Why the Left Think They are Better | Peter Hitchens 

The Right is Individualist, the Left is Collectivist. No need to explain anything else, that's all there is to it.

Leftism is about feeling good, gratification, agreeing with other feel good minded people, that is why is so easy and automatic to be a leftist, principles and morals are a burden, hard to keep up, they require extra effort, doing exactly what you want without consequences or flinching is a child's dream and a civilization's bane.

Daniel Moore Freud was a complete and utter charlatan.

@@jamesgibson2179 Yeah, Sigmund Freud was an utter, UTTER, disgrace of a man that should be airbrushed from history, NOT celebrated.

It's not about left and right, it's about tolerent and intolorent people, and you can find both types on either end of the political divide. I myself am on the left on most political positions and I absolutely love having disscussions with people on the right; I enjoy hearing their perspectives and I try to understand/empathise with their positions, as do many of my other left wing friends. It's easy just to put everyone on the left into one big box and stick a label on it saying intolorence, but life isn't as simple as that.

@Ulf ViKings I agree with your overall point that majority of de-platformers are on the left, but I do however think that it's unfortunate that many reasonable people on the left such as myself who believe in the more traditional left wing values of liberty and free speech can sometimes feel that they have been put in the same box as people on the same political divide who hold more anti-liberal values. The way I like to see it is similar to the political compass, have you taken the test? There are 2 axis Left/Right and Liberal/Autoritarian, and an individual can exist anywhere along those 2 axis.

The culture war is already with us ;)

CS_FL Right on target

Truth bomb.

"When one is thinking , that necessarily means that one is not feeling. Feeling and thinking are mutually exclusive." --- Robert R

You learn something every day if you look/ search👍

Get rid of the guns and maybe we can have a real debate.

@@jimsykes6843 Welp, guess were not having a debate then. After all, you lot cant get rid of drugs let alone guns.

by words no. by lead steel and iron yes you can debate someone who despises you by that approach.

"I actively dislike you" Peter Hitchens to Alex O'Connor.

​@@jimsykes6843 Try to use your 🫛 🧠 please 🤗

@@garygjl9036 "woke" is the left. It's the epitome of idiocy & ignorance 💯

"I might be wrong" *Radiohead intensifies*

The fear of God is the equivalent

Tell that to religious people. Replace the word left here with "Christian" or "Muslim" and everything still makes sense. Ones in power impose their ideas. This is natural. Earlier Christians did it in the West, now someone else is trying. Why would someone even want political power if they don't want to change anything?

@@anonymous_4276 it takes a lot more faith to be an athiest.

@@chaoscore09 give an argument if you wish to support that statement.

Ironically, many on the right are wrong because they don't understand just how evil the left is.

So... because you heard a republican say that, it somehow suggests that marxists don't also think that you think they're evil?

@@gustaveliasson5395 oh, I do think Marxists are evil. But I didn't say anything about Marxists. I said republican. The other side is democrat. It is quite telling of your politics that you see the "other side" as Marxists.

ironic

the quote you shared is very self-serving. it implies that assigning neutrality to all of your disagreements makes you better.

They won't even listen to you because their hatred is that incredibly powerful. You simply can't have a discussion with people who hate you that much. Don't even try. It's a waste of time.

Or a lifetime.

I wish our “leaders” on the right would realize this!

Contempt is the most toxic of emotions.

It’s funny because Hitchens despises everyone who disagrees with him.

@@mpg3946 Have any proof of that besides your own biases? I don't know much about him but from what I've seen of him I've seen no indication of this.

Yes, because Trumpers LOVE everyone. Are you conservatives all living in a time warp? How is it not emotional and irrational to pretend the last six years never happened? All cons seem to project as much as Trump himself.

No. You can't debate someone who is willing to make blatant fanciful lies to support their case while being immune to facts. This is what makes debating anyone on the right impossible and pointless. This is why the left won't debate people like Hitchens.

