January 23, 2013
— Ace As I've noted, I'm so taken with class-analysis as a method of understanding why people think the way they do I'm almost a communist myself -- a strange sort of communist, I guess, but there you go.
The Marxists had a special hatred of the petite bourgeosie, which I think was the lower middle and middle-middle class-- not the upper middle class, the doctors and wealthy businessmen and such.
And they hated this group, the petite bourgeiosie, for being strong defenders of the capitalist system, and a very tough sell for communism.
The reason, the Marxists speculated, the petite bourgeiosie was so anti-revolutionary was that they were only newcomers to the middle class, and were anxious members of that class, meaning that they could, possibly, lose their status of "Middle Class" at any moment due to some bad luck -- a firing, a scandal, the death of the breadwinner of the family.
And thus being "bitter clingers" (as it were) in that class, they were especially proud to have the status of the class, and were especially skeptical of any system that would take that status from them. That is, being a bit anxious about their class differentiation from the lower classes, they were especially hostile to any agenda which would result in their being mixed with and undifferentiated from the lower classes.
I don't think I have to buy into all of that to recognize that there is some truth in that -- people who are least secure in their position in a group will tend to be the most aggressive about defending the outer contours separating that group from others. And people who are only recently enjoying the privileges of a thing will be the most reluctant to see those privileges go away -- people who have enjoyed them for a long time become jaded and stop appreciating their good fortune. (Thus, many, many wealthy layabout aristocrats become enamored with communism.)
Reporters wish to be part of the New Aristocracy, but their incomes aren't high enough to put them comfortably in that group (some reporters make a lot, but most make so-so money) and certainly their education and accomplishments aren't enough to put them in the same class as undeniable members of the New Aristocracy, like, say Steven Spielberg.
Thus they (and other bitter clingers to the lowest rungs of this would-be New Aristocracy) are the most aggressive about enforcing the Barriers to Entry into the group -- they consider themselves part of the New Aristocracy, but only barely, and because they are only barely part of the New Aristocracy, they fight especially hard to keep the riff-raff out, and are the most obnoxious about flashing the Tribal Signifiers that identify them as part of the New Aristocracy.
Actually there is one group that is even more aggressive about such things-- people who really aren't in the New Aristocracy at all, having neither the income, the fame, nor accomplishments to actually be in that group, but who aspire to be part of it.
This is where you find most of your liberals, actually. They're aping the attitudes and beliefs of the group they aspire to be part of as a way of gaining a sort of backdoor entry into it-- maybe a wannabe-writer who's never actually written anything isn't really part of the New Aristocracy, but he sure wants to be, and thus he winds up imitating the New Aristocracy in every way he can. Making lots of money and becoming famous is hard to do, but saying things like "Rand Paul has no qualifications to speak on foreign policy" is a much easier way to show that he belongs in that company.
I think about this a lot because of all the anger on the left-- they don't seem to be just talking about politics. So what are they talking about? Why is it so emotionally charged with them all the time?
If it's emotional, it must be personal, and if it's personal, one next wonders what makes it so personal. And what makes it personal is that liberalism is not, for many, about politics, but about identifying themselves -- and their egos -- with Better People whose august company they aspire to join.
And when you contradict their liberal beliefs, then, you're not just having a dispute about politics; you're contradicting the very thing that gives them self-worth, their tenuous connection, somehow, to celebrities and famous professors. They're not celebrities and famous professors themselves, of course, but by aping the attitudes and mores of such persons, they are identifying themselves as being essentially the same as such persons, and they derive a great deal of comfort for their egos from that connection.
So when you denigrate liberalism, you're knocking the very thing that Elevates them into the Upper Classes. (In their minds, subconsciously.)
And thus: It is indeed personal.
Posted by: Ace at
09:45 AM
| Comments (357)
Post contains 820 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 23, 2013 09:52 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2013 09:54 AM (fVcpq)
Posted by: EC at January 23, 2013 09:54 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at January 23, 2013 09:54 AM (4c71i)
Posted by: trump at January 23, 2013 09:54 AM (M7Awp)
Posted by: Chris Matthews! at January 23, 2013 09:55 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 09:55 AM (RuUvx)
Most made it on their own and don't want any shit from some liberal who woke up with a trust fund.
They also know how fragile those assets are, so they defend them harder.
Rich kids are less hungry. I have two, and one is hungry, the other thinks he's little lord Fauntleroy.
Neither will give up their guns, and both know dad made his shit so they better not lose it.
Posted by: Billy Bob, the 1% at January 23, 2013 09:56 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 09:56 AM (LCRYB)
Should have called him a chicken hawk. There's a proud tradition to uphold.
Posted by: huerfano at January 23, 2013 09:56 AM (bAGA/)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 23, 2013 09:56 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Fourth Virginia at January 23, 2013 09:57 AM (wbmaj)
Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at January 23, 2013 09:58 AM (AsY5D)
I would assume that a map shows you how to get from point A to point B, however it doesn't show you the hills and valleys and muckity muck you will have to go through to get there.
Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at January 23, 2013 09:58 AM (bj+Nc)
Socialists who just want to spend other people's money to feel good about themselves helping the "poor".
1. The largest number are stupid idiots who think it will help
2. A smaller portion do it for religious reasons they don't understand.
3. The smallest group think it is just the "right thing to do".
The largest group are the communists
1. Hardcore Marxists who want 50s style Soviet Russia here.
2. Anarcho-communists who want to tear it down first and rebuild then rebuild it as a 50s style Russia
3. Political communists who call it "politics" and refuse to admit they are communists
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 09:58 AM (53z96)
22 percent were through ECPA search warrants. These are, generally speaking, orders issued by judges under ECPA, based on a demonstration of “probable cause” to believe that certain information related to a crime is presently in the place to be searched.
The remaining 10 percent were mostly court orders issued under ECPA by judges or other processes that are difficult to categorize.
Posted by: H.R. Pufnstuf at January 23, 2013 09:58 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 09:59 AM (LCRYB)
The map is not the terrain is sort of explained.
http://tinyurl.com/avcrgcv
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 09:59 AM (wR+pz)
Who needs a map when you've got Tomtom?
Posted by: Eurozone Women Driver at January 23, 2013 09:59 AM (fVcpq)
Posted by: Ralph Hinkley at January 23, 2013 10:00 AM (QF8uk)
New ideas and products and their relative availability best fuel markets which promote individual freedom.
If you allow yourself to get talked into a hopeless outlook, as SCOAMF's barely concealed mantra is want to do, you are ripe for commie harvest.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 23, 2013 10:00 AM (aZ6ew)
Posted by: dfbaskwill at January 23, 2013 10:00 AM (71LDo)
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at January 23, 2013 10:00 AM (QF8uk)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Cricket at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: joncelli at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: sans_sheriff at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (HgwiM)
Posted by: Joe Jackson at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (fVcpq)
Yeah the media they are not even busboys at Davos on their own merits.
They get their based on their way with words with the sheep.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Inspector Asshole at January 23, 2013 10:01 AM (LfAFA)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (XkWWK)
Liberals are children who have never grown up.
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: @PurpAv at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (GlnE7)
Posted by: edmund at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (Bjz58)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (LCRYB)
You can go ahead and remove doctors, for the most part, from that upper middle class bracket if you are going strictly by income and not intellect.
Money is money and class is class.
They don't always go together.
Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 10:02 AM (Sptt8)
Hillary is a more accomplished liar than her squeeze Billy Bob. They're both serial liars with long histories of obfuscation, perjury, subordination of perjury and booty thumping the help.
Posted by: Dr Fish at January 23, 2013 10:03 AM (ndqJC)
COMARDES! Chariman Soetoro cannot feed all of you beluga caviar because THAT Kulak there has a rake of his own and is wrecking our rakes at the collective FARM!.......
//Civillian National Security Force
He's been telling us who he is the whole time.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:03 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: L, elle at January 23, 2013 10:03 AM (0PiQ4)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 02:01 PM (mOyDx)
Be careful ace, I'm not sure I want to see an "intellectual off" between you an EoJ if this is his opening play.
(By the way, I'm not sure if that makes you a communist or post-modernist in the style of Foucault, who was a Marxist, but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to engage Marxism to understand it exactly. Hagel may be sufficient.)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 23, 2013 10:03 AM (W8k4K)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 10:04 AM (RuUvx)
That link to book is spy ware, sorry, don't use it. It wants to install a search bar, etc.
Language in Thought in Action, try Amazon.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 10:05 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 10:05 AM (LpQbZ)
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_map_is_not_the_territory
I think it is a roundabout assessment that there are probably more tangible or real world stimuli that results in liberal psychoses, like living in a liberal echo chamber, perhaps, not wanting to work hard and be responsible for one's own destiny, etc.
