Leftists have a problem with comprehension.
For any Leftists reading, comprehension means the action or capability of understanding something.
Yes, the irony of trying to explain comprehension to a person who has difficulty with it is not lost on me.
Let’s look at some examples of this.
Probably the most well known and egregious (For Leftists: outstandingly bad; shocking) example of this is the whole immigration / illegal immigration confusion.
Say a criticism about illegal immigrants and the Left will immediately accuse you of hating all immigrants.
That’s two comprehension problems right there.
Criticism somehow means hate and illegal immigrants mysteriously becomes all immigrants.
It’s because their minds are a mess, disorderly, muddled. A hodgepodge of half-understood ideas, ideology they have absorbed from dubious sources or learnt by rote, conclusions based on poor evidentiary technique and lack of critical thinking, and more importantly no understanding of how to utilise what they do know to produce a modicum of what we like to call … common sense. They think that because two things have certain elements in common that they are therefore the same. In this case they think that because criticism is bad and hate is bad, therefore criticism is hate. They are unable to draw distinctions between things that are … well distinct. In other words they are unable to think clearly.
As for the not hearing the illegal part of the phrase, that’s just Leftists hearing what they want to hear so that they can label someone they hate for the crime of disagreeing with them, as a bigot. The irony there is obvious. (For Leftists: I am suggesting that the reason you fail to hear the word illegal and therefore realise the person you are talking about is NOT a bigot, is because you want them to be a bigot so that you can give yourself permission to berate them, bully them and then get your own way. That, ironically (oh look it up yourself. I’m not doing everything for you) makes you the unpleasant sub-human scumbag you are accusing them of being). The desire to prove the other person evil is so powerful that it deceives what’s left of their mind into either not hearing what was said properly or just not understanding (For Leftists: a synonym (I’m really not helping here am I) for comprehension) the simple idea that adjectives can qualify nouns. Specifically in our case, immigrant is the noun that the adjective illegal is qualifying. So the phrase illegal immigrants will actually only refer to a small subset of immigrants. Namely, and here’s the clever bit – illegal ones. (For Leftists: I know the explanation is simplistic and you think you’ve understood, but do me a favour and read it again. Slowly. At least three more times.)
The ‘Nation of Immigrants’ claim is another example of the comprehension problem. Although to be fair, it’s a more subtle example and will therefore tax the Leftist brain far more. Especially considering the problems it had with ‘illegal immigrants’.
The problem is that in this case the Leftist is technically correct. An immigrant is someone who goes to live in a foreign country. And as all Americans except Native American’s came from somewhere else – the clue is in the adjective ‘Native’, most Americans are descended from immigrants. Therefore it is correct to say America is a Nation of Immigrants.
But here’s the problem. Various other ideas can interact with the one you’re trying to express which may make what you are saying correct when considered in the limited light of your one idea but completely wrong when considering all the ideas together. Yes sometimes you have to deal with two ideas in one go. (For Leftists: To understand this idea, imagine having two brains instead of one).
The first immigrants who came to America had to spend much time and energy building the country. This was because when they first came there was no actual country and if they wanted one they would have to build it themselves. This is the reason why they are perhaps more accurately, called ‘Settlers’ (For Leftists: See if you can do this one yourself). Even immigrants who came to America only fifty years ago, when the welfare state was … shall we say not a reliable way to make a livelihood (oops can you see where I’m going with this), used their newly acquired freedoms and opportunities to do the decades of hard work that brought them their financial success. Nowadays … well let’s just say, I’m not convinced that immigrants have the same outlook on life. (For Leftists: Although it looks like I haven’t finished explaining the outlook of today’s immigrants, I cleverly pre-empted the need to do so by implying their outlook was the opposite of earlier immigrants, in a throw away comment I put in brackets that you didn’t understand. I would like to add at this time, that the necessity for these side notes have not been accidental. I created the need for them on purpose so I could mock your stupidity. Thank you for your help in that regard.)
