It existed even before him, the Ideologists where a group of people that made the mistake of helping Bonapart get his position. Then when he was done with them he made them a joke. He said their name with derision, and blamed them for things they did not do. The ideologists were a group that thought to study idea’s, in much the same way a biologist studies biology… Either way, for me the derision of Bonapart and his people amuses me, and I like to study idea’s… I’m really more of an Ideologist than a philosopher.
I was actually thinking I would get around to that question myself.
A conservative in Russia would likely be a Marxist.
That’s not my experience. My experience is that what liberals and conservatives Think is terrible or was a terrible means differs. Especially in a given instance. I don’t find a lot of either side saying, yes, that was a terrible act, policy, standpoint by a [my end of the political spectrum] pundit, politician, etc. (of course there will be instances where someone acts out of the norms of that part of the spectrum where people will admit it).
If you are saying I am doing this, I don’t Think you are correct. I may have jumped in and missed the context, but I thought you were critiquing the left as if they were consequentialists and the right isn’t. If you meant simply that the Left is like this also, well, fine. Sure. I am not saying it is OK for leftists to do whatever to reach their ends. I’ve been fairly critical of ends justify means on both sides of the spectrum. Not that I Think it is easy to come down against ends justifying means or when and how to apply this and when not, when to be a deontologist and when not. But in any case I am not defending leftist acts by attacking the right. I Think the categorization of the left as consequentialists who will do anything is not a meaninful critique of the left, unless someone is asserting this is not the case. It simply does not distinguish them from the right. It just puts them in the class human. If I read the way you were attacking the left above, in a sense making a metacomment on what it is like to have discussions with them, I Think it actually does make a difference to your Point if this does not distinguish them from anyone else.
Pardon my bald assertion after your bald assertion. But I resist suddenly having the burden.
Notice, also, you are couching it as bad. That’s not my Point. My Point is not - Ucci says the left are consequentialists and I say the right is just as bad. I see the right as consequentialists. For good, for ill, for neutral.
I’m not focused on that issue. I am looking in general at actions in the World proposed and carried out by conservatives and liberals. Both seem to justify along consequentialist lines. Both seem willing to do things generally considered horrible by most people UNLESS they somehow lead to what is considered good.
To me your assertion was something like ‘you [negative adjective] american progressives use English in your political diatribes’. Well, OK, that’s true. But in the context of a critique from the right, it it would seem off.
[/quote]
[/quote]
That would mean that some of the founding principles of the US are leftist, like freedom of religion. In any case, I Think there is truth. I’m not a postmodernist. It seems to me Marxists Believe in truth and falsehood (and right and wrong). They seem to be saying THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE, just as much as anyone else, if not more so. I’m not a Marxist so I can’t be sure, but they sure have seemed to say that to me, whether it is consistant with Marx or not. If I read the Nation - been a while, but I hope its a decent example - I found a lot of assertions about what was really going on, what the other media was suppressing, what the actual consequences were of policy X. (Note: I am not arguing they are correct, but rather that this is how they mean to be taken: this is reality and that is not, that is propaganda, seems to be the message of a lot of left journalism and non-fiction.) I mean, especially people who identify as leftists. Academic liberals tend to be more postmodern and ‘cautious’ or wishy washy, but leftists, I just don’t get this postmodern constructivism around truth and falsehood. IOW I Think you are wrong. Haven’t other non-conservatives told you they Think you are wrong about this or that? IOW you could be right, be making true statements, but what you are asserting is false. Wouldn’tthis have regularly come up in your disagreements online with leftists and didn’t they let make it clear they thought your posts contained more falsehood than theirs? Wasn’t that a clear and open ongoing part of what they were trying to demonstrate?
If Congress shifted from conservatives vs. liberals to conservatives vs. postmodernists, the conservatives would win every single vote. I mean, the pomos would be tossing the Dice, if they bothered to vote.
It seems to me all those lessons, if they are being taught and in this manner, demonstrate clearly that you Think the left has revised American history and are making clear statements about what is true - what happened - and what was immoral. IOW they are not pomo at all.
Right now you mean? A conservative in Russia would most likely be an Orthodox Christian. I don’t know how they’d feel about the present administration, but they’d certainly be no friend of the USSR.
