Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a common tactic - and a very dishonest one.
If someone expresses an opinion that a liberal disagrees with - they will invariably post something along the lines that the holder of that opinion "hates" something.
Since hatred is universally held as an ugly and negative emotion - the only motive for the use of this word could be to shut down deate - instead of arguing something based on its merits.
The tactic is dishonest, mean-spirited, patheitc, fallacial, and almost exclusively used by liberals.
Why do liberals seem so afraid to engage in a discussion and instead use hyperbole and mischaracterization to frame the argument?
Because they don't actually think about what they are "debating". By labeling you a hater, they can dismiss what you say.
Dude, liberals are simply controlling and manipulative. They don't like dealing with anybody who doesn't agree with their doctrine or who thinks independently. Imagine how a cult would get upset with an independent thinker. Their goal is to turn their doctrine into conventional wisdom, because, well, they think they have it all figured out. They shut people down (or try) by calling them stupid, uneducated, racist, misogynist, fundies, hicks, rednecks, blue collar/working class (in a negative way), uncultured, gun nuts, white trash, or anything negative they can apply. Not only are they elitist, they seem to have a God complex. I'm not sure all Democrats or liberals are like this, but there is certainly a very visible, vocal representation that claims to be liberals that is exactly what I've just described.
However, even some of the top politicians behave similarly. Barack Obama with his "clinging to guns and religion" comment, Joe Biden with his embarrasment and need to say defensively that nobody in his family has ever worked in a factory, and Dem/liberal former US Rep. Dennis Moore calling a veteran/extreme makeover home edition winner - who lost his leg fighting for our country - "white trash".
This is a common tactic - and a very dishonest one.
If someone expresses an opinion that a liberal disagrees with - they will invariably post something along the lines that the holder of that opinion "hates" something.
Since hatred is universally held as an ugly and negative emotion - the only motive for the use of this word could be to shut down deate - instead of arguing something based on its merits.
The tactic is dishonest, mean-spirited, patheitc, fallacial, and almost exclusively used by liberals.
Why do liberals seem so afraid to engage in a discussion and instead use hyperbole and mischaracterization to frame the argument?
I think the liberals almost have to do it. It lies at the core of the ideology. It's like asking why fundamentalist Christians are such bigots about homosexuality. The truth is that they aren't really bigots since their religion itself is against homosexuality. They don't have the choice but to be against homosexuality as their Bible orders them to do it.
It is a core tenet of modern liberalism that society is divided along lines of race, gender, orientation, etc. So I don't think they use hate as a tactic, they use it because that really is their worldview. They are literally unable to see how someone can be against affirmative action without hating black people. They cannot conceive of any reason to be against society paying for birth control unless you hate women.
So it isn't a debate tactic, it's really how they think.
And because it's how they think, it's how they believe we think too. So if a conservative talks about a point of view that could be construed as prejudice, then that is their automatic go-to position for why the conservative espouses the view.
I think the prime evidence for my theory on this is the abortion debate. If you believe that human life begins at conception, and you believe that intentionally ending human life is wrong, then it is entirely consistent to believe that abortion is wrong. And yet the average liberal absolutely insists that pro life people want to control womens' bodies. They could perhaps win the debate if they could demonstrate that human life does not begin at conception, but don't do that because their worldview doesn't even allow for that to be the basis of the debate. To them, you cannot be pro life unless you want to control women's bodies. Nobody would say you want to control my hands if you want to stop me from using them to hold a gun and shoot someone with it. But that is exactly what liberals do when they accuse pro life people of wanting to control women's bodies.
So, like I said, I don't see the hate thing as being a deliberate debate tactic that liberals use, I see it as being a function of their view of the world, which simply does not allow for a disagreement with their policies that isn't based on hate.
This is a common tactic - and a very dishonest one.
If someone expresses an opinion that a liberal disagrees with - they will invariably post something along the lines that the holder of that opinion "hates" something.
Since hatred is universally held as an ugly and negative emotion - the only motive for the use of this word could be to shut down deate - instead of arguing something based on its merits.
The tactic is dishonest, mean-spirited, patheitc, fallacial, and almost exclusively used by liberals.
Why do liberals seem so afraid to engage in a discussion and instead use hyperbole and mischaracterization to frame the argument?
I think the liberals almost have to do it. It lies at the core of the ideology. It's like asking why fundamentalist Christians are such bigots about homosexuality. The truth is that they aren't really bigots since their religion itself is against homosexuality. They don't have the choice but to be against homosexuality as their Bible orders them to do it.
It is a core tenet of modern liberalism that society is divided along lines of race, gender, orientation, etc. So I don't think they use hate as a tactic, they use it because that really is their worldview. They are literally unable to see how someone can be against affirmative action without hating black people. They cannot conceive of any reason to be against society paying for birth control unless you hate women.
So it isn't a debate tactic, it's really how they think.
And because it's how they think, it's how they believe we think too. So if a conservative talks about a point of view that could be construed as prejudice, then that is their automatic go-to position for why the conservative espouses the view.
I think the prime evidence for my theory on this is the abortion debate. If you believe that human life begins at conception, and you believe that intentionally ending human life is wrong, then it is entirely consistent to believe that abortion is wrong. And yet the average liberal absolutely insists that pro life people want to control womens' bodies. They could perhaps win the debate if they could demonstrate that human life does not begin at conception, but don't do that because their worldview doesn't even allow for that to be the basis of the debate. To them, you cannot be pro life unless you want to control women's bodies. Nobody would say you want to control my hands if you want to stop me from using them to hold a gun and shoot someone with it. But that is exactly what liberals do when they accuse pro life people of wanting to control women's bodies.
So, like I said, I don't see the hate thing as being a deliberate debate tactic that liberals use, I see it as being a function of their view of the world, which simply does not allow for a disagreement with their policies that isn't based on hate.
Yes, you are totally correct. Political Correctness is joined at the hip to all of the above thought processes. No give and take or discussion, one view is correct, all the other ideas are BAD. Our
media just keeps pointing us in the 'forward' direction.
This is a common tactic - and a very dishonest one.
If someone expresses an opinion that a liberal disagrees with - they will invariably post something along the lines that the holder of that opinion "hates" something.
Since hatred is universally held as an ugly and negative emotion - the only motive for the use of this word could be to shut down deate - instead of arguing something based on its merits.
The tactic is dishonest, mean-spirited, patheitc, fallacial, and almost exclusively used by liberals.
Why do liberals seem so afraid to engage in a discussion and instead use hyperbole and mischaracterization to frame the argument?
They also shut down speakers on campus by creating a scene and throwing pies.
It's a common Marxist tactic when you are losing a debate. You either change the subject of the debate before you are proven wrong or you bring out the Marxist name-calling ie: "Racist", "Hate", "Sexist". They have a whole host of terms to use to "classify" people and their opinions and fend off humiliation. I would just respond by name calling them back "Marxist" or "Bolshevik" or something similar. Or better yet continue on with the discussion debate and bring the full weight of your evidence to prove them wrong and humiliate them. This makes them even more angry.
So it isn't a debate tactic, it's really how they think.
And because it's how they think, it's how they believe we think too. So if a conservative talks about a point of view that could be construed as prejudice, then that is their automatic go-to position for why the conservative espouses the view.
That sounds very narcissistic and paranoid. It's always about them, no one can have a differing opinion based on principle or facts, it's just about others trying to "get them". So they can't even hear the debate. It's not just conservatives, but anyone that shares any opinion that a conservative might also hold, including moderate democrats or libertarians, they are all labeled as haters.
Wait, is this like the right-wingers who claim that when someone laughs at Sarah Palin, they are misogynists? Or when someone criticizes Israel, they are anti-Semites? Good thing right-wingers never play this game.
It's a common Marxist tactic when you are losing a debate. You either change the subject of the debate before you are proven wrong or you bring out the Marxist name-calling ie: "Racist", "Hate", "Sexist". They have a whole host of terms to use to "classify" people and their opinions and fend off humiliation. I would just respond by name calling them back "Marxist" or "Bolshevik" or something similar. Or better yet continue on with the discussion debate and bring the full weight of your evidence to prove them wrong and humiliate them. This makes them even more angry.
I have noticed this also - many liberals seem to be perpetually angry.
That would suck to go through life in such a state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not just conservatives, but anyone that shares any opinion that a conservative might also hold, including moderate democrats or libertarians, they are all labeled as haters.
