A Hilarious Piss Take on Liberal "Feelings"

Politics International Politics
21

Bob I am glad you had a great trip but come one, this “I found there was a peace in the people there” is just as much a bullshit generalization as those who think that all Muslims are terrorists. The problem today is not Islam, it is those who have hijacked it for political purposes much like Christian Kings no doubt did centuries ago for their own immoral purposes. The problem is that so much of the Muslim world is silent or at least was until Bush came along about these problems in the ranks.

I believe that we will stem the terrorism when we take down the regimes that support it. We have removed Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and to some extent Sudan and Somalia from the equation. Things look good in Lebanon and Palestine or at least better. The two nations doing most of the funding and supporting of terrorism are Syria and Iran and must be taken down. There are no half measures in this fight. The funding from Saudi Arabia has been substantially reduced but the poison remains. Ditto for Pakistan. We have our work cut out for us but let’s not pretend that the Muslim world has not taken major steps forward in the three years that Bush and American have finally been dealing with the root cause and real problem which is not and has never been poverty but the sick political culture that once gave rise to Hitler’s Germany. It is no coincidence that the Baath parties of Syria and Iraq were based on this as was Nasser’s Egypt among many others. It is time to finally finish off world war II and the sick German racial-superiority theories once and for all and to do that we need to finish off the mess that masquerades as “stability” in these countries.

We must hurry though because we have to get things to the point where we are free and ready to deal with the worst and most dangerous of the two: pakistan and saudi arabia.

22


[color=black][size=117][b]

23

Fair points all Hobbes but I think that the author was not trying to start a philosophical discussion about the meanings of moral relativism nor to provide an exact definition of it but to highlight and ridicule the tendency among the left, which he believes suffers from this tendency to base their beliefs not on values but on feelings.

[quote]

What? Has this author actually spoken to anyone who advocates bi-lingual education? If he had, he would realize that most of them disagree with the idea that it hurts Latino children. Most of them think that it helps Latino kids keep up in areas like math and science, and allows them to learn English slowly without falling behind in other subjects. Again, I happen to disagree with this view, but it would be ridiculous of me to dismiss it as a question of

24

Back tracking a bit here but Stalin I never made it to Sulawesi. The Canadian and American travel advisories put me off that one. And Fred all I can say is that I “felt” or “noticed” in a lot of the muslims I met a sort of poise and self confidence that I wish I possesed myself. I am afraid I can’t be much more specific than that. The Muslim world is an enormous mystery to me and I have to say, in my limited experience, rather a delightful mystery at that. It was quite a suprise after the impression you get of the Muslim world from the western media. What I suspect is that you are entirely correct about moderate muslims having been irresponsible in terms of controling the radicals in their societies, but I wonder if our interests might better be served enlistening their aid than in launching military operations that are sure to engender more hatred. The feeling I got from most of the muslims I met was that they were deeply ashamed of the events of the last few years.

25

The article is an interesting overgeneralization, assuming the ‘Left’ to be a monolithic entity. Having lived among Hippies (as well as many groups, including a pack of no-good rabid Republicans), I definitely agree there is a flaky quality to the argumentation of many leftists who are just as eager to buy into sympathetic arguments as the Limbaugh crowd. Nevertheless, breaking away from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which tells us that pork is bad, homosexuality is evil, women are inferior to men(come on, who makes someone out of a rib? :loco: ), etc. is to me a rather progressive act. In order for societies to evolve their values must be challenged and remade from within. Any morality based on exterior factors or, as in most religions, fear, is unauthentic. The myth that ‘to find yourself you must lose yourself’ is given in some form or another in most religious texts and traditions. I have a problem with codified morals being absolute because morality is, to some degree, a personal actualization, not a rigid set of unquestioned taboos. To simply believe a taboo is an oversimplistic, Republican way of seeing things. Moral relativism is another extreme. Female circumcision, as is male circumcision, is just unnecessary pain and cruelty with a shoddy religious/quasi-science argument to back it up, yet how many leftists or righties are willing to challenge male circumcision? What about the view that a country has the right to bomb another because its people and leadership disagree with it? Morality is by essence tricky. Religion is the main reason why people teach religion to their children, yet I don’t see the correlation. Obedience is not understanding.
For example, the author rants