Well, there are differences, but there’s alleged common ground too- such as politicians being caught lying or falsifying data or bribing/being bribed to get their way. Now, my assertion is that you’re right and conservatives think these things are bad and liberals only think they are bad if they don’t forward their cause. So if that sort of thing is a difference then we agree and that’s my point, full stop. But assuming for the sake of argument that you think liberals are, also, against stuff like that, I see them resort to the ‘that’s politics’ excuse far more often than the right.
I wasn’t, though I realized that implication could be read into it as I was typing. All I meant was that, in general, the left will pretend to be against things they don’t really have a problem with if it suits their ends: appearing moral at times is another thing in the amoral liar bag of tricks.
All politicians are consequentialist in the context of being politicians, as what they are trying to do is get results and avoid certain other results, above all else. However, conservatives are also Christians, Jews, Muslims, or whatever, and their moral grounding is often something else altogether, which informs/competes with their political goals. A leftist is usually just a consequentialist all the way down. A conservative can also be seen as a consequentialist insofar as they are being a reactionary- trying to stop/reverse the effects of a consequentialist’s reform program wraps one up in consequentiailsm- since what you’re disagreeing with is often the consequences. So for example, one can disagree that socialism will bring the results the progressive suggests, and thus discuss consequences, without being a consequentialist.
Again, the real point here is that Marxism and ideologies that flow from it are consequentialist, and consequentialist in a particular way that goes against intellectual virtue- i.e., you cannot trust a Marxist being a Marxist to be honest with you, give arguments they feel are sound, respond in accordance with the evidence, and so on. If they do this, it’s because some other ideology (ironically in the west, some other ideology they are most likely trying to stamp out) is compelling them to do so. Conservative politicians may lie, but it’s not by virtue of the fact that they are conservatives. And I also want to point out that this is not just me saying so. I’m the only one, as far as I know, connecting this to the morality of Marxism, but the problem of dealing intellectually with the left is a very well-known issue in conservative circles, or really any circle where “Progressives are right about everything” isn’t taken for granted.
But they do, and conservatives don’t. That’s the only point I’m making here.
And that is where we disagree. I think you will find ample evidence that conservatives are more interested in empiricism, more interested in the facts, more open to other points of view, more educated on what other points of view are, more likely to change their minds about their politics or to have changed their minds in the past, more honest in their dealings when having a conversation, and etc. than liberals are. And when I say "you will find" I don't just mean as you go around and talk to people, though that's a part of it. I mean you will find peer-reviewed studies demonstrating most of the things I just said, the rest can be inferred from them. Could studies like that be false, politically motivated things based on bad data? Sure they could be. But when those conclusions match what most conservatives already know, and when they are the [i]predictable results[/i] of the left's historical ideology and current attitudes towards concepts like truth and history, why think so?
There's a reason why the left talks about a gender/wage gap that isn't there, and why conservatives are associated with greed despite giving [i]substantially[/i] more to charity than liberals do.
Within the context of politics, they pretty much have to. You don’t see much “It’s the right thing to do, damn the consequences” in politics since Machiavelli.
Well, the modern interpretation of that is informed by leftists who take it to mean "Be any kind of heathen you want, because it's all equally bullshit anyway". The original understanding of freedom of religion seemed to be "It's ok to be whatever denomination of Christian you want, and as (non)devout as you want".
And yet, all types of relativism come from that camp. Again, the main thrust of what I’m getting at here is that you can’t judge this by what they say. Marxists claim to believe in truth and make definitive statements about right and wrong when such utterances get them something they want. What denying that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil suits their ends, then they say that instead. The academics do it intentionally because they are liars, the man on the street does it reflexively because it’s what they’ve learned. So between relativism and absolutism, which one do they actually think? Well, that’s a bit of an unresolved contradiction in their roots- it’s unclear how Marx himself dealt with it, if he gave it any thought at all beyond the tactical.
If I say something that they think is obviously illogical or contradicts some published study they like, they will call me out on it because a conservative being wrong suits their ends. Again, the very thing I’m drawing attention to is that Marxism (and all progressivism to the degree the latter relies on the former) doesn’t foster intellectual honesty/virtue. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten into the minutea of some moral outrage on the part of a liberal who, sometimes in the same conversation, admits that he’s a relativist who doesn’t actually think there’s a real right and wrong.
It has and they don’t. Just because the liberals are basically pomo’s doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that they want, or that there isn’t a vested interest in presenting themselves as sincerely believing in things!
