Another change story
Watch.
Here’s his website to do just that.
I wonder—would this be a good video to send to liberal friends who seem amenable to persuasion?
[Hat tip: commenter “carl in atlanta.”]
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Very interesting. I found of particular note his realization that the ‘moderate liberals’ in the MSM and liberals sympathetic to the left were acting as apologetics for the left and their actions when exposed.
Those in the MSM are NOT low-information voters. They have however bought into the left’s meme that those on the right are selfish, racist reactionaries. They know what they are doing and justify it by rationalizing that the ends justify the means.
I believe Darby is correct when he states that counteracting the demonization of the right is the most critical step in awakening the liberal low-information voter. The way to do that is to explain that our help for the disadvantaged consists in teaching them how to fish rather than giving them fish.
I was once a social liberal – fiscal moderate, whose view of the right was much as Darby describes. I recently ran across this observation; “A person’s beliefs and suppositions are essentially their ‘base programming’. A ‘program’ can only accommodate data it can fit within its parameters. When people are confronted with something totally outside their programming’s parameters, one of three reactions are possible: they lose touch with reality; they reject reality and refuse to confront it; or they grapple with it and, in the process, they break free of their prior beliefs that failed to incorporate the new parameters, i.e. they break through their programming.”
If that observation is correct, then some percentage of liberals, when confronted by ‘data’ outside their programming’s ‘parameters’ will “lose touch with reality; [or] reject reality and refuse to confront it”.
Churchill knew of this, “Once in a while, we stumble upon the truth, will you face it or decide to pick yourself up and hurry along, as if nothing had happened?”
What led to my conversion was listening to conservative talk radio. Especially Rush Limbaugh who attacked my emotional barriers and Dennis Prager who attacked my intellectual barriers.
They hit me right between the eyes and I decided, (thank God) to face it.
Then I discovered conservatives blogs and the low-information ended.
The first rule of winning the debate on the liberal side is to refuse to accept evidence…. by sqatting in ignorace u waste time trying to cknvince a rock.
If debate was all that was ever needed
The concept of a re-education camp would be meaningkess and torture unnecessary
Geoffrey,
What is interesting is that conservatives tend to understand the left and liberals while the reverse isn’t true. You are a good example of that, you conversion involves and increase in knowledge.
What I find in arguing politics with my lefty hispanic inlaws is that they can’t refute any points. They will actually agree with me on many specific facts I point out. They just fall back on “Bush bad, Iraq War, Bush, Obama inhereted very difficult problems, Iraq War, Bush . . . ”
I haven’t been able to convince them of much. In 2012 my MiL didn’t vote, she voted for Obama in ’08. Pretty sure my BiL voted Obama both times, but now he doesn’t want to talk politics with me . . .
My wife was a moderate Democrat when I met her at university in the ’80s. By the time we married in the early ’90s she was an independent swing voter. Sometime in 2009 she became a hardcore conservative.
One key advantage the left enjoys is that they have the simplistic message. A right to food and shelter! A right to healthcare! Minimum wage! Get guns off the streets! Peace in our time! Who desn’t want that stuff?
Wow, I sure messed those quotes up.
I’m just wondering how you did it!
Don’t imagine that it was any lack of persuasive skills on your part that failed to reach your liberal relatives Don, many of us have had the same experience.
“Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments. They must run their course in life and cannot collapse otherwise than in great catastrophe…” Ludwig von Mises
@ Geoffrey: One of the main themes of my site is how to confront exactly the type of issue you confront with your inlaws. If you’re willing to go into more detail (like a play-by-play) of such a conversation, please drop me a line. I’d like to use it as a post.
The caring meme is a difficult one to counter. The way he describes it in the video is great, but it takes time and won’t work very well during a campaign. Also, “we care, too” just doesn’t cut it. It makes you seem like a weak follower who’s trying to be a Democrat-lite. I explore this a bit here:
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/the-wrong-kind-of-assholes/
The left has been masterful at simultaneously framing themselves as the bold leaders who take no gruff with a sense of “caring”. It’s gonna take some adroitness to overcome.
