Moving Right
I've been on the left for as long as I can remember so I started listening to a conservative political commentator to get a better idea of their position.
It was actually quite troubling. I realised that over years of discussions, when talking about abortion I had stopped even thinking about the fetus. As if at some point I decided (or picked up the party line) that 'it's a woman's body so it's her choice'. Through arguments with people on the right my view have become more clear, more simple, more black and white etc. How can we discuss late term abortion and not take the fetus into account at all?
I'm not that interested in abortion, more that it seems that our views are reactionary. The more of my own positions I look at, the more I find that they are simplified specifically in opposition to those on the right. There are also large moral aspects, - people that are concerned with immigration are xenophobic - don't be xenophobic! etc. In certain ways it makes me think about Nietzsche's 'slave morality' we define our own positions in opposition to the views that are 'evil'. If I browse through my facebook feed I'm more likely to see a clip of someone on the right being mocked or ridiculed, than someone on the left presenting a strong positive case. This was even more evident during the elections - so many people claim that the results are because of simple negative motivations - sexism, racism ect - these same people cannot tell me a single Clinton policy. As if that doesn't matter, I'm with her because I'm not with him.
Anyway - thoughts?
It was actually quite troubling. I realised that over years of discussions, when talking about abortion I had stopped even thinking about the fetus. As if at some point I decided (or picked up the party line) that 'it's a woman's body so it's her choice'. Through arguments with people on the right my view have become more clear, more simple, more black and white etc. How can we discuss late term abortion and not take the fetus into account at all?
I'm not that interested in abortion, more that it seems that our views are reactionary. The more of my own positions I look at, the more I find that they are simplified specifically in opposition to those on the right. There are also large moral aspects, - people that are concerned with immigration are xenophobic - don't be xenophobic! etc. In certain ways it makes me think about Nietzsche's 'slave morality' we define our own positions in opposition to the views that are 'evil'. If I browse through my facebook feed I'm more likely to see a clip of someone on the right being mocked or ridiculed, than someone on the left presenting a strong positive case. This was even more evident during the elections - so many people claim that the results are because of simple negative motivations - sexism, racism ect - these same people cannot tell me a single Clinton policy. As if that doesn't matter, I'm with her because I'm not with him.
Anyway - thoughts?
Comments (89)
With respect to abortion rights, for some reason, in Australia, it is not a very high-profile issue. I do believe it is a decision for women and families to make, but I don't think it's a good thing that they have to take that action, and would say the acceptance of abortion as a way to avoid the consequences of casual sexual encounters is a social ill.
The same thing is happening with Brexit, or to anyone in Europe who doesn't think it's a good idea to have their country completely overrun by Muslim refugees (or, 'economic migrants'). Or anyone who thinks that marriage should now be extended to include same sex couples. Only a bad immoral person would have any of these opinions, and you're not a bad person, are you?
This claim to moral superiority is primarily a way for leftists to politically influence and control others. Basically it's an exploitation of people's sense of morality - their desire to be good people and do the right thing. The leftists capitalise upon this (good) trait, co-opting the narrative of what's morally right and wrong, so that it's up to the authority of the leftist to decide (and not say, individuals) moral truths. In this way the leftist doesn't need to argue for his/her political agenda, they don't have to actually convince and show people why they ought vote for x, or have xyz opinions, or xyz beliefs. Rather, all the leftist need do is present their political agenda as if it's the obvious moral choice - the self-evidently right thing to do, and shame and deride anyone who thinks otherwise. "Bigot! Racist! Sexist! Xenophobe! Transphobe!" - for the leftists, accusations and shame tactics like these substitute for political debate. Why? Because it works!
Good, moral people generally try to avoid offending others. Because being offended by someone/thing is a kind of harm for that person. Good people try to minimise their harm upon others. And when this avoidance of causing harm, is combined with the unexamined idea that something which offends another person, whatever it is and basically for whatever reason must be stopped, banned, shunned, avoided, then you end up in utterly absurd situations, such as considering anyone a bad person because they don't want babies to be ripped apart alive because their mother wants them dead.
How the left manages to control the narrative about what's right and wrong, is through this attitude/arrogance that their political beliefs are self evidently moral/correct, and the mere consideration of an alternative makes one a bad person. This is because when all the leftists do this, and they're generally pretty loud and visible about it (because unlike the political right, they're not socially ostracised or shamed for sharing their politics), people (especially young people) get the impression that everyone has these beliefs, and so if everyone thinks something is self-evidently immoral, it's a fairly large step to think independently and oppose all these people. It would be much easier to simply go with the grain and unthinkingly accept the narrative. A significant way leftists share this 'morality narrative' is through control of the mainstream media - TV news channels, newspapers, most of the internet. These all tend to have a left-leaning agenda. So when people see almost everyone acting like voting for Trump is just so self evidently morally wrong and makes one a bigoted bad person, in the newspaper, on the TV news, on the internet, and also through social media like twitter and Facebook, it really can seem as if that's the truth. Is it even worth making up your own mind and forming your own opinions, when the correct opinion is just so obvious? It also doesn't help that you can be shamed and ostracised if you do it anyway - another disincentive.
However, I think what we are seeing lately is a backlash across the western world against the leftist monopoly on moral truths. People are waking up to how their good nature is being manipulated and exploited for political gain, and (I hope) are starting to form their own political opinions which are not just what the media and their peers tell them to think. The election of Trump was (among other things) a reaction, a sort of payback or punishment, spite towards the political left. The years and years of constantly having people tell you how to think, what to believe and who to vote for by arrogant screeching leftists, it all just boiled over and a lot of people were like actually fuck you.
Of course I'm making massive generalisations here, but there is some truth to it. The monopoly on moral truth really needs to be removed from political discussions, so that the actual issues and policies can be debated. This American election cycle was basically the left/democrats calling anyone who thinks or votes differently an immoral bigot, mostly that's the political right, and the right saying "no, we're not", and having to defend themselves. Or worse, having to hide themselves, literally keep their political beliefs and opinions a secret for fear of being shamed or ostracised, as if living under a dictatorship. So many people hid their political opinions that accurate polls literally could not be conducted. The election result was an upset because of it.
If only we could set aside our moral judgments of others, keep our insults to ourselves and just sit down together to discuss the actual policies and issues. All this "you're a bad person you're a racist bigot" and "no I'm not you're just a mentally ill leftist" gets us nowhere and in fact leads us to a point where a man like Trump seems a viable option as president. I mean the guy is a clown. But when the alternative is to vote for a corrupt pathological liar in order to not get shamed as a bigot, he starts to seem appealing.
Oh well, we're stuck with him now. I'm hopeful he makes a good president and delivers on at least some of his promises.
(There was some salon or slate article about how it's insensitive to discuss the reasons for Hillary's loss beyond sexism at least until female hillary supporters have time to grieve...that's insane but I've seen people in my fb circle say similar things)
I think the 'left', 'right' metric lacks the dimensionality that we find in today's world. The right has nowhere to go, it's fundamentality, reactionary quality, can't move it towards center and the left's progressive stance (its determinism) can't understand it own inability to move people. The center is vacant, a desert with no life of its own. Both ends on this horizontal plane are pushing away from the other. The general will is nowhere to be found.
Beppe Grillo 2005
I am not sure I totally agree with Grillo, but he hints at a another dimension more vertical than horizontal, one that pits order versus chaos, tribalism versus anarchism, above versus below. The part I disagree with is that we don't need a leader. I think we need a leader with some sort of encompassing vision.
I doubt Trump is that leader, but in thinking about what he symbolizes in kinda of a bizzaro way reminds me of what he is in real life, i.e, the CEO of a large (and apparently) largely successful business. Corporations are growing to the point where some corporations cash flow exceed many nation states. Perhaps order in this postmodern period means corporate governance. Where states are managed like successful corporations. Capitalism eats democracy.
A spanish fisherman a long time ago was asked what he thought about politics, he said something along the lines, 'let Franco worry about the state, I fish'
Seems to me you've just lost one. As for Trump's 'successful businesses', five of his businesses went bust, and he has been sued in over 1500 lawsuits by people he didn't pay. Of course all that will be forgotten now.
That's not what I saw. The Democrat selection was a model of decorum as far as I could see. They debated policies - tax, education, and public expenditure. It was an argument about politics and principle, I couldn't see a lot of name-calling or stigmatisation from them. Trump, on the other hand, continually engaged in insults, denigration of his opponent - threatening jail - made numerous deliberately inflammatory and insulting statements and generally acted appallingly (which will all be forgotten very quickly). But then Trump is not really a Republican, it was more that the conservatives were more vulnerable to takeover by a hostile force (which is what happened) because of the dumbing-down process that the Tea Party started. Now that he's won, of course, he will have quite a lot of ability to re-define Republicanism, which, if I were a US Republican, I would be extremely worried about.
Yes, as I said I doubt it is Trump, perhaps you missed that, in any case given that this information was known prior to his election, it only strengthens my suspicion that what he symbolizes was more important to the people who voted for him.
