I remember the first time a fellow lefty made an argument about something she thought I should believe and, when I pushed back sceptically (as philosophy students are taught to do) she exclaimed, “It’s not my job to educate you!.” I was stunned into silence (the intention, I think) but soon realised: No, it’s not your job to educate me, but it is your job to persuade me *if you want me to change my mind*. It’s cheap victimology to start a conversation or advocate for a position and then claim that the other person is oppressing you by asking for your reasons for holding that position. I mean, I get that some people argue in bad faith and waste your time, but to assume that all scepticism is based in oppression or bad faith takes you to exactly the discursive cul-de-sac we are in. More importantly, though, taking the “it’s not my job…” approach inoculates you from ever having your beliefs seriously challenged. It becomes a version of the self-sealing fallacy, where someone else doubting the validity of your argument is used as evidence that the argument valid.
I’ve said it before: if you took a list of the top 10 logical fallacies and made a philosophy out of them, it would be critical social theory or nationist authoritarianism.
Late to the party, but: "it is your job to persuade me" is always what I thought when people used the argument: "I shouldn't have to convince you to do the right thing!"
Indeed not. But if you want me to believe that thing you want me to do is the right thing to do, your kinda do need to convince me.
(Alternative: imagine a pro-lifer and pro-choicer bellowing "I shouldn't have to convince you to do the right thing!" at each other, over and over again, for all eternity)
Bring back Civics and Debating to Highschool. We don't even teach the truth about the Vietnam War. How is anyone going to understand that there are different types of "reasonings"? If the most powerful office in the world is engaged in true propaganda against truth, blessed by the "checks and balances, and nearly half of our neighbors,
do we seriously expect anything differently from the youth? Coupled with the aggressive tactics of grade school bullies, and now advanced with laws or sanctioned by the SCOTUS it's a wonder the USA hasn't imploded already. We have thousands and thousands of prisoners who can't fathom why they're jailed and real felons are set free by a felon selling democracy to the highest bidders while pocketing millions, perhaps billions of dollars for himself and his family and friends!!
Bullies? Who was forcing experimental medical treatment? Who was forcing the abandonment of parents and grandparents? Who cancelled two years of education for our young people?
Absolutely, please let's teach our children to think, and to debate.
Forcing? Did they strap people down? If thats about sex change, and kids werent given them, it just shows your prejudice against transitioning, not protecting the kids who werent, and even if they were, no one was strapping them down.
We live in a world where we dont know what would have happened without the shut downs. We saw how bad it went in other countries that tried. So its easy to complain from a post facto place. Was it bad in terms of lost education? Yes. 100 percent. But would you have said the same if say you lived through the London Bombings? The kids must go to school! See the issue? You can die many ways. Some ways you can try to prevent.
Finally, do not tell me that your side doesnt shout us down, and do all the things you accuse us of. Thats the problem with unassilable conviction and perchants for dominance: they discourage debate.
> " If that's about sex change, and kids weren't given them, it just shows your prejudice against transitioning ..."
What? Absolutely NO ONE changes sex -- EVER, PERIOD. It's a biological and medical impossibility, and it's an absolute medical scandal and crime of the century that a bunch of so-called "doctors" (Mengele) are saying that it is possible.
“Sexual mimics” are men who compulsively imitate women in order to avoid male sexual competition and male aggression. It is a behavior widely observed in the animal kingdom, from fish to birds, reptiles to insects, mammals and cephalopods.
In humans mimicry involves insistence that the mimicry is real, which is a defining characteristic of delusion - reality is false.
Mimic behavior also involves demanding a wide variety of social mis-recognitions of sex.
One particular version of behavior involves insistence that any sexually ambiguous behaviors are evidence that the person has a false sex.
Parents, teachers, doctors, and other authorities over children have been coerced into believing that children’s ambiguous traits are an indication that they have a false sex.
Part of this coercion involves convincing adults that they should subject their children to sterilizing and mutilating medical procedures.
It’s never the child which must be coerced, it is the parent.
In answer to your first question, nobody, because no such thing happened. As for your second question, Andrew Cuomo has been accused of it. Not sure that's accurate. Education wasn't canceled it was sent home. Is home schooling "cancelation"? Finally to what are you responding, a comment re grade school bullies"? Huh? How does any of this apply?
Those are valid points, though I wasn't forced to get the COVID vaccine. I chose to because of my 90 year old mother with leukemia I felt it was necessary. Admittedly, I'm not a Doctor but I've witnessed the effects of Polio, measels, etc from my youth. My mother made a choice to vaccinate her children. So far we're both alive and fairly healthy for old goats. The rest of the world seemed to be onboard as well. As far as schooling, it's tragic that parents aren't able to home school their children. I feel so much more would be communicated between progress or lack of with more involvement from parents or guardians.
As far as bullies, I was addressing the language of our POTUS towards anyone who he dislikes. Be it a journalist, a female victim, a Democrat, or a Judge he disagrees with. 4,700 plus law suits, to date, that he's filed are just a bit silly. IMHO
With regard to trans ideology persuasion was never an option because it is a belief system that cannot stand the light of scientific scrutiny. It could only arrive on our doorsteps by coercion. Further, this belief has become a class marker of elite moral superiority. To convince, to persuade would break the dynamic that we are good and they are bad. Why does the left dwell on these things? Because it refuses to see its role in sequestering status and privilege. It would much prefer basking in the "enlightened" viewpoint that inhibits our success at the ballot box.
You're correct. I was quite full of myself this morning. Overcaffeinated and understimulated.
My point about trans is that, by my lights, it arrived without much explanation let alone persuasion because the idea that a person can change their gender is not grounded in science but in belief. It must be taken on faith. At 75, I realize that many young people take it as a given that the science is settled. It's a thing and that's that. I don't think that's the case but it may not matter if Gen (fill in letter) accepts it as fact. You can ignore the rest of the buzzwords. That's just me outgassing.
Why do you worry about it? Thats my repudiation. Live and let live. Bottom line, there have always been people of genders that dont match their sex. Ever heard of Native American tribes that embraced third gender people? Thats trans before corrective surgery was available. They were treated with equal respect. So your statements are erronous and are more a function of circular logic tainted by your own prejudice than peoples lived experience.
I ask you this additional simple question. If someone did not identify as another gender, do you think they would face all the slings and arrows that they face procedurally, much less socially? You can be different in far less catastrophic ways. There are two sexes, buy gender isnt sex. The issue for many is that gender aligns with sex for most of us, including myself, so we have a desire to crunch things down into what is easiest to process. But life resists that and the freedom we enjoy affords it or did until the current wave of cancelizations.
No one is harmed by adults transitioning between genders. If someone had previous commitments based on their previous gender, it does have to be worked with, but matters arent gonna be better served by people sticking to their assigned ones. So I sincerely dont get why people are worried about it except that theyve been told to or told its ok to express such vehement objections when not 10 years ago it was a non issue. The same thing happened with abortion and, arguably, immigration. People are told to hate and they do. Prior to the rising of that heatsink, not many truly cared, or we would have had change much earlier. They were told to care. At your age, youve lived through these attitude changes on the national stage and seen them first hand, no?
First, the issue isn’t what adults do to their bodies, or what drug identity they have in their own minds, that’s their business, and nobody really objects to that.
The problem is with the demands they then place on others as a result
Whether it is to change their language, recognize not just male and female, but a slew of different “genders“ and learn the right terminology, demand weird pronouns, and identifying ones gender in communications, having trans identifying people getting preference for jobs under DEI, having people with men’s bodies competing against women in women’s sports, demanding the right to women’s safe spaces, having kids transition at an early age, etc
Those are the issues at hand, and people have different opinions on them.
Second, your claim that there have always been transgender people in other societies and they are accepted and“respected“ is only partially true.
In the few societies where those have existed, most often MTF, they were not considered actual women, but a third sex with different roles and attributes.
Our trans activists insist that trans people are the actual sex they claim to be, with all the same rights and privileges . That is very different.
And recognizing those differences has nothing to do with “hate“ or some “transphobia“, that is just the rhetorical strategy chosen by trans activists, and it just backfires.
I care about this only in relation to how it alienates people we need at the ballot box. People can live however they like. The democratic party, in my opinion, should not reflexively be regarded as the party that assents to the proposition that gender can be changed. So far, despite all the talk of big tent, we have not made it possible to let that viewpoint stand.
Tl;dr...worrying about other peoples private lives and junk isnt a winner, and is creepy wierd as all hell. You arent being asked to look at their junk, even as you seem to be so interested in it, and any party that comes out against doing so, the ironically true conservative position, is gonna win.
Making a minority portion of the population a centerpiece of your campaign? Yes, silly. You are running to represent all. But its not silly to proclaim it as a right to uphold, among many. I know Ive been somewhat forward here, but its because I find TERF talking points stupid, worthless, and ultimately a distraction with poisonous intent and/or no merit, so if you are going to spout any more or give advice politically thereto, imagine me giving you the finger as you type. I wont respond. If you want to talk about other things, happy to. I just dont go for hate, and you are proscribing censorship because of hate.
Simple horsenoise. Thats what you want. Thats what you assume others want. But that has nothing to do with other peoples freedom, just yours. If a party doesnt embrace freedom to be as one wants as long as they arent harming others, they are antiAmerican. We do freedom here.
And, heres the thing: people dont vote becausd of that, not in large numbers anyway. You could argue they vote for normality, and a few do, but its usually a response to their lived lives and capacity to prosper, which includes their safety. It is and would be quite foolish to concern yourself with anything but that. It is true that some vote because they are told to vote one way and be angry about this/that You will never win them. So instead be the party that embraces freedom. Thats a winning message, which indeed calls out what is, and if you hold it I am sorry it is because it oppresses other adults capacity to live their lives as they wish (spare me the bathroom fears talk...theres always something to be concern about), and that is simple prejudice based on ignorance, self righteous belief, and ultimately punative disdain.
I enjoyed this article and agreed with a lot of it but I feel you are still treating the right and their positions as though they are wrong or from a bad place. Many on the right feel that same way about anyone on the left. The truth is most people feel they are supporting the most rational policy and have interests that go beyond their back yard.
For instance, studies have shown that both the right and the left have fairness and equality as part of their moral structure. But it shows up differently in what policies or thinking achieve those results. When both sides become intolerant of people looking at things differently instead of being curious of how others think, then conversation becomes impossible.
Thank you for this comment - I also enjoyed the article, but, as a conservative, am appalled by most of the comments (which drive home to me the results of many recent studies indicating we conservatives are much more tolerant of other perspectives) - your comment gives me hope that some on the left understand that most of us on the right hold sincerely held beliefs based on actual facts - and do not regard any number of the issues referenced in these comments as “political”.
Every time, every time I read your posts I think, 'man, I wish I could write like that'. It's the kind of quiet, thoughtful, rational wisdom we need more of in the world today.
I appreciated this post, although I don't know that I take any issue with "it's not my job to educate you". Oftentimes in my experience when people are asking questions or demanding explanation, what they're really looking for is to argue, not to hear you. It's ok to set boundaries. No one should feel forced to to engage with people who aren't participating in good faith. It's becoming more clear to me that one major issue is that people are arguing but not seeking to understand and I wonder how that can change, especially in the era of TikTok attention spans.
Also, when the discussion turns to racism, people of color do not owe you their time, labor, or peace of mind simply to divest you of your own ignorance. YOU do the work to unlearn your own white supremacy. Putting that work on the shoulders of black people is highly inappropriate.
Anyone who thinks that being born white doesn’t come with any inherent privileges needs to read Unpacking the Invisible Backpack
"Also, when the discussion turns to racism, people of color do not owe you their time, labor, or peace of mind simply to divest you of your own ignorance...Putting that work on the shoulders of black people is highly inappropriate."
I've got to say, this kind of thinking annoys the shit out of me because it deliberately distorts what should be seen as the natural dialogue between human beings -- which includes curiosity, the exchange of ideas, clarification of misunderstandings, or the asking of questions -- by turning it into what we now view as laborious or inappropriate asks of this or that group.
When an individual does not understand something and is curious enough to ask a question or ask for clarification, that should be applauded... it's a moment when one person is recognizing another person's humanity, and cares enough to actually engage. Brief moments of dialogue are often the way a lot of people gather and absorb information. And brains, or learned ways of thinking about the world, don't shift overnight. It's a process, and a slow one at that.
