Question Insanity: What to Ask Progressives
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/question-insanity-what-to-ask-progressives/?singlepage=true
An ex-Soviet immigrant goes Socratic on his liberal American critics.
December 27, 2010 - by Oleg Atbashian Share
The two women who showed up early for my book signing at a small bookstore in Houston, TX, never even bothered to open my book. Wearing knowing smiles, they engaged me in a bizarre discussion that wound up leaping all around the known and unknown universe. They hadn’t the slightest curiosity about my ideas as an ex-Soviet immigrant in America, or what I had to say about my experience working inside the two ideologically opposed systems. As it turned out, they had spotted my flyer in the store window the day before, and the book’s title — Shakedown Socialism — had enraged them so much that they decided to return the following day and give me a piece of their collective mind.
Their act almost made me feel as if I were back in the USSR, where the harassment of people with my opinions was the norm. The shorter, pudgier woman was the soloist bully, while her skinnier, older comrade provided backup vocals and noise effects. The duo’s repertoire was an eclectic collection of unoriginal talking points, each branded with an almost legible label: NPR, Air America, MSNBC, and so on. Not only were those mental fragments mismatched in key and rhythm; the very existence of harmony seemed an unfamiliar concept to them. But compared to the hard-core screaming I used to hear from card-carrying Soviet bullies, this was almost elevator music. If I had survived the original cast, I could certainly handle a watered-down remake.
Framed on their terms, the debate zigzagged from the evils of unbridled capitalism to global warming to Bush’s wars for oil to Sarah Palin’s stupidity. Since my opponents wouldn’t give me a chance to respond, I soon became bored and tried to entertain myself by redirecting the flow of mental detritus against itself in a way that would cause its own annihilation. I did that by asking questions.
I remembered an old trick invented in the fifth century B.C. by Socrates. Instead of telling people what he thought was true, Socrates asked seemingly simple questions that put his opponents on the path of finding the truth for themselves. Seeking genuine knowledge rather than mere victory in an argument, Socrates used his questions to cross-examine the hypotheses, assumptions, and axioms that subconsciously shaped the opinions of his opponents, drawing out the contradictions and inconsistencies they relied on.
As the two women faced my questions, their knowing smiles turned to scowls. Sometimes they would backtrack and correct their previous statements; sometimes, they would angrily storm out of the room in the manner of Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on The View with Bill O’Reilly. After a while they would return with more talking points, and then they had to answer another logical question. My friends who witnessed the scene told me later they saw the shorter bully beginning to foam at the mouth.
Some heads contain an enormous number of facts that never bind with one another to form a fertile soil from which original ideas will grow. Each piece of information exists independently from the others, all of them continuously shifting and rolling around like grains of sand, forming ephemeral dunes in the lifeless deserts of their minds. The “open-minded” owners of such heads like to open their minds in the company of peers and admire each other’s fanciful sandy mindscapes. Every new whiff of wind or shaking of the head tosses the sand in more quirky patterns, forming new whimsical outlines. As previously covered facts are exposed and facts once exposed are concealed, a semblance of new ideas will emerge without any true change in content.
A similar effect is achieved when the content of such minds is raked by “intellectual” authors, filmmakers, and politicians — a practice they immensely enjoy, calling it a “spiritual” experience. They think of themselves as “intellectuals” while denying this title to anyone with a consistent, original mind. To have structured values is an unpardonable faux pas in their circles. Those who challenge them get sand thrown in their eyes — the punishment I was being subjected to at the Houston bookstore.
In return, I reminded my opponents about the existence of the scientific method of discovery — a logical device that had made Western civilization so successful in the past, but had now been abandoned by “progressive” thinkers. The resulting cognitive dissonance made them disoriented. In due course, they panicked and walked out, never to come back.
A few weeks later I told this story to Maggie Roddin, a radio talk show host in Philadelphia. (Click through my Website to hear this interview.) Maggie asked me to recall some of the questions, but I could only remember a few. She insisted that I write them down to share with her audience. As I did so, more questions began to pop up. Some were new, while others I had been asking for years while trying to make sense of my American experience. The resulting list may not exactly fit the definition of Socratic questioning. But in my defense, even Socrates couldn’t possibly envision the scale of absurdity a political argument could reach in the 21st century.
Dear Americans, these are some questions I have collected in 16 years of living in your country. Please see if you can answer them for me:
After the jump His questions Plus many other questions and thoughts from the comments sections.
•If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
•Why do those demanding “equal pay for equal work” never protest against “equal pay for little or no work”?
•Why has no politician ever run on men’s issues or promised to improve the lives of males?
•If all beliefs are equally valid, how come my belief in the absurdity of this maxim gets rejected by its proponents?
•Ever noticed that for the past thirty years, we’ve been hearing we have less than ten years to save the planet?
•Once a politician labels the truth as hate speech, can anyone trust him to speak the truth afterward?
•If a politician gets elected by the poor on a promise to eliminate poverty, wouldn’t fulfilling his promise destroy his voting base? Wouldn’t he rather benefit from the growing numbers of poor people? Isn’t this an obvious conflict of interests?
•How did the “war on poverty” end? Has there been a peace treaty or a ceasefire? Who is the occupying force and who are the insurgents?
•Why weren’t there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule? And under Stalin, no anti-communist demonstrations? And under Hitler, no anti-fascist demonstrations? In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?
•If capitalism makes some people rich without making others poor, who will benefit when capitalism is destroyed?
•If the poor in America have things that people in other countries can only dream about, why is there a movement to make America more like those other countries?
•Why, on the rare occasions when Obama’s actions benefit America, does his base get angry? And every time his actions are hurting this nation, his base is happy? Who exactly are these people?
•If cutting out the middleman lowers the price, why are we paying the government to stand between us and the markets?
•If racial profiling is an abomination, what do you make of the last presidential election?
•After Eric Holder called Americans a nation of cowards, what has he done personally to help the situation?
•If diversity training benefits everyone, why do those classes mostly consist of white heterosexual males?
•Why is a huge poisonous cloud over a volcano considered magnificent — but a smokestack over an American factory is ugly and harmful?
•How many Kyoto Protocols are rendered pointless by one medium-sized volcanic eruption?
•Why is burning gas in my car hurting the planet, but setting fire to housing developments in California is saving it?
•Why does Hollywood glamorize drug addicts, criminals, liberal Democrats, and mentally challenged people? What do they all have in common?
•How come Hollywood can always find a good side in thugs, but never in businesspeople? What was the last movie that pictured a self-reliant, industrious man as a role model?
•If it’s capitalist greed that forces Hollywood to exploit the lowest human instincts, why didn’t the same greed force Hollywood to exploit America’s patriotism and make war movies showing the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan as a force for good? Wouldn’t one such film bring more green cash than all the anti-American flops in the recent years? Where was Hollywood’s capitalist greed then?
•How come those calling Sarah Palin a “bimbo” often look like part of Paris Hilton’s entourage?
•If there are no absolutes and family is an antiquated tool of bourgeois oppression, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?
