Leftists Summarized

The saddest part of her nonsensical banalities is that it is a totally effective tool when speaking to other leftists. They have zero ability to look to the past (even just the previous day) and no sense of the future. All they can think about is how they “feel” at the current moment. So when the next issue arises that requires a slight pause and some intelligent analysis, all they can remember is that last time they were so enraged at Trump / conservatives / republicans that whatever reasonable option is put before them is just pure evil.

 

It’s like when a conservative says something and the instant response from the liberal is “where did you hear that? Breitbart? Fox News”. Don’t listen to anything I say - just say it’s stupid and therefore it’s stupid. Genius.

Comments

Leroy Added Dec 30, 2017 - 8:42pm
That pretty much says it.  Progressive liberal have a knee-jerk reaction to everything.  They don't seem to have the ability to think about the long-term ramifications.   Their reasoning ability is about that of a 4-year-old.  All they know is what they want and feel. No offense intended.  It's just my observation.
Chris Crawford Added Dec 30, 2017 - 8:47pm
You complain that somebody doesn't listen to anything you say, but all you have to say is complaint. Why should anybody listen to whining?
Dave Volek Added Dec 30, 2017 - 8:47pm
Both sides have too much immaturity to be credible. But they sure can shout long and loud!
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 30, 2017 - 9:56pm
Why should anybody listen to whining?
 
It whines in response. 
 
Bill H. Added Dec 30, 2017 - 11:29pm
 
Yet ANOTHER hate rant!
Feel better now?
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:43am
Where is the hate? Dont hear any hate here. Liberals dont think. Liberals emote.
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 31, 2017 - 8:35am
I am reminded of Moral foundation theory which says morals reasoning is based on: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. see The righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph.  Liberals use only the first two.  They contrast care with harm and fairness with reciprocity. Thus we get equal pay, this women rights, open borders, redistribution of wealth (welfare ACA healthcare), suppression of free speech, etc.    
 
Liberty isn't important, universities suppress speech ANTIFIA attacks.  The NFL represents lack of loyalty.   The Hillary email and the Obama attack on police show lack of authority.  And the cake for gay wedding shows lack of sanctity.  
ttp://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-conservatives-cant-understand-liberals-and-vice-versa
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:25am
All these claims about liberals offer absolutely nothing in the way of evidence. They're just hot air. Don't you folks care about rationalism?
Robin the red breasted songster Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:44am
Bitten by a leftist when younger were you?
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:46am
Thank you for exemplifying my point.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:54am
It seems to me, Leroy, that the pitch of most political operators is purely populist... driven by consumer circles...
 
We get a series of ridiculous statements such as "make America great again" being made without any real idea of how that should be done or even any thought of what "great" is.  Pure pedagoguery.  All style and no real substance.  Designed to distract the populace with one hand whilst, with the other, you rob them blind (yeah, right, we believe in "trickle down don't we.   I mean, just look at how our income has soared over the last 20 years in step with the booming economy... yeah right!)
 
It strikes me that Communism essentially kept Capitalism "honest".  Now it's gone, Capitalism is revealed in all it's red tooth and claw.   Somehow, for the optimum result for the common man, we need to muddle through the middle...
 
There are no leaders now... just self serving ego maniacs like your orange baboon of a president....
 
It's time for a people led party to emerge.  If only we could get the people to stop looking at their iThingys for long enough to understand what is happening...
Dave Volek Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:36am
Robin
It's time for a people led party to emerge.  If only we could get the people to stop looking at their iThingys for long enough to understand what is happening...
 
Unfortunately the inner workings of any political party are designed to give some of the overly ambitious citizens the reins of power, while placating the rest of us into believing the system is either working well or is hopelessly unchangeable. If we insist on political parties to govern us, this relationship will also be true. Asking the political parties be serving society first is like trying to convince a lion to stop using its claws and fangs and become a herbivore.
 
In Chapter 2, I list "The 12 Limitations of Western Democracy". Not one of these limitations will disappear if we insist on being governed by political parties. 
 
