3. This point I knew was going to be hard to explain, and I feel like I didn't come across as well as I could. Freaking language barrier and limited brain capacity gets in the way. I know I have a valid point here, it's just hard to explain. There is principal difference between just representing your special interest group or faction, versus if you set out to speak for everybody. And it ties into the self-criticim part somehow. I just can't explain the connection. Accountability. Let's leave it for now.

4. *wall of text*

5. In time, if you would follow and study this topic for a while, I'm certain you would discover this element/property of Cultural marxism, namely their unwillingness to compromise. That it's intrinsic and very principal to the ideology. It ties into the goal to conquer all of humanity. I just wish I coulkd explain it. I wish I could demonstrate the basis for this claim, but I guess I haven't reached so far in my studies yet.

I'd like to note that I'm always trying to advance the discussion in a larger sense, but so far I haven't got much help from the VGC community in my task to define Cultural Marxism.

6. Interesting point. I have thought quite a bit on rhetorics, how I come across and what type of expression has the highest chance to take root etc. So it's nice to get some feedback. Do you think I use the method of demonizing? If possible, could you elaborate in what way I demonize?

7. Cool. Thanks.

** Yep, it would require several long posts haha.

3. I agree.

4. Looks like a lot of this boils down to us having different views about what's too far left and what's not. It could probably be discussed further, but I reckon the difference is at a pretty fundamental level and that agreement can't be found. Either way, I'm not very eager to get into that discussion. :D

5. I don't particularly object to your claim about the unwillingness to compromise, but I still think people will at least occassionally take the chance to compromise if they'd otherwise lose an argument completely. It's just bound to happen more or less often if it's the only way to get even a portion of your agenda through. I haven't studied this rigorously though, so there's always room for error, but this seems like common sense to me. It's just very difficult to avoid having to make compromises unless you're in a really powerful position.

6. Ah, demonize is probably not the best word, but it's definitely in your arsenal. Judging by this post, wouldn't you agree? Demonization there isn't as strong as it could be, but you associate a lot of very bad things with the left. Demonization itself isn't my point though, I guess. It's more about the extremely aggressive style, of which demonization is just a part of. Who do you think is going to listen to you if you're being aggressive and demonize them? (I think this conversation even started from criticizing the left from doing so.) You're mostly going to get ones that already agree with you to listen to you if you talk aggressively, which seems quite counterproductive to me if your objective is to have others agree with you. This isn't backed up by any scientific research though, it's mostly based on my own experiences and common sense, so there's some room for error.

Personally I try to stay calm and understand the other party, because it seems to generally yield the best results in conversations. My logic behind that is that I believe respect towards the other party to help in finding common ground. A heated conversation usually leads nowhere, as the parties end up getting annoyed by each other and easily resorting to logically unsound arguments, which further escalate the situation. I don't know if that's an effective method if you're trying to preach and push your agenda, but it certainly seems to work well in conversations.

I think I covered all important points in my answer?

4. It's a complex discussion and you just said you're not eager to get into it, but if I ask you this way: do you believe there is a movement within the left that should be called Cultural Marxism and that it's meaningful to use that term? Have you identified a significant change in ambition among a significant part of the left in recent years (in the last decade or two)?

6. Interesting. I guess that is demonizing yes, but about that particular example I feel it's justified. It is the extreme hypocrisy, lack of self-criticism and total lack of understaning human nature that largely make up the dangerous element of Cultural Marxism and it's the reason why I'm engaged in this issue to begin with. Elements that repeatedly have hit me like a brick wall and drawn my attention to thios issee and to this battle.

About rethorics and tactics, I'm happy that you bring this to my attention. Like I said, I reflect upon this dilemma often and it's certainly something

1) Not if he secures the border and limits Muslim immigration.

2) Do you really think the president's personal behavior will suddenly cause people to treat women worse? Frankly, we've outgrown that kind of childish thinking. Thanks to Bill Clinton.

3) Hillary is the one who wanted war with Russia. Trump has said over and over that he doesn't want the US to engage in any more pointless wars, like Iraq.

4) That's not what he says in his tax plan. Also, the upper % probably won't prosper as much as you think if Trump enacts a more protectionist trade policy and a more patriotic immigration policy.

5) Wall Street, globalist corporations, the media, the bureaucracy, the education system, and both political parties were all supporting Hillary and slandering Trump, and the Clinton foundation has received millions of dollars from foreign governments. If anything, Trump is going to be the least corrupt president in decades because he is firmly against the current one-party establishment.

6) The federal debt grew to $20 trillion under Obama. If we can survive that, then there is really no chance of the federal government going bankrupt.