Therefore saying ‘We are a Nation of Immigrants’ while technically true ignores the idea that there are two types of immigrants – those who come to build a country, or to take advantage of the freedom and opportunity to work hard and achieve success and those who come to take advantage of the welfare state. They both have the common denominator of being people who moved to a foreign country and it is technically accurate to describe them as immigrants but their objectives are completely different. Since it is that objective that people who have problems with the number of immigrants want to address, merely looking at the technical definition of immigrants to prove everyone is descended from immigrants so how can you stop fellow immigrants coming into the country, completely ignores the point they’re making. Which is their goal, because if they couldn’t ignore the point they would have to agree with it, as the whole thing is patently obvious. Finally we have found something that Leftists are very good at. Apart from destroying a free and prosperous country and making other people’s lives miserable.
Another example is the brouhaha (For Leftists: Nope. It is an English word) surrounding Donald Trump’s declaration that he’s a Nationalist. This is almost the same comprehension problem as the illegal immigration one, just this time instead of ignoring one of the words spoken, they are adding another one in and blatantly putting words in someone else’s mouth. Yes, just when you thought they couldn’t get any stupider by not hearing a word, they break the glass ceiling on idiocy and hear the phrase White Nationalist, even though he actually said Nationalist. (For Non-Leftists: There’s always another glass ceiling they’ll break.)
Worse, they may agree he said Nationalist, but claim that he meant White Nationalist. This is not a mere comprehension problem. This is the delusion that they know what a person means better than the person themselves. This is utterly absurd when you think about it. The only reason a person is saying something in the first place is because you can’t read their mind, but when they say something you’re allowed to reinterpret it based on knowing better what they’re actually thinking because now you can read their mind. Ridiculous. But giving themselves the power to know what someone else means is simply another Leftist technique to brand someone as evil without providing a shred of evidence.
The truth is that there is something to this after all. It’s certainly possible to suggest that someone who says Nationalist means White Nationalist based on an understanding of the person having heard what they say about other matters. The trouble is … well they have a comprehension problem. (For Leftists: I’m accusing you of misunderstanding Trump in other matters and using those misunderstandings to justify a meaning to ‘Nationalist’ that was never meant. (For Super Leftists: I’m saying you’re an idiot)).
While we’re on Trump, he’s said a million things whose meaning the Left have been ‘unable’ to grasp. (For Leftists: I know I said ‘a million things’ but what I meant was a lot. I simply used a million as a deliberate exaggeration to convey a second simultaneous idea, that not only is this happening a lot but also more than usual due to your extreme dislike of Trump. I know it’s a way of communicating that you’re simply not used to and that you can’t even conceive of this ‘super sophisticated’ way of thinking which we simply call … thinking. But it’s there. Once you appreciate that the more mentally capable have been speaking like this the whole time, as we shall soon see, and tap into that, new vistas of understanding will open up before you. You could even learn to think clearly yourselves. Eventually you will see, sadly, that we’re not the bigots you thought we were but rather it was your stupidity, your being intellectually stunted that led you to a mistaken, one dimensional meaning that was never there.)
There are lots of articles claiming Trump encourages violence. There are a lot of quotes. Take the example of Trump praising the Republican Congressman who body slammed a Guardian reporter. Here’s Trump’s quote: “Any guy that can do a body slam, he’s my kind of — he’s my guy.”
Here’s what you think he’s saying: “I like violent people. Be violent to people. Yeah! Especially members of the press.”
Here’s what I think he could be saying: “Sometimes people need to stand up to bullies and not just accept all the garbage they throw at us. Sometimes people deserve a little payback. That’s the kind of thing I believe in and that’s the kind of person I like.”
Not that the Congressman was right. Not that everyone should do this all the time. But that Trump likes people who stand up for themselves where appropriate. “If that reporter deserved it then yeah, well done, if not then I still like the fact you would stand up for yourself.” (For Leftists: That last part was a bit nuanced. If it angers you pretend for a minute – it’s not that long, that I’m not an evil bigot and reread it and see if you can understand it in a way that doesn’t lead to absolute proof of my wickedness.)
Let’s face it. All Trump probably meant in reality was that body-slamming is something a tough guy would do, and he (Trump) sees himself as a tough guy so of course they’re the same kind of person. Leftists hate Trump so much that they are busy making a mountain out of a molehill.