So what do liberals do instead? Rather than being open to natural or spontaneous dialogue, we instead hit these folks over the head by basically shaming them for having asked a question! Fucking hell, nobody's requesting a semester-long course to be taught. And by the way, if you think a lot of these people, who have busy lives like everybody else, are going to run out and buy every book we liberals think they should read, you're kidding yourself. You want to talk about privilege? How about the privilege to be able to afford the books? Or how about the privilege to only need one job to support your family so that you actually have the time to read all the books? Or how about the privilege of a good education that allows you to be able to really understand what's in the books?
Look, if someone comes and asks me about things that might seem obvious to me but that are perplexing to them, I will happily engage. And living in a nation as diverse as the United States, I think it should be our default M.O.
I think you misunderstand me. First of all most liberals and leftists and democrats (or whatever designation that is not republican or far right) do spend a lot of time (online and off) and effort correcting people when they have their facts wrong. Or spend time and effort recommending books, videos, podcasts, etc.
What I am saying is let white people who have the time and the energy do this work. Too often ignorant and/or bigoted white people place the burden on people of color to do the heavy lifting of defending their own right to be treated as equal human beings. This is piling insult upon injury. People of color already have to work twice as hard to get half as far. If someone tells you to read an article or a book you’re either going to do it or you’re not.
If someone of any race wants to spend a few hours gently leading someone to some fairly obvious conclusions then that’s their choice. But most often those efforts are wasted.
Former Democrat popping in. Reading your replies… if your view is representative of most here, you guys are doomed.
“effort correcting people when they have their facts wrong”
During the BLM riots there was polling done about how many unarmed black men were killed by police each year and of each political group: people who said they were Democrats were the farthest off from the actual figure. (I’m not looking it up right now but may later if you want.)
You have the gut-level feeling that you’re always right. That’s how it is with most of you. (I went to a private liberal arts college, and again, I was a Dem myself for 20 yrs so I’m familiar with the ecosystem.)
This is why you guys don’t get it. You can’t do what the essay suggests because, at this point, it appears the muscle memory for engaging in these discussions is gone.
I experienced it myself trying to get my old friends to talk about why, maybe, just maybe, it’s not good to lock up men in women’s prisons. They couldn’t engage. They didn’t even try. I was immediately called a Nazi and Jim Crow for saying incarcerated females (nearly all survivors of sexual assault) deserve consideration.
Here’s that source, in case you doubted me. Using WaPo’s own database the number of unarmed black men shot by police was 12. Half of the “very liberal” people thought it was over 1,000. The Republicans and Independents were far closer to the truth.
Going into every discussion that you’re right, when this is a flashing red light showing otherwise… is not a way to have fruitful conversations.
Put yourself in the position of someone who is earnestly trying to wrap their head around an issue. And then hearing, “It’s not my job to educate you.” Just think about how those words will be received by the person hearing them.
Also, even if they take you at your word, all you’ve done is tell them to go and do their own research.
Yes, and over the past five years we’ve had a lot of influencers who are quite willing to capitalise on that type of high-handed rejection. Don’t bother with the woke elitists, come to us - we care about you and how you’re doing, not like those (insert minority group + liberals) over there!
I don’t need you to tell me to think, thanks. I do think. All the time. I think about women and girls who are forced to do physical and emotional labor for free. And about the boys and men who are excused from it and allowed to be immature and selfish with no repercussions. I think about people of color and the injustices and micro aggressions they face all day every day. I’m not super concerned about the fee fees of ignorant white people who couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger to educate themselves when they were born on third base.
Also, it’s Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Not backpack. If you’re going to altered them, at least get your admonition correct. And no, the type of people that you believe need to read that book will never do that, if for no other reason than that they are not its target audience- we are.
Basically, it’s OUR job to read the book. And then to take its message and spread it to others. But break it down and do it in ways that the people who need to hear the message can understand. You have to meet people where they are.
Super Bowl winning head coach John Harbaugh, when he was working for the legendary Andy Reid, once came across a note card on Andy’s desk. It read, “Don’t judge. Coach.” He asked him about it. Andy told him, “It is t our job to judge the players. It’s our job to take them as they are, and make them better players.” IOW, it’s not their job to expect the players to “play up” to their expectations. It’s their job to meet them where they are, and bring them up.
She's obviously correct about this point you pedantic moron, nobody on any side cares about backpack vs knapsack. Do *you* even want *her* to listen? In case you're wondering *I* don't want *you* to listen I want you to keep being a moron.
Telling people, “It’s not my job to educate you,” while lecturing people on the topic you want them to become more educated on- which is what she was doing- isn’t how you persuade people. Making matters worse, she then proceeded, while lecturing me, to incorrectly state the title of the article. If she wants to be holier than the pope, then she doesn’t get to make mistakes like that. I do think it’s rich that she’s the one being pedantic, and when k call her out for it, you both accuse me of being pedantic.
Do you people even want to win? Or do you just like basking in the rays of your non existent knowledge?
Can you like, get a hobby? Or go volunteer somewhere to help the less fortunate? You seem to have a lot of time and energy. Maybe consider spending less time and energy browbeating strangers on the internet, and more time and energy being the change. ✌🏼
Comments like this are why people vote for Trump. You don't accept constructive criticism; you argue with people who are mostly on your side; and your attitude toward those who aren't on your side is intellectual laziness: "It's not my job to educate you." It's lazy.
As a Republican, I wish you tremendous influence with the DNC and Dem candidates for years to come. Your attitude perfectly encapsulates the problem with the Dems' electoral conundrum that the author is highlighting.
“Wee amount of time”?? They’re novellas. I don’t need anything mansplained to me, thanks. I sure know where to go now if I want to be treated with contempt and patronized though. Only I don’t. So ciao.
If you’re an example of the people I’m supposed to be trying to persuade to change their minds it should be obvious to anyone reading this exchange that it’s futile so why should I bother wasting my time and energy?
It’s pretty clear that you’re going to mansplain me into a migraine if I let you. So I’m not going to let you. See how that works? As a non white, working class, neurodivergent woman I have limited time, energy, and patience. When you’re living the white man life you probably can’t relate.
I can point the ignorant person in the direction of resources they can use to alleviate themselves of their own ignorance. If they choose not to seek enlightenment that’s on them.
What's obvious from your exchange with Phillip Murphy, for example, is that you pop off when someone holds and argues a view that is not in exact alignment with yours. You dismiss them by insulting them and suggest that they are "browbeating" you simply because they ask if you can see or understand a different perspective.
Rather than taking a moment to consider the request, which appears to have been asked in good faith, you launch into your first micro-attack ("I don't need you to tell me to think..."). He wasn't implying that you weren't thinking, he was suggesting that it might be beneficial for you and others to consider how certain comments sound to others.
You're absolutely right that you, and all of us for that matter, shouldn't waste time and effort in futile engagements. The problem, though, is that you haven't recognized that this wasn't one of them... and thus you pissed away an opportunity for what could have been a productive engagement.
So it’s up to me to work patiently to change the minds of republicans one at a time on Substack. Sorry I’m 53. I don’t have that kind of time. Neither does America.
My own view is that, regrettably, THERE IS NO LEFT to speak of in the U.S. At least not in any meaningful way. I have to laugh whenever I hear the MAGA types warn about the dangers of the left. If only we had anything like the numbers and influence they allege. Identity politics and cancel culture were ideally suited to the neo-liberalism of the past 50 years. Dreams of social transformation that once typified left politics were foreign to people who felt that the most urgent matters were gaining "a seat at the table" of power, whether public or private, and policing language with a diligence that would have made the Puritans proud. Maybe the rise of actually existing fascism will finally shake the left out of its half-century stupor. We are about to find out.
Totally agree. The left was so busy policing utterly pointless nonsense like pronouns with a fervor we're more accustomed to seeing from the extreme right, they lost their way, and their unity. More moderate lefties turned away, some drifted off to the right. And as Mike rightly points out, so much frustration bubbled under due to fear of being branded transphobic or racist. When Trump arrived saying he'd scrub the whole DEI thing, that's all a lot of people heard. And we know that went. Then, as Mike said, because people were only bending the knee due to fear, the minute Trump went in, most corporates and many individuals totally abandoned the 'core values and ethics' they were gushing about on their 'about us' pages only months before.
The paranoid warnings are a tribute to what we knew how to do. Reimagining it in new political circumstances is an unexpected, if predictable, challenge. Consumerism crept in, caught us off-guard, expecting Harris to win. Neoliberalism really is the devil's work, a sneaky opiate.
Nicely said. And insightful. I think you're right, lefties were just doing what we knew. What seemed right. Re-enacting the various movements of the past but for tiny minorities that barely register as a margin of error. By this I mean, doing dumb things like building new toilet blocks (this was actually going to happen at my kid's school) at great expense, to cater to the 0.001% who might be unsure whether to use the boys or girls room. This is a school that was constantly moaning about not having the funds to buy new equipment, fix the leaking roof in the gym and so on. But boy, did the lefties jump in and get behind building a toilet block for non binary students. The madness only ended when it was pointed out, that there wasn't a single non-binary student on the role. Everyone got so caught up in that issue, they weren't fighting the far more serious issue of TikTok invading our kids' brains. I feel like this same thing played out in American politics. People were so busy arguing about trans rights and bending knees, they didn't see the far right positioning itself to establish the current Trump monarchy.
Yes, the left normalized silencing and persecution over good faith persuasion. This is why after a lifetime as a lefty Democrat I no longer vote for them.
I was shocked the first time I asked someone in good faith why they made a particular point and was coldly told to “educate myself.” I stopped trying after I expressed concern about a strategy alienating potential swing voters and was told to be a better ally. Finally, I mentioned reading a John McWhorter article and was told I was racist and no longer welcome in the room. When you are censoring any reading, much less an article by a Black Democrat-voting NYT author who criticizes Trump just because he also criticizes the left, you have lost the plot. That’s when I finally realized how deeply authoritarian and ideologically captured the American left is, and the Democratic Party with it.
I respect your post, but I disagree on several key points you make, including that standing up for free speech is clearly in bad faith on the right. Respectfully, it’s not.
The vision that we on the Left need to have is to see how important is the narrative. And the Right have dominated the narrative in recent years. And with the Charlie Kirk death they are attempting to take up more of the stage. Some of narrative is misinformation or disinformation, some of of is not Christian in any way, a lot of it is hateful, divisive and damaging to our society. For all Kirk’s failings he was not afraid and was willing to engage in debate. We must continue to be willing and to retake more of the stage. Remember the falling never hurts, but the landing can sure mess up your day. Not time to land yet, not until I am dead.
Death? Charlie Kirk didn't just die, he was murdered, assassinated for daring to listen to people in the public square and respond. You can't even bring yourself to admit he was murdered by an adherent to the doctrines that have dominated the public stage for decades.
You, sir, are swinging one edge of a double-edged sword. The other edge is gun culture which is owned by the right which the killer was a product of and which Charlie Kirk was a propagandist for. Kirk explicitly stated that death was acceptable in support of the second amendment (an amendment grotesquely distorted by the right). And it is a verifiable fact that the vast majority of political assassinations are done by individual adherents to right wing ideology. And is it any wonder because Trump, the leader of the Republican party, explicitly advocates political violence while no Democratic public official does so. Big difference.
There is no "doctrine" that murdered Charlie Kirk. His murderer was a Mormon son of two Republicans. The boy was raised in culture that placed a heavy importance on guns and infallible authority. He also may have been queer, and dating a transgender person. He was one of the smartest kids in a town of basically no people– a large fish in a small bowl. Went off to a mid-size state school. Didn't last a semester. Went back home and was studying to be an electrician. He also believed (correctly) that Kirk spewed hate for profit.
There's no doctrine, here. No left-wing....whatever. A kid brought up in a Mormon fantasy culture came into hard contact with reality and snapped.
Yes, facts. Like the facts that the LGBTQ+ movement has been actively urging violence for months. That Tyler Robinson was very much into this rhetoric.
Well, maybe you should stop getting your news from liars like Jimmy Kimmel who use "comedy" as a smoke screen to excuse their lies.
Literally nothing in your comment is true. LGBTs have not been "actively urging violence". You have scant evidence that Mr. Robinson was "very much into that rhetoric", or even that he was an LGBT. You have a handful of text messages that are unauthenticated. Also, just b/c he says those things, doesn't make them true. You're basing your entire conclusion on the potentially hearsay comments of a purported murderer. In any event, LGBTs do not have "violent rhetoric". In fact, they commit violent crime at a lower rate than the straight population.