Now I may be delusional, but I truly feel that a new 'party' of sorts combining progressive economic principles (drawn from the Left) with some socially conservative positions (drawn from the Right) may resonate with more and more people moving forward. I see these as compatible and am a bit surprised there's no representation for this voice. It would eschew the racism and nationalism associated with more egregious elements of the Right, but also the secularism and multiculturalism of the Left. It would advocate at the grass roots level a pro-environmental and anti-consumerist perspective, a reassessment of the aims and ends of education, and, broadly speaking, would attempt to infuse the material with 'spiritual' significance without necessarily being 'religious'.
This is obviously in embryonic form and poorly formulated, but I'm interested in gathering perspectives from people of all political persuasions to see if some amalgamation is possible and appealing. Here at TPF we have a number of posters (Thorongil, TGW, Agustino, Wayfarer, et al) who, I think, fall somewhere in this category representing a new type of conservatism. Or maybe it's an old type - going back to early Romantic reactions against the perceived excesses of the Enlightenment - which is slowly gaining more credibility as global kleptocracy and authoritarian populism are viewed as equally horrible alternatives in a world of advanced technological capitalism.
I view this as a 'spiritual' crisis, and nothing less than a significant transformation in the way we understand ourselves and our world will suffice to take on the challenge. As Nietzsche noted, man is a bridge...
From what I've seen they are also just as likely to distort facts in the service of their agenda as any rightwing party has ever been. Add to that their snobbish elitism, their turning their backs on the working class in favor of self-serving connections with global finance, and their attempt to portray everyone who voted for Trump as ipso facto a racist, sexist and xenophobic moron, and you have a party that I can no longer stand by. Dukkha outlined this position well, and I don't think he exaggerated the tenacity of the hatred many on the Left feel for anyone who challenges their Manichean worldview.
Again, I can't emphasize enough how pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean one is a Republican partisan or an enthusiastic Trump supporter. An unintended consequence of their crusade against the perceived injustices of white males is that it has turned some of us (or more than some) who would otherwise be inclined to sympathize with quite a few of their positions (on economics, the environment, social programs and the like) against them - and many people who didn't previously give a shit about their 'race' - and who have never picked their friends, their spouse, their employees etc. based upon such narrow-minded tribal loyalties - have come to see that they are hated precisely because of it.
And no, I don't think pointing this out makes one a racist; I will acknowledge the many injustices non-whites and all 'others' (non-white male heterosexuals) have been the victims of in the US and abroad, and the genuine need to rectify these legitimate grievances to the best of our abilities, but I will also disagree with them on how best to transcend racial categories in favor of a more inclusive identity-- assuming of course that that's their goal, which I'm beginning to think isn't the case. Seems many would like to invert the old racial hierarchy instead of superseding it altogether.
Apologies for the rant. A bit cathartic for someone who's tried to take an independent view of the current political situation beyond party lines over the past couple weeks and who, for this, has been attacked and vilified for simply trying to facilitate constructive dialogue. That's precisely not what either side of rigid ideologues wants. I tried not to get sucked into the hate and hostility, but was unfortunately unsuccessful. So the gloves came off and both sides can go fuck themselves.
I don't know which is worse, the pseudo-intellectual anti-intellectualism of the left, or the blatant anti-intellectualism of the right. They both sabotage the means for resolving disagreements by their disrespect for truth. Instead there is violence.
Well, of course you're drifting right. You're growing old. Change is painful (the music these kids listen to these days, jeez), and to stave off your impending mortality, you try to grab and hang onto as much stuff as you can. This inevitably results in politically conservative jerking of the knees. You suddenly realize that soon you will cease to be, so until then its, "Me, me, me!"
As an aside : For most in the US, the recent election had nothing to do with their political leanings. True, the hard right was never going to vote for a Democrat, but most folks just reacted without using their heads. I think that for most, Trump was a political cypher, and they projected onto him whatever they needed to believe. Unfortunately, that required ignoring the mountain of evidence that he is grossly unfit to lead a local PTA, let alone a country with nuclear weapons. How can anyone choose that evil oompah-loompah over a sober adult is beyond me. He is simply a spoiled-brat 15-year-old.
Who now controls the most powerful military on Earth.
This is precisely the sort of name-calling nonsense that causes people to look more closely at Trump, then vote for him.
On the federal level: both the House and Senate are Republican as is the president. The Supreme Court is conservative and will likely now stay that way for decades.
And it gets worse. According to a news report I heard, 1/3 of the Democratic representation in Congress comes from 3 states: CA, NY, and MA. That is, the Dems are suffering from what they attacked the Reps of for many years: regionalism. The Republicans are in fact not just a bunch of backwood southerners in the land that time forgot. Its the Dems who now find themselves in smaller tighter groups where they can lecture from their podiums onto the masses.
Quoting Hanover
Most? Like pretty much every commentator on the Election you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Clinton received nearly 2 million votes more than Trump and that Trump's triumph has almost nothing to do with a significant shift in popular feelings only the bizarre electoral system that turns a 1.3% lead in the polls into a 13.8% deficit in the final result combined with the lowest turnout for decades. Only Quincy Adams has reached the White House with less popular support than Trump. The narrative of an overwhelming victory for Republican thinking simply doesn't make sense. The truth is that a worryingly large proportion of the people of the United States has effectively been disenfranchised by a Republican coup that, far from making the nation 'great again', leaves it more divided than ever.
Yeah, but a lot those votes come from states like California and New York, which were going heavily Democratic no matter what.
Clinton lost in states she should not have lost, like Michigan. Voters who voted for Obama in Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc. switched to Trump, voted third party, or didn't bother voting. That's the problem.
The Democrats had a popular candidate in Bernie, but they wanted to go with an insider who represents the establishment. I think Hillary would have been a good president, but she didn't inspire anyone like Bernie or Trump. What was the message to the Bernie supports and moderates? Vote for the lesser evil. Hearing that every single election is fatiguing. It's hardly inspiring. Hillary didn't represent change. Bernie did. Voters in states that mattered wanted something different. Plenty of the swing votes would have gone to Bernie if he had been the candidate.
As for the electoral college, I'd be all for reforming it, if the states could agree to do a percentage instead of winner take all. There's plenty of people in California or New York or Texas or any state that always goes one way who would like to see some of their electoral votes go for the candidate they voted for.
I'd be all for breaking up the two party system, and having a ranked choice voting system. Just getting rid of the electoral college isn't going to solve everything (which is bloody unlikely to happen since it takes an amendment, and those red states aren't likely wanting to see the big cities dominate the election).
It is pretty amazing that whoever won was going to have like 25.x% of the eligible votes. Maybe if you can't get at least one third of the eligible votes, the current president just stays in for another term.
But, please, don't let me deter you from joining the mindless mob arguing such distinctions.
I've been on the Left when very young. Unfortunately the kind of people I found over there were so shallow, and so hypocritical that I couldn't stand a single second around them. I feel like I've lost my sympathy for many real problems - such as the suffering of illegal immigrants who are granted no protection by law and are in many cases abused - simply because these folks on the Left abuse these categories of people for their own political (and economic, for slave labor) benefits. And then the way they go out solving problems - getting naked for Clinton, violently protesting in the streets, being rude etc. disgusts me to no end (not to mention that they don't work). I don't see this as being worthy of the dignity of mankind.
I've also lost my sympathy for many women's issues simply because of the behaviour of those women on the Left, which is nothing short of despicable. I shouldn't have to tolerate the arrogance, impiety, and total disregard for everything that has to do with community and life from someone like Amy Schumer. It's a shame that such a person ever gets to become wealthy from talking about vagina and how cool it is to kill babies all day. I mean can any man - and I'm referring to those men who are still men and have some dignity left - can any man ever accept to marry Amy Schumer? I mean I wouldn't marry her even if you were to kill me if I refused. And what has she done for the world? She has made women into male abusers, and men into pussy-worshipers. Or to listen to her and to many young girls finding it "cool" that Amy doesn't give a fuck about her boyfriend and purposefully does things he doesn't like and feels that's fine. She should be ashamed of herself. I really hope one day she will get punished for it. It's people like this that make many of us on the right have no sympathy for their cause, but moreover hate it with a hatred that would rather see the world burn than in their hands.
I've lost my sympathy for many of the struggles of colored folks, also because of the behaviour of those on the Left, who merely seek to replace the hirearchy instead of eliminate it. For example there is a police shooting of a black person who was killed even though he had done nothing wrong. I find it hard to sympathise when I see that a white male loses against a black female for a university position not because he is less capable, but because she is black and female, and he is white and male. That is again shameful and outrageous. I fear that if this continues the white folks will sooner or later get sick of it, and then it will not be nice at all for any of us. This is certainly not the way to promote brotherhood amongst different races. I have many friends of color - our skin color has always been irrelevant, no one even mentions it. That's the way it should be.
Instead we get all sorts of losers - actors, the media and Hollywood - who are the primary engine of the Left - who promote this racial hatred. They blame it all on the white man. The white man is the devil. And they always remind the black man how he must hate the white man, and they always remind him how he has suffered and been unjustly treated. Which is true. But always keeping in mind the past, and being attached to it, will in no way make the present any different. That's what the Left doesn't get. They are building a tremendous amount of hatred in the Right. And when this hatred will be unleashed we will all suffer a lot more than they've ever imagined. They will never get their sick world, where whites are ostracised, where men would do anything for pussy, where women will never be held accountable for their actions/behaviour, where we have no borders and let illegals come in the country to abuse them for their labor.