Ignoring India’s quest for independence, the US and South African Civil Rights Movement, my quest to stop the alley dogs on my block to shut up at 3 am, he induces that war is necessary. Must all great problems be solved by war?
He attributes moral relativism whereas you often find such argumentation in reactionary arguments that it is not immoral for the US government to undermine democracy by funding opposition groups, terrorists/insurgencies, etc. whereas this is worse when done by other countries. Another argument is that it’s ok since ‘everyone is doing it.’
The author’s colors really come clean in sweeping statements such as

[quote]The unprecedented support of liberals for radically redefining the basic institution of society, marriage and the family is another product of feelings

26

Bob:

I think that you are confused on several points.

First, our invasion of Afghanistan was welcomed by most Afghanis and when 4 milliion refugees finally were able to return home from Pakistan and Iran where they were farming their children out and prostitutes and drug runners because they were not allowed to work PLUS they have an election which they obviously were very enthusiastic about, I think we can safely put the vast bulk of Afghan public opinion on our side.

Second, we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. Was he much loved and therefore missed? Are we resented for removing him or for not ensuring better security? If the Iraqis fail to understand this why do none of them want us to leave? They had elections which 59% of the people participated in. They have a new constitution, a new leadership and they are now putting the blame more squarely where it belongs. On the insurgents not on the US. I found it interesting that a BBC poll (online) prior to the US election showed almost unanimous support for Bush among those Iraqis participating. Coincidence? Fluke? I don’t think so.

Third, how would you know what Arab public opinion is like? Polls? Government positions? protests? demonstrations? Given that most of these are organized like the former Communist ones before it, what is the true sentiment? Does anyone really know? Given that most Egyptians are terrified of revealing their sentiments openly, how is it that a real understanding of their views can be gotten? It is like CNN going to interview Iraqi and Syrian citizens before the war about their support or opposition. Give me a fucking break! Interviewing Iraqis and Syrians is not like taking a poll in the West and doing so shows an obvious intent to mislead or a crass lack of understanding about the real conditions in these countries. Are we all equal democracies with basic human rights? Give me a break!

Fourth, I have lived and studied in the Middle East. I am less impressed with the countenance that you have described. In fact, could it not in some countries be described as beaten down resignation to accepting things in a fatalist way because there is no hope that things will improve?

The Middle East can and will be reformed and the world will be better off because of it. Like people who help inner city children achieve their full potential, think of US actions as performing a similar mission. Given that so many on the left are so enthralled with such charity why not on a whole region. The Arab World need tough love. Europe is like the bad friend who exacerbates problems by assuring the alcoholic, the chronic job hopper, the embittered divorcee that life is not fair and that they are not in charge of their destinies and that they have a right to stew in their negative juices rather than getting on with their lives.

27

:bravo: The question is what is the best way to reform the region. I had a good laugh on the Europe bit.

28

sbmoor:

I quite agree with your comments as well regarding the fact that the Left is not a monolithic entity. I believe however that rather than a universalist philosophical document, the author’s main point was to get the point across that governing one’s actions SOLELY or PRIMARILY by feelings is a characteristic that many on the left are governed by and that this is something that should be re-examined.

Also, as to religion, remember that just because the adherents behave in a certain way does not mean that they are acting in accordance with the true tenets of their religion. I would argue that this is certainly true of women’s issues. Judaism and early Christianity gave a lot of rights to women that were taken away in later centuries.

I would also argue that in Judaism, while homosexuality was not a admired lifestyle, it was not condemned to the degree that some people might be suggesting. To some extent this is true of Christianity as well. I think that the real condemnation has come from evangelical groups. In fact, I would argue that much of the criticism about gay marriage from more traditional religious traditions is the marriage part. While I came to support gay marriage, I do recognize that those who do not have every valid reason for not doing so. If advocates of gay marriage want to be treated with respect, they should also accord that to those with strongly held religious beliefs. It is a two-way street. Both sides can be accommodated but recall, the left tried to pull a fast one in San Francisco and Boston. I wonder how they would have reacted had some other group tried to play fast and furious with the constitution and state law in such a fashion. They should have taken their time to make the case and keep pushing for it. I think their actions actually were a severe set back to their whole cause and that would be too bad.