Err why can’t you debate someone who dislikes you? Fallacy and simplicity.

@@cc1210 because their prejudice will overpower any reason, no matter how profound.

"You cannot really debate somebody who truly despises you" So thats why alt right people and antisocialists are always trying to avoid discussions? And when they try to discuss they always derail the discussion into being something else.

@@The80sWolf_ who are these alt right people you speak of? Anyone who operates outside the tiny bandwidth of leftist viewpoints? If anybody avoids debate, it's leftists. They try to smear, shame and discredit before any questions are asked.

And vice versa.

Also, that is the same principle of prejudice. By thinking "that person disagrees with me, therefore a terrible person" is doing exactly what they supposedly condemn.

Weird kid

@@coreybullock1392 GOVERNMENT is mommy.

Your comment is a straw man position which is also rambling and incoherent. Ironically, you provide a perfect illustration for the conservative position.

@@coreybullock1392 actually Leftism requires the all-powerful mommy or Nanny state to enforce it's version of utopia

@@docholliday8879 typical sjw response. Deride and tell people they are wrong without any actual position or substance to your argument. OP's comment is no straw man argument, even in jest there is a depth and truth there, and your childish response perfectly highlights why OP is both funny and absolutely right!

Like when talking to an American Republican.

@@robertwelsh4094Yeah, it can go both ways for sure.

Definitely, and being screamed at by American Fascist Bible-Banging Conservative Authoritarians proves it.

Yeah cuz it's Republicans who've been physically assaulting people in the streets, destroying small businesses, and censoring and doxxing people.

@@michaelfranciotti3900 And it’s Fascist Turds in Blue who murder black people like The Gestapo they are, and it’s the owners of this country who have impoverished and brutalized us all, George Orwell Prole.

Woke culture has transitioned many from Christopher to Peter.

@@sticksman1979 "Woke culture" is a chimera. A wedge issue. Please don't be a muppet repeating what you heard elsewhere.

Yeah? I was told to "go back to Africa" if I didn't like the things going on in my own country. The definition of racism doesn't change. It's just people are deceptive and dishonest about their racism, or they don't believe that they'er being racist, so you have to judge by their actions. Now a days racists have seemingly adopted very subtle ways to express their racism because blatant racism can't survive at Mass in todays society.

@@maggiepaul5911 subtle racism is better than overt racism, and in that way things have greatly improved since the 1960s. I'm sure you experience plenty of racism nowadays, but in the 60s you would have had no chance at a normal life. Same thing with gay rights - 40 years ago gay marriage would have been unthinkable by most people in this country, but now? Sure, there are people who complain about it or criticize it, but for the most part it's widely accepted.

@@mortox2k Oh well yeah of course I don't deny that lol. Just the definition of "racism" doesn't really change. there are still alot of problems that need to be worked on and ig the 1960s is probably a pretty low bar to set compared to what we prolly could be. "Better" is probably not the best characterization either. You'd cringe along with me trying to describe segregation as "better" compared to slavery, or slavery as "better" compared to a slow death. Subtle racism can be very deceptive. I recognize that the country has significantly progressed past seg tho. 😎

Maggie Paul The definition of racism has changed. According to some black people now they can’t be racist against white people because black people hold no power. They have literally changed the definition of racism.

@@ArtistFormerlyKnownAsShitlord you're trying to attribute a meaning to what OP meant in which he did not clarify. I don't agree with that idea, I think it's dumb, divisive, and counterproductive. The definition hasn't changed, It is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between systemic racism, and racism; as is in reference to prejudice against another person based off their race. just because some people ascribe to this idea, doesn't mean that the definition has "changed." I could likewise make the same argument for people who think you have to be in full body clansmen garments to be "racist."

and rush limbugh called it back then and extra.

Interesting quote. Makes me think of people I know who are so smart that they are actually dummer than dumb people

Isn't he an 80 year old fat black guy?

@Richard East what a stupid statement.

