A perspective on the Left and identity politics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

---

No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So the correct response would be a form of gratitude, according to your worldview? Something along the lines of, "Thank you, Pindar, for shining a light on the ignorance and ineptitude in which people on the left wallow"?

You're a smart guy, Pin, but this certainly sounds like the single most smug thing I've read on this board in ages.

---

Actually, this is more or less the same type of Pindar rhetoric spewed in the "Gah is for the retarded" discussion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

I don't understand why the press should be devoid of political beliefs anyway.

---

I agree. However, I would add one should be up front about one's political beliefs: full disclosure is a good thing.

Quote:

---

Anyway, as a serious response:

I've not seen anything that establishes some causal link showing that lefties, as differentiated from liberals, are necessarily only emotional in their responses.

---

The commentary makes a bald claim. Most responses seem to agree at least partially with that claim.

Quote:

---

Heck, even someone who is only emotional can come to a correct conclusion, if only by chance.

---

The idea a broken clock is right at least sometimes doesn't lend confidence in setting agendas or political leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by screwtype

Actually, Goofball's statement was an argument. He was responding to this statement of yours:

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument."

To which he replied:

Riiiggghhhht....

You can take the emotion out of my arguments when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

---

Hello,

This is incorrect. An argument involves premises and a conclusion. The above is a statement.

Quote:

---

Goofball's comment was clearly an ironical reference to the statement of the late NRA leader, Charlton Heston, when he said:

You can take my gun from me when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

The point being that Heston's attachment to his big metal penis extension was about as transparently emotional as it gets.

But it seems that Goofball's point went over your head Pindar. Hmmm...maybe there's something to that theory about progressives being smarter after all... ~D

---

Prying one's gun from their cold dead hands predates Heston's use of it as head of the NRA. I have seen it on tee shirts and bumper stickers for as long as I can remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Actually, this is more or less the same type of Pindar rhetoric spewed in the "Gah is for the retarded" discussion...

---

Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.

Note: your personal hostilities or devotion to nonsense are separate from the Thread. Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.

gah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

gah

---

You illustrate the above point well. Please confine yourself to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.

---

Excuse me, but I couldn't resist this one. That Gah is an expression that very well could be spoken by a person suffering from mental retardation doesn't exclude the fact that we use that kind of expressions very often to express a variaty of mental states. In the case of Gah, it's obviously not an statement or arguement, not even a response whatsoever, perhaps it's only spam as it has not point. But saying "Gah is for the retarded" seems to imply that only retarded people can use this word and not be minimized. I can say for example: huh? oops... ouch... aahh... and there's no need to minimize me because I use them.
By the way I can save this by saying that the final part of that paragraph seems just like an emotional outburst Pindar.

And: GAH? :shrug:

sOrrey mR; pinDar sir , we retrards just cayn't do dem topix wiV big words inum .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.

Note: your personal hostilities or devotion to nonsense are separate from the Thread. Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.

---

Same old Pindar, a bit more riled up though... :laugh4:

I've finished high school by the way, yep, a "devoted retard!". :2thumbsup:

Nice to see that I must stop with the personal attacks though. You on the other hand may continue; I know that you have something better than "this should become more clear to you once you've finished High School" or "retarded". :laugh4:

So sorry I don't agree with your "obvious truth". Although many others don't either... Maybe they're all devoted retards as well! :2thumbsup: Especially the "Irishman"... :laugh4:

Now to get back on topic, as you have finished berating me. :laugh4:

I was replying to Lemur's statement, in which much "truth" was evident to me. I saw the same rehashed rhetoric coming from a certain member, who carries himself with a high-falootin* air...

*oops, 'high falootin' is probably not a word in the "good guys" dictionary. Well, here is the definition:

groundless assumption of a higher status or affectation than actually contained.

Of course, rather than a vehement attack against 'Gah' (although he has obviously failed to understand, or whose prejudice refuses to allow him to understand the purpose of 'Gah' correctly), it is some tirade against the left (although the fault he speaks of is present in the right as well, yet he remains willingly ignorant of this).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Actually, it's not. "Gah is for the retarded" reflects an obvious truth. Gah is not a word. Those who cannot articulate a thought and thereby substitute it for nonsense, retard thought in general and become subject to that retardation. This should become more clear to you once you've finished High School.

---

Thanks for the personal attacks Pindar. Looks like emotional arguments are not limited to the left nor those whose formal education should have given them the skill set to argue without hitting below the belt.

A living language has new words and meanings introduced all the time.

A quick scan of online comics and indeed Games Workshop will find that Gah has spread into the world of Geeks.

At the Org it has several meanings,

To make headsoup of ones enemies.
To eat the headsoup of ones enemies.
To not agree with a statement.
The sound one would make as a reflex vomiting sound to something disgusting.

Retarded is someone who cannot learn and adapt to the environment as their thinking has ossified.

Pindar is intelligent because he does not use "gah"; someone who uses "gah", and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as intellectual as he might be, represents a threat to his ego. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of his self-worth is undermined if he discovers that there may be people who can pass as intelligent and yet use "gah".

If one is intelligent, then one does not use "gah".

If one uses "gah", then one is not intelligent.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up his sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of intelligent people who use "gah". And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in acedemia, they react intemperately to rejections of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Excuse me, but I couldn't resist this one. That Gah is an expression that very well could be spoken by a person suffering from mental retardation doesn't exclude the fact that we use that kind of expressions very often to express a variaty of mental states. In the case of Gah, it's obviously not an statement or arguement, not even a response whatsoever...

---

See my post to Papewaio that follows and then return focus to the thread topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Thanks for the personal attacks Pindar. Looks like emotional arguments are not limited to the left nor those whose formal education should have given them the skill set to argue without hitting below the belt.

---

My comments are not personal attacks. They are directed at the use of gah. The only personal comment was to Roink because I thought he was in High School.

Quote:

---

A living language has new words and meanings introduced all the time.

---

Languages do change, but that does not change the correctness of my comment. Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea? The answer is clear. Now, you may feel that when posting here such normality need not apply. This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Pindar is intelligent because he does not use "gah"; someone who uses "gah", and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as intellectual as he might be, represents a threat to his ego. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of his self-worth is undermined if he discovers that there may be people who can pass as intelligent and yet use "gah".

If one is intelligent, then one does not use "gah".

If one uses "gah", then one is not intelligent.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up his sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of intelligent people who use "gah". And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in acedemia, they react intemperately to rejections of it.

---

Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.

I was replying to Lemur's statement, in which much "truth" was evident to me. I saw the same rehashed rhetoric coming from a certain member, who carries himself with a high-falootin* air...

Reenk , would that be an ordinary high falootin air or a rootin tootin high falootin air ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The commentary makes a bald claim. Most responses seem to agree at least partially with that claim.

---

Any one person tends toward irriation when people try to paint a broad brush over them. As I said, that many may, assumably, respond only in emotion and may be identified as lefties does not mean that leftism itself causes emotional responses. If you've no reason to your belief, then you've no thing to warrant that belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The thrust of the commentary is general, not particular. An individual can or should feel at ease to discuss the topic without a sense of personal recrimination or indictment.

---

When the initial post contains a finer version of "Most Mormons are crooks"? Or even better, most Mormons is wackos? (define wacko)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Debate is not required: debate presupposes opposing views. Discussion does not require an opposing stance. The proposition is on the Left and identity politics and what that may mean.

---

Note to self. Make a clear distinction between discussion and debate in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There is no reference to percentages in the initial commentary.

---

Unless I'm mistaken, most means more than half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Initial post

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

How one says a thing concerns rhetoric. What one says can be seen in terms of truth value. To be concerned with the rhetoric over and above the content (the possible truth claims) is to fail to understand the thrust of the piece.