As for Jimmy Kimmel, he's not a news man. He's an entertainer. No one tunes into his show to get their nightly news. (And by the way, what makes you think I get my news from Kimmel? This is something about conservatives that INFURIATES liberals. They think that liberals all sit around and watch Kimmel or Colbert and get their news from MSNBC, or whatever. Spoiler alert: THEY DON'T. But since the only people that conservatives ever listen to are their own ilk, they're left with a caricature of most liberals that isn't actually all that true. Most liberals don't watch Kimmel– or any late night comedy. And the ones who do don't get their news there. Also, most liberals don't get their news from MSNBC. Sure, it's mostly liberal audience. But they don't watch MSNBC the way that conservatives latch on to Fox. And unlike Fox, where what they say basically just gets repeated throughout conservative media, liberals have a much more diverse media diet. They're much more likely to get news from print– Atlantic, local papers, NYT, or even WSJ which now attracts more self-described liberals than conservatives; or websites like HuffPo or even Drudge, who's not exactly a lefty. The Bulwark (basically, the old Weekly Standard team). NPR and PBS, along with BBC. Along with a spate of podcasts that attract small but loyal audiences. Not Joe Rogan. But outfits like Meidas Touch, and Politics Girl. It's a completely different ecosystem– you might check it out, seeing as liberals are often more informed about things like current events, and are better able to predict things like where the stock market is, what the inflation rate is, and are better able to do things like find Ukraine and Israel on a map.) But, as for Kimmel, what lie did he tell?
He said MAGAs were trying to portray the killer as anyone other than one of their own. That statement is true: MAGAs did not claim Tyler Robinson as one of their own. They tried to portray him just as you did– as someone who isn't MAGA. Your very own description of Robinson– be it correct or incorrect– is proof that Kimmel's statement is true. So please, tell me where the lie was.
Let me try: you're one of those people for whom fact=loyalty. What Kimmel said was disloyal to Kirk. Therefore it must be blasphemy. Except the real world doesn't work that way. It doesn't bend reality to the whims of a bunch of authoritarians who want truth to be whatever they say it is. In the real world, facts are empirical: Vaccines work. Ivermectin doesn't do a god damned thing for Covid. Tylenol doesn't cause autism. And yes, Kirk's followers wanted his killer to be anyone but like them. Kimmel was correct. You're just butthurt.
You wrote well enough to not be supposed weak minded. The Left promotes the doctrines of atheism, nihilism, rejection of any authority but the self and actively works through various media - schools, gaming, etc. - to draw its lonely victims.
Thank you for the reply. As a liberal, I must honestly say that I don't know very many atheists. I will say that some of them, though, are conservatives. Most of my liberal friends are of faith– usually Jewish, Catholic, or Methodist. I'd note that Jews are overwhelmingly liberal. Catholics, more or less mirror the popular vote of the most recent election. Methodists, Episcopals, and Presbyterians, I would describe as more liberal than not. Really, the only religions that conservatives have a cornered market on are Southern Baptist, Evangelical, Mormons and non-denominational. You see this bear out in politics as well. Almost every elected Jew is a Democrat, as are most "mainline Protestants". Dems have a few more Catholics than the GOP, but I think that's mostly an upshot of geography– most Catholics still live near large cities.
I'd also push back on the idea that liberals reject authority. For example, in 2020, it was liberals who encouraged Americans to listen to medical professionals and scientists on issues related to Covid. Liberals are also heavily invested in public schooling. I'll grant you, these systems of authority differ from those of conservatives. Where the latter relies heavily on models like the father, or the head of a business, the former relies on things like science and empiricism. But that is not a lack of respect for authority. Trusting a doctor over say, Donald Trump, on whether you should get a vaccine is not a lack of respect for authority; rather, it is liberals placing their respect for authority in a different authority than conservatives.
Last, on nihilism...as with authority, I would contend that each side has its own nihilism problem. MAGA is nihilism; so is "libertarianism" when you really boil them down. Take MAGA to its logical endpoint, and all that's there is a belief in whatever Donald Trump says or wants. When Trump hated TikTok, so did they; now that he sees it as a huge money-maker, he loves it...and so do they. The Right loves to accuse the left of pedophilia, or whatever, but take a look around and most of the politicians who've actually been convicted of things like child pornography. It's almost exclusively right-wingers. To this extent, their self-proclaimed "faith" is nihilism. Libertarianism (which I use to mean not the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman but that of say, Rand Paul) is a belief in nothing. It's basically, "If I like something, I'm going to use government or any other tool I can to get it; and if I don't, then the government should leave me alone."
Yesterday, the Right filled an arena to mourn Charlie Kirk. Admission was "free". But who paid for all the equipment? The janitors? The concessions? Someone did. And not out of the goodness of their heart. In order to get in, you had to sign up for Turning Points USA, and walk through what basically amounted to a convention hall, chock full of merchandise and who knows what else. They turned a man's funeral into a scam, a money-making opportunity. Frankly, it was gross. Commoditizing someone's funeral is gross. It's nihilism.
Of the left, though, while I won't say they're just as bad, they also have a problem. And their problem is that they have no narrative, no message. (It's for this reason that it's very easy for their opponents to tag them as nihilists, or degenerate, or whatever. It isn't true, but without a narrative of their own, they allow themselves to be defined by their opponents. And as a result, they have a platform that is often incoherent; and that many of their own members don't believe in. Of the GOP, Trump revealed them to be craven (seriously, making profits off of a man's funeral....even the dude's widow?!?!....just gross). Of the left, Trump revealed them to be hollow.
Both sides need new leadership. The right needs someone who can get rid of the racism and grift. It really is rotten all the way to the bottom. As for the left, they need someone who can give them a new narrative– one that unites the different factions; one that's grounded in faith, but also appealing to members of different faiths (one of the left's problems is that, in being a multi-faith coalition, they sometimes forget to mention faith). Also, a narrative that has a place for labor. Good as it was, this was the Achilles heel of Obama's coalition– it was great if you were "upwardly mobile" and going off to college; if you were a construction worker, not so much.
And this is easier said than done. One reason the left is running into trouble right now, is that college graduates are now basically a voting bloc of their own. And their interests and needs are very different from those of a working class. The GOP, meanwhile, is chock full of college grads at the politician and donor level, as well. They're winning elections on cultural issues– or more correctly, cultural resentment. IOW, a scam. And Vance and Hawley won't be any better. That's the challenge that we face.
A lot here and I won't address it all. The memorials for Charlie Kirk yesterday were notnhis funeral, that was a more private affair. They were rallies held by the organization he founded and led and were specifically for those who worked with him or supported his effort to establish a dialog. Your characterization is uncharitable at best and inaccurate from all accounts I have read.
I've never met nor heard of a conservative who was a nihilist. I suppose it is possible, nearly anything is.
Certainly, the liberals have been fans of anything the Democrats have promoted, doctors or schools for instance. There are plenty of doctors who opposed the Covid scam, and paid a high price for failing to bow. There are many doctors who have questioned the wisdom and efficacy of the vaccination dogma, and paid a very price for failing to bow.
It is no mystery the liberals support the institutions they have infiltrated and destroyed since the 60s. The long march throught the institutions is abreal thing and has damaged education at all levels. We now have several generations who don't know who they are, where they came from or what their purpose is. They can't reason, they can only feel; and burn and loot and murder. Their only argument is violence. All of those generations? Certainly not, thankfully. But far too many and far to goaded on by the Democrats and their media allies.
Perhaps we are at a turning point, I would like to believe that is possible.
Thank you, again. And I appreciate the dialogue. I would ask you to consider the possibility that holding a rally to raise money off of someone's death may be in poor taste. You didn't see, for example, George HW Bush holding a fundraiser on national TV for Lee Atwater...lol. Just consider it.
My point on the doctors wasn't that they might disagree with each other, or paid a high price; rather, that they're a figure of authority respected by liberals. Regarding the institutions, I would posit that they've always been liberal (small l). Our democracy is liberal (small l), and the institutions are what maintain it. I'd further suggest that some of the institutions attract people more to the left; while others, more to the right. For example, liberals (bigger l) tend to gravitate more toward things like education, health care, and arts; conservatives, economic institutions, VFW halls, etc. It's less some conspiratorial cabal, as it is, those are the types of people attracted to that line of work. Why is education tilted left? Because the type of people who go into it are mostly liberal. Why is Hollywood so left? Because it's the cream of the crop of your damned high school glee club. Lol.
I'd also push back on liberals and institutions "destroying everything" since the 1960s. Generally, Americans are healthier and wealthier than ever. If you disagree with this, think of how many middle and even lower class people have access to the conversation we're having right now. 30 years ago that wouldn't have been possible. Cars are safer. Have WAY better gas mileage. People live longer. 30 years ago something like open heart surgery was a 50/50 proposition. Now it's almost a guaranteed new lease on life. The "vaccination dogma" you lament....every fall seniors across America get flu and Covid shots. And the deaths among that cohort are WAY down, from what they used to be. Americans born in 1955 had a 50% chance of completing high school. Americans born in 2000, a 50% chance of completing college. Poverty is a fraction of what it was 50 years ago.
But to your point that public education seems a failure b/c people don't know who they are, where they came from, what their purpose is; that they can't reason, only feel loot and murder: First, compared to the 1980s and 1990s, crime is down WAY DOWN. Second, there's an argument to be made about things like literacy rates, but keep in mind three things when you read those studies: a) the metrics they use to determine literacy in the first place have changed; b) the studies from "the good old days" had a HUGE sampling bias (read: they only surveyed affluent whites); and, c) ESL causes reading comp barriers. In the long run, it's better b/c you get a lot of bilingual ppl. But in the short term, it comes at a cost of some people's English not being as good.
That said, I've read the studies that show concern. I know that there are problems. I also know that we're better situated than anyone in the history of time, to solve them. What doesn't solve them is what's going on in Oklahoma. That's no way to solve a reading deficit. I'll grant you, neither is chucking money at the problem. But generally, students do better when they have as much access as they need to whatever books they want to read. Most of the rest of these problems are attention related, with the introduction of new technology. Again, though, I see these problems as ones that can be corrected by institutions if we give them the tools and power they need (instead of hampering them).
As for things like meaning and reason, I would argue that this isn't so much the failure of liberalism's march through our institutions as it is a problem on both the left and right with matters of spirituality and faith. On the left, their mind your own business approach to religion has left their side void of a spiritual narrative. On the right, their tendency to want to use theocracy to solve everything (as if more God in someone's life is an elixir for mass shootings, or as if prayer in school is a remedy for less crime) is foolhardy. It assumes that what works for them works for everyone else (it doesn't , and it doesn't even work for them). What both sides need is a narrative they can agree on.
Jason, this is nonsense. The left does not "promote" atheism. They promote separation of Church and State. State religions, which existed here were all revoked by 1833 because they create too many problems. Look it up. Do you really want one state to be methodist and another Quaker or evangelical? And plenty of those same leftist people believe in God (I do). And we do not promote nihilism. We promote a just and fair society with equity. And most of promote high taxes on billionaires. We don't reject authority either. We believe in government as an agent of the people. And we don't believe the government has a right to dictate to us what to think. Did you go to college? Your post does not reflect a nuanced understanding. I am sure my comments comes off as elitist. Sorry, I just believe in education. And your opinions do not reflect you have educated yourself with true knowledge.
The Left is not opposed to religion nor does it support separation from the State. The Left has merely substituted their religion for the religion under which the nation was founded. And they have used, misused, the courts to force their way. The results have been predictable.
I'm kinda thinking Stuart understands that Kirk's death was the result of the bullet that came from the gun that was held by Robinson.
And from what I have read, Kirk was killed by Robinson because (if reports are correct) Robinson thought that Kirk "spreads too much hate" and that "there is too much evil."
Let's be clear. No sane person on the Left condones Kirk's murder. Robinson was immersed in MAGA gun culture, had previously emulated Pepe the Frog, worn a Trump costume with himself on Trump's shoulders. Reading between the lines Robinson now objects to the hate from Kirk. But he responds with massive hate in killing Kirk. The Left does not support this. Reading between the lines. If Robinson really has a trans roommate lover (and the printed texts are real) he has voyaged far from his family's values relatively quickly. Had the Left had its way over the last few years there would be far more gun control (no I didn't say gun removal) and the chances of something like this happening would be reduced. And the texts themselves indicate Lance, the roommate, knew nothing of the plan nor would have supported it. Now her/his lover gets to the death penalty or life in prison. Not a great outcome. And let's be clear going from male testosterone to more estrogen and less testosterone makes one way LESS likely to commit these atrocities. The right's obsession with trans people is sick, and the statistics are that trans are way more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators
Citation on those claims about Kirk's killer? Because from what I've seen, he was not especially political, at least not to those who interacted with him on a regular basis through gaming.
What emerges is someone who held some views more commonly found on the left (pro-LGBTQ+ rights) and some views more commonly found on the right (pro-gun rights), didn't much comment on politics (said something about Trump's first impeachment, said a few things about the 2020 election on the night), and was in a space with people of ideologically diverse views. (Another user, after the killer turned himself in, asked members to pray for the killer's repentance and for Kirk and his family.)
He was also, as it turned out, someone willing to commit a brutal shooting in cold blood for reasons that are as yet unclear and may be ascertained at trial. (The text exchange is just what the prosecution is claiming, of course; I have no doubt the defence will try to poke holes in that, and the jury will decide which claims it finds credible as fact to establish, or not, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but as I have said elsewhere I think on a balance of probabilities that he did it.) His friends seem to be in as much shock as anyone else about it, maybe more so since it meant he wasn't the man they thought they knew.
Also, the firearm used was a Mauser bolt-action rifle originally designed in 1898. (Manufacturing was discontinued in 1936, but production began again in 2009. I think, though I am no expert, that it is these days more a hunting rifle than anything else.) It is unlikely that any gun-control scheme that remotely comports with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution would have banned it, so the sorts of gun control measures for which the left has been calling would likely not have stopped this heinous act.
I have seen some of the charging documents; the claims made there will of course be tested in court. I am suspicious of anything prosecutors claim to be true and expect the defence to do its damnedest to poke holes in it.
I was referring to things like emulating Pepe or wearing a Trump costume.
I'll just assume you understand that the dominating doctrines this individual adhered to are those of abject dissolution. Cheers to late stage, tech-numbing capitalism.
It would be appreciated by their family at least, if John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette were acknowledged by our POTUS. I feel like it would have more impact than our "few" voices on social media. He's not even mentioned their names. I'm not sure if he was only listening to others. He was an unusual "debater" for sure, especially when confronted by likewise prepared debaters. His truths weren't always factual as well, sadly.
It isn’t the Right that has dominated the narrative and has been obsessed with friends issues, it has just been reacting to the left obsession with trans issues.
It is the Lft which has demanded everyone else change drastically to accommodate the tiny number of trans people, in ways even the average trans person wasn’t demanding. As always, it is the 5% of activists making extreme demands that provoke a backlash and gives the rest a bad name.
NO AG. What the left believes is in small government when it comes to control over people's bodies. I am not trans, I don't pretend to understand it well; it's weird for me. BUT I believe it is someone's else right to be left alone. I am NOT obsessed with trans issues. YOU seem to be part of the whole right wing BIG government that wants to control other people. their bodies and their minds. You have a right to your stupid opinions. I believe in freedom of speech. But geez leave people's bodies alone. My wife and I never had an abortion. But if a raped woman needs one it is her body, not yours. And if she wasn't raped it still isn't yours. Leave her alone. Next you will be asking me to drink hemlock. And if your feeble mind doesn't understand that reference look up Socrates.
But that’s precisely my point, the trans activists are not about leaving people alone, they are about making a list of demands on the 99.9% of the country that isn’t trans to change their behavior, their language, etc.
Nobody cares what adult people do with their own bodies or what goes on inside their heads, until it starts affecting other people negatively.
Demanding the rest of the population act as if trans women are women in every sense of the word, Including changing their language and grammar, is a very big ask, it is not “leaving people alone”.
Also, the few cultures that have institutionalized Some form of trans people, usually MTF, Do not consider them As actually being of the other sex, and they certainly don’t accept multiple forms of being trans. They Recognize a third sex that is different from the other two and has different social roles, rights, and obligations, and often or consider to have some special magical powers. They are definitely not “just another woman” And do not call natural, born women “ menstruators” “Chest feeders” and the like.
It is the overreach of the trans activist that have provoked a reaction from the Right.
By the way, I have never considered myself right wing, rather a moderate centrist, but I’ve certainly felt pushed Into doing so precisely because the left considers anyone who doesn’t accept the full activist trans agenda to be right wing. Keep pushing anyone not extreme left of being right wing, and see what happens. Oh, wait… You have seen what happens.
Your first sentence here does not make sense. "They are about making a list of demands...." They just want to be acknowledged. If you call yourself "AG", I will return the favor by calling you what you call yourself. If I start calling you GA and insist that is who you are you will object. Same with gay people; they used to be outcast, seen as mentally ill. It is their choice. They just want to be recognized for what THEY claim to be by YOU. Why is it that the RIGHT is always 3 steps behind raising the consciousness of the planet - every country, every religion? It is so frustrating that people like you elect an autocrat and then do not see the encroachment of the government on each of our lives, when you claim to believe in freedom of speech. No you do not. You believe you have a right to control other people's lives. You believe you should have the "freedom" to control others. I believe people should have the freedom not to be controlled.
But the fact you actually say you don’t know much about the issue and do not understand it well does not surprise me, on the contrary , that is pretty much the standard for leftists, you just assume this must be just like the gay issue because your tribal leaders say so, and you follow blindly because you just can’t be bothered to research something that might end up forcing you to break ranks with the party line and shatter your sense of identity.
None of your accusations is accurate, you are just spouting some stereotype of who you assume I am because of my opinion on one single item.
First, the trans issue is completely different from the gay issue, so don’t confuse the two.
Second, you started off by claiming trans people just want to be “left alone“, when that is clearly not the case, they are making demands that other people change their language, grammar, way of identifying themselves, that women give up rights to safe spaces, etc. None of that is “leaving them alone“, this is all about the trans activists not leaving the rest of us alone.
Third, I did not vote for Trump, I am not even American, I think he is indeed an authoritarian, autocratic narcissist, etc, and general danger to humanity, but I blame leftist overreach for his election. And unless you guys knock it off, he will be around for a long time, threatening the economy, safety, and well-being of the rest of the world, including my country, so this is not just an American issue.
OK. My apologies. I did get on my high horse. I am British by origin but have been in the States many years. Yes it is true tht trans want us to change our language. They want to be referred to with the name/pronoun they identify with. The usual pronoun to use is "you" when you are talking to them. Is it too much trouble to say "they" if you are talking about them or he/she if they prefer? My wife prefers "she". It would seem so weird if I referred to my wife as "him" or "they" since that is not what they prefer.
The left - insofar as there remains one - has been a circular firing squad, a self-purging bastion requiring ideological purity for inclusion in its hallowed ranks. Or, in other words, the left’s been a haven for some truly self-righteous assholes. But now we’re seeing what real cancel culture looks like. When the power of the state is levied against opposing viewpoints. America’s new fascism makes the left look quaint, a nostalgic remembrance…
Regarding your point, "The original sin wasn't seeking social justice—it was abandoning persuasion for coercion."
There are varieties of coercion. Let's not forget that MLK argued for the tourniquet of legal coercion to finally, finally slow the bleeding of racial oppression. Community organization of boycotts such as those aimed at socially ostracizing serial and structural abusers (especially when official gatekeepers and decision makers refuse to take steps to protect the vulnerable) exerts legally acceptable social pressure--coercion--without unacceptable bodily violence. "Me Too" and "Black Lives Matter" are examples of social coercion. Here are MLK Jr's words explaining why legal coercion is sometimes, and temporarily, preferable to winning hearts and minds:
"Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion.
"Well, there’s half‐truth involved here.
"Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart.
"But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.
"It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless.
What other, legal, effective tool besides public humiliation/social ostracism/"cancellation" do the disenfranchised have when their government refuses to act to protect and defend them through passing and enforcing laws? Must they wait indefinitely for the recalcitrant powerful to submit to their education, love and "persuasion", Mike? That's a tall order for folks who have been routinely ignored.
Every time one side gets outraged about something the other side does, all it ever means is that the former wishes they could do it themselves--and, given the opportunity, they do.
This applies with equal force to everyone.
EDIT: Or, to put it another way, "We're not mad that you're doing it; we're mad that we can't."
Mike, you are so right. I have some near-personal experience on how the left can sabotage their own opportunities with purity testing, scolding about “privilege,” and even that same “It’s not my job to teach you …” foolishness.
I won’t go into detail in a brief comment, but will just finish with the unsurprising report that the approach of the progressive scolders was dismally unsuccessful.
Reaching out to people who don't think like us is harder than ever. We have all been self sorting into enclaves of common thinking not only in our internet spaces but where we live in the real world. I really hope the dems put in the work to go to these red areas. Abandoning efforts to run in these races was such a tragic decision. If no one is speaking for our side then ofc we will continue to be defined by our opposition to people we need to reach. Every day it becomes more and more evident how unprepared establishment dems are for this moment. They all need to move aside and let the people like Mamdami, Talarico, and McMorrow lead the charge.
One thing I've noticed in the immediate wake of Kirk's assassination is some conservatives deciding to cut off from their personal lives anyone who celebrated or justified that abhorrent act. There's no willingness on the one side to find out what could possibly make someone think the killing was remotely a good thing (it was unequivocally not) and in consequence of this no ability on the other to get clarification on why they shouldn't celebrate the death of someone whom many of them thought was an irredeemable monster (even if he was he certainly didn't deserve to be shot for it).
I mourn Kirk's fatal shooting in part because it has just created further siloing. There are an ever growing number of people whose views of basic human decency and what it demands are, when in extremis, mutually incompatible. (I have been horrified to see some on the left who seem to hold the view that it is not possible to be a good person if you don't celebrate what happened to Kirk and actively hope for other prominent right-wing figures to be brutally killed in a similar fashion.)
I *generally* agree that if you want to change minds, you need to engage with people with whom you wildly disagree, however I did cut off a couple of Facebook acquaintances who diminished Kirk's death, because I feel that goes beyond merely having a different view into lacking basic decency. And the same point was made to me - one can't change minds from an echo chamber. But I don't see why I should spend my time and energy on people who have shown they're not people I want in my life.
Well written. I just published a piece that complements this article nicely. It breaks down the philosophical failings of these ideologies hopefully in a very approachable way.
I disagree with the premise that the “right” weaponized state power. I turned from the left because they 1) weaponized the media 2) weaponized the justice system 3) began censoring people and actively started eliminating the people’s voice in policy (the Walz Admin just moved to reduce wind turbine setbacks despite the states own White Paper that illuminated serious health impacts, and is not allowing citizen input)…..manipulation, indoctrination, no redress for grievances, legal punishment for dissent….. That’s today’s left.
I remember the first time a fellow lefty made an argument about something she thought I should believe and, when I pushed back sceptically (as philosophy students are taught to do) she exclaimed, “It’s not my job to educate you!.” I was stunned into silence (the intention, I think) but soon realised: No, it’s not your job to educate me, but it is your job to persuade me *if you want me to change my mind*. It’s cheap victimology to start a conversation or advocate for a position and then claim that the other person is oppressing you by asking for your reasons for holding that position. I mean, I get that some people argue in bad faith and waste your time, but to assume that all scepticism is based in oppression or bad faith takes you to exactly the discursive cul-de-sac we are in. More importantly, though, taking the “it’s not my job…” approach inoculates you from ever having your beliefs seriously challenged. It becomes a version of the self-sealing fallacy, where someone else doubting the validity of your argument is used as evidence that the argument valid.
I’ve said it before: if you took a list of the top 10 logical fallacies and made a philosophy out of them, it would be critical social theory or nationist authoritarianism.
Late to the party, but: "it is your job to persuade me" is always what I thought when people used the argument: "I shouldn't have to convince you to do the right thing!"
Indeed not. But if you want me to believe that thing you want me to do is the right thing to do, your kinda do need to convince me.
