About liberals and those good intentions
Quite a few commenters questioned my decision in this post to assume that a certain liberal named Steven Rattner, former counsel to Obama’s Treasury Department, has good intentions.
Here’s what I wrote in that post:
If you believe Rattner to be well-intentioned””and from the sound of him I will give him the benefit of that doubt…
The comments section afterward was replete with responses such as this one by “pst314“:
Neo, something to ask yourself: After how many generations of failure and disaster can one cease to attribute good intentions and deduce malice and utterly careless arrogance?
Those of you who’ve followed this blog for some time are no doubt aware that for many many years I’ve had a series of posts on the “fools or knaves?” question. So not only have I asked myself the question in the quote above, but I’ve explored it over and over and over.
But it’s an important one, so I’ll answer again, and I’ll try to be crystal clear: sometimes the person in question is a fool and sometimes a knave, sometimes both. And sometimes someone in the liberal camp actually is neither, and is making some good points on a certain subject (although that’s rare, I’ve certainly experienced it).
In general, it tends to go like this: leftists are most likely be the knaves, liberals are more likely to be the well-intentioned “fools.” However, political operatives and/or pundits and members of the MSM (in other words, those in power) are more likely to be the knaves, whether liberal or leftist.
As for Rattner himself (whom I realize is not the main issue, but just an example), I know so little about him that I don’t know into what camp he really falls. But more importantly, I assumed for the sake of argument that he was well-intentioned not because I wanted to make a point about Rattner himself, whose thought process and motivations I have no real knowledge of, but because I wanted to say something in that post about the reasoning process of those liberals who are well-intentioned.
They don’t exist, you say? I say: horse manure. I know they do, and I know it because most of my friends are just such people (many of those same friends of mine would of course consider me the fool, but my point is that they are well-intentioned rather than malicious).
What’s more, I know they exist for another reason: I was one of them for most of my life. I absolutely know that, as a liberal, I was extremely well-intentioned. My intentions have not changed; my information has.
It’s doubtful that any liberals are being made anymore. Look to the age and adjust the label accordingly.
Once they make it into politics, there is no room for naivete. They become knave by design and through the process. That would be my argument.
As for fools, sure. Most of my family, the ones who are involved in politics at all are liberals. Most of them are low level. Intellectually, educationally, defunct, they just vote what their dad/grandad (my grandfather) voted. They are mostly bitter about being left behind in a world they didn’t really have a chance within, in their eyes. As if they have room to complain given my situation. I suggest they enjoy their life, and lot. Going up is often more stressful and just as often fails or leads to disaster, more so for the unprepared.
Anyway, yeah… and I suppose no. Again, I simply don’t believe those in the political arena are anything but crooked, whether liberal or left. They know enough about what else goes on to know it’s a horrid charade.
As long as they (the well-intentioned) don’t assume going in that *I*’m the knave — which they usually do. Even the low information voters have enough information that they “know” that conservativish Republican types are eeeevil and are to be shunned.
It’s the presumption of lesser intentions that always gets my goat. *I*’m supposed to bow down to *their* exalted motives, but I’m suppoosed to be at a minumum apologetic for the fact that I don’t offer as many goodies (at the other guy’s expense, of course) as do the more compassionate among us. At a less-than-minimum, I’m supposed to be ashamed of my presumed selfishness.
Phooey on that.
End of rant — for now . . .
And then there’s the tolerance and open-mindedness aspect. But I said my rant had ended, so I’ll leave it there.
“supposed”, not “suppoosed”
Why Are Liberals So Rude to the Right?
By John Fund
National Review
May 28, 2013 8:58 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/349431/why-are-liberals-so-rude-right
Does well-intentioned have a meter, a measuring device, an intentometer? Does it redline? It must, must it not? How else would one be alerted when good intentions repeatedly resulting in the same wretched failures should henceforth be considered neither foolishness nor knavery, but insanity? So the question: fool, knave, or NCM (non compos mentis)?
I fully share neo’s POV and support it as accurate.
My 91 yr old, highly intelligent (126 IQ) father is a liberal who has been so indoctrinated by the MSM (all he watches is ABC & reads local newspaper) that he thinks I’m the one who is brainwashed.
My highly intelligent (135 IQ) 27 yr old daughter is a liberal who has been so indoctrinated by academia, friends, and relations that she thinks I’m the one who is mistaken.
Both are fine, good-hearted, well-intentioned individuals who exhibit on some individual issues, conservative leanings.