I've lost my sympathy for many of the young people. Young people used to have big dreams - Alexander dreamed to conquer the world, Aquinas dreamed to become a great scholar, and so forth. The young of today dream to do nothing, travel the world, get drunk, and have sex. How can anyone have any sympathy for such worms? Is that worthy of the life and dignity of a man? The young of today have a very short memory - they don't remember anything, they don't take any positions, they don't have any aspirations - except for those "aspirations" that Hollywood and the Media Crooks give them. I could swear that you can punch one in the face, and the next day, they'll be your friends.
It's sad, but true. The outrageous actions on the Left have built and will continue to build a tremendous amount of hatred. It's true that one shouldn't feel vengeful, shouldn't feel hatred. But there comes a point when their actions become so outrageous and so petty that one would rather see the world burn than handed over to these fools. Hence the hatred that seems to be coming from many of us on the Right. I will finish with this quote from Kierkegaard which describes my feelings best:
“Let others complain that the age is wicked; my complaint is that it is paltry; for it lacks passion. Men's thoughts are thin and flimsy like lace, they are themselves pitiable like the lacemakers. The thoughts of their hearts are too paltry to be sinful. For a worm it might be regarded as a sin to harbor such thoughts, but not for a being made in the image of God. Their lusts are dull and sluggish, their passions sleepy...This is the reason my soul always turns back to the Old Testament and to Shakespeare. I feel that those who speak there are at least human beings: they hate, they love, they murder their enemies, and curse their descendants throughout all generations, they sin.”
LOL
Just taking a page from the Donald's own playbook. Didn't know you Trumpies were so sensitive to name-calling.
So in a single comment, you take the left to task for accusing the right of anti-intellectualism, then point out the right's "blatant" anti-intellectualism! Hilarious.
So your claim is that the right exhibits "blatant" anti-intellectualism. Are you a leftie?
I'm old, but still politically left. Let me assure you that there is no political left in the US (I know because I have waited for one to show up my entire life). There has never been a viable political left in the US. The reality is that the US has a far-right party and a center-right party. Calling Dems "lefties" is a Fox News meme. Nice of you all to drink the Kool-Aid. (And notice, I am not calling anyone dumb. Just gullible.)
I find it odd how so often I see people describing how they're disillusioned by their current or former political in-group, as if they suddenly see the motivations and shortcomings of other people on their side more clearly and realize that they're on average not that much smarter or nicer than anyone else. Or rather, I don't find it odd that people do come to those sort of realizations, but rather the fact that it often seems to be a bit of a shock to them because they so strongly identified with that group. Doesn't that just mean that they primarily identified with the people, and that the actual issues and arguments behind them were secondary?
You say that you had had discussions about abortions for years. What did those discussions entail if no one ever brought up considerations regarding the fetus? To me it seems like anywhere one goes to participate in discussion about a controversial topic like that, there's always someone who brings up the so-called pro-life side of the argument. Or did none of them simply ever manage to express themselves in a way which would have allowed you to really put yourself in their position and "get" what they're going on about?
I guess where I'm going with this might be that it's certainly healthy to notice that most people even on your own side on most issues aren't in for it because they've really rationally thought things through, but often more for simple tribalism and other less-rational reasons. However, I'd say it's equally important to use that realization not to just swing to the other tribe and think they're much better (not that it sounds like you were doing that, but still), but to stop strongly identifying with any particular group altogether, and to identify with the actual issues and arguments instead.
There was no real "left", but more of a shared sentiment that we couldn't justify our rights and benefits unless they applied to everyone. There could be no "moral high ground", since morality was all relative to individual "world views". The country has always been skewed to the right. Even the abortion issue mentioned above is a bit backwards. To be consistent, the right should have been pro-choice/personal responsibility, and the left should have been pro-life. It seems like people chose sides just to oppose the other side. The "left", (of far-right), is paying for its sins too. Nobody is really switching sides, they are just bringing some issues of cognitive dissonance into focus. How could you be trying to save a group while simultaneously killing them? I recently came to the conclusion that the current protests and discussions are not so much about political ideals, but about how to reconcile ideals with reality.
As for me, it is too late for left/right discussion. My main concern is how to dress for the inevitable relocation camps.
Yes it's insane, that's why I've been rubbing it in their faces every single chance I've been getting. Let them call me a sexist, a mysoginist, I don't give a fuck. Losers, as far as I'm concerned. If they're going to cry like babies, and "grieve" for Crooked Hillary's loss >:O - that's funny as hell! They should remember that Crooked has millions stashed away and is living like an Empress on their backs.
Oh so who was up and running with the sexual revolution, etc.? The Right? No that's the Left. The "me me me" - that's always been the left.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
Oh yeah, Crooked Hillary is a "sober adult" - give me a break, that's a shame of a person. Worse than Trump - at least Trump has a certain honor about him, he will not lick up to folks to get what he wants. Crooked Hillary immediately licks up to the special interests who give her money. She should really be ashamed of herself - the person who wants to be President goes licking bankers, and hedge fund managers, and other rich folks >:O Sooner or later we'll hear about the Clinton-Soros sex scandal I'm sure >:O
And due to the endless name-calling, people stop caring what you say.
Trump's whole shtick was 'f*** you'. 'You say I can't complain about Mexicans? Well, f*** you.' That is how he won. He was deliberately anti-conventional and completely 'un-PC', and the crowds loved it. 'Well, f*** you!', they all cried, in unison. Like they were being clever.
But I think the attitude that he therefore 'tapped into righteous grievances' is going to prove completely hollow. He outlined hardly any actual policies, except for 'tax cuts for everyone' and 'we'll build a lot of infrastructure'. But aside from the 5% of his output that was about policy, the rest was rants, insults, twitter flame wars, and stream-of-consciousness remarks about whatever came to mind.
Remember the optimism when Obama got in? 'We can change things'. Democrat or not, Obama rescued the US car industry from certain death, and did a lot else besides to stablise a dreadfully dangerous economic situation. Nobody's really interested in that, though - too busy yelling 'lock her up' from the bleachers. Meanwhile Trump's documented lies and insults amount to hundreds of pages.
So what? We say. 'The people have spoken'. Fallen for it, I think would be more accurate. Which is why 'post-fact' has become 'word of the year'. When all the euphoria wears off and the real work has to be done, then we'll see what it really means.
Quoting Wayfarer
Trump is far far more capable than Clinton will ever be to do ANYTHING AT ALL. Listen for once - Crooked has never done a single thing in her entire life. It's always been the folks around her - an entire system which was getting things done, she was only a tool for that system, a piece in the mechanism. She never did a single thing she wanted to do by herself. She always had a bunch of people around her telling her "do this, do that" etc. It's simple really. She has a good record only because she's been around the right people her whole life! But she has no capacity! Wake up! Look at it, she had everything put on the table. You, me, any of us can be Secretary of State or whatever if our best friends are Presidents and all around the governmental administration. It takes absolutely 0 skill. Going to sign international treaties - no skill. You go with a million pundits around you, telling you do this, do that, now we have to do X, now we have to do Y - it's so fucking simple. An idiot can do it. That's why most politicians are exactly that.
Look at it. Wake up! Trump did everything he has done and wanted to do by himself. He opposed many people and won, not once, but multiple times. He went out there, and got it. That's a big difference - it actually takes brain to do that. Friends can't do that for you. Connections can't do that for you. That takes real intelligence. It takes courage to stand up and go your own way. You try building the equivalent of Trump tower - see how difficult it is. In fact forget that - try building just an apartment building, you'll see how difficult it is, everything from getting the finance, to finding the right location, to getting permits, to negotiating every single deal regarding the contractor, architect, engineer, budgeting the project and so forth. You try running such a project. Then you'll realise that Trump is extremely intelligent, despite the appearances to the contrary. That's why he's been beating all the fools - he's made them think "oh Trump is just a fucking idiot, he's got no chance".
I don't agree with Trump on many points. But I respect Trump - Trump is a man of high abilities and high capacity. He's proven it over and over again, despite all the opposition he has faced. You should respect your opponent if you are to ever hope to beat them. If you don't take your opponents seriously you're going to lose - that's rule number 1 in any competition.
Oh, and Trump did everything, because he inherited a few hundred million dollars, and a lot of influence, from his father. He almost lost the lot more than once, and there are many 'self-made billionaires' in the USA right now, against whom Trump is but one.
For the Left, there is nothing to give. It’s description of society identifies values and identities which are defined by oppression of other groups. There’s no compromise to make on how racist it is to systematically detaining and deporting millions Latinos from the US. It’s a descriptive fact that amounts to denying civil rights to particular ethic groups and uprooting millions of their people. If someone voted for Trump, they’re racist because they’ve approved this approach. Rather than mere moralising or insult, it’s description of how their values, identity and action relate to groups of people in the US.