•Would you know from the media coverage that there are more sex offenders among public school teachers then among Catholic priests? How come the church gets the blame and the Department of Education doesn’t?
•Why is the media so outspoken about sex abusers being priests, but avoids calling them homosexual pedophiles? Who are they afraid to offend?
•Why do those who decry modern civilization never live far from shopping centers and why don’t grind their coffee with a stone ax?
•If we are called a “consumer society” because we consume, why aren’t we also called an “excreter society” because we excrete? For that matter we also sleep, dream, talk, think, invent, play music, raise children, feel pain, get sick and die. Many of us work for a living. Why aren’t we called a “producer society” because we produce the things we consume? Who puts these labels on us and for what purpose?
•How come the unselfish Americans hate their country out of personal frustrations, while the selfish ones defend America with their lives?
•If describing terrorists as freedom fighters is justified by the journalistic principle of neutrality, what is the name of the principle that justifies describing U.S. troops as rapists and murderers?
•When the media portrays the killing of terrorists as “slaughter of civilians,” while slaughter of civilians is portrayed as “resistance to occupation,” is the media really being neutral? Whose side are they really on?
•If Hollywood types are so opposed to capitalism, why is there a warning against unauthorized distribution of their movies?
•Why is experimenting on animals cruel, but experimenting on human embryos compassionate?
•How come industrial logging is a crime against nature, but the destruction of forests by wildfires is a natural cycle of life?
•Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn’t the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?
•Isn’t the latest economic crisis such a chain reaction?
•Aren’t most of today’s social ills the result of tampering with social ecosystems?
•Why is bioengineering bad, but social engineering good?
•If Al Gore is right and our consumption of the planet’s resources is a moral issue, doesn’t that make genocide an ethical solution? How about an artificial famine? What would Al Gore choose?
•If being a winner in nature’s struggle for survival is selfish, does being extinct make you an altruist?
•Since our planet’s resources are limited, wouldn’t the ultimate act of environmental activism be to stop eating and starve to death?
•How come those who hate humanity for its faults are called “humanists” but those who love humanity for its virtues are called “hate-mongers”?
•If economic ups and downs are natural cycles, why is the downturn always blamed on unbridled capitalism, but the upturn is the result of a wise leadership of a Democrat president?
•Why is there never a media story praising capitalism for the booming economy?
•Ever noticed that those who demand “power to the people” also believe that people can’t do anything right without government supervision?
•How exactly does dependency on the government increase “people power”?
•Why is there never a headline that says “Government program ends as its intended goal has been achieved”?
•How come so many anti-American radicals are wearing American brands, listen to American music, watch American movies, and play American video games on computers designed by American engineers?
•Why do advocates for higher taxes have accountants advising them how they can pay smaller taxes? Wouldn’t you expect them instead to seek advice on how to give away more of their income to the IRS? Or at least not to hire accountants at all?
•Can you name one person who paid the IRS more than he owed because he trusted the government to put his money to good use?
•Did it occur to any of the 9/11 Truthers that a government conspiracy to murder thousands of people would have also included a plan to rub out a few troublemakers?
•If U.S. oil companies own everyone in Washington, how come they allowed Congress to grill them for the alleged price gouging — and to broadcast it on C-Span?
•Why didn’t Congress also grill Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin, and a guy named Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz Bin Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad al Saud?
•Why are windfall profits a problem when they enrich U.S. companies that pay billions in taxes — but when Hugo Chavez uses the same windfall profits to fund Marxist guerillas in Colombia, it’s not a big deal?
•If George W. Bush was an oil-thirsty dictator, why couldn’t he in eight years get permission from Congress to drill in ANWR? And why didn’t that failure in any way hurt his dictatorial reputation with the media?
•If it’s true that the media emphasized bad news and harassed President Bush only because they competed for ratings, what changed now? Aren’t they worried that today’s emphasis on good news from the White House will destroy their ratings and make journalism irrelevant?
•And finally, if all opinions are equal, how come a liberal who disagrees with a conservative is open-minded, but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?
I hope you will find my questions handy. Feel free to pass them around and propose some of your own in the comments below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lawrence
I’d rather have a stupid, but good, man for my neighbour, rather than an evil, intelligent man any day.
Dittos Benjamin. IQ is not a virtue.
Also, IQ is not synonymous with wisdom, which is a virtue. A person with a low IQ can be wise and a person with a high IQ can be a fool.
I think the first step to wisdom is understand what it is that you don’t know, followed by why it is you believe the things you do.
I probably should have said that the biggest threat to America is foolish people who think they are wise.
December 28, 2010 - 9:56 am
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian H
Oh, but they do; just using weasel words and talking about ideal population levels. Here’s a taste:
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford
My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” — Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” — Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” — Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong—Mother Nature’s fist of fury, Gaia’s stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, strip mining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own.” — James Wolcott, Vanity Fair Contributing Editor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 27, 2010 - 7:16 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Huapakechi
Don’t you know much history? Every socialist government to date has eliminated it’s population of “undesirables”, sometimes numbering into the tens of millions.
----------------------------------------------------------------
11. Chris Baker
Why is it ok to kill an unborn baby, but it’s not ok to kill a murderer or rapist?
---------------------------------------------------------------
14. LeighB
Good questions, funny story. And I thought Texas ladies prided themselves on their manners, these two must be transplants.
And for those progressives who believe government should have more control over the economy, are the people in North Korea better off than South Korea? Were they better off in East Germany than West Germany? Mainland China or Taiwan? California or Texas? Alaska or Illinois?
-------------------------------------------------------------
My favorite exchange ran like this: “I hate George Bush.” “I’m curious. Why do you hate George Bush?” “Because he got Cs in graduate school.” That really was his first reaction. Today I might ask him then what President Obama got in school.
At any rate, a great article. I plan to bring these questions into my classroom and remind my students that those who aim for real answers must first ask real questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------
16. ConservativeWanderer
May I add one question?
If it’s bad to eat meat or wear fur, how come so many lefties wear leather (i.e. shoes, belts, purses, etc)?
I’ve used that one many a time, and it always stops them dead in their tracks.
December 27, 2010 - 5:29 am Link to this Comment
Reply RHJunior
Some will claim that they do not use leather. At which point you must ask them if they use glue, gelatin(hooves), fertilizer, calcium supplements (ground bones), shampoo (collagen)……
Question 2: if it’s beautiful and natural and part of the Circle of Life for other carnivorous and omnivorous species to eat meat, why is it wrong for omnivorous man to do the same?
Question 3: Which is crueler: to raise and shelter and feed and protect an animal, secure the safety of its offspring in a similar manner, then end its life swiftly and mercifully to feed yourself…. to find an animal in the wild, and end its life with a single bullet– a death so sudden that they never even hear the crack of the gun… or to let them wander in the wild, hungry and afraid and cold, to eventually die in terror and agony as they are ripped apart by a pack of wolves?
December 27, 2010 - 10:55 am Link to this Comment
Reply ConservativeWanderer
Actually, I’ve worked out a way to keep them from claiming they don’t use leather… I look at their obviously leather belt, shoes, or purse and say something like, “Isn’t it wonderful how they can make plastic look just like leather?” Since plastic is another lefty bugaboo, they usually respond with an indignant, “This is real leather!” At which point I spring the question above on them.