@Richard East taxing the citizens? Socialism is when the masses pay for a group... Socialists are so kind and generous with other people's money.

That's a very good quote

There's your problem right there, paying attention to social media. I deactivated my Facebook account years ago, and I never bothered with Twitter at all. The amazing thing is that I never run into these people I hear about in real life, they know themselves that their bullshit doesn't fly in the real world, and they all know they're playing the same silly little game to appear as virtuous as possible on social media.

"Screaming, yelling or interruptions"? It wasn't leftists who unprecedently yelled You lie! during Obama's SOTU. and it WAS MTG who stood up with other GQP members and yelled during the last SOTU. Useless hypocritical projection seems to be all the right has left. Stop being whiny victims and grow a pair.

I think you might find a read about the term "filter bubble" enlightening

@Jeffery Hoover ... Who are you and why are you writing nonsense at me? I was writing to the OP of this thread, I don't know and don't care about whatever drama is going on in the thread itself.

George Washington's family motto was Exitus acta probat, which some have translated as "The end justifies the means". (Literally, "the outcome proves the act".) The general idea is an old one and is not necessarily bad in itself - the problem comes when those who intend to practice it do not actually pay attention to all of the outcomes, and are either unable or unwilling to pursue their ends in the least destructive and/or most beneficial way. Frequently they have caused much harm and have not even accomplished what they intended - so in such cases the ends have proven the means to be wrong.

"The end justifies the means." That is exactly what I was thinking too. I see this a lot from the left. A good example was when Trump was elected there were murmurs about him being impeached, it was floating around the media - even before he took office. Then it was years of vainly searching for evidence that wasn't there and even fabricating it. Now they are pushing the Jan. 6 stuff hard. Why? To prevent him from being elected again. They find him so reprehensible as a human being, that there is no need for real crimes or evidence. In their minds, keeping him out of office is the right thing to do, no matter how they do it. Again, the end justifies the means. My concern is where does this kind of thinking end?

Agreed

That is certainly how it should be but in this day and age we do see that if you express and defend views that are ever so slightly right leaning then a leftist mob will bully you. That could easily lead people to be afraid of defending their views.

Goes both ways though. people like Ben shapiro or Steven crowder on RU-vid would never debate someone on the left like Sam Seder or Kyle kullinski. Sam Seder has tried to come on Steven crowder's podcast multiple times to debate but he won't do it.

@@WolvesFansince Because Seder is a bozo. It doesn't go both ways man, its always the leftists who try to shut down dialogue.

Because any shy weak slow phlegmatic do not want any responsibility for having to make any decisions and would rather entrust all responsibility onto someone else Their fears and sloth and wanting to be carried through life is most successful with a choleric partner and family. It's devious how these gentle phlegmatic liberal people are at the forefront in institutions designed to breakup the family unit. Oh how the ungodly naturally self destruct

which is a total load of crap, and, incidentally, a lie. Of course he had morals, then. he hadn't grown up. he just doesn't have them now. he merely has patterns of behaviour which on examination reduce to habit and kneejerk. He has never thought about why they might be good or bad. He's a blustering fool.

Which is just a straight up retarded comment. Having no morals has never been the point of any activity ever carried out by humans. He's explaining how he felt and then projecting that onto everyone else.

Hamilton - those were my thoughts too. Morals depend upon the religious stories we accept or don't accept? The guy must be realizing he's speaking nonsense when he's speaking it. If you actually think you get your morals from religious stories you'll be no better than the most murderous story from the primitive-minded traditions.

iok-1 what makes you think you/we are better?

​@@Hyndergogen9 Perfect for certain people to latch on to, especially since Hitchens is dead. America is heading down the tubes, quick. These "right-wingers" [capitalists] will sell anything and everything [even right-wing "race" orientation] down the drain...not only do they not even make sense as "right-wingers", but they are hypocrites to the nth degree. Anything...for America.

Well said! Only the very privileged can reconcile such hypocrisy.

