A perspective on the Left and identity politics

I was reading a piece:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"England’s National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) has voted for an academic boycott on Israeli institutions of higher education that do not renounce Israel’s “apartheid policy.”

[...]

"Also today, the Ontario division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the largest labor union in Canada, voted in favor of a boycott of Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians.

Are these boycotts anti-Semitic? Maybe not, but, as I noted the other day, they are hypocritical, sanctimonious, and deeply wrong. No one is demanding a boycott of Russian academics over Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and the atrocities committed there (which dwarf, to put it mildly, Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied territories). Or, as Ari Paul points out in an article at Reason.com, a boycott of Chinese academics because of the occupation of Tibet and other assorted abuses by the Chinese regime. Or ... sadly, the list could go on and on.

Partly, this double standard is rooted in the all-too-familiar leftist mentality which strenuously condemns bad behavior by Western or pro-Western governments while turning a blind eye to the far worse misdeeds of communist and/or Third World regimes. (It’s not quite clear into which category Putin’s Russia falls.) But the movement to boycott Israel is especially repulsive because it combines this anti-Western, anti-democratic bias with an element of “picking on the little guy.” No one in his or her right mind, even among the British intelligentsia or Canadian public employees, would propose boycotting American institutions because of the occupation of Iraq. Why? Because, obviously, such a boycott would cripple any institution’s ability to conduct its business; in the case of an academic boycott, it would cripple a country’s academic life and scientific research. But lashing out at Israel as a proxy for America is something one can do with minimal inconvenience.

An American boycott of any institution that participates in this shameful enterprise would be an appropriate response. It would be too much to expect the American Association of University Professors, but the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of Teachers should step up to the plate."

that included this commentary:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I’d simply add that I think one of the prime reasons the Western left, for all its purported “progressivism,” is so concerned with punishing Israel is that Israel, like, say, Michael Steele or Thomas Sowell, has wandered off the progressive plantation and rejected the narrative assigned it by those who presume to speak for a larger identity agenda. Which is to say, kibbutz culture has given way, over the years, to a strong capitalist system—and so Israel is considered by many on the left to be a traitor to the cause of worldwide socialism, just as surely as Steele and Sowell (among others) are considered race traitors for rejecting the political narrative assigned them by those who have assumed the mantle of “authentic” blacks.

This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:


"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. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

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."

That's not true at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :furious3:


:bigcry: :bigcry:

Have you never seen a socialist speak? Perhaps you do not have them there, but the Scottish Socialist Party and Scottish National Party both just propose ill thought-out policies and if anyone says anything against it they shout at them and call them "imperialist", "Tory", "selfish" or someother such name...

edit:I might as well add George Galloway -- you saw him take on the Senate committee. It was beautiful, but exactly as described above.

It's so true, only one end of the political spectrum uses emotional arguments. I've never seen a right wing person descend to that level. And when Malin describes progressives as "cockroaches," or Coulter says that the best way to talk to liberals is with a baseball bat, or when Limbaugh states that "what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party," or when Robertson and Falwell blamed the ACLU and the People for the American Way for the 9/11 attacks, well, that's not emotional.

That's just truthiness.

Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?

---

Yes. Emotionalism and/or incoherence is no reason for a death sentence. The hyperbole of the question does illustrate the point in some fashion however.

Well, lawyer, if over-the-top humor counts as yet another confirmation of your thesis, let's tackle this from another angle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar the Anti-Gah

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

---

Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology. Where's your evidence for this? I know leftists can be blind, screaming idealogues, but so can right-wingers.

The perspective you put forth applies equally well to any idealogue of any party anywhere. How you construe this to apply to only one group is puzzling.

Uhm, if the original arguement threw out Al Franken and Micheal Moore as examples, than maybe the Limbaugh and Coulter counters would be appropriate. I don't think it was aimed at the cable tv-cheerleader riff-raff.

Nevertheless, my question still stands. What evidence exists that leftists have a greater emotional and personal investment in their ideology? As I posted in an earlier thread, there was a lovely experiment that showed partisans, both left and right, use the emotional part of their brain rather than the rational part when confronted with questions that were unfavorable to their chosen candidates. No report that either group reacted more emotionally.

The original post strikes me as a gussied-up flame, imputing a negative human characteristic to a group with whose politics the poster does not agree, and without a shred of evidence to back it up.

No time for an intelligent response. Good thread Pindar!

As to another point made in this flame-ready thread, the post regarding how staunch leftists are unyielding and illogical in their pursuit of orthodoxy, again, this is a characteristic of many political movements. Example:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wing and a prayer: religious right got Bush elected - now they are fighting each other

Campaigners who fail to keep the hardline faith face threats and intimidation

Stephen Bates, religious affairs correspondent
Wednesday May 31, 2006

In his consulting room in a suburb of Montgomery, Alabama, gastrologist Randy Brinson is a worried man. A staunch Republican and devout Baptist, Dr Brinson can claim substantial credit for getting George Bush re-elected in 2004. It was his Redeem the Vote initiative that may have persuaded up to 25 million people to turn out for President Bush. Yet his wife is receiving threats from anonymous conservative activists warning her husband to stay away from politics.

"They've been calling my house, threatening my wife," said Dr Brinson. "The first time was on a day when I was going up to Washington to speak to Republicans in Congress. Only they knew I'd be away from home. The Republicans were advised not to turn up to listen to me, so only three did so."

