The arrogance of the left-wing

It’s one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it’s been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum… so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.

Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong.

Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult.

Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not… seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the “right” ideas.

This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity.

I changed the word “left” to “right” in your OP and it made sense. :smiley:

But I’ll bite: Talking politics with a BernieBro and you’re pretty much right. It’s all about him and nothing about politics.

Whatever else you want to poke liberals over, the alarmism over nuclear war is real. Trump is the only president in history to question whether he would honor Article 5 of NATO, because he “doesn’t want to tell Putin what the US would do” if Russia attacked an ally. Except, the entire point of Article 5 is to ensure that Putin knows exactly what the US would do.

Article 5 prevents misunderstandings and nuclear escalations, and Trump has decided it needs some kind of mystery suspense treatment. This is incredibly dangerous and unprecedented. I’m guessing your best response is “eh, never happen”, ignoring the dangerous moves Russia has been testing the past few years.

I’m trying not to sound like I’m talking down right now, but it’s hard to hear that Trump supporters don’t understand basic concepts that could get us all killed.

I considered it.

Turned out I was right after all.

I think one reason for this arrogance (which, of course, many on the political right also display, but this thread is about the left) is because, despite all the recent philosophical fads about solipsism and “there is no objective truth or morality”, people still, overwhelmingly, by and large, do believe that objective truth exists and that a moral right and moral wrong still exist.

Therefore liberals and leftists, for the most part, are driven by a strong sense of moral right/wrong and desire for “truth” as they see it to be upheld and furthered. Same is true for many right-wingers, but the reason I think left-wingers are more arrogant these days is because they have greater numbers and that, in the near future, the trends favor them (the political left will likely only continue to grow in strength in the decades ahead, and has already been growing for decades.)

Both right-wingers and left-wingers believe in a 1+1 = 2 framework and ridicule anyone whom they perceive as believing that 1+1=3. But they also see things in such a way that their side is the 1+1=2 side and the other side is the 1+1=3 side.

What are these so-called moral axioms?

Typically broad, if not overwhelming, consensus among the political left that it is wrong to deny gay people a legally recognized marriage like heterosexual couples; that abortion should be available and legal for women who seek one, that there should not be discrimination against minorities insofar as it pertains to income, employment, admission (although many rightists and leftists alike think discrimination against minorities is OK or at least cannot be remedied in some personal relationships), etc., among many others.

Those are the actual axioms or derived positions from unspecified axioms?

At least there is no talk of secession.

Crisstti wrote: “so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot.”

These are not mutually exclusive.

If only we would follow the shining example of civility and polite discourse that is the very essence of the Donald! Someone who, as my grandmother used to say, wouldn’t say “Shit!” if they suddenly found out they had just taken a spoonful of it.

I’m not sure what you mean. The left is all about moral relativism, remember? No firm moral foundations, left adrift in the wind without God to guide them. If people in Alabama want to teach creationism or ban gay marriage that’s just their culture. To say that you know better than them is imperialism.

Those old Jesusland maps from 2004 could still work.

Oh, you want to debate the candidates on their merit? All right, be my guest. What good reason is there to vote for Trump? What will he achieve, policy-wise, that is a good idea for the country? And while you’re at it, maybe you’d like to argue in support of the right-wing position on climate change. And the debt ceiling.

I heard a similar idea put forth on the radio this evening, that coastal liberals failed to understand middle America. And I can see some merit to that. But, it has to cut both ways; Trump voters have just as much of an obligation to try to understand and communicate with Democrats. I can tell you that I’ve spent more time in the midwest, the rust belt, and small towns than my dad has spent in big cities.

The left likes to label and insult, you say. “Ivory tower”, “liberal elites”, “lamestream media”, “treasonous”, “death panels”, “usurper”, “Kenyan”, “founder of ISIS”, “crooked Hillary”, do any of those ring a bell?

No, it’s not the disagreement with me that makes them evil. Hell, I love a good debate when it makes sense.

It is the DISPLAY of fascist, racist, homophobic, and idiotic BEHAVIOR, followed by either the nonsensical defense of the indefensible or (what I’m seeing a lot of) the denial that it ever happened.

The fears of nuclear war are because Trump is a. Vengeful, emotionally fragile person who asked why we have nukes if we aren’t going to use them.

Nobody to my knowledge was claiming Romney would lead to a nuclear exchange. Even under Bush this wasn’t a concern.

People call Trump a fascist because he is an authoritarian nationalist.

