Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) states are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) states also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy is mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism, racism stems from ignorance
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messengers have obvious reasons for reasoning their way to falsehood: their entire multi-racial project is imperiled if they accept the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the relevant statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, e.g. 'If the argument about communism being the only real Left is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if the argument that Bible Belt dysfunctionality says something about Whites but not blacks is true, why is it that only White Leftists and melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism, racism stems from ignorance
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messengers have obvious reasons for reasoning their way to falsehood: their entire multi-racial project is imperiled if they accept the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the relevant statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, e.g. 'If the argument about communism being the only real Left is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if the argument that Bible Belt dysfunctionality says something about Whites but not blacks is true, why is it that only White Leftists and melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism, racism stems from ignorance
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messengers have obvious reasons for reasoning their way to falsehood: their entire multi-racial project is imperiled if they accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the relevant statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, e.g. 'If the argument about communism being the only real Left is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if the argument that Bible Belt dysfunctionality says something about Whites but not blacks is true, why is it that only White Leftists and melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messengers have obvious reasons for reasoning their way to falsehood: their entire multi-racial project is imperiled if they accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the relevant statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, e.g. 'If the argument about communism being the only real Left is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if the argument that Bible Belt dysfunctionality says something about Whites but not blacks is true, why is it that only White Leftists and melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the liberal economics of the likes of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for said companies. They then proceeded to defend the economics of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
But that's around about where it ends. As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for big pharma. They then proceeded to defend the economics of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for big pharma. They then proceeded to defend the economics of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates the 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for big pharma. They then proceeded to defend the economics of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at the statistics and the like.
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.
Being university educated inculcates the 'attack the message, not the messenger' even harder than liberalism does. Nevertheless, I still see it as erroneous.
There is a certain truth to it in the sense that even if some disabled Antifa trans-Jewlatto were to say '1 + 1 = 2', it remains as true as if anyone else said it.
As ideas become more interpretative, the messenger becomes more relevant.
Example 1: 'Leftists are always socialists or communists, and anti-capitalist'.
This is obviously a false statement. These people idolized 'big pharma' companies like Pfizer to the extent that they developed a trend of getting vaccine manufacturing company names tattooed on their injection sites, effectively becoming walking advertisements for big pharma. They then proceeded to defend the economics of Smith and Friedman against the Trump tariffs.
Generally, the key to understanding it is that the Left is increasingly reactive: if they sense their perceived enemies as taking a stance, they can't stomach holding the same stance, because they feel that this means that they've crossed the aisle to become 'Nazis' and the like. Consequently, when they see terms that suggest a distancing of their enemies from capitalism (e.g. 'Woke Capitalism'), they feel compelled to defend it.
The people who usually utter this are always either Far- to Extreme- Left (I once recall as a university student hearing a young man say: 'If you aren't a communist, you aren't really Left-Wing', implying that 'Left versus Right' is reducible to 'communist versus absolutely everything else') or Cold Warrior types who simply misattribute liberalism's myriad failings to Marxism. Both sides then reinforce each other's false beliefs: the Cold Warriors look at the Antifa types as continuers of Soviet-style Bolshevism whilst Antifa types see the Cold Warriors as the fascists they've opposed since the Weimar. Nobody else believes it. In short, the view can be discarded because the psychological mechanisms of its messengers are easy to infer.
Example 2: Leftist views of the 'Bible Belt' (See the following video: https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ATBlyYnYZ/biggest-selfown-of-all-time-/c)
Left-Wing nut-jobs will always go on and on about the statistics of the 'Bible Belt' and how said statistics supposedly confirm their worldview regarding White people.
However, this relies on a hidden false premise, namely, that the Bible Belt is actually White to begin with. As the video's last slide shows, the Bible Belt is, amusingly, also the blackest part of America, containing many black-majority areas.
Why blame MAGA-supporting Whites for a problem that almost certainly has significant contribution from Democrat-voting blacks?
It's simply the product of motivated reasoning: Left-Wing nut-jobs simply lack any motive to see black dysfunction in anything at all, and plenty of motive for misattributing said dysfunction to Whites. Any impartial observer would swiftly see that the correlation between the various maps he brings up and the map inserted at the end is far stronger than any correlation between them and Republican or MAGA support. Take the literacy map: observe that the most literate (most light blue) areas are also mostly Republican - he, unsurprisingly, is oblivious to that, focusing solely on the most illiterate (most dark red) areas also mostly being Republican - and thus any attempt to associate Republican support with illiteracy will always be mired in falsehood.
Again, the messenger's errors are easily exposed. Furthermore, I think that it is almost certain that this smug melon-ated muttoid is simply regurgitating nonsense that came from White Leftists and others. That, of course, is another reason he shouldn't be taken seriously: he doesn't exactly look the type to even be capable of looking through his own arguments for potential false premises.
Example 3: Ignorance leads to racism
This is easily refuted by the observation that they will freely admit that the most 'racist' area of the United States is the 'Bible Belt', but they must too admit that it is also the blackest area.
Here, Leftists actually have the truth standing on its head: closer proximity to blacks actually increases White racism (only a few Leftists like Andrew Yang are really cognizant of this), whereas they simply invert it into something false; namely, that closer proximity to blacks decreases White racism.
Of course, the messenger has obvious reasons for reasoning his way to falsehood: his entire multi-racial project is imperiled if he accepts the reality. Ergo, the intelligent thinker already senses that something is wrong before he even looks at
In conclusion, the messenger absolutely matters. Whilst you cannot with the utmost certainty dismiss a claim based on its bearer, you can, in all probability, still safely use the messenger as a premise against accepting it, i.e. 'If X is true, why is it that only Far- to Extreme-Leftists seem to believe in it; if Y is true, why is it that only melon-ated muttoids whose social media accounts are full of anti-White vitriol seem to believe in it?'.
Never have I once found a claim from such people where I have decided to look into said claim to actually be correct, forcing me, as an intellectually honest person rather than a mere sophist, to reassess my own position.