---

That's simple, it's mostly false, but contains minor grains of truth, while not giving a total picture. But the retorical package in where this "fact" was delivered in is such a way were rational discussions aren't encuraged, more of the opposite. The emotional extraction needed to only have a purely intellectual and logical discussion of the initial post has then reached levels that not even Pindar can achive, as the later Gah debate shows us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If one recognizes the veracity of the claim for part of a group or larger whole, then the next question might be what is it that leads to that distinction being possible? Or, in other words: why does such effect some and not others?

Another question may be what are the political implications?

---

Why? Because people can be fanatically obsessed with almost everything, that's more a psycological issue.
The political implications is already here and has been here for as far as politics have existed, so the answer is none. They're almost always ignored politically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

---

No worries, it's all sound and fury signifying nothing. ~:)

---

This is correct though ~;p . It simply feels wrong arguing with Pindar and using simple language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Languages do change, but that does not change the correctness of my comment. Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea? The answer is clear. Now, you may feel that when posting here such normality need not apply. This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.

---

First, as Gah is normally used as refuting, I would obviously not using it when putting forward a serious idea. Second, if I know that my audience know the meaning of Gah, and something can be summarized as Gah, then it's possible that I would summarize something as Gah. But I admit that I like dashing, short summarizations.
Besides, you adapt your language to the audience, or do you normally speak like this Pindar?

And having a word that is a simplification and summarization isn't necessary dumbing things down, don't you agree?
Pindar, long answer: After aquiring the information that you've presented here I found that no argument is strong enough to change my original oppinion and is thus required to answer negative to your question.
Pindar, short answer: No.

So the conclusion is that the use of yes and no is for the retarded, as they indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse. I think either sentiment is unacceptable. There may be some who lacking the ability to articulate an idea have no option, such through example can be shown a better way. For those who have options and yet embrace the inane there is no excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Gah is not a word. If you feel some loyalty to its use consider: would you use it in an academic setting, a business setting, any setting where you were putting forward a serious idea?

---

Academic settings are their own refutation, to appropriate one of your pithier sayings. Business settings, on the other hand, vary wildy. I can think of several people with whom I do business who would appreciate the joy of Gah. In fact, now that you mention it, I'm going to have to explain Gah to some people today. Spread the word, as it were.

"When posting here such normality need not apply"? Well, that's a whole bucket of wrong-headed assumptions. Why should casual discourse be viewed as abnormal? What compels you to believe that "normal" only encompasses formal settings? As for the "serious idea" portion, do you believe that comedies, jokes and informal communication cannot put forward "serious ideas"? Please explain. Last I checked, humor was one of the best ways to get a difficult or unpleasant idea across.

The conclusion you build from this foundation of sand and muck is even more amusing: "This indicates you either feel dumbing down one's communication is acceptable or you do not feel your potential interlocutors are worthy of standard discourse." So casual discourse (and there's no other way to describe the backroom of a BBS devoted to a video game series) is inherently dumbed down? Fascinating, Captain. And the use of commonly understood exclamations is by definition talking down to the unworthy? What a unique perspective. No bearing on reality, mind you, but unique.

Once again, your position on Gah seems needlessly combative, and your tone is as smug as the day is long.

There are many kinds of lawyers. Some of my best friends, etc. Based on the way you post here, I would be shocked, bowled over, flabbergasted and flummoxed if you were a trial lawyer. My best guess: Contract lawyer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Gah is not a word.

---

Check the General Explanations at the beginning of the Oxford English Dictionary:

The Vocabulary of a widely diffused and highly cultivated living language is not a fixed quantity circumscribed by definite limits ... there is absolutely no defining line in any direction: the circle of the English language has a well-defined centre but no discernible circumference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My comments are not personal attacks. They are directed at the use of gah. The only personal comment was to Roink because I thought he was in High School.