 
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:45am
I suggest that the central flaw in American democracy is the two-party system. Parliamentary democracies are more responsive to the needs of the people because there are always minor parties ready to offer a more appropriate policy platform. It's a simple matter of economic theory applied to politics: when there are only two competitors, they can all too easily fall into joint monopolistic behavior. A multitude of competitors keeps everybody honest. This is most serious blunder made by the writers of the Constitution. 
Stephen Hunter Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:06pm
Ellie it looks like you are describing a pretty natural human behavior; the need to always have someone, group or thing to blame for a perceived injustice.
Weren't the right always blaming everything on Obama? Became a running joke at one time.. "my kid is not doing well in school, it must be Obama's fault". 
Bill H. Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:31pm
Robin - The main problem is that people are now being controlled by their iThingys and the ones in control know this. Everything they see on their social media and web search results is to be believed to the fullest. A prime example is Trumps constant tweeting. If people can be swayed and convinced by this type of electronic babble, then they will fall for anything.
 
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:41pm
Except, Mr. Crawford, the two party system was NOT written as a part of the constitution. The two party system evolved and in act there were periods in our history where there were more than two parties contending in national elections. I'm not going to cite the examples, do your own damned homework.
 
I do happen to agree that competition is an elixir for a multitude of woes. The political field would do well to be broadened in the US. I believe that this may occur over time and current circumstances certainly make this fertile ground.
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:48pm
Yes, the two-party system was not deliberate. It was, however, the inevitable result of the design of the Constitution and the framers of the Constitution, for all their careful assessment of precedent, failed to anticipate the problem. 
 
It's also true that the two-party system did not emerge immediately, and that there were occasionally third parties. That does not contradict the fact that the system designed by the framers of the Constitution naturally and inevitably led to a two-party system. 
 
I don't see any prospect for the existing two-party system to be eliminated. Each of the two parties is already a conglomeration of multiple sub-parties that often have conflicting platforms. The current populist trend is not so much a rejection of current parties (even though many people believe that) as a blind lashing out at the incomprehensible complexities of modern society.
Bill Kamps Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:56pm
Both parties work to eliminate third parties.  Things like gerrymandering and no term limits, make it very difficult for substantive third parties to emerge.
 
At the same time, we very nearly had a Presidential election with two candidates from neither party.  Trump and Sanders were not real members of their respective political parties. Trump highjacked the GOP nomination and Sanders very nearly did the same.
 
So other parties may emerge under the banner of existing parties, because the existing two parties have made it so difficult for new parties to gain power.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:57pm
Agree with you as to the course; not as to the cause. To suggest that the framing was (unintended or otherwise) designed to encourage the development of a two party system is, in my opinion, little more than conjecture. To be fair to the argument it may be that this could have indeed been a contributing factor, but not causal. There are too many other variables to be factored in that development to honestly place all that upon the design of the constitution.  You may sell that somewhere, but not with me.
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 1:04pm
Certainly the two-party result was not the intention of the framers; somewhere in the Federalist Papers the author warns of the dangers of political parties. What they aimed for was a random mish-mosh of different interests all battling it out in Congress. In effect, they hoped for the political analog of an ideal market, with lots of competing interests engaging in endless horse-trading.
 
You seem to think that the rise of the two-party system was some sort of accident. I see no basis for that assumption. Indeed, most parliamentary systems end up with two primary parties. The various secondary parties serve to keep the primary parties honest by forcing them to assemble ruling coalitions. It is especially intriguing that parliamentary systems with too many parties often fail to produce workable coalitions, which has led many such systems to devise various schemes for minimizing the influence of tiny splinter groups. The most common of these schemes are first-past-the-post schemes.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 31, 2017 - 1:23pm
Yawn
 
"Leftists" again. Is there now an invasion of -ism fetishists lately ? 
 
