How do you argue for the truth when at this point only moral “truth” seems to matter?
A great article that asks the question but unfortunately doesn’t provide the answer.
We need an answer. Or maybe the answer is one we (or at least I) don’t want to hear – that there is no good answer because the situation is too far gone. Maybe even that some sort of violence is inevitable?
I’ve noticed the problem cropping up more and more in my own private life as I’ve been engaging more frequently in discussion with people who disagree with me politically. I’ve noticed that in these talks, if I utter a fact that contradicts their preferred version of what’s going on, and I offer to send a link about it, some of them reject that suggestion either by screaming that I’m lying, by changing the subject, or by abruptly turning their backs and leaving in rage.
I had the latter happen to me twice in one evening last week, from two different people. These are both people I’ve known for many years, and although they are not close friends, they are friendly acquaintances with whom I’ve never had a fight before. But what I was saying was apparently so threatening – even though I stated my case briefly and mildly – that they had to leave the field.
You should read the Wikipedia entry and the Proud Boys.
It’s hysteria driven nonsense that will probably help drive the people the left THINK (or more accurately, wish to believe) the group is, to the group, thus annihilating the origins group AND proving “their truth,” is really “true.”
Apparently, the only “truth” that matters is the “truth” as it is defined by the Left. If it’s not objectively “true,” manipulate whatever is possible to “make” it “true.”
It’s kind of like this: Asking someone when did they stop beating his wife. Print wherever they can about how so-and-so beats his wife. When So-and-so protests, point out the the paper of record reported it! And then goading him one way or another into striking her. It could be as innocuous as swatting a mosquito that land on her. PHOTO! PROOF! SO-AND-SO BEATS HIS WIFE! Quick, edit the Wikipedia entry… And get the SPLC to declare him a wife-beater…
And now it’s all official and carved in stone. AND “TRUE”!
Neo,
Are you in San Francisco? /sarc
Is this cognitive dissonance at play? I am told it is psychologically painful.
Has there ever been any benefit to discuss human nature, human history, and reality in general with leftists? You might as well discuss the 10th Amendment or the seige of Leningrad with the nearest cat.
neo: When I attended a progressive church in San Francisco, I noticed they frequently spoke of the Bible accounts as “stories.”
“We’re going to tell our stories.” Then they would say, with glee, “And some of them are true!” (I think there is some African call-and-response to this effect.)
But which ones? And in what way? Even when I was a hippie, it mattered to me to keep truth, fiction and wishful thinking separate.
Neo, the people you are dealing with are mentally unwell. They can function, more or less, as long as their delusions are not challenged. Present them with anything contrary to their delusions and they feel like the world starts crumbling around them.
Imagine if you found out the person you loved most in the world was cheating on you with someone of the same sex, or that because of a hospital mistake, your child actually died after birth and you’ve been raising someone else’s kid all these years. That’s the kind of emotional trauma these folks are facing except getting past that trauma requires them to admit they’re not as smart or as morally good as they think they are.
I would also bet most of the people who react the way you describe, Neo, have replaced religion in their lives with politics and are just beginning to realize their new god is false.
Mike
#MeToo
I have family and friends that react the same way: No facts or logic is sufficient if it leads to a bad outcome. Morality trumps all argument.
What’s odd is that their “morality” isn’t very moral at all: there is no right or wrong — only good or bad outcomes. And when bad outcomes occur, no matter how easily predicted, the bad outcomes don’t matter because their intentions were good. And if you point out the predictable failures or total contradictions, they start shouting or retreat into a defensive crouch.
In the Age of Enlightenment, Western societies abandoned superstition and religion in favor of reason. In the Age of Postmodernism, Western societies are abandoning reason in favor of a new religion that isn’t based on God — or any moral code that works. We’re destroying ourselves.
The idea that people who behave this way are unwell is profoundly wrong, as they are simply normal humans. The mistaken belief here is that the natural state of human cognition is rationality. In fact this way of thinking was something that only caught on in Europe a few hundred years ago (The “Age of Reason”) and only among a minority even there. The vast majority of people reason emotionally most of the time and then use their reasoning powers to justify the decision they have already made because it “feels right.”
For a fuller discussion I suggest Jonathan Haight’s excellent book, “The Righteous Mind.”
I get the picture of people encased in some sort of very fragile cacoon. Strike or even touch that cacoon and you might cause it to shatter, provoking a hysterical reaction in response.
There must be some psychiatric diagnosis which encompasses this syndrome.
I am very much looking forward to this article. And I would wager many of us have had similar experiences to Neo’s, when talking to liberal friends, acquaintances and /or co-workers. I try mightily to avoid discussing politics as such with almost anyone but it does occasionally creep in to conversation regardless, in particular in a presidential election year. Obviously, certain current events are unavoidable topics of discussion (coronavirus, in particular) and in our hyperpolitical era, such topics descend into political commentary with ease.
Almost all of us across the political spectrum engage in confirmation bias from time to time (some, much more than others). We filter out inconvenient facts, ignore arguments against our positions, and spin as much as we can to comport with our worldview. There’s nothing new about any of that.
What is new is the impassioned (and widespread) moral posturing by many on the left, surrounding “The Narrative”. It’s not simply ignoring inconvenient facts and arguments which contradict the Narrative; it is denying their existence and attacking as evil anyone who puts them forward. As many of pointed out, the Woke Left has all the trappings of a religion (a largely godless religion, but a religion nonetheless); it is heavily dualistic (there is a clear line between good and evil and those forces are in an epic battle) and dogmatic (good and evil are determined by certain ‘high priests’ and are utterly unquestionable; moreover, there are many things which may seem innocuous today but might be deemed the highest evils tomorrow; and you better not question any of this, or you will be deemed evil as well, and treated accordingly).
Again, radical political movements and fringe groups (left and right) have often adopted similar belief systems and tactics. What makes our current situation so unique and so dangerous is that it has become widespread over our political landscape, so widespread that many heretofore reasonable, intelligent, fair-minded people are likely to go into fits of hysteria and/or anger if their worldview is challenged in any way
I am reminded of some long-time observations about political positions. First, that political stances are not necessarily the result of cogitating long and hard about the pros and cons of a subject, but are a result of group affiliation. Or, what later came to be called virtue signalling. Assistant Village Idiot has had a number of postings on tribes. Tribes @ Assistant Village Idiot. My friends believe this, so I do also, in order to show that I belong to the group.
Second, these political stances are not necessarily arrived at by making decisions on information, but are done to take moral stances. This is what good people believe. Bad people believe this, so of course I do not. Recall what has often been said about Republicans and Democrats: Republicans consider Democrats to be ignorant, while Democrats consider Republicans to be evil.
Recall Tom Lehrer’s Folk Song Army . The FSA partook of both group affiliation and of considering those who disagreed with them to be evil.
Neo’s acquaintances didn’t accept contradicting information because 1)to do so would have been to take a stance contrary to the group and 2) their stances were moral, so contradicting information was ignored.
Anyone who shouts about “moral truth”—or insists that it transcends simple “truth” (or “self-evident”(?) truth)—is likely to be neither moral nor truthful.
The third paragraph (“What is new…”) in Ackler’s post just above pretty much says it all.
Whereas once upon a time, it was “I’m OK, You’re OK” (though this later evolved into “I’m OK, You’re an A**hole”) has now become “I’m Right, You’re a National Socialist”…(or, alternatively, “a deplorable Trumpist”).
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=i%27m+ok+you%27re+ok&i=stripbooks-intl-ship&ref=nb_sb_noss_2
Imagine trying to convince a hard core Nazi that his/her views are wrong or that Hitler was a real bad apple or that the holocaust never happened.
Don’t think you will make any progress; they just believe.
That’s it.
Think about it; Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et. al., – these guys didn’t do the killing; their followers did the actual deeds.
Their followers just believed.
That’s it.
I’ve mentioned before this book I read, ” The Whisperer’s – Private Life in Stalin’s Russia,” about the experiences of ordinary folks during that time in the USSR. This is the most frightening book I have ever read.
Many of these folks just believed Stalin was a GOD; even when their spouse !!! was arrested (for no cause) and sent off to a gulag (if they were lucky) or to the basement of Lubyanka Prison (where they were tortured and shot, after being force to sign a confession).
The reaction of the wife/husband (the one not arrested) oft times was ” well, he must have done something wrong to be arrested, Stalin would never do something like that unless there was cause.”
Or, “the arrest must have been a mistake; if only Stalin knew about this he would correct the injustice”.
And these folks were NOT illiterate peasants.
They just believed Stalin was GOD (not unlike Obama’s acolytes).
Once a belief system is ingrained in an individual, that’s it.
Forget about it.
They are gone.
It’s hopeless.
It’s like terminal cancer.
The ability of people to absorb a belief system totally at odds with reality or even their own personal experiences it the greatest danger a representative democracy will face.
Because these people vote.
The hard core radicals, as opposed to the useful idiots, want us all dead. And I mean dead as in shot or hanged.
Their useful idiot followers – those who just believe – will stand by and watch and maintain that those shot or executed must have deserved it or done something wrong to be chosen to be killed.
There will be no evidence that they actually see or hear that will have them reconsider their views.
Its as if they are under an hypnotic spell.
The idea that people who behave this way are unwell is profoundly wrong, as they are simply normal humans. The mistaken belief here is that the natural state of human cognition is rationality. In fact this way of thinking was something that only caught on in Europe a few hundred years ago (The “Age of Reason”) and only among a minority even there.
S.C. Schwarz: Exactly. I do weary of the conservative trope: “liberalism is a mental illness.”
The normal mode of human thought, as with animals, is association driven by emotion. It’s simple, fast and good enough, often enough to enable a person to survive long enough to reproduce.
Reason is a pretty fancy trick we’ve learned in the past few thousand years because we have brains with sufficient bandwidth, but we’re not all that good at it — even those with high IQs and years of training.
You know better than me the sources and dynamics of that.
All of you know Yuri Bezmenov’s videos, and Solzhenitsyn’s books and speeches: both warned the west several years ago.
At this point, I believe we have to speak frankly, always – it’s now a moral imperative, given the situation.
My effort is to make sure I don’t hate anybody – if I offend someone, I call him back and offer my apologies. But I don’t refuse the confrontation and don’t accept to stay silent on what’s happening.
There’s an incredibly strong passage in Solzhenitsyn’s “Archipelago Gulag”.
A father is imprisoned and he realizes he won’t ever see his wife and children again. At that point, say Solzhenitsyn, if that person clings to the impossible hope to be “pardoned” and begins to lie, bowing to the oppressors’ suggestion to denounce others in order to save himself – then, that person is LOST, he will be a tool in the Gulag system, a husk of a man.
He has to renounce his loved ones, embrace truth and become a man: now this is his mission. Many are metaphorically in that condition; let’s hope it doesn’t become hard reality again.
Cognitive dissonance.
Two movies on one screen.
Snow on Pine. Seen it numerous times. One woman knows that Michael Brown didn’t get shot hands-upping. But she says it and says it to her precious friends who say it back, and when I noted she knew better, she gave a physical manifestation as if she were going to have a seizure. It wasn’t news to her. She knew better but her….personality, self-mage, social position demanded she think it was true and speak it as well.
She then accused me of wanting to cut off SSSI to handicapped children. The subject had never arisen.
This happens and happens. Back in the day, I spent one summer on campus rooming with some hippy/SDS members. Nuts as they were, you could have a reasonable conversation with them. Might disagree as to facts.
In online discussions, the tactic is to challenge for cites. Either you come up with cites or you’re a liar. So you do the work….come up with cites….and get called vile names, subject is changed, etc. This is likely to be, in part, a dishonest technique to get the other party to just quit, discrediting himself by not continuing and thus implying he was BSing. Or, if answered, squid-ink the whole thing.
But since it also happens in one-on-one, in-person conversations with obvious emotional distress, it’s more than straightforward dishonestly. And thinking back to my college days….it’s new.
So take some guy who’s sixty five and just retiring. One way or another he worked green, thought green, wrote letters to the editor which were green, donated green, thought negative vibes about those who were not green, thought of himself as a good person because, in part, he was stoutly green. What happens, what happens to his self-image, his view of his own history, if it turns out there is NO FREAKING GLOBAL WARMING?
People who live to fight racism….can’t very well do without it.
Thus, imo, the reaction to the threatening FACT.
I had a brief discussion with a neighbor the other day. She is “kind of” a conservative. I have a Trump sign up (the second, the first got stolen) and mentioned that her husband said I could get one for him. Her response was “No, would be afraid that it would bring trouble to their house, and that it would offend several of her friends”. My comment back was they will throw you under the bus. She was not happy. I can see her saying as they lead her away “But I didn’t put up a Trump sign so I wouldn’t offend you.”
Whereas once upon a time, it was “I’m OK, You’re OK” (though this later evolved into “I’m OK, You’re an A**hole”) has now become “I’m Right, You’re a National Socialist”…(or, alternatively, “a deplorable Trumpist”).
Barry Meislin: I love Bertrand Russell’s conjugations. Example:
I am firm.
You are stubborn.
He is a pig-headed fool.
And Russell, if I’m not mistaken, was a lanky, quirky, brilliant, Fabian socialist….
(Or maybe I’m mistaken…thinking about G.B. Shaw, am I?…Hmmm)
And Russell, if I’m not mistaken, was a lanky, quirky, bearded, brilliant, Fabian socialist….
Barry Meislin: Indeed.
As brilliant as Russell was, when it came to math, philosophy and logic, his ideas about politics, morals and society were driven by his emotions and personality as much as anything else.
However, I don’t remember Russell having a beard. Maybe that was in the universe where Spock wears a beard.
“You might as well discuss the 10th Amendment or the seige of Leningrad with the nearest cat.”
A cat will at least sit quietly and listen while you argue a point, and then interact with you afterward just as it would before – which is more than my lefty former friends will do at this point. I have basically withdrawn from social interaction with them and I encourage Mr. G to do the same.
KyndyllG: Everyone knows that intelligence varies widely from cat to cat.
One can’t simply approach the nearest cat and expect a sensible discussion about the Siege of Leningrad. That’s a strategy doomed to failure.
One must be much more selective.
“The idea that people who behave this way are unwell is profoundly wrong, as they are simply normal humans. The mistaken belief here is that the natural state of human cognition is rationality.“
I have a hard time believing the people who built and maintained the Roman Empire for centuries were “irrational.” Or the Persian Empire. Or the dynasties of China. Or the Jews. Or the Assyrians.
Human beings were creating societies and institutions of fairly impressive scope and duration for at least a few millennia before the “Age of Reason” came about. The suggestion that rationality is both only a few centuries old and possessed by a minority of people is one of the stupidest and most misanthropic things I’ve read in a good long while.
Mike
Related:
“Vanderbilt class of 800+ students forced to choose between calling Constitution racist or losing grade points”
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=15801
H/T Instapundit.
Human beings were creating societies and institutions of fairly impressive scope and duration for at least a few millennia before the “Age of Reason” came about. The suggestion that rationality is both only a few centuries old and possessed by a minority of people is one of the stupidest and most misanthropic things I’ve read in a good long while.
+1
You cannot dissuade religious fanatics.
It’s even worse if they don’t know they’re parishioners sitting in the pews listening to a sermon.
Credo hoc esse verum, ergo hoc est verum.
I believe it to be true, therefore it is true.
(I think I first made this observation – on humanists – on the old Prodigy bulletin board. As I recall, it was during a discussion about the mathematical improbabilities of the chance arisal of self-replicating organisms – which wasn’t original to me lol – over 30 years ago. It was a rather fresh observation back then lol.)
It’s interesting that the referenced article links to another article in Scientific American claiming that the information in the George Floyd autopsy was being used to gaslight the public into believing the police did not cause his death. Both articles date back to June, and I believe additional information on his medical state (as well as the bodycam footage/transcript) was released since then. The Scientific American article was authored by 8 doctors, 4 of whom are psychiatrists. I realize that psychiatrists are medical doctors but I’m not sure any of the authors have experience in forensic pathology. Anyway they argue that the medical terminology in the autopsy reports is being manipulated to deceive the public. Interestingly in this paragraph they focus more on Floyd’s history of heart disease/hypertension than on the actual level of fentanyl that was found in his system or the agitated state he was in before he ever ended up on the ground:
As per standardized medical examination, Floyd’s underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd’s coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted.
Scientific American – once seen as a sober journal – has now joined the forces of the woke.
“…once seen as a sober journal…”
Aaannnnd right on cue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden1/
No doubt, because of Biden’s—and the Democratic Party’s—devotion to science and scientific method.
(Or maybe the editors at SA are incredibly impressed with all the pharmacology involved…)
Related:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2020/09/13/pelosi-ditches-science-blames-angry-mother-earth-for-californias-wildfires-n924986
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LRkFdbFGD0
John Tyler @ 3:05. You hit the point squarely. The art of persuasion is a process and not a moment as witnessed by our fair hostess and lady in the recent “walk away” video.
When people vehemently disagree with me unless they are close to being violent, I state that they are good people and so am I. We just disagree about this point. I wish them well and leave them with a thought for them to ruminate on hopefully. Recently I have been using the fact that Donald Trump has been nominated for two (don’t really count the third) Nobel Peace prizes. That his goal is to bring our troops home and that is a good thing isn’t it? Some say yes and others blow it off but that bit of cognitive dissidence remains. Hopefully it nudges them along.
Try to find a point of agreement and hopefully you can build from there. As long as you can look in a mirror and know you have done your best you have come out okay. I love Paulo’s example from Solzhenitsyn about maintaining a true core of yourself.
Changing minds is a process and not a moment.
“…asks the question but unfortunately doesn’t provide the answer.”