In long discussions, I easily trounce their assertions with facts, reason and logic. Doesn’t matter a bit. They’re incapable of questioning their most basic assumptions and drawing conclusions that question the veracity of what they’ve already accepted.
“I was one of them for most of my life. I absolutely know that, as a liberal, I was extremely well-intentioned. My intentions have not changed; my information has.” neo
Exactly true of me as well. My conversion started in 1992, listening to Rush Limbaugh, who frequently infuriated me but who began to batter down my liberal assumptions. Listening to other conservative commentators on KFI 640AM in LA further eroded my assumptions. Then I discovered Dennis Prager’s insightful, eminently logical discourse and the left’s defeat was complete.
The liberals in their day to day life are not fools, you will mistake them for ordinary people most of the time. Ratter made a very good amount of money as Obama’s “bailout guy”. What he is doing now is a little sales work for his next gig. Liberals have found out how to monetize their social concern. They work for non-profits, NGO’s, universities, and government. I was at a facility in the North east recently (it was outdoors and folksy but to protect the innocent leave it at that). The staff was almost all college students who worked very hard and had to do an introduction as part of their work. One young woman went to a well known women’s college in NE and was majoring in Peace and Justice Studies. My first thought was for the poor parent’s paying tuition for this fluff, but then I realized that she would get a job as soon as she graduated with and NGO, Foundation or Government agency. No scrambling for interviews to do computer programming or accounting. Just make the system work for the self proclaimed elites.
Neo-neocon,
I understand your desire to give Rattner the benefit of the doubt. As to the fool or knave question, as you point out that distinction is really a question of intentions.
One is tempted to respond “Who cares? The difference is purely an academic one.” Take the Stalinists, the Nazis and the Islamists. In this multi-culty age of sensitivity, one could argue that they all have “good intentions;” they want to engineer a better and perfected world (about as good as intentions get).
This, in turn, prompts the response that “results matter, not intentions,” but that is a Machiavellian response which, equally falsely, ignores the process exclusively in favor of the goal.
Imagine the following scenario:
Ultimately, my point is that while neither intentions nor results can be viewed in isolation, an “A” for effort neither mitigates nor substities for the “F” of deplorable results.
IMO the problem is not good liberal intentions and bad liberal results, but a leftist/liberal unwillingness to assess results and recognize unworkable solutions. Liberal government is a scorched earth policy that jumps from well-intentioned program to well-intentioned program too often leaving failure, immediate or eventual, in its wake.
In that manner, Rattner’s comments and Obama’s administration stand as the pinnacle of leftist rationalization. It’s always someone else’s fault because their good intentions are so morally and culturally superior that they know better than the hoi polloi and simply can’t be wrong. They, in their own eyes, are the Henry Higgins to our Eliza and Alfie Doolittle.
Thus, there wasn’t enough money spent; the obstructionist opponents caused it to fail; white flight reduced the tax base; the police acted stupidly; it’s not that the theory is wrong, it was not properly implemented; and that perennial favorite “It was Bush’s fault.”
Good intentions without wisdom is counterproductive. This is often the problem of idealists who act in good faith, but either do not acknowledge or are ignorant of the terms and circumstances of reality. There are reasonable compromises which are reconcilable with both the natural and enlightened orders, but they must be internally, externally, and mutually consistent.
(Off-topic, so please excuse the intrusion.)
DirtyJobsGuy,
You mention non-profits and touch a nerve. Many people do not realize that non-profit corporations are NOT non-profit. The only organizational distinction between them is that non-profit corporations have no shareholders to receive the profit that the “not-for-profit” corporation does create.
What frosts my cookie is their constant dishonest appearance as public charities; dishonest because they actively foster this deception to increase donations. For example, does anyone believe that the Red Cross sells blood to hospitals at cost?. Just ask the hospital administration how expensive blood is for them.
All public charities are non-profit corporations, but not all non-profit corporations are public charities. What this means is that without stockholders there is no place for corporate profits to go. As a result, those profits are often turned into outrageous salaries for upper level non-profit executives and lavish corporate surroundings and events. The director of your regional PBS station? S/He is making well into six figures. Remember the O’Reilly/Red Cross controversy over 9/11? They collected so much money from the voluntary donations of well-intentioned and generous Americans that the non-profit corporation did not want to give all of the money to the victims’ families.
