What I Have Learned From Debating Young Liberals

Yutesby Patricia L. Dickson   10/21/14
In the recent months, I have been engaged in political debates with liberals mostly under the age of 40 (I am over the age of 40). These debates have taken place in person, via email and political discussion blogs. In each occurrence, I was contacted or confronted by the individuals who wanted to engage in discussions with me. I was personally contacted and invited to participate in discussions on a blog that repost some of my articles. However, after each round of discussions, I am saddened with the realization that our great country is in deep trouble if today’s young liberals are America’s future.

The first thing that is quite evident is that the liberal institutions have done a good and thorough job in indoctrinating our young people. The liberal professors have taught them to view America through the lens of the past rather than the present. This trick has caused these individuals to be filled with anger at an America that does not exist (an America that they themselves were not alive to experience). Every issue that is discussed is based on the false premise that every negative thing that happened in past (slavery, Jim Crow, The Southern Strategy) is influencing everything that is happing in the present (i.e. Voter ID laws, Ebola).   However, there is never any mention of all the positive things that happened in the past that continues to make America great today. It is as though they believe that the American people are programmed robots void of the ability to think or make decision for themselves based on current issues.[pullquote]…I am saddened with the realization that our great country is in deep trouble if today’s young liberals are America’s future.[/pullquote]

While engaged in discussions, I have learned that liberals do not read. When commenting on my articles, liberals have accused me of saying things that are not in the article or they will question something that is answered in the article. How is it possible to make angry comments about something that you have not read?  This reveals to me that they probably do not read anything that they believe goes against the liberal narrative. Maybe liberals would learn something if they would just read. It is as though they read titles and then go straight to the comment section. This also happens in dialog on the discussion blog. I will reply to a question that someone has posted and in that individual’s response, he or she will ask me the same question again. The same thing happens in email conversations, I end up responding by rewriting the same thing.

Liberals tend to put words in the mouths of others. It is one thing to be in a face to face verbal conversation with someone and claim that he or she said something. For example, if I am talking really fast and someone says that I said something that I cannot remember saying, there is a chance that he or she might get away with putting words in my mouth. However, if one is engaged in a written back and forth conversation, you would think that an individual would not attempt to put words in the other person’s mouth because the conversation is documented. Nonetheless, liberals will still attempt to put words in the mouths of others when it can be easily verified in the preceeding comment or email.

The most disheartening thing that I have learned about liberal young adults is they lack breadth on the issues that they claim to be well informed on. The liberal media and universities are to blame for this. These individuals only learn liberal talking points. When they are presented with facts that destroy the narrative, they just move on to the next talking point without even acknowledging the facts or they start attacking you. The next step in the cycle is the projection. They begin to accuse you of everything that they actually believe (attempt to put their thoughts in your head).  This makes me wonder what the goal of liberals is. How can a person go through life parroting talking points? What is going to happen to the individual when he or she is faced with reality? Most importantly, what is going to happen to America with these individuals as future leaders?


PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (2308 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to What I Have Learned From Debating Young Liberals

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    The best example of the modern Outer Party liberal is Parsons from 1984. Of course, he ended up in trouble anyway, probably because of his regard for his children. Modern liberals are unlikely to have that particular problem.

    Of course they think Americans are robots with programmed responses. They are, so everyone else must be too. This is the psychological (as opposed to the tactical) root of liberal projection.

    Modern iberals refuse to see the good in anything they dislike due to their (aptly) black-and-white vision of the world — everything is wholly good or wholly bad. So they refuse to see how the arguments of the Declaration of Independence led to freeing the slaves (and for that matter to the Constitution referring only indirectly to slaves; the authors really disliked it but couldn’t get rid of it). Something similar happened in the Salem witchcraft trials, which were finally brought to an end by the acceptance of Increase Mather’s argument that Satan could appear in the form of a good Christian (which thus eliminated the value of spectral evidence).

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    While engaged in discussions, I have learned that liberals do not read. When commenting on my articles, liberals have accused me of saying things that are not in the article or they will question something that is answered in the article.

    You have just described libertarians as well. Granted, anyone who knows me will not generally ascribe “a good listener” to me. But I have long since learned that solipsism is a very poor way to exist. Those who cannot be bothered to read the thoughts of others are generally of the kind who think that they have all the correct thoughts that they will ever need.

    I do a great deal of skimming, and necessarily so due to time constraints. But hopefully that is not in order to avoid new ideas or because I’m so in love with my own thoughts that I dare not let any more animals into that zoo, for god knows what could breed in there if a new idea was allowed to stable there.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This reveals to me that they probably do not read anything that they believe goes against the liberal narrative. Maybe liberals would learn something if they would just read. It is as though they read titles and then go straight to the comment section.