Thats ok
U cheered me up immensely….
Been down so long that it looks like up to me
Another diiference was mentioned in the femnist threads
The consedvatives dont dictate principals
U discover u have some
Then u find them
The ogher side dictate the whole landscape
By isolating their subject they control most inputs
Virtual reality is created by controlling all inputs
So in an article i fisked for neo, iconstantly pointed out that it follows a formulea like harlequinn romances
The quandry
Followed by theclknkages to every woman
Then anecdotes if personal bs
With the other feminist selected to tell u what men think
Same pattern for the gop, they seldom hear what is actual
Thisvpattern becomes a comfort to women
Men dontvlike that
Acclkmation to local group frominside is great
Apply that outside n ur dead
So advertsers n othrrs cant get guys on board
They put the glld ring into ghe womens nose
Then ultimatetly they use her crotch to mkve the men
Shecthinks it is liberating!!!!
As slavery is liberatjng
How so???
Next post as i am ona phone n have to get a quote
In yhe bondage community they are more knowledgable as to power dynamics…
See topping from the bottom
And the idea that when tied up your more free to act out
But when free you have to tie yourself up mentally
Go ahead go completely physically wild and damage thingds… can u??? Not without costs
Now. Be tied up… now try to act the same way
Realize ghe point is not yhe end but yhe journey
Because ur inhibited ur more free to act wighout costs
You get to experidnce unbridled freedom but without consequencds when everyone else has to pay for that
Sadly this does not apply to politics or real tyrannh
Except fir the functionary ghat enjoys it!!!!!!
Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments.
There is a better more classical phrase for this
A position not reached by rational arggument cant be negated by rational argument
More succinct
If blind belief got u there
Rational belief cant reach you to save u
Its not a maze
A maze has one or more exits
Its a prison that looks like a maze but has no exit
That way u allow the idea of escape n its actons
For it sustains thd victim with false hope
And keeps them too busy looking for an exit that isnot their
Hope .makes them stick to the rules
So they never think to make an exit as they believe the next turn will be it
Donkey meet carrot
Donkey slowly starves
But it does bring your stuff to market for less
And if u have lots of donkeys
Its better to use them up than cost to care for them
Welcome to the gulag
Thebpe of the german people was that if theyfollowed the rules they hoped to get by
Without this false hope
Change would not have been possiblepeople dont get yhat the battle is nit knfront of them
Its inside them
neo — “I wonder–would this be a good video to send to liberal friends who seem amenable to persuasion?”
It seems to me that in the vast majority of even genuinely persuadable cases, it needs to be done slowly and with gentle nudges in a rightward direction; the sledgehammer approach usually provokes only a retreat into the comfort of the leftie meme.
And by sledgehammer, I mean to include the Darby video. To a leftie, a tale of a left-to-right changer is a sledgehammer. Lefties, like most humans, do not want to be challenged in their most dearly held beliefs. Darby does just that, calm and soft-spoken though he may be. In fact, that can even serve to enrage the leftie listener/watcher.
Of course, there may be exceptions where the sledgehammer approach may actually bear fruit — but in general, I do not see it as the rule, even in genuinely persuadable cases.
[By the way, the interviewer, Ginni Thomas, is the wife of Chief Justice Clarence Thomas.]
LOL Art- you’re writing style is living proof of this famous study:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/Cmabrigde/
No offense Art, but I needed that laugh; my hard drive died on me on 4/2, which resulted in the discovery that our backup system had failed some time ago (and none of us knew) and right now I feel like I’m living in that bathroom scene in Full Metal Jacket…
Maybe gosnell can loan a few vids
Lets start calling feminists gosnell gals!!!
“Oh your one of those gosnell gals”
And dont explain it or yourself
Let it ruminate and settle
Then if they go look it up they get nothing from left liberal press and will only find the other press
Ie. Lkne voice telling the truth…and no opposition to spin it
Voila
A tactical beach head…
@ M J R: I’m not sure if I agree that certain approaches are sledgehammerlike (and I’m biased in favor of hammers), nor that hammering is necessarily bad, but you do hit on something very important.