That's because we believe in freedom. Women are free to their bodies and contents. Do YOU want others controlling your body - your DNA? I didn't think so. We do NOT have rights until we are born. Check your birth certificate. See the date? That's the day you became a citizen with rights. Until you're born - you are the property of you mother. And, I am a progressive who has no problem with the death penalty. We do not all think the same things. No different than your side who don't agree on everything either. 70% of Americans believe a woman has a right to choice. So there.

@@OregonDARRYL I happily support abortion because it kills off the next generation largely of the people I hate. I have never understood why pro-lifers have a problem with their opponents removing themselves from the gene pool.

@@OregonDARRYL ah so its only immoral to slay someone if they have legal rights. so in other words, the law is your moral compass. Well now daddy Hitler says we need to exterminate the jews so lets get to it, nothing wrong with that, the law says it is okay after all. The fact of the matter is there is a living child in that womb, and killing it is no different than killing your 5 year old child. I assume you think it would be wrong for a mother to euthanize her 5 year old after shes realized being a mom is tough and stressful, and no longer wants to be a mom, right?

@@OregonDARRYL Honest question, what's your take on vaccination mandates?

You mean like Trump taking no responsibility for the Jan 6th insurrection?

@@ericnelson9100 What insurrection? I only saw a protest where fewer than 1% of the people took it too far. Looked positively civilised compared to the Antifa nonsense months before

@@juliantheapostate8295

what ??

@@nativeamerican1167 Matt's comment is clear enough.

@CheetoDorito69 I can read fine , what have you rolled your eyes at??

Funny, my eye rolls are always confirmed. He's a whiner.

Time can change your perspective because hopefully you have experienced more in life and see things clearly. With age comes wisdom as the saying goes. Pretty fucking clear.

The Right is Individualist, the Left is Collectivist. No need to explain anything else, that's all there is to it. Look at the current state of the world and explain me how Institutionalized Individualism is not EVIL

@@RobleViejo most leftist I see are hyper individualist that are destroying European people with their open borders and destruction of family I think European people need to come together as a collective we need extreme European nationalism

@@basedfemboi9401 I really hope you are kidding, because you are literally talking about bringing the nazis back.

@@basedfemboi9401 And by the way: No. Leftists are Collectivists by nature. Rightists are Individualists by nature. Thats the whole meaning of dividing things into Left and Right Wing.

@@RobleViejo so you can't have those things without Nazism GTFO you're not actually right wing you're a leftist

Conservatives often confuse bias with wisdom.

Older & more stupider but think you're clever is Conservatives way

Both sides suck, no one said conservatives have all the answers. The truth of the matter is OP is telling the truth about the other side of the coin regarding the left side of the political spectrum. It’s not black and white.

@@julius277 yes, much more than a Conservative goon

@@julius277 I am a socialist & a genius

Useless whining and projection at work.

@@robertwelsh4094 Here's a third time you say this. Ad hominem attacks don't make him look dumber. They make you look dumber.

@@hurdygurdyman1905 Learn English. Then grow a pair.

@@robertwelsh4094 Awesome response! Just what I'd hoped for -- there was absolutey nothing wrong with my English and nothing to suggest I lack testicles. Robert Welsh... the stupidity continues! Wait, aren't you going to mention whining? We're so used to it by now.

Yes, because Trumpers LOVE everyone and love scientific facts. LMAO With all due respect, you and Peter sound like hypocritical whiners.

In my experience that is not really believed by leftists.

Which he said while childishly pointing his finger at ONE side only. Give me a break.

@@robertwelsh4094 Is that all you got out of what he said? If so, you kind of proved his point.

​@@JSchaffer214 That's all that was there. He was an ultra-left nut. Now he's a con. Now he thinks the "left" thinks they're better than the righties, and they also treat him like he's evil. Essentially, we can't have civility in our discussions because of meanies on the left. What else was there, genius? Go ahead, paint yourself out of this corner.