Posted by: Flounder at January 23, 2013 10:05 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: Frankenstein Government at January 23, 2013 10:05 AM (GOG1H)
...the map is not the terrain.
This is also like the difference between 'Empirical versus Theoretical'.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:06 AM (fH4X9)
Marx (and all socialists) hate the middle class. You can see this in Stalin's war against the kulaks. The middle class must be destroyed in order for socialism to work.
The middle class thinks mostly for themselves, which is anaethema to socialist totalitarian dogma.
By the way, don't ever forget that Marx preached the dictatorship OF the proletariat, not the dictatorship BY the proletariat.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2013 10:06 AM (3ETnh)
Posted by: Chairman Bruce, Philosophy Department, University Of Walamaloo at January 23, 2013 10:07 AM (e0xKF)
Much easier to paint No H8 on my tits and thus show the world how much better than you I am.
If you paint No H8 on your tits, you are indeed better than me.
As long as there are pics.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 10:07 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 23, 2013 10:07 AM (YYJjz)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 10:07 AM (RuUvx)
If I were a Marxist, I wonder if I would be the kind who knows what is best for everyone not as smart as me and impose it on them
or
a complacent serf, content to have the hard stuff I don't understand removed from my life.
Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 10:07 AM (Sptt8)
Posted by: 13times at January 23, 2013 10:08 AM (h6XiD)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:08 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff
Point of Order; I thought we settled on the phrase 'yam bag'.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at January 23, 2013 10:08 AM (xz0nG)
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 02:06 PM (fH4X9)
Towards a Theory of Medical Fallibility by Gorovitz and MacIntyre hits similar themes: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3560992
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 23, 2013 10:09 AM (W8k4K)
Posted by: Mike Jonze at January 23, 2013 10:09 AM (epWQP)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 02:08 PM (LCRYB)
PUT DOWN THE BONG!
Posted by: Billy Bob, The guy who drinks in SC at January 23, 2013 10:09 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 10:09 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: 'Ette in training at January 23, 2013 10:10 AM (h83bK)
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2013 10:10 AM (ijPYh)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 10:10 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: h-unit at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (lhR1g)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (pz3Br)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 02:02 PM (VtjlW)
--
Should you choose to give up and go that route, Rule 34 specifies what your last post contain.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (3ETnh)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (LCRYB)
None of these people have the balls to be real communists and wouldn't adhere to the rules because they believe it's for YOUR own good. Not theirs.
Posted by: Department of Accuracy at January 23, 2013 10:11 AM (+I8Mq)
Ace, incoroporate this into your take:
Liberals hate the idea of earning wealth, and don't care for people who have earned their wealth the hard way. They also despise those who inherit wealth.
But they will buy lotto tickets in hopes of getting rich. Acquiring wealth in this way is considered "clean".
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (ijPYh)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 02:08 PM (LCRYB)
.......a common observation from NYC, alternately the city of endless opportunity while at the sametime the world's largest gulag.
Posted by: ontherocks at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (aZ6ew)
Posted by: teej at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (tF9LY)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:12 AM (LCRYB)
In the book I'm reading on Russian history, Marx's daughter and son-in-law commit suicide because they are despondent over the Tsar having given property rights to the people.
Invests more people into middle class/ stable society/ bad for communist revolution.
Funny bit is, shortly after they offed themselves, the Tsar dissolved the Duma.
Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 10:13 AM (Sptt8)
Liberals have used 'permissiveness' as a basis of their appeal.
'If it feels good, do it.'
'Don't tell me what to do!'
This was done to provide an alternative to the preachiness of the religious right.
But now...having won over their useful idiots...they are into their Totalitarian Phase.
The Left has become the same preachy control freaks that they used to rail against.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:13 AM (fH4X9)
>>>Actually there is one group that is even more aggressive about such things-- people who really aren't in the New Aristocracy at all, having neither the income, the fame, nor accomplishments to actually be in that group, but who aspire to be part of it.
>>>This is where you find most of your liberals, actually.I've clonked trolls over the head with this one frequently. That after they "win" and we do become socialist, and I am made to "see" the "light"* that I would still be over them telling them what to do, because, I actually have accomplishments, experience, skill, and talent, and therefore valuable to the party, while a loser is always a loser. I've yet to have a troll come back with a good retort.
* I know excessive use of scare quotes, bare with me.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 10:13 AM (0q2P7)
So when you denigrate liberalism, you're knocking the very thing that Elevates them into the Upper Classes. (In their minds, subconsciously.)
___
For young donks, it's much simpler. They just want to be with the kewl kidz. The reporters, who are New Aristocracy arrivistes, set the table for the lemmings who are following them right over the cliff into the abyss.
The media types need to identify the kewl kidz and their causes celebres in order to gain a following for the New Aristocracy and keep the circle jerk going ad infinitum.
Posted by: kallisto at January 23, 2013 10:14 AM (jm/9g)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:14 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:15 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: tsrblke (work) at January 23, 2013 02:09 PM (W8k4K)
You mean...reading a book about surgery is not the same as actually doing some surgery?
*gasp*
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:15 AM (fH4X9)
modern journalism is a way to gain "intellectual" credibility with the ruling caste without the work. See Chelsea Clinton, Maria Shriver, John Kennedy Jr, Caroline Kennedy, Barbara Bush (the younger), Cuomo (the younger), Jackie Kennedy, on and on and on. Its their Farm Team
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 10:15 AM (Dnbau)
The Left just wants to be in charge. In power. For no other reason than they think themselves to be the fittest. And they will set about achieving the task by any means necessary.
Look at the African lion. When a male wants to take over a pride, he kills that pride's alpha male, then kills that male's offspring. He replaces those offspring with his own. He has defeated the systems' institutions (the pride's original male leader) delegitamized the accomplishments of that system (killed the offspring) and instituted a suitable replacement legacy (his own offspring). All by brute force. Because it's what lions do.
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:15 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: CAC at January 23, 2013 10:16 AM (ijPYh)
Posted by: Mike Jonze at January 23, 2013 10:16 AM (epWQP)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:17 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 10:17 AM (pz3Br)
As history has shown, of course, since it is so personal to them and that they so want to see other people remain below them, this is when they start advocating the government to do violence against those people.
Leftism is the root cause of almost all violence in the world. Even for a caveman group that worked for days to kill the mastodon, there were other groups that just wanted to come take it.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2013 10:17 AM (p/cQy)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 10:17 AM (qFpRI)
Yes Ace but the fish breathes water because ace the water is what the fish breathes.
While an interesting rhetorical turn is sort of circular.
The fish breathes water because it has a set of organs evolved to that purpose and thus it is the easiest way for the fish to clean its blood and maintain health.
In the same sense unions have devolved into a coalition of people who are allied to freeze out competition for wages in a field and overcharge capitalists for subpar work in many cases.
I can truncate that into "to protect their fucking jobs doing nothing, nothing getting done becomes their protected job." but it does not communicate more than a state of being and chicken and egg observation.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:18 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 10:18 AM (RuUvx)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 02:15 PM (8sCoq)
Yes, liberals practice the antithesis of "live and let live". They are haranguing scolds, demanding that others do for them what they will not do for themselves.
"Take away my right to a gun" being a current example.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 23, 2013 10:18 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:19 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:19 AM (mOyDx)
94...You need to get yourself a Terrain Map, friend.
Yeah, topo maps are cool.
But even topo maps don't tell you where the rock slides have destroyed the trail...or if the river crossing is above flood stages.
Current conditions are always in a state of flux.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:19 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (pz3Br)
so we're free to start competing with their fitness directly then?
That is in the end what this must devolve into if current trends keep up.
Time to cut the deal with Hispanics and destroy the left or divorce and bury them with work then.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (LRFds)
Interesting theory. Let me offer another plausible but similar theory as to why it is personal.
Liberals have no belief system in any higher authority. Their higher authority is their ideology. It is their core belief, their identity - as you say.
Conservatives tend to have a stronger faith in God. No matter what happens, they have faith in God's salvation. Politics is temporal. Their identity is not tied to their ideology - in this case a conservative ideology. Rather their ideology flows from their core belief of a higher God.
These are mere generalizations, but equally plausible a theory as any other. Humans must believe in something, we get we are sinners, and we know their must be a salvation. You can put your faith in God and gain redemption through him. Or you can put your faith in an ideology and gain your redemption through man.
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (gmeXX)
And just like the rank-and-file Bolsheviks did, they'll find their dumb asses on the bread line while the same rich party leaders entrench themselves in the power structure.
