Emotional ransom and thought-opoly: tools of the lib-left

In the world of the lib-left, there is a clear way to deal with uncomfortable facts and opinions: simply give them a label.

The goal is to get people to reject facts or opinions on the grounds that the facts or opinions are "offensive". But note how infrequently one hears "that's offensive" as an argument. One explanation is that describing something as "offensive" sounds like a personal misgiving, is perhaps puritan or parental, and fails to evoke the emotion that would push one to conclude that something is offensive. By contrast, push the right buttons and create the right references using the right set of emotional buzzwords, and the masses will follow an emotionally-drawn conclusion to reject whatever offends them.

"Racist", "sexist" and "homophobe" - or any slur that falls into one or more of the aforementioned categories - these are the emotional buzzwords seen most frequently. At times, these buzzwords can create an emotional argument on their own that enrages audiences and drives them to reject whatever they have seen or heard that triggered them.

Most often, however, the buzzword is accompanied by a window dressing of an argument that is isolated from its proper context or stripped of all but inflammatory details. To see how this all comes together, consider the argument that "building a strong border wall with Mexico keeps out Mexicans, therefore the idea is racist and unacceptable." Absent from the equation is any consideration for taking on the drug epidemic (drug trafficking), gang epidemic (reducing cross-border ventures by MS-13), terrorism (making it harder for terrorists to slip into the country), economic issues (adjusting the influx of immigrants to suit economy and industry needs), epidemic issues (keeping out those whose health is not recorded or looked over), human rights abuse issues (preventing exploitive, undocumented, under-the-table labour abuses) and so on.

Another use of the buzzwords "racist", "sexist" or "homophobe" is to vilify whoever observes certain negative behaviors if the observed behaviors apply to a certain race, sex or other cross-section of the population. The strange result is that no phenomena can ever be addressed if it applies to only one group of individuals, or the argument will simply be seen as "racist", "sexist" or "homophobe" and rejected on principle alone.

The lib-left celebrates infantile ignorance and paints knowledge that corresponds to a rejection of the lib-left world view in such a negative light that the public will actually respond with a pained expression to whatever he or she has encountered and, seeking relief, reject the triggering stimuli without further consideration. Testing the waters, you will see this day in and day out and quickly see that this is how the lib-left controls us.