Ed Minchau
If eating meat is bad, how come human beings have canine teeth? and if one is serious about vegetarianism, have they filed down or had removed their canine teeth?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robb
Consider who is going to win in the pantheon of altruism:
– A “middle of the road” Democrat is an altruist working *through* the mechanisms of a capitalist government to make people “do good”
– A Socialist is a power-lusting altruist working to undermine a capitalist government to make people “do good”;
– A Communist is a power-lusting megalomaniac using altruism as an excuse to seize government on the pretense that he will make the greedy capitalists do good;
– A Neo-con is an altruist pretending to be a capitalist and calling himself a “Conservative”, working to undermine capitalism in his self-deluded belief that he can persuade capitalists to “do good”.
Who is going to win this game of charades? This is why neocons are the greatest danger to anyone opposing the Left.
Like the George Bush neocons were — they gave us Obama (and wars of attrition rather than victory). Like the Paul Ryan presidential campaign machine is — he’ll bring worse than Bush did if elected President, because he’ll undermine any sane opposition to the Left with his own brand of melding altruism and capitalism. (Ie, a Ryan presidency will undermine anyone defending the *cause* of capitalism — government with the sole function of protecting individual rights, a function completely incompatible with enforced altruism.)
December 27, 2010 - 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
19. JohannS
Why is it that death penalty for murderers is inhumane, but slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children is a right?
Since there are about a million abortions a year, and since half of new born children are female, doesn’t “women’s choice” neglects the the rights of about half a million women who are killed before being born?
Why is it that a father who doesn’t want his new born baby has to be forced to pay for raising him but a mother who doesn’t want her baby can abandon him in the hospital and walk away free?
Why is it that is cool to denigrate the image of Jesus Christ, but showing a drawing of Mohamed would be insulting a “religion of peace?”
If every person has to be respected, wouldn’t it be an insult for healthy, smart and strong poor people to make them dependent on subsidies paid by other people who had to work hard to make their wealth?
December 27, 2010 - 5:59 am
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Harrison
Why is it that the Left’s mantra is “Celebrate Diversity” yet they all think the exact same and anybody who has a “diverse thought” is taken to the town square and hung?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian H
You actually need to understand the basis. Check out the Fabians, to start with. The fundamental idea is that all previous history and thought is now irrelevant, since we (they) have progressed beyond cultural limitations, and now can dispense with all historical institutions and opinions. Such as the Constitution, science (really — it’s just an expression of bourgeois pseudo-rationality), the Bible, religion in general (unless it’s one vehemently opposed to Christianity), etc.
Western society and thought, because of its success and dominance, is the prime target and font of all evil, which progressives will progress beyond, since they are post-cultural and post-modern.
Chomsky is a pretty good example of the above viewpoints.
But the net message is familiar: “Put your fate in our hands, because we, and only we, know best and have the sole principle(s) for determining truth.”
December 27, 2010 - 12:33 pm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Philroy
….and my favorite for my anti-capitalist “friends”
Why is it I’ve never worked for a poor person?
I’ve never gotten an answer to that one.
------------------------------------------------
26. Wayne
Great questions Oleg, but the Libs will never lower themselves to contemplate them.
Once a normal person (a mere mortal) realizes and comes to terms with the fact that their are some very fundamentally unreachable sections of a Liberal’s psyche, that person can then concentrate his or her effective strategies he or she will need to eliminate or get around the Liberal demons in their midst.
Liberals think they are gods. And YOU other than a Liberal are a mere mortal who needs to be groveling and supplicating real quick like.
When you are a god, the only critical thinking you really need to accomplish can be classified in 2 categories.
1) What more aspects of my own wonderful self are there left for me to discover?
2) In what manner should everyone who is not a god be worshiping me?
This is why they react so angrily when you confront them with ANYTHING outside of these areas of focus…no god ever tolerates mortals disturbing his concentration upon his own continuous self-deification.
It is physically painful for them to have their focus wrenched aside from this objective – the manner of a dog having his wagging tail caught beneath the runner of a rocking chair.
They only tolerate other gods because they might be able to use them to discover their own new aspects of deity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
27. gail
My favorite has always been, If fetuses are not human, why don’t we cook and eat them?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
30. KarenT
I recently asked questions like these (in a slightly different way) to an idealistic young American who lives in China while studying green technologies. He seems to distrust both politicians and business. The Chinese government could have censored my questions. Maybe he would have answered them if he didn’t live in China.:
1. If you think the Right doesn’t “Believe in Climate Change” but you think it’s wrong for the Right to say “The climate is always changing”, why did Global Warming activists change the term “anthropogenic global warming” to “Climate Change”? And why do you, personally, insist on using such a general term when you mean something so specific?
2. If you think that corporate control of the media keeps Americans from getting the truth about “Climate Change”, how do you feel about the UN’s desire to control the internet – a primary way to exchange information without corporate control?
3. If China is “not that much different than USA in terms of being totalitarian”, why is Thomas Friedman always pining for Chinese-style power?
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/107609/
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/111693/
4. If “any real solution (to “Climate Change”) will have to involve extreme reduction in carbon output per person”, whom do you trust to enforce these extreme reductions?
I should maybe have asked if these extreme reductions in per-person carbon output would mean that elite environmental activists would have to give up their mansions, private jets, energy-wasting movie productions and rock concerts.
December 27, 2010 - 7:45 am
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry
More warming questions
1a) Of all greenhouse gasses, what is the effect of CO2 on warming?
1b) Of all CO2 sources how much is produced by humans?
1c) Multiply the percentages together (answer: 2.5% caused by human CO2.)
2) The Earth has been getting warmer since the last Ice Age, about 20000 years ago. What caused it to get warmer? What were humans doing to cause it?
2b) How much food can you grow on a glacier? Do the Canadian central plains produce more food now?
December 27, 2010 - 9:07 pm
------------------------------------------------------
31. Walter Woodland
Excellent list, I will be sure to credit Mr. Atbashian and link to this piece when I borrow some of his questions and especially his shifting sands analogy. Genuinely priceless in its clarity.
One clarification if I may. 10 years ago, former Congressman Bob Dornan was discussing the Catholic Church’s problems with priests of the homosexual persuasion. He made an important distinction that I think needs be noted. He made a convincing case that the Church’s issue was pederasty, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual deviancy different and distinct from pederasty. The effort to make the case about pedophilia was a concerted effort to deflect from the homosexual aspects.
December 27, 2010 - 7:46 am
-----------------------------------------------------------
32. rrbs
My observation that the biggest flaw with the progressive left is that everything that fixes society for them is external to them. One example is that if the rich would pay more taxes, fill-in-the-blank would be solved. With this concept we can never solve any of the problems we have. Everyone needs to be able to make personal sacrifice for the common good. One other progressive irritant is that charity is something you force on other people, not a personal sacrifice. When someone says “Jesus was a socialist” it bugs me as well. As far as my limited understanding goes, I think most of the socialism of Christianity is a personal struggle with oneself not forcing it on other individuals.