@@robertwelsh4094 THANK YOU! All these posts I've seen conveniently ignore the fact that the core of Hitchens argument isn't against linking emotion to politics... it's against the entire left side of the political spectrum as a group. Kudos for him to find for finding a way to insulting his opponents and making it sound like an intellectual argument, but really all he's doing is exactly what he says he opposes: dehumanizing people who disagree with him.

TheWindAmongTheReeds The only person of substance (by my reckoning) that he ever really debated was William Lane Craig, and he got thrashed in that one, particularly toward the end when Craig started questioning him directly.

I was dazzled by Christopher's bombast and self assured demeanour, and thought Peter an insufferable bore. How times change.

@@BasedPeanutButterEnjoyer Hahaha.Yeah, only religious people think that. William Lane Craig is a lying and dishonest piece of shit who is only convincing to those who already agree with his conclusions.

@@ztrinx1 exactly. When you think dishonesty and outright lies youbthink WLC and Peter Hitchens. There is a reason everyone knows Christopher but few have heard of his brother.

@@ztrinx1 Concurred, depending on the audience, William either believed in a literal flood or, on other nights in front of other audiences, he thought the flood was not literal. I do wish Christopher had lived long enough to debate Jordan Peterson. That would have been quite a show I think.

The Left being so prevalent in Universities and in its modern 1st world form shaped to appeal to emotions (and the most reason-subjugating ones at that) I think a great many people adopt a Leftist label and fill it in with stock ideas. If they get caught by that little snare, they will keep refilling that frame with new ideas they presume to be correct because it fits the frame they adopted without evidence both to fit in (peers) and rebel (things they personally don't want to have to deal with...as in, I knew a lot of young "socialists" who were scared of the job market for brand-new graduates or just didn't want to work. That's why they were Socialists--they wanted a free ride without the associated stigma.) It's funny how the authoritarian fist revealed itself underneath the hippy glove so quickly and completely, though. I used to bristle when people said the Left had no built-in morality nor demand for one. Now I see that's just the simple fact, and that it pulls in a lot of selfish people who don't want to be condemned for selfishness who are quite happy to be totalitarian as long as they can escape judgment or convince themselves it's nonsense, that the other side are the evil ones projecting their own flaws onto the selfish Left.

yes, people should embrace being wrong. Without that, tribalism is fueled.

Do you think there is a way to convince the young of their own folly?

I don't know if you are Christian or not but what you describe is what Jesus said in Matthew 7:5: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

I’m glad you took some responsibility and owned it. It’s called projection. It’s absolutely goddamn necessary. A whole lot of stupid fucking people are aware at some level they have something wrong within themselves and yet see the enemy outside themselves with their own problem. Good fucking grief the appalling display of egotism is downright unstable the left displays daily.

You, were never on the left...

@@draith3358 So, Dr, because he thought "racism bad" he was on the left? That's a little ridiculous...

That has nothing to do with being left-wing. Stop making fake stories.

Maybe there's a reason you're called a racist, bigot and homophobe.

@@bobmcrae5751 if it’s anything like I’ve seen, pejoratives like bigot, racist, homophobic, etc aren’t being accurately applied, they are only used by those on the political left to “win” arguments with arguing. I find many of the viewpoints on the political left to lead to MUCH bigotry and hate, much more than I generally see in conservatives these days.

There is, Bob. Because people like you evade the fact that words actually denote something.

Everyone who is young is an idealist. You didn't see old hippies did you? It's living your life that makes you settle into realities like paying a mortgage, raising kids, educating kids.....Let the millennials grow up and realize their values only extend to their lifespan. That's why I laugh when I see people like Ben Shapiro go to college campuses. Pick on someone your own age, then it's a real debate.

@@queent3343 There's merit to speakers visiting college campuses. The entire concept of education is the old passing on their knowledge to the young. Secondly, Shapiro (and likely whoever else you demean) do debate others' his age.

Civilized, but childish. "Recoil like a snail..."? He comes across as a whiner.

