this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
50 points (82.9% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
670 readers
31 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Responses like this are exactly why it is harder to be on the left, because the left is built on an ideological foundation of collective accommodation and will actually consider your arguments, while the right will just respond with personal attacks that will detail the entire conversation.
On their surface these arguments all also sound reasonable but notice that they don't provide any solutions or evidence, only claims that your points are flawed, which is a hallmark of lazy thinking and undisciplined logic.
Are you saying that my response is a personal attack? I truly don't understand how your first paragraph is a relevant response to mine unless you are implying I am, which is funny, because I am very, very left. I don't see how it is a personal attack. Please help me understand if you don't mind.
I don't provide solutions to my questions because they were written to provoke thought of the OP, who may benefit considering the original question asked. I'm not making an argument so much as answering the question in an indirect way. No - I don't think it's harder to be a leftist, as a leftist.
I'll try to break it down a little further for you.
Asserts that the entire point of view is inherently flawed and also that the writer may be too dumb to realize it.
Strawman argument that falsely equates reading books all day as a requirement to be considered intelligent at least in comparison to people people without "research and knowledge".
A basic unanswerable existential question. How do we know anything? That calls into question any subjective question.
Assertion of personal bias with no example or evidence except for the vague "how it's phrased". Interestingly, your statement here directly contradicts your earlier call for objective measurability and moves the goalposts mid conversation.
Personal attack implying that your opponent may not be approaching the discussion honestly and may be deliberately misrepresenting themself.
An unprovable assertion designed to suggest the integrity of the people in question without actually providing examples or evidence.
Theoretically a small concession against the claim above, but noticeably doesn't say who, and usually ends up meaning "the people I don't agree with".
An appeal to avoid a personal connection to the arguments made because you are just representing the views of someone else, giving your a convenient "I'm just the messenger" escape clause from having to actually defend any of these claims.
Hopefully that's more clear to you.
I reject the assertions you are making about my intentions. My phrasing was obviously unclear and the message was not received.