All too often we’re arguing politics when it’s actually a question of psychology. Like artlfledgr says, you can’t refute illogic with logic (lolzzlolllz). However, you can refute psychology with therapy. Then you can slip the logic in.
We project onto lefties and assume that because we’ve thought things through that they have also. You couldn’t fill an elementary school classroom with all the lefties in the world who’ve read and digested a Thomas Sowell book and remained on the left, whereas most of the commenters here on this site could make most of Krugman’s points for him.
Sometimes pushing can turn people off just like you said, but sometimes a push is necessary. Sometimes, it’s the only thing that might actually work.
Sorry. I am on a phone not a pc
It keeps correcting me to words i dont intend and it plays hell with multilinguals… tried writing in the verizon blog
But the deketed all my posts sayin drop marketing forcing yhese things on us is nt an improvement
Then again maybe management who doesnt keep them chained up and lets them ddit away negs as to themselves gets what yhey deserve eventuallu
Sorry…
and neo is dropping the ball she could have had with this, and tracking it from the start…
US Raises Nuclear Alert To DEFCON 3: China Mobilizes, Masses Troops On North Korean Border (Debka)
Friday, April 12, the US raised its nuclear alert status to DEFCON 3, Condition Yellow (out of 5 levels), stating “There are currently no imminent nuclear threats against the United States at this time, however the situation is considered fluid and can change rapidly.” Many believe that North Korea will launch their test missile on or about April 15. Japan has instructed its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile that heads toward its territory. Contrary to comments from the White House Thursday, the Pentagon reported that “North Korea probably has nuclear weapons……….
yup…
if you think the MSM coverage and skew is bad in terms of this kind of stuff in this thread.
how about hiding a nuclear war till its too late
and while hiding it, insuring the crippling things continue wihtout stopping till we are suprised.
we are always surprised
i am seldom surprised, and often half a decade ahead
which means i speak too early to be heard
and after the fact, i am not remembered for what i said
ive been ticking off the chess moves leading to a big event, and we are ignoring it.
Korea doesn’t even have to hit anything
it doesn’t even have to be big
it only has to go boom
and EVERYTHING changes…
suddenly, zero products come from china
what do you think happen to welfare and the peoples who think everything is fine? how about 30 is the new 45?
Late Thursday, Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, made a disquieting disclosure. He quoted an excerpt from a Defense Intelligence Agency report expressing “moderate confidence” in the finding that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles whose “reliability will be low.”
so nobody be surprised that while we are discussing this, ALL our ideas and discussions and so on, get negated in one move we dont pay attention to!!!!!!!!!
they are cutting the necks of babies with scissors, and the news cares less than if they hurt dogs. in fact, an article just showed exactly that.
i said, all the leaders of the other side, has been replacing all their soldiers and amassing tropps, new weapons, and most, like good old huxley, believe things are something else.
just remember, the same press that you are discussing here, and all that stuff, is the same press that taught you that they are not an issue, their weapons are old etc… (but then again, cheap machines that cant be stopped by nuclear events are not old machines, they are anti nuclear weapons. while US machines, with counterfeit parts, will turn an M1A1 into a 45 ton paperweight)
we now return to our thread in progress…
Martel, 2:28 pm — “All too often we’re arguing politics when it’s actually a question of psychology. Like artlfledgr says, you can’t refute illogic with logic (lolzzlolllz). However, you can refute psychology with therapy. Then you can slip the logic in.”
[Aside: I’m one of those who scrolls past artfldgr’s posts, as if on autopilot. Therefore, sorry, nothing personal: but your reference to him/her won’t work for me.]
It’s psychology combined with an incredibly stubborn meme of we-moral, they-evil; we-compassionate, they-mean; we-generous*, they-greedy. And so on.
I’d be very interested — seriously — in a concrete example of refuting psychology with therapy (slipping a little logic). Specifically, whatcha got in mind?
* HAH! With others’ assets.