Sorry if I’m venting, here, but word needs to get out. I’m not implying that one shouldn’t make donations to such causes. If, for example, you enjoy PBS programming and choose to donate then, by all means, do so. Just realize that a certain portion of your donation (in some organizations it’s a sizable portion) goes to support the lifetsyle of the executives. Just make such donations with knowledge aforethought.
Liberals? Progressives? Fools? Knaves?
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
It’s time.
Great post. I would ask though who of your friends are really liberals? Do they support big government and statist solutions? If they do, they are actually leftists. Would a true liberal support leftist policies? I doubt it.
Steve,
A good clarification. I am as guilty as anyone of conflating the two.
Thanks for the reminder.
Well, Neo, I have long suspected that you were just a nicer person than I am. Giving Rattner the benefit of the doubt is a pretty good example. He has done awfully well for himself with his ‘good intentions’, making more money in the last four years than I would do in several times my life span.
There’s a certain immorality in intellectual laziness and dishonesty and failure to realize that one is projecting one’s very personal anger onto ideological targets.
I have a brother in law who is the gentlest and sweetest soul in the world. He has good reason to be angry at his selfish wife, who has basically strip-mined his life. Does he express that anger? No, instead he goes around in a rage at his Christian fundamentalist neighbors.
The left is hooked right up to people’s deepest and most dubious motivations. It bypasses rational thinking.
Some info on Rattner: Former New York Times reporter, left journalism to make a fortune in investment banking, founded a private equity firm, became a trustee of Brown University, fund-raiser extraordinaire for Democrats, backed Hilary in the primaries, fell in line behind Obama.
Source is Crash Course by Paul Ingrassia.
I completely agree that there are many well-intentioned people who fall somewhere in the liberal to Left range (though with the Dems, MSM and popular culture lurching further Left, these folks keep drifting Leftward). I know many.
Look at the positive side of this: a large block of Americans could potentially be persuaded to a more rational perspective. Admittedly, this is extremely difficult given the resiliency of the liberal/left mindset continually reinforced by the MSM and popular culture. But if they are simply knaves, they do not have decent intentions and thus there is no possibility of changing their minds.
This is a war of ideas. When Neo or others give a liberal or left-leaning person the benefit of the doubt, they are taking the hard road by trying to make a convincing counter-argument. Simply accusing your ideological opponents of bad faith is not a persuasive argument.
And yet it is very tempting. To me, a fascinating question is why it feels better to assume the worst of your opponents when such an assumption, if true, means you are far worse off.
I think MJR has hit the point as to why it becomes difficult for us to give “good intentions” props to liberals. I also have liberal friends, and working in academia I am surrounded by such every day. It’s true, without politics coming up, they all seem decent, normal people.
However, the Mr. Hyde side comes out immediately in the presence of a conservative, or the topic of what those EVIL conservatives are doing. I just don’t see many conservatives literally flying into spittle rages at the mention of “liberals”, or in the presence of such people, but liberals do. So, why not ascribe a “knave” nature inherent in them all?
I believe that the Fool vs Knave distinction is a valid one to make for this reason. There is a chance that the Fool (substituting this word for “ignorant”, “unaware”, “tuned out”, etc.) can be persuaded to change. Neo tells us that she fit that mold. On the other hand, there is little chance that the Knave will entertain any argument to change. He is very likely profiting from his status, and is quite content. Knaves will not repent, they must be crushed.
Easy to make money when slaves are worked to death for one’s benefit. After all, the sum total economic output of one person’s life, when collected together for thousands of people, can satisfactorily fulfill the life luxuries of one Leftist or liberal.
Those further up the food chain may be motivated to keep their ill gotten goods and go to extreme methods, but those at the bottom would do the same. They merely have not been given the chance to own as many slaves. They may, in fact, own no slaves, but the idea of moving up the Leftist ladder appeals to them. It appeals to them enough to win their support and undying loyalty.
Those who can turn, already have. Eventually, as in Iraq, one sides with Side A vs Side B. All the ambiguities of whether Sunnis liked AQ more than the occupation… that stuff eventually gets resolved with a stark choice.
Mizpants said: “The left is hooked right up to people’s deepest and most dubious motivations. It bypasses rational thinking.”
This is key, isn’t it? How in the world is a down-to-earth, honest, thoughtful discussion possible in this situation?
Further, conservatives do themselves no favors when they indulge in talk that sounds cold-hearted and mean, even if it’s actually of the tough-love variety. Rhetoric matters a lot, especially with an MSM just waiting to pounce.