Agreed, it takes a great deal of intestinal fortitude to admit you were wrong or changed your mind about such an adamant part of your life philosophy in front of the public.

@@robertwelsh4094 Not childish at all. It's a great simile. Weird that from everything he said, that was your takeaway.

@@robertwelsh4094 lmao I don't agree with 70% of what he said but just there you did EXACTLY what he described 😂🤣

@@ThepurposeofTime Did it hurt your little feelings? You're a whiner too.

He's a Christian. There's no truth in that. You have failed at everything in life.

Having a relativistic mindset meant believing in objective morality?

@@DoctorPhileasFragg I think Wingdings meant subjective morality. The rest of the comment strongly implies it.

When someone writes "years ago I believed in objective morality, and believed that holding any value was an act of hubris and naivety" ... that's a does not compute for me. Morality is about values, how can anyone claim to be moral without values? And even if one is against values, being against values is a value in and of itself. Could you elaborate on the mindset you left behind?

William Gairdner's book "The War Against the Family" is very eye-opening too.

@@hermanwooster8944 Yes. Nihilism is radical existentialism so they must have meant subjective morality. It's funny and sad how almost all heinous acts of evil in world can be traced back to nihilism, because if there is no objective morality then it's anyone's game to classify their own with any basis, regardless of whether it involves hurting countless others. Crime and Punishment illustrates the clear danger of this, and Nazism even more.

Kendrick Jahn This is his bro

This prick was clearly the black sheep

Christopher remained a Trotskyist and had no scruples about dealing with others that disagreed with him. Give me Christian Peter any day of the week!

@@markbaker5599 Your the prick who’d wheel out the Guillotine then cry when it Came for him!

Socialism now that sounds good.

shan_rocks Christopher kept it quiet. Now you know why.

Virtue Signalling is what you do when you know people are looking.

Both of you here are correct.

@The Flash Because they are weak

@@nw8000 well we can't all be strong like you internet tough guy

women lust for power, despite men acquiring it...

Exactly, I've seen the same amount of arrogant and uninformed people on the whole political compass.

Some political views are discusting and can only be held by morally deficient individuals that fact was established at Nuremberg! NEVER AGAIN or have we forgot?

I don't think he's implying that everyone with a particular political stance has an identical demeanor. It's just generalizations. There are always exceptions but generally speaking people with certain political stances tend to have a certain demeanor. You're arguing a straw man.

@@WoodRabbitTaoist you're the one arguing the straw man. I never said that he said that, did I?

@@micahgmiranda it sure seemed like you were trying to imply it. Maybe I misunderstood.

"Tolerant"... nice one.

Careful, they might shiv you if they find out that you don't see similarly.

Or they could be like the vast majority of the rest of us and not care. A riot happens in London and cops and rioters are hurt. How does that affect me in Lincolnshire? What do I care about a rioters broken skull, or some copper getting his arm broke or some war memorial getting trashed? Means nowt to me.

Riots only hurt the poor and Middle classes because the rich have the Money to gather their things and leave!

@John & Jane Smith huh?

We need more like him, but the prob is the left label people racist, fascist etc so too many are too scared to stand up to the left.

@Elenhith Hear hear.

He is yes to a certain degree but i would never place him on my mantelpiece. Imagine trying to have a wank over Baywatch with that head gawping at you.

utterly agree. @Elenhith

GAZZA WAZZA you spelt embarrassment wrong.

the right doesnt fear change they seek to prevent unnecessary change. alot of "progress" is degenerate and should be fought. you just want right wingers to let you do whatever you want with no push back and then claim they are just "scared" of change.

@@megasizer5119 exactly. It’s unnecessary change that’s the problem. Change is okay and good.

Especially when Chris supported the invasion of Iraq.

@@jakecostanza802 I did not say he works against Jewish interests.