Liberals really should be put in a pit and fucking burned with kerosene. They're just so stupid, useless and ignorant.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 02:11 PM (mOyDx)"
My best guess is that the logic in their heads goes something like this:
"I basically agree with every aspect of the Democratic platform, so if they just included a plank for killing Republicans and redistributing their wealth, I'd be down with that, too. There will be a lot of wealth to redistribute before they do anything I have moral qualms with." The assumption there is that any of that redistributed wealth will go to them and not to the party leaders. At that point, the useful idiot's purpose will have been served.
Posted by: BS Inc. at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (eP0u9)
>>Guys who are Complete Bad-Asses usually do not have to keep saying "I am a Complete Bad-Ass."
This makes me miss 'Someguy'.
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2013 10:20 AM (fVcpq)
I can't speak to the motivations of those, like journalist Terry Moran, who aspire to the New Aristocracy. I've read Whitaker Chambers' autobiography, 'Witness', and what came across was Chambers' fervent belief in communist ideology (prior to his religious and philosophical transformation) combined with an equally strong desire to belong, to be part of something greater than himself. Maybe on some level he did consider it as access to a New Aristocracy, but he didn't couch it in those terms.
Liberalism/Progressivism/Communism/Transnational Socialism promise paradise on earth, uninhibited sexual liberation without consequences, secular redemption, no prospect of judgement or punishment for the faithful, and lots of free shit. All it requires from its followers is slavish, uncritical obedience. It's Sugar Candy Mountain, all rainbows and sunshine, where all the pretty flowers pick themselves. One can see its appeal.
Posted by: troyriser at January 23, 2013 10:21 AM (vtiE6)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 10:21 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at January 23, 2013 10:22 AM (Vz0Jf)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:22 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 10:23 AM (pz3Br)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 10:23 AM (LpQbZ)
>>>This makes me miss 'Someguy'.
Where is our resident professional guitarist ? You know the one with subject mastery from brain surgery to particle physics?
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 10:23 AM (0q2P7)
"...they consider themselves part of the New Aristocracy, but only barely, and because they are only barely part of the New Aristocracy, they fight especially hard to keep the riff-raff out,"
Marx had a name for this...the Vanguard of the Proletariat. Reporters have positioned themselves as the mouthpiece for the New Aristocracy and as such, become the gatekeepers for the new-speak and thereby control the national conversation.
Posted by: Diogenes at January 23, 2013 10:23 AM (JiYcJ)
she's reading scripted lies at the moment- I'll wait til she's lying off the cuff to listen in
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:24 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:24 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 10:24 AM (C+mto)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:25 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 02:23 PM (pz3Br)
No need to do that unless they do get your guns...
d;^)>
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 23, 2013 10:25 AM (1Y+hH)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 10:26 AM (VtjlW)
pig after pig, cow after cow, army after army...
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:27 AM (8sCoq)
Where is our resident professional guitarist ? You know the one with subject mastery from brain surgery to particle physics?
He's busy finding more people who won't play with him.
Posted by: Meremortal, time to slutdrop the GOPe at January 23, 2013 10:27 AM (1Y+hH)
This is a fucking beautiful post Ace, beautiful.
One more thought. In addition to having moron journos as the rabid members of defending the commies, one other needs to be thrown in there. The petit class of middle income folks who have captured their paychecks and economic security.
Public sector fucking workers and unions. They are terrified of the free market. Which is why they are such rabid democrats. What we need to do is show the competent public sector workers that competition rewards merit and they will do much much better with free market principles.
Than voting and thinking in lockstep with their dullard, fucktard commie sloths who just suck at their job and yet can't be fired.
Rand Paul hit it perfectly:
WHO THE FUCK HAS BEEN FIRED (AKA ACTUALLY LET GO) FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR THIS CLUSTERFUCK.
IS STATE DEPARTMENT MADE OF ZOMBIE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES THAT JUST NEVER FUCKING DIE?
Posted by: Prescient11 at January 23, 2013 10:27 AM (tVTLU)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:27 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 02:25 PM (LCRYB)
-
I would say that is because those on the left tend to view humans as animals easily manipulated, while those on the right expect humans to express free will.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2013 10:28 AM (3ETnh)
Posted by: Truman North, at 25% battery life at January 23, 2013 10:28 AM (nr/As)
one of the "gifts" of long term PTSD in some cases is the ability to inhabit other people's situation to reverse engineer control of a trauma point.
Be careful using any form of that construct though you stare too long at the moonbat boss the moonbat stares into you.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:29 AM (LRFds)
ace, it's not communism you are recognizing, it's cultural signifiers.
Interestingly enough, I believe that historians doing class/social history these days are looking more at patterns of interactions and values - signifiers - as a metric of class rather than the Marxist-style means of production or income-based analysis.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 23, 2013 10:29 AM (hJesl)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:29 AM (LCRYB)
Yup that is why the answer is now divorce in my eyes.
They have crossed to a point and supported a man so odious to our founding principles I will never again trust them.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:29 AM (LRFds)
I still think that Steven Crowder was brilliant...in that Halloween video he did, where he 'took the kids candy away and gave it to other kids'.
That, is the essence of Communism/Socialism.
'We have to take your candy away, and give it to the other kids.'
Most of the useful idiots who have bought into the 'Socialism is Cool' meme...won't realize that it's not cool, until their candy is being taken away.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:30 AM (fH4X9)
Read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer and then you'll have a point of reference.
Posted by: ThomasD at January 23, 2013 10:30 AM (lC6zo)
Posted by: Diogenes at January 23, 2013 02:23 PM
That is exactly right but only a single facet of the usurpation.
Another is their perception that resistance is futile against this Borg so they assimilate thinking there are sides to be on so they will join the winners.
That and they would cheer if you were dragged dead from your home.
Posted by: Department of Accuracy at January 23, 2013 10:31 AM (+I8Mq)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:31 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: hannah arendt
Dude, your supposed to lick the window and fuck the couch.
Not lick the couch and fuck the window.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 10:31 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:32 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:32 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 10:32 AM (C+mto)
Mankind's goodness comes from hard work and discipline to suppress animal instincts Ace in my observation. The left likes to pretend that community and restraint as they have been graced with by our nation are the natural innate state of man. They do not comprehend the bigotry involved in that PoV or the danger of taking work for granted.
If the default state of man is order and rainbows why is Mali Mali?
This can't end well in my eyes having a pack of unimind evangelical hedonists on the prowl.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:32 AM (LRFds)
If it's emotional, it must be personal, and if it's personal, one next wonders what makes it so personal. And what makes it personal is that liberalism is not, for many, about politics, but about identifying themselves -- and their egos -- with Better People whose august company they aspire to join.
---
I wish to expand on this. It is not Better People wos august company they aspire to join. It is they want the "salvation" this brings for the "sins" the committ or the guilt they have.
Man is born with a yearning to belong, a need for a great purpose. Man also is a guilty creature, unique among all animals. Man needs redemption to wash this guilt away. This applies to all mankind, and all religions in essence are a response to this.
Personlly, I take comfort in that. For me that is proof that there is a higher power.
But you can't get rid of that need simply be disclaiming a belief in God. Those yearnings still tug at man. Liberal ideologies try to take their place. But they fail. Because true salvation is neve earned. Christians are comforted in knowing they will be saved. They may worry about their families salvation as well, but outside that small cohort, it doesn't matter much. They are content. Being content leads to happiness. Liberals having never earned righteous salvation keep seeking it. They are never content. This is why they are always angry.
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 10:33 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 02:29 PM (LCRYB)
-
Which would explain how democrats are good at winning elections through manipulation, yet their policies fail due to people exercising free will.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2013 10:33 AM (3ETnh)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:33 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Dave in MA at January 23, 2013 10:34 AM (zsPnE)
127 But even topo maps don't tell you where the rock slides have destroyed the trail...or if the river crossing is above flood stages.
Current conditions are always in a state of flux.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 02:19 PM (fH4X9)
Or, where the rattle snake is lying in wait.
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 02:23 PM (LpQbZ)
-----
Yep.
Or, where the bears are.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:34 AM (fH4X9)
You are misnamed. Hannah Arendt was not statist. You are.
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 10:34 AM (Dnbau)
the fact that the same people float from job to job, from FLOTUS to Senator to SecState, for example, means that it is not about competence, but connections and opportunity
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:35 AM (8sCoq)
Ignorance of our beliefs is another liberal social norm noted by ace. Apparently he is accurate about some things at least.
>>>I think there is no doubt about that.