Speaking of mountains, as an aside, notice the hypocrisy. There are verses in certain religious texts that openly call for the killing of the non-believer. Many religious leaders of that religion take those verses literally and encourage violence and killing. The last sixteen hundred years (I haven’t revealed anything. Non Leftists knew who I was talking about all along and Leftists are still probably clueless) provide plenty of examples of adherents killing the non-believer as their leaders instructed (For Leftists: In this case I used ‘plenty’ instead of the more accurate ‘millions’ to highlight by means of sarcasm the fact that the number is so large that it has become meaningless (not to indicate a large but relatively small number). This is another example of purposefully using an imprecise word to convey another point simultaneously, a technique the intelligent often use and which you consistently misconstrue as some kind of bigotry.) Yet the apologists denounce this taking the verses literally and not understanding the meaning in context where apparently it’s true underlying meaning would be – never kill the infidel … er … I mean non-believer. Because of course, the word of god in context somehow means exactly the opposite of what he says literally. Except for “Thou shalt not commit adultery” that still means “Thou shall not commit adultery” even when you take context into account. Damn religion. Always drawing convenient lines in the worst possible way.
So a religion says kill people who disagree with you and make you feel uncomfortable that they’re not sharing your delusion, many of its leaders preach this and many of its adherents obey this instruction and Leftists turn their brains into a pretzel to prove there is absolutely no link between verses instructing violence and the violence carried out by adherents of that religion, even though they helpfully announce why they are committing this particular act of violence beforehand. But when Trump says someone who can body slam is his kind of guy then he’s encouraging violence. Can you get more stupid?
Corey Lewandowski on Fox News responds to a panellist who mentioned that the policy of separating migrant families at the border meant a Down’s Syndrome girl was separated from (the person claiming to be) her mother, with mock crying. The panellist obviously and predictably became enraged and wild with anger. Righteous anger of course. Anything else would just be wrong. He accused Lewandowski of making fun of a person with Down’s Syndrome. Not only does the already evil Lewandowski have no compassion for poor immigrants, not only does he not care for the fact that children were ‘stolen’ from their parents and put in ‘cages’ but now he is mocking a child with Down’s Syndrome!
It was wonderful, over-the-top outrage from Zac Petkanas, pounding his fist and using that ultimate of debate nukes the “how dare you?” to devastating effect. Although it seemed to me from the rigid nature of the first pounding, that he was trying a little too hard. As if his mind had seen the possibility of making a mountain out of a molehill, but didn’t really want to, yet decided that since that is the M.O. (For Leftists: M.O. stands for Modus operandi – it’s Latin. Stop colouring your hair blue and look it up) of his team, he’d better do a good job at being infuriated.
No you mindless baboon, Lewandowski was just pointing out by way of mock crying that you had just extended the boundaries of your attempts to emotionally manipulate people into being against something that is rationally correct and totally reasonable, by adding more sadness to the story, that not only was a child being separated from (the person claiming to be) her mother, but that she also had Down’s Syndrome.
But take the mock crying and put it together with something to do with the fact that you’re talking about a poor little girl with Down’s Syndrome and you’ve got yourself a media firestorm.
The good news for Zac Petkanas was that most of the media took his side. After all, he was the most outraged so he must have been right.
Muppets. (For Leftists: I’m not just randomly adding the word Muppets. I’m saying they’re stupid. As is anyone that needs me to explain this to them.)
One more example if you’ll indulge me.
Milo Yiannopoulos preaches that feminism is worse than cancer. He was challenged by a girl who asked how he could say that when she actually had cancer. He replied by saying that she had “misunderstood how humour works”, which she had because she, like many other Leftists have this comprehension problem I may have mentioned. But this girl wasn’t finished. Because she was a feminist and had just been told she had misunderstood something a man said, and obviously couldn’t let that go without a rebuttal as mandated by all the holy laws of the feminist doctrine. So without missing a beat, after Milo told her she had misunderstood him, she replied “I really don’t understand humour I’m just a woman.”
Yes, that’s right. She was implying that his thinking she had misunderstood his point was because he thought all women were incapable of understanding a man.