Btw: What is the difference between a liberal and a neoliberal ? The liberal has (at least in Europe) a LEFTIST view, and the "neoliberal" is just an economic criminal. So the word "liberal" should be used carefully. Period.
Ian Thorpe Added Dec 31, 2017 - 2:48pm
Stony, neoliberals pretend to care about ethnic minorities, Gay BLTs, special needs people and the environment to distract us from the big economic crimes they are committing, liberals lack the nous to commit big economic crimes, they pretend to care about the above items of faith because they are emotionally needy and want some facebook likes to bolster their self esteem.
It's loads of fun to watch from afar :-)
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:12pm
Ian
 
Same to you :-) Hm....what I see is that what you call liberals have sort of lost orientation seeing all that LGBTAKJOPMY7 crap LOL
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:48pm
I see the laziness of stereotyping is still working well. A tool used by the unintelligent and undiscerning to prevent them having to think.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:29pm
Leftists should become centrists and be pragmatic about solving problems.
Chris Crawford Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:31pm
Yes, indeed. So should rightists.
Jeff Michka Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:41pm
DV sez: In Chapter 2, I list target="_blank">"The 12 Limitations of Western Democracy". Not one of these limitations will disappear if we insist on being governed by political parties.-Ah! I knew it was in the book.:-)
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:36pm
Dino - driving down the middle of the road is bound to cause accidents. Britain has it correct - keep to the left.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:09pm
Al;ways remember HRH Head Teacher that its called "RIGHT of way" for a reason. 
Leroy Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:47pm
I've always remembered the example of liberalism given to me in my youth.  I don't recall where it came from, but it went like this:  there was an apartment complex that developed a large crack in the foundation.  The residents were all quite concerned about it.  A liberal landlord would putty the crack and slap paint over it and kick the can down the road.  Everyone would feel good about the landlord for taking action to solve the problem.  A conservative landlord would fix the problem permanently, knowing that it would only get worse and would put the residents in peril if not repaired.  The costs, in the long run, he realizes, is much greater if the crack is not repaired now.  Perhaps he has to relocate the residents during construction and increase the rent after the problem is fixed, but the problem is solved.  He gets blasted for taking advantage of the situation to make more profit.  Which kind of landlord are you?
 
And, if he did it in today's context, he would be accused of being a racist for gentrifying the neighborhood.
John Minehan Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:18pm
"This is most serious blunder made by the writers of the Constitution."
 
I think they were trying to avoid what they called "faction" . . . but they failed.
 
It worked too well as electoral leverage in 1800 for one thing.
 
We had a peaceful transition of power on the plus side but the birth of a rather needlessly adversarial system on the down side. 
opher goodwin Added Jan 1, 2018 - 5:09am
Leroy - for the life of me I can't see how your example fits a conservative/liberal mentality.
In my experience it's completely the opposite. The conservative landlord who is just after making more money doesn't give a hoot about the tenants and papers over the cracks. The socialist landlord cares about the tenants and tries to put things right - profit isn't the biggest factor.
I was just talking to a repairman who was working on my daughter's house. He worked for a capitalist landlord who bought houses, adapted them for maximum tenancy and did as little repairs as possible. Their sole objective was to make money.
I think you've got it arse over tit as we say in England.
John Minehan Added Jan 1, 2018 - 7:01am
It all depends on several factors: 1) what economic segment are you filling; 2) is it more feasible from an economic and an engineering point of view to do a major fix or to do small repairs on an on-going basis; 3) is the problem the tenants fault; and 4) is the landlord considering selling the property?
 
Politics really don't have a lot of impact.
 
Most landlords are decent people (a lot seem to be very thoughtful people who examine the ethics of what they do a lot) but all of them have to lay down the law at times and evict people who don't pay or who don't follow house rules.
 
If you have a decent residential building, you focus on keeping it up to code and avoiding any kind of damage that would impair the over-all value or useful life of the building.  If you have a higher-end property, you will wind up putting money into the property to justify higher rents from more affluent tenants.
 
Tenants do . . . odd things (shrimp stuffed down heating grates by a tenant whose lease was being terminated was the strangest one I've come across).
 
Landlords, too, do . . . odd things (a landlord using the flat above tenants he was trying to evict to raise Turkey Pullets----basically teenage Turkeys).  
 
  
Leroy Added Jan 1, 2018 - 7:46am
"Leroy - for the life of me I can't see how your example fits a conservative/liberal mentality."
 
I can understand why you don't understand.  Puttying and painting over a foundational crack is standard operating procedure.  It solves the immediate problem without concern for what happens down the road.  Someone else will have to face the catastrophe.  It looks good.  The emotional need is filled.  That is the liberal cause; fill the emotional need.  It's kind of like QE.  It keeps the economy going.  Nevermind the debt.  Leave it for future generations to figure out.  Or like Kim Jong Un, kicking the can down the road so it happens on someone else's watch.
 
