วีดีโอ

This is up to 6 now. When the Left Cannot Counter What You Post, They Will Do One of Six Things In the contemporary digital landscape, political discourse has become increasingly polarized, particularly in the context of social media. Debates that once relied on logical reasoning and respectful dialogue have devolved into exchanges characterized by emotional reactions and distraction tactics. This paper aims to analyze five common responses from individuals on the left when they encounter arguments or viewpoints they struggle to counter. By examining these tactics-insults and personal attacks, emojis and memes, accusations of "copy and paste," dismissals as AI-generated content, and assertions regarding Fox News-we can better understand the dynamics of online discussions and how they detract from meaningful engagement. 1. Insults and Personal Attacks One prevalent response when faced with a strong argument is resorting to insults or personal attacks. This tactic serves to divert attention from the argument at hand by undermining the credibility of the individual presenting it. For instance, instead of engaging with a well-reasoned stance on economic policy, an opponent might label you as “ignorant” or “a puppet of Trump.” Such behavior reflects a failure to address substantive issues while simultaneously attempting to bolster their own position through character assassination. In many cases, this reveals more about their inability to engage constructively than about any shortcomings in your argument. 2. Emojis and Memes The rise of visual communication through emojis and memes has transformed online interactions but not necessarily for the better. When someone responds with a laughing emoji or a sarcastic meme rather than a thoughtful reply, it signifies an inability to present a solid counter-argument. These quick visual retorts may elicit laughs but often lack depth, serving more as distractions than contributions to discourse. For example, if one were discussing climate change policies supported by scientific evidence but received only a meme mocking environmentalists, it indicates that their opponent is either unwilling or unable to engage substantively. 3. Yelling "Copy and Paste" Another common tactic is accusing others of using "copy and paste" arguments-implying that their contributions lack originality or depth. While bringing fresh perspectives into discussions is crucial for enriching dialogue, recycling information isn't inherently flawed if it is based on credible sources. When an individual dismisses your points as copied material without engaging with the content itself-such as empirical data from reputable institutions-it highlights their reluctance to delve deeper into the conversation. 4. Dismissing as AI-Generated In recent years, concerns over AI-generated content have emerged alongside technological advancements in communication. Some individuals may dismiss posts as lacking human insight by asserting they are AI-generated-a claim that seeks to invalidate opinions without addressing their validity or relevance. Regardless of whether content originates from human authorship or artificial intelligence, well-researched arguments should stand on their own merits; thus employing this dismissal tactic serves only as a means of evading meaningful debate. 5. Accusations Regarding Source Credibility Finally, asserting that information stems from Fox News raises critical questions about media consumption habits among political opponents. If one claims familiarity with content from Fox News while critiquing its credibility, it suggests active engagement with opposing viewpoints-a paradox worth examining further within discussions around media bias and echo chambers. As someone residing in Brazil who typically relies on sources like CNN International alongside reputable government agencies such as the IRS and CBO for insights into current events and policy issues-it's essential to emphasize that understanding comes not solely from specific news outlets but rather from diverse informational channels. 6. I’m not Reading All That When individuals on the political left encounter content that they find challenging to refute-particularly in-depth articles that present well-researched arguments and comprehensive analyses-they often resort to dismissive tactics. One common phrase they might use is, "I'm not reading that propaganda." This reaction serves several purposes. Firstly, it reflects a defensive mechanism; when faced with information that contradicts their beliefs or assumptions, some may feel threatened and thus choose to label the material as "propaganda." By doing so, they can avoid engaging with the content critically and instead maintain their existing worldview without the discomfort of reconsidering their stance. Secondly, this response highlights a broader trend within political discourse where individuals prioritize emotional reactions over rational debate. The term "propaganda" itself carries connotations of manipulation and deceit, suggesting that the opposing viewpoint is not only wrong but also intentionally misleading. This labeling can effectively shut down conversation and discourage others from exploring differing perspectives. Moreover, this phenomenon underscores the polarization prevalent in contemporary society. Rather than fostering an environment conducive to constructive dialogue and understanding diverse viewpoints, many people gravitate towards echo chambers where dissenting opinions are swiftly dismissed. This behavior ultimately hampers productive discussion and critical thinking, reinforcing divisions rather than bridging gaps between differing ideologies.

I would have no problem with sellers doing background checks if it were completely voluntary and nonbinding; and if there were no record of it afterwards.