No. He was only talking about her. But she couldn’t understand that. She couldn’t accept that she had a flaw, so she decided somehow, that he meant she couldn’t understand, not because she was an idiot, but because of something intrinsic about her. Well she wasn’t black. She wasn’t a lesbian. She wasn’t transgender. And she wasn’t a Muslim. It must therefore be because she was a woman!
Yes that’s how it goes. Leftists can’t seem to understand the difference between insulting a single person and an entire group of people. They have to make a leap of logic and equate the two. After all, how else can you accuse someone of being a bigot unless you take the insult they meant to apply specifically to you and decide they meant it to apply to all members of your minority group.
There are rare occasions though, when Leftists do understand what a normal person is saying. A famous example of this was when Ben Shapiro appeared on the Dr Drew show with Bob / Zoe Tur. At one stage Ben addressed Bob / Zoe as ‘Sir’. That provoked some inappropriate aggressive behaviour by Bob / Zoe. But there was no doubt that he / she / weirdo totally understood the subtext of what Ben was saying. (For Leftists: I don’t think you would actually want to understand this one. Just leave it.)
This then is the comprehension problem. Criticism is racism, disagreement is hate, insulting is racism and hate. Saying something a Leftist doesn’t like is only something the worst kind of sub-human monster would do. As opposed to the old-fashioned idea where criticism is criticism, disagreement is disagreement, insulting is insulting and leaving only hate to be hate. And where somebody saying something I don’t like doesn’t bother me so much that I work myself up into into believing they are evil, in order to give myself permission to legitimately destroy their life.
Couple that with a nice dose of knowing better than the person themselves what they meant. Since the word ‘Nationalist’ does appear in the phrase ‘White Nationalist’, when said by itself it must mean something bigoted. You know, the idea of trying as hard as possible to understand somebody else in the worst possible light … because ironically, it’s you that hates them.
Or even merely taking something in a completely different way than was meant just so you can take offence and become outraged, take the moral high ground and be right in the eyes of all those who believe in the principle: you (but somehow only those on one side) are correct if you’re angry, you’re even more correct and righteous if you are outraged, and reject the principle: you are correct if the facts support what you are saying and wrong if they support the opposite of what you’re saying. If you’re saying something critical in a conversation about a Down’s Syndrome girl then obviously you’re making fun of her, and not making another point which I didn’t understand and wouldn’t want to, because who wants to debate logically and put oneself in danger of losing the argument, when I can win outright by calling you a name.
And of course whatever criticism or insult … I mean ‘hate’ was said doesn’t apply just to the person because of their stupidity, but to whatever larger group they represent. Since your criticism obviously stems from your bigotry, the target is an example of the rule not just an exception.
Yes, they hear what they want to hear. And they want to hear racism, bigotry and hatred so they can accuse you of being of a level so evil that they can absolve themselves of whatever reaction they have to you. In reality, it’s a wall they have put up around your idea, so they do not have to hear what is patently obvious to everyone with a brain that actually works.
The truth is that using these ‘misunderstandings’ to call someone a racist or bigot says less about the ostensible racist and more about the person making the baseless accusation. (For Leftists: I’m saying such an accuser is scum. Perhaps even the “dregs of society” to quote someone.)
I call this the comprehension problem, but don’t get me wrong.
I’m not ruling out other possibilities like deliberate misunderstanding or outright lying, simply to create bigotry out of thin air and their own moral virtue by rushing to condemn the very bigotry they have fabricated. It’s a powerful system that’s about to destroy the Western World.
All I’m saying is that what’s happening is at best a comprehension problem and at worst outright lying. Since we have no proof of intent, the most we can say for sure is that Leftists have a comprehension problem and that possibly … they’re liars.
The truth of the matter is that there are probably both types of Leftist.
So yes, the world is full of one-dimensional morons who do not understand how other ideas and various devices of expression mix to create meaning and who are blithely rampaging through society using their colossal stupidity to constantly tell us what we really mean and how bigoted that makes us. An army of single meaning people who cannot even fathom the possibility of saying two things at once, let alone do it, who think that those of us who possess a normal level of intellectual and mental capabilities are mistaken and immoral.
The real problem is that somehow they’re in charge!