29

Fred I made a casual comment about there being “something” about the people I met in Indonesia that appealed to me. A sense of dignity and peace perhaps. It wasn’t intended to be construed as an observation of all people living in Muslim countries. And I never said that I was against what happened in Afghanistan. Iraq is a bit more complicated and regardless of the positives that may or may not come out that situation we all know what the real purpose was in Americas invasion of that country. If the oil companies that move in cut the locals a break and pay them a fair wage I think that will help to ensure future peace more than any of the other military operations the US may be cooking up.

30

NO. “We” do know what the real reason was and it was not the oil, otherwise, we would control that now. I find it ironic that so many of those who marched against the US action in Iraq cited “war for oil,” but given that there is no proof that the US or US companies benefited or will benefit in any way, why all the fuss? AND given that we have direct proof that the UN leadership, France and Russia and to some extent even China were in it for the oil and that is why they opposed the American efforts to remove Saddam, why does this not come up in their conversations? The fact is that “you” know nothing of the kind and frequently ignore what is KNOWN that it was about oil, but the perpetrators were the UN, France, Russia and China. Oh what a surprise.

31

My understanding was that those other countries you mentioned benefited from the previous state of affairs, especially under the food for oil program. I agree that was a travesty. However, when we get into the realm of motives and the future we are on considerably shakier ground. You may believe that American oli companies won’t benefit from whatever arrangement emerges in the future but that cerainly puts you in the minority. Of course, you may be right. I doubt it, but only time will tell. And you have to admit that it seems terribly coincidental that the one country bush decides to liberate (other than Afghanistan) is the one with the world’s largest oil reserves.

32

i beleive saudi arabia has the largest oil reserves. if you count oil sands, then canada has the largest oil reserves.

so having values that are thousands of years old is a good thing? i think some might be good, but i also “feel” that people need to get with the times. people do evolve and so do their beliefs, most people. why should people want to be stuck back in medival or biblical times in their actions based on beliefs. progression is a good thing, yet you seem to be advocating we should stick to whats been around. most on the right want to take steps back and take away some of the liberal freedoms there are now, like abortion and what limited rights gays have. even here in canada we have to deal with that idiot redneck backwards thinking leader of the opposition steven harper and all his fear mongering about where liberal ideas are going. i guess thats both Liberal and liberal. to me i dont see how two people of the same sex marrying will have any affect on my life at all. why shouldnt they recieve the same rights i get and are afforded to me by the charter. i beleive in freedoms, such as the ability to light up a joint if one chooses. not as though thats my lifestyle choice, but if i should “feel” (that damn word keeps poping up again) the need to get stoned, i should be able to do it since iam the only one being affected by it. i just find it very ironic that europe, that cess pool of immorality and liberalism, fought many bloody wars to be able to have policies not based on religon only to have those in america (or right wing ex pats) condemn them for wanting to be liberal and at the same time promote a shift back to more religous morality and policies.

33

BUT those Judaeo-Christian values have adapted well to the test of time. Anyone who does not believe so can look at what is available around the world as an alternative. The fact that Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore are now considered part of the West is precisely because they have adopted those values. AND remember, it is that system that has prevented many moves by the evangelical Christian movement to get prayer in schools, ban abortions, etc. It works because it is a sound system.

I see your point about not allowing rigid codified systems to rule the roost but what I see taking place on the left is lurching to face each and every new issue because they did not think far enough in advance to realize the reprecussions of those changes/laws/moves.

I believe that the greatest tragedy to ever befall the US was the intellectually lazy, nihilistic, amoral me generation that was best exemplified by the hippies. That is why today we have all this pseudo knowledge coming out from American universities. Hear someone mention Derrida or Foucault and I can guarantee that lazy crap academic deconstructionism that is not based on any hard work or academic realities will be soon to follow. Academic standards can be judged objectively and for those who say they cannot because it is predicated on one person’s subjective view, then ultimately their argument is subject to the same argument which just leads to one chasing one’s tail around.

