![\"Error](\"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/The-Comprehension-Problem.jpg\")
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
Leftists have a problem with comprehension.<\/p>\n
For any Leftists reading, comprehension means the action or capability of understanding something.<\/p>\n
Yes, the irony of trying to explain comprehension to a person who has difficulty with it is not lost on me.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s look at some examples of this.<\/p>\n
Probably the most well known and egregious (For Leftists: outstandingly bad; shocking) example of this is the whole immigration \/ illegal immigration confusion.<\/p>\n
Say a criticism about illegal immigrants and the Left will immediately accuse you of hating all immigrants.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s two comprehension problems right there.<\/p>\n
Criticism somehow means hate and illegal immigrants mysteriously becomes all immigrants.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s 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 \u2026 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 \u2026 well distinct. In other words they are unable to think clearly.<\/p>\n
As for the not hearing the illegal part of the phrase, that\u2019s 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\u2019m 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\u2019s left of their mind into either not hearing what was said properly or just not understanding (For Leftists: a synonym (I\u2019m 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\u2019s the clever bit \u2013 illegal ones. (For Leftists: I know the explanation is simplistic and you think you\u2019ve understood, but do me a favour and read it again. Slowly. At least three more times.)<\/p>\n
The \u2018Nation of Immigrants\u2019 claim is another example of the comprehension problem. Although to be fair, it\u2019s a more subtle example and will therefore tax the Leftist brain far more. Especially considering the problems it had with \u2018illegal immigrants\u2019.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s came from somewhere else \u2013 the clue is in the adjective \u2018Native\u2019, most Americans are descended from immigrants. Therefore it is correct to say America is a Nation of Immigrants.<\/p>\n
But here\u2019s the problem. Various other ideas can interact with the one you\u2019re 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).<\/p>\n
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 \u2018Settlers\u2019 (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\u2019m going with this), used their newly acquired freedoms and opportunities to do the decades of hard work that brought them their financial success. Nowadays \u2026 well let\u2019s just say, I\u2019m not convinced that immigrants have the same outlook on life. (For Leftists: Although it looks like I haven\u2019t finished explaining the outlook of today\u2019s 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\u2019t 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.)<\/p>\n
Therefore saying \u2018We are a Nation of Immigrants\u2019 while technically true ignores the idea that there are two types of immigrants \u2013 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\u2019re making. Which is their goal, because if they couldn\u2019t 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\u2019s lives miserable.<\/p>\n
Another example is the brouhaha (For Leftists: Nope. It is<\/em> an English word) surrounding Donald Trump\u2019s declaration that he\u2019s 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\u2019s mouth. Yes, just when you thought they couldn\u2019t 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\u2019s always another glass ceiling they\u2019ll break.)<\/p>\n 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\u2019t read their mind, but when they say something you\u2019re allowed to reinterpret it based on knowing better what they\u2019re actually thinking because now you can <\/em>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.<\/p>\n The truth is that there is something to this after all. It\u2019s 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 \u2026 well they have a comprehension problem. (For Leftists: I\u2019m accusing you of misunderstanding Trump in other matters and using those misunderstandings to justify a meaning to \u2018Nationalist\u2019 that was never meant. (For Super Leftists: I\u2019m saying you\u2019re an idiot)).<\/p>\n While we\u2019re on Trump, he\u2019s said a million things whose meaning the Left have been ‘unable’ to grasp. (For Leftists: I know I said \u2018a million things\u2019 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\u2019s a way of communicating that you\u2019re simply not used to and that you can\u2019t even conceive of this ‘super sophisticated’ way of thinking which we simply call \u2026 thinking. But it\u2019s 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\u2019re 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.)<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Trump\u2019s quote: \u201cAny guy that can do a body slam, he\u2019s my kind of \u2014 he\u2019s my guy.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what you think he\u2019s saying: \u201cI like violent people. Be violent to people. Yeah! Especially members of the press.\u201d<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what I think he could be saying: \u201cSometimes 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\u2019s the kind of thing I believe in and that\u2019s the kind of person I like.\u201d<\/p>\n 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. \u201cIf that reporter deserved it then yeah, well done, if not then I still like the fact you would stand up for yourself.\u201d (For Leftists: That last part was a bit nuanced. If it angers you pretend for a minute – it\u2019s not that long, that I\u2019m not an evil bigot and reread it and see if you can understand it in a way that doesn\u2019t lead to absolute proof of my wickedness.)