Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.
You're mixing up some things here.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
But she's not defeated; she literally thinks she owned a bigot and her audience does to.
If it's all rhetorical, nothing is real, and words don't matter.
They're using rhetoric as a weapon. Their words don't matter to them. Words matter to everyone else.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.