Our identity is what is at stake. Do we envision ourselves belonging to a community where people of any race belong? Or do we think that our society is really for “white” people, whether it be an active position or a subconscious assumption? It’s the later the Left is coming up against. People aren’t upset at the Left for making moralistic arguments (everyone does that), they are angry because the Left is attacking their values and identity. Whether it is the white nationalist or the mainstream liberal who subconsciously engages in racism, the Left is pointing out their oppression and saying their present image of themselves in society is a problem. Anything less, we aren’t being honest.
It’s never been about transcending racial categories. That’s just “colour blindness.” The point is to form a new identity which holds society belongs to a person of any race, rather than treating it as if it were merely white. Part of this means recognising people have their own place, a space where someone else doesn’t automatically have an interest or wisdom to speak. When the minority ethnicity can participate in culture without having white people make it about white people, there will be something approaching an identity that envision America belonging to more than white people.
[quote=“Erik”]Again, I can't emphasize enough how pointing this out doesn't necessarily mean one is a Republican partisan or an enthusiastic Trump supporter. An unintended consequence of their crusade against the perceived injustices of white males is that it has turned some of us (or more than some) who would otherwise be inclined to sympathize with quite a few of their positions (on economics, the environment, social programs and the like) against them - and many people who didn't previously give a shit about their 'race' - and who have never picked their friends, their spouse, their employees etc. based upon such narrow-minded tribal loyalties - have come to see that they are hated precisely because of it.
And no, I don't think pointing this out makes one a racist; I will acknowledge the many injustices non-whites and all 'others' (non-white male heterosexuals) have been the victims of in the US and abroad, and the genuine need to rectify these legitimate grievances to the best of our abilities, but I will also disagree with them on how best to transcend racial categories in favor of a more inclusive identity-- assuming of course that that's their goal, which I'm beginning to think isn't the case. Seems many would like to invert the old racial hierarchy instead of superseding it altogether.[/quote]
This is exactly the sort “making it about white people” I’m talking about in the last paragraph. When someone points out instances of white people being favoured, it’s treated like a destruction of American identity. Point out that Trump supporters have voted for a racist platform and policy, someone is (supposedly), to take the line of thought to its conclusions (“reversing the racial hierarchy”), turning white people into slaves. All because in this instance, on this issue, it’s been denied that a white person (e.g. a Trump supporter) has an opinion of relevance.
No doubt people are reacting against the Left’s criticism, but it is not a new tribalism. The Left is going after the unstated tribalism no-one thought about or even recognised, the subconscious assumption of the US as belonging to white people (in terms of race).
Trump could be dangerous that's true. But it's not because he's stupid. It's because he's fucking smart and ruthless and will go to great lengths to do what he wants to do. He's not mediocrity - mediocrity doesn't build towers, mediocrity is smoking weed, drinking with your buddies, going to hookers, etc. Trump is very very far from mediocrity. He plays a role - that of the buffoon - because it gives him a massive advantage. People laugh at him instead of get ready to fight back. Crooked laughs at him and thinks she has the election in her hand - but Trump is out there working till 3 AM in the morning, rally after rally. He's working his butt off getting what he wants. You don't become President sitting in bed, you don't get that being mediocre - unless you have a powerful husband or well-connected friends who want to put you there because you're good and docile and will do as they require you to do.
The thing is like this. Trump is not a good man. But he is a strong man. There's a huge difference between him and other politicians. He's strong - powerful. The others aren't. The very big problem of this world is that we don't have strong men in politics anymore. Trump is the exception - but he's not good, he doesn't have the moral character that a leader ought to have. But he's nevertheless better than those who lack even the strength needed for leadership. People would rather have a strong evil leader, than a weak leader.
In the last year and a half or so, I have begun to shed the aforementioned irritation and, along with it, the vague leftism I had adopted. To be annoyed at what one has no control over is foolish and a waste of time and energy. My move to the right has been facilitated by increasing exposure to and disagreement with the left, particularly in academia, increasing exposure to and agreement with the other side, and a reconsideration of how the metaphysical and ethical principles I hold to apply to various political issues. Speaking of abortion, I'm now firmly opposed to it, and am also much less angry with capitalism, which I realize I misunderstood and straw-manned. The simple reason I gravitated to the left, looking back, is as Dr. Johnson says, because of ignorance, pure ignorance.
Take another issue. The relationship between men and women. Do you think I, as a man, will ever accept my wife to go out naked protesting, or to pose naked because she wants to vote for Crooked, or any such shit? Of course not. Now you're going to start with "oh so you want to control what she does with her body" yadda yadda yadda. Just watch. You're going to start explaining it >:O
Do you think my wife will ever accept me having extra-martial affairs because "I believe in an open-relationship" or any other such shit? Really give me a break - your unrealistic views are laughable. And the same goes for all leftists.
Now there are obviously other white people who do feel some special attachment to their racial identity, but I think the percentage of those who do who may have been greatly exaggerated. I've met too many awesome black and Latino and Jewish and Asian people, and also way too many white people who were total assholes to put much stock in tribal divisions and insidious generalizations. That's the beauty of America, at least as a possibility despite a dark past of racial antagonisms. I'm not suggesting people of color or other marginalized people just 'get over it' but, as a pragmatist of sorts, am wondering how best to move forward on the issue without the constant rehashing of resentments. The constant vilification of white men is not helping.
A naïve and unsophisticated position indeed, but in many ways more true than the views peddled out of academia that seem to perpetuate divisiveness and racial hatred. The people I hang out with and work with are more important to me - and more influential on my thoughts - than getting caught up in abstractions. I'm more interested in issues of class than race. American identity IS NOT synonymous with being white to anyone other than fringe groups that probably represent about 1% of the population.
Again, these are just my views and I'll leave it to others to form their own opinions.
Conflict isn't playing out in terms of policy. What's at stake isn't, for example, the enacting of one particular racist policy or not. The Left isn't just saying: "We ought not lock-up and deport illegal immigrants because it's racist." They are concerned about an underlying identity that sees us even pose such racist policies in the first place.
In their everyday lives, a lot of the people the Left is criticising get along fine with people of many different ethnicities. For many, it's only when the abstraction of American identity becomes involved that the issues come out. When discussion of our identity that impacts our reaction to people we don't know occurs, it becomes all about the importance and superiority of white people.
People who point out an advantage white men have are suddenly "vilifying white men" for pointing out out a state of society and/or claiming it is unjust. The moment the abstraction "white man" comes-up, the importance and superiority of the white man casts aside any other consideration.
If I point out that a Trump voter has supported a racist party and platform, and so has an identity bound-up with that racism, I'm supposing lying. Supposedly, I'm unfairly stereotyping white working class Trump supporter, as if I failed to understand they are not racists but rather concerned with something else (the economic degradation of their communities under the modern neo-liberal economy). In this situation, my truthful statement about Trump supporters is misunderstood as a self-serving lie based on my irrational prejudice.
Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. In the abstraction of identity, white people view themselves as the only ones who matter, who are the ones to whom America belongs. It's this the Left is targeting, not just people who'd like to lynch anyone in their town who's not white.
One does not simply "argue" with Willow.
One instead smashes one's head against the wall repeatedly.
Well, what exactly has Trump done that proves him to be a really swell guy to be President?
He's succeeded in show business. No small deal, most people who try to succeed in show business fail. He's succeeded in business, apparently. Maybe some of his dealings were shady, but shady kind of comes with the territory of real estate; everybody wants to live on a shady street. As a "university" founder, he evidently left a great deal to be desired. I can't think of anything else he's done that was particularly distinguished.
As far as I know, Hillary has not tried show business or real estate. Being First Lady isn't something that Trump was ever eligible to be, and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have much of her policy wonkiness.
And who was Prez during most of the sexual revolution? Oh, yeah - Nixon. The country was SO far to the left.
Given the continued wage disparity and results of the recent election, we see how enlightened the US is regarding its attitude towards women. Look at your own post. You are so anti-woman that you can't stop yourself from writing "Crooked Hillary".
When abortion rights are repealed (I give it two years, tops) please come back and tell us all about the wonderful sexual revolution. (And if you think giving a woman the right to choose is wrong and should be repealed, then you know nothing about the sexual revolution.)
Not like failing to pay - or file - taxes for at least 10 years. Or failing to pay your employees on a timely basis. Or going bankrupt numerous times (and using the US taxpayer to bail you out).
Any bets on how long it takes Trump to significantly reduce taxes on the rich? Six months?
Clinton-Soros sex scandal? You are drinking from the troth of Limbaugh/Hannity/Breitbart. (And I know what channel your TV is set to.) Is that baseless slander an attempt to deflect attention from the very real fact that Trump has admitted being attracted to his own daughter? Or that he is married to a soft-porn actress?
If endless name-calling were a fault, no one would have voted for your boy. Do you deny that Trump has ridiculed and slandered countless political opponents during his campaign? I can provide a list.
if you liked that, you'll love these.
just messing thorongil, ur my boy.
I also think this is a large part of my thinking 'what the hell is going on?'. I had a female friend post a comment saying the election was entirely about gender. A male replied listing some other factors - her response was something about how it was so enlightening to here from men that male privileged doesn't exist.
When did this become a completely normal way to argue in a political discussion?
All that being said, I think the US left does have a serious PR problem on all levels.