Demonizing and Dehumanizing are another liberal social norm noted by ace. So far he is batting a thousand.
I could explain our* political philosophy to you. But you would not care to listen long enough to learn what we are about. So I'll just give you this; Humankinds individuality is not a mistake, and is inseverable from who we are. Our desire to become part of a family, community, or nation is subservient to that basic premise that in our lives our individual will reigns supreme. Any social system applied to humanity must respect first that notion, then build from it, not reject it, and seek to diminish it.
* while I cannot in any way speak for everyone, I think I could do a dang good job hitting the vast majority.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 10:35 AM (0q2P7)
I think people on the right also don't like Freudian ideas about unconscious motives much. Part of this is having this sort of thing used as a weapon against them; but I find the weapon is useful attacking the other side, too.
But, as you say, yes, the actual analysis has no political charge, it's just social anthropology, but communists are the early (and sole) entrants in the field of applying this sort of thinking to politics.
I don't know of too many people in this field who aren't pretty communist, though.
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 02:25 PM (LCRYB)"
From a theoretical perspective, one of the downfalls of Communism in the Soviet Bloc was the fact that those who were shut out of power in those societies did analyze the behavior of those who had power in terms of class interests, so it's definitely a method which can go beyond the constraints Marx tried to put on it, by directing toward only one inevitable outcome of the Communist future.
More broadly, the primary problems with Marx are that he had absolutely no understanding of the way in which future technology could undermine his theories and no self-awareness of how the technology current in his day pushed him into making unfounded assumptions.
And, I've always found his claim that, contra philosophers prior to him, the point was "not to interpret the world, but to change it" as the sort of thing someone who really doesn't understand philosophy would say.
Posted by: BS Inc. at January 23, 2013 10:35 AM (eP0u9)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:36 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:36 AM (8sCoq)
But we are *RARELY* at our best. N'est pas?
Holy fuck, I didn't realize I was supposed to wear pants for this topic. Your Highness.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 10:36 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:37 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:37 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 23, 2013 10:37 AM (8sCoq)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:37 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: BignJames at January 23, 2013 10:37 AM (Sg0G/)
Spot on. The low info voters, many of them, really don't expect to get invited to pizza night in Lake Como with George Clooney and Brad Pitt, but parroting their political stances gives them some self-identification with these celebs.
Similarly, when Jon Stewart mocks a conservative, they all laugh. The sad thing is that they laugh not so much because it's funny (it actually sometimes is funny), but because it makes them feel part of the "in" group. And it's always better to be in with the in crowd and mock someone, than to be an outsider who is being laughed at.
Posted by: RM at January 23, 2013 10:38 AM (TRsME)
Jones I salute you. I cannot watch a shit show where Hillary! throws the blood of dead men, whose lives she wasted, on her political opponents.
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 10:38 AM (Dnbau)
So, which country ever pulled itself out of bread and circuses death spiral?
All the things we think will save us we once had, and here we are.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:39 AM (OQpzc)
Most Social Anthropologists (or Non-Physical Anthropologists) tend to play with their own doodie.
To the exclusion of most everything else.
Really. Anthropology is Humanities, not Science.
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2013 10:39 AM (fVcpq)
basically, your conservative "liberal" utopia would include 24/7 surveillance of every person in the country. No access to abortion or contraception. Forced abortion, infanticide, and broken families. The deportation of persons who don't have their papers in order. Segregated schools. Segregated transportation. Permissible dueling. Nine-year-old slave laborers in coal mines. Unarmed, citizenry preyed upon by state and criminals alike. Nine year old sex-slaves under the guise of "sexual freedom." And the olds have a duty to die – maybe we can get Bill Gates to build euthanasia centers where the olds can go. Like Edward G Robinson in Soylent Green lying on a gurney, with an overdose of phenobarbital, listening to Vivaldi while watching a 3-D film of deer bounding through an Aspen Grove
FIFY
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 23, 2013 10:39 AM (hJesl)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:40 AM (r2PLg)
The United States in 1939-1941
Ponder that for a minute.
Our leaders, our voters, the world as it is now.
Yeah....I'm gonna go farm dirt for a while.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:41 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Team Stompy. at January 23, 2013 10:41 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:41 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: rickb223 at January 23, 2013 10:41 AM (GFM2b)
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:41 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 10:42 AM (qFpRI)
Humans can be debased to the point that their individuality devolves into merely seeking selfish self interest. Once in that state, while more complicated than say sheep or cattle humans can be herded. Since liberals reject human individuality they seek to debase it to its most controllable state, this is done by replacing all metaphysical contemplation with hedonism, and to the extent metaphysics is allowed in conversation at all it revolves around only two topics, the moral path for the collective, and the moral imperative for submitting to the collective. No moral quandary exists in the liberal mind beyond submitting to the collective, once that is done, one may satisfy their "individuality" by feeding it's base desire for pleasures without guilt or further thought.
So no not exactly like cattle. You do have to convince humans to give in to their worse selves by promising them moral affirmation while doing so, so long as they are pliant to the group goals. So a bit more complicated than cattle but very doable.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 10:43 AM (0q2P7)
If the subjugation of tyranny over the minds and hearts of man is at their hands?
You kill all the psychologists and lawyers if that is what it takes.....
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:43 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:43 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 02:41 PM (LRFds)
The White Russians fought. The lost.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:43 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 10:44 AM (ZPrif)
liberalism is not, for many, about politics, but about identifying themselves -- and their egos -- with Better People whose august company they aspire to join.
Oh, you're absolutely right.
But you're wrong. It's not liberalism, it's the entirety of US politics.
If one cannot see where the right (and the center, and the fringe) do the same things, keep in mind lefties are oblivious of their own motives also.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 10:44 AM (TULs6)
>>> I don't think it's without value.
It? no.
The Cultural Anthropologists, though...they aren't of any value.
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2013 10:44 AM (fVcpq)
No not like cattle just about precisely like chimps.
Go to a simian cage and watch the fun, chimps murder for social standing.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:45 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2013 10:45 AM (B/VB5)
I am a sheep dog.
I don't go looking for trouble, but, fuck with my pack...
Posted by: rickb223
I've always been a fan of Gary's dicks, pussies, and assholes theory.
Your's seems to work nicely as well.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 10:45 AM (NF2Bf)
The Finns fought and won.
How hard do you think I will get if I have good men around me?
That in the end is what this all boils down to comrade.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:45 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 10:46 AM (C+mto)
Real Marx-knowing commies, back when there were real Marx-knowing commies, used to rank the "state bourgeoisie"--the "nomenklatura," "new class," etc. (pretty much what we call "professionals")--highest among the enemies of revolution/liberty/etc.
Basically, when the aspirational affiliations of society's loudest voices are with an existing (or an in-waiting) leadership, you get fascism ("capitalism"). Of course in real life communism is fascism, because there's no way around that stuck-at-fascism thing that keeps happening every time the "revolution" starts. But in theory they're different things, and back when Marxists were dissident philosophers, not "professionals," not statists, not apologists, the difference was really important to them.
Imagine.
Posted by: oblig. at January 23, 2013 10:47 AM (cePv8)
Posted by: GalosGann at January 23, 2013 10:47 AM (T3KlW)
No country which I'm aware of, Invictus--WE shall be the first, as is our right, given WHO we are.
Posted by: irongrampa at January 23, 2013 10:48 AM (SAMxH)
There are three types of animals: Wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs. I am a sheep dog. I don't go looking for trouble, but, fuck with my pack...
Yes, exactly that. No one (except a couple mass-shooter psychos) thinks of themselves as a wolf, and no one much thinks of themselves a sheep either.
Politics is about identity. About making yourself the sheep dog.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 10:48 AM (TULs6)
I like Ace's posts about the psychology of the nutbag left.
He described most of the assholes who post comments on NYT pieces, or Daily Kos, or most emplooyees at the post office.
He's spot on. I posted something on FB about North Korea, and an acquaintance was upset about it...now, was she upset because she unconsciously likes the way North Korea was foremd as a Communist haven, but doesn't want anyone to know what happened?
Was she just made that I said we (the US) needs to do something about it, and why aren't we doing anything about Africa! She is a hardcore liberal, and is definitely aggressive about it.