Here’s what looks like a “Tablet” companion piece that may be a bit too analytical and intellectual (given the needs of the moment) but which provides theoretical background and may offer a way forward:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/real-history-left-fascism
Short version (of both Tablet articles): We have to take back the language.
Re: Scientific American…
Gothamite/Barry Meislin: Please to stop torturing me!
SciAm has broken my heart so many times in the past 20 years.
The whole last four years have been strange. Trump won the election, he has done well as president, he hasn’t started any wars. And it has been non-stop hate from the Democrats that whole time. What is the f*cking problem?
Well there’s always “The Lancet” (to make you feel a bit better about SA).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-idUSKBN23B31W
Plus humorous commentary to make you chuckle (by someone named—I kid you not—“FLAM)…
https://theprint.in/science/why-the-hcq-trump-lancet-saga-shouldnt-erode-public-trust-in-science/440158/
File under: Live and Let Die
More on Moral Truth(TM):
https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1311772197430743042
H/T Sean Davis twitter feed
Seeing you go through things that I am going through depresses me more. It validates my feeling of “Houston, we have a problem”. In 2016 a friend told me that Trump was in the tank for Putin and that Hillary was Putin’s enemy. I told her I didn’t believe it. Since when has Russia/USSR wanted a Republican over a Democrat. On top of that we KNOW Hillary had her dumb reset button, and Obama had his open mic moment “I can be more flexible after the election”. So, no, I was going with my lying eyes. So this week I pointed out to her how it is being proven that Putin indeed wanted Hillary etc. She blew up on me and told me that all I do is listen to fake news. There is just no common ground anymore nor interest in discussing data and sources to find the truth.
” George Floyd autopsy was being used to gaslight the public into believing the police did not cause his death.” SA was long ago taken over by the leftists.
George Floyd had a lethal level of Fentanyl in his blood and he was downing because his lungs were filling with fluid. Fentanyl causes pulmonary edema and that is why he was frothing at the mouth and saying he couldn’t breathe. Did the SA article explain how a policeman putting a knee on your back can cause your lungs to fill with fluid?
So 2 nights ago the virus came up, I pointed out a number of facts/data. My BIL got upset and yelled “I believe in science!” I pointed out out that data is science, and that a “belief in science” is inherently unscientific. The response was then, “You’re not a real scientist!” The rest of the family did not come to my defense.
Like the woman said in that video Neo linked 2 days ago, there’s mass brainwashing in play here. Neo said not to be so pessimistic, but I still say we are royally screwed.
Heinlein – “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal”.
Swift -“It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.”
My BIL got upset and yelled “I believe in science!”
physicsguy: Please to stop torturing me!
I moved into a wonderful new house and my neighbors, naturally, have one of those catechism lawn signs:
______________________________
In This House, We Believe:
Black Lives Matter
Women’s Rights = Human Rights
No Human is Illegal
Science is Real
Love is Love
Kindness is Everything
Diversity Makes Us Stronger
re: J. Tyler – frightening book
“Life and Death in Shanghai” about the Cultural Revolution is another terrifying true book.
Some of the PC shaming is a step in that direction.
Your site keeps becoming unavailable. So I’ll make this terse. You are to be commended for attempting to do what you recoiled from doing before.
Perhaps you can gain insights from this as a therapist, which might go unnoticed by the rest of us.
physicsguy, the irony of telling a retired physics professor that he’s not a real scientist didn’t strike them? I suppose not.
physicsguy (6:20 pm) said: “My BIL got upset and yelled ‘I believe in science!'”
By all means, follow the science*. Believe the science. Believe the experts. Yeah, the same experts who [gentle reader can easily fill in the blank with choice examples of “experts” who strongly disagree on the topic at hand].
* at the very least, follow Joe Biden following the science.
Seen somewhere on the internet a couple of weeks ago, something that I have used since and I fully expect I will be using in the future:
For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD.
It is sad, but I think we have reached the point where one must be willing to accept not being accepted. My political positions are reasonable and well thought out. I express them calmly and politely. Friends will be lost and relationships will become frosty nonetheless. Make your choice and stop feeling bad. Its not as difficult as you might think.
Quiet
Point is discussing a species of irrationality which seems new to us and the likely political results.
There ought to be a category added to “mentally unwell” and “normal” [if that implies anything in the way of “health”]; such as morally unwell. I really dislike the idea of “sin”, as I have noted before, in part because it carries (in secular society) too much the sense of the act, and not the mental processes (and eventually habits) that precede the act.
But, unfortunately, there does not seem to be another framework – apart perhaps from Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics – which examines how a consciously self-serving (and knowingly dishonest) act of the will, working through repetition and long habit, clouds the natural mind, radically corrupts the moral sense, and ultimately leads to a kind of imprinted mental illness.
This “new truth” is just a pile of old, OLD, lies, with many new ones added.
Kate, it’s not necessarily that being a professor makes one a scientist. There are different sub-realms of science work. I can’t speak to physicsguy’s background, although I think it’s neat that he’s a professor. Not that I would expect his BIL or indeed anyone not in at least some vocational contact with real science to have a feel for these distinctions – someone who dismisses someone else as the BIL did pretty clearly wouldn’t get it, it seems to me. In other words, what the BIL said, absent the insulting emotional content, could be technically accurate, but even if it were, I doubt that said BIL would know why.
When I talk about what I do in pharma quality control, for example, or I bring up my graduate school time, I go as far as to say I work in a science field, but I don’t claim to have been a scientist for a long time, if indeed ever. When I was collecting data and trying to draw some conclusions on the project I was working on back when I was supposedly trying to do a PhD, maybe then I was some kind of scientist.
But ever since I’ve been a QC guy, I never make that claim of myself. I know stuff about science, I know generally and in a good many particulars how it’s done, I see it being done on a regular basis, but I don’t really do science myself – my job exists, in my view, in more of a scientific-technical pocket dimension.(Fortunately, no jump gates or hyperdrives are needed to enter it. 🙂 ) Maybe it’s fair to say that my job exists as a necessary corollary to real scientists having done their thing elsewhere – a bridge between research and its ultimate application.
We have drifted a bit from Neo’s issue of “moral truth”.
Well, there is Truth. Truth is an absolute, and I do not get what Neo means by asking about “moral truth”.
neo asks, “How do you argue for the truth when at this point only moral “truth” seems to matter?”
As is obvious and as others here have pointed out… you can’t.
When points of view are antithetical there is no compromise possible.
The ideological Left cannot accept America because the principles upon which it is founded stand in the way of their agenda.
Full implementation of the Left’s agenda is an ideological imperative.
Liberals have swallowed the Left’s kool-aid and are enabling the Left’s cultural, political and economic destruction of America.
It matters not how mistakenly well intentioned they may be.
The best example may be Neville Chamberlain, who with the best of intentions led Great Britain into a far greater loss of life than was necessary.
So too today are liberals enabling hard core radical leftists to drive America into another Civil War.
In a direct attack upon the 1st Amendment;
“Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt ‘Government Ideology’ or Pay $100K”
https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/30/virginia-forces-christian-ministries-to-adopt-government-ideology-or-pay-100k-n985842
“The hard core radicals, as opposed to the useful idiots, want us all dead. And I mean dead as in shot or hanged.” JohnTyler
“Former Twitter CEO: Line Up and Shoot Non-Woke Business Leaders and He’ll ‘Happily’ Do the Video”
https://pjmedia.com/culture/bryan-preston/2020/10/01/former-twitter-ceo-dick-costolo-line-up-and-shoot-non-woke-business-leaders-and-hell-happily-do-the-video-n992609
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Thou art a heretic! we will not hear your unclean words
welcome to the modern version of Auto-da-fé…
Hahahaha. “Speaking of penises …’
So unlike here where I ramble on like a half-in-the-bag relative who showed up uninvited at the Christmas party, the previous blog I commented at was so rife with vitriolic and contemptuous exchanges that I adopted the mode of responding as much like a logic machine as a couple years of it in college would allow me.
Because I actually know something about formal logic, as opposed to merely having a ready-to-hand list of so-called “informal fallacies” cribbed from the local community college “Introduction to critical thinking” paperback, it worked.
Responding unemotionally to insult laden posts by pointing out blunders in reasoning, or implied and self-refuting contradictions, reduced my workload even as it heated the progressive rage level to almost incandescent.
At one point, the prog I was exchanging with suddenly started gibbering about his penis. The virtual room went silent; before erupting first in disbelief, and then in laughter and scorn. He had apparently hit a psychological wall, and there was nothing left for him to grab on to … but his own crotch..
Here I am clogging the airwaves, but so be it…
DNW, there’s nothing wrong with bringing the sin element into the discussion. I think that one in the end has to do so to explain a lot of things, because if we talk only about the rational and emotional sides of man, we miss the spiritual dimension which is always ultimately there. I generally don’t venture on trying to explain politics in spiritual terms, though obviously it’s possible to attempt and many do. I think here most obviously, for many of us, in terms of a typical American Evangelical exposition of culture-war types of topics, but there is the ample Catholic political-spiritual tradition from Augustine on down (very little of which is actually known to me at first hand, but never mind) as well as a great many Orthodox commentaries on certain political developments both old and recent, the Fathers discussing the Bolshevik Revolution on the spiritual plane coming readily to mind.
