A Glimpse Inside the Mind

They actually justify it

I thought it was a metaphor.

Every now and then, you're given a gift: someone is honest, albeit accidentally, about what they truly think and how they think. This is helpful, especially if you ever start to wonder, "Am I reading the leftists incorrectly? They can't really believe these things, can they?"

I received just such a gift yesterday in the form of a comment to my article on ASU’s “social justice in action” event. It's helpful not only for revealing what's on their mind but also as a useful example of logical fallacies for my class. Let’s take it step by step.

#1. Non-sequitur.

“You didn’t read it. They don’t have corner offices.” I’ve found that comments on my posts from leftists are littered with non-sequiturs. What is rarer than a global warming prediction coming true is that I get an attempt at a sound argument to refute my argument. It's as if they never took a logic class, and they think the strength of the emotions is all that counts.

You’ll notice there’s no actual substance in comments like this, no effort to defend the contradictions in the “social justice: burn it down to build community” position. Just deflection, distraction, and emotional rhetoric.

#2. Whataboutism.
If you’ve spent time around children, you know one of their favorite rebuttals: “But what about Timmy? He did something bad too!” Of course, two wrongs don’t make a right. And in this case, both sides claim they wanted the National Guard deployed on January 6, and each blames the other for the delay, whereas in Los Angeles and other cities currently “burning down to build community,” Democrats don’t want National Guard help at all.

Then there’s: “He pardoned them.”
The trouble with whataboutism is that it cuts both ways. Trump pardons pale in comparison to the rogues’ gallery Biden pardoned. So when someone pretends to care about unjust pardons, but conveniently ignores their own side’s abuses, the inconsistency undermines their entire argument.

#3. Then they just admit it.

“Social justice is indeed defending the United States. And the timing is impeccable. The fires burning in L.A. were fomented by the activation of military forces.”

This is the cream of the crop quote I’ll be using for years as a textbook example of the “social justice mind.” Where arson becomes activism and cause-and-effect is reversed to fit the narrative.

We all saw it: the fires were already burning before the National Guard was called. So why can’t a social justice advocate see that? This is how unconscious bias works: they only believe what fits their narrative. As Maxine Waters infamously told us a few days ago, “Don’t believe what you see,” and instead listen to her version of events. And the social justice crowd obliges.

Now, you’d expect someone to step in and say, “Oh, burning it down is just a metaphor, we’re not literally advocating arson.” But then you get comments like this one, which sound like a straight-faced defense of actual destruction: Well, the National Guard was called so they had to start fires... and don’t forget January 6! As if that somehow justifies what we see happening.

“Social justice is defending the United States.” That’s the claim. But when you ask them what they think the United States actually is, the answers range from “a structurally racist country” to “it should look more like what Marx envisioned,” and “we should give the Southwest back to Mexico.” In other words, they don’t want to defend our Constitution or borders. Everything they say is a contradiction in terms. “Defending the United States” somehow means “dismantling the United States.” For those in English Lit, branch out and read some Russian literature. Solzhenitsyn can explain the Marxist mind and its use of doublespeak to you.

Here’s the thing: you don’t have to listen to hypocrites. When a movement says, “You should be aware of your unconscious bias,” yet remains completely blind to its own (un)conscious Marxism, it’s clear they have no wisdom to offer. They don’t even know what justice is. And when they start justifying burning things down because what-about, they’re to be confronted and exposed.