There is a racial component to the psychology of almost everything liberals do, that is something Ace didn't include. It's there alright.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. Buzz Miller The Shit at January 23, 2013 10:49 AM (raGXo)
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 10:49 AM (TULs6)
You are a retard, I lose not a whit of sleep that in raw economic math I am probably in the bottom of the top3d or so income wise in my community. That would be YOUR occutard militia friend. "Winning" in our case is the very opposite of what YOU claim it is the 'winning" of the freedom not to give a fuck about bob and Ralph and be content with MY life. That you can't grasp this in saner times in our history would have made me pity you that you and your media allies are empowering SCOAMF to try to inflict your nihilism at the end of an economic suicide pact makes me hate you.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:49 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 10:49 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: garrett at January 23, 2013 02:44 PM (fVcpq)
Sure they do. They give sciency permission to choose the more animalistic and less civilized route. Of course, a civilized man is rarely more honorable than a barbarian.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:50 AM (OQpzc)
That's why everyone is always stupid or evil.
The stupid, who get tricked, and how to save them from the manipulations of the evil, who are always the other guys.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 10:50 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Captain Whitebread at January 23, 2013 10:50 AM (cVfX0)
I would make the argument the United States sipped at the bread and circuses moonshine and put the bottle down for WW2.
We as rendered as a whole will not, I know you don't like my answer but my oath was to the document not to the flag.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:50 AM (LRFds)
There are three types of animals: Wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs.
I am a sheep dog.
I don't go looking for trouble, but, fuck with my pack...
I really don't understand why this analogy is so popular - I think that Colonel Gross, unwittingly or not, was basically claiming that the "sheepdogs" are basically sociopaths who happen to be on the right side. Not much difference between a wolf and a dog, except that one happens to be a tamed and the other a wild predator. What I have read of his work indicates that this interpretation is not just a flawed analogy, but really represents the basic thrust of his thinking.
C.S. Lewis was both more skeptical about human nature and more complimentary towards the righteous warrior in his essay "On Chivalry," and I think he was closer to the truth as well.
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 23, 2013 10:50 AM (hJesl)
Posted by: irongrampa at January 23, 2013 02:48 PM (SAMxH)
From your mouth to God's ears. I am not lost to all hope, but I am doubtful.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:52 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 10:52 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 10:53 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 10:53 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 10:54 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 10:54 AM (C+mto)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:54 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 02:51 PM (gmeXX)
Bringing back the code duello would certainly bring back civility. Women will never let us have it, more's the pity.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:54 AM (OQpzc)
47
Hillary is a more accomplished liar than her squeeze Billy Bob. They're both serial liars with long histories of obfuscation, perjury, subordination of perjury and booty thumping the help.
I prefer congenital to accomplished and to serial.
Posted by: Zombie William Safire at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (qwK3S)
They have little of the introspection, self-doubt, or piety that traditional religions have tried to cultivate in their believers.
___
Humility. Pretty much AWOL in current social climate, wherever you look.
Posted by: kallisto at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (jm/9g)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (LCRYB)
Ah yes, tell me how you will remain willfully ignorant of our philosophy by claiming it doesn't exist. You cannot admit it exists because to do so makes it a topic of debate. And no matter what you can't allow the conversation to turn to what we believe. Will you deny that Aristotle's Ethics and Politics do not exist? That Locke never wrote philosophy? That the Federalist never went to print?
Just deny the existence of what you disagree with; the way of the Liberal Open Mind®. BTW, you argue poorly. I could argue your side much better than you are doing.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 02:42 PM (qFpRI)
--
Plus, the lefties get to hand out my money to sweeten their deal.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 23, 2013 10:55 AM (3ETnh)
Posted by: BlueStateRepub at January 23, 2013 10:56 AM (7ObY1)
A big part of how we got here is the loss of "shame" as a tool in society's quiver.
We have empowered the indulgence of many of man's basest instincts with minimal pain and wonder why people cede so much of their liberty, but if they have never felt that freedom responsible for total gain and loss how can they respect or value it?
The safety net devolving into the serenity hammock is killing our system.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:56 AM (LRFds)
185...There are three types of animals: Wolves, sheep, and sheep dogs.
I am a sheep dog.
I don't go looking for trouble, but, fuck with my pack...
I've always liked that sheep dog analogy.
I like this one too:
There are three types of people...
1) People who make mistakes, and never learn from them...thereby dooming themselves to repeat the same mistakes, over and over.
2) People who make mistakes, and learn from them...and never make the same mistakes again.
3) People who observe the mistakes of others...and avoid ever making those mistakes themselves.
I try to be in group No. 3.
Liberals, on the other hand...are in group No. 1, and seek to drag us all into it with them.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 10:56 AM (fH4X9)
Ah well, some posts are more for the post than the comments after all.
Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2013 10:57 AM (KXm42)
and yet here you are hannah. here with your misery to talk to us, because you are the loser in life. so you must try to take down others. re-read Ace's post and be amazed at his description of you.
and your shine box? do you have it?
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 23, 2013 10:57 AM (p/cQy)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 10:58 AM (C+mto)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 02:54 PM (C+mto)
Not until we surrender. We are just regrouping.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 10:58 AM (OQpzc)
Seriously, you people think the average democrat is evil and trying to destroy the country? Of course, yes, lots of you do.
Why is this sort of analysis, apt for the left, never turned on oneself?
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 10:58 AM (TULs6)
It doesn't even know enough to know that our apparent inelegance is most often an affectation. Many of us can put on our dancing shoes and make fairly deep points. We just try not to let the joint get too classy.
Crimps the ability to snare hobos and protocol droids.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 10:59 AM (LRFds)
A big part of how we got here is the loss of "shame" as a tool in society's quiver.
----
Sven -- how true. Society needs to bring back shame. There are many examples, but there used to be some shame in having to be on food stamps. They were stamps. Everyone in line knew you were on them. Now they are a credit card. No one knows. The shame aspect is gone. Just one of many.
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (Dnbau)
You are so right. You should be out there celebrating and enjoying your life instead of trolling the insignificant. Oh. I'm sorry, I just assumed you had a life.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: waldo at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (WIZUa)
Although regrouping doesn't mean we won't hang a general or two.
POUR ENCOURAGER LES AUTRES, and shit.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:00 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2013 11:01 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 11:01 AM (C+mto)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:02 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:02 AM (Dnbau)
They are evil, they colluded with and dreamed of joining the perpetrators of a system that murdered 100 or more million people because they are vain enough to think "we'll get it right this time."
I spare myself the introspection with as wary eyes because frankly I have never yet denied a political opponent their liberty to be idiots nor have I ever attempted to have my political operatives nibble at the apple of the Bill of Rights to undermine their liberty I disdain.
I know it is complicated for a great libertarian idealist who does acrobatics to draw false moral equivalency to justify being in the cool Pothead Doper caucus and all, but if we were half as demonic as the left paints us or they aspire to be we would have nailed them to barns by now.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:02 AM (LRFds)
I think alot of them think this is the JFK party and don't even know what it really is anymore. So ignorance isn't evil. Okay awesome.
That makes everything better big E.
Posted by: eleven at January 23, 2013 11:03 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: teej at January 23, 2013 11:03 AM (IyoLR)
I think about 30% are in on the gag and given Bill Ayers being a cherished guest of an education group this week I may knock it up to 35%.
I was a lot more generous 4 years ago.
They do not have nice intentions for our beliefs and will only let us exist unmolested if we cede them.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:04 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:04 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 11:05 AM (gmeXX)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 02:58 PM (C+mto)
I am reminded of that line in 'Search for Red October'...
"You arrogant asshole. You've killed us all!"
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 11:05 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: hannah arendt at January 23, 2013 03:01 PM (C+mto)
We are just trying to make it fair. Dominating the world became no challenge at all for a while. Can you point at a valid challenger?
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:05 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:05 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:06 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: GalosGann at January 23, 2013 11:06 AM (T3KlW)
Posted by: toby928© for TB at January 23, 2013 11:06 AM (evdj2)
Entopy was on quite the tear defending the mutant army of anti-semites cropping up at ZH's commentariat.
I think he exists simply to point and say "both sides are bad! both sides are bad!"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:07 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Entropy Caulfield at January 23, 2013 11:07 AM (ZPrif)
Thanks Grey Fox. I'll look for that one. I wonder if there is a book of his essays. Headed to the library so I'll ask.
Posted by: teej at January 23, 2013 03:03 PM (IyoLR)"
It is called Present Concerns
http://tinyurl.com/b82p6sr
Posted by: Grey Fox at January 23, 2013 11:08 AM (hJesl)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:08 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 03:07 PM (LRFds)
Until they banned me, I used to raise hell there as Rodent Friekorps. It drove them batty when I pointed out that if Jews ran the world, considering how few of them they are, maybe they really are the master race. The norks and iranians lost their minds.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:09 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:10 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 11:10 AM (gmeXX)
Sven, how does one contort oneself into believing cutting PBS will balance the budget? Not saying you do - how does anyone? How did anyone, for the last decade?