I can relate to the conservative landlord.  I was one briefly.  My father became one in his later years in order to provide income.  He had a great fear of being relegated to a nursing home.  He rented to low-income people, mostly those on government assistance, a.k.a., a slumlord.  The purpose was to generate income.  He could have selflessly spent all the profits to improve the units for the residents, as I am sure you would expect of an evil capitalist.  But, no; he had a list of what needed to be done.  He improved the units over time when it made sense to do so.  He kept a positive cash flow.  Sometimes, it was a negotiation with the government man--a little higher rent and improvements were made.  He could have made more improvements, but it would have put the rent out of the price range of many.  There was a balance between his need and that of the renters.
 
wsucram15 Added Jan 1, 2018 - 8:55am
I would say something to the author about this article which is crap, but its the same people arguing over the same things.
Cant we on this page find a new "thing" to argue over in 2018?
Chris Crawford Added Jan 1, 2018 - 10:25am
Mr. Leroy, are you so lacking in logic that you must base your arguments on imaginary cases?
Bill H. Added Jan 1, 2018 - 11:33am
I agree, Jeanne.
It reminds me of a bunch of children in the sandbox throwing sand at each other.
I am also tiring of all of this bashing of Presidents from the past and the desires of the dictator's cheerleaders to "Lock 'em all up!!"
The problem we can and should deal with are the problems we now have.
Looks like Ellie just stopped by to whine and rant and not deal with any interaction. The wording says it all.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jan 1, 2018 - 11:47am
Well chaps, being aware of my limited ability to change things on the grand scale, I have put my energy into a community project.   This has a very simple aim... to encourage people to wish their friends and neighbours well and, if possible, to spend time enjoying each others company.   As part of that we sing together and act out a play.  It is done around a framework of an old tradition, that of Wassailing.
 
So far, in our own small way, we have done well.   I have noticed several people from our small group grow in confidence and doing things that they probably thought were impossible when they first started.  I think that we have made a lot of people smile.
 
We are not seeking to make a profit from our enterprise.   We just seek to make people happier.  Last year we donated the surplus money raised by our activities to the local food bank.   So, I guess, by Ellie's definition we are "leftists".
 
Perhaps we should all take the time to actually do something on a small local scale.   Maybe that way we might just change the world... albeit a bit at a time...
Ian Thorpe Added Jan 1, 2018 - 3:06pm
Stony, agree that people who call themselves liberals have lost sight of what being liberal means in their frenzy of virtue signalling. I think the LGBT issue is a perfect example (and having in the past been a candidate for the Liberal Party before it was hijacked by the cultural Marxism of the Social Democrats I'm quite well informed on the political philosophy.)
Until 1967 or 8 homosexuality was a crime in the UK. A range of reactions to that was available to liberals, we could campaign for a change in the law, we could point to the many talented men and women who happened to be homosexual and argue for tolerance against those who demanded that 'perverts' should be imprisoned for life in facilities for the criminally insane, or we could say, "Well I think what they do is revolting but so long as they keep it private we should not be persecuting them."
What would have been considered phoney and hypocritical is running around squeaking about how wonderful homosexuals are, treating every slightly effeminate man or butch woman as if they were your best friend forever and declaring anyone who did not share that view to be a bigot. Yet that is now the required position for all who call themselves liberals.
Two of the homosexuals I can honestly call friends are well into their seventies and both believe the LGBT political lobby are harming the cause by pushing things too far and that tolerance and respect should be enough, nobody should be required to celebrate homosexuality. Both were totally against same sex marriage but then both are Roman Catholics
Last time I talked to the third, a very funny guy,  he said, "From legalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults in private fifty years ago, the gay activists in London now seem to be pushing to make homosexual acts in pubic mandatory. There'll be a backlash, we'll end up back in the closet."
There's a big difference between liberal tolerance and respect and the moralistic bullying of leftists.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jan 2, 2018 - 2:49am
Ian - Well said
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 2, 2018 - 8:24am
I am a member of the Episcopal church.  When my children we growing up my wife was the Sunday school organizer for years.  I was involved in teaching.  One parent wanted to have a teacher that was there for years kicked out because just recently the fact that he was gay came out.  
I asked the father did he do a good job teaching before you found out he was gay?  I knew the answer because it was obvious.  He didn't answer.  They left our church shortly there after.
The reason it came out was that they adopted a child.  Both men lived together for years and I think more then a decade.  The state put up high standards and they met them.   I had no problem being their friends or the priest that was also gay.   Why was very simple they knew where they were and acted appropriately and sex was not a normal topic if ever a topic.
Tamara Wilhite Added Jan 7, 2018 - 9:44am
Liberals define morality based on feelings. If it feels good, it is good. If it feels bad, it is bad. And the more emotional the person, the more "right" they are, even if their feelings are utterly delusional (transgenderism, paranoia, etc).
 