December 27, 2010 - 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------------------
33. cfbleachers
Oleg, this is a wonderful piece. Thank you so much for the hard work and your contribution.
However, it is important to understand what the answers will look like and from whence they came before today and forever after.
You see, Oleg, leftists are permanent prosecutors. Prosecutors ask the questions, they don’t have to answer them.
In the court of public opinion, the lapdog media are the courtroom stenographers. They have machines that automatically distort the meaning of ever word uttered. Hollywood is a video-stenographer, with the same task. Distortion and deceit are the hallmarks of those whose purpose is to advance the cause of leftism, truth be damned, reason be damned, honor be damned.
And we…dear Oleg…are the permanent defendants. We, the people, are always on trial. Non-leftists stand accused and there is no acceptable defense except surrender to leftism.
Your questions will be twisted, distorted or erased from the record. The “mischief” you intend to cause will either be ignored, or you will be dealt with swiftly and harshly.
You see, Oleg…leftism is a movement. Resistance is not organized, sporadic, we are snipers in the mist…they are entrenched and behind a fortress of lies.
Letting your questions loose, like a bouquet of multi-colored balloons, to ride on the winds of fate, to go where they might, until they drift over the vast seas of ignorance and apathy, lose energy and fall harmlessly to the ground…is a likely fate. Nobody will force them to be noticed.
We don’t get to ask the questions, Oleg. Only to answer them. Unless and until we realize that this is so, we will never accuse the prosecutor of prosecutorial misconduct…the court won’t allow it. And the stenographers will cheat the jury out of the truth yet again.
December 27, 2010 - 8:15 am Link to this Comment
Reply Gen. P. Malaise
permanent defendants. very scary and unfortunately very true.
that may be a reason the trolls delight in commenting on PJmedia. they don’t care that they are wrong but like to make us defend ourselves when they never have to.
December 27, 2010 - 6:30 pm
----------------------------------------------------------
35. Anonymous
Many silly questions in the article. For example:
If all cultures are equal, why doesn’t UNESCO organize International Cannibalism Week festivals?
But UNESCO has endorsed practices and agendas morally on par with cannibalism. For some examples do a google search for “unesco sharia”.
Why weren’t there demonstrations with anti-feudal slogans under feudal rule?
From Wikipedia: “The term feudalism was unknown and the system it describes were not conceived of as a formal political system by the people living in the Medieval Period.”
In a free capitalist society, anti-capitalist demonstrations are commonplace. Is capitalism really the worst system?
A leftist could say that the possibility of some form of popular protest does not by itself show that capitalism is better or even freer than, e.g., Soviet Communism. It may be that the capitalist system utilizes expressions of protest as a safety valve, allowing for a controlled release of pent up frustration while the system is in no danger of being overthrown.
If capitalism makes some people rich without making others poor, who will benefit when capitalism is destroyed?
Not only do critics of capitalism obviously not share that premise, but as a fixed principle it is demonstrably false. The proliferation of various socialist and anarchist movements in the 19th century were a rational response to the realities of 19th century industrial capitalism. A “conservative” who can’t even concede this is an idealogue living in fantasy land.
Why, on the rare occasions when Obama’s actions benefit America, does his base get angry?
When have Obama’s actions benefitted America?
December 27, 2010 - 8:28 am Link to this Comment
Reply Bugs
I thought the same thing about the feudalism question. Maybe the author doesn’t know about the Peasants’ Revolt in England or the Jacquerie in France, both recorded in Froissart’s Chronicles and elsewhere.
An article in Wikipedia provides a wider treatment of medieval revolts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe
I think the answer regarding protest in capitalist societies is extremely weak. It cannot be observed that there is an agent called “capitalism” or “capitalist society” that controls people’s behavior to the extent that it can “allow” protests or “prevent” them. On the other hand, we know that in communist and some socialist countries, regulations forbidding public protests come from an easily-identified agent: the communist or socialist government.
I didn’t understand the question about the destruction of capitalism. As you say, communists tend to believe capitalism DOES make some people rich while making others poor, and that the destruction of capitalism will benefit the poor. I do agree with you that the revolutions of the 19th century were rational – or at least understandable – reactions to the economic and social inequities that prevailed at that time. Whether they did any good is another question. Under capitalism, the rich have gotten richer since those days, but the poor have also gotten richer – at least in absolute terms. The grievances of the left today seem to be more about relative wealth than absolute wealth. My feeling is that having enough resources to survive is vital; equal distribution of resources is not necessary.
December 27, 2010 - 9:54 am Link to this Comment
Reply Brian H
Marx’s actual position was that the bourgeois phase of economic evolution would generate such a flood of wealth that it could afford the disruption of being taken over by the proletariate. Actually, it was a pre-condition. The application of Communism to under-developed non-capitalist societies was jumping the gun, and bound to fail.
Of course, it will always fail, but Marx’s ideal targets were Britain, Germany, the U.S. To this day leftists say that the U.S. would/will make the ideal Communist model state.
December 27, 2010 - 12:47 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Bugs
That’s interesting. But it confuses me because, if a successful capitalist society is so necessary for communism to develop, why do leftists constantly rail against the evils of capitalism? Why do they push so hard for leftist “reform?” Doesn’t popular resistance to such measures in the US simply indicate that we’re not ripe for the change yet? It seems like they want to jump the gun in developed economies as well as underdeveloped ones.
I also wonder about their justifications today. Like the previous comments mentioned, in the 19th century you really did have fat-cats living in mansions while many workers lived in abject poverty. Today – not so much. Our system may not be totally *fair*, but it’s nothing like as oppressive as 19th century Europeans had to deal with. As long as *most of us* have three hots and a cot and aren’t dying of TB or phosphorous poisoning, who cares how much money some other guy has? Why is that issue so critical to liberals?
December 27, 2010 - 2:37 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Michael
And that is because leftists fundamentally and sometimes willfully are ignorant of human nature. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that people will not work and strive if all their hard work is unrewarded. Also they don’t admit that most people will do nothing productive if everything is provided at no cost to them.
Leftist also see themselves as the new benevolent overlords. Some one has to organize the peons, oops sorry, proletariat.
Gulags are never far behind the kindness of “progressives/leftists”.
December 27, 2010 - 3:03 pm
------------------------------------------------------------
36. David W
I didn’t see this question asked. If it is okay for the United States and the rest of the world to enforce sanctions on North Korea and Iran (to punish them for their anti-social behavior and thus causing the innocent citizens of those countries to suffer hardships) why is it not okay for Israel to do the same to Gaza.
After all, though Hamas doesn’t [yet] have nuclear weapons, it continues to call for the destruction of Israel, continues to directly or indirectly fire rockets and mortars into the country (targetting schools and hospitals), continues to call for jihad against Jews, and continues to glorify those who kill or attempt to kill innocent civilians.
You would think that Israel, which is under physical attack from Hamas/Gaza, would have the right to enforce sanctions and blockades to prevent the inportation of weapons. Or am I just being a silly, conservative, non-Jew who doesn’t get it?