George Orwell was an avid supporter of democratic socialism. He said in Homage to Catalonia "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism, as I understand it." People love touting Animal Farm as some ultimate work of anti-left ideology, but thats an intellectually dishonest interpretation of a book more obviously, (even by admission of the author as seen above) a work of anti-totalitarianism literature.

But Orwell was a socialist. That’s literally just America.

all countries are like that. Your point makes no sense

Ben Cross your post doesn’t really make sense. Right now it is anti-left because the left is more totalitarian now. Neither left or right has a exclusive claim to totalitarianism. Also “as I understand it” is the same as putting anything before the word justice. It subverts the word to being so vague it’s almost pointless to use. So him being a Democratic socialist is meaningless without having an very long interview with him to define what HE considered it to be. The traditional left is vastly different to the modern left.

- Michael Scott

Go2therock 7

He's a whiner.

@@robertwelsh4094 i think pete is full of himself but empty at the same time. he basically boasted about being free of of an ethical core.

@@robertwelsh4094 Repeating this over and over doesn't make it true.

@@jessebianchi2631 When did he do that? Seemed he did the opposite.

i don't think it is so much legislation as it is covetousness. people become slaves to their jobs because they want more stuff. simple as that.

'' Oh yeah' , he was the one that had sympathy for those that weren't wealthy..

@ItsStillRealToMe DamnIt - you couldn't be more wrong. actually the dumber, dishonest, bitter one is the one who we lost. the more intelligent, honest one is still with us. may Christopher H rip though

Read it online and hang on to your money. Most of it is not worth paying for.

I just read Peter’s column online and buy the Sunday Telegraph instead.

Mick, I am so sorry.

The others including that you hate immigrants, and benefit scrounges, yet simultaneously fawn over the self-styled ‘Windsor’ family?

But there are also cases where hearts were stopped because mothers didn't have abortions

@@mikedon5205 There is no substantial amount of pro-lifers who would deny a woman's right to have an abortion if it were to save her life.

@@zufgh really. Several cases where medical teams were afraid to act because of abortion laws and mothers have died look into cases why Ireland became more lenient on abortion because of certain cases

And a beating heart needs to be the first thing present in a lump of cells, so there can be circulation of Oxygen and nutrients and disposal of waste. Try not to be so melodramatic.

Jesse Palmer How did he ‘lose’?

Playing the victim.

Jesus Christ, what a whiner. If you have good arguments, it should not matter how many opponents you're debating with. Also, that he is the only one not on the left there doesn't automatically mean he's right. I see a lot of people confusing courage with being right. That's when you end up with fools like Trump.

@@jessepalmer9271- PH is offering facts, you just don't get it! How can you offer facts and reason to any leftists??

Global Rationality Hit the nail on the head - I never heard his brother complain about being outnumbered.

huh?

AKA virtue signaling...a major trait of leftists.

there are a few very profound things where the right is immune to facts, like protectionism, trickle down economics, guns and their connection to gun deaths...just sayin.

The usual problem I have with this line of argument is that the typical person cannot differentiate between liberals with their identity politics and leftists who want to bring you things like healthcare which in even conservative studies show would save the nation money.

They just like to feel good, not do good. All of this woke stuff is loser grade narcissism.

@OG Steele You're 17 years old aren't you?

@OG Steele meh, you're deflecting

Not a leftie but I agree with you 100%. The truth is in between. As Jordan Peterson said in an interview, the ideas behind conservatives and liberals (I'm oversimplifying right now) are that conservatives want to keep things the way they are because they work. Liberals say we need change because the world changes and the things that work may not work in the future. The thing is, both sides are right. This is why free speech is essential. WE NEED each other to create a properly functioning society. And more importantly, we need to listen to what the other side has to say because going into the extremes of each direction is deadly. History proves this 100% of the time. The problem is when one side pulls away from the center, the other tries to compensate by doing the same. From this point on, every rational discussion on any social, political or economic matter is doomed from the start.