The victimhood hierarchy, saying who is officially more oppressed, is their way of sorting out who should win when two people are equally upset/offended/demanding. 
Chris Crawford Added Jan 7, 2018 - 11:31am
Ms. Wilhite writes: Liberals define morality based on feelings.
 
How do you know this? Can you direct us to any studies of how liberals define morality? Have you interviewed a broad range of liberals and catalogued how they define morality?
 
I doubt it. You are attempting to divine another person's cognition without any evidence. Allow me to show you the correct way to handle this:
 
1. First, don't attempt to figure out the thinking of large groups. Instead, focus on their behavior. The latter is observable, the former is not
 
2. Second, focus on individuals, not groups. With an individual, you can ASK them the question to get your answer.
 
3. Feel free to present a hypothesis for the commentary of the individual you are interviewing. 
 
I realize that this rigorous methodology is more tedious than just blurting out the conclusion, and in fact I have been sloppy on plenty of occasions. Most recently, I accused a commentator of projecting his own values onto others. That was sloppy, but a more precise statement reflecting my actual observations would have been quite long.
 
I shall now apply this process to you. I offer the hypothesis that you demean liberals for several reasons. First, you disagree with them on a number of points, so to preserve your sense of self-worth, you conclude that they must be morally or intellectually deficient. Second, as a member of the conservative community, you maintain intense loyalty to that community and dutifully embrace its conventions, and denounce outsiders. 
 
So tell me, what do you think of that hypothesis? Please don't simply reject it -- explain precisely how your actual thinking differs from the hypothesis.
Tamara Wilhite Added Jan 7, 2018 - 2:12pm

Chris Crawford
 Liberal professors calling math, logic, reason, science and civility all racist while teaching students that their feelings determine what is socially permissible. Say you're offended, and others have to do what you demand, no matter how irrational or oppressive. 
 
Chris Crawford Added Jan 7, 2018 - 2:26pm
Again with the straw man arguments! Why is it that straw man arguments are so frequent among the conservative commentators on this blog? 
 
Let me make sure that you understand what I'm talking about. A straw man argument comprises an argument directed against an extreme caricature of the opposition. The argument does not address real issues; it dresses up a fake opponent (the straw man) and then shoots it to shreds. 
 
I don't know a single professor "calling math, logic, reason, science and civility all racist while teaching students that their feelings determine what is socially permissible." Not one. I very much doubt that you can name one and provide evidence that this professor has done what you say. However, I'll stipulate, for purposes of argument, that a handful of such professors exist. In any large group of people, you can always find a handful of people who meet almost any plausible criterion. Surely there exists a handful of professors pushing racism or other evil creeds. So let's just set that aside and talk about the real world, OK?
 
I am saddened that you refuse to respond to my earlier comment.
A. Jones Added Jan 7, 2018 - 8:24pm
All these claims about liberals offer absolutely nothing in the way of evidence . . .
 . . .Don't you folks care about rationalism?
 