If the democrats are evil and poised to eat the public writ large, what does that make you? The sheepdog. That's how everyone angles themselves. Everyone sees a world where they are the sheepdog, fighting wolves.
How is it we've allowed a class based society to creep up on us, telling ourselves we had a classless meritocracy?
How do we get sucked into this BigBird and Binders politics? We are half the equation, it's too easy and gratifying to suggest we had no part in creating this.
We all, left, right, center, or fringe, make US politics about our own vision of our own identity. Look at our debates. It's not about managing the bean tills. It is about validating who we are and how we see ourselves.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:11 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 11:12 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:12 AM (LCRYB)
Because if you can't cut PBS, you can't cut anything.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: SH at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (gmeXX)
261...Liberals, OTOH, practice a studied ignorance. They generally avoid learning things that would contradict what they think they know, even if it means their plans always end in disaster.
Exactly.
Because then, they would have to admit that what they think they do know...is wrong.
Little kids who get lured into the black limo with candy...don't realize that they've been duped...until the pain starts.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (fH4X9)
His metier is a constant Better Than Thou trolling.
I don't exclude myself. I don't think I'm any better.
And he's not. He's got a very mundane mind which is locked into its wooby comfort zone of topics and observations.
Who's isn't?
I'll tell you this much though, people get pissy when you challenge their self conception.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (ZPrif)
Once upon a time in saner days when we grasped people conspiring to kill you having WMD or wanting it might be bad some of us LGF hands used to take great glee mocking some freeper cases on "have you got your Zionist paycheck?"
I used to sign those forays as: Sven Iot37thC
Initiate of the 37th Circle.
Basically our ceding the academy is coming back to destroy us in spades.
If the right does not start fighting like hell at the state and local level for school choice we're fucked.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:13 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: tobias caulfield at January 23, 2013 11:14 AM (evdj2)
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 03:11 PM (TULs6)
Central banks, fiat currency, cronyism and general human shitiness will win in the end. You can't hold back the tide. All you can do is prepare. QED.
We can whine about a riptide, but fighting it, you'll only drown tired.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:15 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at January 23, 2013 11:16 AM (Rwrs+)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 11:16 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 23, 2013 11:17 AM (B/VB5)
All roads in CrazyTown lead to it.
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 03:12 PM (ZPrif)
Most european pogroms just happened to happen when it was time for the prince to pay back his loans. Not surprising at all really.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:17 AM (OQpzc)
Precisely, because if Big Bird an IP that let's grant the idiot left their folly and pretend he is *real* cannot support himself on tens of millions then our society is fucked.
PBS simultaneously brags it is "95% supported by private funds" and then goes Jihad when we tell the Bird to pay his own bus fare.
Entropy make no mistake I am not arguing that the electorate did not grant you your wish and protect big bird, but don't expect me not to ponder if in fact given the democrats mad dash to vote America a new electorte vis a vis the illegals who are no more qualified to grasp our system as intended than I am piloting a starcruiser that some may decide perhaps to vote themselves a new nation adhering to our enumerated system.
Victory by rewarding the educator's preference cascade considering their raging failure as a profession beggars my mind.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:18 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 11:19 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: ace at January 23, 2013 11:20 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: sTevo at January 23, 2013 11:22 AM (ke/h0)
Who in the fuck ever told you we were a classless meritocracy, and what scholarship led you to believe it?
Don't cloak your submission to the darker angels of envy to some failure of our system.
Freedom is not a guarantee of success, and nothing should be so big it "cannot fail."
Your kind shackled the engine of pour prosperity and then wonder why the goose died rather than kept laying golden eggs.
Crack a history book written before 1973.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:22 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at January 23, 2013 11:23 AM (ZPrif)
No, I don't know who Caufield is.
You came in here to tell us you've realized something about the human condition that all of us have overlooked -- that people are phonies, and sometimes people say they're good but really aren't good.
They are.
How does that make me any different? I'm stuck in the same boat.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:24 AM (TULs6)
Yes it is, but we are largely ashamed to let ourselves go personal as fuel. When I get rabid I am shunned by some regulars here, people I greatly enjoy the postings of and respect as minds because we *are supposed to be better* and we do in fact police our ranks more than our opponents. My fear is not enough of us will shift into survival mode quickly enough when the time comes to have a chance to staunch the wounds and fight.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:24 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:25 AM (Dnbau)
Here's a hint Entropy. If you weren't one of the smarter kids in high school, you probably aren't one of the insightful planetary elite as an adult.
Amazing, I don't know. It makes me think maybe I was on to something, to get a response like this.
I mean, where does all that come from?
I don't think I'm remotely anything to do with the 'insightful planetary elite'. I'm an average low-middle class shmuck.
I was the smartest asshole in the whole highschool, though.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:26 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:26 AM (Dnbau)
>>>His metier is a constant Better Than Thou trolling.
>>>And he's not. He's got a very mundane mind which is locked into its wooby comfort zone of topics and observations.
Yowch! That stung from here.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 11:26 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: tobias caulfield at January 23, 2013 11:28 AM (evdj2)
Great, no fooling they value ability to a degree so stay really really drunk and never get a single penny more apprent than your neighbor and pray you don't get purged.
Party like it's 1917!
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:29 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: stephie at January 23, 2013 11:30 AM (xG0vx)
Posted by: Holden Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:31 AM (LCRYB)
Your school must have produced some stars for you not to know who Holden Caufield is then. Essentially our Eng Lit honors teacher would assign that when our indulgent ego as a class reached critical mass, or he would suggest it as reading prior to that point to us individually when we showed we were arrogant assholes. I got the nod at 13 days in I was #5.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:32 AM (LRFds)
*Not ALL people clearly, but an overwhelming majority.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Offering Moobats Gasoline and Matches at January 23, 2013 11:33 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Entropy Rock at January 23, 2013 11:33 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:34 AM (TULs6)
Sincerely. Yes the American system strives to reward ability and yes we as a nation have tried to equalize the starting point of the race but the idea there are guarantees?
Anyway it never ceases to amaze me the things I find out when a coffee house libertarian explains the failure of America to live up to its contract and the topics invariably stray to shit that has nothing to do with the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Nice post.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:35 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: medieval peasant covered in shit at January 23, 2013 11:36 AM (ORGYc)
If you find a spare minute, read W.J. Cash's Mind of the South, written originally in 1928 and turned into book form in 1940 (published in 1941). It will reinforce your analysis above; Cash made the point that the most violently racist Southerners in the first 1/2 of the 20th Century were poor whites, who wanted somebody - anybody - to look down on. HOWEVER, Cash himself was just like the reporters you describe; never financially successful and prone to thinking himself as a "big thinker," all while living at home with his parents. So you have analysis backing up your analysis that was written by someone who probably needed to be analyzed. So take his analysis with a grain of salt, but it's still an interesting, if slightly dated, view of why people do what they do.
I've also thought the same thing about thug/rap culture - and the accompanying demand for respect. Those with very little demand respect - and punish disrepect - from those with even less. Apparently respect being all they have (money, career, family, and such other measures of success all having gone missing from the equation).
Posted by: the other coyote at January 23, 2013 11:36 AM (yK44T)
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:37 AM (OQpzc)
Nice post.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 03:35 PM (LRFds)
------------------------------------------------
Every liberatarian I've ever talked has said the same thing: I want to smoke some pot, man. I mean, why can't they legalize pot?
Posted by: Soona at January 23, 2013 11:38 AM (U9S0G)
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:39 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:40 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: stephie at January 23, 2013 11:40 AM (xG0vx)
310....But the fact is, all of us have sin and therefore shame.
The problem is...that the Left has lured people in with their philosophy that, "There is no such thing as sin".
So they have no shame.
At least not in the same sense of 'shame' that you think of it.
The Left has successfully rotted our culture, that that things such as Lying, Cheating, Stealing, Promiscuous Behavior, etc...are all considered 'cool'.
People now pride themselves in how good they are at these things.
Even 'evil' is celebrated.
The only thing that would 'shame' them...is if they weren't good enough at these things.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 11:41 AM (fH4X9)
Don't hate me cause I got the guts to say it.
Posted by: Entropy Rock at January 23, 2013 03:33 PM (ZPrif)
Yeah, just come home after 4am smelling like perfume and with glitter all over your pants and they go full crazy judgemental. It wasn't my fault the stripper sucked down a lime slice and I had to giver the heimlich and she forced me down and performed unnatural acts is payback for saving her life.
I'm the victim here.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:41 AM (OQpzc)
as a fellow Christian of a sort there is I suspect a lot to your post....
Never forget that Marxism shares along with that other bastardization of some aspects of Christianity Islam a sincere desire to use base human desires to control masses towards political purpose.
Were its idiot adherents content to simply try to live by Marx's economic blathering and not act like entitled butchers of human beings I could tolerate it because it is doomed to failure.
Marx hated a few things but Jews and The wealthy most of all because he was convinced by his faith that he was a supreme intellect and that such a mind must understand human nature and understanding human nature with the best mind any just system would reward HIM.
Codified envy cloaked as malignant predatory altruism.
"Communism"
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:41 AM (LRFds)
Entropy, you are Holden Caulfied, constantly whining and complaining, whining about others being phony all the while being a huge phony. Do you see it?
Honestly? Yes.
But you apparently don't.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:41 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: nip at January 23, 2013 11:42 AM (11Tdq)
Posted by: stephie at January 23, 2013 03:40 PM (xG0vx)
And why psychologists are evil.
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:42 AM (OQpzc)
That too, the best minds amongst them are in fact in some ways the purest members of our national population on liberty. The thing is they have more faith than saints have in Christ that anarchy is a sound plan for order. I looked to the south to Juarez and knew better.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:43 AM (LRFds)
It's not supposed to be a burn.
Evidently I put a bug up your butt but that doesn't make half the wild assumptions people leap to true.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:44 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Angry Entropic Adolescent Observations .. at January 23, 2013 11:44 AM (ZPrif)
If you ever have the ability to speak to an African American soldier in a way that makes them comfortable who has family going back to that period you will find that what held progress in check was the buckra, people whose only claim to power was power over the chattel.
In the system they are crafting the people safeguarding the subjugation are the media elite because they know their only claim to power is the presence of the chattel.
the cycle spins and spins and spins.......
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:46 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ette at January 23, 2013 11:47 AM (nqBYe)
I'm also not angry.
Probably because the trolling has been ridiculous. You have to come at least close to how I percieve myself to insult me.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 11:47 AM (TULs6)
whatever internet tough guy. I am now gonna deprive you of the attention you crave
Posted by: thunderb at January 23, 2013 11:49 AM (Dnbau)
Posted by: ette at January 23, 2013 11:50 AM (nqBYe)
Posted by: ette at January 23, 2013 03:47 PM (nqBYe)
Ever witnessed sharks when one of them gets cut?
Posted by: Invictus at January 23, 2013 11:50 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: ette at January 23, 2013 11:51 AM (nqBYe)
You have a method, I took great pains yesterday to not be confrontational to you when you implied I was engaged in behavior equal to CJ's despite the factors I listed. You have a history with Ace trying to correct him on "errors in seeing our won side's flaws" I am not speaking for Ace just observing. There is perhaps a pattern of you being at best a scold and at worst proto moby for an agenda.
I enjoy your posts when it is not time for the horde to self-flagellate over the poor, poor left.
If you have not noticed the left are not exactly at a disadvantage AT ALL politically these days, would not your time perhaps be better invested in scolding Chuck Todd as I tried?
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:52 AM (LRFds)
Its published in a slim, but meaty and wonderfully readable book 'The Ordeal of Change'. I'm pretty sure its out of print, but not that hard to come by.
Posted by: whenuboilitdown at January 23, 2013 11:52 AM (H44Q3)
ette that reads a lot like a French literary description of their gallows humor on mundane tasks Harry Turtledove tried to capture for the Quebecois farmer in "great War The American Front" and was a charming twist of phrase.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 11:53 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: stephie at January 23, 2013 12:01 PM (xG0vx)
Entropy is not stupid or even mediocre. He is smart as Hell.
What he is is an asshole. Look up asshole, it says See: Entropy.
I know. He knows it. He knows I know it. Hiya, Asshole!
Posted by: spongeworthy at January 23, 2013 12:02 PM (r5w1L)
Sven,
Yesterday you set me off. I wasn't nice to you about it, but that's one of those things. Around here, one of the narratives, Luap Nor, anitisemitism. Everybody who actually wants to cut spending ends up being racist somehow. You hit my button.
It's not that the left is poor, poor. Maybe more that they're irrelevant. They don't know what the hell they're doing. They animated by the same bullshit we are. A lot of them really, really, really, really think we want to rape everyone. So they see themselves the same way we see ourselves. They're protecting the sheep from the wolves. They are no less sincere in their beliefs than you are in yours. And yet neither is a monstrous wolf trying to eat everyone.
It's not that I have sympathy for the left. But I'm not about to blaim everything on them. They aren't that influential.
You made a comment up above, about me and 'my kind' fucking up the country or something. If I got a kind, it's liable to be you, believe it or not. I don't think we are terribly terribly different.
But I wish I was the smartest asshole ever born, because then at least I wouldn't struggle to say what I want to say. I am pushing the limits of my vocabulary with the idea I wish I could put down. I think it is more psychological, and I am just not good with that.
I can point you to this: tinyurl.com/art2jj3
The post, and also the whole blog I found very interesting. It's a psychologist who specializes in narcissism. His thesis seems to be that whole country is systemically narcissistic. That post, not very sympathetic to the hipsters, does put them in a proper context I think. Check it out if you want to. Or don't.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 12:16 PM (TULs6)
Case in point (although I know no one certainly wants to hear it)
Then the left has to lie like the dickens and make their subjects blame everything on conservatives to keep the pretense going.
Because you would totally be voting for Boehner and McConnel right now, if not for the evil left. No one would bother to keep the Republican pretense going, were it not for the threat of the democrats, who are morally evil.
Leftists hate democrat politicians. They're corrupt, they lie, they cheat, their promises are empty. So why keep voting for them? They have to, because republicans are evil. They really believe that.
Oh sure, some of them are decent people, but they're idiots. But there a few, a few corporate bigwigs, who are using these idiots, and scheming to enslave the whole country and take us back to the days of the gilded age. They believe that.
The exact same thing, but backwards.
When you stop and think how much the left terrifies us, and how badly we wish someone would come along, like Reagan, and make things right... how hard is it going to be for some conman to fool us? We are begging for it. It's as hard as picking up the fat girl who's crying in her beer because she's lonely and thinks nobody wants her. The lie is easier. Just let us believe.
Posted by: Entropy at January 23, 2013 12:28 PM (TULs6)
Posted by: Buck Bradley at January 23, 2013 12:38 PM (PDRXW)
Guy politics is the art of the possible and coalition building, if you took my calling out your corner of libertarianism as "your kind" in a hateful way I am not going to be a bitch and act offended you're offended.
You anger me because it is my sincere feeling we should have unified and beat the red.
You made a point about "meritocracy" and yes I am truncating it here but my point is there is no such guarantee.
At the end of the day if you are in fact a libertarian, and if in fact you are "trying to defend fiscal sense and deference to the bill of rights" both sides while not being optimal are also not the same.
If I did not value interacting with you, I would not post to you and I would most definitely not take the time to bother with clarity and a little punctuation. You are a valued member of the tribe or Ace would not have bothered pointing out a flaw in my opinion. The point is that we all engage in patterns of behavior and conflict and it is only by analysis of our patterns we can hope to alter them if need be.
I'll peruse you link it looks similar to a point made on fox, it is inarguable that as we try to codify "collective duty" we do seem to be more and more narcissistic and there's the very real potential it is based on electronic media and interaction.
Allow me to give you a few points to consider.
1) when one tries to say "I must vote libertarian because the GOP betrayed fiscal sense!" and use your vote for Libertarianism which is by the way unarguably YOUR right you increase the probability a democrat wins. Both parties have history on fiscal sense I challenge you to look at the last 30 years of congressional control and tell me "both parties are the same" on debt.
2) I mock the notion that a liberal has equivalency with me on the matter of "wolves and sheep" if nancy Pelosi and her media friends sincerely think my party is bent on codifying "rape babies" show me where the right has set up that system anywhere we hold power for long periods for a test case to get to SCotUS. I can howver point out to you the immigration patterns, and willful deterioration of civics instruction in schools.
My rage is based on an analytical view of their performance and alliances not the TV giving me a soundbite from a gotcha predation with a volley OUR SIDE NEVER GETS because of the media's alliance with the left.
Similar, unarguably it is likely why the breakup was not done in the 60s but in no way the same.
The United States has a rulebook, I strive to follow it the left doesn't because they hate it.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 12:44 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at January 23, 2013 01:12 PM (Y5I9o)
Seems to be a dead thread. My luck, but I think this fits.
Four beers and two pulled pork sandwiches down. A specific amount to be consumed before the sun rises again.. One amount may affect the other.
