I received a comment from a reader who took exception to my blog about a neighbor who characterized Trump supporters as “trailer trash.” She also objected to my drawing attention to Hillary’s labelling Trump supporters as comprised of a “basket of deplorables.” (See the blog below titled “Attitude against Trump and his supporters.”)
Seemingly out of the blue she said I need to “learn to have a real conversation without minimizing the other side's opinions.”
My critic believes that views about which an individual disagrees should NOT be minimized.
Let’s unpack that admonition a bit.
I agree that if there was a brand new view that I had not yet considered, it would be rash and premature of me to minimize that view. It should at least be considered, evaluated and either be dismissed, adopted, or put on the back burner for future consideration.
On the other hand, views that I have already heard, considered and based on solid evidence and experience determined were foolish, ill-conceived, dangerous, or unworkable are the perfect candidates for being “minimized.” Why? Because they were already considered and dismissed. Why shouldn’t such views be “minimized?” Not “minimizing” views that an individual has already rightly concluded are ill-conceived and which make little sense would be mind boggling. How can views deemed irredeemable not be “minimized?” That is just another definition of insanity.
This woman, an educated naval officer, is of the apparent belief that all views, however outrageous, however discredited they may be, should never be minimized. In her view, all views should be considered as equally valid, equally feasible, equally considered as if they are brand new and have never, ever been considered before – never minimized.
Such is the view of the newly educated. To the recent college graduate, everything is so new to them that they cannot fathom anyone “minimizing” a view that they currently believe is immutable. They cannot fathom the idea that some views are minimized by those who have already found them to be wanting.
This critic admits to being a Hillary supporter. She apparently thinks its OK for a neighbor to characterize Trump supporters as “trailer trash.” After all, Hillary confirmed this characterization with her own “basket of deplorables” comment. So she is very defensive of Hillary and critical of anyone who “minimizes” Hillary’s or her supporter’s bigoted comments.
There are two reasons that come to mind why such person would defend the bigoted comments of Hillary and her supporters:
- Naiveté. She is a young person recently educated in a liberal college with liberal peers and professors who have not offered the “other side” of any story to her in any positive terms. It is no wonder that she finds my “listing [of] liberal attributes … confounding and baseless.”
- Gender. She is a female who will give deciding points to any other female running for office just because she is female, aka, playing the “gender card.” It is no wonder that she defends the indefensible - the words of Hillary and her supporters - and is critical of her opponents.
A word about liberals who demand “tolerance.” They are among the least tolerant of all humans. Their cry for “tolerance” is a one-way street. They want everything “tolerated” except the things that they disagree with. That is the merging of “anything goes anarchy” (extreme libertarianism) with a form of “dictatorial autocracy” where ONLY the views of the supposedly “tolerant” elite are tolerated. This is an oxymoronic and duplicitous combination.