@@AlexLeafy I don't think just free speech is enough, I feel like people are pre-set to not want to converse with people who disagree. I mean as a 17-year old leftist (:P) I won't pretend it was easy to click on this video nor read the comments. Politicians don't really help to make people from different ends of the spectrum (or compass if you prefer) communicate with each other either. I feel both Liberalism and Conservatism draw on emotions which tend to make things more extreme, and appealing to voters' emotions is an easy way to get votes. I have no idea where I'm going with this so I'll end it here.

The irony is that the left also think their enemy on the right is right, when in fact the Nazis and Fascists they rail against are all leftist political ideologies. That's right, boys and girls. Nazism is a leftist ideology. Not only that, but Hitler got all his most extreme ideas from the American Democrat Party of his day....including a review of the idea of how the Democrat South decided who is black before they codified who they would target. It turned out that the Democrat method of the "one drop rule" was too *extreme* for even the Nazis.

@@samjordan8800 You're deluded and proven wrong re: Trump, Republicans, voter suppression tactics, AND THE FACT THEY LOST THE PRESIDENCY, NO FRAUD, AND YET CONTINUE TO DIVIDE THE PEOPLE WITH THIS BS.

@@janedoe1146 The entire Trump term was filled by the Left screaming about him not being their President lol. Accuse your opponents of what you are doing is a major Marxist tactic and boringly predictable. I'm kinda glad Biden is in power. His policies are waking up a lot of people to how inept the Democrats and Socialists are. Another three years of this and Dems will be lucky to get any power for a generation. Sometimes, the only way out is through. Protip: Typing in Caps does not make you more correct, it just makes you look like a child throwing a hissy-fit

@@samjordan8800 "Nazism is a leftist ideology" LOOOOOOL sorry no.

​@@danielgoicoechea3440 Hitler was personally a socialist. “We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system!” - Adolf Hitler

He was dearly missed because, agree with him or not, he was one of the last bastions of having an opinion and fearlessly and eloquently speaking your mind on it. One may not agree with a chap's opinion, but to defend his right to hold it and to admire his passion and correctness in it's argument is not an admission of anything but a decent, democratic upbringing. Also, you contradict yourself all over the shop here - how is banging the drum against Islam promoting what destroys western civilisation. Surely to speak again Islam is to speak against the forces working for the destruction of western civilisation. How is being in favour of military action a leftist position? The lefties are all rabid peaceniks who think Islamic extremism should be confronted by a gentle pat on the hand and a kind "there, there..." As I said, I much prefer Peter's position as a day to day thing, but the world without Chris is not as rich as a world with him would have been.

@Mateo Charles von Pavlović I see no evidence to suggest existence and I see no evidence to disprove existence. I'm what you call a skeptical agnostic. And if, by the way, god did exist,w hat difference would it make to me? I would simply give him/her no moral authority over me and not permit him/her to assume it.

I think your great grandfather told his granddaughter a fairystory and she told it to you. Again, no evidence to assume existence of feminine goat fairies, no direct evidence to disprove - so I have no opinion. And, like on the topic of god, seeing it is of no consequence whether I have an opinion or not, it is not necessary for me to have one.

Sigh. I am beginning to think Marcus is a much smarter man than I am. Fish, Lions and Giraffes exist because there is empirically derived, repeatable, verified and peer reviewed evidence to suggest they do. Proof can exist in the absence of disproof. That's called empiricism. Its the foundation of modern philosophy and science. Disproof does not exist in the absence of proof. Just because a fish cannot see a giraffe does not mean there is no giraffe. And, perhaps, a fish doesn't care of there is a giraffe or not. Given the argument around god alternates between an absence of any empirical proof and the absence of absolute disproof, agnosticism would seem to be the default state. Given that, to me, a state of proof or disproof would make no difference to my life either way, I don't seek or advocate for one. I've told you what I think, as you asked. I am not prepare to discuss this any further.

You're correct and I do apologise for my brusque nature.

Did he hurt you that badly? Ohhh you poor boy.

Yea, radical fringes are bad. It's not complicated...