It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation. I guess it is more how people use labels. You see I simply disagree with generalizations and suddenly this SMART person here decided that I too am leftist. He didn't research my ideology, he didn't recall my anarchist posts he has commented on and up voted, he simply received some criticism and suddenly I was leftist. He is not the only one that did this. The problem with LABELs and boxes is when people start using them in broad strokes and throwing whatever they want into those boxes. Examples: You disagree? You're a leftist. You disagree? You are a right wing extemist. You disagree? You must be white. I didn't challenge ANYTHING on the activities of the people he was describing. Not once. I only stated that it was a generalization. I also know that it is not the majority of the people that could be considered LEFT that are doing what he is saying. It is a very vocal minority. They also appear to be intentionally being stirred up by the media. So saying LEFTISTs cannot be reasoned with. I understood WHY he was saying that as I've encountered it too. Yet that is not even close to ALL leftists. They are a vocal minority that are very active. Yet by generalizing he vilifies them all, and the vast majority of them are simply people.

Exceptions don't prove a rule, they disprove it. That's kind of how logical proofs work.

Now it is very easy to remedy this if a person doesn't get defensive and lash out at criticism. The term LEFTIST implies all on the so-called left. VOCAL MINORITY IN THE LEFT or anything that qualifies is more specific and does not generalize the entire group of them.

You don't have to preach to me about what their policies are. I am no fan of any form of socialism. I'm not a fan of any form of governance. They all are corrupt, and they are all giving power of people to force other people to live a certain way. THAT was not something I criticized. All I criticized was the generalization, because I know what he was saying, but the generalization is a logical fallacy and thus it weakens his position. So that criticism could be viewed as constructive. Furthermore, I only posted that single reply. He responded with the platitude, told me to GTFO it, and said I sound like a child. He was someone I respected, so this was a bit shocking. So I responded multiple times as I'd write something, then I'd think, and I'd have more to say. My multiple posts were a reaction to someone I respected falling from grace figuratively speaking. Basically the idea was post something and maybe he'll say "Oh, yeah I had a bad day, sorry about that, I see what you're saying" Did that happen? No he lashed out more and more. When a person that claims they cannot REASON with (insert group) and they act like this then really I question whether they can reason with anyone. If this is his reaction to a simple criticism about generalization then how can he reason with anyone. Apparently his idea of reason is he says something and everyone agrees. If they don't then he can't reason with them. Kind of like a priest. My mentioning generalization made me into a blasphemer.

This is why he got reactions from other people as well. I had one person contact me and say while they agree with most of what Jared writes (which I tend to also) they learned he doesn't take any form of criticism well at all and is arrogant. So they still read what he posts, but they don't bother to say anything to him.

Is this reasoning with people?

EDIT: I was trying to think of a way to qualify so it is not such a broad generalization target. The people he is describing are really the Social Justice Warriors on the left. So simply saying SJW LEFTISTS cannot be reasoned with would have removed the targeting of every person on the left. There are a lot of reasonable people over there. There are people over there that are leaning towards Libertarian, and from there eventually maybe Anarchy. Yet his LEFTISTS generalization includes them. It is simple. If a person disagreeing means they are unreasonable then he doesn't really understand the concept of reasoning. Disagreement is natural, it is how you handle disagreement that indicates whether you can be reasoned with, or whether you yourself are reasonable. People are generally unreasonable if they believe they are RIGHT and leave no room to be challenged on their beliefs.