The last of those is one I sometimes think of because it strikes me as an example of a real attempt to dive into the deeper spiritual nature of major political or political-spiritual movements. What I mean is a way of thinking that goes beyond merely something like why voting for a pro-choice politician is or is not a sin, in other words going beyond just a focus on transitory policy. It’s the kind of thing that C. S. Lewis got into as well, in a fairly profound way, in That Hideous Strength. Fictionalized, to be sure, but not entirely – there are remarkable convergences between the ideas he expressed in that book and standard Orthodox theology, and for all that Lewis was Anglican in background, the resonances are remarkable to me (my parish priest has commented on that as well once or twice).
So yes, there are people who are morally unwell. Very many, in fact pretty much everybody to some degree or other! Being morally unwell is precisely the state of sin. And the Church therefore understands herself as the spiritual hospital tout court, through which the Lord administers cures. Our Orthodox hymnography is full of this. Where we get a kind of tipping point in one person is that point at which something happens, or some decision is made, that gives a man over to wickedness; and this wickedness could manifest in something that we can call ‘political’ behavior (not only therein, of course).
Anyway, I mention it since your thought about that colloquial limitation of ‘sin’ to deed and not extending it backward to word and thought is right on target and it’s a connotation which one would have to transcend to grapple properly with the matter.
(P. S.: that was an amusing story about the, er, appendage. I think you’re on to something, that going the Mr. Spock route is often a good way to avoid getting worked up.)
Geez. It’s like you people don’t really want to reach utopia.
Peter Drucker observed a Nazi rally in which the speaker shouted (to much cheering and applause) “We don’t want higher bread prices! We don’t want lower bread prices! What we want are National Socialist bread prices!”…ie, what mattered was not truth…what was the best economic policy…but tribal affiliation
Interesting: I tried to get back here via Chrome, and I got a 405 Error. Switched to Duck Duck Go and no problem!!!
S C Schwarz is correct.
Rationality is a useful *tool*. It is one part of our mental toolkit. By no means the largest part.
High Functioning Spergs (not mentioning any names) or those who cling to dreams of universal rationality because recent human history scares the living shit out of them understandably over-stress Upper Case R Rationality in their mental models.
The Map is not the Territory. There’s a model for you, Preceding Para People.
We Humans are batshit crazy inherently violent overgrown apes. Which is not to say we’re all bad. But it’s what we are. All that we flatter ourselves upon being is a very thin smear of a veneer over this Upper Case T Truth.
Think about it. Every one of us reading this blog has spent out lives buying stuff we actually don’t need because of advertising. Picking a random number, 80% of our discretionary expenditure is on Irrational Purchases. What makes anyone here think that we can flip a switch in our heads and be in a different mode when politics or the meaning of the Good Life are concerned?
It just so happened that during the youth and early middle Age of Neo and most of us here pretty much all humans in the USA happened serendipitously to share the same hallucinated delusions about most things. This is rare. Now there are at least two hallucinated World Views.
I personally happen to prefer the World View which states that killing the unborn is unspeakably evil and goes against Natural Law. I also happen to think that it’s bonkers to throw away what civilization we do have out of some misplaced misbegotten worship of other cultures and savagery.. and so on. But I do not believe for one moment that my moral foundations are Rational or can be arrived at by rational arguments. Where they come from is a topic for another day.
Lose this worship of Rationality. Rhetoric has more traction.
Do not assume that throwing Rationality out the window means Bierkellers full of farting singing Brownshirts. Irrationality has its faults, but it gets an unfair share of the bad press. Rationality has the far higher butcher’s bill.
Obviously don’t trust me, I’m Mad and Bad after all 🙂
John Henry Newman, a very humane and civilized man once said that the Balliol Common Room ‘Stank of Logic’.
It doesn’t matter how persuasive your argument. It doesn’t matter how much you force someone to admit their position to be logically unsupportable.
At midnight, the “Liberal Reset Button” activates, the mental slate is wiped clean and it’s as if they never had that conversation with you. I’ve repeatedly experienced that phenomenon and am certain that all of us have, as the rarity of political change confirms.
A change of mind has to come from within, it’s the only thing that can deactivate the Liberal Reset Button. And a change of mind begins with a change of heart, where truth is valued over ego.
Virtue signaling is, at base about ego. Immature people by definition place all in service to ego.
If sincere, hard core radicalism is about an inability to accept the world as it is, an unwillingness to accept both fundamental aspects of human nature and an unwillingness to accept core principles that govern the external reality within which we all exist.
@DNW
Re the Are you familiar with the concept of “Amygdala Hijacking”?
You seem to have triggered one in your opponent anyway 😛
…going the Mr. Spock route is often a good way to avoid getting worked up.
Philip Sells: I aspire to the Jeeves route:
_________________________________
[Upon seeing the Statue of Liberty for the first time]
Bertie Wooster: She’s a fair size, Jeeves.
Jeeves: Indeed, sir.
Bertie Wooster: Puts one in mind of Honoria Glossop in that white dress she used to wear at hunt balls.
Jeeves: The similarity is a striking one, sir.
Bertie Wooster: Now, Jeeves, why do you think they built all these tall buildings?
Jeeves: Well, sir, it was partly because of the restricted size of Manhattan Island and partly because the island is solid granite and therefore capable of supporting such structures.
Bertie Wooster: Nothing to do with having got the plans sideways, then.
Jeeves: No, sir.
Bertie Wooster: That’s what Barmy told me.
Jeeves: You will pardon me for saying so, sir, but Mr. Fotheringay-Phipps is not noted for his architectural expertise.
There’s an old SF story in which the protagonist is a Knight Inquisitor of the One True Interstellar Catholic Church of Earth and the Thousand Worlds. His mission is to cross the galaxies in his starship, doing his best to stamp out the heresies which appear on various planets.
He is given an assignment in which the heresy involved is a particularly ugly one. After reaching the planet in question, he confronts the main promulgator of the heresy, telling the man that “A more ridiculous creed I have yet to encounter. I suppose you will tell me that you have spoken to God, that He trusted you with this new revelation?”
To which the response is: “Oh, no. I made it all up.”
It turns out that behind the heresy is a millenia-old conspiracy called the Liars, devoted to creating belief systems…religious and political…that will give people a sense of meaning in their lives. The truth-value of the systems does not matter; what matters is their emotional value. “They may believe in Christ or Buddha or Erika Stormjones, in reincarnation or immortality or nature, in the power of love or the platform of a political faction, but it all comes to the same thing. They believe. They are happy. It is the ones who have seen truth who despair, and kill themselves.”
Reflecting, the Inquisitor muses:
“The truth will set us free.
But freedom is cold and empty and frightening, and lies can often be warm and beautiful.”
https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/the-way-of-cross-and-dragon/
Zaphod,
You exaggerate. Civilizations are not built by “batshit crazy inherently violent overgrown apes”.
Batshit crazy, inherently violent overgrown apes destroy civilizations. Historically referred to as “barbarians”. In the modern era; labeled “brownshirts, red guards, antifa and BLM “activists”.
What we have are human beings at different levels of maturity and insight into reality, both internal and external.
Think of a circular ladder spiraling upward with human beings arranged on the ladder in a bell curve distribution. Add to that cultural ‘structures’ within which various groups reside. Add to that the individual qualities of intelligence, wisdom and maturity.
Extrapolate that to the entire human race and as Star Trek’s Spock once observed from unseen orbit; “they’re at Class III evolutionary development, a post industrialization, prespace flight society”.
Kirk: “they’re a bunch of juveniles”. Spock with raised eyebrow; “Yes”.
Note: Spock/ Kirk dialog paraphrased.
It’s going to be very awkward in a lot of households around the country this year during the holidays…
“You cannot dissuade religious fanatics.” – brdavis9
“neo asks, ‘How do you argue for the truth when at this point only moral “truth” seems to matter?’ As is obvious and as others here have pointed out… you can’t.” – GB
“Swift -‘It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into.’” – M Williams
Every word there is true. I tell my kids & the folks I have some influence with…Tell the truth. Point to the facts. Acknowledge your own shortcomings. Leave it at that while praying deliberately.
I can’t talk a suicide bomber out of the vest or a neverTrumper into a different mindset. The Marxo-fascists we see coming out of their spider holes to disrupt & destroy what we know as freedom in the US and around the world are not going to be “argued” into a more life-sustaining way of thinking & living. Kyle Rittenhouse showed us where we are heading.
@Geoffrey Britain:
Of course I exaggerate. I’m sure I don’t need to explain why having pointed out somewhere that Rhetoric works better on most of us than the Socratic Method.
In a perfect world, perhaps the Saatchi Brothers should be drinking the Hemlock and not the General Semanticists 🙂
A problem with Civilizations and one of the major factors which appears to cause their collapse is that their temporary successes make us FORGET fundamental truths about who and what we humans precisely are. Late stage civilizations end up with yuuuuge mismatches between their members ‘Givens’ and Actual Base Reality. Then bad stuff happens. ***Contradictions***: Hegel and Lenin hardly my favourite people but not always wrong.
Should be clear from my posts that I reason (ha!) about groups mostly in terms of the Normal Distribution.
Despite a certain amount of glee when in Iconoclastic Mode, I don’t like what we are more than the next person. But we must not avert our eyes. Dodging the issue and kicking the can leads to the pits time and time over.
@ Artful Dodger
Have you read Roger Zelazny’s short story Auto-da-Fé?
It’s about Autos. Boom Boom!
Convictions cause convicts.
–“Principia Discordia”
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tilt/principia/body.html
@David Foster
The Golden Age of SF really was.
How I miss being 12 and reading Asimov’s Foundation Series innocent of any familiarity with Gibbon’s Decline and Fall.
Not to mention the Cover Art!
“Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover” — One could write an essay on how this statement is the pivot point of civilizations. At one moment it’s a transcendent Truth. An instant later it’s downward slope dysfunction.
Not SF, but let me put in a plug for the historical fiction of the mostly-forgotten but once bestselling Rafael Sabatini. Recently discovered him because George MacDonald Fraser (Flashman novels) mentioned him in passing in his Autobiography.
Zaphod: I imagine you’ve heard this one:
_____________________________________
Q: What’s the Golden Age of Science Fiction?
A:The age of 12.
_____________________________________
It was for me too. Aside from the bold speculation and stories, I ran into interesting ideas. For instance, A.E. Van Vogt’s “Null-A” books were code for General Semantics.
Also a fan of George Fraser’s “Flashman.” I recommend the David Case audiobook versions.
Serious question, how many times does trump need to denounce white supremacy before the press will ever acknowledge he has denounced white supremacy?
It’s like they keep pestering him with this denouncing white supremacy request to try to capture that one time he gets annoyed by it and refuse to keep doing it repeatedly and use it to paint him as not denouncing white supremacy. I hate journalists, this profession is one I would not want my children to be in, besides crime and prostitution/porn
Neo, to get back to your original question, maybe the answer is not something achievable so much on the individual level as on a more macro scale. I mean this: while one can see, on an individual level, success or failure as a sort of empirical proof of the truth of the one or other worldview – that is to say, is Jane’s life harmonious, productive, etc. while Victoria’s life is… not so much – that doesn’t really prove anything in an ultimate way, because people can have individual results that go against the run of play, so to speak.
What I’m getting toward is the notion that the proof is in the pudding, basically. Run the programs enough times, so to speak, and like Zaphod’s bell curve model, eventually things clarify. But on a civilizational time scale, we can’t do this and expect to learn anything as individuals. Maybe, though, as societies, we could possibly learn. I think best thing is to take the different worldviews, so to speak, separate them and run them as separate programs. Which one succeeds in terms of producing a stable, morally reasonable society, etc. and which fails? You have to have the ability to take the elements that are going to crash and burn away from the healthy parts.
It seems to me that something like this is expressed in the Old Testament Prophets. The judgements upon Israel, Moab, Egypt, etc., in a number of cases, were (in human terms) delayed, in a way, i.e. the Lord allowed things to carry on in the degraded state for centu ries before dropping the hammer. (I’m reading Jeremiah just now, which is why the example came to mind.) We can be judged individually on the timescale of a single human lifetime; but it is possible that nations are judged on a multi-generational time scale. In other words, we ultimately maybe just have to argue from results.
I was thinking the other day that maybe America is beginning the process of splitting into its constituent nations, kind of like mitosis but messier. I think a better analogy is phase separation (oil/water) or precipitation of a solute – the chemistry stuff again. But my thought on this is still inchoate in some respects.
[I’m starting to really get hungry for some kind of comment-search function on your blog – I can’t remember sometimes in which post I commented thus-and-so or where I saw some particular turn of phrase.]
There is an astonishing tribe that is ignoring as much civilization as possible. They live in campers and vans and tents in places like Camp 4 in Yosemite and Steamers Lane in Santa Cruz and the parking lot at Heavenly Valley. You can see them at night surfing under the Golden Gate Bridge or sleeping with flashlights on the face of El Capitan. They refuse to talk politics and people. Many are boomers, most are generation X…40-55yrs. My son is one and he graduated in economics from the LSE. Their spouses and girlfriends and boyfriends are pissed. I’m jealous.
@Philip Sells:
I’m firmly of the view that Traditional Societal Arrangements are *evolved*. When see see these we are seeing stable local minima. This is a pretty strong argument in favour of Chesterton’s Fence. In other words when anyone has some newfangled utopian idea, ask first why it hasn’t existed already for a hundred generations. Techno-Matriarchies, Wakandas, and so on…
As for individual people. The idea that one can live one’s entire ONLY life as a lived experiment is criminal. Traditions are evolved and codified irreversible mistake avoidance techniques. The damage it does to people and to others is unconscionable. Anyone promoting this dangerous idea needs a nice long cool swig of Hemlock. Of course there should be iconoclasts and experimentalists… but there should be significant risk involved in stirring the social pot — everyone must understand that it’s not a game.
The smarter bits of the Far Right favour separation too as the most practical and humane imperfect solution to the problems we face.
Zaphod…”Traditions are evolved and codified irreversible mistake avoidance techniques”…someone in an aviation magazine observed that ‘If you do anything with your airplane that is not consistent with the Pilot’s Operating Handbook, then you are a test pilot.
In a society, the ‘Pilot’s Operating Handbook’ is the collective set of customs and unwritten expectations. When the POH is thrown out or totally rewritten, the everyone becomes a test pilot. And there are plenty of people who are perfectly good private pilots, airline pilots, perhaps even military pilots who would *not* make very good test pilots and who have no interest in such a career. Similarly in society: the number of people who are interested and competent test pilots is pretty low as a % of the population.
There is no question that the social POH was in need of revision as a result of changes in the technologies of work and contraception, plus other factors; the problem is that much/most of the editing & revising has been done by people whose personal flight experience is limited or nonexistent and who have no interest in looking at aerodynamic or structural data.
It’s long been established that stories are powerful ways for humans to learn and develop group solidarity. No one is immune.
It’s not mysterious, to me at least, that if stories conflict with facts, stories will often/usually win. Given the survival necessity of maintaining solidarity with a group, it’s arguably a better strategy for the individual, rather than dying alone on a hill over facts which don’t fit the story.
This is why we admire people like Socrates or Jesus, but don’t particularly want to take up the hemlock or the cross.
Zaphod,
“A problem with Civilizations and one of the major factors which appears to cause their collapse is that their temporary successes make us FORGET fundamental truths about who and what we humans precisely are. Late stage civilizations end up with yuuuuge mismatches between their members ‘Givens’ and Actual Base Reality.”
I ran across a solution, though given human nature… perhaps it would at least extend a civilization’s longevity. Taught from 1st grade up.
Poster in every class.
From the book “The Millionaire Next Door” by Lazlo Zalezac
The Facts of Life
1) Life is not fair.
2) No one is exempt from death.
3) Physics rules the universe and biology rules life.
(or “Physics is King and Biology is Queen”)
4) The universe does not care.
5) The only constant in life is change.
6) There is always a choice.
7) Wishing never makes it so.
8) A person can’t exceed their limits.
9) A person is responsible for their own happiness.
10) It is impossible to change the character of another
If everyone took these truths to heart, perhaps 98% of our problems wouldn’t exist.
I’ve been flippant in this topic because at times I find the conservative horror over this “truth vs moral truth” issue a bit silly.
Yes, it is a problem, a big problem, but we are also dealing with human nature. Democrats have fallen into a classic human trap, but not because they are evil or perverse or unwell. We are wired to do this and we are learning to do better.
Dave,
“Serious question, how many times does trump need to denounce white supremacy before the press will ever acknowledge he has denounced white supremacy?”
Actor James Woods responding to Biden’s claim that Trump has refused to condemn “white supremacy”.
“Joe, you are a liar. Here’s proof.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1311359450289061889
Re: The Facts of Life…
Geoffrey Britain: There goes Christianity! Pop…pop…pop.
“Democrats have fallen into a classic human trap, but not because they are being evil or perverse or unwell.”
You are simply wrong. Go reread Neo’s original post. She’s describing adults who when presented with facts, not argument or allegations but actual evidence, that contradict their thinking, respond by “screaming that I’m lying” or “abruptly turning their backs and leaving in a rage.”
THAT’S NOT NORMAL. It’s especially not normal because I would bet that most of the people Neo is writing about have not personally suffered any serious negative impact from Trump’s Presidency. They haven’t lost their jobs or their retirement savings. Their children haven’t been shipped out to die in some foreign war. THEY haven’t been threatened with social punishment or public shaming.
These people are so brittle and angry they almost can’t think or function solely because a guy they don’t like won an election. This is happening in the United States of America in the 21st century.
Mike
MBunge: You will pardon me for saying so, sir, but you have not truly contradicted my comment nor do you seem to have sufficient appreciation for the full range of human functioning.
Neo:
Would it help, would it yank their heads around in surprise, if you shouted after them, “Stop acting like it’s your religion! Your faith shouldn’t be so fragile!”
That, after all, is the dynamic you’re describing, isn’t it? It’s the dynamic of a kid raised in a Young Earth Creationist household, who loves her parents but has zero knowledge of how to argue for YEC, and now you’re offering to show her how to carbon-date a fossil. She’s been raised to think that such thoughts are a temptation, that a different reading of the relevant text is incompatible with theism. So she reacts like you’re the devil.
(Actually in my experience the YEC folks don’t react that way. But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend the caricature is actually the norm.)
Those reactions exist in the human psyche to protect fragile worldviews from psychologically-shattering damage. Women who’ve had abortions often surround their self-images with similar defense-systems. After all, they think of themselves as good, enlightened people, and if they suddenly discovered that, no, actually, you contract-murdered your own helpless child in an act of fear and immaturity and hardship-avoidance, they might shatter, to the point of suicide or catatonia or dissociation. Naturally they erect an Ugh Field to prevent that from happening.
I’m not sure what the correct way is to help a person overcome their fear of looking a question squarely in the face. My own habitual nervous-tic is that I’m afraid not to, so, it’s hard for me to identify.
But if they’re secular-minded, perhaps it would be sufficiently arresting to say, “It’s not your religion, is it? I didn’t know I was transgressing against your faith.” For a certain segment of persons, that would make them overheat even faster; but, for folks who pride themselves on not being religious, maybe they’d check themselves.
R.C. (12:19 am) concluded, “for a certain segment of persons, that would make them overheat even faster; but, for folks who pride themselves on *not* being religious, maybe they’d check themselves.”
From where I sit, folks who pride themselves on *not* being religious will overheat even faster. Your mileage may vary.
huxley,
“Re: The Facts of Life…
Geoffrey Britain: There goes Christianity! Pop…pop…pop.”
Not at all. Given that Christianity posits that God is the creator of the physical universe and any other dimensions that may exist, then God is the original and Supreme ‘scientist’ and therefore science and real religion/spirituality must be in reality, in compliance with each other. It’s our lack of understanding that prevents our seeing that congruence.
As for Christianity’s holding to Jesus being the son of God, that’s a personal decision. But nothing he said or did contradicts any of those dictums.
I presume you’re referring to #4 “the universe does not care” and possibly #1 “life is not fair”
Let’s avoid simplistic assumptions. The “universe” within which we exist is the physical universe, which presently is all we can prove to others the existence of, so it is to the physical universe to which #4 refers. And the physical universe is incapable of caring. Unless of course, you subscribe to the Gaia hypothesis. As for spiritual aspects, they necessarily exist outside the physical universe. Though there is personal testimony of outside intrusion into the physical universe.
As for #1… evolution itself could not exist if life were “fair” and that evolutionary unfairness is what enables individual breakthroughs in understanding and civilizational progress itself.
huxley,
Does “sufficient appreciation for the full range of human functioning” include those who are evil, perverse or unwell?
I think it is to those categories of Americans to whom Mike is refering.
Biden, his handlers, AOC, Omar, Sanders, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Soros and multitudes of others clearly fall into those categories.
“nor do you seem to have sufficient appreciation for the full range of human functioning.“
Nazi Germany. Rwanda. Cambodia. The Soviet Union. I think you are the one who lacks an appreciation of human functioning.
One can’t really disprove an opinion when that opinion is indifferent to facts, which is part of what we’re discussing. It seems clear that Neo is disturbed about the interactions she describes because, and this is the important bit, SHE HAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IT BEFORE.
Have you? Have you ever had repeated instances where simply presenting someone with legitimate facts which contradicted a political view caused that person to scream at you or get so angry they felt compelled to physically get away from you? How many times have you even seen people react that way with others?
Let me give you a less heated example of the kind of weirdness at issue. Both during the debate and at other times, Joe Biden has attacked Donald Trump for “looking down” on presumably working class Americans. One can reasonably criticize Donald Trump for many things, including being an arrogant jerk. But accusing him of being an elitist snob? That’s insane. It’s an accusation basically at odds with everything Trump has ever said or done. It’s like accusing Ronald Reagan of being soft on communism or Bill Clinton of being a sexually repressed prude. Yet no one even blinks at the ridiculousness of it because it doesn’t even make the top 10 of most nonsensical attacks leveled at Trump.
This stuff is not normal. Pretending it is doesn’t help anything.
Mike
“let me put in a plug for the historical fiction of the mostly-forgotten but once bestselling Rafael Sabatini” – Zaphod
“He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.”
– Scaramouche
Best first line ever.
Pretty awesome book, too.
So are the rest of them, despite the surface appearance of being escapist swash-buckling.
“Captain Blood” gives some perspective on the 1619 agenda.
“SciAm has broken my heart so many times in the past 20 years.” – huxley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RTzF0Z5xQ
“…The suggestion that rationality is both only a few centuries old and possessed by a minority of people…” – MBunge
Rationality is millenia-old, but it is generally possessed at all times by only a (sometimes very small) minority of people.
In fortunate societies, they have been enough to drag everyone else along into civilization.
When they get suppressed and annihilated – there is no one left to keep things going.
The Marching Morons. By C. M. KORNBLUTH. Illustrated by DON SIBLEY [Transcriber’s Note: This etext was produced from Galaxy Science Fiction April 1951.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/51233/51233-h/51233-h.htm
“there are remarkable convergences between the ideas he expressed in that book and standard Orthodox theology, and for all that Lewis was Anglican in background, the resonances are remarkable to me (my parish priest has commented on that as well once or twice).” – Philip
C. S. Lewis is that most remarkable Christian apologist, who is able to describe basic theological doctrines so simply and clearly that adherents of all different varieties of practice say, “Of course that’s what it means!” — he is probably the non-Mormon most often quoted by Latter-day Saints, including our General Authorities.
You don’t really have to argue for Truth; it makes itself known.
“I moved into a wonderful new house and my neighbors, naturally, have one of those catechism lawn signs:” – huxley
Thank you for giving those a name! We have a couple in our area, although not on my own street. My close neighbor with the oversize Trump sign in the upstairs window appears to have taken it down.
In the general vicinity, I have noticed a flowering of American flags in place of signage. I observed one family putting in a new 40′ pole a couple of weeks ago as I drove past over a couple of days last month. The man was outside this afternoon and I stopped to give him a thumbs-up.
On the corner is a house with the Catechism sign.
Might get interesting on that street in a couple of months.
For LYNN especially – please note that this is from Not The Bee, i.e., true story.
https://notthebee.com/article/watch-amazon-delivery-driver-vandalizes-trump-sign-after-dropping-off-package
huxley – the official name is Emotive Conjugation, but Russell was the originator of the concept. (Wikipedia has not yet corrupted the universe of facts, despite leaning to moral “truths” in any political context.)
This one seems particularly appropriate to the dudgeon of the Democrats.
“I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.”
From the “Yes, Minister” Series, they seem to be familiar with blog commenters.
“I have an independent mind, You are eccentric, He is round the twist.”
And this one is ripped from the headlines about the Swamp’s shenanigans and the double or triple standards in play.
“I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he’s being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act.”
Lee, et al:
I recommend we use the terms The Left invented for their own version of “Truth”:
Truthiness along with Truthy
This will help make it clear which concept is being talked about at any given moment.
Here is some commentary today on reason and politics.
Don’t get bogged down by the economic stuff at the front.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/you-thought-we-had-polarized-society-covid
}}} The idea that people who behave this way are unwell is profoundly wrong, as they are simply normal humans. The mistaken belief here is that the natural state of human cognition is rationality. In fact this way of thinking was something that only caught on in Europe a few hundred years ago (The “Age of Reason”) and only among a minority even there. The vast majority of people reason emotionally most of the time and then use their reasoning powers to justify the decision they have already made because it “feels right.”
I agree, but we WERE making lots of progress to this end.
Moreover, it was respected and recognized as the “proper way to think”.
PostModern Liberalism, however, is aimed at destroying the West, and eliminating every advance since the Age of Rationalism began to return civilization back to a New Barbarism.
PostModern Liberalism is a social cancer. Not figuratively, LITERALLY. It is attacking and destroying the very foundations of Western Culture, with all the benefits to humanity it brings.
If it is not stopped, it will be the greatest catastrophe in all of human history, with a death toll in the multiple billions.
No, that’s not hyperbole. It’s a serious assessment.
” Even when I was a hippie, it mattered to me to keep truth, fiction and wishful thinking separate.” – huxley
That’s why you’re now commenting on conservative blogs.
Good seminar today, Neo.
