Why do so many radical leftists fail to address the substance of an argument?

You see, that's why I don't think you are up to the job. Fascism is authoritarian. Yet you are tell me to read up on matters. (Of course that is just you repeating what someone has just said to you, much like your politics.)

'Radicalism you mean. Radicalisation means a whole different thing. Are you saying you'd prefer continual change? Even if it meant giving up something you like?' (My phone won't allow me to use quotes)

Definitely. Tradition is the root of all problems in my opinion. Sticking to things that are problematic rather than addressing these issues and changing them. Patriotism and religion; both have a massive basis in traditionalism and both the cause d the vast majority of wars, ever. The left fought slavery, while the right were primarily for It, because it was tradition. The right seem a to be based on keeping values and refusing to change, and I can't support that when that was a leading argument for why slavery, lack of women's rights, and racism should remain. Left seem to support togetherness and change for the better and innovation. The right seem to support bettering oneself over helping others and remaining true to our ways despite the fact that this means we'd always be backwards rather than moving forwards.

And during my time online, I've noticed that it's the left that seem to be giving reasonable arguments while the right are always using childish insults rather than furthering the debate. As a side note, you used Hilary as an argument for the left's support being childish, despite the fact that Hilary belongs on the right in her beliefs? Surely using Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders would be better examples than right wingers who exist under left guises?

Now I think you are trolling. You are an example of someone who been brainwashed to the point they believe that their opinion is the right one and they refuse to accept any other opinion. You honestly think the right is better than the left. LOL. You are as brainwashed as the extremists. The right doesn’t exist without the left. They need each other. Without one of them, the world will be in chaos. They are the same and balance each other out.

And you resort to insults. I pointed out a mistake in your reasoning, and use that to highlight my doubts in your intellectual nuts. In return you call me a troll. You've just proved the OP haven't you? But you don't have the intelligence to understand that (see my previous posts).

That's how you do that.

You really think I’m a left wing? What if I told you I’m not an feminist, or I don’t hate Donald trump but I wouldn’t vote for him or Hillary. Or I’m not a fan of labour but will vote conservative. Does that mean I’m a radical leftist l? 🤔

I'd think you were just posting stuff. However, if we take the word "left" to mean "radical" (or change) then Trump is the radical choice, he is a change to the norm (the "political establishment" eg Clinton). It's how you place those words within context. I'd say you were either a pragmatist or a contrarian.

Maybe I am. What I am trying to tell you is that both left and right are important in politics. These radical leftists are the ones tarnishing the left and making them seem like they are intolerant of another opinion. It’s the same with the right and how the alt right/far right is becoming the new face of the right. The politics is messed up right now cause no body is tolerant. They rather hear their own view rather than a different view. If both left and right worked together, politics would be in a much better place now.

You are young, aren't you? Politics is always messed up, forget about this Marxist Utopian idea of a future where everybody is skipping and holding hands together. This is why lefties need to read history.

"They rather hear their own view rather than a different view " Self awareness, that'll be some else people will be needing.

I’m not hoping for a future where everything is prefect or anything. Just hoping for someone who can unite both left and right. Bernie Sanders springs to mind. He may be a socialist but he shared views with the left and right and was a far more better option than Hillary Clinton. He knew the democrats were going to lose cause they were slowly becoming radical left and wanted them to become more centre and less about identity politics.

West is West and East is East. Trump won because Clinton decided to use Trumps treatment of women as a campaign strategy. Not a good idea if you are married to Bill Clinton.

Exactly. Regardless your views, Bernie Sanders was the better man for the job. He understood his voters and wanted to appeal to everyone not just minorities. He was similar to another democratic socialist president - Franklin Roosevelt. If you actually looked at his policies, they were similar to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton just without the controversy and drama. He may have been a tough opponent for Trump as well.

https://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-americas-ugly-history-fdr-was-fascist-friendly-wwii

" Noam Chomsky: Well, it was a mixed story. Roosevelt himself had a mixed attitude. For example, he was pretty supportive of Mussolini's fascism, in fact described Mussolini as "that admirable Italian gentleman." He later concluded that Mussolini had been misled by his association with Hitler and had been led kind of down the wrong path. But the American business community, the power systems in the United States were highly supportive of Mussolini. "

I suggest you read Jonah Goldbergs Liberal Fascism.

https://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-americas-ugly-history-fdr-was-fascist-friendly-wwii

" Noam Chomsky: Well, it was a mixed story. Roosevelt himself had a mixed attitude. For example, he was pretty supportive of Mussolini's fascism, in fact described Mussolini as "that admirable Italian gentleman." He later concluded that Mussolini had been misled by his association with Hitler and had been led kind of down the wrong path. But the American business community, the power systems in the United States were highly supportive of Mussolini. "

I suggest you read Jonah Goldbergs Liberal Fascism.

Loads of politicians even left or right had dirty facts on them. Bill Clinton and his affair, Barack Obama and his upbringing, Nixon and watergate. Most politician aren’t clean. Just cause one is left doesn’t mean the whole left is corrupt.

Yes, but you compared Sanders to FDR. I pointed out that FDR was a fan of other radical lefty socialist Mussolini. Then I said you should read LF. You really should, because all that lovely New Deal, the dams, the infrastructure, all that: influenced by fascism. Or the left if you will.

I don't have to, because that's not the point I'm making, the point you seem unable (or unwilling) to accept.

I've noticed that a lot of radical leftists resort to name-calling, ad hominems, picking at the tone of a writer or stating the opposing cause with little or no supporting argument. I seldom see them actually using logical arguments. They try to use insults as a way to shut down the opposition without actually addressing the substance of an argument. Why? Is it something to do with the fact that some of their arguments are so stupid and illeogical that they cannot be backed up with facts or logical arguments?

Because slogans and name-calling works.

Ok then. What is the point you’re making?

I’m not hoping for a future where everything is prefect or anything. Just hoping for someone who can unite both left and right. Bernie Sanders springs to mind. He may be a socialist but he shared views with the left and right and was a far more better option than Hillary Clinton. He knew the democrats were going to lose cause they were slowly becoming radical left and wanted them to become more centre and less about identity politics.