The reason he has fallen foul of men whose candidate he helped re-elect is that he has dared to question the partisan tactics of the religious right. "Conservatives speak in tones that they have got power and they can do what they want. Only 23% of the population embraces those positions but if someone questions their mandate or wants to articulate a different case, for the moderate right, they are totally ridiculed."

In his office in Washington DC, Rich Cizik, vice-president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest such umbrella group in the US, is also feeling battered. His mistake has been to become interested in the environment, and he has been told that is not on the religious right's agenda.

Mr Cizik, an ordained minister of the Evangelical Presbyterian church and otherwise impeccably conservative on social issues such as abortion, stem-cell research and homosexuality, believes concern for the environment arises from Biblical injunctions about the stewardship of the Earth. The movement's political leadership, however, sees the issue as a distraction from its main tactical priorities: getting more conservatives on the supreme court, banning gay marriages and overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 abortion ruling.

"It is supposed to be counterproductive even to consider this. I guess they do not want to part company with the president. This is nothing more than political assassination. I may lose my job. Twenty-five church leaders asked me not to take a political position on this issue but I am a fighter," he said.

Another Washington lobbyist on the religious right told the Guardian: "Rich is just being stupid on this issue. There may be a debate to be had but ... people can only sustain so many moral movements in their lifetime. Is God really going to let the Earth burn up?"

Such partisan tactics are perhaps to be expected in a divisive political climate, with both sides excoriating each other in moralistic terms in a way that has not been seen in Europe for many years - and which is increasingly incomprehensible to many Europeans.

To Judge Roy Moore, who was unseated as chief justice of the Alabama supreme court in 2003 for refusing to remove a five-tonne granite monument on which were carved the Ten Commandments from the court's foyer, that just shows how far Europe has slid.

Judge Moore, campaigning in the state's primaries to supplant the incumbent Republican governor, during a visit to address a women's club in the town of Enterprise, told the Guardian America was falling into Godlessness, too: "That's it, we're going the same way England is now, without God. Is it true that Islam is taking over there?" he asked.

This is a common idea in rightwing circles and, if some of the arguments sound overheated - a recent radio discussion in Virginia on stem-cell research took it as read that only Christians were capable of moral decisions - the religious right has reason to fear that its reach is declining.

"I would rather put my .38 pistol in a child's room than put a computer or a television set there. The devil's crowd is working how to get to your children," declared Brother Richard Emmett in his Mothering Sunday sermon, broadcast to audiences in eastern Tennessee. There is a sense that some of the evangelists - using the medium that Brother Emmett reviles so much - may have overreached themselves. Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, and Pat Robertson have embarrassed their followers by antics such as blaming the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 on "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make an alternative lifestyle ... to secularise America".

More influential than either is James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts daily to the nation from the organisation's Colorado Springs headquarters. Focus on the Family refused to speak to the Guardian, saying "we have no interest in assisting your research", but Washington journalist Dan Gilgoff says Mr Dobson has moved towards an increasingly partisan stance. Mr Dobson endorsed Mr Bush in 2004 but also unsuccessfully rallied the faithful in defence of Judge Moore's monument and threw his weight behind Harriet Miers' disastrous candidacy for the supreme court last year. Nevertheless, Mr Gilgoff says, "people are scared of crossing him". Mr Dobson is one of those warning Mr Cizik off environmental issues.

But these are ageing leaders, with no comparable successors in sight. And, after years of campaigning against abortion and gays, they have not succeeded in getting their way on either issue. There have been victories, but the president's pledge of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual partnership has not happened.

That does not mean religion is going away as a lobbying force. Dr Brinson has started advising the Democrats on how to get more religion into their politics in the hope of winning the constituency back in the presidential race of 2008. And, if religious broadcasting grates, as one woman in Tennessee told me: "I just turn up the rock music on the radio."

http://www.liberals-suck.com/

http://www.cafepress.com/allrightgear/189074

http://www.wanderlist.com/whyliberalssuck

http://whyliberalssuck.blogspot.com/

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/mrmagoo/20.html

http://www.urbanvancouver.com/aggregator/sources/289

These are all from the first page of a google search for "liberals suck".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology.

---

Lol, Lemur, don't you see what just happened? He took something ironic you said to make a joke, instead of replying to the actual point you put forth. Now you ask again. What would happen if you hadn't said " Pindar, do you see any reason to allow leftists to live?"? What would he say?

I think it's quite obvious that he has a bias, remember his pro-Bush thread. Pro-Bush!?! :laugh4: What do you expect?
It's still interesting that he put forth this topic, because it reflects what I think of him, someone apears intelligent superficially, but yet believes what he does. :laugh4:

Byz, I don't think there's any reason to question Pindar's intelligence. There are plenty of smart people with whom I disagree.

What irks me about his original post is that (a) it imputes a universal human negative exclusively to people with whom he disagrees, and (b) in a very lawyerly fashion he distances himself from his unpleasant and ungenerous message by using quotes from others' posts.

[edit]

The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this thread winds up as locked as his last one. Which will, doubtless, confirm his thesis that his opponents are all immature, illogical and generally witless.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...a/FLAMEWAR.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...a/FLAMEWAR.gif

---

Isn't that always the result of stuck on emotional idealogue postions end up anyway?

Which is what the last two sentences of the initial post states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinder's post

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."

---

And yes their are pundits on the right that have just as much of a problem, but with the diversity of left leaning political sprectrums there on the surface does seem to be a higher degree of it coming from the left versus the right.