Thanks to everyone for your very thought-provoking perspectives.
And the book recommendations.
And all the fish.
PS – quite a bit of the discussion here interfaces nicely with Neo’s post about Sarah Hoyt’s Bubblegum Pig story.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/10/01/sarah-hoyt-explains/
}}} I have family and friends that react the same way: No facts or logic is sufficient if it leads to a bad outcome. Morality trumps all argument
The primary thing to grasp about liberals is The Liberal Midnight Reset Button™.
There’s a device built into their tiny widdle brains (such as they are) which acts on their memory processes as it processes the day’s experiences into permanent storage.
It examines all the day’s learning in light of Officially Accepted Liberal Positions®.
If it finds ANYTHING which violates an OALP, it is instantly purged and removed from further affect on the brain (such as it is).
This explains how you can, with any liberal, start from one of their more Cherished OALPs, take them, step by step, through a reasoning process and show how that OALP is categorically guaranteed to result in exactly the opposite of that thing which the OALP is intended to promote, and have them agree with you utterly and completely every step of the way, even unto the conclusion that the OALP is blatantly, inherently wrong (They’ll weasel it almost every time with “Hmmm. I’m going to have to think about this some more”).
Then, despite this, when you see them again a day, or two days, or a week, later, they will still be arguing in total and complete support of the OALP you just wasted your time demonstrating to them was utterly and completely defective in every way, shape, or form.
The Liberal Midnight Reset Button™ has done its nefarious work.
Once you grasp that this is not a joke, that it’s an actual, functioning mechanism inside libtard brains (such as they are), you will have a far greater understanding of how it is that liberals make no sense. How they cannot grasp, no matter how many times it fails, that Marxism does not work.
Now, this does NOT mean it is a waste of time to perform such an action — It still forces YOU to process the information, and examine it for flaws related to newer data you have obtained, and/or new viewpoints which you might deem relevant.
It also serves a secondary purpose, if done in a public forum, of providing a counterbalancing PoV for any lurkers to consider, rather than allowing the clueless liberal bovine excreta to lay there unchallenged.
But the purpose is always for your benefit — a reality self-check — and not for the benefit or expectation of a change in their point of view.
It may still happen — some people are liberal because of environment — they’ve never gotten it shoved in their face before (Neo-neocon is a prime example) but they are exceptions, not the standard.
“I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he’s being charged under section 2A of the Official Secrets Act.”
Takes me back!
I once received a novelty annual planner as a gift. The premise was that it was Sir Humphrey Appleby’s diary. The pages were populated with Applebyesque marginalia and ephemera — e.g. opera (Osborne’s Electrification of the Soviet Union!) and ballet tickets, restaurant receipts, etc.
It’s sobering to think that this kind of comedy could not be made or even conceived of today by the Gatekeepers.
OBloodyHell had a good point – what the Left really talks about is “Truthy” not Truth.
These are the people we are dealing with.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-stupidest-fact-check-in-the-history-of-fact-checking/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=4
Personally, I think they have gone round the twist.
How do you argue anything important with this moral “truth” position?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-staffer-suggests-intolerant-views-of-orthodox-catholics-jews-muslims-should-disqualify-them-from-supreme-court/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=third
Barry Meislin on October 1, 2020 at 4:15 pm said:
“Short version (of both Tablet articles): We have to take back the language.”
That will be harder than you think. Even the Merriam-Webster Dictionary site gives usage examples from the media. That means even if it’s random, it’ll be biased towards the left.
Life and Death in Shanghai” about the Cultural Revolution is another terrifying true book.
I saw her on her book tour: frail, old, about to die. I thought how wonderful it was that I lived in America. Hmmm.
Reading through all these thought provoking comments what comes up for me is Kuhn and his idea of paradigm shift. I think the established order has run out of gas and that we are seeing the level of denial peak in the face of a possible Trump victory. So Neo’s friends are extra touchy. When everything you believe is being fundamentally threatened your amygdala gets tweaked. And you insist Trump (and Candice Owens) are white supremacists and all the rest. Unlike these paradigm clingers, I didn’t see anywhere in the walk away video by Georgia H that she had gone into complete denial to defend her leftist acculturation. What she did notice is that she simply avoided looking at the reality before her as long as she could. I think that her most telling point was that there are evidently 2 administrators for every teacher and that the administrators insist on pushing failing policies onto the actual teachers and children. That isn’t systemic racism, its systemic denial in the face of a failing paradigm. And that is what I see happening when the aparatchicks of the revolution scream at people having dinner to raise their fists. If the black vote hands the victory to Trump, a few more people will find themselves walking away.
Always remember that the “Age of Reason” also known as The Enlightenment for all it’s brilliance in the end delivered France to the Jacobins.
You can’t argue with an idea either, whether it is a Truthful or Truthy one.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/joe-biden-is-just-an-idea/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=top-bar-latest&utm_term=third
[FEATURE not bug]
A fitting companion to his former President.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/03/06/obama_from_blank_slate_to_empty_suit_109134.html
https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/07/11/biden-the-blank-screen-candidate
Ishmael,
Re: France and the Enlightenment
France never experienced an enlightenment. It was stillborn with Rousseau.
In Europe, the enlightenment was confined to the British Isles.
AesopFan,
Re: “Joe can be anything you want. What will the reality look like? I don’t know. You don’t know. He doesn’t know, either.
Given the state of the democrat party, many of us have a very good take on what reality will look like under democrat rule. And Joe doesn’t care what reality will look like as long as he gets to feed his ‘appetites’.
I like this blog because of the thoughtfulness of the commentary. So little name-calling compared to others.
But these lengthy discussions, I think, miss the point. It’s when you look at a person and say, for example, “the transcript shows the opposite” and they melt down. Their belief doesn’t change. What they tell other people doesn’t change. Some are being deliberately dishonest but….some are in another plane of mentation which Neo hasn’t seen before. Nor have I even, as I said, when rooming with a couple of hippy/SDS types in the late Sixties.
When you say “the transcript shows the opposite”, they don’t cite some other transcript, they don’t say the transcript is unclear, they don’t even dispute the transcript. They just melt down. But the don’t change their beliefs, whether it’s their wider world view or whether Michael Brown had his hands up.
It’s not a world view. Neo’s examples aren’t about the wider view of How Things Are, but of a simple, straightforward fact. Admittedly, the fact might threaten the world view, but they don’t address the fact as we have come to expect of rational humans through decades of experience even with those of vastly different political views.
An example would be among gun-control freaks. If they use terms from the argument that hadn’t existed in the real world, there are two possibilities. One is they think you are susceptible to some BS like “weapons of war”. That would be the dishonest ones. Or they actually think that concept has some validity. But if you ask them to name one gun control proposition which even pretends to look at guns in the hands of criminals the latter freak out. The former redirect their argument in a more or less obvious dodge. The latter–as I said, I witnessed a person looking as if a seizure were coming–when faced with a fact freak out. They yell, leave angrily, accuse you of some nutty villainy.
As I said, in my experience fifty plus years ago, people lied, chose facts cleverly, obviously believed some nonsense (LBJ was getting rich off the war), or pretended to. They’d get angry. But there was always a core of rational thought if only in how to provide a dishonest argument.
I take Neo’s point that the emotional crack-up is a new phenomenon.
If I were to guess, it’s because the beliefs are so ingrained as a part of the self-image that any threat to the belief is catastrophic. The belief isn’t “out there” and I have it. The belief is “in here” and I am it. Might be a better explanation….
This, as I keep saying, is new to me and, apparently to Neo.
@Geoffrey Britain Re your comment on French Revolution:
No True Scotsman…
And I’ve got nothing against the Scottish Enlightenment.
Pax.
Geoffrey Britain,
That’s not the generally accepted bounds of The Enlightenment. The number of French philosophers that are included are more than a few. Rousseau is there too, my distaste for his philosophy not withstanding. For that matter I don’t particularly think Voltaire, Descartes or Kant are with a damn, but they are included also. My preference for Bacon, Hobbes, Locke and Smith that hailed from the British Isles does not mean I can discount the Continent. Quite a bit of The Enlightenment and the ideas it birthed were little more than nihilistic navel gazing. It may have the aided the Framers with the Constitution, but it also influenced Robespierre, Hegel, Marx, Engels and Nietzsche.
Always remember that the “Age of Reason” also known as The Enlightenment for all it’s brilliance in the end delivered France to the Jacobins.
The Jacobins came and went over the period running from 1792 to 1794. Their worst crime was the Vendée. They did prosecute a war against other European powers, but conquering neighboring countries and setting up client states therein was the work of the Directory régime (on which Napoleon elaborated).
Prior to the advent of the Jacobins, the Assembly had initiated a war on the Church, not merely abolishing compulsory tithes, but seizing it’s property, forcibly dissolving religious orders, placing episcopal appointments under the control of the state, and coercing the clergy into taking oaths in violation of their conscience. That pretty much tore it for the King and much of the populace. (Presumably the anti-clericalism of Voltaire and others was salient here). A religious regime similar to that worked out in British North America in the last quarter of the 18th century – no compulsory tithes, no recusancy laws, no state harassment of dissenters, no subventions out of the public treasury, and denominational self-government – might have saved France a lot of misery.
