How to Argue With a Lefty, Part Two

(sigh)

In my previous piece, I laid out the idea that when attempting to discuss Trump with a lefty— you shouldn’t bother. That’s because you can agree on no fact— not one— as a starting point for the conversation. Consequently, you are forced to try to debunk the false claims and hoaxes that the lefty will offer as proof that Trump is a monstrous, dictatorial Hitler clone bent on ruling the country by fiat.

This lack of initial agreement pertains to discussing any subject with a leftist progressive, such as climate change, border policy, race relations, war, or Middle East politics. The root of the problem is the sources of information consumed by each group.

In my experience with family, friends, and other debating opponents, it comes down to the issue of credulity. Left-leaning people seem to have a bias toward believing sources of information, sometimes unquestionably, whereas conservatives I know have a natural skepticism about news— even toward “approved” outlets. In short, lefties believe what they are told, even if the information is false.

Here’s how the mainstream media launders incorrect information and outright propaganda:

Using “unimpeachable” yet anonymous sources, the New York Times will make a baseless claim about Trump or Republicans, which permits the other liberal news media to endlessly repeat those claims as fact. This is how we heard the insane claim that Trump suggested people “drink bleach” when he was referring to experiments using UV light as a disinfectant to treat COVID-19.

The media employed this technique to advance the Russia hoax, the Hunter laptop cover-up, the migrant kids in cages hoax, and many others.

Another technique used to distort the news is the selective video edit. The “fine people” hoax is a prime example. Although it has been repeatedly debunked by showing the phrase in full context, it persists in the minds of many people who get their news from mainstream outlets. Chuck Schumer repeated this lie as recently as mid-March 2025.

The repeated use of out-of-context video editing creates the impression that we are a bunch of uneducated hayseeds, and the confirmation bias of the audience reinforces these impressions without creating any interest in finding out if they are true. So the stereotypes persist, and leftists don’t know anything accurate about us.

Our alternative media, however, gives us a steady diet of accurate information about liberals. They will often play the entire rant of Maddow, Reid, Lemon, and other pundits. It’s not necessary to deceptively edit left-wing tirades. They perform better in context. That’s why we understand liberals accurately and they think we are deplorable, ignorant Bible-thumping gun nuts.

This produces an impediment to productive conversation that is similar to the first in that the consumption of biased media distorts what liberals believe drives and informs conservatives. Who we are. This effect does not go in the other direction because liberals will never shut the fuck up. Everything we know about them spews, ceaselessly, from their own lips. Everything they think they know about us comes from news media propaganda, out-of-context video clips, and rightist loony bins who don’t speak for us.

This misrepresentation results in statements like “I guess you’re ok with Trump turning the country into a Fascist dictatorship.” This take, in addition to inviting a debate about Trump’s intentions, also challenges you to defend how you can be such a blind, gullible fuckwit unable to see the obvious truth. See: “Do you still beat your wife?” here.

Recently, a left-leaning friend proposed that we attempt to have a civil conversation, in writing, about several subjects including climate change (yes, I broke my own rule). The conversation was civil and respectful but we ran up against the underlying problem that we could not agree on any scientific expert or study that we could use as a common starting point. So, the conversation went nowhere concerning changing minds or openness to new information by either side.

The science is settled. Offering the argument that “settled science” is an oxymoron will get you nowhere. You’re a denier. There is only one rightthink.

To conclude on a positive note: there’s no hope, and no point, in debating leftists.