(Alternative: imagine a pro-lifer and pro-choicer bellowing "I shouldn't have to convince you to do the right thing!" at each other, over and over again, for all eternity)
Bring back Civics and Debating to Highschool. We don't even teach the truth about the Vietnam War. How is anyone going to understand that there are different types of "reasonings"? If the most powerful office in the world is engaged in true propaganda against truth, blessed by the "checks and balances, and nearly half of our neighbors,
do we seriously expect anything differently from the youth? Coupled with the aggressive tactics of grade school bullies, and now advanced with laws or sanctioned by the SCOTUS it's a wonder the USA hasn't imploded already. We have thousands and thousands of prisoners who can't fathom why they're jailed and real felons are set free by a felon selling democracy to the highest bidders while pocketing millions, perhaps billions of dollars for himself and his family and friends!!
Teach The Children Well
Bullies? Who was forcing experimental medical treatment? Who was forcing the abandonment of parents and grandparents? Who cancelled two years of education for our young people?
Absolutely, please let's teach our children to think, and to debate.
Forcing? Did they strap people down? If thats about sex change, and kids werent given them, it just shows your prejudice against transitioning, not protecting the kids who werent, and even if they were, no one was strapping them down.
We live in a world where we dont know what would have happened without the shut downs. We saw how bad it went in other countries that tried. So its easy to complain from a post facto place. Was it bad in terms of lost education? Yes. 100 percent. But would you have said the same if say you lived through the London Bombings? The kids must go to school! See the issue? You can die many ways. Some ways you can try to prevent.
Finally, do not tell me that your side doesnt shout us down, and do all the things you accuse us of. Thats the problem with unassilable conviction and perchants for dominance: they discourage debate.
> " If that's about sex change, and kids weren't given them, it just shows your prejudice against transitioning ..."
What? Absolutely NO ONE changes sex -- EVER, PERIOD. It's a biological and medical impossibility, and it's an absolute medical scandal and crime of the century that a bunch of so-called "doctors" (Mengele) are saying that it is possible.
“Sexual mimics” are men who compulsively imitate women in order to avoid male sexual competition and male aggression. It is a behavior widely observed in the animal kingdom, from fish to birds, reptiles to insects, mammals and cephalopods.
In humans mimicry involves insistence that the mimicry is real, which is a defining characteristic of delusion - reality is false.
Mimic behavior also involves demanding a wide variety of social mis-recognitions of sex.
One particular version of behavior involves insistence that any sexually ambiguous behaviors are evidence that the person has a false sex.
Parents, teachers, doctors, and other authorities over children have been coerced into believing that children’s ambiguous traits are an indication that they have a false sex.
Part of this coercion involves convincing adults that they should subject their children to sterilizing and mutilating medical procedures.
It’s never the child which must be coerced, it is the parent.
In answer to your first question, nobody, because no such thing happened. As for your second question, Andrew Cuomo has been accused of it. Not sure that's accurate. Education wasn't canceled it was sent home. Is home schooling "cancelation"? Finally to what are you responding, a comment re grade school bullies"? Huh? How does any of this apply?
Those are valid points, though I wasn't forced to get the COVID vaccine. I chose to because of my 90 year old mother with leukemia I felt it was necessary. Admittedly, I'm not a Doctor but I've witnessed the effects of Polio, measels, etc from my youth. My mother made a choice to vaccinate her children. So far we're both alive and fairly healthy for old goats. The rest of the world seemed to be onboard as well. As far as schooling, it's tragic that parents aren't able to home school their children. I feel so much more would be communicated between progress or lack of with more involvement from parents or guardians.
As far as bullies, I was addressing the language of our POTUS towards anyone who he dislikes. Be it a journalist, a female victim, a Democrat, or a Judge he disagrees with. 4,700 plus law suits, to date, that he's filed are just a bit silly. IMHO
Have a great week. Peace go with you and yours.
With regard to trans ideology persuasion was never an option because it is a belief system that cannot stand the light of scientific scrutiny. It could only arrive on our doorsteps by coercion. Further, this belief has become a class marker of elite moral superiority. To convince, to persuade would break the dynamic that we are good and they are bad. Why does the left dwell on these things? Because it refuses to see its role in sequestering status and privilege. It would much prefer basking in the "enlightened" viewpoint that inhibits our success at the ballot box.
Well said, David. Thank you.
I sincerely dont understand. Thats a lot of buzzwords.
You're correct. I was quite full of myself this morning. Overcaffeinated and understimulated.
My point about trans is that, by my lights, it arrived without much explanation let alone persuasion because the idea that a person can change their gender is not grounded in science but in belief. It must be taken on faith. At 75, I realize that many young people take it as a given that the science is settled. It's a thing and that's that. I don't think that's the case but it may not matter if Gen (fill in letter) accepts it as fact. You can ignore the rest of the buzzwords. That's just me outgassing.
Why do you worry about it? Thats my repudiation. Live and let live. Bottom line, there have always been people of genders that dont match their sex. Ever heard of Native American tribes that embraced third gender people? Thats trans before corrective surgery was available. They were treated with equal respect. So your statements are erronous and are more a function of circular logic tainted by your own prejudice than peoples lived experience.
I ask you this additional simple question. If someone did not identify as another gender, do you think they would face all the slings and arrows that they face procedurally, much less socially? You can be different in far less catastrophic ways. There are two sexes, buy gender isnt sex. The issue for many is that gender aligns with sex for most of us, including myself, so we have a desire to crunch things down into what is easiest to process. But life resists that and the freedom we enjoy affords it or did until the current wave of cancelizations.
No one is harmed by adults transitioning between genders. If someone had previous commitments based on their previous gender, it does have to be worked with, but matters arent gonna be better served by people sticking to their assigned ones. So I sincerely dont get why people are worried about it except that theyve been told to or told its ok to express such vehement objections when not 10 years ago it was a non issue. The same thing happened with abortion and, arguably, immigration. People are told to hate and they do. Prior to the rising of that heatsink, not many truly cared, or we would have had change much earlier. They were told to care. At your age, youve lived through these attitude changes on the national stage and seen them first hand, no?
First, the issue isn’t what adults do to their bodies, or what drug identity they have in their own minds, that’s their business, and nobody really objects to that.
The problem is with the demands they then place on others as a result
Whether it is to change their language, recognize not just male and female, but a slew of different “genders“ and learn the right terminology, demand weird pronouns, and identifying ones gender in communications, having trans identifying people getting preference for jobs under DEI, having people with men’s bodies competing against women in women’s sports, demanding the right to women’s safe spaces, having kids transition at an early age, etc
Those are the issues at hand, and people have different opinions on them.
Second, your claim that there have always been transgender people in other societies and they are accepted and“respected“ is only partially true.
In the few societies where those have existed, most often MTF, they were not considered actual women, but a third sex with different roles and attributes.
Our trans activists insist that trans people are the actual sex they claim to be, with all the same rights and privileges . That is very different.
And recognizing those differences has nothing to do with “hate“ or some “transphobia“, that is just the rhetorical strategy chosen by trans activists, and it just backfires.
I care about this only in relation to how it alienates people we need at the ballot box. People can live however they like. The democratic party, in my opinion, should not reflexively be regarded as the party that assents to the proposition that gender can be changed. So far, despite all the talk of big tent, we have not made it possible to let that viewpoint stand.
Tl;dr...worrying about other peoples private lives and junk isnt a winner, and is creepy wierd as all hell. You arent being asked to look at their junk, even as you seem to be so interested in it, and any party that comes out against doing so, the ironically true conservative position, is gonna win.
Making a minority portion of the population a centerpiece of your campaign? Yes, silly. You are running to represent all. But its not silly to proclaim it as a right to uphold, among many. I know Ive been somewhat forward here, but its because I find TERF talking points stupid, worthless, and ultimately a distraction with poisonous intent and/or no merit, so if you are going to spout any more or give advice politically thereto, imagine me giving you the finger as you type. I wont respond. If you want to talk about other things, happy to. I just dont go for hate, and you are proscribing censorship because of hate.
Any clapbacks along those lines? Same.
Simple horsenoise. Thats what you want. Thats what you assume others want. But that has nothing to do with other peoples freedom, just yours. If a party doesnt embrace freedom to be as one wants as long as they arent harming others, they are antiAmerican. We do freedom here.
And, heres the thing: people dont vote becausd of that, not in large numbers anyway. You could argue they vote for normality, and a few do, but its usually a response to their lived lives and capacity to prosper, which includes their safety. It is and would be quite foolish to concern yourself with anything but that. It is true that some vote because they are told to vote one way and be angry about this/that You will never win them. So instead be the party that embraces freedom. Thats a winning message, which indeed calls out what is, and if you hold it I am sorry it is because it oppresses other adults capacity to live their lives as they wish (spare me the bathroom fears talk...theres always something to be concern about), and that is simple prejudice based on ignorance, self righteous belief, and ultimately punative disdain.
I enjoyed this article and agreed with a lot of it but I feel you are still treating the right and their positions as though they are wrong or from a bad place. Many on the right feel that same way about anyone on the left. The truth is most people feel they are supporting the most rational policy and have interests that go beyond their back yard.
For instance, studies have shown that both the right and the left have fairness and equality as part of their moral structure. But it shows up differently in what policies or thinking achieve those results. When both sides become intolerant of people looking at things differently instead of being curious of how others think, then conversation becomes impossible.
People need to stay curious and open.
Thank you for this comment - I also enjoyed the article, but, as a conservative, am appalled by most of the comments (which drive home to me the results of many recent studies indicating we conservatives are much more tolerant of other perspectives) - your comment gives me hope that some on the left understand that most of us on the right hold sincerely held beliefs based on actual facts - and do not regard any number of the issues referenced in these comments as “political”.
So much better put than I ever could. May I screenshot it?
Thank you so much. Absolutely.
Every time, every time I read your posts I think, 'man, I wish I could write like that'. It's the kind of quiet, thoughtful, rational wisdom we need more of in the world today.
I appreciated this post, although I don't know that I take any issue with "it's not my job to educate you". Oftentimes in my experience when people are asking questions or demanding explanation, what they're really looking for is to argue, not to hear you. It's ok to set boundaries. No one should feel forced to to engage with people who aren't participating in good faith. It's becoming more clear to me that one major issue is that people are arguing but not seeking to understand and I wonder how that can change, especially in the era of TikTok attention spans.
Also, when the discussion turns to racism, people of color do not owe you their time, labor, or peace of mind simply to divest you of your own ignorance. YOU do the work to unlearn your own white supremacy. Putting that work on the shoulders of black people is highly inappropriate.
Anyone who thinks that being born white doesn’t come with any inherent privileges needs to read Unpacking the Invisible Backpack
"Also, when the discussion turns to racism, people of color do not owe you their time, labor, or peace of mind simply to divest you of your own ignorance...Putting that work on the shoulders of black people is highly inappropriate."
I've got to say, this kind of thinking annoys the shit out of me because it deliberately distorts what should be seen as the natural dialogue between human beings -- which includes curiosity, the exchange of ideas, clarification of misunderstandings, or the asking of questions -- by turning it into what we now view as laborious or inappropriate asks of this or that group.
When an individual does not understand something and is curious enough to ask a question or ask for clarification, that should be applauded... it's a moment when one person is recognizing another person's humanity, and cares enough to actually engage. Brief moments of dialogue are often the way a lot of people gather and absorb information. And brains, or learned ways of thinking about the world, don't shift overnight. It's a process, and a slow one at that.
So what do liberals do instead? Rather than being open to natural or spontaneous dialogue, we instead hit these folks over the head by basically shaming them for having asked a question! Fucking hell, nobody's requesting a semester-long course to be taught. And by the way, if you think a lot of these people, who have busy lives like everybody else, are going to run out and buy every book we liberals think they should read, you're kidding yourself. You want to talk about privilege? How about the privilege to be able to afford the books? Or how about the privilege to only need one job to support your family so that you actually have the time to read all the books? Or how about the privilege of a good education that allows you to be able to really understand what's in the books?
Look, if someone comes and asks me about things that might seem obvious to me but that are perplexing to them, I will happily engage. And living in a nation as diverse as the United States, I think it should be our default M.O.
I think you misunderstand me. First of all most liberals and leftists and democrats (or whatever designation that is not republican or far right) do spend a lot of time (online and off) and effort correcting people when they have their facts wrong. Or spend time and effort recommending books, videos, podcasts, etc.