December 27, 2010 - 8:32 am Link to this Comment
Reply BS61
But Israel is not doing the same to Gaza.
December 27, 2010 - 10:50 am
-------------------------------------------------------------------
39. Hyphenated American
Yap. I’ve used questions like these to make libs upset too. And I am also from the former USSR. I remember I got one poor girl very pissed – she told me that all cultures were equal, and I asked her to tell me if she thinks human sacrifices were okay with her. One question – and she shut up about equality of culture.
Here is a quick question for libs: If Cuba is a socialist paradise, where people have excellent healthcare, why don’t American poor simply move to Cuba and live there? After all, Cuban reactionaries risk their lives to escape and come to US – why can’t American progressives buy a plane ticket and move to Cuba? Could it be because healthcare for American poor is better than Cuban healthcare?
December 27, 2010 - 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phillep Harding
“If all cultures are equal, then why are the liberals down on red-necks and conservatives?”
------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Allston
“…leaping all around the known and unknown universe..[zigzagging] from the evils of unbridled capitalism to global warming to Bush’s wars for oil to Sarah Palin’s stupidity. .hadn’t the slightest curiosity….mental fragments mismatched in key and rhythm…”
Just to note a historical reference to this kind of thinking, Adolph Hitler did this constantly; one of his Generals referred to it as a “Flickwerk mind,” dancing around and never settling on any one thing for more than a moment.
December 27, 2010 - 9:08 am
------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Bugs
Asking questions is a good strategy in any confrontation like this. I find that simply asking “Why?” enough times will get you to the bottom of things pretty quickly. You’ll either find out that your interlocutors have solid, defensible reasons for holding the positions they do, or that they simply have an attitude about them. Sometimes there’s real logic behind them; other times the logic is just a veneer covering an emotional attachment – usually something involving anger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
KarenT
Asking “why” repeatedly may be good for uncovering the roots of a political position. But I like Thomas Sowell’s repetitious question for the feasibility of utopian liberal programs: “And then what”?
Might save us a lot of grief if liberals thought a few decades ahead of their sweet dreams. Might help the less-indoctrinated see why, for example, LBJ’s War on Poverty increased violence between children in crumbling ghettos rather than decreasing poverty.
---------------------------------------------------------------
42. Hyphenated American
Most importanly, don’t forget to tell the liberals that you understand their frustration, and that you realize that they are very emotional about such-n-such issue. Keep telling them that you sympathysize with their feelings and that it’s obvious they are angry/upset about the topic.
December 27, 2010 - 9:34 am
---------------------------------------------------
43. Ilkka Kokkarinen
Here’s plenty more that I have discussed in my blog for the past year:
- If national borders are bad and everyone should be allowed to live wherever they want regardless of their citizenship status and ethnic heritage, why do you think Christopher Columbus was so very evil? Also, why do you think that it so wrong for a big corporation to move its factory (or some fat Western retiree to move his ass) to some poor Third World country? Why is it in these cases so very wrong to cross this “imaginary line” that is only a “dangerous anachronism”?
- Why are the European and American cultures so bad that they need to change to be more like the other cultures, but these other cultures must forever remain exactly as they ever were instead of becoming more like the European and American cultures, and it is wrong for us to act otherwise?
- Similarly, why are Native Americans entitled to live in their ethnically pure homelands, but white Europeans are not? If this right somehow comes from the fact that their ancestors lived there millenia ago, well then, do the Jews in Israel similarly have the right to expel other ethnic groups from there, by force if necessary?
- Speaking of which, don’t you think it’s at least a little bit contradictory for your “anti-fascist” march to chant death to Israel and Jews?
- If Cuba is such a wonderful paradise of equality, why do they need to kill everyone who tries to leave? More generally, why do all leftist states have to build walls to keep their own people in, whereas rightist states have to build walls to keep other people out?
- Why is leftism never judged by its reality but only by its lofty promises?
- Spanish is the native tongue of which native American tribe or ethnic group? What does the word “conquistador” mean? Among all ethnic groups in the world, why are the native Americans specifically “noble”? Especially if all ethnic groups are really the same in every way?
- How many new Jumbo Jets would we need to built if every American visited some foreign culture every five years or so, the way you insist those rubes should do? (Yes, we know all you “creative thinkers” just hate math, but really, do this one illuminating calculation anyway.) What effect would all this carbon-wasteful travel have on the global warming that you tell us is such a huge threat on humanity?
- On the other hand, if all cultures really are the same and it’s racist to ever claim otherwise, why does one even need to learn about other cultures, or ensure that all cultures are equally represented in corporate decision-making?
- If there are too many prisoners and longer sentences don’t really deter crime, why are harsher sentences now so very desperately needed to deter hate crimes and rapes? What would be an appropriate sentence for someone who raped you?
- How is it possible that liberals are superior because of their higher IQ, and morally superior because they know that IQ is meaningless, and finally, cognitively superior because they don’t think that this is a contradiction that matters?
- If the fact that liberals are overrepresented in academia automatically proves the innate correctness and superiority of liberalism, what can we infer from the similar overrepresentation of white males therein? Does reality perhaps have a straight male bias?
- Speaking of overrepresentation of various political and ideological groups, what percentage of illegal drugs do you think is currently consumed by liberals and conservative? Do you think that the ideological spectrum of people with HIV infections is identical to that of the general population?
- Speaking of ideologies, what exactly does Sarah Palin say or believe that makes you hate her so much that +98% of the world’s muslims wouldn’t also believe and consider perfectly acceptable and normal? Why is your opinion on muslims then so very different from your opinion on Sarah Palin?
- Are there any liberal criticisms of conservatives that wouldn’t apply at least twice as much to mainstream muslims? From “homophobia” to “inbreeding”, I sure can’t think of any. So why do liberals sheepishly adore muslims and defend them at every turn instead of loathing them at least as much as they loath conservatives? Why do muslims get a free pass on every liberal shibboleth that the left loves to enforce on conservatives?
- Puzzle: If all pro-life groups are automatically terrorist, but it’s offensive to suggest that some muslim group supports terrorism, which one of these properties is the salient one when it is a pro-life muslim group?
- Meta-Puzzle: In all puzzles such as the previous one, how do all you liberals always somehow just know, without any visible prompting or preparation or coordination, the correct answer? Are you some kind of hivemind? Or is there a deeper standard in effect that tells you the correct answer that you all hold but don’t admit doing so?
- Speaking of which, how are those women’s reproductive rights doing right now in muslim countries? Are the muslim societies superior or inferior to Western countries in this sense? If all cultures and societies are always equally good, how can you even claim that the changes that you advocate would make our society better?
- Here’s my pet theory: Could it be that liberalism, in the end, is nothing but group identity politics and narcissistic status signaling for people (especially of verbally intellectual persuasion) who can’t signal their status in traditional material means yet are desperate to distinguish themselves from the white proles who they consider their inferiors? To disprove this theory, can you name even one position on any issue held by liberals that could not be fully predicted and explained with this extremely simple explanatory model?