Rationalism? You mean empiricism.
Bill H. Added Jan 7, 2018 - 10:38pm
 
Chris - to make a long story short - Tamara, like others out here pretty much just hate who they consider "Liberals". This is what they are taught to do by their media, which is to hate anyone who is "Liberal", "Progressive", or for that matter , a Democrat.
On the other hand "Liberal" media simply focuses on the person(s) at large who become the targets of the "Liberals", such as Trump and whoever else in his administration pushes his goals of hate, division, and environmental destruction.
Charles Burris Added Jan 7, 2018 - 10:51pm
Trotskyist communist turned CIA Ur-neocon James Burnham was the author of a somber and prophetic 1964 book entitled, Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism. I read it many years ago and found it sometimes insightful, often infuriating. In other words a select volume demonstrating the distinct contradictions and shortcomings of conservatism as a political ideology in the Age of Goldwater, Buckley, and Reagan.  
 
Former National Review book reviewer Chilton Williamson, Jr. observed:
 
"Burnham's thesis is straightforward. "Liberalism," he writes, "is the ideology of western suicide. When once this initial and final sentence is understood, everything about liberalism-the beliefs, emotions and values associated with it, the nature of its enchantment, its practical record, its future-falls into place. Implicitly, all of this book is merely an amplification of this sentence." 
 
"That is not to say, Burnham adds, that liberalism is "'the cause'" of the contraction and probable death of Western civilization. ("The cause or causes have something to do, I think, with the decay of religion and with an excess of material luxury; and, I suppose, with getting tired, and worn out, as all things temporal do.") Rather, "liberalism has come to be the typical verbal systematization of the process of Western contraction and withdrawal; .liberalism motivates and justifies the contraction, and reconciles us to it." 
 
"Liberalism's hold, furthermore, on public opinion and policy makes it extremely difficult for the Western nations to invent-and even to imagine-a strategy equal to the challenge to its existence by which the West is presently confronted."
Flying Junior Added Jan 8, 2018 - 4:29am
The saddest part of her nonsensical banalities is that it is a totally effective tool when speaking to other leftists.

 
Who is the subject of this sentence, please?
 
Although I have avoided this article for several days, it looks like the initial vapid post has stimulated some discussion.
Bill H. Added Jan 11, 2018 - 10:36pm
 
Looks like the "Author" Ellie simply decided to drop a hate rant and split.
This seems to be the case with many of the "here today, gone tomorrow" Extreme Right Wing "Authors" that have stopped by to take a shit and leave here on WB these days.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 12, 2018 - 10:17am
Interesting thread.  Chris is correct about the eventual merging of two parties into one.  This seems to be what is and has happened here in the US.
 
On another thread, I pointed out that everyone in leadership has good intentions.  This is true of the left and right.  As the author pointed out, liberals do not consider or accept the consequences of what they propose.  For example, they say give us control over all energy production or we will have a new Ice Age.  Then when that does not happen, the say give us control over all energy production or we will have global warming.  Then when that did not happen, they say give us control over all energy production so we can protect the world from climate change.  The issue was NEVER about climate, but control over energy.  Energy production is what makes our modern lifestyle possible.  Control over energy production controls all modern life and that is the goal.
 
Obama and Hitler wanted control over health care.  If the government or liberals can tell a citizen that they will pay for a procedure needed to live, then they have control over the lives of citizens.  The issue is not about health care, but control over the lives of citizens.  
 
 
Tamara Wilhite Added Jan 12, 2018 - 9:44pm
Their memeplex has built in defense mechanisms that validate the supposed superiority of the liberal.
 
You're smart, educated, tolerant, love, moral because you're liberal. They're all stupid, crazy, evil, ignorant, -phobic. Don't listen to the stupid crazy bad people so you stay smart and good.
You can censor them, too, because you're love and peace and everything they say is evil hate speech.
Isn't it wonderful when no one disagrees with your sacred narratives and is too afraid to ever share hate facts?
It is a sin, an attack on your sacred self, to tell you that you're wrong, because you're so good and holy.
And if they dare dissent, call them a blasphemer/bigot/hater and send the hate mob after the evil hater. Don't like someone?
Call them a nazi and know your friends will hurt them for you. If you call an innocent person a Nazi and they get hurt, well, it is still for the good of everyone since it will keep those bad evil haters in the closet. Isn't it wonderful when we're all in ideological lockstep?
Who's up next on the two minute hate to hurt today? I love being able to bully people in the name of love. And the people I hurt? I assume they'll get over it once they grovel and come over to our side.