Martel at 1:29 pm,
“The caring meme is a difficult one to counter. .. it takes time and won’t work very well during a campaign. Also, “we care, too” just doesn’t cut it. It makes you seem like a weak follower who’s trying to be a Democrat-lite.”
Agreed. We shouldn’t even try, in fact we should unapologetically point out the differences between the democrat’s approach and ours. Something like; “we care. About our families and friends that is…’we care’, about our country and even the state of the world.
In that we wish strangers well and will help in an emergency. But care about a stranger, as much as we do those close to us? Please, when did you last meet a saint?
We ‘care’ enough to think it important that those destitute and impoverished keep their pride by retaining the ability to stand upon their own feet, beholden to no man. We think the way to do that is by teaching a man how to fish, rather than giving him a fish every day and creating dependency.
And dependency is what the democrats have created with 47.8 million Americans now dependent upon the government for the very food they eat. How much more dependent can one be than that?
To reduce that dependency will take jobs and counter productive measures which seek to over-regulate free markets reduce jobs. Look to Europe’s 25% unemployment for confirmation. The democrats would make Europe’s present our future.
Those who are dependent today must be led and when necessary, forced out of their dependency because they have become comfortable in their dependency. People deserve a chance and the opportunities that a growing economy brings, so that they may pull themselves up by their own industriousness. People do not deserve a continual handout ripped from the pocket of a stranger.
This is not cruelty but the tough love that respects the human dignity that self-reliance brings.”
“The left has been masterful at …“caring”. It’s gonna take some adroitness to overcome.’
Adroitness must wait for reality. Liberals have drunk far too deeply of the left’s memes and narrative for reasoned persuasion to be sufficient.
“Political ideas that have dominated the public mind for decades cannot be refuted through rational arguments. They must run their course in life and cannot collapse otherwise than in great catastrophe…” Ludwig von Mises
When reality arrives, it is certain that the left will blame the right and that is when adroitness will be needed.
It wont work that way..
It requires their cooperation….
Ergo my nlp point of the passing NEG
Oh ur one of the godnell girls..thanks then go..
Ur target rich group are feminists n their dupes
So. Use what work with them
Examples of negs..
1. Your hair looks shiny, is it a wig? Oh well it looks nice anyway
2. That’s lovely long hair — are they extensions?
3. I think your hair would look better up/down
4. Nice nails — are they acrylic. Oh, well they look good anyway.
5. Awww, how cute, your nose wiggles when you laugh — look there it goes again !!!
6. Is that your natural hair colour well its not bad So you changed it to that?
7. I like your look, beauty is common but you seem like you have character.
8. You have U shaped teeth.
9. Well at least you have a nice body
10. You are nearly as tall as me. I like tall girls. Are those heels 3 or 4 inches ?
11. You have an “interesting” figure
12. Did you drink too much last night!
13. I think I like your left eye best
You would be amazed that this works
Women are even more incrudulous but they only know what their leaders tell them about themselves… evenfunnier is tosee their leaders playing them..
Nice thing about such n ego
They would rather BE played than admit they can be played!!!!!
But before u thinkthis is negative
Remember who abused sex n love to get theircway over their mates n discard them…. having sex to make socialists is old old old…. took a long time before yhe men lost their respect enough to adapt (ergo my point that matriarchies fail.. eventually the one trick ddont wirk… then they have no more given this only works on ppl that regard them…without that, they have nothingg…. beating up on yhose thatblove u is easy… try it on islamic men, or men who lost resoect n see how far ut takes them)
All unneccessary and a 45 year waste of productive potential….
@ M J R: I’ll have to go into more detail later, but one thing I do is to reply to any “you/GOP/etc don’t care” is to strike back with vicous indignation. “How DARE YOU suggest I don’t care.” I then point out how Detroit (or whatever example) is run by people who caaaaare and it’s become a craphole. I just have different ideas on how to fix it, and you have to resort to whiny little putdowns because you’re afraid to hear other points of view. “Your ideas sap the people you’re trying to help of their humanity, and it BREAKS MY HEART, but all you got in response are idiotic ways to make the problems we’ve got even WORSE.”
