. Everything with them is an ad hominem attack, everything is taken personally, and, as you rightly point out, they project all of their own feelings and poisonous attitudes onto the other side. Plus, they use their politics as a way of preening and showing their moral superiority. And when confronted with facts they can't argue with, they fly into a fury.

hooter tooter said...

"On the wrong side of history", but the right side of reality. I've seen that comeback a few times now, and it strikes me as apropos.

John Craig said...

Hooter tooter --
That's a good one, I'll have to remember it.

Steven said...

Great article by John Pilger, an old school leftist & critic of American foreign policy, which challenges the easy assumptions and media narrative about liberal/democrat leaders being the good guys. He's highly critical of Obama and says Clinton may be more lethal than Trump. He points out that Trump is the only one who has asked meaningful and critical questions about US foreign policy.

http://www.unz.com/article/silencing-america-as-it-prepares-for-war/

John Craig said...

Steven --
He starts off making a lot of good points, but then goes way overboard and overstates his case about America in general. And he also makes the classic mistake of attributing everything that happens on a President's watch to the President himself. For instance, Obama may have presided over a nuclear arms buildup, but he was probably more unwitting bystander than he was instigator.

Steven said...

thanks for the feedback.

I'm sure you're right about Obama and the nuclear arms build up but its worth mentioning given his anti-nuclear arms feel good rhetoric and how in general the liberal leaders like Obama are taken at their word and assumed to be the good guys. He was given a Nobel peace prize before he even took office! If a republican had done what Obama has done, especially the drone attacks, I think it would probably be a bigger deal. In regard to the drone attacks, Obama has to approve the target and he has said that ultimately he is responsible for the process.

As regards Russia and China, I can't really see where Pilger is exaggerating.

I'm glad that America...or the American system....was the victor in the cold war. But we don't need another one and I can't understand why the western leaders and media are so intent on demonising and confronting Putin. It seems to me largely unnecessary and dangerous but maybe I'm missing something, or a lot.

John Craig said...

Steven --
No question that there's a double standard for judging liberal leaders vs. conservative ones. That Nobel Prize was a joke, he was nominated liberal two weeks after he entered office, in February '09, and since then his record on drone attacks (as of a couple years ago, over 300 children killed and counting) would have been sufficient grounds to declare any Republican President a war criminal.

I'm not Hillary fan, obviously, but much of what Pilger describes as a "build up" and a "crescent" stretching from Alaska to Okinawa to Afghanistan was in place before she became Secretary of State. And again, I'm no Obama fan, but his intended "pivot" was on trade, not war, even if there has been somewhat of a buildup. (Much as it pains me to defend those two.)

I think much of this renewed Cold War talk is actually because the US and Russia have flip-flopped on their world views. Putin has a far more traditionally conservative view of what he thinks the world should look like than the Obama administration does. Putin is not a gay rights advocate, nor is he a feminist, and he's said that white people in Russia need to reproduce more. These are harpy views that fit in with the current leftist viewpoint.

Rona said...

at least tv has diversity of opinion. in this blog, john craig, uses his intellect to create the illusion of introspection but all his conclusions are the same and on the wrong side of history.

That phrase...:double facepalm:

The arrogance, the stupidity, the cluelessness of leftists is eclipsed only by their self-righteousness. Ah, that perfect grasp of right and wrong...always on march, on the right side of History. I admire you, John, for being willing to attempt to explain their illogical thinking to them. You won't have much success however.

I think I'm no longer able to regard them as equally human, mentally. What else can one think when, after presenting an argument against a particular liberal hobby horse one is confronted by that devastating refutation "What are you, some kind of bigot...IT'S THE [CURRENT YEAR]".

Add a smattering of insults about your low IQ (which they, like, totaly don't believe in) and your inbred family (disgusting and degenerate, unless Muslims practice it, then culturaly enriching) and victory parade may begin.

They are unable to grasp different positions on political spectrum at all. To a leftists, the "right-wing" is simply any opposition the their current views. As their views change, following History, so what constitutes right-wing changes.

He also accuses me of using the "illusion of introspection." In other words, I must not put any real thought into this blog.

Well of course it's merely the illusion. Do you honestly believe one can be really thinking and not agreeing with a liberal? It's like you're one of those people who think free speech encompasses expression of illiberal views.

Rona

John Craig said...

Rona --
Thank you. Yes, my thinking wasn't so much that I was going to convert someone to the other side so much as I just wanted to take pleasure in holding his idiocy and inane arguing techniques up to the light.

I agree with everything you say. And the consistency with which they argue this way is amazing. I've had all sorts of arguments with all sorts of liberals, and they always manage to turn it personal. Some go with the "I believe this because I'm a good person" approach, which, while less infuriating, is at heart just as idiotic as the "You think that way because you're a horrible person" approach.