- Since you oppose capitalists who you say gouge and bleed the masses in every turn by charging as much as they can for food and other necessities, why is Wal-Mart evil for selling these to the masses at a low cost and keeping the profit margins of all those nasty capitalists down? If Wal-Mart was otherwise exactly the same except that it was 100% owned and run by the state, wouldn’t you be celebrating it?
- Since you love to tout Darwinian evolution as your tribal signal (come on, it’s not like most of you understand even the basics of Darwinism), why do you then so furiously deny its every logical consequence? For example, how does your blank slate theory of how all humans are born identical jibe with the essential and important hereditary variation between individuals that evolution by natural selection requires pretty much by definition?
- And once again, what percentage of world’s muslims do you think support Darwinism instead of creationism?
- Speaking of knowledge of science, would you personally pass an eighth-grade science exam? Do you think postmodernism is totes “cool” and “edgy”? Do you believe that women have innate ways of knowing that are superior to patriarchal and phallogocentric male science and reasoning? When you fall ill, do you rely on homeopathic medicine? Do you think that the traditional beliefs of other cultures automatically need to be respected and obeyed, instead of condemned as primitive superstition? Isn’t tradition bad and should be smashed?
- Sure, you have your good reasons of why you say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas”. Do these exact same reasons also make you say “happy holidays” instead of “merry Eid” and “happy Diwali” and “happy Kwanzaa”? If not, why not?
- Why is it “transgressive” art to dunk a crucifix in a jar of urine, but a despicable hate crime to draw a cartoon of prophet Mohammed? Speaking of which, do you ever wonder why all your “transgressive” artists and thinkers are celebrated toasts of the town, while the people who disagree with them are routinely denounced? Who exactly is the “rebel” and “underdog” here?
- Answer this one honestly: who is more transgressive and rebellious, Dan Savage or Pat Robertson?
- Speaking of projection, why do liberals get to say that all conservatives are secretly nazis and a hair away from becoming violent, but any conservative who notices any similarity or co-operation between liberalism and socialism is automatically a paranoid nutcase who sees commies under every bed?
- Why are right-wing marches and demonstrations peaceful, whereas the left-wing marches and demonstrations always become violent and smash everything in sight? So who are the real jackboots and brownshirts here? If one misspelled tea party sign is enough to discredit the whole movement, why can’t we conclude from thousands of angry communist signs so ubiquitous in left-wing marches that leftism has at least a teeny tiny connection to communism?
- What did W. do to restrict the freedoms that your heroes Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro didn’t do a hundredfold? Do you ever realize how utterly stupid you look advocating “freedom” while you are wearing a Che T-shirt?
- Why is death penalty wrong when America does it, but “meh” when China and Iran do so? And aren’t these cultures much older and wiser than America, so why do you think you are automatically right when you say the death penalty is wrong? (Again, while wearing that Che-shirt? Do you think it makes you look “cool” and “with it”?)
- Since you deny basic economics and believe that by dictating prices (rent control, price ceilings on health care, oil etc.) you really wield the power to command the reality itself and the very real scarcities therein, do you similarly believe that preventing the mercury in a thermometer from rising or falling past some point would also prevent the weather from really becoming that warm or cold?
- Since your economic theory of Keynesianism (that Obama also believes in, even though liberals deny he does) proclaims that World War II caused a massive economic stimulus that lifted America out of the Great Depression, do you also ascribe similar recession-busting and stimulative powers to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What do you think causes the difference?
- Fast food and nuclear energy should be banned because of their health hazards, but gay bathhouses need no regulation whatsoever. Did I get this right?
- The fact that the majority opposes nuclear power is sufficient to prove that nuclear power is evil. The fact that the majority opposes unlimited immigration and gay marriage proves that the majority is evil and needs to be thoroughly re-educated. Is this also now correct?
- Speaking of majorities, why are you so sure that once the country becomes minority-majority so that white liberals become a minority that the new majority realizes it doesn’t really need for anything, this new majority will keep respecting all the shibboleths of white liberals such as gay rights, women’s rights, environmentalism, transsexual rights etc. etc. ? (See California’s Prop 8 and Toronto mayoral elections for a sneak preview of the interesting future of liberalism.)
December 27, 2010 - 9:46 am Link to this Comment
Reply Bugs
Regarding your pet theory: I think it applies to MOST people of MOST political persuasions, left or right. As we do with music, clothes, and cars, most of us use politics as a fashion accessory. We use it to define ourselves, to associate ourselves with certain people and to separate ourselves from certain others. It has more to do with primate social instincts than with reason, logic, or practicality. How each of us ends up with the politics we do is as mysterious as how we come to prefer one type of music over another.
December 27, 2010 - 10:11 am Link to this Comment
Reply snork
Outstanding. And slip this one in there:
If it’s wrong for western countries to build walls and fences to keep outsiders out, why is it righteous for socialist countries to build walls to keep their chattel in?
December 27, 2010 - 11:43 am Link to this Comment
Reply Oleg Atbashian
Ilkka – thank you for sharing. Your questions show a sharp mind and an outstanding ability to think logically. In fact, some of your longer questions could be broken down into smaller ones, dealing with related contradictions separately. They are great as a mental exercise for any debater with “progressive” non-sequiturs.
December 27, 2010 - 11:47 am Link to this Comment
Reply Ilkka Kokkarinen
Thanks. I have plenty more of these, and I’ll post another batch in the comments eventually.
I am a Finn and lived there for the first 26 years of my life. So it was nothing like what you had to go through, but every time I see the word “progressive” I remember the Finnish left-wing intellectuals who always called the Soviet Union the most “progressive” of all countries. Therefore I find it is so funny and apt whenever Western leftists proudly proclaim themselves “progressives”.
In Finland, all media (especially the only channel that was state run and whose reporters and editors were literally Stalinists) was of course thoroughly leftist, basically if America had only one channel that played Rachel Maddow. I think I was 19 years old and in university the first time I ever saw some American conservative position depicted in a positive light. That is why I also think it is so tragically funny whenever a Western leftist complains that they don’t get to silence the dissenting views in media.
December 27, 2010 - 2:06 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Oleg Atbashian
Ilkka -
I’m delighted to make your acquaintance, albeit virtually. I suspected that Finland might be going the same way as Sweden, but I didn’t realize it was that bad. What decades in Finland are you describing?
December 27, 2010 - 9:04 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Ilkka Kokkarinen
Oh, Sweden is currently way ahead of Finland in most respects. In Finland it is still legal to quote police statistics that certain immigrant groups are disproportionally responsible for certain types of crimes, although the Finnish progressives are working hard to follow in Sweden’s example to change that.
My childhood and teenage years took place in the eighties, and I went to university (and first used the Internet) in the early nineties. Back then being “anti-soviet” wasn’t literally a crime, but all media co-operated in never saying anything bad about the Soviet Union and never saying anything good about the United States (heh, that now reminds me of this one book by a dissident Finnish professor who complained that our news media always only shows America’s slums but never its mainstream middle class suburbs where the average American has about three times as much living space as the average Finn), and of course Ronald Reagan was the dumbest man in the face of the Earth. These days, of course, we know that our Useful Idiots got all their talking points directly from their KGB masters.