I wasn't making a point about history being revised, I was making a point about 'the winners writing the history books' despite white people clearly being the winners in that case. Again, you have to realize that pomo people aren't cold illogic machines. Not believing in objective reality doesn't mean they make no claims about objective reality, it means they make [i]whatever claims suit their needs[/i] about objective reality. A leftist will declare that the white settlers massacred the Indians which is true, and that the mass starvation during the Great Leap Forward was caused by natural disasters which is false, with the same conviction and for the same underlying reason.
That people who embrace post-moderism still make statements of deep conviction about historical and moral truth doesn't mean they aren't postmodernists after all, it just reveals the deep self-serving inconsistency of viewing the world in such a way.
The problem is most conservatives can’t wrap their heads around any truth that isn’t static and unchanging, or absolute. That’s why they’ll never understand liberals (or progressives, or whatever term are trying to turn disparaging at the moment). It’s simultaneously amusing and annoying, because they try SO hard to understand liberals, yet they are almost invariably wrong about them. Liberals, on the other hand, aren’t anywhere near as interested in conservatives because conservatives are a lot easier to get: given that they are usually wrong, and their quest (a fight against change) is a futile one. So they’re just plain not as interesting.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Liberals don't believe in static truth, and conservatives do. Conservatives try to understand liberals because they are intellectually curious, liberals don't give a shit what conservatives think about anything- but they DO pat themselves on the back for being open-minded and tolerant of a wide variety of views despite their reaction to actually encountering one being either rage or apathy. At the end of the day, UPF doesn't care about conservatives because what's important to him is that he is [i]winning a fight[/i], and insofar as he thinks he is winning, why does what the other side says matter? Does anyone not see that [i]this is precisely the point I am making?[/i] Progressivism is a combative reform movement interested in getting something- you can't interact with it on a rational level, because posturing as being rational is just something they do when it's useful, and drop when it's not.
It's not as though he, or other leftists are thinkers trying to understand reality, he's a class warrior trying to sculpt society. And so is Lev, and so is P.Kropotkin, and so on. You can't read these forums and deny it- or engage with them on any other level. What people who disagree with them think isn't interesting unless they need to combat it; which amounts to NOT being an intellectual, however useful it may be to posture as one when it suits some immediate end.
Sure, the above is written in a ‘patting liberals on the back’ style, but it admits all the essentials of what I’m saying. 1.) An understanding of truth that allows it to change to suit their needs, 2.) A lack of intellectual curiosity about other views, 3.) An emphasis on intellectual enterprise as a means to ‘winning a fight’. Again, exactly what I have been saying.
Intellectual curiosity has nothing to do with it - i’ve spent months trying to find any truth at all in the shit you spew about, for instance, homosexuality - AND THERE IS NOTHING THERE - it was wasted fucking time - among other reasons, because every conversation with you (and all the other equally confused conservatives who don’t get liberals) devolves into you waxing ad nauseum about how liberals are all liars because you can’t understand them. And then you get mad because the conversation didn’t go well. It’s a joke.
So whatever. Enjoy your bubble of ignorance and hypocrisy - and keep congratulating yourself for your pretend intellectual curiosity about liberals.
My premise in this thread is that leftists disregard intellectual virtue for the sake of political victory as a matter of course, and it was based on three points.
Leftists have a wishy-washy approach to truth,
Leftists have little intellectual curiosity about opinions that differ from their own, and
Leftists are preoccupied with ‘victory’, such that honesty and rationality take a back seat to it.
So here’s what we agree on- The left has a different perception of truth than the right. The left is less curious about what conservatives think than conservatives are about what liberals think. This lack of curiosity motivated at least in part by the liberal’s perception of their own ‘victory’. Now, I didn’t expect you or any other leftist to jump in and say “You’re right about everything, Ucci!” but your post is far closer to that than I would have thought.
I know you don’t understand/care what conservatives think, I’m willing to bet that some OTHER people who are curious that are reading this thread will understand how these three points, which we both agree on, would make it difficult to interact with liberals on an intellectual level. And indeed, that’s a well-observed phenomenon- it’s not just you and me that notice this. The empirical data supports the idea that conservatives know more about the opposition, are more willing to consider other points of view, more likely to change their mind, and more educated on the issues. There are piles of books discussing what to do about the self-assured nature of liberals who proclaim to be the intellectual superiors to conservatives while at the same time knowing basically nothing about politics other than what confirms their prejudices. All I’m doing is pointing out, in this thread, what conservative and moderate intellectuals basically all already know. I’m also making a connection between these trends and the philosophical history/inheritance of the left.