---

Aw, you called me 'Roink'. The last (and only other) person to do to that was AdrianII in a heated discussion on a topic which I fail to recall. Needless to say, it was done in contempt, and I did not take well to it. Thankfully, he now addresses me by 'Reenk Roink'.

I do not being called 'Roink' (though 'Reenk' will do in a pinch), I give the courtesy of calling other's by their full pseudonym, and thus expect a mutual courtesy. I do not call you 'dar'.

Sadly, since I am speaking to one who has indirectly labeled me retarded, belittled my education (or his assumption of it), took the liberty to take points of my person (how did that fare?), smugly believed that he treated me like a cartoon, and all the while accused me of personal slights on him, I fear that my appeal will carry no weight to his ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Reenk , would that be an ordinary high falootin air or a rootin tootin high falootin air ?

---

:laugh4:

My 'Irishman' friend, your wit is as sharp as ever to this American... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.

---

Ah yes, so that makes them and this fellow 'Roink'...

Your dishonest selectivity is at the focal point of this discussion Pindar...

Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.

However, I'll admit that a larger portion of leftish people I know seems to consider themselves intellectually superior to those that don't share their view than those on the right. In Europe, or at the least in the Netherlands, the majority of the well-educated people is on the left, possibly leading to the assumption that left automatically equates with intellectuals and vice versa; this attitude can alienate, and in fact did here in Holland.

I don't quite buy this stuff about liberals being more emotional, though. Politics and religion are used to identify oneself, whichever view one may hold. They tend to control how one thinks and reacts, and form a fundamental part of someone. Naturally any perceived attack on views someone holds as true would shake someone's self-confidence, since such attacks make us doubt if what we're doing is correct. This works either way on the political spectrum.

Possibly a reason for this perceived emotionalism on the left is due to the nature of right and left: right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be. That makes leftwing views less solid and hence more fragile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be.

---

That equation has been utterly wrecked in the last six years here in the U.S. The ruling Right no longer feels that it needs to be part of the reality-based community.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Entertaining topic, seemingly about nothing much at all.

However, I'll admit that a larger portion of leftish people I know seems to consider themselves intellectually superior to those that don't share their view than those on the right. In Europe, or at the least in the Netherlands, the majority of the well-educated people is on the left, possibly leading to the assumption that left automatically equates with intellectuals and vice versa; this attitude can alienate, and in fact did here in Holland.

I don't quite buy this stuff about liberals being more emotional, though. Politics and religion are used to identify oneself, whichever view one may hold. They tend to control how one thinks and reacts, and form a fundamental part of someone. Naturally any perceived attack on views someone holds as true would shake someone's self-confidence, since such attacks make us doubt if what we're doing is correct. This works either way on the political spectrum.

Possibly a reason for this perceived emotionalism on the left is due to the nature of right and left: right tends to base itself in how things are, left tends to base itself on how it thinks things should be. That makes leftwing views less solid and hence more fragile.

---

Possibly the most sensible post in this whole thread.

:balloon2:

Edit: double post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That equation has been utterly wrecked in the last six years here in the U.S. The ruling Right no longer feels that it needs to be part of the reality-based community.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

---

And it will cost them, as it usually does when those in charge lose their basis in reality lose touch with the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Please confine yourself to the subject at hand which is the commentary on the Left and identity politics.

---

Ah, the same old games; I've missed them, I truly have. This one is almost a Pindar trademark. But I think people are starting to wise up to the way you try to shut down your opponents by limiting the debate (oops, am I only allowed to use the word 'discussion'? Please advise) to your own terms. I don't think you'll be able to do this quite so easily in the future, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.

---

I believe he was pointing out that you had just engaged in one, and gently advising you to refrain from doing so in the future.

Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Perhaps you missed the subtlety; you were getting a bit emotional.

---

A hit sir, a most palpable hit. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Moderators should not engage in personal attacks.

---

I was quoting a liberal blog; I thought you might find the rhetorical posture interesting.