December 28, 2010 - 5:09 am
--------------------------------------------------------------
44. Gault Falcon
A Liberal’s political positions, and their religious devotion to those positions, stems from a deep insecurity that hatches an unhealthy level of the fear of failure.
http://gaultfalcon.blogspot.com/2010/06/fear-of-failure-guides-them.html
Once one accepts this premise the only questions left to answer are, where does this insecurity come from and can it be cured?
Perhaps I am becoming more pessimistic in my older age, or maybe just frustrated and lazy, but I am starting to believe that the root of this insecurity is a weakness in their mental foundation. I have thought of many of my own questions. The answers would seem to support this current theory.
-Of the Liberals you know, how many are using a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drug (or some other antidepressant, personality disorder drug, anxiety or depression drug? If you’re not sure I’m betting they’re using.
-Of the Liberals you know, how many are obsessed with their family life? Most I know are more obsessed with their own life and find their family lives burdensome and interfering with their own.
-Of the Liberals you know talk about other people’s success in a supportive or admiring way instead of a suspicious or envious way?
There are more of these questions, and although there are exceptions to every rule, Liberals tend to be medicated, overly narcissistic, jealous types. I find discussing, arguing, or even asking them the great questions that Ed has come up with, is a waste of my time.
December 27, 2010 - 9:48 am Link to this Comment
Reply Aspieworld
The state of mind you are describing can also be used to describe the condition called Asperger’s Syndrome, which researchers are now finding to be originating in the language part of the brain not having enough connectors.
December 27, 2010 - 5:29 pm
-------------------------------------------------------
45. Mike M
An argument stopper for ‘Bush lied about WMD’s': What then was the real reason for invading Iraq? What was so dastardly that he couldn’t tell 300 million people?
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hertzlinger
One reason for the contradictions in liberalism is that when collectivists hijacked the word “liberalism,” they accidentally absorbed a few individualist opinions and haven’t had time to dump all of them yet. (For example, they kept a belief in freedom of speech for a while before dumping it.)
At the rate they’re going, it will only a few more decades until they’re entirely authoritarian … but that hasn’t happened yet.
December 27, 2010 - 3:45 pm
-------------------------------------------------------------
47. Ilkka Kokkarinen
Two more that I remembered after pressing “submit”:
- Why do you call yourself “anti-authoritarian” when you advocate total submission to the authority of the state? Why do you consider yourselved advocates of “change” when you try to create a society of cradle-to-grave safety in which absolutely nothing ever changes, no company ever goes bankrupt and all jobs are lifetime appointments? Why are you so seemingly incapable of even conceptualizing change that you view world as this perfectly compartmentalized machine in which no change ever has unintentional consequences on anything else? (For example, you believe that if the minimum wage was doubled, everything would still be exactly the same except that minimum wage workers would have twice as much money.)
- In matters other than sex and drugs, what exactly do you advocate that would give me personally more freedom of choice? Name just one concrete thing, please.
December 27, 2010 - 10:39 am
--------------------------------------------------------
49. Chris
Excellent article! Since I figured out a while ago that liberals are impervious to logic, facts and reason, I have been using the ‘unanswerable question’ method as my favorite way of shutting up these pretentious progressive boors. A few of my favorites:
-Since ‘climate change’ can cause temperatures to rise or fall, droughts as well as floods, etc.etc., how will we know that we’ve finally licked the diabolical problem?
-If John Kerry lost the 2004 election due to the 250+ swift boat vets lying about him, why is there no clamor for prosecuting these highly decorated miscreants for undermining the integrity of the election?
-Since banning trans fat and sugary sodas will make for a healthier society, and lower healthcare costs, why not ban all contact sports, thus saving society from expensive sports-related injuries?
-What hospital claims to be Obama’s birth hospital?
After a while though, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel; liberals aren’t nearly as smart as they believe themselves to be.
December 27, 2010 - 10:52 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Habib
I recommend also the method of Mr Sarcastic—please excuse the length—, from Thomas Love Peacock’s novel, Melincourt (1817), chapter Twenty-One, “The City of Novote”:
MR. SARCASTIC.
Nothing, you well know, is so rare as the coincidence of theory and practice. A man who “will go through fire and water to serve a friend” in words, will not give five guineas to save him from famine. A poet will write Odes to Independence, and become the obsequious parasite of any great man who will hire him. A burgess will hold up one hand for purity of election, while the price of his own vote is slily dropped into the other. I need not accumulate instances.
MR. FORESTER.
You would find it difficult, I fear, to adduce many to the contrary.
MR. SARCASTIC.
This then is my system. I ascertain the practice of those I talk to, and present it to them as from myself, in the shape of theory: the consequence of which is, that I am universally stigmatised as a promulgator of rascally doctrines. Thus I said to Sir Oliver Oilcake, “When I get into Parliament I intend to make the sale of my vote as notorious as the sun at noon-day. I will have no rule of right, but my own pocket. I will support every measure of every administration, even if they ruin half the nation for the purpose of restoring the Great Lama, or of subjecting twenty millions of people to be hanged, drawn, and quartered at the pleasure of the man-milliner of Mahomet’s mother. I will have ship-loads of turtle and rivers of Madeira for myself, if I send the whole swinish multitude to draft and husks.” Sir Oliver flew into a rage, and swore he would hold no further intercourse with a man who maintained such infamous principles.
MR. HIPPY.
Pleasant enough, to show a man his own picture, and make him damn the ugly rascal.
MR. SARCASTIC.
I said to Miss Pennylove, whom I knew to be laying herself out for a good match, “When my daughter becomes of marriageable age, I shall commission Christie to put her up to auction, ‘the highest bidder to be the buyer; and if any dispute arise between two or more bidders, the lot to be put up again and resold’.” Miss Pennylove professed herself utterly amazed and indignant, that any man, and a father especially, should imagine a scheme so outrageous to the dignity and delicacy of the female mind.
THE HONOURABLE MRS. PINMONEY, AND MISS DANARETTA.
A most horrid idea certainly.
MR. SARCASTIC.
The fact, my dear ladies, the fact: how stands the fact? Miss Pennylove afterwards married a man old enough to be her grandfather, for no other reason, but because he was rich; and broke the heart of a very worthy friend of mine, to whom she had been previously engaged, who had no fault but the folly of loving her, and was quite rich enough for all purposes of matrimonial happiness. How the dignity and delicacy of such a person could have been affected, if the preliminary negotiation with her hobbling Strephon had been conducted through the instrumentality of honest Christie’s hammer, I cannot possibly imagine.
MR. HIPPY.
Nor I, I must say. All the difference is in the form, and not in the fact. It is a pity the form does not come into fashion: it would save a world of trouble.
MR. SARCASTIC.
