Skip to main content

Logic of the Left: F#@& You For Disagreeing

Leftist “logic” tends to operate from the premise of fallacy and from an undying enthusiasm for character assassination. 

From false attributions to false dilemmas or pure ad hominem attacks, the common leftist will stop at nothing to place a threatening idea and its presenter into a coffin, sometimes literally. 



In the case of a threatening presenter, the insecure leftist always reserves a full arsenal capable of swiftly eliminating the threat with a quick and simple knee-jerk quip about the credibility (or personality) of said threat. 

For instance, if you’re poor or middle-class, the common leftist will contend that you’re clearly not good enough to make more money, and therefore your ideas must be just as worthless. 

If you’re wealthy, your ideas are innately clouded by avarice and an inherent inability to relate to poorer people and the subject matter under consideration. 

If you don’t have a degree or a title next to your name, you lack the credentials to merit any real consideration. 

If you possess the credentials or you are genuinely well-versed and intelligent, you risk sounding pompous, faggy or arrogant, and your ideas are dismissed because you have employed esoteric language or concepts, or you have prioritized facts over feelings, rendering yourself less human and less relatable in the process. 

Ultimately, the common leftist has no interest in learning from others, but rather every interest in bolstering everything he feels he knows, dismissing the rest as ersatz facts or complete jibberish on the basis of sounding foreign, complex or uncaring. 

In summary, the common leftist is concerned exclusively with systematically eliminating every doubter and every challenger, labeling him an outcast or a pariah on the very basis of his honest disposition and the insurmountable threat it poses to the social and psychological status quo, something which is to be guarded and preserved at all costs. 

It’s plainly too exhausting, intimidating and expensive to question everything he ever thought he knew, everything he’s accepted and endorsed as the gospel. 

Instead, as animals sifting through the onslaught of data to distinguish between threatening and non-threatening forces, the common leftist reliably dilutes the authority of his threatening foe by the aforementioned process. 

As a matter of routine, he disposes of the foe’s views as rubbish, regularly mitigating the threat by reminding himself that the foe and his views are nothing short of pure evil. 

Just as the average person fails to research the dark annals of history, he neglects to entertain the notions which serve only to showcase the faults of one’s own logical mechanism, which then serve to introduce further cause for only added work. 

Of course, the lazy leftist has no appetite for that, nearly always electing to take the easy way out. 

Just as with learning any new concept or process, there are always growing pains. 

Unfortunately, the average person grows weary of that arduous challenge as he enters adulthood, as he’s typically had enough of it from his schooling. 

And so he likens his opponent to the dislikable teacher who tasks his students with tough questions, pop quizzes and homework. 

The washed-up student eventually looks in the mirror and sees a man, but he fails to witness the decay of his curiosity, the plateauing of his knowledge, and his waning enthusiasm for challenge. 

He then assumes, myopically, that he’s grown into his role as an authority on life, that he has little to nothing else to prove or learn. 

And so he stagnates, he becomes complacent, and he contributes to the perpetual motion of shortsighted social inertia, and he slings arrows and casts aspersions at the occasional threat, and he does this with an army of emotional combatants at his side whose implied consensus and embrace endow the man with a sense of righteousness in his ongoing endeavor to endure his life without question. 

Just as the bulk of psychological research has shown, the individual maintains a preference for this, and he is no more willing to change than capable of hearing, seeing and remembering that which misaligns with his preferences and priorities. 

Indeed, a basic experiment with a friend will precisely illustrate this point. 

Assemble a list of relatively unrelated words, peppering in a number of familiar ones. 

Your friend is most likely to remember the first and last words, in addition to the words which are important to him. 

We can take this even a step further by reading various paragraphs and entertaining a conversation about what we have just read. 

In this case, the two individuals will invariably remember uniquely distinct aspects about the reading, whether details about the theme, the sentence structure and punctuation, the literary voice of the author, or particular events about the tale. 

Oddly, the two people will have read the same exact material, yet they will have remembered distinctly different details to guide them to potentially radically different conclusions. 

One’s memory and interpretation of these printed words stem from the interests and values of the reader, but they also relate to his basic intellectual capacity to retain and clearly interpret the text, all of which operates from multitudes of radii from the original intents of the writer, represented by interpretations of words and syllables which bear both denotative and connotative meaning, the spirit of which is invariably lost on the prejudiced reader who hasn’t the slightest interest in learning from the enemy he has already identified. 

And so illogic abounds to the tune of clamorous and cantankerous chatter, all at the expense of the powerful potential for learning and understanding. 

Indeed, the masses and the manipulators prefer it this way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

Bitcoin: Are You Feeling Lucky?

The popular cryptocurrency, bitcoin, has tumbled greater than 50 percent since its all-time high set just a month ago near $20,000. 

Since then, it has traded as low as $9,000 before rebounding modestly back over the $10,000 mark. 
The short story of bitcoin (XBT) is powerfully illustrated by its graduation from its initial use case as an easy, inexpensive medium of exchange to an erratic and highly speculative risk asset which scarcely resembles anything more. 
And despite the chance that it regains steam, it is steeped equivalently in bubble territory at $9k as it is at $20k or even $100 or $100k. 
Plainly, it is a bubble at nearly any price. 
The only difference is the anchoring effect which seduces the investor into interpreting the drop as a buying opportunity. 
So while the fundamentals and the use case haven't dramatically changed since the decline, the greedy investor assumes that the price has dropped because of reasons unrelated to its future viability. 
This is wishful thinkin…