Swatting Leftists in 6 Easy Steps: Part 3 – Set the Table

TMR’s special on swatting leftists continues with Part Three: Set the Table.

(Go here for Part One: Read and Prepare and Part Two: Get Comfortable).

It is good debating practice to agree on basic facts that nobody can possibly disagree with at various stages during the debate. Leftists will never voluntarily do this. This is because 99% of the leftists and social justice warriors you encounter will either:

  • be mortal enemies with relevant facts (perceived virtue trumps facts); or
  • worse still, be completely ignorant of relevant facts and will be shooting almost completely from the hip and trying to project enlightenment based on a Guardian article they read the day before. These debates are particularly fun!

In fact, you will have to be on high alert with any purported ‘facts’ that a leftist tries to throw at you. For example:

Leftist: Australia’s refugee policy is completely shameful. The way we treat them in our detention centres is terrible and a violation of human rights. Did you see that report on the ABC the other night?

You: (Thinking to yourself, not this stupid **** again). How so? We are one of only 37 ‘taking’ countries under the UNHRC resettlement program and rank third for volume of resettled refugees (behind the USA and Canada). Not bad for a country of about 25 million people wouldn’t you say?

Leftist: That’s only the UN program. Other countries take way more than that outside the program.

You: Hastily established shanty towns on the borders of war zones don’t count. You can only count properly resettled refugees, otherwise you’d be saying that Turkey and Rwanda are two of the most generous countries on Earth! If I were a refugee, I’d much rather be on Manus Island. By the way, do refugees in Rwanda and Turkey get the dole? If so, what can they buy with it?

As you can see, it’s your job to take charge when it comes to basic facts.

If you can make it look like your giving away some ‘concessions’ while you’re at it, even better. For example, in the refugee scenario above feel free to heartily agree that we detain asylum seeker applicants for far too long – and that they should be sent back to their country of origin within a year if they cannot conclusively prove their refugee status! This will put the leftist’s brain cycle into a feedback loop which they cannot recover from.

Aside from providing necessary structure and minimising the amount of times the leftist goes off on moronic tangents, setting the table from the outset will also assist you in getting more comfortable.

For example, when debating climate change, it always helps to go through the following basic, uncontroversial facts to agree on right at the beginning:

  • About 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide (i.e. 400 parts per million to make things sound biggermore simple).

From there, you should have a pretty easy time of rocking the leftist’s world when you ask them what actual difference it would make to reduce human carbon dioxide emissions by:

  • 10% (1.6 parts per million – i.e. 0.00016% overall);
  • 20% (3.2 parts per million – i.e. 0.00032% overall); or
  • or even by 100% (16 parts per million – i.e. 0.0016% overall).

And all this is before you even get onto bonus topics such as:

  • All the wickedly cool stuff that wind turbines and solar panels are are made of and how these things called ‘smelters’ need to run 24/7 just so that we can have high tech things such as stainless steel teaspoons.
  • The amount of innocent wildlife that wind turbines kill every year.
  • How carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. For example, humans do not generally emit or expel carbon, but do expel carbon dioxide on a regular basis. If you find yourself emitting carbon, you may wish to consult a doctor. You may think this is petty, but language is important. Make that leftie say ‘carbon dioxide emissions’ every time!
  • How hot or warm water heats up air far more efficiently than hot air is able to heat up water. If this one takes time to sink in for a leftie, ask them which method of heating is faster: heating a cold bathtub of water with a fan heater – or heating a cold bathroom with a hot bath tub? (NB: This one’s a great one for Barrier Reef Armageddonists).

Your effectiveness in setting the table all comes back to the first part of this series: reading and preparing. You don’t need to have a PhD on the subject, but you do need to know the essential start-up facts.

As for Doctor Peterson (video below), he has no problem whatsoever in admitting things like the fact that he is followed predominantly by males and that YouTube is a predominantly male domain. Why should he? It’s a fact. By the time Newman puts the inane proposition to him that: ‘that’s divisive isn’t it?’ (at 2:25 on), he’s easily able to remind Newman that Tumblr is a predominantly female domain [TMR: just like female only gyms, mothers’ clubs, book clubs, the Joy Luck Club, corporate HR departments, kindergarten teaching and Year 1 primary school teaching] and that there are plenty of women who listen to him, buy his books and who owe their recently increased pay to him.