    Let me give you the likely answer to that, Patricia: We are seeing the results of cult programming. One of the prime elements of cult programming is shutting off people (via various manipulative techniques) from new information. Proper cult programming will instill in people paranoia and the instinct to do battle, not the desire to perhaps learn something new.

    A cult also automatically knows that anyone not of the cult can be dismissed as not being worthy to read. When dealing with “Progressive” yutes, we should thus understand that not only are they a little uniformed but that their ideology has tended to turn them into little monsters.

    As Thomas Sowell notes:

    “Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.”

    It should be noted therefore that Leftism/Progressivism works toward the opposite effect.

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    These individuals only learn liberal talking points. When they are presented with facts that destroy the narrative, they just move on to the next talking point without even acknowledging the facts or they start attacking you.

    To what extent has this pre-planned approach to political discussion contributed to the nosedive in ratings for MSNBC?

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Patricia has gotten a huge response to her article at American Thinker. I’ll leave it to you all to see if anyone has said anything in those over 200 replies that is better than is said here (doubtful, but always possible). 😀

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This is the result of the intentional dumbing down of our education system.

    It is easier to control drones who sit around obsessed with iPhones, computer games, etc, than to deal with rational well informed individuals who are engaged with reality.

    Our education system is the greatest, long-term threat to the nation. Thank God for home schooling, religious schools and charter schools.

    By the way, I couldn’t believe the remark about high school students being book virgins. Has the country fallen so low?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Ayn Rand was very concerned about his nearly 50 years ago, and wrote about the problem in several articles. The situation has only gotten worse since then. But I’ve read that this is exactly what John Dewey wanted — basically, useful idiots who would spout the party line without challenging orthodoxy. It’s all very Orwellian, as usual with liberals.

    • David Ray says:

      The Romeikes fled Germany so they could also home-school their children. Eric Holder’s response wasn’t to welcome them in, but to bring suit in an effort to have them deported. (Perhaps he’s upset that they didn’t immediately apply for welfare like the Tsarnaev’s did, but instead chose to work for a living.)

      Also; I thought B. Hussein & company always argued that if a family had an “anchor baby”, we shouldn’t deport them. Guess this is the exception to the rule.

  7. GHG says:

    I’m not sure this is an age thing. Maybe the percentage of people under 40 who are liberals is greater than the those who are older than 40, and probably so, but there’s no shortage of people over 40 who are just as indoctrinated. Liberal mind parasites don’t age discriminate.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s a great point. Or, another way of saying that is that the programming that people receive sticks to them very well.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is kinda-sorta on the general topic:

    A lack of just basic coherence — what scientists call “Not even wrong” — is rampant in society. Here’s an article from American Spectator written apparently by a yute critical of how yutes are advertised to by both political parties: Republicans and Democrats Both Patronize Young Voters.

    And I have to say, one of the comments to this article gets right to the point:

    Am I the only one confused by this rant?

    American Spectator (unlike StubbornThings) is not some off-the-main-path web site. And they host junk like this? This writer doesn’t know how to make a clear point. The lack of introspection is stunning. Much like dealing with libertarians, you have to do their thinking for them in order to figure out how to proceed with any kind of meaningful conversation.

    In other words, everything about Progressivism/Leftism works to scramble a person’s brain. Relativism all by itself is a totally corruptive influence and enough to fry the brains of yutes. And we’re starting to see this seep into the culture, including the conservative culture. One can’t help noticing, for instance, the truly clueless interns who occasionally write junk at National Review.

    Brevity, clarity, a logically-flowing argument, and self-awareness of one’s ideology are all important in regards to writing something that people can actually understand and that has a point.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Much like dealing with libertarians, you have to do their thinking for them in order to figure out how to proceed with any kind of meaningful conversation.

      .787

  9. GHG says:

    It occurs to me in a somewhat nebulous way that the seeds of our discontent were sown not so much by things done but by things not done, or to be more precise – time not spent nurturing the next generation, teaching them the important things needed to continue our tradition and culture. Not just in words, but in time spent living with them. Words just turn into lectures quickly learned to be hypocritical without the time investment. Life got too fast and too distracting and somewhere along the way “we” lost our way. Our duty to the next generation was replaced with seeking bigger houses and entertainment and the kids too often got the scraps of our time. It’s hard to tell when this shift in family life started but I tend to think my generation (baby boomers) accelerated the devolution. And now here we are with the yutes of today having little or no mooring to the traditions required in keeping America recognizable to anyone from my generation. I wish I had answers.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      It’s hard to tell when this shift in family life started but I tend to think my generation (baby boomers) accelerated the devolution.

      Never underestimate the effects of technology from TV to iPads. These became surrogate baby sitters which taught their own lessons to the kiddies.

