What I learned as a liberal talking head on Fox.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

If only more liberals were this open-minded: What I learned as a liberal talking head on Fox.

Read it all. Her essay gives me hope. The key quote:

But if I want that viewpoint – and those who share it – to get more powerful, so that we can fix these systemic problems once and for all, then demonizing people who disagree with me won’t help. In fact, I need to persuade them. And no one will even listen to your argument, let alone agree with you, if they think you don’t like them.

If only the teachers at Brandeis and the fascists that got the CEO of Mozilla fired understood this.

Share

2 comments

  • Edward

    I think that Ms. Kohn has it backwards, but it would be nice if the left were to “listen” to her advice.

    We, the right, *do* listen, but we then think about it and realize the fallacies of the argument and counter-argue. The counterargument is seen by those on the left as “not listening.” To the left, to “not listen” is to disagree and to “listen” is to agree.

    To those on the left, it is not acceptable to disagree with their opinions or conclusions. To disagree is to not have heard what, to them, is correct. That is why it is so difficult to get them to realize even the most basic facts, such as the debate is *not* over, since there are people *still* debating. How can so many people miss such an obvious fact. Since they miss the obvious, the more subtle also eludes them.

    It has to elude them, if they want to keep their friends, for if they disagree with the viewpoint or position that the left has chosen to advocate, then they will be shunned, unfriended, vilified, demeaned. and demonized.

    From the op/ed: “According to social science research, we’re more likely to be persuaded by people we like and we’re more inclined to like people who, we think, like us.” The leftist thinks that you like them only if you agree with them. Perhaps the research has the problem of including leftists, for whom the conclusion is true, thus the data was skewed toward that conclusion.

    The leftist finds out what the current left position is from someone who is their friend (or friendly news organization), then he sticks to that position until he finds out, from a friend, the new position on the matter.

    To the leftist, they can only like you if you agree with them.

    To the leftist, you either agree with them or they want you to shut up. There are no acceptable counter arguments, and they won’t bother to listen to yours. That is why Mozilla thought that free speech had to be balanced, otherwise someone might have the temerity to disagree with them.

    To the leftist, everyone *must* agree (so there is no defending to the death anyone’s right to free speech), and anyone who disagrees must be shunned, unfriended, vilified, demeaned. and demonized. It is how the left keeps everyone in line, otherwise they would disagree on important issues, like the right does, and it would seem like chaos, with everyone on the left unsure of what the acceptable position is. It is yet another form of being taken care of, a leftist philosophy.

    To the leftist, the debate *is* over, so shut up. (I would include a link to Klavan’s “Shut Up” video here, but that is already in another post this week. Gee, I could include Klavan’s video in a quarter of your posts, Robert.)

    It seems that her conclusion is wrong, because she was with a lot of people who liked her and thought that she liked them. Those nice people who liked her were not convinced, and neither was she. She still “didn’t listen” (her definition) to them and kept her own viewpoints, positions, and thus her friends.

    To the rightist, we *want* the leftist to have her say. Not only is it her right, but the exchange of ideas is how we advance knowledge and philosophy.

    And it is just plain fun to hear someone say, right in the middle of the debate, that the debate is over.

  • mpthompson

    Her essay may have given hope, but the comments on the essay from her fellow leftist removed that hope 10x over.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *