That concurs with my observation. Indeed, it describes almost all right-wing discourse, even Zionist, not just Antisemitic.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Sartre

I don’t watch videos like that. Unless someone wants to hire me to develop a reasoned and researched reply to it.

But, that said:

We touched on the morality subject in our debate and he couldn’t get around my rebuttals even there. But debates (and videos) are typically the worst places for this because they are on clock and use emotive tactics to distort and manipulate audiences with strategic omissions and emphases and unchecked claims asserted with unearned confidence.

So the best place to go is writing, where the affect is flatter, the data more complete, and nuances preserved.

And to that end see my article:

The Ontology of Logic

Which covers logic. Presuppers often start with a fallacy of conflating natural with invented tools of reason, on which then applies my article:

The Argument from Reason

But on the matter of morality see my journal article:

Objective Moral Facts Exist in All Possible Universes

And then the articles it links to for more depth.

On specifically “leftist” stuff (which is another conflation, confusing ethics with metaethics):

How Far Left Is Too Left?

vs.

An Anatomy of Contemporary Right-Wing Delusions

Anyway,

I was wondering if you had 2 hours to give your take on, ANDREW WILSON – What Happens to Morality When You Remove God? – OFF LIMITS W/ BRYAN CALLEN – YouTube.

Specifically, your opinion of Andrew’s Presuppositional apologetics, which he believes is the bullet that slayed Matt Dillahunty and which he thinks will slay Harris, Alex O’Connor, and any atheist who gets in his way. I would hate to see Alex waste an afternoon listening to a presupper going on about the laws of logic and such.

I also just got a 15-minute clip in my YouTube suggestions, “This Is Why I HATE Leftists” – Andrew Wilson DISMANTLES Progressive’s Atheist Morality where Andrew expands a little on his problem with atheists and morality.

Cheers.

Indeed. Which only advertises his worldview’s irrationality—and the irrationality of everyone who doesn’t realize that.

The usual wilson tactic. Never defend your position. Attempt to trip up your opponent and declare victory and say “see, my worldview is the inly right worldview”.

Thank you for this. It’s so useful to collect people’s accounts, as it helps us understand what’s really happening “on the ground” as it were.

Your example of Rausch isn’t apt though as he is a Jewish atheist, and himself openly gay. So he never represented the conservative Christians he tried arguing with. A better example are the scant few conservative Christians in the pro-immigrant lobby (though even that lobby is mostly liberal Christians, not conservatives).

They justify my point that these are rare (not the statistical norm) and they are actually driven by empathy and not anger, which is why they can escape conservatism. Those people will get themselves out eventually. It’s the other 95% we are left to deal with. And in thirty years of experiemce, I have never seen a member of that 95% talked out of it with kindness. Because they are already authoritarian personalities, they can only be moved by authoritarian strategies, or strategies that trigger their authoritarian impulses but in the correct direction.

What authoritarians will do is always (always) exploit any kindness strategy for their ends and not yours. They will use it as cover (enjoying the mask of respectability and deference it entails giving them) and as opportunities for manipulation or recruitment (and thus against any agenda you think you are bringing). This is why interfaith projects always fail. They collapse and end in no net result after time. I am not aware of any counterexample.

I do not know what the “Melting Mountains” event was but dollars to doughnuts it either no longer exists, is struggling to accomplish anything, never actually accomplished any measurable thing, or has by now been captured by either conservatives and liberals and no longer meets them both. Because that is what always happens. I have seen it too many times now.

I experienced what you said with Matt Dillahunty. I “tried honestly to prove him wrong and discovered he wasn’t.” I was progressive, even as a Christian so I didn’t experience the motivation of anger so much. It’s hard for me to accept that is the only motivation conservatives trapped in delusions will respond to. A couple of examples are Jonathan Rausch who spoke to large groups of conservatives about how their anti-gay stands was also anti-family. Also, smaller meetings of Left and Right, like the Melting Mountains event in Oregon have been documented and studied. I can provide more if you like.

I’m not sure what you mean by “blanket vaccination”. Most of us don’t have a reach like yours so we either improve our one-on-one conversations for change or support organizations that are bringing groups together. I think we agree on tactics, just that I’m more averse to the ‘making them mad enough to be honest’ approach.

On the degree to which everyone has to do this themselves, sure, I can’t do the heavy work for someone else, but I can make the first move, get out of my silo, and build a bridge to theirs. You put “nothing you can ever say” in italics, and that may be true for some, but I think you are talking about the far end of the bell curve. Again, I think we agree on these principles with some differences on when and where to deploy strategies.

My experience in 17 years of a progressive church, as an adult, and having friends who are in them now, is the “shepherds” are there too. I have literally had liberal pastors use the word “protect” with regards to their flock.

I respect your observations but I’m not so pessimistic to think the “friendly” approach is not worth it. To me, presenting facts without emotion, the scientific approach, is the friendly approach. It’s how we climbed out of the dark ages and could be the way out of the affective polarization we are experiencing now. There is a correct “how” to presenting scientific information, one that is aware of Jonahtan Haidt’s “Rider and the Elephant” analogy, based on neuroscience that we are unwieldy intuitive animals with our consciousness as the rider.

It wasn’t scripted. But it was a perfect example of why they can’t do real debate.

P.S. My observations track every other testimonial of anyone who escaped the alt-right. See A Continuing List of Examples of Alt-Righters Escaping Their Delusions. There are always only two narratives: they had empathy and empirical values already and eventually started to react in horror to their peer group on their own (so, what we do had no relevance: they got themselves out); or they confronted opposition with some measure of outrage until they had that eureka moment when they realized they were catastrophically wrong about something (which again requires them to have already had the empirical values that can emotionally allow that to even happen).