Why do liberals always resort to name calling?

[jamesbond]

Studies have shown that once liberals find out that you don't agree with them, they resort to name calling. For example, if you say, "I think marriage should be between a man and a woman" they immediately say things like, "what kind of a homophobe are you?" Then they might say, "why do you hate gay people?"

Liberals are very defensive and uptight, which is a sign of neurosis. They are very intolerant of people who disagree with them. Winston has talked about this, he said when he is talking to a liberal and the liberal does not agree with him, the liberal get's very angry and eventually want's nothing to do with Winston.

The angry outbursts and child like behavior of liberals is a sign that they have not grown up yet. Just look at feminists. Feminists are liberals and look how angry and child like they become when someone disagrees with them.

Liberalism and feminism go hand in hand. Don't disagree with a liberal or a feminist, or they will resort to calling you names. The biggest bullies in the world are liberals and feminists.

[PeterAndrewNolan]

Because they do not have any arguments. The tactic is called dissimulation. You can read about it here.

http://www.mensbusinessassociation.com/ ... fault.aspx

[fschmidt]

Of course I agree with jamesbond and PeterAndrewNolan. But here is something interesting. I have recently become interested in religion and all the major general religious forums are run by liberals. Not only do liberals resort to name calling, but they don't hesitate to ban anyone who calls them on their behavior. This means that on all the major general religious forums, liberals censor conservative religious views. Members of conservative religions tend to stick to their own forums. This is outrageous and I am thinking of starting a general religious forum that has true free speech but prohibits personal insults. Liberals could never survive in such an environment.

[Jester]

I have noticed that liberals are more interested in beating you down than in making an intellectual point.

If you defeat one of their arguments, they attack from an entirely different direction, shamelessly. It could be name-calling, or it could be some different line of reasoning.

As long as they tear you down, they've won.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Name-calling is a means to try to end a debate when they are losing. It is formally called resorting to the fallacy of ad hominum.

The best defense is an offense. When they call you sexist, call them racist and a threat to all that is good in America. The more you exaggerate, the better.

[Winston]

This is so true. Liberals won't be friends with you if you don't agree with their politically correct views that were never part of human history. But conservatives will still be friends with you.

So how come the media portrays liberals as more tolerant? Why do they have a liberal bias?

[jamesbond]

Here is a funny video by Terrence Popp explaining how someone becomes a liberal.

[Ghost]

.

[w.p.o.]

Name calling and personal attacks is what liberals do when they get stumped in an argument (which is all the time). Nothing pi$$es off a liberal more than bringing evidence and facts. They have a lousy arsenal. Name call, personal attack and false accusations is all they can do.

[cdnFA]

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say.
We love diversity as long as you agree with us.

Gotta love them PC crowd.

That being said, sometimes calling someone an idiot is the only rational response. I am not going to waste time explaining why the idea that the Amish control the world economic system is wrong. In the past I'd argue just about anything. Get right into it.
I remember this one time at Band Camp, I mean at university, there was this nickel deposit going up in Labrador. This communist chick [and I don't mean, she was slightly to the left of me therefore she is a commie, but an actual communist] was derping on about how it should go to the workers. Never mind that the mine wasn't even developed at that point so there were no actual workers yet and the idea that Inco should set up a mine, hire a bunch of people and give it to them was beyond retarded. The whole idea just has a whole wack load of general problems.
I could have gone into it and dismantled the fail step by step but why.
1: She would have just responded which would increase the annoyance factor
2: People almost never change their firmly held views so it would be a waste of time.
I just gave a mental facepalm and walked away.

[cdnFA]

Studies have shown that once liberals find out that you don't agree with them, they resort to name calling. For example, if you say, "I think marriage should be between a man and a woman" they immediately say things like, "what kind of a homophobe are you?" Then they might say, "why do you hate gay people?"

.

It could be name calling, or it could be a legitimate question.
The overlap between being opposed to gay marriage and hating or being disgusted by gay people is pretty strong.
Such a question frames the other person's position pretty quickly. If the guy doesn't like the gays or thinks yes homo is in some way wrong, there is really no point continuing the conversation. At the very least, the conversation should not me about marriage but about the gays. Fundamentals.

Lot of people around here are disgusted by gays after all.

Of course we should not have gay marriage. Gay youth kill themselves at much higher rates than the rest and if gay marriage was allowed they would feel less ostracised and be less likely to kill themselves which would lead to overpopulation and global warming which is bad. Oh wait, global warming isn't real. ---Jon Lajoie

Likewise some people think the BLM is bull because they just don't like blacks. Others like myself see deeper issues with it.
Same situation.

The bigger problem with the SJW crowd isn't that they ask or even assume that anyone opposed to gay marriage must hate the gays but rather that they insist on it. In their mind not only does anyone who disagrees with gay marriage hate gays but that regardless of what you say, it is nearly impossible to convince them otherwise of sucking some guy off in front of them and even then. We are talking about a crowd that will insist you are racist towards blacks regardless of how many black friends you have or even if you are married to a black girl.



If you are racist and you have actual black friends, you are doing it wrong.

[w.p.o.]

This is so true. Liberals won't be friends with you if you don't agree with their politically correct views that were never part of human history. But conservatives will still be friends with you.

So how come the media portrays liberals as more tolerant? Why do they have a liberal bias?

Have you seen the Wayne Allen Root interview? There's several of them on youtube. He graduated from Columbia university in 1983 (the same school and year obama allegedly graduated). He says that if you found yourself in an argument with obama, and he didn't agree with you (regardless how true your statements were), he would never speak to you again. As far as obama was concerned, you were an enemy from that time on. The guy definitely had a mental disorder - which goes beyond just liberalism. Normal people, after an argument, would speak to each other again minutes later. Obama? Try to speak to him in the parking lot months after the fact and he'd turn his back on you then walk away. All over a stupid argument that wasn't even relevant (sports, automobiles, weather, etc).

As seen in these interviews, you'll also hear from the man himself that he never saw obama on campus. He also says that everyone he knew on campus never met or saw obama on campus either. In another interview (I'm having trouble finding again), he states that the professor who taught political science for 40+ years NEVER had anyone in his class by the name "barak obama" or barry soetoro."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngKBAXhj36Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAaVMkt5oiI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDbnuKHcqio

[Zambales]

Authoritarian frauds hiding behind a name.

And the name calling? Wouldn't be so bad if there was a logical explanation behind it, but there usually never is.

I was branded a racist only the other day for indicating that Turkish Airlines had a poor safety record. WTF? I don't think these people even know what a racist is, which is ignorance in itself. Notice the irony?

[Winston]

In this 1966 film by the John Birch Society called "Anarchy USA" it is revealed that the civil rights movement in the USA was organized by the communist party. Interviews with some members of the civil rights movement show them admitting to this too. Some of them blew the whistle and quit campaigning for civil rights. It's also revealed that these civil rights leaders were given a Communist handbook that taught them that to win arguments, they must use denigrating insults and labels on their opponents such as "racist, bigot, misogynist" etc. In other words, use name calling to shame your opponents if they oppose liberalism.

[Nailer]

Because their true objective is elimination of the white race, which is hard to argue for, even to non-whites. So it has to be concealed in layers of imaginary causes, and when those are pierced name-calling and emotional conditioning is all that remains.