It bypasses thinking? Faith and religion has always taken a different path than merely logick.
Logic was present in science, survival, politics, and nature. But human beings sought something beyond logick. They sought the magick, the power to make a solution to problems that surpassed human knowledge and abilities.
The Left offers them that magick. And no amount of logick will persuade them that the death of millions isn’t a necessary sacrifice for their personal gain.
When people think they can negotiate with their kidnappers, enemies, and invaders, they won’t fight. It isn’t death ground for them. They aren’t desperate. They are willing to compromise.
When people start doubting their chances of victory or safety, then they become desperate, stop assuming enemies will be merciful, and begin to draw upon the hidden reserves of strength that make humans human.
What people don’t want to get is that fanatics, zealots, and members of a religious death cult (the Left) won’t be convinced by weak sauce words by “rational” and “logickal” people. It takes strength, true strength, to convince anyone in a war. To defeat their strength of belief with your own strength of belief.
Those who think their opponents are so weak they can convince them using mere words… are underestimating the strength of faith their opponents hold in their hearts. They take the Leftist alliance very lightly.
The Professional Left has stepped up… into the First Estate.
They are the new preaching class of our age.
While man needs God… he is sure to get the Bound and Determined, morally fanatic, high-minded Shaman Clique.
Prone to Magical Thinking — as psychologists term it — this is a field overrun with superannuated, only-children…. blessed with the hyper-pampered Ids common to that sub-species.
Disconnected from failure by their (god)parents — such psyches ache to evidence their beatitude upon the untutored multitude, a life time calling.
( It’s ever a short call — from Id to Ego: Super-Ego, not in on this particular Party Line.)
BTW, Mr. Rather’s nic is “Dr. Detroit.” He knows that what ails the motor city.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/01/cnn-bombshell-dozens-of-cia-operations-were-on-the-ground-during-the-benghazi-attack-agency-in-panic-over-revelations/
Remember this?
Dear God I hope this gets out fully.
C’mon you piece of shit taking it up your arsers Republican representatives, do something!
Horse manure you say?
Occasionally you stoop to a less refined level that is very refreshing. But you’re still full of it. 🙂
If I understand the argument you’re making Neo, an absence of malice is what separates a leftist from a liberal. And that deserves consideration as to whether the ideology has merit?
Or, is the argument that people who earnestly believe foolish things, which ultimately lead to the same wretched end, actually exist?
First of all, I don’t believe that all liberals are fools, I believe that most of them are hypocrites. Liberals, good intentioned and intelligent they may be, seldom live according to the ideal social structures they credit themselves with promoting. It’s easy to vote other people’s money from them, to somebody else; it’s another to donate time and money of your own. Joe Biden and Obama’s tax returns, pre-intense scrutiny, speak volumes about their good intentions.
You will argue they are knaves and lefties, but many see them as caring liberals. Their families and friends surely so.
The point being that the assignment of knave, leftist, and liberal are based on perceptions and subjective judgments. My democrat friend means well – he’s just mistaken, but your democrat sister is a leftist jerk.
Whatever Rattner’s intentions are, his notion of morality is that we can’t be good people if we allow “blameless” people to suffer from the actions of guilty people. and his remedy for that is to help both the guilty and the blameless by taking property from another blameless group and giving it to them. Somehow, i see your argument equating this with good intentions. I see it as a confiscation of property without consent.
So if this is another part of the argument, that The effectiveness of the property transfer, and the means are not important, as long as the intent is to help the blameless, then you are still a liberal at heart. In this logic, A knave is one who confiscates and redistributes for his own or political purposes, a liberal does it because he’s really a good person. Bull manure. They’re both inconsiderate thieves.
Whether there is malice on the part of the liberal or not, indifference to the those who satisfy his good intentions (the US tax payer in this example) amounts to the same thing.
If Rattner and the good liberals really give a rat’s ass about the blameless, they will consider all citizens who are affected by their good intentions, before exercising them on others.