The only legitimate way to curtail the rights of an individual is through conviction and sentencing by a jury trial. Shall we make 'mentally ill' a felony?

like she was really living in that dream world growing up, she must think everyone is stupid.. in reality her mother probably said you little mother f____, get you asses in the house, you think you fell out of a m fken tree

👍

How about both

I teach my children shotokan, I’m a Sandan instructor, and the rising block (age uke) we don’t teach to make full contact bone on bone like some styles do. This is done at an inverted 45° angle where we step of the plane of attack and use this to throw the attacker, by grabbing their hand/arm and lock into an arm bar. Difficult to describe without showing it. This definitely works though. With Gedan Barai(low block) it can be used as a set up for a sweep, but parries are better for crescent, roundhouse, and front snap kicks. For kicks, it’s always better to get off of its plain and not have body observe the full force. One thing that I teach, if you have to observe the tick is to use iron fortress, which is raising the knee with the forearm connecting, and this is only so that you can clinch the neck. From this angle of protection, you can grab their head, Shuto the neck, drop their head grab them in a choke, or turn to your other side and quickly side kick them in a vital area while stepping out, etc. From what I’ve seen in Kenpo, you love the kick step out, or cross and cover, to get it out the attack zone. But I agree with the premise of your video.

Leaders make them feel important

Thoughtful and Well said. Thank you.

That first rope had a broken handle on it that drove me crazy.

👏🙌

It's disgusting.

👍🏽😊❤️🇺🇸

Jimmy and Andy sent me! 👍🏽😊❤️🇺🇸

Eu adoro sua palavra do dia...somente acho que o tempo poderia ser mais curto, minha opnião.

👍🏻🤣

That’s about right

Absolutely 💯

Democrats pander and lie for votes.

He is man, most men don't want a women president. They are scared that women will be a good fit for the most important job in a America. Women are the glue that holds families together and we will be the glue that will hold this country together.

CRT: Decades ago it was called sensitivity training. Decades before that it was called nazi propaganda. Decades before that it was called Marxist Class Warfare. The more things change; the more they stay the same.

He won’t come over here and argue with you. He has nothing to argue with other than CNN talking points and his emotions

The assertion that an entire race is conspiring to oppress and subjugate the victim class is right out of the nazi playbook. The assertion that history is being suppressed is thoroughly debunked by the fact that the history in question is common knowledge, and always has been. "More important, as critical race theorists we adopt a stance that PRESUMES that racism has contributed to ALL contemporary manifestations of group advantage and disadvantage along RACIAL lines, including differences in income, imprisonment,health, housing, education, political representation, and military service. Our history calls for this PRESUMPTION." "Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment" by Matsuda, Lawrence III, Delgado, and KIMBERLE' WILLIAMS CRENSHAW Those are their words from their intellectual papers: It is the entire foundation of the premise. CRT promotes the notion that the fact that a group is measurably superior is proof that everybody in that group is guilty; and, that a group being inferior is proof that everybody in that group is a victim. Further: this principle projects through time; asserting that what happened to the long dead projects onto the guilt or victimhood of the living; even if the living never experienced it at all........... CRT uses history and statistics to justify using government force to implement racial discrimination. CRT obviates the need for any thought, word or act of racism as proof of their presumed verdict. All they need is their preferred race measuring less favorably than another. Regardless of the cause: they declare their favored race to be victims of the other. Then they would use real government enforced discrimination in response to their presumed discrimination; altering laws, policies and practices to favor their preferred race. All for the stated purpose of forcibly making the measurements between races identical. The operative question is whether you support using government force to implement racial discrimination. All the rest is academic. My answer is no.

Really enjoy your videos.

And yet she will win by a landslide !

All the people in the audience that clapped drove their cars to get there 🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤣

folks acting like they didn't know she was half black the whole time

Stay limber, Mr Armstrong!

Too bad, Kamala ain't got no street cred unlike Trump, so it does not count.

Back in the field yoo, back in the field yoo, you gonna get a black eye, get back in the field yoo

Post Obama people really viewed politics like this

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Sad when people will actually vote based on skin color

Poopy Joe and the Cackling Hoe are the worst things to happen to the American continent

We're going to throw out your votes, tell you who the delegate is going to be, hocus pocus, Democracy. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Where was your outrage when Republicans invented fake electors and tried to pass them off as the real ones to erase your vote? Who voted for these rich insider elitist snobs??? Literally nobody. You really can´t get any dumber than this.

y’all just salty bc this is exactly what republicans tried to do and failed

There is one thing definitely dumber than this. Being maga.

Meanwhile in The Olympic 2024 women boxing a female boxer got her nose broken by a male boxer 2024

Que mala kamalahaha es

She is dumb

I don't remember Trump ever starting a way. Of course, this was in 2020, and she was a Democrat at the time.

She is exactly like a kindergarten teacher who dropped acid half an hour ago. Or "that" aunt, the one you know better to invite to events with an open bar...

That’s a good reason.