@ Geoffrey: “In that we wish strangers well and will help in an emergency. But care about a stranger, as much as we do those close to us? Please, when did you last meet a saint?”
Very valid point, but one I find better to bring up after some trust has been developed. To accentuate what you’re saying, I’ll use something like “Maybe people SHOULD care about kids in Kansas City as much as their own families, but they don’t, and they never will.”
When discussing the realities of human nature, even though I accept them at face value, I try to emphasize that I’m disappointed with people being that way. If they sense that it bothers me to (and sometimes it actually does, it depends on the issue), then I’m not an adversary, I’m “one of them.” I’ve become humanized. I go into more detail here:
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/example-of-a-technique/
“Those who are dependent today must be led and when necessary, forced out of their dependency because they have become comfortable in their dependency”
This is how I express that point:
http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/when-love-is-hate/
I think ( I say modestly) thst I see things fairly quickly (like, the Euro is crazy and it’s doomed, in 2009) and expect other well-informed folks to process the same, shared data just as quickly.
But they don’t.
The gestation for re-thinking a firmly held thought is very, very long for most of us, and our faces must be shoved into the mud before we rethink anything. Perhaps we are, as a species, adverse to questioning and re-thinking.
The whole “care for a distant fellow” is also an ancient emotional dodge.
With it one can displace outwards personal involvement — for such caring ALWAYS devolves into proffering funding so that specialists/ experts/ the church/ the charities will handle the messy details — even as the giver climbs up Maslow’s hierarchy.
It’s far, far, more important to personalize good works — and to de-institutionalize them.
This is at the crux of Big Mama Government vs Classic Liberalism.
Liberals, today, are enthused — still — with the zany notion that Professionals — self-anointed holier than thous — should be sustained by the proles — so that they may carry on righteous work.
It’s a new priesthood — building its own pyramids, too.
Not surprisingly, it’s rabidly against the old priesthoods — all of them.
The Iranian Illuminati ( leftists) had been, in the 60s and the 70s, romancing the Palestinian and advocating for his cause(s), naturally vilifying Israel.Books on Arab Israeli conflicts are devoured with gusto then passed around so others may read and learn the truth.
It was Iran 1979, 1980. Arabs launch a Pan-Arab war of revenge against what they call in Arabic;al-foros, xabithin, the evil Iranian. The Palestinians feature prominently among the Arab ranks, and their leadership from Arafat to George Habash to Columbia prof. Edward Sa’id, to others joine in the general call for war against the evil Iranians. The outcome of that horrific 8 years war is a matter of written historical records. But guess what? the said leftist Iranian Illuminati continue to refuse giving up the ghost.
No! they protest. It’s not true!. the Palestinians never fought Iran, they say.”This is a lie concocted by Zionists to drive a wedge between our two peoples!”.
And folks, all Iranians including the Iranian leftist Illuminati, lost relatives in that stupid war. Does this answer your question neo?
Don (@ 12:51 pm) stated that conservatives tend to understand liberals better than liberals do conservatives.
This article in the NYT (surprise!) includes references to several studies supporting Don’s observation and some hypotheses as to why this may be true.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/opinion/kristof-politics-odors-and-soap.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
In brief, the idea is that liberals tend to hold a set of core beliefs. Conservatives hold these same beliefs and in addition another set of core beliefs. To quote Nicholas Kristof’s comment on one of these studies,
“Now a fascinating new book comes along that, to a liberal like myself, helps demystify the right – and illuminates the kind of messaging that might connect with voters of all stripes. “The Righteous Mind,” by Jonathan Haidt, a University of Virginia psychology professor, argues that, for liberals, morality is largely a matter of three values: caring for the weak, fairness and liberty. Conservatives share those concerns (although they think of fairness and liberty differently) and add three others: loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity.”
So, perhaps the best approach to our liberal friends (no hope for approaching enemies) is to focus first on beliefs held in common rather than assume immediately that we area completely different, that our beliefs are opposite and totally irreconcilable.
Jim Nicholas, 7:24 pm —
GROSS oversimplifications coming, but I think they hold at least some water.
