After recently getting banned from Democraticdiva.com’s blog for – well, I am not really sure what the exact reason is – I decided to look around to see if others have had the same problems with debating Liberals. It seems that I am not the only one. I am quite baffled at how people who claim to be intellectuals can behave in this manner. If you are going to debate, then debate! If you think my comments are genuinely wrong then let my stupidity speak for itself (aka, let me continue to debate and don’t moderate my comments).
If there is anyone out there that reads this and affiliates Left to any degree, how do you feel about this type of behavior? Do you feel that it is justified to snuff speech for whatever reason and mostly without notice or without warning?
In any case, here is an article written by Nancy Morgan of RightBias on the issue. It is over a year old, which means the problem has never changed much to this current date. Enjoy.
How does one debate with a liberal? Sorry, under current rules, debate is not allowed. Just as our new national conversation on race is limited exclusively to authentic blacks, so is any semblance of debate with those on the left limited to those who accept the rules of debate, as defined by liberals.
Just as Boy Clinton redefined the meaning of sex, so have liberals redefined the meaning of debate. If your view doesn’t accord with the progressive, politically correct elites, the debate is relabeled an ‘argument’, your opinion is redefined as a ‘judgment’ and both are promptly dismissed.
By controlling language, the left controls and defines the issues. Hillary didn’t lie about being under fire in Bosnia, she merely misspoke. The rules stipulate that only conservatives lie. If you’re on the left, you’re either factually incorrect, mistaken or just plain human. Liberals call this a win-win situation, which is one of the few times they are factually correct.
If the member of the vast right wing conspiracy (conservative) persists in trying to debate the original issue, liberals then revert to personal attacks. Attacking the messenger as mean-spirited usually does the trick. The indignant liberal then has carte blanche to personally vilify the messenger while touting his own moral vitas. Very effective.
By this time, the subject of the argument is long forgotten. If, however, the rude, argumentative conservative persists in addressing inconvenient facts, the liberal invariably points to ‘bad behavior’ by others, as if that excuses all bad behavior. That’s called the ‘Everyone Else Does It So It Must Be OK’ defense. Voila, the debate veers again from the original issue and turns into a catalogue of left vs. right scandals. Needless to say, if the ‘Everyone Else Does It’ defense was valid, we’d still have slavery.
If the MOTVRWC is still standing, demanding an answer to the original issue, which has yet to be addressed, the beleaguered liberal will kindly inform one and all that the debate is over. The question has been settled. Case closed. It is now time to, you guessed it, Move On.
The best scenario for liberals, however, is to avoid debate altogether. This is called the pre-emptive defense. Gore just gave us a prime example when he declared on 60 Minutes that anyone who doesn’t believe in global warming probably also believes the earth is flat. Can you spell Neanderthal? Another pre-emptive defense includes labeling any dissenting view as propaganda which, of course, is unworthy of debate.
Another neat trick the left uses to avoid debating inconvenient facts (formerly called corruption, perjury, lies, theft, adultery, etc.) is to cry foul and whine about being taken out of context. This is called a do-over, and usually leads to more media face time to explain what they really meant. Another win-win situation. If the do-over is done with panache, the offender is magically transformed into a martyr and/or victim by a complaisant media. This is called spin. Again, it only works for liberals.
The question arises, do liberals really believe their own arguments? Does Gore really believe the earth is in crisis? Does Hillary really believe there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do 50% of Americans really believe Bush lied? I have an inquiring mind. I’d like to know. So I set out in search of a liberal I could debate.
I started on My Space by sending a friend request to a (gorgeous) liberal guy who billed himself as open minded. He replied, questioning why I wanted to be friends with a liberal. Duh. I told him I wanted to find a liberal who could actually debate both sides of an issue. OK. He read one of my conservative articles and, to his credit, he responded with a lengthy critique. So far, so good. I wrote back, pointing out that his response dealt only with feelings, not facts. Alas, I now have one less friend on My Space. Did I mention how cute he was?
My next step: The Daily Kos, hotbed of the far left. I posted my latest article White Racism in their forum. Here’s the response:
I have requested your banning from Daily Kos. We have no interest in, or use for, your filth.
When I entered the Kos forum to answer the 50 some comments on my article, I found I was no longer allowed to participate in the conversation. I had been banned.
On to the Huffington Post. I again posted a conservative article, and when I logged in to join the debate, I found that I was banned, my posting privileges were revoked. No answer from the moderators as to why.
This experience was repeated on other liberal forums. To date, I have yet to find a liberal who will debate an issue on the facts. With the one exception of my lovely niece, Sarah.
This refusal to debate on the left no longer angers me. I know that no matter how flat the pancake, there are always two sides. By ignoring and censoring debate, liberals invalidate only themselves, not the opposing view. Just because the majority of them believe something is so, doesn’t make it so. They can redefine the meaning of the word ‘is’, but ultimately, reality is defined by God, not man. To liberals, that is unthinkable. Which is probably why they don’t think about it. Or acknowledge it. Or debate it.