A perspective on the Left and identity politics

[Pindar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

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

[Hurin_Rules]

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

[Redleg]

Maybe he was bored.

ho hum

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

[Ironside]

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.

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Ironside]

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!

[Pindar]

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.

[Pindar]

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Papewaio]

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?

[Ironside]

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[naut]

Old Age doesn't kill pensioners, Conservatives do.

This thread makes me feel intelectually small,

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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"...

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.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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.

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

I don't quite see what there is to be so smug about, CR. So you can cite some obscure academics who say stupid things on the left -- as Rumsfeld would say, henny-penny, the sky is falling. Never mind that the people you're quoting have no real power, and are probably as marginalized as most extremists ought to be.

Never mind who's really holding political power in this country, or what decisions they are making, or what consequences we're facing. No, let's focus our energies on the most marginal, dogmatic people we can find.

I swear, this whole thread has about as much relevance to what's going on in our nation as the President's push for a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution. So let me revise my earlier statements: This thread is not only one-sided, smug and intellectually lazy, it's also a blatant piece of self-congratulation and distraction for our more conservative ograhs. Can't you lads soap each others' beards in your private club, where the rest of us don't have to watch?

[Crazed Rabbit]

It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.

But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It isn't just obscure academics, it is the mainstream media that is writing about this as though it were true. Were it just a few nuts, that'd be a different thing. Each side has their own kooks.

But this is an associated press article that agrees with what those nuts are saying, presenting it as though it were fact.

Crazed Rabbit

Actually it says:

"an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced."

And then describes that part of the debate. The writer quotes people to show their point of view, which is the job of the media.


I don't even see why you posted the article. How does it show that the majority of leftists get angry because people who disagree with them are a threat to their egos?

[Kanamori]

I don't understand why the press should be devoid of political beliefs anyway. As long as thing's are represented in truth, I do not see how it can make a difference, except to those who are easily tricked. I would also think that a good press would show, or at least provide a forum for, the spectrum and not just cherrypicked, good ol conservative, pro status quo, and minimal change positions.

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. Pointing to examples of lefties who use only emotion, even if everyone is an example for it, does not show some causal link between the two. Heck, even someone who is only emotional can come to a correct conclusion, if only by chance. So, I see no point in this whole thing besides that having an identity going into a discussion is bad, which I would agree with. If you choose your positions because of how you identify yourself, you've no reason to come to the conclusions that you come to. And so, you would have no support justifying your conclusions and no thing to warrant that belief.

[screwtype]

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.

No, but ya gotta love the title!

[screwtype]

Goofball's statement did not mention Israel, it wasn't an argument, nor was it emotional.

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.

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...

[screwtype]

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.

Which is as good a cue as any for what I wanted to say in regards to this debate.

The Right loves to castigate the Left for being "emotional" (read irrational, illogical, girlish, weak etc). Conservatives of course tend to champion traditional gender roles, in which the male is lionized as (ahem) the "decider". Thus by feminizing the Left, conservatives reinforce their own notions of themselves as strong, masculine, responsible, rational and right - ie, the faction naturally born to lead.

One can see right away that framing the debate in these terms is itself inherently irrational, as it is based on instinctive feelings and projection (ie, of the weak, feminine, rejected part of the self onto the other).

But there's a more important issue at stake. In my experience, people who pride themselves on their ability to think logically and unemotionally about a subject are those in fact most prone to be totally dominated in their decision making by their emotions. The reason is because most such people are not actually in control of their emotions so much as they are in denial of them.

To put it another way, before you can genuinely look at an issue with a degree of objectivity, you have to first be aware of your own emotions regarding the matter. If you aren't fully aware of, or are reluctant to examine, your own emotional responses to an issue, then you are leaving the door wide open for your unexamined and thus unconscious emotions to completely dominate your thought processes.

An extreme example of this is Nazism. The Nazis who engineered the holocaust imagined themselves to be dealing with the world in cold, hard, logical terms, shorn of foolish feminine emotions. Out of that worldview sprang the gas chambers. For the Nazis, it was the logical, unemotional response to the need for racial purity. The only problem being that the initial premise was barking mad in the first place - and the "solution" equally bestial.

The problem for most of these "rational, unemotional" conservatives, as they like to see themselves, is that they are not actually unemotional, rather they are either not in touch with or in denial of their emotions - and thus unable to think rationally at all.

As you yourself said Pindar, the unoffical Western motto for millenia has been the Greek phrase know thyself. The problem for conservatives being that they don't want to know themselves - they shrink from the world of emotions like vampires from sunlight. And because of that, their much vaunted "rationality" is an illusion.

Hence the abominable mess in Iraq.

[Pindar]

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 .

...?

[Pindar]

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

There is no reference to percentages in the initial commentary.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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.

So you don't care for rhetorical flourish? OK, fair enough.