Ok i replaced certain keywords of this statement and can someone on the "right" deny this statement?

Quote:

---

This then lead to the below statement by a blogger which I thought some might find interesting:


"Conservatism is 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. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in conservatism.

If one believes in conservatism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in conservatism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in conservatism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

This tends to make the right 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."

---

When one looks at a coin.There are two sides that look different.But are still same material and act in same purpose.:bow:

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Again, you write this as though only people on the left end of the political spectrum have an emotional investment in their ideology. Where's your evidence for this?

---

I did not make this claim. The idea is the identity politics of the Left and the emotional investment it typically entails.

Quote:

---

The whole thrust of his post is "Aren't people who think differently from me and mine a bunch of incoherent, emotional smacktards?" I mean, really.

---

Actually, it's not. The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.
There can be nothing more emotional and angry than a crazy right winger debating abortion , homosexuality , tax , gun-control , immigration , religeon .............
So the tendancy of the emotional left is balanced by the tendancy of the emotional right .

---

Exactly, specially about gun control.

The first post in it's first pragraph clearly states "etc-ism" I think that he wanted to say any ideology in general, and not only the left. This followed by the fact that everything he states applies to any side of the spectrum. By the way, I agree with everything he said, and it has happened to me several times, I interiorized some conviction as part of my own identity and refused to believe otherwise, luckyly that has changed for the best. However I've my doubts about this thread: Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity? Wich would not be true since you're a religious being. Or that the majority of the so called right wind, specially conservatives, do not tend to interiorize such convictions? By the way, if you believe in all that you posted, perhaps you're proving that both sides are equal on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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."

---

Riiiggghhhht....

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

:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Are you implying that you (Pindar) do not interiorize convictions as part of your own identity?

---

Hello

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Riiiggghhhht....

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

---

There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I'm not sure I understand your question. Maybe this will suffice: I do not hold to an argument as rational if it cannot be demonstrated as such, nor do I personalize theoretical issues.

---

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

But what about religion then? When I say interiorize it means to take something external as yours, something that gives you form as a person, that defines you.

---

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.

If I may wax in the mold of Henry James: perturbation about contrary views simply because of their contrariness is the work of an untutored mind and/or an indicator of a certain emotionalism run amuck.

Does that answer your question good sir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The interest of the post is the rhetorical posture it describes.

---

And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.

[edit]

I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.

If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If I adopt a stance on some X, whether it be political, religious or otherwise and part of that adoption includes a rational component then rational standards apply. If it is not a rational issue then no such correspondence is needed or relevant, but then the force of the view may be rightly called into question. Regardless, as I previously stated: I don't personalize theoretical issues. For example, if I take Jesus as the Christ which includes the idea He is Divine and some other utterly rejects that view, I don't consider it a personal attack.
Does that answer your question good sir?

---

My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.

Lemur made a very good point right at the beginning that the characteristics applied by this blogger to leftists (which seems quite a generalization to begin with) can just as easily be applied to the right (though that requires another blatant generalization).

I think the important things to remember are that the blogger's sentiments were opinion and not a reasoned argument-and should be treated as such-and that there is a great spectrum of personalities on both sides, neither mindless zealotry or reasonable contemplation being exclusive to one or the other.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And you just happened to pick an example that depicts people whose politics are contrary to yours as the unfortunates in this "rhetorical posture"? I believe you; millions wouldn't.

---

I didn't pick an example. I did post a commentary focused on the identity politics of the Left.

Quote:

---

I'm going to be AFK for several days, but in the meantime, I would appreciate hearing a coherent argument from Pindar. If your thesis is that leftists with "identity politics" are more prone to having an emotional investment than any other group on earth in their ideology, please provide some evidence. Here is a link to a write-up of the brain study I mentioned earlier. Surely if Democrats were more inherently emotional, or rendered so by their beliefs, a measurable discrepancy would have showed up in the brain scans.

If you have access to tangible evidence which refutes the study, I eagerly await your reply.

---

The position put forward wasn't about emotional investment per say, but a larger rhetorical posture which can lead to an emotionalism. That posture was identified with identity politics and the personalization of issues. The topic sentence and lead sentence indicate the stance: "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." Do you see?

I can't comment on the study since I don't know the details. I can say that the emotional reaction of any given individual doesn't really relate to the initial post which is the rhetorical stance of the Left identified as an identity politic. Noting the Left with identity politics is not a new idea. If you follow political discourse this should not be new information. Two of the authors I reference made the same claim in this regard. If you disagree then put forward your counter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

My point was this. Do you argue against abortion from a religious point of view? For example. I know that several people do, in fact many jurist do, and the arguements seem to be all emotional. EDIT: At some point it seems imposible to separete yourself for a certain creed, whatever it's. In this particular case the dogma mixes up with issues that require a reality check.

---

My argument against abortion in the public sphere is jurisprudential namely: I don't believe the Supreme Court can create rights ex nihilo. Rights must be a product of the popular will i.e. the amendment process. The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to allow for the popular will to demonstrate itself is one of the reasons for the political carnage on the issue today.

Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self.

All frequencies of the political spectrum carry the potential for over-emotionalism. Lefties, Righties, even Mugwumps can get caught up in the emphasis of their beliefs.

