Tolerance

Some liberals just don't like criticism.

Two examples:
 Tea Parties Against Amnesty & Illegal Immigration shows two anti-amnesty folks attacked for the crime of documenting the pro-amnesty protest.

Some words are exchanged, and the pro-amnesty folks starting swinging their signs as weapons.  The conflict spills onto a busy street.  It stops as soon as police and fire sirens are heard.  End result?  "Racists go home" is the chant by the smug ANSWER folks as the anti-amnesty people walk away.  Yes, friends, ANSWER has elevated the discourse to name-calling.

Second was when I posted a video to Facebook, a montage of how other world leaders greeted Emperor Akihito with a handshake while Mr. Obama bows deeply.  A couple of liberals and former colleagues of mine let loose with the snark.  The names have been redacted to protect the idiots:

Did you see what happened there?  First off, commenter #1 tried to frame the context in which I had posted the video, as though I was some sort of anti-Obama birther nut.  I'll say this plainly:   Truthers and birthers both have screws loose.  Commenter #1, whom I've known for years, tried to draw attention away from the fact that a sitting president of the United States had bowed before another foreign dignitary, and refocus on my motives for posting the video.  When faced with inconvenient facts, devoted lefties will attack the messenger.  By casting me as a nut, he hopes to minimize the damage by getting people to ignore my voice and what I have to say.  I deflect the attempt by writing off the incident as nothing sinister, just another example of a foreign policy neophyte stumbling his way through on-the-job training and apparently not listening to the advice of his advisors.  Well, I hope his advisors told him not to bow.  Otherwise, nobody in his administration is competent.

Commenter #2 follows up with a predictable alternative strategy:  Minimize it in terms of what George W. Bush did in office.  At this point, it's been ten months, and that's all the left can do when the right points out an Obama foible:  Compare it to Bush.  It assumes that the criticism would not exist if Bush had been the one bowing.  Classic hit-and-run tactic, intended to take focus off Obama and onto my defense of Bush.  I won't bite.  I don't need to defend Bush because he's not in office any longer.  However, by recognizing the tactic  and identifying it, I've kept commenter #2 from distracting from the criticism.  Pointing out the clear disparity between my grievance and his is a way to return the serve.  Lathering my response in sarcasm is just icing on the cake.

This is what happens when the Left enters into the argument with preconceived notions as to how the Right formulates its arguments.  Some common tactics are:

• Attack: Claim the opponent is just parroting what they heard on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, etc.  Accuse him/her of not thinking for his or her self.  
• Defense:  "Oh, Limbaugh said that too?  I didn't know that.  Sounds like he's pretty smart."
• Attack:  Impugn the opponent's humanity.  Mis-characterize or over-simplify the opponent's position as part of the question, like "Why are you so against people having access to affordable health care?"
• Defense:  "Who said I was?  I mean, besides you, right now?"
• Attack:   Lament that things are the way they are through mistakes made by your opponent's party.  "This is where eight years of failed economic policies have gotten us."
• Defense:  Stick to your principles.  "You're absolutely right.  We should stop interfering with the free market."
• Attack:  Expose the hypocrisy of your opponent.  "If you support the war, then you should enlist and head overseas."
• Defense:  Point out the absurdity of the comment.  "And if you support abortion, you should work in a Planned Parenthood clinic."
• Attack:  Diminish your opponent through name-calling.  Try to communicate exasperation and that having a rational debate is impossible because of your opponent's partisanship.  "Great, another right-wing zombie!  Why do I bother?"
• Defense:   Communicate that you're exasperated because of the name-calling.  "I was just thinking the same thing.  You're clearly more interested in name-calling than rational debate.  When you feel like acting like a grown-up, I'll be here."
  

We see this a lot:  Shift the focus of debate, particularly to somewhere where your opponent is at a disadvantage.  The only way to defend yourself is to call them on it.  Let them know you're onto their game, and use it to keep them on topic.  Above all, avoid their commonly-laid traps.  When they engage in personal attacks, treat them with pity, not anger.

In the past, I've debated a few lefties with inferiority complexes. They mask their own insecurities by bragging excessively about how much more money they make than you, or how much smarter they are.  Such people can only maintain the illusion of having a superior logical argument for a short while before their insecurities get the best of them.  The more you refute their logic, the more frequently their derision will seep through, and the cruder their attacks will become.  Many of them seem to exhibit this belief that conservatives are just a bunch of racist redneck high-school dropouts who can't spell or reason through their political beliefs.  That's fine, let them underestimate us.  And be sure to point out all of their spelling and grammar mistakes when they take that track.