Something that I noticed about leftists is that their views are convoluted to such a degree, that it’s impossible to debate them if you’re a normal person with little interest in politics.
They always use words which are poorly defined, abstract, and refer to things that don’t reflect observable reality. If you don’t understand these words, they usually refer you to literature - which is another proof that this worldview requires years of brainwashing. The literature itself may also be based on faulty assumptions, completing the ouroboros of nonsense. They expect you to accept their faulty premises, which offers nothing valuable to the non-leftists, and to the leftists it’s only good for debate fodder and feelings of self-righteousness.
If someone you know says something nonsensical (for example, referring to something as patriarchal, heteronormative, white supremacist, despite the thing in question having no such qualities) it’s sometimes worth the effort to ask “What do you mean by that”. When strangers on the internet do something like that, it’s a signal to not interact. In person, it’s somewhat fixable. If that person refers you to literature, ask again “What do you specifically mean when you use that word”. Even if you don’t ask for a definition in the Gaedean sense, you will throw a wrench into the leftist algorithm, and from there you can explain the faults in that person’s reasoning.
That’s why I hate even talking to them. I’ll give a statement that I think is perfectly reasonable, and they’ll say some dumb schnikes that can only even be interacted with by someone who’s the same degree and kind of basket case as they are, unless you want to dissect why what they’re saying is based on a false or flat-out stupid premise.
Like, a big one (big enough that I can think of it off the top of my head when I don’t really devote much storage space to these people) is the melodramatic defense of transgenders’ “existence”. If you don’t agree with their worldview, you’re erasing their existence. If you don’t want them to parade in public, you’re saying people like them can’t exist. If you don’t want them to have their way with everything, and drain every resource, and ruin everything, all for this aspect of their identity, which they make integral to their whole (self-perceptive) identity, which they equate to their actual identity (who they actually are; their actual, personal existence), then you must want to erase this part of their identity, and thus their self-identification, and thus their actual personhood, and thus their actual existence, you are literally a sorcerer trying to will them out of existence by the dark magic of not wanting to pay your tax dollars for their HRT.
All of this, the above, incoherent rambling I just spilled out, is an assumption that can exist in a Redditor’s head, so that they will respond to literally any negative sentiment towards transgenders with 'Why won’t you let these people that didn’t to any harm to you exist?’
It gets really extra stupid when the trannies start bawling about ‘genocide’, throwing around a term that’s not only very serious in its own right but also loaded with social significance because people won’t stop worshiping the Holocaust as a talking point like a golden calf, and they know it, and they’re claiming with entitlement the actual fucking Holocaust as their personal tool with which for whine for their degeneracy to be given more ‘kindness’ [blind, subservient acceptance, compliance and worship] as if it’s their inheritance because they’re feeling persecuted. And then when some people come in to knock it off, and stop abusing the six million actual victims of the Holocaust, some retard, some smug, asinine retard comes in and says it’s okay to do that because some retarded dictionary made by inbred European lapdogs of the geriatric lesbian nanny oligarchy gave it a pretentious-ass definition of “The denial to a certain group of people of the right to exist” and so of course the slobbering retards get to jump on it because it hooks up like a trailer hitch to their favorite bit of melodramatic drama club homo prose. End my life.
I’m starting to think that this is not the proper way to go about it. If you look at Clotaire Rapaille’s work, he teaches to never trust people’s rationalizations. You want to find their “code” – the imprint in their reptilian brain.
For example, Rapaille was hired by Jeep to figure out why their cars weren’t selling. He realized that when people thought of Jeeps, they thought of a rugged companion – a horse! Rapaille suggested changing the shape of the headlights from square back to round, to humanize the vehicle. It worked!
Ryan Faulk says something similar: it’s narrative maintenance. When you communicate with different halves of the brain, they will tell lies to justify their feelings. If one half of the brain was frightened by a scary image, the other half (which did not experience the image) will come up with a story about why it is afraid.