Identification with a political cause, with a political belief, with a philosophy of goverment can become quite an important component of one's identity. The quest to know ourselves, to define ourselves, is the driving force -- and many of us spend our whole lives in pursuit of a clear sense of self (in part because it is an ever-metamorphosing target).

To remove emotionalism from politics, you would have to remove emotionalism from humanity. I do not think this likely.

A studious effort to downplay the emotive in favor of the factual and demonstrable is probably the best for which one can strive.

When I was living in Taiwan they had the Presidential elections. It was like a massive sports event with people running on emotions.

For myself an Aussie elections are where you vote on economic and social policy. It just isn't that exciting when it comes down to two parties that only significant difference is colour preference... red or blue.

ALP = Australian Labour Party.

Which is funny since the government is the Liberal Party... hence they are also ALP. :dizzy2:

There is a larger difference but when viewed against the backdrop of the entire worlds spectrum of political choices it seems that the two main parties are playing safe and have very similar polices.

However the industrial reform may in fact create a significant enough change to make voting out the incumbent worth the effort.

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives. It is an assault not just on their identity, because it attacks what they perceive as objectively right. Because their convictions are divinely inspired, either through clear revelation or imbued in their nature by their creator, any deviation from their convictions is wrong. This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents. Either because of rational reasoning, or inherent moral virtue they have chosen the right faith. Below them are all the apostates, the unbelievers, the heretics and the pagans, who either irrationally deny the truth of God, or because they are inherently immoral and are not capable of recognising that wich is truly right. This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues.

Thank you, it's clear from where you're coming with this.

Since this thread is all about spurious generalisations, I'll join in the fun.

Abortion, gay marriage and seperation of church and state are not just political issues for religious conservatives...This means that religious conservatives believe that they do not only have the authority of God on their side, but that they themselves are superior, they themselves are better then their opponents...This imbues the religious right with a certain arrogance, a "holier-then-thou" attitude, and a contempt for all opposition.

---

Hello,

Your statement reflects something I already posted:

"Positions where the conclusion is taken as inseparable from an given identity can lead to the very issue I think is noted in the first post. In the religious arena this is easy to see: a religious fervent who disavows a child who tells them he is gay might be an example. The perceived religious viewpoint moves the fervent to reject what is taken as inimical to their belief even if that includes their own blood. I think the commentaries' authors would argue a similar rhetoric informs the general identity politics of the Left where the opposition must demonize the opposition because the opposition is a direct affront to the self."

Given the comparison: do you agree that the identity politics of the Left leads to the conclusion of the original commentary?

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.

:book:

edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There you go! Spoken like a true dyslexic agnostic insomniac. ~;)

---

And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely. :smug:

As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base. :laugh4:

:rtwyes: Goofball, Goofball! :rtwyes:

Wow, this thread has just proven to me exactly why members of this board hold Pindar in such high esteem! How did I not see it before? Great thread!

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

It's a generalisation. For some leftists and their politics, yes. The part about the black republicans is dead right. As many posters have already pointed out, this occurs with right wingers also. Religious (moral) absolutists are the most obvious example, because an attack on one of their moral standpoints is automaticly perceived as an attack on their moral framework.

---

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Anyone participating in this thread ever read The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell? I recommend it highly.

:book:

edit: link 4 teh lazee

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046...Fencoding=UTF8

---

Sowell is an interesting fellow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And that dyslexic agnostic insomniac only destroyed your starting post entirely. :smug:

As your starting post concludes that the left's anti-Israel stance on is based on emotional issues, not rational ones.
And as a proof of this ,you refer to Goofball who is a very pro-Israeli from a emotional base. :laugh4:

:rtwyes: Goofball, Goofball! :rtwyes:

---

I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't understand your post. I don't think you understood my reply to Goofball. If you look at Goofball's title under his name you will note: dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I referred to his title when replying to him. I then added a smiley wink. My reply was not related to Israel. It dealt with what I thought was a funny reply from Goofball.

---

Certainly. But he still destroy the starting point of your original argument. ~;p

Sure, people often are emotionally involved and not logically involved when it comes to politics, but it's not particullary bound to any political colour.

I mean claiming that

Quote:

---

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

---

and then not see that in many cases the same thing happens (for some people) when it comes to abortion, gun laws, big goverment etc is walking through life with blinkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Certainly. But he still destroy the starting point of your original argument. ~;p

---

I don't follow you.

Quote:

---

Sure, people often are emotionally involved and not logically involved when it comes to politics, but it's not particullary bound to any political colour.

---

I have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.

It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.

Pindar, the point of the author is obvious to anyone with common sense IMO. Certainly if people's values/ideas are challenged then that offends their egos. It isn't that insightful. The trick is to distance your ego from the issue, and see it more clearly without bias, which is what philosophy has taught us. This is the point right?

I think a lot of people identify with the Left, so it offends them that you only pick on the left, and leaves them questioning your own motivations for doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I don't follow you.

---

Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.

Now if you intended something different with your original post, see below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have not made any exclusionary claim. The reason I put forward the commentary for replies was I thought the charge made was interesting. It interested me, because the critique of identity politics would actually place it parallel to religious sentiment as a simple example. This would explain the emotionalism and provide context.

It doesn't seem many of the replies have challenged the conclusion, but have instead been either hostile or wanted to point to other groups as well. This suggests the author may have got it right.

