In the new world order we see Leftist 'debaters' (an oxymoron?) focusing on their opponents moral or physical failures rather than rebutting the argument itself. This is a common 'escape mechanism' for anyone who lacks either the facts or the skills to carry an argument.
In today's 'intellectual' climate of fearing to say, do or even appear to be thinking the 'wrong thing' most debates have degenerated into 'softly softly' mass general agreements usually focusing on how devilish the 'conservative' elements of society are. Incidentally very rarely are the maligned 'conservative bogeymen/women' ever invited to these 'debates' nor are they given much opportunity to defend the conservative position within the bulk of the mainstream media who are almost entirely in thrall to the so-called 'progressive' will, somewhat reminiscent of The Pravda in the now defunct USSR.
Talk about falling through the rabbit hole!
'Progressive' perspective's have held sway for about 50 years now, and because the Gramscian moles and Alinskyite parasites have been so successful in their 'long walk through the institutions', shaping the worldviews of those at the helms of; Politics, Constitutional Law, Education, Commerce, Media, Religion and Entertainment.....they believe they have won the culture war.
In truth perhaps they have.
When one looks at late modern (post modern?) society there is little to admire other than the amazing technological and medical advances made upon the shoulders of ground breaking discoveries from the past. Unfortunately without a moral imperative many of theses so-called advances are being used in ways that monsters of the past such as Mengele and Heydrich would have drooled over.
There are some indications however that Joe&Jane McOrdinary are beginning to emerge from their entertainment induced, rip van twinkle. The internet has played some part in this 'awakening' and it is because of this that the Tech giants are attempting to self-censor the net. Recent examples of Google and Facebook censoring conservative views have been brought out into the open and this trend will only get worse if the 'ordinary citizen' remains apathetic. But the greatest obstacle that the champions of the Left are facing is that they have grown flabby and unskilled in meaningful debate.
Most people of the left whom I encounter and who are willing to debate, descend very rapidly into the realm of insult and derision because they simply have no answers nor do they employ logic; in fact many do not even believe in logic, preferring to hold to a religious 'faith' position that requires them to believe that everything is a 'social construct', including presumably their belief that everything is a 'social construct'.
Mark Steyn is a skilled debater (possibly because he is usually outnumbered and as a conservative believes in the principles of logic) who in the 2016 Munk debates in Canada, humiliated his opponents whose putrid responses to his uncomfortable observations about the perils of mass immigration, were to sneer and attempt to belittle him. Neither worked:
To some audience members Steyn dwelt excessively on the sexual crimes we’ve all read about in Cologne, Hamburg, Malmö and elsewhere. So it apparently seemed to Arbour and Schama, because they mocked Steyn for it in their rebuttals. Arbour sneered at both Steyn and Farage as “newborn feminists” (she got a laugh), while Schama disgraced himself with “I’m just struck by how obsessed with sex these two guys are, actually. It’s a bit sad, really.” (That got a very big laugh.) I took one look at Steyn’s glowering face after that remark — Schama will regret having said it to his dying day, I know it — and I kind of felt sorry for those two liberals, because I knew what was coming.
Steyn slowly rose and riposted, in a tone of withering contempt, “I wasn’t going to do funny stuff. I was going to be deadly serious. (But) I’m slightly amazed at Simon’s ability to get big laughs on gang rape.” Vigorous applause. He went on, “Mme Arbour scoffs at the ‘newfound feminists.’ I’m not much of a feminist, but I draw the line at a three year old … and a seven year old getting raped.” Vigorous applause.
I think that was the moment those of the audience who did change their minds got it. The pro side was happy to talk about “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses,” because they’re abstract images, which liberals like. The words were fresh and meaningful then, but today merely a nostalgic homage to a 19th century immigration adventure with no deep similarities to today’s situation. They’re feel-good words but that shouldn’t make the poet who wrote them in 1883 the author of global refugee legislation in 2016. When Arbour and Schama didn’t like the opposition’s message — no images, just descriptions they interpreted as racist — they chose to shoot the messenger with ridicule, a debating error and an intellectually dishonest strategy.
A civilized culture, which takes centuries of painstaking collaborative work to create, can be easily destroyed, and quickly. This is a reality conservatives understand, but liberals, consumed by guilt for past collective sins, and morally disarmed before the Other, choose to ignore. The Munk debate illuminated this important distinction, and for a change, realism won. [Barbara Kay, When Mark Steyn Struck Back]I am not sure that we can do much to 'save' our rapidly collapsing civilisation, but then the course of human destiny was always to follow a downward trajectory, just as everything in science upholds the second law of thermodynamics; entropy.
Perhaps the best we can hope for and work towards would be that like salt on meat we can delay the decay, for to believe that we can stop it altogether is at best a Quixotian tilt at rainbow coloured windmills.
No comments:
Post a Comment