Maybe the country wasn't so far left politically, but culturally it certainly was.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
Oh yeah, let's not be anti-woman, let's allow Amy Schumer to fuck around and do whatever she likes. Let's let her be a spoiled brat, that certainly is being "pro-woman". I don't call that a woman - that's a beast of the fields as far as I'm concerned, and the faster we get rid of folks like her (from the TV screen and the Media), the better the whole world will be. Give me a break - you say the country has never been on the left, and lo and behold you're peddling the same mantras "women are abused", etc. that the left peddles. Where are these places where women are taken and whipped or raped? Show them to me! In the past I could have taken you to a place where the slaves are abused and showed you - here are the slaves, they have no freedom and they're at the mercy of their masters. Take me to where these women are abused. Where is that? Nowhere. So give me a break with this feminazism. This is nothing short of a war on men. Some whores - like Amy Schumer - would like men to prostate before their vaginas, and be some disposable scum that they can throw away whenever they need to. I'm not going to bow to that - you can keep your head down and bow - you may do anything for pussy, but not me.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
Well I'm very glad those "murder" rights are repealed. As far as I'm aware it's not a good thing that we have women who use their bodies in irresponsible ways, and then resort to murdering the child in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. That's shameful - they should be ashamed of themselves, as should the men who had sex with them knowing that this would be the consequence.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
Yes, as far as I'm aware, it's the government's job to make people pay taxes, and it's the businessman's job to avoid paying them if he can. He's a businessman because he can manage capital better than the government - or at least thinks he can. The problem is that the government is stupid - that's why men like Trump can get away with paying less in taxes. If the government was formed of able men, then no one could get away with not paying taxes.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
You mean to reduce taxes on everyone? :P
For some reason I seem to think you're Australian - perhaps something you wrote once at the old place.
If you are, then what do you think of Philip Adams as an example of someone of the Left that is very friendly, open-minded and non-abusive to those with whom he disagrees, often having them as guests on his late night talk show on Radio National. He seeks to engage with and understand them rather than shouting at or accusing them.
Is he a model of what we need more of on the Left? Or do you think that he also suffers from too many of the flaws that concern you?
I'm trying to think of an American equivalent but my knowledge of US public intellectuals is too thin. Adams is a gentle, cuddly, bearded, grandfatherly, rumbly-voiced old Leftie who, many decades ago may even have been a Commie (gasp!). He made plenty of money working in advertising and film-making, so he is completely immune to accusations of 'envy politics'.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
That sounds about right to me. Neither of the US parties would qualify as Left in most other countries. While I agree that the raging, holier-than-though, politically correct left-wing preacher is an unfortunately too common member of what is thought of as the Left, I don't believe that is what gave the election to Trump, because the Dems, including Ms Clinton, are much too right-wing to appeal to such types.
In other words, in TheWillow's world, if you disagree with feminazism, if you're against globalisation, if you're in any way friendly to whites - that's it, you shouldn't be allowed to live, you shouldn't be allowed to have an identity - because you're racist, sexist, misogynist, etc. . He wants to bulldozer the strength of peer pressure and social conformity in order to enforce his disgusting world view on the rest of us. He too has the phantasy of making an eternity - an end of history - out of his ideal.
The problem with the anti-Trump protests is that they're (1) disgusting and rude, (2) they create chaos, and they are not civil. They block roads, they fight, they insult, they go naked - that's fucking disgusting, they should all be arrested as far as I'm concerned. They should learn to protest in a civilised manner, not like beasts of the field. The Bernie Sanders "me me me" generation.
He's succeeded in construction business - which is probably the most complicated business you can get into simply because the number of factors (and diversity of the people) that has to be managed is much greater than in most other businesses. He's built some amazing structures/places.
Yes it's true that he has also failed many times, but so what? He has tried to do Universities, airlines, etc. it would be utterly unbelievable if anyone could have managed. The important point is that his failures were never so great as to get him out of business. He's never truly failed. True failure is to have lost everything he had. And he wasn't the type of person to sit on his money - he was actively engaged in investing it. If most other people do that, they'd lose most of it. Most of the rich families - take Rockefellers - aren't actively engaged in manipulating their wealth. They give it to professionals, who administrate it for them such that it doesn't dwindle. They're not really taking "risks" the way Trump has been.
That's not my comment. Why don't you reply to what is written instead of your own rephrased misinterpretations?
Quoting Real Gone Cat
My claim is directed at the anti-intellectualism of ideologues on the left and the right. Since you can read it should not have passed you by. So, are you an ideologue?
From what I've seen of U.S. political arguments in the past 15 years or so... it's always been like that, no? I mean that's exactly the same kind of thing that I've been seeing over and over and over again on the right-wing side as well. I find it truly bizarre that all of a sudden it's "the left" that is being accused of engaging in rhetorical misdirection and trying to redefine words and being intellectually dishonest and regressive, when that's precisely what you've had from "the right" for a really long time.
What, you're against torture or illegal wiretaps? Oh it's so enlightening to hear that you're on the side of terrorists.
What, you're for free healthcare? Oh it's good that you admit being a communist.
What, you want any gun control? Oh wow you just want to take everyone's guns so you can instate dictatorship.
What, you think women or minorities still face some problems? Oh well you just really hate white straight men don't you yeah we know you do.
Why are so many people suddenly seeming to forget that that kind of constant torrent of right-wing demagoguery really was a thing, and frankly still is? I feel like witnessing the onset of some kind of mass amnesia.
Yes, regressive anti-intellectualism is a problem, but it sure as hell is not a recent leftist invention even if it's now left-wing regressive anti-intellectualism that is more mainstream or gets more visibility than some 10 years ago.
Is he any worse than a lot of rich people? Certainly not. So then why don't I like him? Because, for one thing, he isn't any better than a lot of rich guys, and compared to the other very rich guys who have made a run for the presidency, he lacks 3 things:
1. Experience in public service.
2. Gravitas
3. Intellectual depth
So for #3, he certainly isn't unique here. If still waters run deep... George Bush II was/is the very model of a shallow gulch, a drainage ditch, a dry arroyo. So was Ronald Reagan, IMHO. In politics, "shallow" is not a disqualifier.
For #2, a quality separate from depth and his CV, he isn't unique either. A number of presidents have gotten through a term or two on gaseous gravitas. But they aren't remembered as great, either.
For #1, he is kind of a stand out. Of course, President Eisenhower didn't have political experience either.
Trump University is to a real university what a home made raft is to the Queen Mary. So no, he didn't "do universities".
As for the Rockefellers, I suppose it is the case that the current generation, like many of the scions of wealth, are living on the proceeds of their inheritances. John D. Rockefeller Jr., however did enlarge the family wealth. Rockefeller Center was a "yuuge" real estate deal which took quite a while to assemble and build, and quite a bit longer to turn a profit, but become profitable it did. (The Great Depression got in the way.)
Yeah, that's the kind of money they should never have been allowed to make. Their "work" (speeches, ghostwritten books, "consulting", etc) has simply done very little, if anything, of value to merit earning that kind of money. I hate folks like that, who make money doing nothing - same feeling I have for Wall-streeters. I find that disgusting. But I've always respected someone who had a good ability to find opportunity and make money by providing something of value. It's just that I detest those who don't deserve the money.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree, but I also don't like Trump for those reasons. However, I prefer Trump and his buffonery over seeing the self-righteous supporters of Crooked - especially the Media and Hollywood - maintain their hegemony over culture. I think that they are responsible for far more of our current social problems and ills than many of us are willing to believe. I think we are all defined in part by what we oppose most. Their Hollywood anti-intellectualism and pro-sensualism is my number one enemy.
There has always been reasons to dismiss the other side. On some issues it was because they were completely informed by religion, in other issue it was racism or sexism etc. Always a reason so that one didn't need to listen and even more, one knew that there was no point in listening even if you tried. It's easy to view things like that, firstly because I know conservatives who are entirely informed by their religion and I know others which definitely have prejudice.
For me now it's mainly that I am actively seeking out ideas and arguments from the right and realizing that these issue are not be entirely clear cut.
Also, curiously what changed your view on abortion?
Actually I can often get on board with people on the left. Do you have any recommendations of someone similar on the right. It would be really interesting to hear, especially if they didn't just repeat the arguments which have been made by members of the liberal party over the years but provided more insight.
Quoting zookeeper
I think this has a descent amount to do with being Australian. The pro life movement is often viewed as a largely American thing. Also it is associated with Christianity. I don't think I have ever met an atheist that was pro life (or at least one that mentioned they were).
A few years ago the leader of the liberal party (the conservative party) had to play down his views on abortion. He even promised that he would not change abortion laws if he became prime minister.
I used to be an atheist that was pro-life. In fact, I was a conservative before I became religious, and I became religious because I was conservative, that was part of the path. For me, the reason why I side with the right is because I detest the arrogance, self-righteousness and pettiness of the left, and I love the Ancient Greek culture, which I see as an ideal. I have a feeling that real men and women used to live back then - men like Alexander, ready to conquer the world, with gigantic ambitions and passions. It seems to me that the left is reducing all of us to our common denominator, our animal nature - it's the outgrowth of democracy which seeks to make a level playing field for all. It's seeking to make more and more of us like Hollywood pop-culture. What used to take restraint and courage, the virtues, are now despised. Strength is despised.