---

The reason is that as BP suggested it is formulated in a poor way for a balanced discusion. I won't get any decent responeses if I posted a claim that "the average American would make a chimpanze cover thier head in shame for being related with those stupid idiots" and didn't add that the true debate I wanted was the quality of the lower American school system. Most Americans here would feel insulted and point out that this was wrong, or that this isn't a particular American issue but would exist in other places too. In this case it would probably contain quite a few insults too in there anyway. Now an American known for having issues with the school system and known to be a proud American could probably get away with this, but not a Europeian.
Or to put it simple: You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).
As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Well, your first quote basically says that the criticism of Israel is hypocritical (somewhat valid, in some cases that criticism goes too far) and that it's some way of punishing US while not really punishing the US.
The second one if speculating that the left's dislike of Israel has something to do with that they are supposed to feel betrayed by Israel.
Then you got a piece about the left (and only the left) being too emotionally obsessed by politics.
With no added information, the easiest conclusion drawed is that getting emotionally obsessed by politics is a very common phenomena on the left (and only to the left) and the anti-Israeli policy is a very big prove of that. Goofball, who is pro-Israeli and very emotional about that, proves that the bolded part is wrong.

---

I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.

As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.

Quote:

---

You can't expect posting an article consisting of a negative view on something and that the article put it only on the "other" side and get a reasonable discussion. Unless you actually add what you really want to discuss and that you're not fully agreeing with the attack that the original article contains (unless in that very rare case that the article is true, but then the debate would have a different behavior pattern).

---

I think one can present a whole host of theoretical issues where it doesn't require people to personalize. Earlier I gave the example of a possible religious exchange where one might utterly reject the notion Jesus was Divine. Jesus being Divine is considered a fundamental principle for orthodox Christendom. Now, if a religious fervent got emotionally out of sorts because of this rejection by another then I think its natural to ask why? The rejection of Jesus as Divine is not a personal indictment or an insult per say, but the fervent may still get emotional because their religiosity is tied up in their sense of self. If that same rubric applies to the Left's identity politic then that is telling.

Quote:

---

As for the seriousity. This is the Backroom, people here debates politics way more seriously here than they would do in real life. Life and death issues here can be barely noticible in real life.

---

Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.

Quote:

---

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people.

---

I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?

Quote:

---

Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos."

---

In my experience most leftists are not egotistical. Identifying yourself with an -ism that you believe is good will natural feed your ego a bit, but "central support" is a gross exaggeration.

Quote:

---

"They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do."

---

"crucial structure" is another exaggeration.

Quote:

---

"If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.



Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism."

---

I've met plenty of smart conservatives and stupid liberals, and I'm sure most leftists have as well. The blogger is essentially claiming that leftists have no powers of observation.

Quote:

---

"And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.



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."

---

Not much to say here. His logic is fine, but since he based it on the faulty assumption that for leftists politics is a crucial support of themselves, it all comes tumbling down in the end.

I would say when leftists get emotional or angry when debating it is because they feel there are wrongs which must be righted, and conservatives are persistent in continuing what they see as injustice. Nothing to do with ego's or identities being threatened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

My argument against abortion in the public sphere is jurisprudential namely: I don't believe the Supreme Court can create rights ex nihilo. Rights must be a product of the popular will i.e. the amendment process. The U.S. Supreme Court's failure to allow for the popular will to demonstrate itself is one of the reasons for the political carnage on the issue today.

---

Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

"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."

---

Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?

You've been nitpicking others' conclusions when your entire premise is flawed. In fact, it is ridiculous.

I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar. Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't see how politics is separable from identity. You can't believe "I am a liberal" without it being part of your identity. For who is "simple politics" not at all related to their identity?

---

I think a political stance may be a part of one's identity, but I don't think there is any necessity to it. In my own case my political views, like any theoretical posture I hold to, has an attendant rationale. I hold to P because of Q. If the Q should change or no longer prove warranted then the P is no longer held to. The holding to any particular P or its removal is not constitutive to my person or identity, but a reflection of the justification for the idea itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Interesting, what would have been of the US today if they ratified the Pact of San José. Anyway you've proved your point well, but still the point stands that you're one of millions, and the politic identity applies to the whole spectrum.

---

The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.

I don't think identity politics is a spectrum wide phenomena. I think it may apply to specific groups.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Um, and why exactly couldn't you add 'conservatism' or 'neo-conservatism' or 'moral absolutism' to this list?

---

I have made no claim they couldn't. I don't know how some would apply: neo-conservatism given its straussian impulse would be hard fit I would think.

Quote:

---

I'm really quite surprised you find this interesting Pindar.

---

I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.

Quote:

---

Do you also enjoy objective, non-emotional, purely-rational conservative shows such as The O'Reilly Factor?

---

No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The ratification of the Pact of San Jose would have become a treaty. Treaties do not trump the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court via Judicial Review determines the bounds of the Constitution and as such could have ruled as they did irrespective of any treaty.

---

So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose? Totally of topic, but the Courts here were used to do the same until a famous case (Ekmekdjian vs Sofovich, 1992), even if we've a continental system, jurisprudence has a lot of strenght. The one set by that sentence told that all articles on any treaty on human rights, that's ratified, is inmediatly operative regardless of what the text says or what the tribunals could say. Any case ruling otherwise would be repealed at the Supreme Court wich treats all this issues. However treaties do not trump our Constitution either, the same Constitution includes a number of treaties on human rights since 1994, and even those cannot trump the first half of the Constitution.

https://img333.imageshack.us/img333/...riends23kx.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

So even if ratified, and against international custom, the US can unbind itself from any treaty, even one of human rights as the Pact of San Jose?

