I’m not surprised that so many of the middle-class Bourgeois Left are happy to sacrifice the nation’s sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats; they appear to have pretty much done the same with their thinking.
Look how many accept, wholesale, what the MSM and other biased political institutions say about their opponents. This is evident from the fact that when asked to explain or back up their accusations of racism, xenophobia etc they are completely unable to do so and simply shout louder or resort to violence.
You could put this down to what I used to call being ‘an empty’, though I think the common parlance is now NPC. However, I suspect there’s a little more to it than simply being an automaton. After all, there has to be consent in order to make sacrifice.
In the age of the selfie pose and everyday social media confessional, how you look – be it physically, socially or morally – is now more important than ever. With physical appearance, you are limited to what nature gave you, and keeping it up takes hard work and a lot of self discipline, whereas appearing morally virtuous and signalling your kindness with words or wearing a topically coloured dress, a buzzword-stamped tee shirt, badge or hat is easy. That way you can ‘save the world from your wardrobe’. No need to be a savage willing to join up and be prepared to crawl through sewage, to kill and die to defeat real fascists. Not a blue hair out of place, thank you.
Throwing around terms like racist, xenophobe, misogynist, fascist etc at those you disagree with is such low hanging fruit. It not only demonstrates your thought purity but also provides early gains. Look how many people have lost not only their jobs but also their ability to make a living, and therefore their voice, due to these often unsupported allegations. And like the tee shirt printed with with whatever ‘see how nice I am’ slogan that happens to be trend of the week, it’s cheap and it’s easy, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Hence the the notion that you should debunk bad ideas via a debate is now said to be giving the ‘evildoers a platform to spread their hate.’ If there is no debate then there is no need to do the hard work of providing evidence to back up your accusations and support your arguments. You also don’t have to face the prospect of being wrong, or worse, being shown to be wrong in front of your global audience. Imagine that red-faced selfie.
So can you help release the self imprisoned mind? Not unilaterally for sure. Whilst it’s easy, and certainly tempting, to dismiss the Bourgeois Left as being incapable of dialogue outside of their own echo chamber and therefore ‘not worth debating’, as the Antifa mouthpieces say when when challenged to do so, you don’t want to copy their modus operandi and end up in an echo chamber of your own.
Another point to consider, however unlikely you may think it to be, is not to dismiss the idea that you could learn something from your opponents. Perhaps there is a perspective you haven’t thought about or information you were unaware of and this could be the start of opening up the dialogue, for example:
“Ok so you think I’m a racist (fascist or whatever other label) and I assume you’d rather I weren’t one, yes? I don’t believe I am a racist but rather than playing ‘you are …am not’ ping pong will you please tell be what I’ve said or done that leads you to believe that?”
Should they chose to respond by e.g. accusing you of hating immigrants rather than demand they prove where they heard you say this correct them, no that’s incorrect what I have done is to challenge the concept of open borders. I believe this is wrong for a number of reasons, security, cost etc. You could then go on to query how they think you can fund our core services when you don’t know how many people will be requiring these services or knowing their particular needs. Try to make your questions about the principle of the matter. Examples being:
‘You think a pragmatic approach to immigration is Xenophobic?’ ‘How?’
‘You think criticism of an ideology can be racist? ‘what makes it racist?’
‘If an ideology is followed by predominantly by people of certain ethnicity it shouldn’t face criticism’ ‘What sort of criticism do you think is acceptable?’
‘You believe ideologies should only be allowed to face criticism from those with the same ethnicity as the majority of it’s followers’ ‘Is that not itself racist?’
‘Do you perceive any dangers in preventing criticism of an ideology either via the law or self censoring’
‘Do you think there’s a danger that very bad ideas could go unchallenged by suggesting that criticism is really a cover for hatred’ ‘Could that be abused’
‘On balance why do you think it’s worth it?’
By asking questions based on the principle of what they’re either demanding or condemning might make some think about what it is they really want to achieve. You’re highly unlikely to change anybody’s mind on the spot and it insofar as changing your mind goes it probably isn’t the wisest thing to instantly flip flop your beliefs like that. It’s about putting that challenge of their perceptions in their minds. Those with an enquiring nature might go away and think about what they thought was absolute and make their own investigations and come to their own conclusions.
If you’re really about changing minds don’t let people walk away feeling defeated or humiliated that’s what the the rabid left do and it’s why they are so bad at changing minds. It’s no coincidence that they target schools and colleges for their recruits for those who won’t have formed alternative opinions yet and just need to be fed their opinions. Look how the Bourgeois Left paint their children, many still in prams, with slogans that reflect their views then drag them out on marches demanding they be listened to. They don’t want them to grow up independent minded but indoctrinated. Oh to be so kind.