This is another of those discussions that attempts to throw light on the dilemma we find ourselves in. Namely, the differences in how people view the world. I do believe that Ymarsakar has hit on something. That is the need of humans to believe in something outside themselves. For devout Christians it is God and a Heaven beyond this life. For progressive leftists it is the perfection of society or utopia here on Earth. The left embraces the values of Christianity but discards God as they attempt to create Heaven on Earth. They want to help the helpless, to defend the defenseless, to create equal economic outcomes, to improve the environment to Adam and Eve’s Garden standards, to keep everyone safe from their foolish habits, to make health care a constitutional right, etc., etc. They claim to be more empathetic, more caring, more generous, more well-intentioned, and certainly less racist. Most of the well meaning leftists that we encounter have emotionally accepted these premises. That is why, IMO, they can’t leave the church of leftism because it is an emotional commitment or faith – just like any religion.
I see five groups in this leftist faith. The first are the preachers. These are the journalists and academics that know the gospel and broadcast it to any who will listen or read.
The second are the deacons and ushers. These are the politicians who are true believers. They want to use the concepts of the faith to put into action all the wondrous things that the left believes can be accomplished.
The third group are the faith hustlers or Elmer Gantry’s of the left. They don’t believe a word of the left’s philosophy, but have embraced it because they see it as useful to gain power and wealth. I would put Barack Obama in this group as well as the Reverend Jackson. It is a large and well known group, but few average citizens recognize them for what they are – wolves among the sheep.
The fourth group are the fundamentalists. These are the leftists that hate anyone who doesn’t accept the gospel of their faith. They are quick to anger and show no mercy toward the non-believers.
Among these four groups there is much overlap. Many of the preachers, deacons, and ushers are also fundamentalists. IMO, few of the faith hustlers are fundamentalists although they certainly will use the fundamentalists’ techniques when they are useful.
The fifth and largest group is the congregation. These are people we all know and associate with. They are believers because it soothes their souls to be associated with a faith that intends to do good things. They listen to or read the preachers and proclaim, “Amen!” They don’t want to look at alternatives because it makes them uncomfortable to be “selfish, uncaring, unfair, greedy, heartless, etc.”
It’s easy to point out to people how leftist progressive (Communism) ideas and societies have failed time and time again. But it does no good unless they are willing to examine those failures as well as the failures of democrat policies within the successful (thus far) USA. Our job is to convert people from a faith in Heaven on Earth to the reality of life not being fair or equal and that human nature has proved to be difficult to change. Not an easy thing to do. Changers like neo and so many others give us hope, but, IMO, the battle will go on until reality wins out or the end result of leftist policies, failure, occurs.
Well, here’s something to chew on: how the State becomes a Golem. God, how I loathe these people.
“SWAT Team in Wisconsin Dispatched to No-Kill Shelter to Execute a Baby Deer:”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/n6stkp5
Watch the video (local TV news), and notice the Govt. Golem’s response to the storm of criticism. Notice, too, that there were TWO anonymous phone calls tattling on the shelter that they were harboring a FAWN. Some people are too hateful to draw breath.
I certainly know many well-intentioned liberals and, like Neo, used to be one myself. However, I have trouble with the knave versus fool decision even as to these theoretically-decent folks on two levels. First, as others have noted, their downright hatefulness toward anyone they disagree with and their tendency to gang up on the latest scapegoat (Bush, Fox News, Zimmerman, whatever) and peck and peck and peck all together until they’ve torn the victim to shreds, all the while cloaked in the belief of perfect righteousness. There’s nothing more hateful than a liberal who’s found a reason to hate an opponent. How, exactly, do they do that and go on believing that they’re the good guys? Which brings me to my second problem: denial. When I stopped being a liberal, it was because I had been confronted with too many facts to deny that called into question my old worldview — and yes, my good intentions. This was a question of personal honesty, not to mention what seems to be an inborn inability to kid myself along or fail to notice when I’m rationalizing. But all around me, wnen confronted with inconvenient truths, my liberal friends simply deny or ignore them. A relative of mine, confronted with evidence that recycling is more expensive than she thought, argued for a while and then, when she couldn’t win the argument, simply declared, “I don’t believe it.” Discussion over, mind closed, enlightenment averted. How did she manage to trick her own brain like that? And how can that kind of internal dishonesty be considered well-intentioned?
I think Jimmy J. nailed it. But I do see a lot of fundies on the Left.
As for how they react to the actual presence of a “heretic,” I think “Liberal’s Tourette’s Syndrome” describes it pretty well.
I sent a Sultan Knish essay about the Middle East to a friend who “admitted” she’d voted for Bloomberg. She immediately scurried off to find out whether Knish was under the Interdict, and fired off this reply:
“I went to his blog and he proudly says that his writing has been cited by Rush Limbaugh, why would he be proud of that? Limbaugh is a kook, and that’s being nice. Also Glenn Beck? Ugh.