---

Yes. The same applies to the ratifying authority: the U.S. Senate can reject, void, amend or ignore any treaty it sees fit at any time. There may be international political fallout, but that is a question of prudence, not law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I see. I actually read the final commentary not as a simple piece on emotional obsession, but that political conclusions can become tied to personal identity which may lead to the emotion and that this was indicated by the Left's identity politics. This is why the thread is titled as it is. It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.

---

The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks. And if that is because a building technique that was also used in Brooklyn Bridge, then the reaction will be simular to how this thread would look like, instead of arguing about the building technique in ESB and it's advantages and disadvantages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

As far as Goofball's ways and means regarding Israel I wouldn't know. His comment didn't mention Israel nor was it an argument nor was it emotional or angry. Rather, it was a comment on emotion in his arguments that I thought was rather funny which I think was the intent.

---

Goofball's stance on the Palestine/Israel issue is known from earlier threads. Yeah I know that he was witty and you responded in the same way, but to simplify:
Starting thread: The left is very emontional about politics, especially about Israel.
Goofball: I'm very emontional.
You: See, I got proof.
Me: No you didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Quite! I'm actually surprised by the hostility, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. If the blogger's commentary was off then it could simply be dismissed. It doesn't seem really anyone has challenged his conclusion. Rather, the tact has been to argue other groups are equally inclined. I think the references to the religious right are the most telling because it is their religiosity that is the operative. This would then suggest the Left's identity politic mirrors religious fervor.

---

The thing that have stirred up all the mess is that the original starting post is an attack on the left. Not militant vegans or other extreme groups sneaking around in the outskirts of the left of politics, but the entire left. What's occuring then is that people who identify themself as the left, by thier own definition or others, will feel hit by it. Not because it's about themself, but as the statement has some truth in it when it comes to a group they identify with. Leaving the statement as it is, cannot then be left unrefuted without implying that it is true as a hole and not partly. The statement contains enough truth to make it impossible to simply dismiss it, but is so far from the truth that it cannot be left unrefuted.
For example I occationally defends the youth on some matters, not because I feel hit directly as the criticism is usually aimed at the groups known as chavs, white trash etc, etc, but as they drag the hole group known as the youth into that group if I leave it unrefuted.

And what's the left's Jesus so to speak? What argument, if correct, will have thier entire world view crashing down on them?

The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.

The show must go on!:skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is a generalization. If you see a parallel between identity politics on the Left and religious absolutists then would you agree that the rhetoric of identity politics assumes a moral hue?

---

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have made no claim they couldn't.

---

The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)

Quote:

---

I've always found rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups interesting. You feel differently it appears. I guess not all things can appeal to all people.

---

No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?

Quote:

---

No, I don't. If I recall, O'Reilly doesn't put himself forward as a conservative.

---

I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.

In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.

Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The problem is that the starting post is saying a finer version of that the Empire State Building sucks.

---

Whether the focus is the suckiness* of the Empire State Building or no, the focus remains the Empire State Building.


*A very fun word.

Quote:

---

Goofball's stance on the Palestine/Israel issue is known from earlier threads. Yeah I know that he was witty and you responded in the same way, but to simplify:
Starting thread: The left is very emontional about politics, especially about Israel.
Goofball: I'm very emontional.
You: See, I got proof.
Me: No you didn't.

---

Ahh, my friend, statements must be taken as given. One cannot imbue a position that isn't stated. Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.

I don't think your simplification works either: I didn't take Goofball's statement as any proof text.

Quote:

---

The thing that have stirred up all the mess is that the original starting post is an attack on the left. Not militant vegans or other extreme groups sneaking around in the outskirts of the left of politics, but the entire left. What's occuring then is that people who identify themself as the left, by thier own definition or others, will feel hit by it. Not because it's about themself, but as the statement has some truth in it when it comes to a group they identify with. Leaving the statement as it is, cannot then be left unrefuted without implying that it is true as a hole and not partly. The statement contains enough truth to make it impossible to simply dismiss it, but is so far from the truth that it cannot be left unrefuted.

---

If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.

Quote:

---

And what's the left's Jesus so to speak? What argument, if correct, will have thier entire world view crashing down on them?

---

If the parallel holds the Left's Jesus would be the leftist ideology itself (the promised utopia as it were). Thus the orthodox would be those most loyal to the fundamental teachings and the political opposition the infidels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

The author has it teribbly mixed up; he's attaching the wrong emotional complex to the quagmire of having their ideas challanged by the right. The only thing a lefty can do when confronted with these truths is to experience pure and unbridled amusement.

The show must go on!:skull:

---

I suggested that very alternative in a post or two above. Yet, interestingly, many of the reposes have been quite different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of "hue" in this context.

---

Hue refers to an aspect or type. Moral hue would mean a type or kind of morality.

Quote:

---

You keep on capitalizing the Left, as if it's a monolith movement, and it's obviously written from a US conservative position. It's the old trap of trying to generalize what you perceive as your political opponents into one catagory, rallying "us" against "them". Call it inverse-identity politics. I find it amusing how some people can't seem to argue with me without putting me in the same catagory as Hillary Clinto, Hugo Chavez or Che Guevara, but when they persist it gets really annoying.

---

Difficulties with capitalization? OK, I can adjust easily enough: left.