Not sure if this is sarcasm, but there is at least a little buzz on social media about Cascadia (Oregon and Washington splitting off) and California CalExit:

Also, on the subject of liberal elitism there are a couple of factors. Maybe this isn’t conductive to an actual debate but here is how I personally feel.

  1. Truth is, ideally, more valid than lies.

  2. Taking away the rights of the weak is worse than defending them.

Deep down almost all the claims of elitism against liberals come to those two points.

Creationism is not as valid as evolution. Claiming climate change is a hoax is not as valid as claiming the science is consistent. Claiming Obama is a Muslim is not as valid as claiming Trump is an authoritarian. Trump claiming the election is rigged based on zero evidence is not as valid as leftists claiming the elections is rigged due to Russian espionage, fbi interference and state level voter suppression efforts. Claiming Clinton is a liar because she lied about 26% of the time isn’t as valid as calling Trump a liar for lying about 70% of the time according to politifact.

On to the second point,ehst would you have us say? Maybe insults are not conductive to debate but generally liberals are egalitarian and conservatives are not. How are liberals trying to take away the rights of conservatives? We haven’t taken their guns away. But conservatives are trying to take away the right to vote, to make your own medical decisions, the right to marry, etc from people. If you look at us society, it is really only conservative who are trying to take away other people’s rights. Someone please explain if or how that view is wrong.

The right has conspiracy theories about fema camps, gun roundups, a fantasy war on Christmas etc. The left has evidence of voter suppression, opposition to gay marriage, a real war on Islam, etc. The right has fantasies of being persecuted. The left has evidence of being persecuted. They are not the same.

Liberals can take it too far, shouting down people who point out actual facts about minority groups or vulnerable groups as bigots. Blacks commit more crimes in the US. Muslims in Europe commit more sex crimes. Poor people abuse and neglect their children more and have higher domestic violence rates. Non whites get more welfare per capita.

I think this is a mistake we make. In Europe the refusal of the left to admit that Muslim migrants are committing crimes, especially sex crimes, at higher rates is making people upset. The problem I guess the left has is that these facts can be used s to further oppress these groups. So we do about down people who point them out.

If we are wrong, please show us why. Many of us are more open minded than you give us credit for. Is it just that whenever we try to discuss issues with the right mostly we get conspiracy theories and misinformation.

Why is our elitism wrong? A lot of us feel our elitism us because our opinions are more moral and factually accurate than what we are given from the other side of the aisle. Why is that incorrect?

And he’s willing to let Putin have his way with Russia’s neighbors because he either 1) admires him, or 2) is in debt to him and his friends.

It is not “arrogance” to suggest Trump is wholly unqualified to be president. He talks only in vague soundbites and shows no evidence that he understands any of the country’s problems, and certainly has no sane proposals to make anything better. He simply uses the “best words” to tell us he will do “so many great things” we’ll actually get tired of “winning.” What would you call someone who supports such a candidate other than an “idiot?”

But as you allude to in first paragraph, it’s more striking that a lot of the left is so wrapped up in moralizing political issues (‘we’re the moral side, the right is the immoral side, end of discussion’) because people on the left as a rule are less likely to believe in an absolute moral code that comes from somewhere beyond the individual. According to their more common view of morality, one would probably predict the right would emphasize morality more in claiming their political views were right (and to some degree of course they do). But nowadays the left does it more and on more issues IMO. It’s constantly on display in this forum.

As to which side is ‘destined’ to dominate, left leaning people definitely need to rethink this. They have won on some issues, like gay marriage for example. On a political tactical basis they might hope the right keeps fighting that as a major issue, because most of the public has changed its mind* to the formerly ‘left’ view. But the evidence suggests the right will not mainly play along with this. How much is Trump an icon of opposition to gay marriage? (some lip service, but pretty clear IMO he doesn’t actually care).

In politics the key issues evolve and change, and even the meaning of left of right does. Trump demonstrates that to those who actually listened to debate on the right in the primaries, or to the general election campaign. And now the Democratic Party might double down on a move further to the left. There’s no destiny which says that’s the path to dominance. Besides the presidency the record of the last several election cycles is big cumulative Democratic losses in House, Senate, governors, state legislators. More leftism is the solution to that? Maybe, but it’s actually impossible to predict the ‘inevitable’ party. That would seem an obvious lesson to Democrats in the Obama era.

*which is one of the fascinating examples of leftish moralizing lately. Twenty years ago hardly anyone in the mainstream advocated for changing the definition of marriage to include two people of the same sex. Icons of the Democratic party did not. But now per many, it’s immoral not to agree with this definition change. Where does such a moral code come from, which changes so quickly?