<\/p>\n Let\u2019s 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\u2019re the same kind of person. Leftists hate Trump so much that they are busy making a mountain out of a molehill.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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 \u2018millions\u2019 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\u2019s true underlying meaning would be \u2013 never kill the infidel \u2026 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 \u201cThou shalt not commit adultery\u201d that still means \u201cThou shall not commit adultery\u201d even when you take context into account. Damn religion. Always drawing convenient lines in the worst possible way.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s encouraging violence. Can you get more stupid?<\/p>\n Corey Lewandowski on Fox News responds to a panellist who mentioned that the policy of separating migrant families at the border meant a Down\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u2018stolen\u2019 from their parents and put in \u2018cages\u2019 but now he is mocking a child with Down\u2019s Syndrome!<\/p>\n It was wonderful, over-the-top outrage from Zac Petkanas, pounding his fist and using that ultimate of debate nukes the \u201chow dare you?\u201d 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\u2019t really want to, yet decided that since that is the M.O. (For Leftists: M.O. stands for Modus operandi \u2013 it\u2019s Latin. Stop colouring your hair blue and look it up) of his team, he\u2019d better do a good job at being infuriated.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s Syndrome.<\/p>\n But take the mock crying and put it together with something to do with the fact that you\u2019re talking about a poor little girl with Down\u2019s Syndrome and you\u2019ve got yourself a media firestorm.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Muppets. (For Leftists: I\u2019m not just randomly adding the word Muppets. I\u2019m saying they\u2019re stupid. As is anyone that needs me to explain this to them.)<\/p>\n One more example if you\u2019ll indulge me.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cmisunderstood how humour works\u201d, which she had because she, like many other Leftists have this comprehension problem I may have mentioned. But this girl wasn\u2019t finished. Because she was a feminist and had just been told she had misunderstood something a man said, and obviously couldn\u2019t 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 \u201cI really don\u2019t understand humour I\u2019m just a woman.\u201d<\/p>\n Yes, that\u2019s right. She was implying that his thinking she had misunderstood his point was because he thought all women were incapable of understanding a man.<\/p>\n No. He was only talking about her. But she couldn\u2019t understand that. She couldn\u2019t accept that she<\/em> had a flaw, so she decided somehow, that he meant she couldn\u2019t understand, not because she<\/em> was an idiot, but because of something intrinsic about her. Well she wasn\u2019t black. She wasn\u2019t a lesbian. She wasn\u2019t transgender. And she wasn\u2019t a Muslim. It must therefore be because she was a woman!<\/p>\n Yes that\u2019s how it goes. Leftists can\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n 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 \u2018Sir\u2019. 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\u2019t think you would actually want to understand this one. Just leave it.)<\/p>\n This then is the comprehension problem. Criticism is racism, disagreement is hate, insulting is racism and hate. Saying something a Leftist doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t like doesn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n Couple that with a nice dose of knowing better than the person themselves what they meant. Since the word \u2018Nationalist\u2019 does appear in the phrase \u2018White Nationalist\u2019, 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\u2019s you<\/em> that hates them<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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\u2019re angry, you\u2019re even more correct and<\/strong> 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\u2019re saying something critical in a conversation about a Down\u2019s Syndrome girl then obviously you\u2019re making fun of her, and not making another point which I didn\u2019t understand and wouldn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n And of course whatever criticism or insult … I mean ‘hate’ was said doesn\u2019t apply just to the person because of their<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The truth is that using these \u2018misunderstandings\u2019 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\u2019m saying such an accuser is scum. Perhaps even the \u201cdregs of society\u201d to quote someone.)<\/p>\n I call this the comprehension problem, but don\u2019t get me wrong.<\/p>\n I\u2019m 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\u2019s a powerful system that\u2019s about to destroy the Western World.<\/p>\n All I\u2019m saying is that what\u2019s 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 \u2026 they\u2019re liars.<\/p>\n The truth of the matter is that there are probably both types of Leftist.<\/p>\n 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\u00a0 intellectual and mental capabilities are mistaken and immoral.<\/p>\n The real problem is that somehow they\u2019re<\/em> in charge!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1924,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=870"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2522,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/870\/revisions\/2522"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1924"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/actualthinking.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}