The Progressive ideology exposed

[Al Swearegen]

I give you Dinesh D'Soza





Progressivism is Cultural Marxism. It is complete bullshit. The worms of Progressivism have dined well in the Liberal Left and now we, Liberals, are obliged to pander and scrape to the Progressives OR risk being called a bigot AT BEST or a Nazi/Alt-Right/Far Right/unintellectual/immoral dullard.

It is all bullshit.

[odeon]

I give you a rather devastating criticism of Mr D'Souza's debating style:

D'Souza has an aggressive and rhetorical speaking and debating style, which makes him sound forceful and convincing. He uses the Gish Gallop frequently and effectively, rebuffing his opponent for not addressing every point he makes.
He frequently employs caricatures and strawmen of atheist positions. He presents these positions so as to make them sound whimsical or silly, while presenting his own statements with an air of utmost gravity, no matter how lunatic or far-fetched they may be.
Every time Dinesh attempts to speak for, quote, or misquote his opponent, he adopts a buffoonish, mocking tone. It is a very unsubtle ad hominem attack fused into his prose.
He is a big fan of quote mining. Not content with simply taking his opponent's statements out of context, he will take a quote about a topic completely unrelated to the one under discussion and re-frame it to make it sound as if his opponent is uninformed or delusional.
A main weapon in his debating arsenal is the emotional appeal, where he paints his opponent's position as false because some of its implications may be distasteful to certain members of the audience.
He enjoys painting his opponents as vicious critics of innocuous policies and events, and himself as a paragon of intellectual virtue. While not going as far as character assassination (at least not in a face-to-face debate), he does subtly attack the character of his opponent.
He often says that an assertion by his opponent, or even the opponent's entire position, is invalid because it is not intuitively or obviously true. He paints this as a "common sense" argument, where he calls upon the audience to evaluate an assertion using their own intuition. In reality, this is a denial of the obvious fact that many things are counterintuitive and require expertise beyond the experience of the average person (but don't take our word for it; ask your neighbor about quantum mechanics or the economics of sub-Saharan Africa). This is a particularly effective tactic, as it shifts audience opinion to his side.
Thanks to his wide repertoire of tactics, he rarely is forced to allow a point by his opponent to pass unchallenged. This projects the illusion of competence, whereas most of his rebuttals are intellectually dishonest and completely invalid.
When all else fails, he will spout outright lies and half truths, pulling facts and statistics out of thin air to give his argument some credibility. This amounts to an argument from authority, which he seems to derive from his public "reputation" as a political commentator, academic and writer.
Lately, he appears to carry around a sizable library of books to debates, frequently flashing them at his opponent and at the audience, while stating that they completely prove his own, or disprove his opponent's, points. These are usually self-published works by fringe lunatics (which are not worth the paper they're printed on). This is argument from authority on steroids, since no one except him has read the book. Therefore, his opponent cannot call him out on it, and is forced to let the point go without comment.

[Calandale]

Looks like an objective wiki page. Especially since it begins with "Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a domestically violent mall ninja

[odeon]

It is on par with the Youtube page, which is sort of my point.

[Al Swearegen]

Looks like an objective wiki page. Especially since it begins with "Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a domestically violent mall ninja

This would sell it for me.

[odeon]

Is it wrong?

[Calandale]

All I know is that I wanna learn mall ninjutsu.

[Al Swearegen]

Is it wrong?

Yes, it is wrong. If Dinesh does anything wrong in his arguing approach, it is not being railroaded by minutiae and in presenting big picture and alternative and unconventional views to not back these things with much in the way of sources.

This is completely understandable. Why?

Because what happens is that there will be a belief and that belief is shared and aligned politically and gains power and bought to fit in with other beliefs and all further studies have this in-built belief factored to conform into their research. Now these studies give this believe more power and it is accepted as a truth to base other beliefs and researches on and to make attacks to others and such.

Then along comes Dinesh or someone like him and says something unbelievable and outrageous like "Its all bullshit, you know?"

Now someone doing this is not necessarily wrong. Their point may be really good BUT they are unlikely to have many (if any) studies to back them because all (or almost all) studies will be framed around some understood truths - some of which he will be exposing as bullshit. So to run to the incompleteness of his sourcing is completely stupid. But it is not to say he gets a free pass and can sell any old line. He needs to explain WHY it is all bullshit and how others before have got it so wrong and where their assumption were skewed? At what point in the process was the theory wrong and how did confirmation bias go alluded for so long?

Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?

Obviously, there is ample of information and enthusiasm for pointing out the understood Democrat is caring and kind and virtuous and look after people and Republicans are greedy and corrupt and look after themselves and are traditional and uncharitable. Gun-toting bigots who want to shove their bible down everyone's throat. What there is not clear information about is the questions above. So we don't question them. Not really. We don't need to either. We accept "what is, is" and understand that there must be good reason and may even make assumptions on these things or find enough "facts" or data points to confirm our understanding.

Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".

It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.

[Calandale]

Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?

 

Yes, but he is too simplistic in his dismissal of the established view. Even considering the black movement to the dems,
prior to the Civil Rights Act. There is a reason for the later shift, which comes from a confluence of Johnson's pushing
the Dixiecrats away and the Goldwater nomination. See, Goldwater's state's rights (especially when made explicit on
racial matters) played right into both a chance to relieve the burden of the CRA, as well as to the Lost Cause feelings -
there is no greater state's right than nullification and secession. That the Republican party slowly started to embrace
those views made for an easier home than following the Wallace banner.

The earlier shift is not merely economic either. FDR's non-discrimination order; Truman's integration of the army; Humphrey's
strong support for civil rights all factored in. They were bringing the dems into the palatable realm - at least nationally.