      And as to not spending enough time with one’s children, we know we don’t. That’s why we come up with weasel terms such as “Quality Time”. What a load of crap. Children need parents there when they need them; especially young children. They don’t have appointment books.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      time not spent nurturing the next generation, teaching them the important things needed to continue our tradition and culture. Not just in words, but in time spent living with them. Words just turn into lectures quickly learned to be hypocritical without the time investment.

      Mr. Lesser, I was reading the Kindle sample of a book last night that was making the point of how we have failed at opposing the Left, and primarily by not passing on our own wisdom. The author noted (and if I can find the book, I’ll post it here, but I erased the sample after reading it) that we send our kids off to college and they come back a foreigner.

      As Dennis Prager notes, higher education acts as a Leftist Seminary. The point is to turn yutes into Leftist/Progressives. This is absolutely true. But I would also point out that part of the problem is that one’s identity these days (except at StubbornThings, the small island that we are) is oriented to fad, fashion, novelty, vulgarity, and all the attributes of current pop culture.

      Progressivism is a natural fit for this mindset if only because it feeds into the narcissism endemic in this pop culture. Let us plainly state that many of the traits needed for wisdom do not exist on the Left. And those traits are of the “thou shalt not” variety. (And this, by the way, is why libertarians are not cousins or natural allies of conservatives.) Wisdom arises, in part, from putting self limits on our behavior.

      But pop culture (not to mention libertarianism and Progressivism) is not about limits on personal behavior. Libertarians claim they want limits on government for purposes of “liberty.” But in practice they fully support every corrosive Left wing cause, including illegal immigration, gay marriage, drug legalization, and abortion. Theirs consists of no underlying morality that is going to allow for a better and freer society with less government. It would just be anarchy replacing what we have now — too much state.

      Progressives are just as bad in this regard. Much like libertarians, they have over-emphasized personal libertine behavior as “liberty” while, in their case, allowing the state to own and control everything else.

      No happy medium can ever exist between a good society and limited government without a rich and trusted tradition of “thou shalt not.” Either goes missing in the highly egoistic and narcissistic demeanor of libertarians and Progressives.

      And vapid pop culture is a huge driver of this mindset. The ideology of this mindset can be readily discerned on the t-shirts: “No Limits.” “Just do it.” “Coexist.”

      Pop culture is idiot-making. This is one reason why we here at StubbornThings spend so much time reviewing books and talking about books. I’m really of the mind to de-emphasize the strictly political. What needs emphasizing are just good ideas. As much as I understand that Obama is a menace, another rant in this regard isn’t going to do much good. But perhaps we can point ourselves and yutes to some of the wisdom that they aren’t getting now. And I can guarantee you, none of that wisdom will be found in gunja.

  10. David Ray says:

    Patricia,
    I also, at times, tire of wasting my time debating liberals (Hence my appreciation for this website).
    I have found this useful, but it tends to only work in face-to-face discussions. I challenge them with questions.
    One example: Once a blow-hard couldn’t help himself and said Reagan “broke 90% of his promises!” I asked him to name just one. He couldn’t.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I can remember, about 20 years ago, a FOSFAX letter-writer who talked about the errors of supply-side economics. I challenged him to identify these errors. We never heard back from him.

  11. The extent of my experience can be captured in the back and forth comments on a political blog where I was asked to participate in the discussions about the content in my articles. There are way too many comments to post; however, I will give you some examples of what I have been experiencing. Let me first give you some background on how I ended up on the discussion blog. A young lady who I believe runs the blog contacted me some time ago asking me would I please join in on the discussion of my article that had been posted on the blog. She said that there were no conservative commenters on the blog and she thought that I would be able to better respond to the comments about my article. I was really busy at the time so I kind of forgot about it. She contacted me again about a month ago and asked me again would I please join in on the discussion and that another one of my articles had be posted. At the time of her second request, I was and still am involved in email back and forth debates just about every night with other liberals when I get home from work. I felt guilty for putting her off so I agreed to join her discussion blog. She had the webmaster to contact me to help me set up a login on the blog (I am posting as myself since they are discussion my articles).

    The first time that I logged on, there were several comments that I attempted to answer. I answered them one by one on a single page (or two) post. A few days later, she sent me an email with all of the responses to my post and asked me to respond to the responses (many of them asking the same questions or responding with anger to something I never said). It took me ALL day last Sunday to respond a second time to some of the commenters on this blog.

