Just some very quick thoughts

Liberals find repellant the idea of insult*, not because they refuse to be crass or impolite–they are perfectly skilled at being both–but because to say that something is bad and outline the traits that comprise its badness is to say that one thing is better or worse than another thing and that there are certain traits which are, inherently, better or worse than others. Such judgmentalism does not jive with the quest for full equality–equality of spirit, body, and soul.

*except against personal enemies

There’s one strain of thought which holds that liberals (and perhaps conservatives) are a specific ideology that has been transmitted over the centuries, and another that liberality and conservativeness are just personalities that people happen to have.

A related quote:

I'm sorry, I forgot who wrote this. If you know, please let me know so I can credit them properly.
I’m sorry, I forgot who wrote this. If you know, please let me know so I can credit them properly.

I tend toward the personality hypothesis, and that society needs both liberal and conservative personalities for optimal functioning (one side is good at generating novel ideas, and the other side is good at preserving things that shouldn’t be changed,) but this is dependent on both sides recognizing this and letting each other be. (Ideally, this is where something like federalism comes in.)

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Just some very quick thoughts

  1. The quote is by one Ted Kaczynski. Also called the Unabomber.

    Anyway, Kaczynski only pointed out what Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche pointed out. See his talk about Preachers of Equality.

    Like

  2. I’m with Spandrell on this one. If there is a meaningful difference in innate disposition between liberal and conservative, it is probably along the lines of status stickiness. All humans change their core beliefs as suits them, but the way that liberals went from eugenics to dysgenics in a generation is pretty impressive.

    Like

  3. Having been exposed to far too many episodes of the Daily Show or late night comedy, and having witnessed so much snark among the liberal Brahmin set, I do not think liberals have any problems with insults or judgmentalism.

    The left is a coalition of the intellectual class and bureaucratic class that is allied with the “low” element of society (where “low” is defined as identity groups that least threatening the rule of the intelligentsia and are easiest to buy off). This “high” and “low” alliance holds the “middle” (your Trump voting demographic) as the threatening enemy tribe. Leftist ideology is just whatever consensus the coalition holds at any given time. And usually that ideology has rationalizations for why it is bad to insult members of its coalition (black people, single women, muslims) but OK to insult members of the opposing coalition (rednecks, fundies, etc). It is anti-elitist when arguing why literacy requirements to vote are evil, and then pro-elitist when arguing why we’re better off trusting Harvard professors to rule us than right-wing populist politicians.

    Like

  4. I utterly and completely disagree with the hypothesis that what passes today for liberals are at all necessary for the best functioning of society. I see them as nothing but a detriment to- and drag upon our society – a pernicious cancer that needs to be burned and/or cut out so the healthy flesh of body of America can continue to live and hopefully thrive.

    The do not provide creative thinking; they merely rehash the same old tropes that have plagued the makers since time immemorial. Indeed, by and large, I would say that they have chosen to eschew thinking in general, preferring strongly to just parrot trite phrases and concentrate upon narratives and subjective experiences – narratives and subjective that are never critiqued or critically examined.

    Like

    • Depends on how we define “liberal.” The 50% or so of people who self-identify as “liberal” are a different matter than the 10% or so of people who are hard-core SJWs. Removing 50% of the population probably wouldn’t be useful.

      Like

      • They are different only in matter of degree, not fundamental substance. And yes, removing 50% of the population would be very useful. Hehehe…think of the drop in resource usage and pollutants alone…

        Think of it as artificial selection.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s