Seems righties tend to ^balance^ compassion with respect for who’s footing the bill (the other guy) ^and^ respect for the coerciveness involved. Given infinite resources, we ^all^ want to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. Given, however, that the known world’s resources are decidedly finite, righties seek to balance compassion with the foregoing two concerns (the two “respects”).
The hardcore leftie sees those concerns as trivial, easily solvable by administering a healthy dose of “social justice” to the well-off; the hardcore rightie (by which I mean, for example, the incorrigible Ayn Randist) sees those concerns as paramount.
The softer-core leftie pays lip-service to those concerns, but (too) often gets very taken with his/her own moral preening in caring more than those meanies over there on the right. The softer-core rightie (the “rightie” as described at the outset) earnestly seeks the balance described above. (The tea partier believes we’re already giving quite enough via coercion to service the hungry, homeless, naked, and infirm, and may or may not be of a mind to contribute more ^voluntarily^.)
Any centrists that remain, are now righties by my description (seeking the balance) — only in many, many cases they can’t bring themselves to admit it. They’re the ones who still see Democrats as, for example, JFK Democrats, not realizing that by now, Democrats have essentially all transformed into (say) Pelosi or Durbin or Sharpton or Sandra Fluke Democrats.
“Fairness” depends critically on its definition, and the other side has taken, seized its right to define and redefine.
I wonder how we would do as a 3rd party. the Fair Party.
What we face in this country and in most of the world today is pandemic immaturity fostered by the entertainment industry, the internet, the pathetic excuses that call themselves journalists, and our elected officials. That’s one reason why voters choose to support a candidate they feel “cares” most about them, regardless of whether he/she is qualified.
They’re not looking for leadership or for a candidate who seems best suited to act in the best short- and long-term interests of the nation. They’re looking for who will promise them the most goodies, or guarantee them the best safety nets in order to shield them from the consequences of their reckless choices.
I’m certainly not in favor of a nanny state. But it troubles me to think that so many voters are like children who don’t comprehend that it’s those decisions by their parents that are made for the sake of their safety or well-being (including the building of character) that are the most loving or caring actions, and not those decisions that the parent knows the child will gladly agree with.
M J R: “but I think they hold at least some water.”
I agree.
Don Carlos: ““Fairness” depends critically on its definition.”
Again, I agree.
It seems to me that liberals lean towards defining fairness as distributing goods equally and conservatives towards defining fairness as distributing goods in proportion to a person’s worth.
It also seems to me that both agree with regard to the distribution of certain goods, such as all citizens being entitled to receive or being worthy of receiving equal rights and protections under the Constitution. I also think that both agree that justice requires a good-faith attempt to mitigate the consequences of past unequal rights before the law and unequal protection under the law. The latter idea is easily stated but hard to implement without depriving others of equal rights and protections.
Even more problematic is determining the fairness of distributing other goods in all forms. I favor distribution in proportion to a person’s worth; but I acknowledge that even Aristotle, other than giving some examples of ‘worth’, did not set down clear guidelines for judging a person’s worth. How much is a person worth because of his contribution of time, energy, skill, knowledge, creativity, and dedication to producing goods and how much is a person worth whose capacity to produce is limited or nonexistent, of worth simply because he is a person?
In my own experience, the most liberal persons I know recognize the value to society of rewarding those who produce goods (in all of its forms) in some proportion to how much they contribute to society. And the most conservative I know believe that even unproductive persons, unproductive for whatever reason, have some worth as human beings and merit some share out of compassion.
The two areas of disagreement about fairness, it seems to me, are (1) the standard of living above which compassionate redistribution of goods is not just to the producers of those goods and (2) the impact that the present use and redistribution of goods will have on what will be available in the future, available even for compassionate use. True compassion for those in the future, I believe, requires a narrower definition of compassion now. In any case, these are the areas of debate between me and my friends on the left.
Jim Nicholas, 1:46 am — “It seems to me that liberals lean towards defining fairness as distributing goods equally and conservatives towards defining fairness as distributing goods in proportion to a person’s worth.”