I irreparably offended the Reverend Doctor Vorax by telling him, that having a nephew, whom I wished to shine in the church, I was on the look-out for a luminous butler, and a cook of solid capacity, under whose joint tuition he might graduate. “Who knows,” said I, “but he may immortalize himself at the University, by giving his name to a pudding?”—I lost the acquaintance of Mrs. Cullender, by saying to her, when she had told me a piece of gossip as a very particular secret, that there was nothing so agreeable to me as to be in possession of a secret, for I made a point of telling it to all my acquaintance:
Intrusted under solemn vows,
Of Mum, and Silence, and the Rose,
To be retailed again in whispers,
For the easy credulous to disperse.
Mrs. Cullender left me in great wrath, protesting she would never again throw away her confidence on so leaky a vessel.
December 27, 2010 - 10:52 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------
51. R2Joe2
-How is it that the Constitution is a living thing, but a six-month old fetus is not?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
52. Economic Geologist
If I had to classify myself ideologically, I would say I am probably a bit more of a liberal than a conservative, but I am definitely somewhere in between. And I think most of these questions are good ones. In my opinion, it is the extreme partisanship of most discussions on these types of moral, ethical, environmental and social questions that is a big part of our problem in society today. Why can’t we discuss all these issues without resorting to labelling it as “us” versus “them”, “Liberal” versus “Conservative”? These are all questions that are important to be debated in a open, democratic, society. On many of these issues I expect I would agree with the author’s position, but probably not on all of them. Life just isn’t that simple.
December 27, 2010 - 12:01 pm Link to this Comment
Reply KarenT
A very thoughtful point. I believe that there was less “labeling” and more open debate of ideas before the rise of “critical theory” among activist faculty on college campuses. “Critical theory” seemed to lead to criticism for the sake of criticism – but only criticism of the Right. It is often accompanied by the “No Enemies to the Left” mantra. Eventually, the Right started to push back.
I like this little observation from “Whited Sepulchre” concerning shout-downs of visiting speakers on college campuses whose views are less “progressive” than those of activist professors: “Note to self: do some research on whether college campuses are the most likely places for attacks on free speech”
December 27, 2010 - 12:43 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Ward Dorrity
“Critical theory” seemed to lead to criticism for the sake of criticism – but only criticism of the Right.
Correct. And here are the roots of that meme. In its takeover of our cultural life, the generation of the 60s has adhered loyally to the course of action set down for it by two Marxist philosophers, the Italian Communist prophet Antonio Gramsci and the German emigré Herbert Marcuse, whose doctrines acquired a wide popularity among teachers, students and intellectuals.
In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci argued that in order to change society, one must first change consciousness, which can only be done by seizing control of a nation’s social institutions: schools, churches, government agencies, the academic disciplines, entertainment, the arts and, of course, the media. This is precisely what has happened as Gramsci’s hegemonic idea pursues its “long march through the institutions.”
The Left has also prioritized Marcuse’s concept of “discriminatory tolerance” or “repressive tolerance,” developed in his influential 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance, in which he argues that “freedom (of opinion, of assembly, of speech) becomes an instrument for absolving servitude.” Marcuse urges “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left, which, as should now be evident, serves to justify repression in order to alter the social structure in the direction of a socialist, totalitarian state — what Israeli historian Jacob Leib Talmon has dubbed “totalitarian democracy.” In the name of freedom of thought, freedom of thinking is progressively curtailed.
Thus, the price of admission to any reasonable debate – facts, reason, logic, intellectual honesty – simply can’t be found among so-called ‘progressives’. The often overlooked effect of the Gramscian, Machiavellian ‘long march’ is that of the corruption of the very language that we use to frame our debates. As Jean-Francois Reval has said in his “The Flight From Truth: The Reign of Deceit in the Age of Information:
“The great misfortune of the twentieth Century is to have been the one in which the ideal of liberty was harnessed to the service of tyranny, the ideal of equality to the service of privilege, and all the aspirations and social forces included under the label of the “Left” enrolled in the service of impoverishment and enslavement. This immense imposture has falsified most of this century, partly through the faults of some of its greatest intellectuals. It has corrupted the language and action of politics down to tiny details of vocabulary, it has inverted the sense of morality and enthroned falsehood in the very center of human thought.”
The “elephant in the living room” is this: Once reason, facts, logic and freedom have been taken off the table – what then?
December 28, 2010 - 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gen. P. Malaise
you are wrong. A LOT OF the questions are that simple. you are on one side or the other. …if you wish to compromise can you still be right? there is no half right or quarter right. Life isn’t black or white but truth is.
2 kinds of people ..producers and parasites.
conservatives don’t care what the liberals do with their money their time …until they cross the line and demand that the rest of the world conforms to their ideals.
…it is that simple.
December 27, 2010 - 5:57 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Bugs
That’s an interesting point. Unfortunately, I think there are different cultures, different worldviews involved and bridging them is not as easy as simply agreeing on on individual issues.
For example, when the Iraq War was gearing up I thought it was a very bad idea. Not getting rid of Saddam – that was fine as far as I was concerned. I just objected to the half-assed way Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld conducted it. (I was more a supporter of the “Powell Doctrine.”) However, I couldn’t bring myself to actually protest against the war because doing so would put me in the same camp as Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Code Pink, and most of the commies in Hollywood and San Francisco. To me, a victory for Cindy Sheehan, et. al., was a victory for the radical, anti-American left in general. Such a victory would give them a huge boost of political and cultural capital, which they would spend on re-making America in their twisted image. Rather than make common cause with “people like them,” I preferred to stay out of the debate or else support the administration as it tried to make the best of a royal cluster f**k.
I’m not sure that’s a strong or admirable position to take. Would I, like some Germans in the 1930s, support the Nazis just to keep the Communists from taking power? Or vice-versa? Maybe that’s the essence of politics: pick a team and live with the consequences.
December 28, 2010 - 11:10 am
--------------------------------------------------------
53. Oleg Atbashian
To answer those who object to my use of the word “progressive” – I use it deliberately, usually placed in sarcastic quotes, to deny the Left their unsubstantiated claim to anything related to progress. In the same way I would use scare quotes to describe David Frum as a “conservative.”
The “progressives” like to call themselves “progressives” because they have completely squandered another previously good word, “liberal” and felt the need to steal another good word.
As rrbs pointed out above (comment #32), everything that fixes society for “progressives” is external to them. That is because they can’t create anything new – they only redistribute that which already exists.
December 27, 2010 - 12:03 pm Link to this Comment
Reply Joseph Hertzlinger
I thought they called themselves “progressive” before they called themselves “liberal.” You might say they’re returning to their roots.
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Syrin Dec 29, 10:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Harod Dec 29, 03:48 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
•1) What is total spending of the federal budget? -We need to spend more money on education.
•2) What is the federal deficit? -It's Bush's fault
•3) What is the national debt? -It's the total sum of all Republican military spending.
•4) What was the most recent interest payment on the national debt? -Why cant we spend that money here at home to help the poor?
------------------------------------------------
Great article. Two more questions that have to be asked:
1) What temperature is the earth supposed to be?
2) What technology do we have that can achieve that goal?
Answer:
1) They have no earthly idea. The planet has been much hotter, and much cooler, so what is the temp supposed to be? We're supposed to commit trillions of dollars of resources to meet a as of yet defined goal? Can they be serious
2) None. It's an impossibility.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment