An analysis for those easily impressed by what on the surface seems like self-reflection.
British leftist Jonathan Pie goes mad explaining how Hillary Clinton losing is the left’s own fault, how nothing is achieved by braindead name-calling and insults of opponents, and how Hillary Clinton has been a useless candidate that could only lose.
Seems like he gets it. Certainly he is correct when taking the above at face value.
But he should have stopped there, where his true assumptions and arrogance weren’t yet so obvious.
Because, as he explains that the left ought to step away from the bile, hatred, insults and dismissals of their opponents as being no more than human waste, he does one thing that clearly shows that, in fact, he still does not really get it.
Pie sees success for the left, easy success as a matter of fact, in simply talking to the left’s opponents and in debating them in a tolerant, civil manner. While Pie is calling for different tactics, he still clearly takes the default position that the left is correct. That it would be simple to debate his opponents into agreement. That simply being nice is all it takes.
In short, Jonathan Pie demands a different strategy from the left, but has already made his mind up about how correct the left is, and how wrong their opponents are. His plan, therefore, is to go into a debate not with an open mind, but with his dogmas and feelings of superiority firmly in place. He wants to talk to them as if they were children that are merely rebelling against an obvious truth because they are being shouted at by impatient parents.
The question thus becomes: why should his opponents bother wasting their time and debate the likes of him? And what is Jonathan Pie’s Plan B if his calm, civil arguments, which he thinks are correct by default, aren’t accepted by his opponents?
Could it be that just like the left simply assumed Clinton’s victory was set in stone before the results came in, Jonathan Pie is making the exact same mistake, by simply assuming victory if only the strategy changes from one of antagonism to one of civility?
And what if they don’t? Then he gave it the old college try, and to the torches and pitchforks it is?
The problem with the left is the same it always was: the narcissistic assumption of their own righteousness, correctness and moral superiority.
But we are not supposed to see the left’s inherent moral and logical contradictions in the values they espouse or reject, depending merely on which group holds them. We are not supposed to see the hilarious hypocrisy in their allegedly deeply felt convictions about tolerance and diversity as they all but lynch those who disagree with their politics. We are not supposed to see the actual results of their policies whenever they are in charge (apparently we gravitate toward right-wing “populists” because we just can’t see how happy and good and plentiful and cuddly their leftwing-governed societies really are).
The women that were raped in Hamburg, Germany, for instance, would not have been raped by immigrants if only there had been much more civil debate, right? And countless people would not have been run over by a truck in Nice if only we skipped with the insults between left and right. Just two examples, of course, of specific policy results (the leftist policies of mass immigration, in combination with multiculturalism, “humanitarian” warfare, and the attractiveness of the welfare state to third world peoples), rather than verbal ideological disagreements. When an American right-winger tells Jonathan Pie that he voted for Trump because Trump wants to prevent a “Nice” in his own country, Pie will tell him why “Nice” wasn’t so bad (or that it was their own fault) and there is no reason not to vote for an open borders leftist. And the right-winger will then magically agree, because that is what a progressive view of the world is: magic.
“Ah,” i hear, “but that’s the racist part. Because white nationals can do these kinds of horrible evil things just as well.” True. Of course the logic comes down to: “You could get cancer in the bones, so why try to prevent cancer in the brain?” Or “why try to prevent some crime, when it is impossible to prevent all crime?” Can’t very well prevent idiots from here doing horrible things. So why stop importing more idiots from there, regardless of the fact that they don’t particularly like our social values all that much? Equality for rapists and mass murderers, you xenophobe.
To summarize: we are not supposed to see that with many of the left, emotion-based arguments are a substitute for reason, and how one feels about something is held as more important than conforming to the rules of reality. Using your heart is more important than using your brain (damn the consequences), and how something ought to be in a perfect world is more important than how something actually is in the real world. Feelings over fact. All of this would be perfectly fine, if it only came at their own expense. But it doesn’t.
And we are not supposed to see that we are supposed to give up any and all economic, social and cultural rights and liberties (even those that progressives once supposedly championed, like freedom of speech) we may have in order for the snowflakes of society not to feel bad about themselves, and to accept a quasi-totalitarian nanny state that will enforce this Brave New World with psychological, legal and if necessary physical oppression. And damn it, the first step toward that means that America needs to start giving up its guns. Because we don’t want anyone to get any funny ideas about resisting this quite obvious Utopia.
Jonathan Pie, when you read between the lines, does not really want debate. What he wants is to get confirmation of his own ideological dogmas from his opponents, by using less vitriolic means. He’s not going to get it, of course, and it boggles the mind that despite everything he still thinks he will. Well, that’s why they’re dogmas. It is impossible to see anyone conceivably disagreeing with them.
This time he desperately, yet smartly, aims his obscenities at his leftist comrades. Next time, as he faces his failures in debate, where do you think his obscenities will go?