Anyway, your post is basically more tactical posturing. We both know from our private conversations that I make good arguments, and that you are capable of comprehending them and being swayed by them when the tactical situation allows you to consider my words fairly.
No, leftists understand that things change, sometimes for the better. Consequentially, what is true changes. Truth being what works, regardless of one’s political persuasions. Conservatives perceive that as being wishy washy, because they are black and white thinkers.
No, they just have less trouble understanding conservatives than conservatives have understanding liberals. That means they are not as obsessed about what conservatives think as conservatives are about what liberals think.
The difference between the left and the right is how they measure success. The right measures it by consequences and outcomes. The left measure it by goals and desires. This is why the right view the left as wishy-washy and the left believes that truth changes. When the the goals and desires are all that matter, are the truth, the truth can constantly change. When the consequences matter, things are a little more black and white, either the goal succeeded or they didn’t, the desired outcome is largely unimportant and a bunch of feely, over emotional b.s.
Now the back-peddling will begin. There’s no point in entertaining it, so…How ya doin, Eric?
I still think there is an important moral element. For the leftist, a desired material condition- income equality- does double duty as a moral imperative. Because of that, the things most people think of as moral imperatives, like telling the truth, respecting people's property rights, etc., become relative to whatever helps achieve the material condition. UPF revealed it, but PK did too: the idea of the leftist as the pragmatic person trying to correct the problems they see, unfettered by ideological concerns is a very positive way to say the same thing as I'm saying here. I'm reminded also of Silhouette (I think) once telling me that it would be ok for the Government confiscate all the means of production in this country, because if they are operating under socialist assumptions, the definition of property is such that it doesn't qualify as stealing to do so.
So that, to me, is the answer to the OP's question; progressivism is a placing of a desired material condition as the only moral imperative, and judging all of one's actions in terms of whether or not it brings that imperative about.
The left’s approach to academia, history, and politics leaves them with no reason to tell the truth when a lie will serve their ends better. That’s the long and the short of it- I think it’s a valid criticism and a fatal flaw in the progressive movement if I’m right. I think there’s a large body of evidence pointing to my theoretical idea playing out in practice. For practical examples, Marx is perfect. What do you think?
Not dead yet, but the cuts are getting deeper… One of these days, fingers crossed!
Change some of the words to “inform their morality” and I think what I said holds true, and agrees with what you are saying.
The difference between the left and the right is how they inform their morality. The right inform it by consequences and outcomes. The left inform it by goals and desires. This is why the right view the left as wishy-washy and the left believes that truth and morality changes. When the the goals and desires are all that matter, are the truth, morality can constantly change. When the consequences inform morality, things are a little more black and white, either the action is moral or it is not, the desired outcome is largely unimportant and viewed as bunch of feely, over emotional b.s.
An example I would use is abortion: For the Conservative, the important consequence is that babies end up dead. This consequence is immoral.
For the progressive, the moral aspect comes from the freedom for women to chose what is “right” for their body. The moral part comes from the desire of allowing a female to be happy.
Progressives are remarkably caught up in the present, as though things won’t change without their intervention. Progressivism is a about moving towards a predetermined goal, based only on the current material condition. They are short sighted when it comes to their vision of the future. Feeling good for helping people is the moral imperative.
Yes, when all that matters is working towards a goal, ignoring what is done in the name of that goal is completely moral. Marx is a great example of this, he loved to cause disruptive chaos in the groups that he was asked to join, so that he could move to the top via political manipulation. He offered to write up the manifesto for a group of communists, but threw out what was actually created by the group and substituted his own idea’s and creation.
For the right, this can be true directly or indirectly: A conservative can let tradition inform their morality, but of course what traditions have survived for a zillion years have done so because they have been proven through trials of consequence and outcome- even if that wasn't intentional. So yeah, I think I agree with that- both sides consider consequences, both sides have goals, but it's a matter of which is subservient to morality and which isn't. It might be fun sometime to work out where libertarians fit into that scheme- I think I saw you say that you're a conservative instead of a libertarian because libertarianism lacked a certain moral element.
I think it's more about power than happiness- they want women to be more powerful than they are now, and letting women do things that 'society' considers immoral is a classic way the left uses to make a group more powerful. Other than that I agree with you.
That’s been my experience.
I hadn't heard that story. I was mostly thinking of his family life, and his choice to be financial dependent on everybody around him for his entire life.