[Her name, sans farewell]”
Of course she didn’t read it — mustn’t let any Evil Thoughts intrude.
I used to do this, too: I hated “Rush Limbaugh,” sight unseen, voice unheard. Actually, I clutched my ignorance to my bosom, like my friend: never listened to a word the man said, but Rejoiced when I heard he’d gone deaf.
But it was the Left’s doppelganger I hated. Once I finally got up the nerve to violate the tabu and listen to the real guy, I realized he’s a genial, reasonable, normal patriot. Quite intelligent, too. And much of the stuff the Left loves to quote about him is actually him doing his schtick. (yes, I believe he has a robust ego, like most performers!)
I fault myself for not doing due diligence in the Fact Finding department, and being way late to realize that the bugaboos the Left uses to stampede us somehow never came to pass. . . .
Also, the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy is extremely good at crowd control: making it Sooooo easy to run with them, and endlessly arduous to oppose them or even to tack sideways against the current. It’s their relentlessness, as much as their viciousness, that I hate. They are exhausting.
Good intentions do not mitigate the consequences of an ideology that has failed over and over again and has resulted in the murder of millions. The left floats on an ocean of blood. From the holocaust to the blood of their current martyr Trayvon. Yes, there are well intentioned, but misguided, people on the left. I know some of them. I don’t hate them as individuals, but I will not pardon the destruction they cause.
People on the left often think that having good intentions is the same as having good ideas. You critique their ideas, and they reflexively fall back on ‘at least I want to help’ nonsense. I’ll sometimes ask if having good intentions is somehow difficult, because if you point out that anybody can have good intentions, their implied claim to a higher moral plane vanishes. Good intentions is like ‘raising awareness’…you get to feel better about yourself for doing practically nothing. And you don’t have to harsh your mellow with evil right wing nonsense like ‘results’ or ‘accountability’.
Love the Jimmy J.
When science becomes Messiah, we become the grapes of wrath.
The fallacy is that science finds facts. Yes?
How much salt is proper in your diet?
But most people really do not accept the idea that they are just as readily misinformed by science as, say, the eugenists of the early 1900’s.
We are tracking. Finding. Hide and Seek and it’s just a matter of time.
Oh really?
model_1066, 9:22 pm — “People on the left often think that having good intentions is the same as having good ideas. You critique their ideas, and they reflexively fall back on ‘at least I want to help’ nonsense.”
. . . to which my stock reply takes me to my (fictitious) auto mechanic. His motives are laudable, if not a million percent pure. He really wants and expects to help.
But when I retrieve my car from his shop, it runs worse than before. As a compassionate soul, and maybe because he’s a member of an accredited victim class, I take my car back to him so he can make it right.
But when I retrieve my car from his shop the second time, it runs even worse than before.
[raises voice] How long does this cr#p go on??? I’m not impressed with his motives or his wants or his needs or his membership in the accredited victim class. I want my friggin’ car back to at least as well as it ran before he screwed with it.
[lowers voice] No, having good intentions is NOT the same as having good ideas, or as knowing what h#ll one is doing. [exhales]
George Pal,
So the question: fool, knave, or NCM (non compos mentis)?
Seriously accurate assessment. My error in overlooking.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/29/the-clintons-vs-the-weiners/
Andrew Sulllivan: a changer?
NO.
I wish he had the same backbone and fact charging horses against Obama.
I’m not quite sure I agree with Christian or Jehovah Witness thoughts on theology concerning hating the sin but not the sinner, nor their views on the existence of Original Sin. Such things do exist in the world, but the interpretation isn’t necessarily correct as to why they exist or how they exist.
But that just means I do recognize that a Leftist member is a tool (i.e. slave) and one should not fight, kill, or defeat tools. That is pointless. About as beneficial as Leftists trying to get rid of guns since they are “evil”. Evil or good requires some kind of will, an independent decision making ability. In this fashion, the majority of the Left can be fought and destroyed, without hating their members. Because hate is not a requirement for a successful war. It’s just merely one motivation out of many.
Thus it doesn’t matter whether there are good or evil people on the Left. As in war, one destroys the enemy: the good, the bad, the women ,the men, and maybe even the children. Because they’ll do the same, and worse, to you if you don’t stop them.
