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.
You have quite a few assumptions built into this question, whether you know it or not.
Asserts that the entire point of view is inherently flawed and also that the writer may be too dumb to realize it.
Do you really think left wingers spend all day in books?
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”.
How is the difficulty of something quantified?
A basic unanswerable existential question. How do we know anything? That calls into question any subjective question.
Considering how you phrase the question, there is clearly a lean here.
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.
How hard do you work at it?
Personal attack implying that your opponent may not be approaching the discussion honestly and may be deliberately misrepresenting themself.
Surely, those at the top of the biggest political ideologies work incredibly hard at their craft.
An unprovable assertion designed to suggest the integrity of the people in question without actually providing examples or evidence.
Though it can’t be unsaid that not all of them work honestly.
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”.
Not trying to be an enlightened centrist (because I’m not a centrist lmao). Simply acting as devils advocate here.
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.
When faced with any actual points you would need to explain, justify, or defend, attempt to throw out the entire conversation to avoid accountability. Classic right wing response.
Thanks for the great example!
If you really want to hit it home though, you need to either double down with a personal attack or start a completely different argument that you feel like you have a better chance of winning, preferably both at once while also questioning the intent of your opponent to act in good faith at all.
A popular finisher is implying that they just can’t see the truth because they have let the liberal media brainwash them and telling them they need to use a different source for their information that isn’t afraid to actually tell them the truth.
You are missing some key elements here. I responded to what I saw as a flawed question and asked some of my own to get the OP to think about what they were asking. I incorrectly assumed it to be a question asked by an edgy high schooler and attempted to answer in a way that would get them to think about what they were asking. I stand by my original point that it is not harder to be left wing than right wing, though I admit I have not given you a complete explanation as to why I think that.
I avoid no accountability here. My statement was unclear and therefore misunderstood. If you do not understand what I was attempting to say at by this point, I see no value in attempting to explain it further.
I don’t understand why you keep implying that I am right wing. I thought that was made clear. Not even a little bit. You know nothing of it because the conversation has not been about my personal views, and I am not about to describe my personal views to you. There is no value in explaining right wing argument tactics, because they do not apply.
I totally understand that you aren’t right wing. I was just using this conversation to highlight the strategies used by the right wing to attack left wing arguments and the difficulty of doing so in a rational way when faced with a non-factual style of attack.
The fact that you never really took it seriously in the first place and only ever wanted to make someone you saw as young and inexperienced question their position without really seeing the problems with your style of argument really only helps my analogy because even now you have admitted that it was only ever about casting doubt on the other side and not about explaining your position.
Whether you identify as right wing or not, the fact is that these tactics are pretty standard attack strategies, and when one side is trying to build consensus and the other side only wants to poke holes in their arguments, perhaps now you can see why I believe that the left wing has the harder job.
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.
Exactly!
When faced with any actual points you would need to explain, justify, or defend, attempt to throw out the entire conversation to avoid accountability. Classic right wing response.
Thanks for the great example!
If you really want to hit it home though, you need to either double down with a personal attack or start a completely different argument that you feel like you have a better chance of winning, preferably both at once while also questioning the intent of your opponent to act in good faith at all.
A popular finisher is implying that they just can’t see the truth because they have let the liberal media brainwash them and telling them they need to use a different source for their information that isn’t afraid to actually tell them the truth.
You are missing some key elements here. I responded to what I saw as a flawed question and asked some of my own to get the OP to think about what they were asking. I incorrectly assumed it to be a question asked by an edgy high schooler and attempted to answer in a way that would get them to think about what they were asking. I stand by my original point that it is not harder to be left wing than right wing, though I admit I have not given you a complete explanation as to why I think that.
I avoid no accountability here. My statement was unclear and therefore misunderstood. If you do not understand what I was attempting to say at by this point, I see no value in attempting to explain it further.
I don’t understand why you keep implying that I am right wing. I thought that was made clear. Not even a little bit. You know nothing of it because the conversation has not been about my personal views, and I am not about to describe my personal views to you. There is no value in explaining right wing argument tactics, because they do not apply.
I totally understand that you aren’t right wing. I was just using this conversation to highlight the strategies used by the right wing to attack left wing arguments and the difficulty of doing so in a rational way when faced with a non-factual style of attack.
The fact that you never really took it seriously in the first place and only ever wanted to make someone you saw as young and inexperienced question their position without really seeing the problems with your style of argument really only helps my analogy because even now you have admitted that it was only ever about casting doubt on the other side and not about explaining your position.
Whether you identify as right wing or not, the fact is that these tactics are pretty standard attack strategies, and when one side is trying to build consensus and the other side only wants to poke holes in their arguments, perhaps now you can see why I believe that the left wing has the harder job.
Once again my intended message is not coming across. Thank you for your time.