We talk about different strokes for different folks- you know, different moral ideas from different cultures and perspectives or whatever. The Muslim meets the Jew, they talk a while, disagreeing about alcohol but agreeing about pork and so on. What I don't think gets talked about is that these very discussions themselves have a moral element. It's just assumed that whatever different cultures you have, when they discuss their beliefs they will engage the intellectual virtues- honesty, charity, open-mindedness, courage, and so on. But there's no reason to expect that will always be the case, and I think with progressives it's often not. Not only do they have different moral views, they have different moral views with regards to how to have a political discussion and deal with intellectual matters. So in addition to discussing your different moral opinions, you're dealing with the fact that the progressive sees no moral obligation to present his opinions in a straightforward way, or deal in an honest way with yours- that is one of the ways his moral opinion differs from yours. And what then?
My apologies for being absent but I live in a condo unit and the unit above water heater broke and
I had water flooding everywhere. The carpet is being pulled as I write and the ceiling people will be
here this afternoon. This happened yesterday morning and has been a nightmare.
Uccisore: My premise in this thread is that leftists disregard intellectual virtue for the sake of political victory as a matter of course, and it was based on three points.
K: You paint a very broad picture using words like “intellectual virtue” for the sake of political victory and yet
at no point have you actually ever given us a real life example. On the other hand, I can point out dozen of cases whereas the right has forsaken intellectual virtue for a political victory. One such example is how bush jr. lied
about Iraq’s weapon’s of mass distruction and by using faked evidence got congress to approve invading Iraq and
afganastange. (my apologies again, my spellcheck in not working) Another example is how the right has lied
repeatly about Obama care despite evidence that it is working and working well. I can if necessary show more examples of right wing lying, showing no intellectual virtue of any kind and they haven’t for years.
UCC: Leftists have a wishy-washy approach to truth,
Leftists have little intellectual curiosity about opinions that differ from their own, and
Leftists are preoccupied with ‘victory’, such that honesty and rationality take a back seat to it.
K: Actually your examples fit the right far better then the left, but I must say, I am a little bit
unsure if wishy-washy is the technical term you were looking for? But once again you fail to give examples
whereas I can give example of the right easily enough without quite understanding wishy-washy.
To wit, the left has a far more curiosity then the right. Once again, Bush Jr. was the least inform president
in American history. The right has rallied against science and evolution, physics, astronomy as being
against the will of god. The will of god, as in anything that is not in the bible is not true. That doesn’t strike
me as being intellectual curious if anything violating the bible is forbidden territory. We aren’t held captive
by a 2000 year old work of fiction. Personally, I read history, philosophy, and am learning German.
As for your third point being preoccupied by “victory” again an example would suffice as the reality is
the right would lie, cheat, steal for a victory as they have done with Obama care, voting rights, immigration,
in fact, every single major issue facing our country the right has lied about. Examples are given upon request.
UCC: So here’s what we agree on- The left has a different perception of truth than the right. The left is less curious about what conservatives think than conservatives are about what liberals think. This lack of curiosity motivated at least in part by the liberal’s perception of their own ‘victory’. Now, I didn’t expect you or any other leftist to jump in and say “You’re right about everything, Ucci!” but your post is far closer to that than I would have thought.
K: Less curious, not at all. I have thirty plus books on conservatives and conservatism. One on Liberalism per se.
I have studied conservatism for 20 plus years and why? because to defeat the enemy you have to know the enemy.
UCC: I know you don’t understand/care what conservatives think, I’m willing to bet that some OTHER people who are curious that are reading this thread will understand how these three points, which we both agree on, would make it difficult to interact with liberals on an intellectual level. And indeed, that’s a well-observed phenomenon- it’s not just you and me that notice this. The empirical data supports the idea that conservatives know more about the opposition, are more willing to consider other points of view, more likely to change their mind, and more educated on the issues. There are piles of books discussing what to do about the self-assured nature of liberals who proclaim to be the intellectual superiors to conservatives while at the same time knowing basically nothing about politics other than what confirms their prejudices. All I’m doing is pointing out, in this thread, what conservative and moderate intellectuals basically all already know. I’m also making a connection between these trends and the philosophical history/inheritance of the left.
K: Which empirical data? Please share with me.You are simply wrong about conservatives changing their minds
and liberals not. I have had several positions including anarchism before reaching my current one.
UCC: Anyway, your post is basically more tactical posturing. We both know from our private conversations that I make good arguments, and that you are capable of comprehending them and being swayed by them when the tactical situation allows you to consider my words fairly.