I would say that conservatives lean toward defining fairness as distributing goods in proportion to what a person can get for the fruits of his/her labors in a free market.
(Since I believe that the free market is a serious distortion of a person’s worth, I believe that the free market is immoral (explanation to come) — but unlike lefties, I have nothing better to recommend, so a free market it shall be. (None of this “comparable worth” horsesh#t for me, or other attempts to rig outcomes.) Why a serious distortion? A ^good^ teacher or a compassionate nurse should NOT be “worth” ^so^ much less than even a top-notch entertainer or a top-notch professional athlete. The present state of affairs is immoral, in my rarely humble “o”.)
To end on a positive note: I do agree that your number (1) and (2) in your last paragraph are two very vital areas of disagreement about fairness.
Liberals only want the state to enforce their ideas of “fairness” when it benefits their agenda. Which is unfair, isn’t it? For example, you don’t hear them talk about how ‘unfair’ it is that there are more men in prison than women. Or lament how few minorities are charged with white collar crimes such as insider trading.
Also, many of them think that just voting Democrat is enough to pat themselves on the back for being ‘caring’. Which I sarcastically respond with “Woah, move over Mother Theresa!”
To combat the “we care” meme from the Left: Many studies show that conservatives donate FAR more to charities than liberals, and volunteer FAR more at food banks, soup kitchens, and other kinds of helping those less fortunate organizations.
So any time someone claims the GOP/conservatives don’t care, use the facts.
First, Martel said,
“I’m not sure if I agree that certain approaches are sledgehammerlike (and I’m biased in favor of hammers).”
LOL. Good one.
Second,
In Jim Nicholas’ NYT quote, a comment pops up that continually irks me.
We focus on the Liberals’ idea of fairness vs. ours (and it is worthy to point out those differences) but the NYT quote about the book pointed towards a conservative “respect for authority”, implying the liberal had little to none. And many liberals paint respect for authority(especially religious-Christian authority) as one step away from rampant authoritarianism. Hello, Margaret Atwood.
Really? REALLY?! It is galling that the same people who think the State is the best arbiter of fairness and liberty, like to point this out, in complete ignorance, willful or otherwise, of their own hypocracy.
It bothers me more than the fairness idea, definitely.
Somebody smart and famous said you can’t reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into.
People who are more than average logical–me, as certified by a psychologist–find it enraging that an actual homo sap can look at a fact and not draw a conclusion.
Neo’s view, supported by others of this commenting family over the years, is that libs are libs because it makes them feel good about themselves. Intent counts, results are irrelevant.
There is not much you can do about this but try to get more conservatives out to vote.
Addressing their points as if they’re based on facts, logic, reality is a waste of time. Those are not the issue.
Once in a while you may have the opportunity to say, when they are complaining about something, “I certainly didn’t vote for those clowns.” Might help. Sure be satisfying.
M J R April 13th @2:07 am
“so a free market it shall be”
I should have added that I too think that the free market is the best available mechanism for distributing goods based on worth. Reducing the collusion between big business, big labor, and big government would make the market more free and more just in matching distribution to worth. Another corruption, I believe, of the free market is the tight relationship between big government and the educational system, from elementary school through the university. But I am afraid I will just have to accept that some rappers may make more than the best nurses.
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
re: Delilah @ 6:42 a.m. – In addition to your list, conservatives apparently are more likely to show up to give blood, too.
It’s one thing to wring your hands and talk about fairness and compassion, and another to shut up and give of yourself in some way. Actions used to speak louder than words, but not in today’s dumbed-down societies.
Neo: Here’s a changer on Bennett Friday.
Charles C. W. Cooke of NRO.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41339180/Charles%20C%20W%20Cooke.mp3
anyone over 80 years old should kill a politician
dare the injustice system to incarcerate a geriatric to the penitentiary for killing some asshole pol
You are all reminding me of this ditty from The Mikado:
KO-KO
As some day it may happen that a victim must be found,
I’ve got a little list – I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed – who never would be missed!
