![Image](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/St_benedict_medal-2006_04_24.png)
![Image](http://divinerosarybeads.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/41avCbCPPbL.jpg)
Hopefully that disperses any lingering pollution.
Anyway, the main reason the right's characterization of the left being aloof and out of touch sticks is that for incredibly stupid reasons, the left deliberately acts in ways that can be interpreted as being aloof and out of touch even when it isn't. As far as I can tell, people on the left aren't attaching the "aloof and out of touch" interpretation to their actions. They affect attitudes like that because they think it will make them look superior in a social context.
Stupid as this is, it can happen in a totally innocent way. To cite an example that I have actually been on the receiving end of, say some guy makes an observation about a pattern he's noticed. Instead of refuting it through argument, someone on the left might ask them to cite peer reviewed research corroborating their findings. This is not how genuine human beings interact in real life.
Now, if you were to cite peer reviewed research refuting the observation, that is a perfectly legitimate move, but who asks you for your peer review credentials in ordinary conversation? Out of touch dodos, that's who. Even saying "the pattern you noticed doesn't hold good in my personal experience" makes more sense than asking someone who has just noticed a pattern for peer review. Doesn't this person know the order in which peer review works? FIRST you notice a pattern, THEN you perform an experiment, and FINALLY you succeed or fail to get it peer reviewed. Knowledge doesn't trickle down from the gods of peer review like manna from heaven. If people refused to notice patterns, then nothing would ever get peer reviewed in the first place! But it feels really stupid to explain the difference between top-down and bottom-up knowledge generation procedures. Do you really have to explain obvious shit like that to people? An alternative interpretation is that your opponent is expecting you to deliver a witty zinger instead of a plainspoken argument, which can be annoying.
This view is reinforced when people on the left laugh at you for challenging their opinions instead of bothering to state the reasons for why they hold them, a phenomenon which has been unfortunately common in recent times, possibly thanks to the posturings of the anti-reason pro-emotion left. What fanatics of emotionalism fail to consider is that sometimes, "expressing your true emotions" like Trump hurts people in ways that we want to avoid, and that is the reason why people are less than enthused about wearing their hearts on their sleeves when dealing with preexisting situations beyond their control. To avoid real life examples, I was once being emotionally authentic on an online forum, and someone else ended up getting banned in the end. This came out of the blue for me, but it was super obvious in hindsight that chilling out might have defused the situation.
(An alternative might be to tell them you are feeling too emotionally drained at the moment to muster a rational response. People can understand that, but not being laughed at.)
Sometimes the left's tactics actually work as intended, but sometimes they backfire. Imagine you are responsible for collecting funds for the right. Which possible interpretation is in your interest to emphasize?