What I am saying is let white people who have the time and the energy do this work. Too often ignorant and/or bigoted white people place the burden on people of color to do the heavy lifting of defending their own right to be treated as equal human beings. This is piling insult upon injury. People of color already have to work twice as hard to get half as far. If someone tells you to read an article or a book you’re either going to do it or you’re not.
If someone of any race wants to spend a few hours gently leading someone to some fairly obvious conclusions then that’s their choice. But most often those efforts are wasted.
Former Democrat popping in. Reading your replies… if your view is representative of most here, you guys are doomed.
“effort correcting people when they have their facts wrong”
During the BLM riots there was polling done about how many unarmed black men were killed by police each year and of each political group: people who said they were Democrats were the farthest off from the actual figure. (I’m not looking it up right now but may later if you want.)
You have the gut-level feeling that you’re always right. That’s how it is with most of you. (I went to a private liberal arts college, and again, I was a Dem myself for 20 yrs so I’m familiar with the ecosystem.)
This is why you guys don’t get it. You can’t do what the essay suggests because, at this point, it appears the muscle memory for engaging in these discussions is gone.
I experienced it myself trying to get my old friends to talk about why, maybe, just maybe, it’s not good to lock up men in women’s prisons. They couldn’t engage. They didn’t even try. I was immediately called a Nazi and Jim Crow for saying incarcerated females (nearly all survivors of sexual assault) deserve consideration.
Here’s that source, in case you doubted me. Using WaPo’s own database the number of unarmed black men shot by police was 12. Half of the “very liberal” people thought it was over 1,000. The Republicans and Independents were far closer to the truth.
Going into every discussion that you’re right, when this is a flashing red light showing otherwise… is not a way to have fruitful conversations.
https://research.skeptic.com/content/files/2025/02/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf
Most on the left aren't like Vijay. But the Vijays are the loudest, and thus, easiest to vilify.
That’s a good point.
Put yourself in the position of someone who is earnestly trying to wrap their head around an issue. And then hearing, “It’s not my job to educate you.” Just think about how those words will be received by the person hearing them.
Also, even if they take you at your word, all you’ve done is tell them to go and do their own research.
Yes, and over the past five years we’ve had a lot of influencers who are quite willing to capitalise on that type of high-handed rejection. Don’t bother with the woke elitists, come to us - we care about you and how you’re doing, not like those (insert minority group + liberals) over there!
I don’t need you to tell me to think, thanks. I do think. All the time. I think about women and girls who are forced to do physical and emotional labor for free. And about the boys and men who are excused from it and allowed to be immature and selfish with no repercussions. I think about people of color and the injustices and micro aggressions they face all day every day. I’m not super concerned about the fee fees of ignorant white people who couldn’t be bothered to lift a finger to educate themselves when they were born on third base.
You care about everyone except the people you need to persuade in order to help the people you purport to care about.
And who are also the majority of people - bit of a problem in a democracy.
This exact kind of smug, self-righteous idiocy is why people hate progressives. Even when they agree with you.
Keep it up. Every word out of your mouth is a gift to conservatives
If they agreed they wouldn't "need to be persuaded" so no it doesn't show that at all.
Also, it’s Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. Not backpack. If you’re going to altered them, at least get your admonition correct. And no, the type of people that you believe need to read that book will never do that, if for no other reason than that they are not its target audience- we are.
Basically, it’s OUR job to read the book. And then to take its message and spread it to others. But break it down and do it in ways that the people who need to hear the message can understand. You have to meet people where they are.
Super Bowl winning head coach John Harbaugh, when he was working for the legendary Andy Reid, once came across a note card on Andy’s desk. It read, “Don’t judge. Coach.” He asked him about it. Andy told him, “It is t our job to judge the players. It’s our job to take them as they are, and make them better players.” IOW, it’s not their job to expect the players to “play up” to their expectations. It’s their job to meet them where they are, and bring them up.
Same with people.
Knapsack, backpack. Potato potahto. You can take your patronizing pedantic comments and stick ‘em where the sun don’t shine.
Get your facts right before lecturing other people.
Do you even want them to listen?
She's obviously correct about this point you pedantic moron, nobody on any side cares about backpack vs knapsack. Do *you* even want *her* to listen? In case you're wondering *I* don't want *you* to listen I want you to keep being a moron.
Telling people, “It’s not my job to educate you,” while lecturing people on the topic you want them to become more educated on- which is what she was doing- isn’t how you persuade people. Making matters worse, she then proceeded, while lecturing me, to incorrectly state the title of the article. If she wants to be holier than the pope, then she doesn’t get to make mistakes like that. I do think it’s rich that she’s the one being pedantic, and when k call her out for it, you both accuse me of being pedantic.
Do you people even want to win? Or do you just like basking in the rays of your non existent knowledge?
Can you like, get a hobby? Or go volunteer somewhere to help the less fortunate? You seem to have a lot of time and energy. Maybe consider spending less time and energy browbeating strangers on the internet, and more time and energy being the change. ✌🏼
Comments like this are why people vote for Trump. You don't accept constructive criticism; you argue with people who are mostly on your side; and your attitude toward those who aren't on your side is intellectual laziness: "It's not my job to educate you." It's lazy.
As a Republican, I wish you tremendous influence with the DNC and Dem candidates for years to come. Your attitude perfectly encapsulates the problem with the Dems' electoral conundrum that the author is highlighting.
I have looked for that book and cannot find it. Any suggestions?
Sure. Here you go https://www.nationalseedproject.org/key-seed-texts/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack
I have looked for that book and cannot find it. Any suggestions?
“Wee amount of time”?? They’re novellas. I don’t need anything mansplained to me, thanks. I sure know where to go now if I want to be treated with contempt and patronized though. Only I don’t. So ciao.
If you’re an example of the people I’m supposed to be trying to persuade to change their minds it should be obvious to anyone reading this exchange that it’s futile so why should I bother wasting my time and energy?
It’s pretty clear that you’re going to mansplain me into a migraine if I let you. So I’m not going to let you. See how that works? As a non white, working class, neurodivergent woman I have limited time, energy, and patience. When you’re living the white man life you probably can’t relate.
I can point the ignorant person in the direction of resources they can use to alleviate themselves of their own ignorance. If they choose not to seek enlightenment that’s on them.
Vijay,
What's obvious from your exchange with Phillip Murphy, for example, is that you pop off when someone holds and argues a view that is not in exact alignment with yours. You dismiss them by insulting them and suggest that they are "browbeating" you simply because they ask if you can see or understand a different perspective.
Rather than taking a moment to consider the request, which appears to have been asked in good faith, you launch into your first micro-attack ("I don't need you to tell me to think..."). He wasn't implying that you weren't thinking, he was suggesting that it might be beneficial for you and others to consider how certain comments sound to others.
You're absolutely right that you, and all of us for that matter, shouldn't waste time and effort in futile engagements. The problem, though, is that you haven't recognized that this wasn't one of them... and thus you pissed away an opportunity for what could have been a productive engagement.
So it’s up to me to work patiently to change the minds of republicans one at a time on Substack. Sorry I’m 53. I don’t have that kind of time. Neither does America.
Vijay,
1) It would be helpful if you took the wee amount of time needed to understand the points being made in the various replies to you.
2) Republicans??? Your approach hasn't even allowed you to get off the ground with many liberals.
Good faith issues. Bingom
My own view is that, regrettably, THERE IS NO LEFT to speak of in the U.S. At least not in any meaningful way. I have to laugh whenever I hear the MAGA types warn about the dangers of the left. If only we had anything like the numbers and influence they allege. Identity politics and cancel culture were ideally suited to the neo-liberalism of the past 50 years. Dreams of social transformation that once typified left politics were foreign to people who felt that the most urgent matters were gaining "a seat at the table" of power, whether public or private, and policing language with a diligence that would have made the Puritans proud. Maybe the rise of actually existing fascism will finally shake the left out of its half-century stupor. We are about to find out.
Totally agree. The left was so busy policing utterly pointless nonsense like pronouns with a fervor we're more accustomed to seeing from the extreme right, they lost their way, and their unity. More moderate lefties turned away, some drifted off to the right. And as Mike rightly points out, so much frustration bubbled under due to fear of being branded transphobic or racist. When Trump arrived saying he'd scrub the whole DEI thing, that's all a lot of people heard. And we know that went. Then, as Mike said, because people were only bending the knee due to fear, the minute Trump went in, most corporates and many individuals totally abandoned the 'core values and ethics' they were gushing about on their 'about us' pages only months before.
Parasites like Bari Weiss did not help the matter. Giving cover to the right under the guise of being a sane liberal is so gross.
The paranoid warnings are a tribute to what we knew how to do. Reimagining it in new political circumstances is an unexpected, if predictable, challenge. Consumerism crept in, caught us off-guard, expecting Harris to win. Neoliberalism really is the devil's work, a sneaky opiate.
Nicely said. And insightful. I think you're right, lefties were just doing what we knew. What seemed right. Re-enacting the various movements of the past but for tiny minorities that barely register as a margin of error. By this I mean, doing dumb things like building new toilet blocks (this was actually going to happen at my kid's school) at great expense, to cater to the 0.001% who might be unsure whether to use the boys or girls room. This is a school that was constantly moaning about not having the funds to buy new equipment, fix the leaking roof in the gym and so on. But boy, did the lefties jump in and get behind building a toilet block for non binary students. The madness only ended when it was pointed out, that there wasn't a single non-binary student on the role. Everyone got so caught up in that issue, they weren't fighting the far more serious issue of TikTok invading our kids' brains. I feel like this same thing played out in American politics. People were so busy arguing about trans rights and bending knees, they didn't see the far right positioning itself to establish the current Trump monarchy.
Yes, the left normalized silencing and persecution over good faith persuasion. This is why after a lifetime as a lefty Democrat I no longer vote for them.
I was shocked the first time I asked someone in good faith why they made a particular point and was coldly told to “educate myself.” I stopped trying after I expressed concern about a strategy alienating potential swing voters and was told to be a better ally. Finally, I mentioned reading a John McWhorter article and was told I was racist and no longer welcome in the room. When you are censoring any reading, much less an article by a Black Democrat-voting NYT author who criticizes Trump just because he also criticizes the left, you have lost the plot. That’s when I finally realized how deeply authoritarian and ideologically captured the American left is, and the Democratic Party with it.
I respect your post, but I disagree on several key points you make, including that standing up for free speech is clearly in bad faith on the right. Respectfully, it’s not.
The vision that we on the Left need to have is to see how important is the narrative. And the Right have dominated the narrative in recent years. And with the Charlie Kirk death they are attempting to take up more of the stage. Some of narrative is misinformation or disinformation, some of of is not Christian in any way, a lot of it is hateful, divisive and damaging to our society. For all Kirk’s failings he was not afraid and was willing to engage in debate. We must continue to be willing and to retake more of the stage. Remember the falling never hurts, but the landing can sure mess up your day. Not time to land yet, not until I am dead.
Death? Charlie Kirk didn't just die, he was murdered, assassinated for daring to listen to people in the public square and respond. You can't even bring yourself to admit he was murdered by an adherent to the doctrines that have dominated the public stage for decades.
You, sir, are swinging one edge of a double-edged sword. The other edge is gun culture which is owned by the right which the killer was a product of and which Charlie Kirk was a propagandist for. Kirk explicitly stated that death was acceptable in support of the second amendment (an amendment grotesquely distorted by the right). And it is a verifiable fact that the vast majority of political assassinations are done by individual adherents to right wing ideology. And is it any wonder because Trump, the leader of the Republican party, explicitly advocates political violence while no Democratic public official does so. Big difference.
There is no "doctrine" that murdered Charlie Kirk. His murderer was a Mormon son of two Republicans. The boy was raised in culture that placed a heavy importance on guns and infallible authority. He also may have been queer, and dating a transgender person. He was one of the smartest kids in a town of basically no people– a large fish in a small bowl. Went off to a mid-size state school. Didn't last a semester. Went back home and was studying to be an electrician. He also believed (correctly) that Kirk spewed hate for profit.
There's no doctrine, here. No left-wing....whatever. A kid brought up in a Mormon fantasy culture came into hard contact with reality and snapped.
This is some of the most BS rationalization I've ever read.
It's called facts. You might try them sometime.
Yes, facts. Like the facts that the LGBTQ+ movement has been actively urging violence for months. That Tyler Robinson was very much into this rhetoric.
Well, maybe you should stop getting your news from liars like Jimmy Kimmel who use "comedy" as a smoke screen to excuse their lies.