A lot of angles covered in all of the comments on this site, but a common baseline also.
MtM @ 189; re: two topics. Agree and think expansion beyond stated subject is worth the effort.
Posted by: dDan at January 23, 2013 01:19 PM (q1RJB)
Apply to any scale to libs. (I like 0-7).
Watch the bits fliip. 111 and 000 are out.. Max and nothing.
One, three, and five (five is questionable). Above three, options are limited. (you flip another bit). Above seven, another dimension.
Posted by: dDan at January 23, 2013 01:41 PM (q1RJB)
Posted by: palooka at January 23, 2013 01:43 PM (pAns5)
Ace,
I think you're on to something here. I had never thought of typical liberal psychology in quite the terms you describe. But I have mostly liberal friends (95%+), and when I think of them in group terms or in individual terms: the class-seeking mentality you describe in no way contradicts other aspects of their personalities. It's a sensible fit. - But I'm not prepared to say it's a certain fit.
Just that it makes sense that what you describe could well be a significant feature to the typical liberal mindset.
As you point out, the desire to in some way (in anyway) be a part of the New Aristocracy (even if only through habitual fantasy and vicarious participation) could indeed provide personal motivation for one to cleave so tightly to liberal doctrine.
However, even assuming that you have accurately identified a significant feature of the typical liberal mindset, I'm somewhat skeptical that it's the primary feature sufficient to explain the liberal ideology that the typical liberal (without status) adopts.
Rather, I believe the feature you identify would only be more an augmenter to other core motivations of the typical liberal personality.
I think first and foremost, the typical liberal genuinely believes that liberal policies are the obvious solutions to societal problems. For instance, the poor and disadvantaged obviously have serious needs. Answer: the big, strong, wealthy Government should make sure that the least of us (the poor and disadvantaged) should always get sufficient help. Even if that means ladling out lots of money to them through endless services, benefits, programs, and even through direct welfare checks.
In a liberal's mind, it is truly offensive that the well-off in this country would continue to soar and flourish in life while the poor and needy get left in the gutter.
Liberalism is a simplistic intellectualism. It's an ironic blind spot to the paradigmatic workings of society. (Because liberals honestly believe you have to be blind not to see the obvious answers to these glaring problems.) They approach societal problems in a manner similar to how a fourteen-year-old approaches the way he thinks he ought to live his life.
Why in the world should he have to be burdened with studying geometry or history? The great majority of people who learn about these things never have to rely on knowing them in 'real life'. They're difficult and annoying to learn about. And doing so takes up valuable time.
And why shouldn't the fourteen-year-old stay up past midnight several times a week if he chooses? He's young and healthy, so he's got plenty of energy. As long as he's up in time to handle whatever he's obligated to handle, what's the big deal? That's his personal time. For the most part, he should damn well be allowed to dispose of his time as he pleases.
And why shouldn't he be allowed to skip dinner or breakfast and eat at fast food restaurants and 7-11's as often as he pleases. He's not going to starve. Again, he's young and healthy. He loves eating the the candy bars and french fries, and he doesn't much care for eating salads and broiled fish. He's healthy. He's eating. His weight is currently under control. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make himself as happy as he can in choosing what and when to eat?
When left to his own devises, the average fourteen-year-old will absolutely approach living his life in just such a simplistic and detrimental way.
It's all so obvious. It's all so simple. And that's the way the typical liberal approaches societal problems. - Especially because public policies for non-politicians (liberal or conservative) are generalized thought problems. (I.e., generalized abstract problems.) They aren't practical problems within the liberal's own day to day life of which he will be forced to live with the immediate consequences of his choices.
I think the other problem is that liberals overwhelmingly tend to hang out only with each other. So their simplistic abstract thinking (for which they are not required to face an immediate practical result) is never challenged. Also, they rarely come across well represented new ideas outside their liberal ideology. (See David Mammet's conservative conversion.)
Instead they are constantly reinforcing their simplistic liberal thinking in an echo chamber. (I've seen it first hand many times. As I'm sure many other conservatives have.)
Crucially, within these social echo chambers liberals build close-knit peer groups within which they are very comfortable. Moreover, they instinctively hate the notion that if they don't know better they could end up being tacitly perceived as the "fool" on the outside looking in at their peers regarding an issue whose answer is painfully obvious.
So, especially on those issues for which they don't have a strong opinion, they thoughtlessly default into the group think. Which is based on well established (and therefore well known) liberal solutions that should be obvious enough to anyone with a brain. They just go with the flow and with what seems to be what anyone should probably already 'know'.
It's much easier, much simpler that way.
I conclude that politics and its resultant policies are so emotional and so personal for liberals for two reasons:
Firstly, because the answers to societies' big problems are so obvious: to get these obvious answers wrong is especially grievous. Devastatingly bad consequences flow from getting these serious problems wrong. And consistent with the simplistic liberal mindset is to skip argumentation and go straight to assigning motivations to those who get these problems wrong. That, rather than re-examine whether the liberal solution is correct in the first place. (Obviously the correctness of the liberal solution is a given. That only leaves explaining how conservatives could get such an easy problem so devastatingly wrong - especially when to do so causes so much hurt to so many powerless and disadvantaged innocents.) The motivation liberals typically assign is almost always some derivation of: "Conservatives don't really care about the problem of helping the poor. As far as they're concerned, it's just not their problem; so they don't care." (By a significant margin, this is the motivation I have heard assigned to conservatives the most frequently.)
But sometimes it's the more toxic: "Conservatives are greedy. They are simply willing to let poor people rot so that they can have more for themselves." (This one is less common, but unfortunately, not rarely assigned.)
Once liberals arrive at such conclusions regarding doing the obvious thing to stop massive suffering as well as concluding to the bad motivations of those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious solution: liberals understandably get emotional and even take personal offense. - And this is after they have 'realized' that there is no sense arguing with (and therefore will not bother listening to) someone who doesn't care about poor people in the first place.
Secondly, to challenge a liberal's ideology is especially problematic for the liberal. Sure, like everyone else (this conservative included) no liberal wants to have to admit he's wrong. It's an ego bruise. So that's not what's especially complicating for a liberal to take up a challenge to his belief system.
Rather, in order for a liberal to participate in defending a challenge to his ideology, he has to engage in an argument where reasons are presented as to why his position is wrong. That means he has to take up and answer these reasons. And when he does that, he sometimes feels a pressure to admit that there are in fact serious problems with the position he's defending. It's less that he's worried he might have to admit he's wrong after all. It's way more that: He fears ending up outside his liberal peer group on that issue. It's an instinctual fear, not a cognitive one. You are literally threatening his standing - intellectually and socially - among his friends. He knows damn well the way conservatives are spoken of among his people (his tribe). He speaks of them that way too. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL HE'S GOING TO FIND HIMSELF FLIRTING WITH BEING IDENTIFIED IN THAT CATEGORY.
So the argument gets emotional because it threatens him personally.
So, Ace, I must disagree with your observation to this extent:
Liberals take politics and its resultant policies so very personally less because they aspire to be a part of a peer group (the New Aristocracy) they adore; and more so because they fear losing standing in the familiar (i.e., family-like, tribe-like) liberal peer group in which they are already at home.
Posted by: _Dave_ at January 23, 2013 02:13 PM (J+Q+d)
Posted by: George LeS at January 23, 2013 02:27 PM (C4s3i)
Posted by: burt at January 24, 2013 04:50 AM (8kEad)
This tendency was succinctly illustrated in a scene from The Aviator culminating in this exchange:
Mrs. Hepburn (the matriarch): "We don't care about money here, Mr. Hughes."
Howard Hughes: "That's because you have it"
Posted by: Vercingetorix at January 24, 2013 06:27 AM (BTe/E)
Precisely. Spirituality is what separates us from animals. They are unable to totally deny it, and therefore fill it with some other vehicle for satisfaction. No matter if they try to derive some personal satisfaction from their lifestyle choices, their job, their charitable goodness towards some cause, possessions, attention, politics...it is all essentially shallow and will crumble at the first sign of trouble. I can't see the liberal theatre lasting very long when it comes to the time, and it will, that our country's security is seriously threatened.
Fear drives many behaviors, and when their fear changes from them getting their way about something they "believe" in to them getting to live and leave their progeny behind...they will change their behavior as well.
Posted by: h-unit at January 24, 2013 06:45 AM (lhR1g)
Posted by: Jesusland at January 24, 2013 07:21 AM (jIlzK)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.241 seconds, 485 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: tasker at January 23, 2013 09:51 AM (r2PLg)