I dislike the premissiveness of left-wing culture. Regarding abortion for example, I simply don't think (1) that a developing child, the fetus, should be killed because of the whims of the mother, and (2) I don't think that women should be free to do as they please with their bodies (and neither should men for that matter). We live in communities and we have responsibilities one towards another. This whole idea of "freedom" is barbaric. This used to be called "bondage to lust" by Spinoza and Aristotle. We should consider our behaviour in relation to others, not only to ourselves.
I find the left's obsession with the importance of sex petty and disgusting. What should be a tertiary concern in life becomes the purpose of it. Jokes are about sex, conversations are about sex, everything is about sex. I mean what the - man should not be a worshipper of pussy - I find that disgusting. The mere idea that one is to "have to do something" to have sex is ridiculous! Outrageous! Or the whole "if you're not having sex, you're not living" mantra of the left. What's with this whole building of self-esteem around sex? Are these people actually serious? A man's self esteem should revolve around sex? I mean, that, as Kierkegaard said, may be fit for a worm, but not for a being as great as man. There's a reason why I say the media and Hollywood are the professors of that pussy-grabbing Donald Trump - they, and their culture, created him.
Why must the desire to take laws seriously be grounded in underlying (racial?) identity? Every nation, and not just those with a white majority, should have the right to secure its borders and keep track of who comes in. I wouldn't dream of moving to China or Thailand or Mexico without going through the proper legal channels. If I did show no respect for their laws, I sure as hell wouldn't complain about their racism if I were arrested and deported. That's not racist, that's common sense. This spurious connection between ALL white people and racism - our thoughts and actions are always determined by racial considerations, regardless of the circumstances - betrays a grotesque arrogance and presumptuousness. Not every white person is so one-dimensional in outlook, however much you or others may be. White racists are not respected by anyone outside their small and cloistered community. Let's keep it like that and stop giving them more ammo to draw in potential sympathizers, which is precisely what I think the the Left is doing these days.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
What is this abstract American identity? My guess is your narrative won't square with the that offered by a majority of those maligned Trump supporters. Things like economic stagnation, a rising drug and crime rate in these supposedly privileged white working-class communities, national crisis in education and healthcare, or a general feeling of hopelessness in an increasingly alien world dominated by global finance and advanced technology couldn't have possibly influenced white peoples' decision to vote against an establishment candidate? A candidate moreover who had no answers for this situation other than 'Hey, everything is great, and if you don't think so you must be a racist.' In my more cynical moments I'm inclined to see this a shameless attempt (honesty is of little consideration for those who want to maintain power) by the 'establishment' to keep working class whites, blacks and Latinos divided and distracted from the genuine villains in this narrative. We're so fucking stupid and so desiring of acceptance that we buy into this one-sided way of perceiving things and thereby perpetuate class domination. White working class people have WAY more in common with non-white working folk than they do with affluent and highly-educated upper crust whites.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, it's you who seems to be casting aside any other consideration and zeroing in on race as the sole determining factor in peoples' thoughts and actions. Well, at least white peoples'--I'd imagine non-whites in their inherent nobility and open-mindedness will be a priori exempt from this charge. The concrete lives of real human beings - rather than demonized caricatures - is full of complexity and nuance. Or maybe that's yet another abstraction? To assume that we're all helpless against the injustices of some impersonal 'system' grounded in white racism betrays a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. White people are not a monolith. Nor are black or brown people. Nor are gay people. Does that mean racism doesn't exist? No, that would be an equally dogmatic position completely lacking in nuance and subtlety, and completely disrespecting the (at least potential) uniqueness of particular human beings.
There are indeed racists and bigots out there, quite a few in fact, but we conquer their narrative not by buying into their premises by rather by challenging their guiding assumptions and beliefs. The hate and bigotry of both the hardcore Left and Right are both symptoms of mass lunacy and, to me, betray a disturbing lack of genuine insight for the sake of abstract idols. These must be defended at any cost, even if that means distorting the truth to serve an agenda. Real life experiences have a powerful way of bringing those preconceived notions which supposedly determine the 'essential' traits of people based upon race or religion crumbling down, if we only set aside our assumptions and allow them to speak.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, you're only lying when you extend the fringe group's racist motivations to anyone and everyone who voted for Trump. And I wouldn't call it 'lying', I'd call it being arrogant in your self-righteousness and extreme presumptuousness. As if you had some sort of access to the actual thought-processes of people whom you've never met or spoken with. Even if they told you racism wasn't their motivation for voting Trump, you'd think they were lying because you know what motivates them better than they themselves do. This, again, is dogmatism and 'esentializing' of the new 'other' at its worst. It's an attempt to invert a racial hierarchy instead of striving to overcome it altogether. The intention to rectify past and current injustices is genuine and good, I believe, but the execution on pragmatic lines amongst the Left is horrible and riddled with unintended consequences. Nothing could harden people more to your message - assuming it's one that seeks ultimate racial harmony or even irrelevancy - than this condescending and holier-than-though approach. Incidentally, this phenomena is probably partly the reason for Trump's victory. You bludgeon and browbeat people enough with baseless accusations - coupled with an implicit assumption of your own superiority and infallibility - and they'll finally respond to you with a resounding Fuck You!
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Again, your penchant for blanket generalizations is truly remarkable. Please call me out if I engage in the same sort of idolotry and obsession with the a priori and I will thank you for it. Just because some idiots are lacking in self-awareness and are therefore oblivious to their own hypocrisy, doesn't necessarily mean that ALL Trump supporters are 'racist, sexist, and heterosexists' who support that fringe element. The anti-Trump crowd (the pro-Trump crowd too) has a right and a duty to exorcise that small segment of Trump supporters who are just as narrow-minded and beholden to abstractions as the ideological dogmatists on the other side of the political spectrum. Once again, your narrative and worldview seems to be a projection that you've imposed upon this new hated 'other' in your Manichean scheme of things. The Left (I'm aware that this too is an abstraction) can hate, and hate passionately, without feeling bad about it. They can even feel righteous in their hatred within this quasi-religious narrative, one in which they fight the forces of evil and oppression for the sake of the downtrodden and oppressed. I will admit it was compelling for me back when I identified with this group, and still is to a certain extent. 'He who battles monsters...'
Now don't get me wrong, I too believe in the importance of narratives, and even the use of abstractions to a limited and qualified extent, but the exemplary figures in my preferred story are off all races and ethnicities, and they view the world through a lens that, at the very least, attempts to move beyond this obsessive preoccupation with racial biology and towards a higher and more inclusive identity. It's basically an identity which encompasses anyone who believes in a modified version of the American Dream. Now I definitely have issues with this 'dream' as traditionally interpreted, but the basic idea of working hard, playing by the rules, respecting the rights and freedoms of others within the constraints of a set of shared values and beliefs, regardless of race, is something I no longer mindlessly ridicule. I have mocked this 'Dream' in the past - being a socialist/communitarian at heart - but there are parts of this narrative that I respect now, especially by way of contrast with what the Left is offering: a continued stoking of racial divisiveness and other resentments directed at white working class folk. It resonates with people for a reason and is an inspiring vision of a society not dominated by a strict alignment of my identity with my race or caste.
So it's not the Dream that's the issue, it's the failure of implementation. Nowadays many people don't even appear to want to participate in it since it would mean the end of their native 'culture' and tradition, yet they are quick to call out white people for fearing the loss of their culture. Seems the hypocrisy is all around. To be honest, my wife's family - traditional Spanish-speaking and relatively recent Mexican immigrants - had much more of a problem with her marrying me than my white trash family had with me marrying her. Go figure. Seems like almost all people feel a bit insecure about losing their sense of identity, but only one segment of the population is demonized for doing so. Anyhow, why don't you articulate your understanding of this American Identity and I'll offer up mine in response. This is the very important conversation that needs to commence, and in order for it to do so we should temporarily set aside the one which only ever sees human interactions within the context of racial identity and mutual hostility based upon one of innumerable possible identifying factors.
Apologies for the harsh tone of this post. I don't like Trump at all, but I do have many family members who voted for the guy so I get a little defensive when people disparage and caricature all of his supporters as instantiating some essential traits. They (my family) look at the racist goons who supported Trump - 'White Nationalists' or whatever they call themselves - without the least bit of sympathy or connection. So yeah, this is deeply personal issue and, as mentioned, these abstractions impact the way they perceive things. I think we need to find new ways of understanding ourselves and others moving forward which, IMO, do a better job of matching the experiences of actual people, i.e. those engaged in the day-to-day grind of working honestly, supporting their families, trying to be positively involved in their communities, etc.
Concrete examples drawn from direct firsthand experience have a way of humanizing the villain - even those villains on the Left and the Right that I've portrayed here - and are therefore a threat to the world of tidy abstractions which give the powers that be even more power. These are far from benign, and while offering us a stable sense of identity and a good conscience they also contain the seeds of violence and oppression. Who doesn't want to be one of the 'good guys' in this simplified (and largely manipulative) plot, fighting the injustices and racism of uneducated and foolish buffoons? There are other equally dangerous narratives: We're one the good guys fighting the global oligarchs. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the communists. Or we're the good guys fighting the colonial oppressor. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the Jews. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the atheists. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the religious dogmatists who would threaten our freedoms. How powerful and comforting these illusions are - by providing us with a sense of meaning and purpose that may otherwise be lacking - and how hard it is to let go of them is more a matter of ego than of 'truth' or anything else. I'll be the first to admit this. But let's at least acknowledge how extremely dangerous these abstractions can be; we can see how the historical demonization of the 'other' paved the way for the eventual use of violence against them as a moral duty. Let's just keep that in mind as we continue to perpetuate this racial narrative.