Having failed so early on, Newman is left with little alternative but to dust off the well-worn leftist technique of interrupting Doctor Peterson mid-point and quickly and illogically changing the topic – in this case to ask: ‘what’s in it for the women?’ (at 2:58).

Excuse me?

Next up: Part Four – Laughter and Mockery.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Swatting Leftists in 6 Easy Steps: Part 3 – Set the Table

  1. Have you ever managed to convert even one ardent Green/Leftist with your quite reasonable points? I’ve come across many an ardent Green/Leftist (we live in such a ‘Hobbit Town’ as one resident Green referred to us), but yet to come across one that still has a remnant of a brain cell allowing free thought to consider that their beliefs may not be as sound as they think.

  2. RobK

    Always a good read Marcus, thanks.

  3. manalive

    Leftist: Australia’s refugee policy is completely shameful. The way we treat them in our detention centres is terrible and a violation of human rights …

    Me: The Australian Government does not put refugees in detention centres, they are assisted to settle into the community.

  4. Dr Fred Lenin

    Always said the way to defeat gangrene communism is defunding ,without money they are stuffed taxpayers money and public service k]jobs are all that keeps them alive the alp bludgers would be in the same boat as the gangrenes , the climate carpetbaggers aren’t the only bludger .

  5. 1.6 parts per million – i.e. 0.00016%

    This is getting near the realm of homeopathic dilution. Are we discussing science or crystal magic?

  6. manalive

    For example, when debating climate change, it always helps to go through the following basic, uncontroversial facts to agree on right at the beginning …

    I think arguing the toss about CO2 is a red herring, in fact it’s ceding territory to the alarmists.
    Human contribution to the carbon cycle is tiny however let Dr. Roy Spencer explain:

    But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it.

    The real attribution problem is the contribution of human emissions to temperature viz. the alleged global warming since ~1945, if any.
    Empirical evidence compared to model assumptions suggest not much at most.
    Questions follow concerning the projected costs and benefits of ‘fighting’ CC™ compared to doing nothing except monitoring i.e. the splendid work of Dr Spencer at UAH.

  7. JohnA

    bemused #2730639, posted on June 7, 2018, at 3:18 pm

    Have you ever managed to convert even one ardent Green/Leftist with your quite reasonable points? I’ve come across many an ardent Green/Leftist (we live in such a ‘Hobbit Town’ as one resident Green referred to us), but yet to come across one that still has a remnant of a brain cell allowing free thought to consider that their beliefs may not be as sound as they think.

    No, bemused, you have that back to front. We are not trying to convert the hard-wired greenie or leftist, but the bystanders (“sheeple”) listening in on the debate.

    If enough of the innocent bystanders wake up to the scams of the hard-liners, then the next stage is to talk about waste and the idea of de-funding the stupid policy so that we can fix the mess which is the Federal (and State and local) budget. Then it may be possible to talk about roads, schools and hospitals.

  8. If you had helped set the actual table in this theoretical dinner party, you might have done something constructive. As it is, you would just be a crashing bore and not get invited to any more parties.

  9. The BigBlueCat

    Another uncontroversial fact: the Green House effect is real. Admitting that to a Green/leftist would cause them conniptions (“how dare you use our argument”). But the fact is, increases in greenhouse gasses hasn’t had the impact the models have predicted, and the increases are not driven by human activity to any significant degree. The Earth has had CO2 concentrations exceed 600ppm in the past. Another cause for their conniptions ….

    But surely the cat is out of the bag – AGW is demonstrably false and is nowhere near supported by 97% of scientists (which is an appeal to authority and not an argument; plus it has been debunked time and time again). There are very many actual climate scientists who disagree with the proposition that climate change is significantly driven by human activity – here’s one (also note his references).

  10. The BigBlueCat

    I should point out that Richard Lindzen’s paper puts some doubt on what the “Green House” effect actually represents – his view is that it is a much too simple a model to explain something as complex as climate change – the basic mechanisms are somewhat understood, but the changes in variables are way too complex to understand and model effectively (unless you’re a leftist liar – but I repeat myself).

  11. DrBeauGan

    You are wasting your time Marcus. Lefties are not inflenced by facts or logic. It’s a religion. And the bystanders are more likely to be influenced by the moral passion than evidence. They’ve been to school.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.