Bad assumption. If you read what they say, you will know better
Well I understood it was the wrong assumption. I've got no idea what their standards are.
Its beside the point. Totally irrelevant.
Only if the quote is also irrelevant.
Just watch Tucker Carlson, it's full of "click bait" material. Or listen to Trump speak, full of "click bait"
I don't watch Tucker Carlson. I don't intend to start for the purpose of hoping to find an example for you.
I didn't realize that you meant politicians themselves in your critique of political discourse. I'm pretty sure we can say the same of your politicians.
Gun nuts.
border control, immigration policy,
Xenophobic, bigoted, racist.
The left doesn't really care or talk about unions here anymore. They are effectively dead....unless they are for public servants.
Too general.
funding for infrastructure,
Bipartisan issue.
trade, international relations,
Too general...and to be honest, our population knows almost nothing about these things.
anti discrimination policies,
Bigoted, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.
Not a word the left can define.
Not a word the left can consistently define.
What about them?
This, like most of the left's old economic positions, died with the old left and the birth of identity politics.
The vast majority of the left cannot hold a conversation on economics beyond expressing support for socialism and distaste for capitalism. They don't actually understand either of those words.
lots of topics which can be discussed in good faith by both sides.
By good faith I mean "without resorting to off topic tangents, personal attacks, or moral claims".
That's a pretty low bar but I'd settle for that. Look above at the issues that I responded with some sort of character attack or moral claim....that's the extent of debate on the left. Most people who are pushed away from character attacks and moral claims either fall silent or try to insinuate them. Another popular option is simply claiming an issue is a non-issue....then refuse to describe a threshold for when an issue is worth discussing. Consider the border crisis....non issue. If you ask what a crisis would be in their mind? Silent. I've also seen this tactic in reverse....where any problem is a problem that demands the highest priority. In fact, a subject of criticism literally cannot escape criticism even if it meets every expectation and requirement.
There are perhaps issues in health care we could discuss....but I don't hear the left bring them up. They only get framed as social issues (eg. racial equity in healthcare)....and these don't come up often or for long. I suspect it's because nobody can actually describe what racial equity in healthcare is or perhaps they aren't willing to demonize doctors as racists for fear of what happened to the police. Regardless, it becomes a social issue again...and any opposition is merely attacked as racist.
This death of open debate and free speech was most noticeable in the sudden appearance of cancel culture and counter protesting.
Counter culture is a threat of extra judicial punishment (usually the loss of a job or future opportunity) for expressing an opposing opinion. Very authoritarian and anti-debate. It's literally a tactic to silence debate. Counter protesting is typically an excuse to go out and physically harm or threaten with violence anyone who expresses an opposing view in the relative safety of a crowd. Literal tactic of nazis and dictators and totalitarian groups worldwide. Can't debate? Hit them until they are silent.
These were the obvious signs debate was nearly dead on the left. This had been progressing in that direction for at least decade prior. It's hard to even find a serious debate on the left these days but there's no lack of willing debaters on the right. I can recall about a 5 minute debate where a grad student and CRT scholar tried to defend its validity on Twitch against a biologist. In a word....short.
There's a lack of willing debaters on the left....and this is by design. The intellectual roots of the modern left lie in the ideas of intellectuals who failed in the past under the light of debate. Marx knew embarrassingly little about economics and history.....and couldn't defend his novel ideas against minor inquiries. Postmodern philosophers were hacks grasping at straws to raise a new valid point. They did so...but it's a moot point in debate. We can argue definitions all day....but must agree on one to begin a discussion. You can argue against an objective truth but if you succeed, you're done discussing truth and there's no point to debate.
The other intellectual roots of the new left are frankly, more embarrassing than those two. I'm not going to waste more time pointing out that anti-racism in hiring for example is the same concept as racial discrimination in hiring....the author of this idea admits as much himself. The few people I have pointed this out to in the recent past haven't really even denied it.
What's to debate? For now, sadly, it seems nothing except where and when the big fight begins.
www.truppglobal.com