I am resolute in one thing, and that would be my conviction that we desperately need a new story to bind us together. Less abstractions, less double-standards, and more open and honest dialogue. That would be a start, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Left (and the Right) is doing these days.
The first vote I casted was on the liberal-conservative party (liberal in the classical sense), at the age of eighteen. I have been a right winger, pretty much my entire life. I can even remember that I questioned the governmental involvement in social securities as a child.
Since then, my right wing views have only strengthened and I have taken the position as a secular conservative. It is worth mentioning that I am a non-believer, since conservatism is often linked with religiosity. Political views are partly based on genetics / personality characteristics, and as Haidt mentions, we are born lawyers not scientists. We rationalise our case and antagonise ‘the other’. I can partly agree with this, but the relationship between socialism and capitalism is imperfectly oppositional, in my view. Capitalism makes a case for capitalism, whereas socialism has historically been anti-capitalistic. Capitalism makes the case for private ownership, whereas socialism is the negation of private ownership. Leftism has always been rebellious, revolting, revolutionary and their case can be summed up in three words: “away with capitalism!” However, if you ask them what the alternative should be, they scramble some incoherent vague empty statements or they write thick unreadable books with utopian untested ideas and naïve Rousseauen view of human nature. The more educated you are, the more isolated you are form reality and the better you are at rationalising your own untested and unchallenged case. See Chomsky. The professor of words.
The following quote remains relevant: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain” – numerous of people.
I have no heart I guess.
Regarding abortion, I find the sheer dismissive attitude from the left absolutely appalling. It is something that ought to be discussed collectively, coherently and with empirical evidence, because the moral status of the unborn should not depend on the convenience of the mother. The argument from autonomy is awful, illegal and lacks parental responsibility. The very arbitrariness of the moral status of the unborn child is what I fundamentally object to, since I notice a deliberate effort to dehumanise a human being. The safety of abortion is also highly disputed and even the data is incredibly misleading: http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionmedicalkeyissues/childbirthcomparison/
Calling the unborn child “parasite” or “tumour” does not help the leftist case. Their only strategy is to proclaim that they are at least not racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, greedy deplorable white privileged heterosexual men. This novelty seems to have worn off (make America great again!).
Like Haidt cited a study, right wingers understand left wingers better than left wingers understand right wingers for psychological reasons.
My predilections have been leftist for a long time, and I have always argued that it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, then out with it. The argument (behind this position) is consistent, especially if one ignores the fetus that will become a person in just a few months.
Of late, I have come to find the absolute autonomy / biology is not destiny / pro-choice / fetus-discarding-approach unsatisfactory. Maybe I am drifting rightward; I hope not. There are always two people involved in a pregnancy, and most of the time both partners were pretty much willing to roll the paternity/maternity dice.
I do not wish to extend personhood to fetuses in general, especially in the first two trimesters. Not granting personhood to an 8 month fetus is not rational. If born in the 8th month, it has a fairly good chance of surviving, high tech or not. But a fetus is not a meaningless blob either, even at 1 month. It is an incipient person, even if natural biological causes end it's development early through miscarriage.
If the conception is not interfered with immediately (by using Plan B), it seems to me that there is at least some obligation to complete the pregnancy. Granted, there are circumstances that override the obligation--factors associated with incapacity, not inconvenience. No one should be forced to raise a child they do not want. Plenty of misery has been caused by unwilling parenthood (the 18 year long march version) and adoption should be readily available.
Absolutely nothing I have said here is of any significance. All this has been said by others many times before. The only thing that is significant (to me, mostly) is that I have changed my thinking.
At what point does the life of a human being start? Can you back it up with some scientific evidence and sound arguments? Your assertion seems to be completely arbitrary.
My argument remains the same. The shift of the start of life does not affect my argument, but my conclusion. If life starts at another point than at the moment of conception, I'd like to know.
Does development determine one's moral status? Does the moral status grow with development? Does the baby have lower moral status than an adult? What about objectively underdeveloped adults? Some people are more "developed" than others, do they also differ in moral status?
"No one should be forced to raise a child they do not want. "
So infanticide should be morally and legally acceptable?
PS. Parental negligence is illegal, especially if the child dies due to that. Autonomy is an awful and controversial argument. There are laws for parental responsibilities, or better said to enforce parental responsibilities.
The pro-choice mantra of 'doing whatever I want' is exactly what morality is not about.
Yes, it's arbitrary. "a life" clearly begins at conception but the time at which the fetus becomes a person is arbitrary. If you want to place it at conception, fine.
Quoting Emptyheady
No, of course infanticide is not acceptable.
Unwanted (like, really not wanted) babies are nothing new. We can pursue a child-friendly policy:
adoption
extra assistance to mothers who are not capable (at the time) of embracing the child's care
social support for parents raising children whether they wanted them or not.
Actually, quite a lot of children are not "wanted". Slip ups happened and more children arrived. Generally people raise the "unwanted" child as well as they raise the desired children.
The US doesn't do all that great a job at providing extra assistance or social support. We could do better.
I totally agree that parents are responsible for their children. Neglect or active harm is and should be illegal and should be prosecuted. But... people who can not handle parenthood do have a lawful, appropriate alternative: adoption.
1. Disapproval of the making of money for money's sake out of non-productive enterprises - ie banking, speculation, etc. Basically out of anything that does not provide value to others. This part is left-leaning, and I too share it. I find it disgusting that some folks are making money pressing buttons in front of a computer, buying and selling stocks - and not only are they making money, some of them are making HUGE money.
2. That whether rich or poor, people are really more alike than different in that both have the same human needs - human needs which cannot be fulfilled by mere money, but require actual goods and services and hence work to be fulfilled -> thus the world is really separated in people who want to work and love to work for others - and people who don't like to work - whether they be rich or poor.
3. That business should exist not for profit - but for service, and like in other fields of work, in business too there should be ethics governing what should be done and how.
4. That business shouldn't be organised with the ideal of infinite growth (and hence infinite consumption) in mind - but rather with the ideal of fulfilling necessities, and if all the necessities are met, then that is enough. This entails quite a bit of a different economy than what we have today, an economy which doesn't demand infinite growth.
5. Opposition to speculative interests that seek purposefully to earn out of war, conflict and suffering.
6. That it is natural for men and women to work.
Here are some interesting statements from his work:
"Between the rich and the poor is the great mass of the people who are neither rich nor poor. A society made up exclusively of millionaires would not be different from our present society; some of the millionaires would have to raise wheat and bake bread and make machinery and run trains—else they would all starve to death. Someone must do the work. Really we have no fixed classes. We have men who will work and men who will not. Most of the "classes" that one reads about are purely fictional.
Take certain capitalist papers. You will be amazed by some of the statements about the labouring class. We who have been and still are a part of the labouring class know that the statements are untrue. Take certain of the labour papers. You are equally amazed by some of the statements they make about "capitalists." And yet on both sides there is a grain of truth. The man who is a capitalist and nothing else, who gambles with the fruits of other men's labours, deserves all that is said against him. He is in precisely the same class as the cheap gambler who cheats workingmen out of their wages. The statements we read about the labouring class in the capitalistic press are seldom written by managers of great industries, but by a class of writers who are writing what they think will please their employers. They write what they imagine will please. Examine the labour press and you will find another class of writers who similarly seek to tickle the prejudices which they conceive the labouring man to have. Both kinds of writers are mere propagandists. And propaganda that does not spread facts is self-destructive. And it should be. You cannot preach patriotism to men for the purpose of getting them to stand still while you rob them—and get away with that kind of preaching very long. You cannot preach the duty of working hard and producing plentifully, and make that a screen for an additional profit to yourself. And neither can the worker conceal the lack of a day's work by a phrase"
"It takes only a moment's thought to see that as far as individual personal advantage is concerned, vast accumulations of money mean nothing. A human being is a human being and is nourished by the same amount and quality of food, is warmed by the same weight of clothing, whether he be rich or poor. And no one can inhabit more than one room at a time.
But if one has visions of service, if one has vast plans which no ordinary resources could possibly realize, if one has a life ambition to make the industrial desert bloom like the rose, and the work-a-day life suddenly blossom into fresh and enthusiastic human motives of higher character and efficiency, then one sees in large sums of money what the farmer sees in his seed corn—the beginning of new and richer harvests whose benefits can no more be selfishly confined than can the sun's rays.
There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured. They are both on the wrong track. They might as well try to corner all the checkers or all the dominoes of the world under the delusion that they are thereby cornering great quantities of skill. Some of the most successful money-makers of our times have never added one pennyworth to the wealth of men. Does a card player add to the wealth of the world?
