Friday, July 19, 2024

We Need a Leftist Instruction Manual for Acceptable Dissent

One of the greatest fears for America First patriots with light melanin content is to get tagged with a smut label by some prominent leftist.

The problem for light melanins is the goal posts of acceptable ways to dissent always seem to be shifting, and there is no reliable way to know what the left considers legitimate disagreement and constructive dialogue.

Think about this for a moment. If you happen to have a light melanin skin tone and support America First policies, would you feel comfortable disagreeing with a leftist on matters related to race, especially in a public setting? From a leftist’ perspective, is there any acceptable way to publicly debate the policies of reparations, affirmative action, DEI or Critical Race Theory without consequence?

If a light melanin MAGA supporter encounters a dark melanin leftist, how quickly do you think the latter would accuse the former of being a racist if any of the subjects in the previous paragraph were raised?

Are we allowed to disagree, and if so, how should we present our case so we can avoid the degrading labels? Before we engage the left any further, I’d like woke radicals to outline exactly how we can disagree on race, sex, gender and climate change and a myriad of other subjects without the accompanying personal insults.

Crime Wouldn’t make the List

After his conviction in the rigged Stormy Daniels hush money case, President Trump claimed that violent crime was at an “all-time high.”

The woke media was quick to pounce. A search for, “Trump says violent crime is up in New York” yielded nine first page search results. All of them disputed Trump’s claim that “You have violent crime all over this city at levels that nobody’s ever seen before.” Several outlets claim the assertion itself is racist.

Leftist media bellows that crime rates were much higher in the early 1990s, you know, just before Rudy Guliani became mayor and cleaned the place up. Now, Guliani is broke and faces jail time because he raised questions about the rigged election.

But I digress…

In all likelihood, when Trumps said, “…at levels we’ve never seen before,” he was probably referring to statistics from the past decade to present. Typically, people have a tendency to see history beyond 10 years as largely irrelevant when it relates to statistical trends. For example, with all the advances in safety technology, are auto death statistics from the 1990s relevant to 2024? If we examine the period from 2013 to 2023, murders in New York did rise substantially from 333 to 386 per year. That’s a 16% increase.

Even more likely, he may have been referencing the timeline from when he took office in 2017 to 2023. If we examine that period, murders rose from 290 to 386 per year, which is an alarming 33% increase.

However, from the media’s perspective, mentioning the increase in violent crime in New York has “racist undertones.”

My question is this: How should Trump have raised the legitimate issue of increases in crime in major metropolitan areas in a way that would allow him to avoid the suggestion of “racist undertones”?

Illegal Immigration Doesn’t Make the List Either

Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue that deserves a healthy debate. However, leftists frame the discussion as good versus evil. You are either compassionate and sensitive to the plight of poor, pitiful illegal aliens simply looking for a better life, or you are a racist.

The Southern Poverty Law Center perceives the effort to control the border this way:

The organized anti-immigrant movement in the U.S. has long supported draconian immigration-enforcement measures and has worked to stall legislative relief for immigrants and their families and to spread bigoted messages.

This movement’s chief architect was John Tanton, a Michigan-based ophthalmologist, white nationalist and eugenics advocate whose tenacity set in motion a network of groups devoted to pushing nativist policies and ideas. Memos donated by Tanton to the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan evidence that his anti-immigrant sentiment was steeped in racism, eugenics and fears of the United States losing its white hegemony.

When the debate is framed in such an adversarial context, presenting legitimate evidence of the scourge of illegal immigration loses its legitimacy. You’re not allowed to discuss the horrific crime of Raul Benitez Santana, who killed Washington State Trooper Christopher Gadd by crashing into his vehicle, even though Santana was driving on a suspended license.

Illegal alien destruction of natural resources, their burden on the healthcare system, their burden on our educational system and their burden on federal state and local budgets cannot be debated in a spirit of respect and consideration when any argument that contradicts the left’s sanctimonious narrative is immediately slapped with an offensive label.

For the love of God, these people even believe immigration law itself is racist.

A Leftist Instruction Manual for Acceptable Disagreement

The examples I provide illustrate the difficulty in engaging the left in any sort of meaningful dialogue when any position that runs contrary to their own gets slapped with a smut label. Since the strategy has proven to be so successful, its migrated to virtually every area of leftist dogma and policy.

Which brings us back to the original question: What forms of dissent do leftists find acceptable and agreeable, and how should these arguments be presented so the character of the originator of the argument is not impugned? If someone opposes transgender women participating in women’s sports, for example, how should the argument be framed so the leftist focuses on the issue rather than launching into an ad hominem attack that labels their opponent as transphobic?

We need an instruction manual that clarifies how we should approach these arguments in a manner that doesn’t offend the left but compels them to respond constructively. The next time you encounter a leftist over a contentious issue, ask them how they would prefer you present your argument in a non-offensive manner.

Good luck, because as we know, there is no acceptable way to oppose a leftist in a search for consensus since they are authoritarians, and the only acceptable view is one that aligns with their own.

Otherwise, they’ll hang a smut label on you, and if that doesn’t work, you may find yourself in a courtroom facing 34 felony counts for a bookkeeping entry error.