The great tragedy is that universities like Harvard have been basically ruined by this claptrap shit. There was a hillarious piss take in the most recent edition of the Atlantic about a student at Harvard and how he did not learn expect to repeat pompous, cynical, pseudosophisticated deconstructionist phraseology which never failed to earn him an “A.”

34

This adds some interesting “nuances” to the debate…

[quote]Question for the day: If liberalism isn’t dead, then why are autopsies performed so regularly? In the latest examination of the much-probed cadaver, the New Republic’s editor-in-chief, Martin Peretz, recalls that John Kenneth Galbraith, in the early 1960s, pronounced American conservatism dead, citing as heavy evidence that conservatism was “bookless” or bereft of new ideas. Peretz writes, “It is liberalism that is now bookless and dying.” Liberals, he says, are not inspired by any vision of the good society; the liberal agenda consists of wanting to spend more, while conservatives want to spend less. And the lack of new ideas and the absence of influential liberal thinkers, he says, are obvious.

Galbraith’s comment contains some comfort for liberals: Conservatism revived with great intellectual ferment and a long burst of new ideas, and liberalism presumably can do the same. But there is no sign that this is happening. No real breakthrough in liberal thought and programs has occurred since the New Deal, giving liberalism its nostalgic, reactionary cast.

Worse, the cultural liberalism that emerged from the convulsions of the 1960s drove the liberal faith out of the mainstream. Its fundamental value is that society should have no fundamental values, except for a pervasive relativism that sees all values as equal. Part of the package was a militant secularism, pitched against religion, the chief source of fundamental values. Complaints about “imposing” values were also popular then, aimed at teachers and parents who worked to socialize children. [/quote]

AND even more distressing for those seeking a quality education given the very high prices of tuition…

[quote]For a stark vision of what cultural liberalism has come to, consider the breakdown of the universities, the fortresses of the 1960s cultural liberals and their progeny.

Students are taught that objective judgments are impossible. All knowledge is compromised by issues of power and bias. Therefore, there is no way to come to judgment about anything, since judgment itself rests on quicksand. This principle, however, is suspended when the United States and western culture are discussed, because the West is essentially evil and guilty of endless crimes. Better to declare a vague transnational identity and admiration for the United Nations. The campuses indulge in heavy coercion and indoctrination. A sign of the times: The University of California’s academic assembly eliminated the distinction between “interested” and “disinterested” scholarship by a 45-to-3 vote. The campuses are politicized, and they don’t care who knows it. Harvard is all atwitter because its president ran afoul of local orthodoxy, suggesting, ever so tentatively, that sexual differences might be a factor in careers in science. [/quote]

jewishworldreview.com/cols/leo022805.asp

35

[quote] the lack of new ideas and the absence of influential liberal thinkers, he says, are obvious.

No real breakthrough in liberal thought and programs has occurred since the New Deal[/quote]

Where does Rawls and his 1971 A Theory of Justice fit in with this? I would rate it, along with Nozrick’s 1974 response, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, as one of the two most importnat works of political phiolosophy of the second half of the recent times.

PS Nozick is easy to read, while Rawls isn’t the most exciting of writers.

36

Butcher Boy:

Thanks for those two names. I will get right into trying to find something on them. At least, you have provided me with two names. Anyone else?

37

[quote=“fred smith”]Butcher Boy:

Thanks for those two names. I will get right into trying to find something on them. At least, you have provided me with two names. Anyone else?[/quote]

Fred just to be clear, Nozick is very definitely on the right. ASU was written as a rebultal to Tof J. Other names, I need to think about. I do know that there is a lot of work going on around the idea of convergance of economic governance mechanisms. The idea seemed to be that low tax low regulation was the way forward, being the only way to attract investment and compete. I think some research has been done that shows that this may be too simplistic. It seems that you can either be pure scandinavian in terms of had core social democracy or pure anglo-saxon deregulation and low-taxation/redistribution. In between and you are fucked. I need to have a look around over the next couple of days.

38

BB:

Regardless, you have given me a new name to look into and supplied the rebuttal as well which is most kind. It is more than anyone else has given me to go on and I ain’t rereading Edward Said or Noam Chomsky again for the message that I just cannot seem to get. Must be like the Emperor’s New Clothes… but I digress and once again thank you for your contribution.