People were fine with bombing foreigners outside America, getting “necessary casualties” or whatever the mil speak was. It is slightly different, isn’t it, when one has to think about your friends, your neighbors, and your Leftist family members becoming those “casualties” of war. But the concept was always the same. The justification was always the same.
Also, Leftists themselves don’t believe in good intentions. After all, Zimmerman could be argued to have good intentions, but how many Leftists or founding members (Democrats) of their alliance do you get who say that Zimmerman’s good intentions of keeping the neighborhood safe from crime absolves him of X?
Even by the Left’s own standards (clue=theydon’thaveone), Leftists are guilty automatically.
The Left’s own behavior condemns them to hell and is a sign that proclaims “justice needed here”. If they will adjust their “behavior” (I don’t know what they think, feel, or believe is right), everything would be resolved from my point of view.
Good luck getting them to change their behavior. How much do billionaire Leftists fund their alliance’s war on humanity’s war chest again? Does anyone even know…
Can one be morally culpable of willful ignorance? Not, I suspect, unless one promotes policies based thereon.
Then one is a knave.
Had a couple of discussions of such things in the family.
“I didn’t know that,” seems to be an excuse not only for prior insistence on one course or another, but the inference I take is that it is seen as unfair to know this stuff. Certainly, finding this stuff out from Aubrey doesn’t change things.
Beverly,
The new Left used to do loyalty checks. SWAT ops are a kind of new loyalty test in my view. If they can efficiently and coldly execute pets, humans are the next best thing up. After all, the police culture prides itself on “hunting humans” as a point of pride now a days. Check out their tshirts and cultural slogans/jokes.
The US military likes to hunt humans, as McChrystal once noted. But that was directed towards being satisfied and getting “fun” by killing wife beats and Afghan insurgents that like to throw acid at little girls’ faces. That’s fun for them.
Fun for Democrat funded SWAT teams is…
By grading up the loyalty test, a member of their shock troops feel a greater affinity and loyalty for their tribe, and less of a recognition for their prey. When one has successfully dehumanized the target, operational effectiveness is increased exponentially. Humans will no longer hesitate or have nightmares at night. Their consciences will be clean, even as their hands flow in rivers of blood.
None of these methods are new, and many of the Left are clueless or amateurs at it. But they are learning. With enough money, people can be motivated to do all kinds of things they never could before.
I would define a loyalty test this way.
Any operation that requires a conscious act on the part of the agent, which destroys his avenue of escape and bridges to other factions while strengthening his collar to our own organization.
Richard Aubrey wrote:
“Can one be morally culpable of willful ignorance? Not, I suspect, unless one promotes policies based thereon.
Like most things, this is not really a binary choice. There is a whole spectrum ranging from the most cynical, power-hungry Marxists (like Stalin or Mao) to the “low-information” voter who just follows the other sheep, directed by herders in politics, the MSM and other well-known people. For each point along the spectrum there is a corresponding level of guilt–but IMHO it never reaches zero, not even for the most “well-intentioned” person at the mild end of the spectrum.
In my experience discussing issues with such people, eventually you reach a point where they’re advocating some lefty do-gooder policy because it sounds “fair” or compassionate or “green”–just for this superficial appeal and the comfort of going along with the herd. So they’re promoting a policy they know nothing about just so they can think well of themselves and avoid going against the herd. They willfully shut their eyes to the costs, who will be forced to pay the costs and what the long-term intended (and unintended) consequences will be.
This is where the culpability comes in. They thoughtlessly promote policies that hurt others and/or cost them money just so that they (the “well-intentioned” left-leaners) can feel good about themselves–and enjoy the comfort of being with the herd.
At 2:28 PM Ymarsaker wrote:
An astute observation! Make the left live by their own rules. Hmmm! Now who was it that said that??
President Obama is as well intentioned as Hillary Clinton and any others who are dedicated progressive, totalitarian, Alinskyites. Most of them are Leftist communists who are dedicated to the acquisition of power and the transformation of the United States. Obama and Clinton, Alinskyites to the bone, have been deeply influenced by Saul Alinsky, Students for a Democratic Society (Weathermen included), and other SDS followers including Bill Ayers, Wade Rathke of ACORN, Peter B. Lewis, George Soros with his Open Society Institute (directed by SDS founder Aryeh Neier), and so many others throughout government and academia. Then, there are the czars.
From whose perspective is this being viewed?
Pingback:How to view Leftists and non patriots in the US | Sake White