“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”
― Richard Dawkins
Leftists often enjoy claiming to be more scientifically-minded than their critical conservative counterparts. They get their kicks from touting articles and “educational” videos infested with cultural marxism and pop culture references as inherently true. They envelop themselves and each other in a bubble of unreality to preserve their dogmatic, preconceived beliefs. These beliefs have been crammed down their throat for decades thanks to largely government-monopolized education.
When liberals’ beliefs are challenged, the cognitive, thinking function of their minds effectively shuts down. They become agitated and aggressive when confronted with information that goes against the grain. They subconsciously fear that their safe bubbles will be popped. Their emotional defenses which protected them during childhood resurface quicker than a blink. They may result to screaming insults or throwing tantrums, or ignoring their “aggressors” and giving them the cold shoulder, indicating they feel they are above acknowledging such notions as “being utterly fucking wrong” about their assertions or beliefs.
Nonetheless, the left jumps at the chance to indulge in “science” – so long as it furthers their agenda and confirms their worldview. Take, for example, the topic of global warming. Or climate change. Or whatever sounds more frightening.
Progressives take the weather very seriously. They tell horrifying tales of rising tides and wrecked animal homes. Their predictions often imply worldwide catastrophe. Leftists insist that pouring millions of dollars in stolen tax money on the problem (and on every problem for that matter) will make it go away, a notion bureaucrats and politicians are all too happy to agree with. But, there do exist some compelling arguments that may or may not disprove both the human-created climate change epidemic and the assertion that more government is necessary to cull its effects. Are these arguments addressed and countered honestly with superior reason and evidence?
If liberals’ assertion that “consensus” within the “scientific community” equates to climate change’s truthfulness, then why do they refuse to publicly debate it? Why the need to smear names and images instead of just addressing the arguments? For instance, Stefan Molyneux’s discussion with Lord Christopher Monckton about human impact on climate change drew the ire of many a hysterical global warming worrier. Among the criticism, one potholer54 responded with a video which admittedly seems to intelligently address several of the claims (although most of their arguments rely on “muh consensus”). However, it disingenuously paints the picture that Molyneux only seeks to confirm his preconceived beliefs based on experts he’s spoken with in the past. This is a manipulative tactic to cherry-pick parts of older videos to turn people away from Stefan. It is also dishonest because it completely ignores the fact that Molyneux has, on multiple occasions, stated that his mind has changed over time as new information and arguments are brought to light. Nevertheless, this is how the left paints people who give attention to information that does not fit the narrative.
Another controversial topic, crucial and necessary to open, public dialogue, yet is often shouted down and will get one run out of polite society, is the correlation between race and intelligence in humans. There has been a heated debate regarding the implications of this topic since the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994, written by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein. In this book, they present study after study proving that genetics plays no small part in IQ between races and even genders. It shows real statistics based on real science. However, because it did and still does not support lefty ideals, those who reference it are sneered at and called a racist. They are viewed as nothing more than contrarian agitators of anti-science.
The most common tactic the liberally-minded use to “win” debates is to shut down the opposition by targeting their character rather than the accuracy and truthfulness of their arguments. They hold no principles and thus turn on their beloved “science” as soon as they determine it to be detrimental to their agenda. They assign special scrutiny to scientific findings that venture off the left’s path of acquiring as much power as possible.
Navigating the emotional quagmire of a leftist’s indoctrinated mind can be a daunting task, which is why few dare to try. These people are very difficult, if not downright impossible, to have an honest conversation with about anything that does not fit their narratives. They have no desire for truth – they only want to shut down opposition to their narrow, short-sighted worldview. They want the safety of coddling with the respect of independent thinking, but they can’t possibly have both.
Science is defined as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.” Thus, the left is not pro-science as they often claim, since they do not apply such standards as the scientific method to their claims such as “diversity is our strength,” “everyone is inherently equal,” “there are 538,945 genders and counting,” and “climate change deniers are stupid meanies who just hate the environment!”
In this day and age of information overload, it can be easy to overlook the details and counterarguments of “science” and assume that the narrative everyone is going along with is correct. But doing so leads to ignorance of reality, and inevitably, being taken advantage of by snake oil salesmen and politicians alike.
“The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.”
― Christopher Hitchens
(Featured image from Breitbart)