    The people on the discussion blog where quick to inform me that they were educated and well informed. However, some of them did not understand simple definitions of words nor how to understand how the words were used in context. I had to respond by first posting the definition of the words. For example, a person commented that there was no difference between the word “self-worth” and “inspired”. Someone had said in a previous comment that Obama gave black kids self-worth by seeing him elected to the highest office. I responded by saying that kids can only get self-worth from the love and attention they receive from their parents, not strangers. I explained that Obama is a stranger to black children therefore; he does not have direct contact in their lives. However, the black kids can be inspired by seeing him in the highest position. The following is a response that I received:

    “Of course, I agree with you re the importance of parents, especially fathers playing a big role in the lives of their children. However, your comment seems to me to be a semantical point of a distinction without a difference. Is there more than 2 cents difference between “self-worth” and “inspired” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMENT you are referencing? ? ? (You did not cite it and I did not search to find the comment which you referenced.)”

    Because I did not understand her question, I posted the definition of the two words and then explained the entire premise of the comment again. This sounds like the same foolishness that Melissa Harris-Perry (MSNBC) said when she could not distinguish between a rich business owner taking a financial risk and poor people in the hood taking safety risk:

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/09/02/msnbcs-melissa-harris-perry-loses-temper-cant-stand-the-wealthy-being-regarded-as-risk-takers/

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      However, your comment seems to me to be a semantical point of a distinction without a difference. Is there more than 2 cents difference between “self-worth” and “inspired” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMENT you are referencing? ? ?

      And this is what you get for hundreds of billions of dollars in education dollars?

  12. My father use to always tell me that if you throw a rock in a crowd, the person that is hit will be the one the cries out. Well today I received the following email from a young man at the University of South Florida. His signature block includes: Mass Communications – Journalism, Student Senator from the College of Arts and Sciences,Vice President of the Society of Professional Journalists:

    “Dear Ms. Dickson,

    Regarding your article, “What I Have Learned from Debating Young Liberals,” I believe you are wholly incorrect and furthermore offensive. If you would like to debate a young liberal, I volunteer. I simply enjoy argument, contrary opinions and deep discussion. You seem able to offer that. If you do wish to have a discussion I ask that you respect a few requests. You may propose the topic. I do not wish to discuss your article at this time. Please do not incorporate religion into a discussion that is not in and of itself religious (which is not our purpose). Do not insult or bully. I hope you accept my offer.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I believe you are wholly incorrect and furthermore offensive

      In other words…

      “Dear Ms. Dickson, I have learned first and foremost that I am a victim. The first job of the victim is to look for the oppressor. And how do you find the oppressor? They are the ones who offend you. And how do I define offense? By whatever offends me. We Progressives are very sensitive in this regard. And please don’t make any sudden movements. We scare easily.”

      Do not insult or bully.

      In other words…

      “Dear Ms. Dickson. All of us on the Left are precious little fragile butterflies. We break easily. We are psychologically brittle. Do not fold, bend, or mutilate. And, by the way, we’re also very well practiced at feigning being a fragile little butterfly in order to paint those who would critique our beliefs as ‘bullies.’ Hey, it’s a living.”

      Good luck with your “dialog,” Patricia. You are being set up by a member of a cult who dismisses you out-of-hand. The only reason you exist in their life is to prove their moral and intellectual superiority. Have fun!

  13. GHG says:

    Patricia, it sounds like you’re kept pretty busy and it would probably be difficult to carve out time to engage in a one on one debate, especially knowing the odds are not good for anything other than a frustrating waste of time. But it would be kind of neat, providing he agreed to some rules too. First of which would be to respond to direct questions with direct answers. If his answer requires more than a yes or no, then the qualification must be elucidated directly, without misdirection or evasion. And, of course, all rules apply to both participants. Oh, and one more thing, regarding religion, it is not off limits insofar as it relates to our founding documents and culture.

    I used to post in a blog a few years ago and got into some heated debates. Usually it was me, the lone conservative who would engage, and the other person. Before a few posts went by, there would be a half a dozen other guys “debating” me. It would always get out of control because direct questions would rarely be answered with direct answers. Before too long I would have multiple debates that were 3 or 4 tangents away from the question or challenge I posed. It was a total waste of time and after beating my head against the wall for longer than I care to admit to, I shook the dust off my sandals and haven’t gone back.

    Good luck, and keep up the good work.

    • I think that these young people really want attention. I would bet that the majority of them came from single parent homes. I can tell by the way the ask question and the response I get from them.

      I am kind of a softy when it comes to young people (this comes from taking care of my troops in the military). I will probably engage this young man by first asking him about himself and his plans for the future. I believe he just wants attention. I usually do not waste my time with older people but I tend to let young people get away with more. It is my hope that I reach at least one of them. Who knows?

      • GHG says:

        You’re a kinder person than me and that sounds like a wise approach.

        On a side note – I got a warm and fuzzy when you said “taking care of my troops”. My daughter, who is now out of the military, was a sergeant in the Army and often used the same phrase when talking about the soldiers under her. I know she felt a responsibility to watch over them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *