Anyone who has spent any time online trying to have reasoned or reasonable discussions with “progressive” “liberal” left-wingers soon realises that they really only have 2 weapons in their arsenal :
- Name calling. Their lexicon of pejoratives is ever expanding. And as each perjorative term loses its power through overuse the need to escalate the insults to something ever more extreme pushes them to the point of absurdity. Homophobe, racist & bigot are now so passé. The opening salvos are now white-supremacist, nazi, hater. Of course, this is all done with the intention of avoiding have to engage with the message by vilifying the messenger. To make their insults even more “powerful” they are frequently prefixed and/or suffixed with a few choice expletives. This tactic is typically first-base for most lefty, regressive, libtards (…see what I did there?!).
- Censorship. Banning. Barring. Blocking. Black-listing. Boycotting. No-platforming. De-listing. Criminalising. When the name calling doesn’t work then there is no choice but to silence the opponent all together. Even if this means obstruction, intimidation or inflicting injury, “‘HATERS’ MUST NOT BE HEARD. The public are too ignorant & gullible and might inadvertently agree with them. It is essential that we do the thinking for them” (as Titania McGrath satirises it)
But why are these tactics necessary? Because: when the average proponent of woke, progressive leftism actually tries to make reasoned or reasonable arguments, time-after-time they are so easily exposed as baloney, bunkum or plain old BS that it’s almost embarrassing.
Of course, we can all be guilty of it to some degree. In the world of preaching it’s called eisegesis (making scripture fit your own pre-conceived ideas) as opposed to exegesis (forming your ideas around the meaning of scripture). But so willfully blind is the typical, woke, lefitst apparatchik that they will refuse to ask the two fundamental questions that any honest inquirer should make, “Is this true? If so, why?”. When the answer to the first is “No” they carry on with their argument regardless. And if the answer is “Yes” but the explanation contradicts their argument, they also carry on regardless – but emboldened because they have a fact!
Here’s a fine example of Steven Crowder doing yet another comprehensive rebuttal of every. single. point. of a Vox journalists article. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.