If we all created wealth up to the limits, the easy limits, of our creative capacity, then it would simply be a case of there being enough for everybody, and everybody getting enough. Any real scarcity of the necessaries of life in the world—not a fictitious scarcity caused by the lack of clinking metallic disks in one's purse—is due only to lack of production. And lack of production is due only too often to lack of knowledge of how and what to produce"
"This much we must believe as a starting point:
That the earth produces, or is capable of producing, enough to give decent sustenance to everyone—not of food alone, but of everything else we need. For everything is produced from the earth.
That it is possible for labour, production, distribution, and reward to be so organized as to make certain that those who contribute shall receive shares determined by an exact justice.
That regardless of the frailties of human nature, our economic system can be so adjusted that selfishness, although perhaps not abolished, can be robbed of power to work serious economic injustice."
"We must have production, but it is the spirit behind it that counts most. That kind of production which is a service inevitably follows a real desire to be of service. The various wholly artificial rules set up for finance and industry and which pass as "laws" break down with such frequency as to prove that they are not even good guesses. The basis of all economic reasoning is the earth and its products. To make the yield of the earth, in all its forms, large enough and dependable enough to serve as the basis for real life—the life which is more than eating and sleeping—is the highest service. That is the real foundation for an economic system. We can make things—the problem of production has been solved brilliantly. We can make any number of different sort of things by the millions. The material mode of our life is splendidly provided for. There are enough processes and improvements now pigeonholed and awaiting application to bring the physical side of life to almost millennial completeness. But we are too wrapped up in the things we are doing—we are not enough concerned with the reasons why we do them. Our whole competitive system, our whole creative expression, all the play of our faculties seem to be centred around material production and its by-products of success and wealth.
There is, for instance, a feeling that personal or group benefit can be had at the expense of other persons or groups. There is nothing to be gained by crushing any one. If the farmer's bloc should crush the manufacturers would the farmers be better off? If the manufacturer's bloc should crush the farmers, would the manufacturers be better off? Could Capital gain by crushing Labour? Or Labour by crushing Capital? Or does a man in business gain by crushing a competitor? No, destructive competition benefits no one. The kind of competition which results in the defeat of the many and the overlordship of the ruthless few must go. Destructive competition lacks the qualities out of which progress comes. Progress comes from a generous form of rivalry. Bad competition is personal. It works for the aggrandizement of some individual or group. It is a sort of warfare. It is inspired by a desire to "get" someone. It is wholly selfish. That is to say, its motive is not pride in the product, nor a desire to excel in service, nor yet a wholesome ambition to approach to scientific methods of production. It is moved simply by the desire to crowd out others and monopolize the market for the sake of the money returns. That being accomplished, it always substitutes a product of inferior quality."
"The business of life is easy or hard according to the skill or the lack of skill displayed in production and distribution. It has been thought that business existed for profit. That is wrong. Business exists for service. It is a profession, and must have recognized professional ethics, to violate which declasses a man. Business needs more of the professional spirit. The professional spirit seeks professional integrity, from pride, not from compulsion. The professional spirit detects its own violations and penalizes them. Business will some day become clean. A machine that stops every little while is an imperfect machine, and its imperfection is within itself. A body that falls sick every little while is a diseased body, and its disease is within itself. So with business. Its faults, many of them purely the faults of the moral constitution of business, clog its progress and make it sick every little while. Some day the ethics of business will be universally recognized, and in that day business will be seen to be the oldest and most useful of all the professions."
"The natural thing to do is to work—to recognize that prosperity and happiness can be obtained only through honest effort. Human ills flow largely from attempting to escape from this natural course. I have no suggestion which goes beyond accepting in its fullest this principle of nature. I take it for granted that we must work. All that we have done comes as the result of a certain insistence that since we must work it is better to work intelligently and forehandedly; that the better we do our work the better off we shall be. All of which I conceive to be merely elemental common sense."
Yes, that seems to me the least arbitrary moment at ascribing moral status to a human being, when human life starts. The issue of development seems to me a red herring, no one consistently believes that as you run in all sort of serious moral problems following that logic. Like I said, it is a deliberate effort/red herring to dehumanise the human being you wish to murder.
Regarding the rest of your post. Yes, that is called responsibility. The government should enforce responsibility, but is not responsible as a caretaker. Again, I am not religious and socially a bit more progressive than I present myself, but there is some wisdom from the religious right to hammer out irresponsible sex.
The greater the governmental support, the lower private support and personal responsibility.
If you have got 5 minutes to read the following two short article regarding that topic:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/06/07/is-personal-responsibility-obsolete-n2174321
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/06/07/is-personal-responsibility-obsolete-part-ii-n2174320
I have a good right-wing acquaintance, and he told me that liberals and progressives just wanna smoke weed and fuck all day... I think he wasn't far off >:O
On the Right you understand responsibility - why? Because you look at life and think there's a good way to be and a bad way to be, which is objective, and out there. You're being responsible when you get closer to that good way of being, and irresponsible when you get farther from it. Your job is to change yourself to be in accordance to that standard. So being responsible is taking ownership of your actions and their consequences - recognizing that such consequences ought to follow from such actions. For example if someone smokes weed all day, they're irresponsible with both their health and the fact that they're not doing anything useful to provide for themselves. Why so? Because they ought to work, and they ought to take care of their health - that's what being a good human being amounts to.
On the Left on the other hand, their brain doesn't function like this. Life isn't about becoming better - it's about being who you are and enjoying yourself. So if enjoying yourself is smoking weed the whole day, it's all about getting yourself in an arrangement where you can do precisely that all day. If something goes wrong - say you run out of money - then that's something that shouldn't happen because it gets in the way of you living your life as you want. That's evil then. That's why the Left has no notion of shame - nothing is shameful for them, simply because there is no responsibility. So if you're a bum smoking weed the whole day in your house and never getting your head out of there nor doing anything useful or productive - then that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you're a girl who is the town bicycle and everyone gets a ride - nothing to be ashamed of. They just don't have the notion of shame or responsibility, because they don't view life as being about becoming better, or about being a good human being.
Nothing that can be done. I'm starting to think that the Right and the Left will never get along. We should separate the world, give half of it to them, and take half of it ourselves. In 100 years they'll be living in the jungle, so we'll take it back easily, not to worry >:O
Funny. Did you make that up just now?
Quoting Agustino
You are, of course, exaggerating and have crucified a scarecrow on which you fastened a sign, "King of the Potheads".
Back when there were actual hard-core leftist parties--various Communist and Socialist organizations--I think you would have found them a rather conventional, hard-working, abstemious, responsible class of people. You might have agreed with NONE of their politics, but they weren't pot-smoking air heads or libertines. They were as responsible and hard nosed as Republican bankers were.
I don't actually know many pot-heads; the few that I know are usually not politically committed one way or the other. Why would they be?
What we have politically (at least in the US) are a lot of people who are politically inarticulate, bend towards liberal or conservative, and are paragons of neither your views nor mine. They don't smoke pot, they go to work every day, they do aspire to be happy in who they are (why shouldn't they?), and they keep the wheels of the economy turning. They may or may not be religious, they are more likely to be "spiritual" (whatever the hell that is), they keep their gardens (lawns) neat, have reasonably well kept living quarters, drive carefully, and live lives of conventional morality.
About the left and right never getting along... They did get along fairly well when both of the mainline political parties continued liberal and conservative wings. There used to be "Rockefeller Republicans" (after Nelson Rockefeller) who were fiscally conservative and socially liberal--by Republican Standards, and their opposites in the democratic party, fiscally liberal and socially conservative. They certainly didn't all agree on everything, but were able to work together well enough to obtain effective government on both state and federal levels. Both parties went through upheavals in the 1960s and 1970s which began breaking down the working relationship.
>:O
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, yes I know. Remember that time in Soviet Russia when a woman said at the Commie party: "sex is like drinking - when you're thirsty you go drink" and comrade Lenin replied: "yes, but not from a dirty glass"?
I think my politics and economics may in some ways be closer to yours (communists) than you think. I'm against Wall-Street speculators, and against bankers. If I was in charge, I'd close both of them down. The (main) difference between me and you, I suppose, would be that I am very much pro entrepreneurship - finding and doing work on your own, rather than through a company. I suppose you'd replace the company with an entity owned by the workers themselves - I'd be against this. My ideal society and economy has a large percentage of people being self-employed.
In fact - even socially I'm close to Communism. I believe that husband and wife should own their bodies in common - but these greedy individualistic capitalists want it all for themselves! >:O
Quite seriously now I've been drumming up a hypothesis that the Old Left (which was in large share socially conservative) was hijacked by the Capitalist Right and turned in the New Left, which while seemingly opposed to them, helps make the mass consumption society possible/bearable through their socially liberal views - it gives the big $$$ a human face. So now folks like me have no choice but to be on the Right (because those on the Old Left have mostly sold out to the carrot and bought into the New Left), even though some of the leading figures on the Right have no interest in social policies - their major beef has always been an economical one.
On the political spectrum there is a certain class I dislike more than the progressives. They are called Libertarians, and I think you might be one of them >:O :D
Here's the guy who wants small government, loves smoking pot and doing whatever one wants, and believes in freedom! Does that sound like you John? ;)