Equally though, other views motivated fairly conservative southern populations away, as the parties began to diverge more
on many issues. Some cultural, some economic.

Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".

It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.

It's important not to be blinded by one ideological stance. But, he seems as unwilling to express the nuance of the reality
as do those hard on the other side of the issue.

[odeon]

He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.

[Al Swearegen]

Now if for nothing else Dinesh ought to allow a pause to reconsider some beliefs and wh we commonly hold them. For example, if we all know from history classes that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he was a good guy fighting for slaves to be freed and he won the civil war against the Democrats in the South and now Democrats are the ones who have the black vote and malign the Republicans as being bigots.....what gives? I never really understood this but conventional wisdom was that Democrats became Republicans and Republicans became Democrats. But see that did not make much sense to me either. Swapping parties. Not changing party names but 100% of both parties changing sides? Changing values? Maybe but even were that so then still the crimes bad actions need to be owned by both parties (what is to be owned by the Democrats for their history and what is to be owned by Republicans for theirs). If Democrats are nice to minorities today, that is fantastic, when did they start and what blood is on their hands up to that point? If Republicans are terrible to minorities now, that is awful, when did that start and what blood is on their hands? What is their history?

 

Yes, but he is too simplistic in his dismissal of the established view. Even considering the black movement to the dems,
prior to the Civil Rights Act. There is a reason for the later shift, which comes from a confluence of Johnson's pushing
the Dixiecrats away and the Goldwater nomination. See, Goldwater's state's rights (especially when made explicit on
racial matters) played right into both a chance to relieve the burden of the CRA, as well as to the Lost Cause feelings -
there is no greater state's right than nullification and secession. That the Republican party slowly started to embrace
those views made for an easier home than following the Wallace banner.

The earlier shift is not merely economic either. FDR's non-discrimination order; Truman's integration of the army; Humphrey's
strong support for civil rights all factored in. They were bringing the dems into the palatable realm - at least nationally.

Equally though, other views motivated fairly conservative southern populations away, as the parties began to diverge more
on many issues. Some cultural, some economic.

Then in comes someone like Dinesh and says "Here are some of the answers you were thinking about but could not find".

It is not just Dinesh too. Nor just Conservative viewpoints but there are a lot of Libertarians and a number of different Liberals that often come up with stuff which is really new and compelling and opens my eyes to alternatives I had not considered.

It's important not to be blinded by one ideological stance. But, he seems as unwilling to express the nuance of the reality
as do those hard on the other side of the issue.

Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.

He puts it out there and we have an alternative position to consider. We do not have to buy it lock, stock and barrel but we can consider it. Pick out the things that sound interesting. Do our own research weigh them up against agreed knowledge.

I just see what he is doing in this respect. Not so much taking everything he says with a grain of salt but rather taking in what he says as a challenge to think upon.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

He appears to have made a career out of conservative conspiracy theories, successful only in preaching to the choir.

He doesn't seem to have a lot more substance behind what he says than Milo Yiannopoulos.

I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.

One example: as soon as someone starts talking about privilege he suggests that they go to the Dean's office and give up their place at the university to someone from a minority. That's not how affirmative action works. But it saves Dinesh D'Souza from having to come up with some actual arguments.

Another one: D'Souza says you can't have land rights for Native Americans because then you'd have to give back everything that anyone ever took from anyone else. Of course you can't undo all the wrongs of the world, nobody is claiming that. But when you have a portion of society who are dispossessed and disadvantaged by the past dishonest and murderous actions of your government and your ancestors, maybe making some small amends is a sign of the fairer society that you are becoming. 

[odeon]

Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.

He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?

[odeon]

I have to admit that I didn't watch all of the videos. I gave him a few minutes of my time and determined that he was full of shit and I gave up on him.

I gave up pretty soon, too. What did it for me was the fact that this is his Youtube channel, yet he chose a heading like "D'Souza absolutely DESTROYS leftist college student". He's not interested in a discussion, he's interested in boosting his ego.

[Al Swearegen]

Absolutely right in a lot of what you say. The thing is though, for a lot of the reasons I have already alluded to, he HAS to come all out. If he comes out with a half-arsed notion and waters it down with exceptions and limits it with disclaimers it is very easily dismissed from the mind.

He doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's his credibility going down the drain if he goes all out with sensationalist claims that are easily proven to be wrong. Why waste time listening to someone like that?

Except, of course, they are NOT being proven wrong. With many things like this you can make defences against things he says and indeed the professor who is asking the questions in one of the videos tries this.

A lot of what can be argued is perspective. It is like if I said that Gay marriage should be legal everywhere across the world because it is ultimately not hurting anyone and giving away something at no costs which give rights to people who have not traditionally been unable to have purely on the basing of them being gay.

That to me seems pretty cut and dried in my mind. However (I apologise for the weak argument - I am sure someone who is anti-marriage could do a much better job) if I was ultra-religious I could say something like "The whole purpose of marriage is to protect the family and the nuclear family is the bedrock of society. It is to bind families under God and to commit them in a holy bond with God. It also allows their children to be born into this contract with God and be recognised by God and allow them to join their parents in afterlife" and blah blah blah. Whatever.

Now both points can be argued against and we can get into the weeds over it. But that does not mean either one is "wrong" it is simply different perspective. Such are the points that can be thrown at Dinesh. Easy to get into the weeds but I believe the biggest problem is the different between something being seen as disagreeable and something being wrong.

It is like something being morally wrong or morally right can often simply be a difference of your own subjective values rather than something being wrong on facts.