K: I don’t really do tactical posturing. I am allergic to tactical posturing.
I speak the truth as I see it, when I see it. If evidence ever appears to say, show that
GOD exist, I will certainly change my mind, but for now, there is no evidence and there
is no evidence that your position is actually true. I deal with evidence, not tactical posturing.
Show me the evidence, the proof that your position exists as you say it is does. show me how
the left is less intellectual curious then the right when the evidence is so clear that the right
is entrenched in its views to the point of imploding if opposing viewpoints are presented.
Show me how victory is more important then anything to the left.
That sounds awful. Water problems are the worst. I do aquarium stuff, and sometimes you have minor incidents- things can get out of control very quickly. It must be especially irritating when it's basically somebody else's problem ruining your shit.
There’s a couple reasons for that. Firstly, when I do give real life examples, the leftist I’m talking to accuses me of making generalizations based on a few specific instances- you know, because they are intellectually dishonest. Secondly, I don’t really have much of a vested interest in convincing progressives they are intellectually dishonest, because they already know. Relatedly, any conservative that regularly discusses politics with a liberal knows exactly what I’m talking about already, so specific examples would just be the equivalent of comparing scars.
But since you asked, the administration declaring the Affordable Care Act is supported by a penalty when persuading Congress, and a tax when persuading the courts is intellectual dishonesty. Every time a liberal ignores a group classification because ‘generalizations are bad’ in some unspecified way, that’s intellectual dishonesty. Every time a liberal calls somebody a racist or a bigot because it is tactically more efficient to denigrate somebody they disagree with than address their points, that is intellectual dishonesty. The invention of the term ‘homophobia’ was intellectual dishonesty. Every time a liberal declares that morals are relative, and that a progressive tax rate is a moral imperative, that is intellectual dishonesty. Every time a liberal talks about the importance of acceptance and diversity while everybody knows they despise Christians, gun owners, people with southern accents, people who listen to country music, people who wear the wrong clothes, drink the wrong alcohol, or drive vehicles that are the wrong size, that is intellectually dishonest.
And every time a liberal says that Bush lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction when the only evidence they have is other liberals saying over and over again, and the much more reasonable conclusion is that [i]everybody in the international community was mistaken[/i], that is intellectual dishonesty. We may as well add all the war protests that magically vanished on Obama's inauguration day as intellectual dishonesty. Accusing the Tea Party of being racist because of signs you occasionally see at rallies, while anti-war and other leftist rallies have some of the most hideous, disgusting slogans disparaging Jews that you will ever see intellectually dishonest. Every professor or academic review board who wails about the importance of diverse hiring practices, when they themselves would rather be set on fire than hire a Republican is intellectually dishonest. Criticizing Fox News as being partisan garbage while we all know the sources you limit yourself to is intellectually dishonest. Every liberal who makes declarations about what conservatives do and what they believe when they wouldn't be caught dead talking to one is intellectually dishonest. Blaming 21St century low test scores on the legacy of slavery is intellectually dishonest. Making up entirely new fields of study in college like 'women's studies' and 'peace studies' and 'gay studies' and 'black studies' just to make[i] absolutely sure [/i] that your students won't be exposed to information on these matters that you don't want them to hear is intellectually dishonest. Telling people that absolutely everybody needs to go to college, then shuttling them off to majors like that which do absolutely NOTHING for them is intellectually dishonest.
The issue is not with ‘that time a politician did whatever’. Politicians are trying to win the game of politics, and they are all either progressives or trying to defeat a progressive. The issue is with conversations like this one, with liberal academia, with the very ideas that underpin the progressive movement in the United States (and beyond from what I can tell) and how those ideas are promoted and defended.
You'll disagree with a bunch of those and I don't care. This is a phenomenon that conservatives and anybody else facing the progressive movement has to deal with- the endless rain of intellectually dishonesty. Everybody is familiar with the tactic, I am not trying to establish that it exists any more than I am trying to establish that progressives exist. I'm coming up with an explanation for it.
Then choose one of the others, I made the same point with other words what, half a dozen times in this thread? It's not like the 'wishy washy' comment was directed to you in particular.
The left has less interest in studying conservative views that conservatives have in studying liberal views, according to uglypeoplefucking.
The left is less interested in exploring ideological differences than conservatives are, according to you.