Literally nothing in your comment is true. LGBTs have not been "actively urging violence". You have scant evidence that Mr. Robinson was "very much into that rhetoric", or even that he was an LGBT. You have a handful of text messages that are unauthenticated. Also, just b/c he says those things, doesn't make them true. You're basing your entire conclusion on the potentially hearsay comments of a purported murderer. In any event, LGBTs do not have "violent rhetoric". In fact, they commit violent crime at a lower rate than the straight population.
As for Jimmy Kimmel, he's not a news man. He's an entertainer. No one tunes into his show to get their nightly news. (And by the way, what makes you think I get my news from Kimmel? This is something about conservatives that INFURIATES liberals. They think that liberals all sit around and watch Kimmel or Colbert and get their news from MSNBC, or whatever. Spoiler alert: THEY DON'T. But since the only people that conservatives ever listen to are their own ilk, they're left with a caricature of most liberals that isn't actually all that true. Most liberals don't watch Kimmel– or any late night comedy. And the ones who do don't get their news there. Also, most liberals don't get their news from MSNBC. Sure, it's mostly liberal audience. But they don't watch MSNBC the way that conservatives latch on to Fox. And unlike Fox, where what they say basically just gets repeated throughout conservative media, liberals have a much more diverse media diet. They're much more likely to get news from print– Atlantic, local papers, NYT, or even WSJ which now attracts more self-described liberals than conservatives; or websites like HuffPo or even Drudge, who's not exactly a lefty. The Bulwark (basically, the old Weekly Standard team). NPR and PBS, along with BBC. Along with a spate of podcasts that attract small but loyal audiences. Not Joe Rogan. But outfits like Meidas Touch, and Politics Girl. It's a completely different ecosystem– you might check it out, seeing as liberals are often more informed about things like current events, and are better able to predict things like where the stock market is, what the inflation rate is, and are better able to do things like find Ukraine and Israel on a map.) But, as for Kimmel, what lie did he tell?
He said MAGAs were trying to portray the killer as anyone other than one of their own. That statement is true: MAGAs did not claim Tyler Robinson as one of their own. They tried to portray him just as you did– as someone who isn't MAGA. Your very own description of Robinson– be it correct or incorrect– is proof that Kimmel's statement is true. So please, tell me where the lie was.
Let me try: you're one of those people for whom fact=loyalty. What Kimmel said was disloyal to Kirk. Therefore it must be blasphemy. Except the real world doesn't work that way. It doesn't bend reality to the whims of a bunch of authoritarians who want truth to be whatever they say it is. In the real world, facts are empirical: Vaccines work. Ivermectin doesn't do a god damned thing for Covid. Tylenol doesn't cause autism. And yes, Kirk's followers wanted his killer to be anyone but like them. Kimmel was correct. You're just butthurt.
You wrote well enough to not be supposed weak minded. The Left promotes the doctrines of atheism, nihilism, rejection of any authority but the self and actively works through various media - schools, gaming, etc. - to draw its lonely victims.
Thank you for the reply. As a liberal, I must honestly say that I don't know very many atheists. I will say that some of them, though, are conservatives. Most of my liberal friends are of faith– usually Jewish, Catholic, or Methodist. I'd note that Jews are overwhelmingly liberal. Catholics, more or less mirror the popular vote of the most recent election. Methodists, Episcopals, and Presbyterians, I would describe as more liberal than not. Really, the only religions that conservatives have a cornered market on are Southern Baptist, Evangelical, Mormons and non-denominational. You see this bear out in politics as well. Almost every elected Jew is a Democrat, as are most "mainline Protestants". Dems have a few more Catholics than the GOP, but I think that's mostly an upshot of geography– most Catholics still live near large cities.
I'd also push back on the idea that liberals reject authority. For example, in 2020, it was liberals who encouraged Americans to listen to medical professionals and scientists on issues related to Covid. Liberals are also heavily invested in public schooling. I'll grant you, these systems of authority differ from those of conservatives. Where the latter relies heavily on models like the father, or the head of a business, the former relies on things like science and empiricism. But that is not a lack of respect for authority. Trusting a doctor over say, Donald Trump, on whether you should get a vaccine is not a lack of respect for authority; rather, it is liberals placing their respect for authority in a different authority than conservatives.
Last, on nihilism...as with authority, I would contend that each side has its own nihilism problem. MAGA is nihilism; so is "libertarianism" when you really boil them down. Take MAGA to its logical endpoint, and all that's there is a belief in whatever Donald Trump says or wants. When Trump hated TikTok, so did they; now that he sees it as a huge money-maker, he loves it...and so do they. The Right loves to accuse the left of pedophilia, or whatever, but take a look around and most of the politicians who've actually been convicted of things like child pornography. It's almost exclusively right-wingers. To this extent, their self-proclaimed "faith" is nihilism. Libertarianism (which I use to mean not the libertarianism of people like Milton Friedman but that of say, Rand Paul) is a belief in nothing. It's basically, "If I like something, I'm going to use government or any other tool I can to get it; and if I don't, then the government should leave me alone."
Yesterday, the Right filled an arena to mourn Charlie Kirk. Admission was "free". But who paid for all the equipment? The janitors? The concessions? Someone did. And not out of the goodness of their heart. In order to get in, you had to sign up for Turning Points USA, and walk through what basically amounted to a convention hall, chock full of merchandise and who knows what else. They turned a man's funeral into a scam, a money-making opportunity. Frankly, it was gross. Commoditizing someone's funeral is gross. It's nihilism.
Of the left, though, while I won't say they're just as bad, they also have a problem. And their problem is that they have no narrative, no message. (It's for this reason that it's very easy for their opponents to tag them as nihilists, or degenerate, or whatever. It isn't true, but without a narrative of their own, they allow themselves to be defined by their opponents. And as a result, they have a platform that is often incoherent; and that many of their own members don't believe in. Of the GOP, Trump revealed them to be craven (seriously, making profits off of a man's funeral....even the dude's widow?!?!....just gross). Of the left, Trump revealed them to be hollow.
Both sides need new leadership. The right needs someone who can get rid of the racism and grift. It really is rotten all the way to the bottom. As for the left, they need someone who can give them a new narrative– one that unites the different factions; one that's grounded in faith, but also appealing to members of different faiths (one of the left's problems is that, in being a multi-faith coalition, they sometimes forget to mention faith). Also, a narrative that has a place for labor. Good as it was, this was the Achilles heel of Obama's coalition– it was great if you were "upwardly mobile" and going off to college; if you were a construction worker, not so much.
And this is easier said than done. One reason the left is running into trouble right now, is that college graduates are now basically a voting bloc of their own. And their interests and needs are very different from those of a working class. The GOP, meanwhile, is chock full of college grads at the politician and donor level, as well. They're winning elections on cultural issues– or more correctly, cultural resentment. IOW, a scam. And Vance and Hawley won't be any better. That's the challenge that we face.
A lot here and I won't address it all. The memorials for Charlie Kirk yesterday were notnhis funeral, that was a more private affair. They were rallies held by the organization he founded and led and were specifically for those who worked with him or supported his effort to establish a dialog. Your characterization is uncharitable at best and inaccurate from all accounts I have read.
I've never met nor heard of a conservative who was a nihilist. I suppose it is possible, nearly anything is.
Certainly, the liberals have been fans of anything the Democrats have promoted, doctors or schools for instance. There are plenty of doctors who opposed the Covid scam, and paid a high price for failing to bow. There are many doctors who have questioned the wisdom and efficacy of the vaccination dogma, and paid a very price for failing to bow.
It is no mystery the liberals support the institutions they have infiltrated and destroyed since the 60s. The long march throught the institutions is abreal thing and has damaged education at all levels. We now have several generations who don't know who they are, where they came from or what their purpose is. They can't reason, they can only feel; and burn and loot and murder. Their only argument is violence. All of those generations? Certainly not, thankfully. But far too many and far to goaded on by the Democrats and their media allies.
Perhaps we are at a turning point, I would like to believe that is possible.
Thank you, again. And I appreciate the dialogue. I would ask you to consider the possibility that holding a rally to raise money off of someone's death may be in poor taste. You didn't see, for example, George HW Bush holding a fundraiser on national TV for Lee Atwater...lol. Just consider it.
My point on the doctors wasn't that they might disagree with each other, or paid a high price; rather, that they're a figure of authority respected by liberals. Regarding the institutions, I would posit that they've always been liberal (small l). Our democracy is liberal (small l), and the institutions are what maintain it. I'd further suggest that some of the institutions attract people more to the left; while others, more to the right. For example, liberals (bigger l) tend to gravitate more toward things like education, health care, and arts; conservatives, economic institutions, VFW halls, etc. It's less some conspiratorial cabal, as it is, those are the types of people attracted to that line of work. Why is education tilted left? Because the type of people who go into it are mostly liberal. Why is Hollywood so left? Because it's the cream of the crop of your damned high school glee club. Lol.
I'd also push back on liberals and institutions "destroying everything" since the 1960s. Generally, Americans are healthier and wealthier than ever. If you disagree with this, think of how many middle and even lower class people have access to the conversation we're having right now. 30 years ago that wouldn't have been possible. Cars are safer. Have WAY better gas mileage. People live longer. 30 years ago something like open heart surgery was a 50/50 proposition. Now it's almost a guaranteed new lease on life. The "vaccination dogma" you lament....every fall seniors across America get flu and Covid shots. And the deaths among that cohort are WAY down, from what they used to be. Americans born in 1955 had a 50% chance of completing high school. Americans born in 2000, a 50% chance of completing college. Poverty is a fraction of what it was 50 years ago.
But to your point that public education seems a failure b/c people don't know who they are, where they came from, what their purpose is; that they can't reason, only feel loot and murder: First, compared to the 1980s and 1990s, crime is down WAY DOWN. Second, there's an argument to be made about things like literacy rates, but keep in mind three things when you read those studies: a) the metrics they use to determine literacy in the first place have changed; b) the studies from "the good old days" had a HUGE sampling bias (read: they only surveyed affluent whites); and, c) ESL causes reading comp barriers. In the long run, it's better b/c you get a lot of bilingual ppl. But in the short term, it comes at a cost of some people's English not being as good.
That said, I've read the studies that show concern. I know that there are problems. I also know that we're better situated than anyone in the history of time, to solve them. What doesn't solve them is what's going on in Oklahoma. That's no way to solve a reading deficit. I'll grant you, neither is chucking money at the problem. But generally, students do better when they have as much access as they need to whatever books they want to read. Most of the rest of these problems are attention related, with the introduction of new technology. Again, though, I see these problems as ones that can be corrected by institutions if we give them the tools and power they need (instead of hampering them).
As for things like meaning and reason, I would argue that this isn't so much the failure of liberalism's march through our institutions as it is a problem on both the left and right with matters of spirituality and faith. On the left, their mind your own business approach to religion has left their side void of a spiritual narrative. On the right, their tendency to want to use theocracy to solve everything (as if more God in someone's life is an elixir for mass shootings, or as if prayer in school is a remedy for less crime) is foolhardy. It assumes that what works for them works for everyone else (it doesn't , and it doesn't even work for them). What both sides need is a narrative they can agree on.
Jason, this is nonsense. The left does not "promote" atheism. They promote separation of Church and State. State religions, which existed here were all revoked by 1833 because they create too many problems. Look it up. Do you really want one state to be methodist and another Quaker or evangelical? And plenty of those same leftist people believe in God (I do). And we do not promote nihilism. We promote a just and fair society with equity. And most of promote high taxes on billionaires. We don't reject authority either. We believe in government as an agent of the people. And we don't believe the government has a right to dictate to us what to think. Did you go to college? Your post does not reflect a nuanced understanding. I am sure my comments comes off as elitist. Sorry, I just believe in education. And your opinions do not reflect you have educated yourself with true knowledge.
> Jason, this is nonsense. The left does not "promote" atheism. They promote separation of Church and State.
Have you been living under a rock for the past two decades?
The Left is not opposed to religion nor does it support separation from the State. The Left has merely substituted their religion for the religion under which the nation was founded. And they have used, misused, the courts to force their way. The results have been predictable.
Jason, what do you even mean….”The left has substituted their religion
I'm kinda thinking Stuart understands that Kirk's death was the result of the bullet that came from the gun that was held by Robinson.
