Indeed, but the left is no less vulnerable to this than the right. The right has simply got their ground game down to get their delusions big and bold, shared from the top. The left picks out its delusions more organically, shaming and canceling those who might express a contrary view.
No delusion is more enabling of further delusion than the one you open with: that arguing is futile.
This is the master delusion that frees you from the most irksome of constraints: that of making any damn sense to someone else.
The right has long had its collection of dismissive statements to pull out if you wanted them to justify something. "Real Americans know that," "That's what liberals say." "Elitists are talking down to us again." "It's the plain truth." And their favorite: just repeat the same wrong thing over and over and over; if someone comes up with an airtight counterargument (which usually trivial to do) repeat it EVEN MORE.
But now the left is catching up fast. "It's a dogwhistle." "I'm speaking my truth." "Karen." "You only say that because you're a racist/transphobe/supporter of the patriarchy/cishet/etc.." "You're trolling." And the best: just state that the person is a Nazi or fascist (them denying it proves it, and if they don't even deny it...just...wow) and as everyone knows, the only thing you should do with a Nazi is punch them (but don't actually punch them; they might punch back, or you might get arrested for assault, and anyway it's probably online so whew) so argument over.
It's gotten so bad that the reason-impaired right has even managed to notice and found a way to taunt the left for it: "facts don't care about your feelings".
The right never said that before. They wouldn't dare because they knew they were so vulnerable in comparison. No longer!
You can't reason with crazy or argue with stupid, but if you don't commit to reason and to support your position with arguments, you are the one who becomes crazy and stupid.
The left managed to get almost as many facts wrong about the Rittenhouse case as the right gets wrong about climate change (and then was flabbergasted that the Arbery case didn't also go the "wrong" way because...like...details matter?! Who knew!). The right denies that the violence of January 6 even happened, or it that it was their fault, or minimizes its importance, or something; the left denies that the (admittedly vastly lesser) violence perpetrated by Antifa even happened, or that it was their fault, or minimizes its importance, or something. The best way to deal with racism, according to the far left, is to make everyone hyper-acutely aware of every difference while stressing that this is absolutely central to identity, make the smallest offense unforgivable, and give nobody any tools to navigate the resulting minefield. If someone thinks this is a bad idea (maybe because they know about psychological research into bias and tribalism and racism), they are, of course, a white racist supremacist who is exhibiting whiteness and denies systemic racism and structural racism and displays white fragility even if they're, like, black, and have quoted research demonstrating systemic racism. The right bans Maus from the classroom and the left screams about the evil of censorship all while banning Huckleberry Finn from the classroom over the "censorship is evil" screams of the right.
The right is still worse, but man, the left is catching up quick.
And you're part of it.
Don't feed the trolls. Don't argue complex reality with stupid.
But make the provers prove themselves every time, and prove your case to them every time (or outsource the proof by providing a link).
If you can't do this, guess what? You're probably wrong. Your beliefs probably don't correspond to anything you can articulate, or to reality either. You might find yourself reading a curriculum goal for grade-schoolers that is lifted practically word-for-word from a list of the tenets of CRT and still claim passionately that CRT isn't taught in K-12. Or demand ever more trigger warnings and ever more sensitivity in curriculum because people are in pain, never once listening to the research that suggests that trigger warnings themselves often provoke as bad or worse responses than the material itself, and that resiliency not avoidance leads to less anxiety and pain in the long run. You might think that it's cool to drive people to suicide over an insensitive remark--they were probably garbage people anyway, causing indescribable pain, right? You're probably very smug about calling ivermectin "horse dewormer", and were well before the conclusive studies came out indicating that it didn't have a significant impact on Covid-19 (because you were smarter than researchers--you'd seen it before with HCQ and if one old drug doesn't work and people go crazy recommending it anyway, every old drug doesn't work), and probably don't care that it's critically important for treating human parasites too because that doesn't sound demeaning enough. Maybe you think that "a woman has an absolute right to bodily autonomy" was identically the justification for the court's ruling on Roe vs. Wade. You might claim to be a strong proponent of free speech while demanding that the Congress drag the heads of social media companies in to extract promises to tightly control misinformation, disinformation, meanness, and everything else, then turn around and say, "What? They're private companies! The First Amendment doesn't apply to them!" And of course, you wouldn't even dream of considering the moral arguments for free discourse: all strictly by the law, thank you, because the Constitution is always right, except in every other case where the Constitution is so steeped in white patriarchy that maybe you just want to throw the whole thing out. Oh, and the temperature changes from climate change could cause human extinction within the next hundred years, of course, because it's that and not why the hell do we still have so many thousands of nuclear weapons that is really the existential threat.
(In case it isn't clear: ivermectin does not work to treat Covid-19. But it took a long time for that to become really clear (there were some sorta okayish sorta promising results, and absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence)--the "horse dewormer" stuff started waaaaaay earlier.)
Reality does have a liberal bias, because liberalism is part of the foundation of Enlightenment thinking, which includes using reason and evidence, and reason and evidence is how we discern reality.
But critical theory challenges the foundations of the liberal order (that's Delgado and Stefancic, not me), and it's just a short little hop from there to dogma enforced by purity tests with the occasional witch-hunt to keep people in line. When the left becomes illiberal, it too loses touch with reality. Fascism was bad. But the Reign of Terror was no cup of tea either.
We don't have to fall all the way down the rabbit hole, if we're on the left.
We can notice where the right is seriously unhinged and divorced from reality without committing to becoming equally unhinged as a counter-strategy.
Being unhinged isn't a good look. It motivates the base (who just thinks you're telling it like it is), but you can lose the center, as happened to the Republicans in 2020 (at least against moderate Democrats). The center's there. It just requires you to, you know, be a bit centrist.
And we can affirm that yes, reasons matter, yes, arguments matter, and we're going to make them: good arguments backed by solid reasoning. Even if the topic is painful. Partly to win the argument, party to drag them back to a more reality-constrained existence, but mostly for ourselves to check that we actually have reasons for what we believe.
Because once you stop needing reasons, once you just keep telling yourselves the same stories over and over without really demanding that you prove yourselves, you drift away from truth and turn into a cult instead.
So. Cut it out. Stop encouraging people to drift into stupidity and craziness. Embrace arguments, even if a lot of times the other side isn't listening.
And, you know what? Sometimes they actually are. And occasionally--not very often, but occasionally--they even have a good point.