Quote:

---

So yeah, some "leftists" (with a small "l") are emotionally impaired when it comes to rational discussions. Excuse me, I feel no need to defend them just because I fit in the same arbitrarily defined political catagory.

---

Quite so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

The entire premise of the thread depends on a distinction between liberals and non-liberals. And it has yet to be demonstrated. (and no, merely pointing out the flaws in your argument is not getting emotional.)

---

This doesn't follow does it. Pointing out some X has aspect Y in no way indicates Y could not be held by some other.

Quote:

---

No, I agree with you there, I too find rhetorical postures interesting. Especially the ones that are patently biased and yet refuse to admit they are. I wonder what THAT says about the fragility of egos?

---

Then I don't know why you stated you were surprised I might find this interesting.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised you care about people rejecting labels that have been attached to them, since you've just done the same to a far wider group of people.

---

I don't know what this refers to. I have not claimed some fellow was part of group X who says he is not part of group X.

Quote:

---

In any event, as several posters have noted, the proper response to such an obviously flawed rhetorical position is amusement. I'll just be sitting back and enjoying.

Thus do the inherent flaws of a priori reasoning manifest themselves.

---

I don't understand your reference to a priori reasoning. The commentary is not a priori reasoning. It is a posteriori.

It is an exploratory of the Left and identity politics. No other referent is required any more than if one were one were discussing the Empire State Building and others interject ideas on the Brooklyn Bridge. Interjections about the Brooklyn Bridge may have interest of their own, but are not the focus.
Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Look , Pindar has explained this , the topic is the left . Any focus on any group that is not the left is irrelevant , any post that says the right is just about as bad as the left is irrelevant , please keep the discussion within Pindars parameters as he will not contemplate any thoughts that do not fall within his own narrowly defined parameters .
Thank you , and GAH

---

That sums it up quite nicely, thanks.

It's just that one usually reads Pindar's posts--which unfortunately have been all too rare lately-- with some enthusiasm, expecting that there will be some real content to them. This is just a rather banal myopia masquerading as some sort of argument, with a sprinkling of unconvincing logic chopping as the sole garnish. To meet banality with banality, we might ask where, my good Pindar, is the beef?

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

---

But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

If the statement has truth in it then whither the need to refute? If a perceived adjustment, say like such applies to a part and not the whole were thought necessary then one could easily state such without hostility or rancor.

---

Do you really find that it's acutally needed? There's two ways such a statements can be made looking like the gross generalisation is true. It's either saying nothing ("Oh look spot on, they're stunned by your brilliance") or saying that's not me ("Now we got them on denial").

As for the tone, aggresive posts usually gets agressive responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

But I have been rather amused by some of the responses.

---

Isn't that something you do when you're bored? Amuse yourself?

Because I'm starting to feel that Pindarbot thought: "I wonder what rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups I would get if I posted a very aggressive post with considerable generalizations and defined the extent of the thread to such a narrow view that any reasonable discussion is impossible, while still leaving enough room for me to claim that I didn't."

Well it's always good training up the debating skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Isn't that something you do when you're bored? Amuse yourself?

---

I find things to occupy myself with when I am bored.


I find your post here rather amusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I find things to occupy myself with when I am bored.


I find your post here rather amusing.

---

Well, everything to amuse my fellow Orgah! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

That sums it up quite nicely, thanks.

It's just that one usually reads Pindar's posts--which unfortunately have been all too rare lately-- with some enthusiasm, expecting that there will be some real content to them. This is just a rather banal myopia masquerading as some sort of argument, with a sprinkling of unconvincing logic chopping as the sole garnish. To meet banality with banality, we might ask where, my good Pindar, is the beef?

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

---

Alas, I have been dealing with intellectual property law and the legal bog that is China. This eats into Org. visits.

As far as banal myopia masquerades, (lovely phrasing by the way) the argument doesn't seem to have seen much by way of substantive Reposts. In fact, most of the responses seem to have recognized either explicitly or implicitly the basic thrust of the commentary. Attempts to expand a critique do not invalidate the original object of critique. I think the beef can be seen anytime one can attract the attention of the Irishman. He is one of the best illustrations of what the Left leads to, which is always entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Do you really find that it's acutally needed?

---

Needed? I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look. "Know Thyself" has been the model of the Western mind from its earliest days.

Quote:

---

Because I'm starting to feel that Pindarbot thought: "I wonder what rhetoric and the rhetorical posture of groups I would get if I posted a very aggressive post with considerable generalizations and defined the extent of the thread to such a narrow view that any reasonable discussion is impossible, while still leaving enough room for me to claim that I didn't."

---

There is nothing narrow in looking to the rhetorical posture of the Left unless one says the mere fact of choosing an object of focus passes beyond reasonable discussion.

I think the beef can be seen anytime one can attract the attention of the Irishman
Pindar , your posts always attract my attention , anyone who thinks that the public was not misled over Iraq , the tonkin incident did happen as described even after the person who gave the description said it was made up rubbish , and that US forces were not ordered to shoot on civilians in Korea is always good for a bit of ridicule .

If memes are to spread they have to have mechanisms to do so and the ability to stay in a host.

If a suite of memes work best together by giving the host an endorphin rush and in turn makes the host happier and more likely to spread the memes then this would be a valid evolutionary strategy for a suite of memes to evolve.

For instance people are passionate about sports so lots of people learn about how games are played... the "knowledge about sports & co." suite of memes spreads. While people tend to be a tad less passionate about accounting so it is not spread through passionate mechanism but some other means.