And from what I have read, Kirk was killed by Robinson because (if reports are correct) Robinson thought that Kirk "spreads too much hate" and that "there is too much evil."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-suspect-texts-evidence
Let's be clear. No sane person on the Left condones Kirk's murder. Robinson was immersed in MAGA gun culture, had previously emulated Pepe the Frog, worn a Trump costume with himself on Trump's shoulders. Reading between the lines Robinson now objects to the hate from Kirk. But he responds with massive hate in killing Kirk. The Left does not support this. Reading between the lines. If Robinson really has a trans roommate lover (and the printed texts are real) he has voyaged far from his family's values relatively quickly. Had the Left had its way over the last few years there would be far more gun control (no I didn't say gun removal) and the chances of something like this happening would be reduced. And the texts themselves indicate Lance, the roommate, knew nothing of the plan nor would have supported it. Now her/his lover gets to the death penalty or life in prison. Not a great outcome. And let's be clear going from male testosterone to more estrogen and less testosterone makes one way LESS likely to commit these atrocities. The right's obsession with trans people is sick, and the statistics are that trans are way more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators
Citation on those claims about Kirk's killer? Because from what I've seen, he was not especially political, at least not to those who interacted with him on a regular basis through gaming.
Ken Klippenstein received messages sent by the killer and his acquaintances on Discord giving some insight into what he was like: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/exclusive-leaked-messages-from-charlie
What emerges is someone who held some views more commonly found on the left (pro-LGBTQ+ rights) and some views more commonly found on the right (pro-gun rights), didn't much comment on politics (said something about Trump's first impeachment, said a few things about the 2020 election on the night), and was in a space with people of ideologically diverse views. (Another user, after the killer turned himself in, asked members to pray for the killer's repentance and for Kirk and his family.)
He was also, as it turned out, someone willing to commit a brutal shooting in cold blood for reasons that are as yet unclear and may be ascertained at trial. (The text exchange is just what the prosecution is claiming, of course; I have no doubt the defence will try to poke holes in that, and the jury will decide which claims it finds credible as fact to establish, or not, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but as I have said elsewhere I think on a balance of probabilities that he did it.) His friends seem to be in as much shock as anyone else about it, maybe more so since it meant he wasn't the man they thought they knew.
Also, the firearm used was a Mauser bolt-action rifle originally designed in 1898. (Manufacturing was discontinued in 1936, but production began again in 2009. I think, though I am no expert, that it is these days more a hunting rifle than anything else.) It is unlikely that any gun-control scheme that remotely comports with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution would have banned it, so the sorts of gun control measures for which the left has been calling would likely not have stopped this heinous act.
Addresses some of the info Stuart mentioned.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/charlie-kirk-suspect-texts-evidence
I have seen some of the charging documents; the claims made there will of course be tested in court. I am suspicious of anything prosecutors claim to be true and expect the defence to do its damnedest to poke holes in it.
I was referring to things like emulating Pepe or wearing a Trump costume.
Indeed.
With respect to Pepe or a Trump costume... not something I've come across.
I'll just assume you understand that the dominating doctrines this individual adhered to are those of abject dissolution. Cheers to late stage, tech-numbing capitalism.
It would be appreciated by their family at least, if John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette were acknowledged by our POTUS. I feel like it would have more impact than our "few" voices on social media. He's not even mentioned their names. I'm not sure if he was only listening to others. He was an unusual "debater" for sure, especially when confronted by likewise prepared debaters. His truths weren't always factual as well, sadly.
It isn’t the Right that has dominated the narrative and has been obsessed with friends issues, it has just been reacting to the left obsession with trans issues.
It is the Lft which has demanded everyone else change drastically to accommodate the tiny number of trans people, in ways even the average trans person wasn’t demanding. As always, it is the 5% of activists making extreme demands that provoke a backlash and gives the rest a bad name.
NO AG. What the left believes is in small government when it comes to control over people's bodies. I am not trans, I don't pretend to understand it well; it's weird for me. BUT I believe it is someone's else right to be left alone. I am NOT obsessed with trans issues. YOU seem to be part of the whole right wing BIG government that wants to control other people. their bodies and their minds. You have a right to your stupid opinions. I believe in freedom of speech. But geez leave people's bodies alone. My wife and I never had an abortion. But if a raped woman needs one it is her body, not yours. And if she wasn't raped it still isn't yours. Leave her alone. Next you will be asking me to drink hemlock. And if your feeble mind doesn't understand that reference look up Socrates.
But that’s precisely my point, the trans activists are not about leaving people alone, they are about making a list of demands on the 99.9% of the country that isn’t trans to change their behavior, their language, etc.
Nobody cares what adult people do with their own bodies or what goes on inside their heads, until it starts affecting other people negatively.
Demanding the rest of the population act as if trans women are women in every sense of the word, Including changing their language and grammar, is a very big ask, it is not “leaving people alone”.
Also, the few cultures that have institutionalized Some form of trans people, usually MTF, Do not consider them As actually being of the other sex, and they certainly don’t accept multiple forms of being trans. They Recognize a third sex that is different from the other two and has different social roles, rights, and obligations, and often or consider to have some special magical powers. They are definitely not “just another woman” And do not call natural, born women “ menstruators” “Chest feeders” and the like.
It is the overreach of the trans activist that have provoked a reaction from the Right.
By the way, I have never considered myself right wing, rather a moderate centrist, but I’ve certainly felt pushed Into doing so precisely because the left considers anyone who doesn’t accept the full activist trans agenda to be right wing. Keep pushing anyone not extreme left of being right wing, and see what happens. Oh, wait… You have seen what happens.
Your first sentence here does not make sense. "They are about making a list of demands...." They just want to be acknowledged. If you call yourself "AG", I will return the favor by calling you what you call yourself. If I start calling you GA and insist that is who you are you will object. Same with gay people; they used to be outcast, seen as mentally ill. It is their choice. They just want to be recognized for what THEY claim to be by YOU. Why is it that the RIGHT is always 3 steps behind raising the consciousness of the planet - every country, every religion? It is so frustrating that people like you elect an autocrat and then do not see the encroachment of the government on each of our lives, when you claim to believe in freedom of speech. No you do not. You believe you have a right to control other people's lives. You believe you should have the "freedom" to control others. I believe people should have the freedom not to be controlled.
Ctnd
But the fact you actually say you don’t know much about the issue and do not understand it well does not surprise me, on the contrary , that is pretty much the standard for leftists, you just assume this must be just like the gay issue because your tribal leaders say so, and you follow blindly because you just can’t be bothered to research something that might end up forcing you to break ranks with the party line and shatter your sense of identity.
None of your accusations is accurate, you are just spouting some stereotype of who you assume I am because of my opinion on one single item.
First, the trans issue is completely different from the gay issue, so don’t confuse the two.
Second, you started off by claiming trans people just want to be “left alone“, when that is clearly not the case, they are making demands that other people change their language, grammar, way of identifying themselves, that women give up rights to safe spaces, etc. None of that is “leaving them alone“, this is all about the trans activists not leaving the rest of us alone.
Third, I did not vote for Trump, I am not even American, I think he is indeed an authoritarian, autocratic narcissist, etc, and general danger to humanity, but I blame leftist overreach for his election. And unless you guys knock it off, he will be around for a long time, threatening the economy, safety, and well-being of the rest of the world, including my country, so this is not just an American issue.
OK. My apologies. I did get on my high horse. I am British by origin but have been in the States many years. Yes it is true tht trans want us to change our language. They want to be referred to with the name/pronoun they identify with. The usual pronoun to use is "you" when you are talking to them. Is it too much trouble to say "they" if you are talking about them or he/she if they prefer? My wife prefers "she". It would seem so weird if I referred to my wife as "him" or "they" since that is not what they prefer.
There are a lot of "debaters" that are just push pollers. He was one of them. As are bad faith lefties.
The left - insofar as there remains one - has been a circular firing squad, a self-purging bastion requiring ideological purity for inclusion in its hallowed ranks. Or, in other words, the left’s been a haven for some truly self-righteous assholes. But now we’re seeing what real cancel culture looks like. When the power of the state is levied against opposing viewpoints. America’s new fascism makes the left look quaint, a nostalgic remembrance…
Regarding your point, "The original sin wasn't seeking social justice—it was abandoning persuasion for coercion."
There are varieties of coercion. Let's not forget that MLK argued for the tourniquet of legal coercion to finally, finally slow the bleeding of racial oppression. Community organization of boycotts such as those aimed at socially ostracizing serial and structural abusers (especially when official gatekeepers and decision makers refuse to take steps to protect the vulnerable) exerts legally acceptable social pressure--coercion--without unacceptable bodily violence. "Me Too" and "Black Lives Matter" are examples of social coercion. Here are MLK Jr's words explaining why legal coercion is sometimes, and temporarily, preferable to winning hearts and minds:
"Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion.
"Well, there’s half‐truth involved here.
"Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart.
"But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated.
"It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless.
"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also." (MLK Jr., 12-18-63) https://www.quakervoicewa.org/a-quote-from-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-s-address-at-western-michigan-university-december-18-1963/
What other, legal, effective tool besides public humiliation/social ostracism/"cancellation" do the disenfranchised have when their government refuses to act to protect and defend them through passing and enforcing laws? Must they wait indefinitely for the recalcitrant powerful to submit to their education, love and "persuasion", Mike? That's a tall order for folks who have been routinely ignored.
Your arguments are circular and notional.
Every time one side gets outraged about something the other side does, all it ever means is that the former wishes they could do it themselves--and, given the opportunity, they do.
This applies with equal force to everyone.
EDIT: Or, to put it another way, "We're not mad that you're doing it; we're mad that we can't."
Isaac Hayes was happy to cash South Park's cheques right up until they decided to make fun of Scientology.
Mike, you are so right. I have some near-personal experience on how the left can sabotage their own opportunities with purity testing, scolding about “privilege,” and even that same “It’s not my job to teach you …” foolishness.
I won’t go into detail in a brief comment, but will just finish with the unsurprising report that the approach of the progressive scolders was dismally unsuccessful.
Reaching out to people who don't think like us is harder than ever. We have all been self sorting into enclaves of common thinking not only in our internet spaces but where we live in the real world. I really hope the dems put in the work to go to these red areas. Abandoning efforts to run in these races was such a tragic decision. If no one is speaking for our side then ofc we will continue to be defined by our opposition to people we need to reach. Every day it becomes more and more evident how unprepared establishment dems are for this moment. They all need to move aside and let the people like Mamdami, Talarico, and McMorrow lead the charge.
One thing I've noticed in the immediate wake of Kirk's assassination is some conservatives deciding to cut off from their personal lives anyone who celebrated or justified that abhorrent act. There's no willingness on the one side to find out what could possibly make someone think the killing was remotely a good thing (it was unequivocally not) and in consequence of this no ability on the other to get clarification on why they shouldn't celebrate the death of someone whom many of them thought was an irredeemable monster (even if he was he certainly didn't deserve to be shot for it).
I mourn Kirk's fatal shooting in part because it has just created further siloing. There are an ever growing number of people whose views of basic human decency and what it demands are, when in extremis, mutually incompatible. (I have been horrified to see some on the left who seem to hold the view that it is not possible to be a good person if you don't celebrate what happened to Kirk and actively hope for other prominent right-wing figures to be brutally killed in a similar fashion.)
I *generally* agree that if you want to change minds, you need to engage with people with whom you wildly disagree, however I did cut off a couple of Facebook acquaintances who diminished Kirk's death, because I feel that goes beyond merely having a different view into lacking basic decency. And the same point was made to me - one can't change minds from an echo chamber. But I don't see why I should spend my time and energy on people who have shown they're not people I want in my life.
Well written. I just published a piece that complements this article nicely. It breaks down the philosophical failings of these ideologies hopefully in a very approachable way.
https://open.substack.com/pub/nbts/p/inclusion-re-defined-for-a-new-assassination?r=9ghy2&utm_medium=ios
I disagree with the premise that the “right” weaponized state power. I turned from the left because they 1) weaponized the media 2) weaponized the justice system 3) began censoring people and actively started eliminating the people’s voice in policy (the Walz Admin just moved to reduce wind turbine setbacks despite the states own White Paper that illuminated serious health impacts, and is not allowing citizen input)…..manipulation, indoctrination, no redress for grievances, legal punishment for dissent….. That’s today’s left.