But yeah, you’re right. Bush wasn’t a very good president. Of course, from what I can tell, conservatives are more likely than liberals to actually know who the hell he was and what was wrong with his presidency. But there you go.
Yes, progressive intellectual endeavors being defined in terms of trying to win a battle and get what they want was one of my points. You read conservative stuff with the intention of finding holes in it so you can defeat it. Statistically, that puts you ahead of most progressives who simply make up stories about conservatives and tell each other they are true. But it’s still within my framework.
So you’re saying conservatives are less likely to become liberals, and liberals are more likely to become conservatives? OK.
Simple enough. In your own words, progressives are pragmatic problem solvers who's concern is to make the world a better place, and they are not concerned with ideology. Let me know if I got that wrong. Now, If such a people discover that the most reliable, efficient way to solve an important problem to them is, for example, to fabricate scientific data or intentionally misinterpret a legal/philosophical/religious document to sway the public, then it seems to me that's what they will do. This is a criticism of consequentialism as much as progressivism.
How is that even a difference? Goals, when realized, simply are consequences and outcomes. How can you pretend the Right doesn’t have goals and desires by which they measure success? We are all human. That is, liberals do a better job of being human, but conservatives are people too - and as such they are out to realize certain goals and desires just like everyone else.
The right views the left as wishy-washy because, as i’ve said, they don’t understand them. This is clearly evidenced throughout Uccisore’s, and to some extent even the OP’s, masturbatory attempts at a psychoanalysis of the liberal mind (couched and sold to us as “intellectual curiosity”).
i’m not sure what you mean. In my experience, conservatives see things in a binary way. Very simplistic - not just simple - but simplistic - leading to lots of denial about things that don’t fit into one of two predetermined categories. Liberals, on the other hand, are capable of thinking laterally and grasping ambiguities (particularly moral ones) without their heads exploding - that’s why they are so much more proficient at confronting and adapting to change.
Conservatives aren’t as interesting because they are so simplistic. There are good guys and there are bad guys. There is a right way to do things (usually just ONE), and everything else is wrong. Tradition is good and change is bad. Deviance is a threat to their sense of stability. They are boring (except to themselves) as a result. Conservatives tend to be, in fact are inherently, dogmatic. And, as obsessed as they are with opinions that differ from their own, they are far less likely ever to seriously question or scrutinize their own opinions. They have already decided going in that they are right, and their primary motive for trying to understand liberals is not about intellectualism or curiosity (which is no more common on the right than on the left), but rather about winning political victories and scoring points. THEY are actually the ones obsessed with victory. Their ostensible intellectualism being little more than intelligence-gathering for one side of the culture war.
See i can do this too. It’s called talking shit, and there’s a whole fucking lot of it going on in this thread. Little else.
Even though everyone has equality of opportunity, this isn’t enough for “progressives”. They still maintain the illusion that these groups are “victims” of some conspiratorial power structure. Lobby groups push the government for funding and academia spends considerable time and money publishing articles and creating curriculums based around this conspiratorial power structure. Hence why Foucault, Judith Butler, and hundreds other other post-structuralist/post-modern theorists are popular in the academe.
Yet, I do not believe that “progressives” really care about gays, women, ethnic minorities etc. These are just vehicles to “rebel against the system” because they think it’s trendy or cool, and makes them appear as deep intellectual thinkers.
“Progressivism” is similar to the socialist revolutions of the past - eliminate oppression to make everyone equal and paradise on earth will be achieved. Conservatism shouldn’t aspire toward any utopia. Those that do aren’t conservatives. It’s more to do with honouring and respecting traditions - these should live through the person and then projected into the future. Additionally, social stability is a key point. If a tradition has been in place for many generations, then it has been so for a reason; that being, it brings meaning and stability to life. This is not to change can occur, but it should be pragmatic and not based on any ideal society. “Progressivism” possesses a hatred of the past; this is why they’re always wanting change. For them, the past and present is immoral and only the projected ideal is moral and/or ethical.
In my view, time is just a measuring tool. Humans have created this abstract concept to measure certain phenomena. Where conservatives sit on this point, I am not sure. “Progressives”, though, follow the Abrahamic religions in a sense that heaven can be attained on earth. They think that by stamping out racism, homophobia, sexism and all forms of oppression it will lead to heaven on earth. This follows, to an extent, the myth of the “fall”; that man has been corrupted and needs to be fixed. Conservatives also acknowledge the concept of the “fall”, but believe that perfection is unattainable.