Some memes will spread by being of direct benefit to the wellbeing of the host, others will spread by changing how the host feels about themselves and I assume there is a lot of other methods.

When it comes to politics (of which religion is a meme subset) I can see why passion is important... as these ideas aren't relating to needs in a first world country, they all to often are relating to wants, desires, passions. Also passion allows politics to bypass rational crtique of the ideas impedended within the suite. So the memic suite will in turn spread easier... why eat a bitter pill when you can coat it with sugar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Needed? I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look. "Know Thyself" has been the model of the Western mind from its earliest days.

---

But the problem isn't "Know Thyself", it is the presentation. It would require that everyone that feels that it doesn't apply to them needs to literaly state so. And beginning the post with a version of "That's not me, but..." is a very defensive stance and also commonly used from self-deluded people. How do you as a viewer see the difference between the self-deluded ones and the honest ones?
So to be able to have an honest debate you'll either need to not be indentified on the left (or liberal for that matter) in any way, or you'll need to start out with a very defensive position, that accidently also is very simular to the exact group that is under question. That's not a fair debate.

And that the original article is a statement doesn't exactly increase the odds for a reasonable deabate, when the borders of discussion is very narrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There is nothing narrow in looking to the rhetorical posture of the Left unless one says the mere fact of choosing an object of focus passes beyond reasonable discussion.

---

So you're now stating that the more than 50% of the left is a bunch of self-deluded people? As the "fact" (in the original post), as you eloquently put it, states just that.

Besides, it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Almost 2500 US soldiers have died in Iraq. Have they died trying to bring peace and prosperity, or because of the smokescreens and mishandling? Both things are true, but will give very different responses.

For fun, let see now how much area we got for a debate.

To answer the original post:

That's true that in some cases people in radical groups on the left does invest way to much emotional capital into the politics, making it impossible to them to identify themself outside that political frame. That unfortunate reasoning seems to plague many different groups of people and not only on the left. Claiming that more than half the population left of this authour is suffering from that condition is absurd though, and indicates self-delution by the authour.

Now we could debate if the left is more prone to that than the right, but as to determine that we need a reference and as that reference is how common this condition is on the right, it falls outside the focus of the thread and thus cannot be argued about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I simply provide a torch to reveal the brackish pool that serves as the spawning ground for the self-delusion that seems to foster in so much of the Left. What one does with that knowledge is up to those who would look.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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"?

---

I believe a bit of monetary renumeration would also be in order. ~;p

Anyway, here's an example of what Pindar's torch might reveal:

Quote:

---

What gun culture ?
That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .

---

Observe the smug, condescending insult. The direct implication that those who disagree are either criminal or dim-wits who are compelled by crude showmanship, not any principled ideology. This comes from the base presumption that lefties' side on any issue is the morally superior side, and results in the emotionalism displayed in many cases. They cannot just disagree, they must insult and smear those are not of the same mind.

Crazed Rabbit

PS. Be 'lefties' I refer to those like the 'Kos' fellow, and many democrat party activists, not the general left leaning population here at the Org.

Observe the smug, condescending insult. The direct implication that those who disagree are either criminal or dim-wits who are compelled by crude showmanship, not any principled ideology.

Observe the emotional attatchment to the issue from Rabbit , who due to his fixation with his right to possess an inanimate object cannot understand the question that was asked or the reply it recieved .
BTW the question was about gun culture in the UK . So in the UK ......That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .
But some people get really emotional and get a mental block over issues don't they .:2thumbsup:

Old Age doesn't kill pensioners, Conservatives do.

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

Quote:

---

That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension.

---

IMHO, this is oh so true.

What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing? I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.

Offtopic...

Generally, old people are the cause of their own deaths. For example my own grandmother:

Refused Meals on Wheels
Refused occupational therapy input in falling aids, banisters, ramps, removing pointed tables
Refused home help
Refused residential home placement

So, she lives alone and has a cleaner in once a week. She fell when we were there onto a concrete flor as she was sitting on a takk unstable stool and reaching for a folder. It took 3 to move her to her usual chair. Basically there is a real chance that if we'd not been there she'd have died as she could not move and no guests were expected for days. She describes the event as "a bit silly"... :dizzy2:

It is her right to choose a situation that will mean there is a significan liklihood one time she will be found dead at home. I may not agree with that, but it's the way things are.

~:smoking:

What has gun wnership got to do with either being right of left wing?
Because it is an issue that some people get very emotional about .

I'm fairly right, but I am against gun ownership.

Why are you against gun ownership ?

Here's an article from the Associated Press, basically accusing anyone for secure immigration of being a racist:

Quote:

---

Immigration debate stirs racial tensions
By ERIN TEXEIRA
AP National Writer
NEW YORK (AP) -- As the fight over immigration reform drags on, an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced.

---

And

Quote:

---

Sociologist Gonzalo Santos of California State University at Bakersfield said immigration is just the latest example of social policy issues taking on racial overtones in America.

"People talk about immigration as if race doesn't matter, saying 'No, I don't have anything against immigrants or Mexicans, it's just the illegal part of it I don't like.' But those are code words," he said. "We experience race in this country through issues like welfare policy, anti-poverty programs and now immigration."

---

I'd post something for tribesy, but he's really his own refutation. :laugh4: :2thumbsup:

Crazed Rabbit