How the Left Was Lost

or The Missal of Dismissal

Joe Frazier’s not the only one who could bob and weave.

Recently, an acquaintance, a devout man of the left, posted this on Substack. To protect his identity, I haven’t put a hyperlink to his Substack here, nor will I use his name. If I were him, I wouldn’t want you to know who I am, either. If you opt to read his post, it’ll probably take you less time than it took me to recognize the punch he was telegraphing from the very beginning.

In response, I wrote this in the comments section under his post:

I abhor the malignant cruelty of Cody Roberts as much as you do, as well as the confused hypocrisy of Jim Magagna.

But I have to wonder: Methods (which I question in some instances, as do you) notwithstanding, do you really attribute the enforcement of our immigration laws — particularly 8 U.S. Code § 1325 and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — to white “Christian Nationalism”?

According to Pew Research from March of last year, demographic opposition to illegal immigration and favoritism toward deportation looked like this: White adults: 87%. Asian adults: 86%. Black adults: 75%. Hispanic adults: 72%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/views-on-deportations-and-arrests-of-immigrants-in-the-u-s-illegally/

Please help me understand your thinking. And please help me understand how and why calling the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws “a not-so-hidden desire for purity” isn’t political rhetoric as dangerous as any other.

My esteemed acquaintance deemed me and my comment unworthy of a response in the comments section of his own Substack post — I’ll leave it you to speculate about the reasons — opting instead to put this in a private message to me on LinkedIn:

Mark--
I saw your response to my Substack essay. I remember a couple of years back when we traded long emails back and forth and got nowhere. I'm not going to engage in that here. You believe what you believe. I'll believe what I believe. I will say that if it isn't white Christian Nationalism, why hasn't the Speaker of the House—"If you want to know who I am, read the Bible"—come out strongly against ICE abuse taking place in MN and elsewhere? Why hasn't our VP, instead of accusing immigrants of eating pets? What haven't the evangelicals screamed bloody murder about how some of God's children are being treated?

I think for you, these discussions are theatre. They're like a lubricated discussion in a college town bar.

I can't help you understand, Mark, because you don't really want to know. It's not really what you're interested in. You just want to engage in verbal sparring. You missed your calling: you should have been a litigator or a negotiator.

Next, you'll tell me that Trump's doctored video of the Obamas as apes was just meant as a joke.

After using a magnifying glass, a bloodhound, DeepL, ChatGPT, a divining rod, a crystal ball, and a Ouija board; after reading animal livers (which I went to a great deal of trouble to procure), throwing bones, and consulting a shaman and a psychic; and after breaking out my Secret Decoder Ring in search of something — anything — in his LinkedIn message that addressed or responded to anything I’d written in my comment, I replied to the message thusly:

I love this.

I love your dismissal of me. I love your dismissal of my perspective. I love your dismissal of my intellect. I love your refusal to “engage in that”. I love your condescension in suggesting these discussions are theatrical, like a lubricated discussion in a college town bar. I love your presumption that I’m the one who doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to know. And I especially love the convictions you don’t have the courage to support with valid premises and sound arguments, here or in your own Substack thread.

Please don’t wonder why we are where we are. As the popular expression goes, the question answers itself.

“There’s nothing like a good straw man, I always say.”

A Meandering Mélange

I’m sure my acquaintance was just doing the best he could to avoid addressing my comments on his Substack. Doing so would have required time, logic (as opposed to feelings), and a modicum of open-mindedness (as opposed to ideological knee-jerks and canned dogma). But to give credit where it’s due, he did serve up a veritable smorgasbord of fallacies of informal logic. Here’s the short list:

• The Straw Man argument or the Fallacy of Relevance. This is a tactic in which an opponent’s point is misrepresented to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual argument, the person on the defensive creates a weaker or distorted version of his opponent’s argument, which is easier to criticize. This fallacy distracts from the real issues at hand by attacking a straw man that doesn’t exist or accurately represent the opponent’s point of view; e.g., Trump’s doctored video of the Obamas.

• Personal Attack or the Ad Hominem Fallacy. This is a tactic in which, instead of addressing someone’s argument, you attack the person making the argument. It involves using personal insults or irrelevant information about the person’s character or circumstances to discredit his point, rather than proving valid counterarguments. This fallacy shifts the focus away from the issue being discussed and undermines constructive debate; e.g., theater, lubricated discussion in a college town bar, you don’t really want to know. It’s not really what you’re interested in. You just want to engage in verbal sparring.

• Hasty Generalization or Secundum Quid et Simpliciter. This is a tactic by which someone draws a broad conclusion based on insufficient or limited evidence. Instead of looking at a representative sample or gathering enough data, our hero makes a sweeping generalization that may not be accurate or justified. It’s like making a big assumption about whole and unfair conclusions; e.g., Trump’s doctored video of the Obamas.

• Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning. This is a tactic in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed in one of its premises; that is, the thing ostensibly proven is part of the argument. It’s a faulty form of reasoning because it doesn’t provide any new or valid evidence to support what’s claimed. It just restates the same idea differently. This makes circular reasoning a fallacious and unconvincing form of argumentation; e.g., you’re engaged in theater, lubricated discussion in a college town bar, you don’t really want to know, it’s not really what you’re interested in, and you just want to engage in verbal sparring because you’re engaged in theater, lubricated discussion in a college town bar, you don’t really want to know, it’s not really what you’re interested in, and you just want to engage in verbal sparring.

Put Up Your Dukes

If my acquaintance isn’t any better at boxing than he is at making sound arguments, he should be glad Joe Frazier’s no longer with us. And if he’s at all interested, he might want to at least skim this book before he has to duck anyone else on Substack or any other medium in which he doesn’t have the guns, the guts, or the respect to respond to comments. I’d lend him mine, but he’d probably dismiss it.

The Missal of Dismissal is the prayer book of the Left.