There’s the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs –
All people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs –
All children who are up in dates, and floor you with ’em flat –
All persons who in shaking hands, shake hands with you like that –
And all third persons who on spoiling téªte-é¡-téªtes insist –
They’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed!
CHORUS
He’s got ’em on the list – he’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed – they’ll none of ’em be missed!
KO-KO
There’s the n***er serenader[1], and the others of his race,
And the piano-organist – I’ve got him on the list!
And the people who eat peppermint and puff it in your face,
They never would be missed – they never would be missed!
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
And the lady from the provinces, who dresses like a guy,
And who “doesn’t think she dances, but would rather like to try”;
And that singular anomaly, the lady novelist[2] –
I don’t think she’d be missed – I’m sure she’d not be missed!
CHORUS
He’s got her on the list – he’s got her on the list;
And I don’t think she’ll be missed – I’m sure she’ll not be missed!
KO-KO
And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
The Judicial humorist – I’ve got him on the list!
All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life –
They’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed.
And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
Such as – What d’ye call him – Thingummy-bob, and likewise – Never-mind,
And ‘St– ‘st– ‘st– and What’s-his-name, and also You-know-who –
The task of filling up the blanks I’d rather leave to you.
But it really doesn’t matter whom you put upon the list,
For they’d none of ’em be missed – they’d none of ’em be missed!
CHORUS
You may put ’em on the list – you may put ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed – they’ll none of ’em be missed!
Of course more than a few of the left wing people I know are over the top and are close to being like the people he describes — out and out bomb throwing anarchists. I had heard about this fellow, as a “traitor” so those people could not be persuaded. But, I know many extremists. They feel almost to be the rule and not the exception, but I am from the Bay Area. However, I know some who are more moderate, and those might be persuaded…
I am talking currently to someone who wants to know “why” and is open to looking at things I send her. It is hard to even know sometimes where to begin. I sent a Jamie Glazov speech about his time as a kid growing up in the Soviet Union and his parents and grandparents experience as dissidents. I was shocked when she wrote me back and said that this “guy seems like someone who got mugged by a black person and so joined the KKK”. In other words, she didn’t get it at all. When I said, I don’t see how you can compare a mugging to the experience of life in the Soviet Union — being put in prisons and being watched non-stop, she did relent and say that she knew it was really bad there, she had met Jews who managed to leave. Still — how could someone not be moved by the experience of people who have been in tyranny and then experience freedom? We’re still talking about this and I am sending her things here and there. I doubt it will have much impact, but possibly people have to be shaken loose from their former beliefs by traumatic experiences. Brandon Darby finally saw the real face of hate and dysfunction behind the far left forces he was working with, and I experienced a good deal of ill treatment due to speech codes (I am a writer and my writing, which I thought was left wing enough, was apparently not). At some point, something has to break. I guess…
Liberty Wolf: how can someone not be moved? Because it is very very difficult to give up one’s belief system, and so information that might cause one to do so is usually resisted with great vigor.
One response to her re the Soviet Union (and perhaps you’ve already said this) is that a single mugging is a single event perpetrated by a single person. Whereas the suffering people endured under the Soviet regime was systemic, official, vast, cultural, not an anomaly at all, and not the work of an individual.
Of course, if it is true (and I believe statistics bear this out) that especially in urban areas where muggings are relatively frequent, they are disproportionately committed by minority groups (blacks, Hispanics). So a person might end up generalizing to the group as a whole. But still, the majority of black people and Hispanic people are not muggers.
Your liberal friend also might respond that minorities are oppressed and that can explain their disproportionately high representation in the group of people who are muggers. All the more of a contrast with the Soviet system—the Soviets were the powers, the people in charge, the privileged, and their goal was to control the rest and create a society based on terror and fear. They succeeded, for the most part, for generations. Her analogy was an exceptionally poor one, and it’s interesting that, as a liberal, she focused on the victim’s emotional reaction rather than the victim’s reasoning (in one case, somewhat irrational, and in the other, very rational) or the structural difference in the identity of the perpetrator.
Anyone that can read Radical Son by David Horowitz and still think the leftists “care”is a fool.