Art Deco,
The Jacobins are largely credited with the Reign of Terror which is like the pièce de résistance of what came before. Bad ideas are known by their result, wether we blame it on the Assembly, Rousseau or Voltaire (I think all three personally). And yes the French could have gone America’s direction by following the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, but sadly no they couldn’t, because they are French.
rcat on October 1, 2020 at 2:48 pm said:
In the Age of Enlightenment, Western societies abandoned superstition and religion in favor of reason.
That inevitably leads to what follows. Because “abandoning superstition” and replacing it with reason makes Reason your god. And Reason is insufficient to the purpose.
GWB,
That was where I was going and you said it far more succinctly.
IAM the truth, the light, and the way.
GWB on October 2, 2020 at 8:10 am said:
rcat on October 1, 2020 at 2:48 pm said:
In the Age of Enlightenment, Western societies abandoned superstition and religion in favor of reason.
That inevitably leads to what follows. Because “abandoning superstition” and replacing it with reason makes Reason your god. And Reason is insufficient to the purpose.
There were a few instances in which you could have taken Ymar’s statements on faith alone. Maybe not in the beginning but certainly later when it proved to be all true or have a solid foundation.
But instead, your need “reasons” and need other things to back it up. Isn’t that the case for all of mortal humanity? They can’t get by with faith or reason, because they have a fear of the unknown.
Et Verbum Caro Factum Est
The former redirect their argument in a more or less obvious dodge. The latter–as I said, I witnessed a person looking as if a seizure were coming–when faced with a fact freak out. They yell, leave angrily, accuse you of some nutty villainy.
Exorcists from Vatican, call that demonic possession. They would know, too, given how many pedos are in the Vatican.
The belief isn’t “out there” and I have it. The belief is “in here” and I am it. Might be a better explanation….
This, as I keep saying, is new to me and, apparently to Neo.
People identify themselves with a tribe, and then need to defend it. Take sports teams as an example. Why fight over that? Because to them, they are the team identity. Just like a clan.
but sadly no they couldn’t, because they are French.
Yes, they could have. They elected not to. The administrative manpower necessary to implement a post-Colonial American solution would have been a fraction of the manpower it took to implement the Civil Constitution programme. That is because the American solution means you stop doing certain things: stop collecting tithes and tell the locals that anyone tries to extort tithes out of you you treat him as a criminal, stop issuing citations for recusancy, stop disrupting local Huguenot meetings, stop appointing bishops and simply offer a ceremonial greeting to the new bishop sent by the Holy See.
AesopFan says,
I have not read the original USA Today “fact check”. But if I were the National Review writer commenting on it, I would have mafe damn sure first that the USA Today fact check of the Babylon Bee satire, which ultimately labeled the Babylon Bee’s article on the 9th Circuit ruling as “satire”, was not itself a kind of satire or facetious and self critical parody intended to comment on the current state of news business affairs.
Art Deco,
I agree the republicanism without the excesses would have been far easier. I was being funny, getting in a French dig.
And yes the French could have gone America’s direction by following the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers,
I don’t think Roger Williams or William Penn or the Calverts in Maryland qualify as Scottish Enlightenment figures. Our religious accommodations were worked out on the ground by people who had farms and businesses to run.
I agree the republicanism without the excesses would have been far easier.
The Constitution of 1791 established a limited monarchy.
I don’t think Roger Williams or William Penn or the Calverts in Maryland qualify as Scottish Enlightenment figures. Our religious accommodations were worked out on the ground by people who had farms and businesses to run.
I was speaking more broadly of intellectual influences. That doesn’t discount the Common Sense of early Colonists.
Early on after my husband was discharged from the hospital following his near-death experience, his sister who lives in Seattle called. The 3 of us were talking and she stated that she was glad that Gov. Inslee had closed down the state. A few more things were said and I responded “science?” when she supported her point of view accordingly. She hung up on us. She is a person who prides herself on being kind, intelligent, open-minded, fair and just. She could not tolerate a conversation with 2 family members under lockdown, one of whom almost died and was recovering because of a disagreement, unwilling to flesh out the specifics regarding science. No facts here please. It was enlightening the way few things are.
On a different note with regard to Neo’s point about “moral truth”, this video by
Fr. Altman is a very definitive position by a Roman Catholic priest in the minority. He places the Church’s purpose in the sphere of being the “moral power”. (Quoting Pope Benedict VXI.) For us (my husband and some of our fellow Catholics) he is a modern-day St. John the Baptist speaking truth (moral truth) to the powerful and the cowardly.
https://youtu.be/3-7eoTN2vNM
I hate to be a bore, but I really think Neo is seeing the collapse of a paradigm, and the increased emotional reaction is caused by the proximity of Trump possibly winning reelection next month. It is really putting the wind up them and they must know that a lot of the things they believe are simply self protecting fictions.
A Biden win is neither impossible nor unthinkable and my amygdala can contemplate such an eventuality with equanimity. I don’t have to turn my back on anyone. I will just listen to what they think will result and than watch what actually happens. As I am 78, I will die in the not too distant future taking some care to keep my distance from the spectacle. Likewise, if Trump wins.
LorenzGude,
I guess you have the advantage of having seen it before. I imagine 1968 seemed scarier.
We Humans are batshit crazy inherently violent overgrown apes.
The writer Elaine Morgan once suggested to people talking this way (she had in mind anthropologists writing for general audiences) that they insert someone they know in this sentence and see if it still makes sense. As in: “my postman is a batshit crazy inherently violent overgrown ape”.
LorenzGude
Presuming Biden wins and the hard left takes over, I picture discussing with my Biden fan acquaintances how come things got so crappy, unlike what they promised us.
I expect something like the very nice church lady who, discussing the Branch Davidian massacre, said, “It was a cult.”.
I expect the defenses to be rationalizations which need to be believed since, if they’re not, the lefty has a lot to answer for.
On the other hand, they may enjoy the spectacle.
Very late answer to Philip Sells question: yes, there are college faculty who primarily teach. Even though I was at an undergrad college I also ran a $1M dollar lab and trained about 140 students over my career. I published regularly (about 20 papers total, much less than at a grad institution, but then those faculty also have full time grad students) primarily in Physical Rev. A, though with forays into archaeology and historic architecture though some interdisciplinary collaborations. Specialty was high energy ion-molecule collisions at one time funded by grants from NASA and NSF. I’ll leave it to the jury to decide whether I was/am a “scientist” or not.
“I picture discussing with my Biden fan acquaintances how come things got so crappy, unlike what they promised us.” Richard Aubrey
You can count on it always being the fallouot of the Trump presidency or the citizens that supported him. Just like any successes in the economy prior to the coronavirus debacle were gains from the Obama administration.
I have an example of the extreme toxicity embraced by lefties that still shocks me.
I went to Davidson College in the 70s. Davidson has been ranked by Forbes as the top academic school in the south. Only 325 students in my class (smaller than my high school). About 3/4 of my classmates went to grad school (1/4 to med school, then law, business school or divinity). The honor code was and still is a key part of the culture of the college. [When Steph Curry and Davidson fell one shot short of the NCAA basketball Final Four in 2008, a grad school prof at Az State who’d been a visiting prof one year at DC wrote that he had no doubt that the extraordinary culture of trust on campus created by living with the honor code played a role in the outstanding teamwork shown by the Cats.] Whenever I took my boys back to campus for a visit they always pointed out how unusually nice everyone was. Tony Snow, perhaps the nicest person to ever work in a White House, was a friend of mine at DC. There has always been a special bond among alums, even among people meeting for the first time.
Imagine my shock when on Facebook a classmate, an ordained minister (Methodist IIRC) and career Army chaplain, has argued repeatedly over the last few years that all Republicans are white supremacists. This minister’s comments are routinely ugly and nasty in disparaging anyone who doesn’t buy the liberal narrative. Anyone who has been on social media knows the standard tropes about stupid, racist Trump fans misled by Faux news, etc. etc.
My point — if the moral rot has infected career army chaplains in a discussion among Davidson alums …. well, there’s some serious evil at work in the land.
The relentless drumbeat of “racist, sexist, fascist, Nazi, white supremacist, etc.” for decades has created a culture of hatred. At Rhodes College over 1300 alums sign a petition demanding that the school denounce fellow alum Amy Comey Barrett. Simply being a Republican is now considered sufficient grounds for being declared a hater and to be “othered”.
I think Jonathon Haidt’s research on the limited moral foundation of liberals is valuable. Conservatives and moderates understand how liberals think. Liberals, especially the most left-wing, genuinely do not understand how conservatives think.
And it has been non-stop hate from the Democrats that whole time. What is the f*cking problem?
I think ground zero of this is the ability of Trump to change the Supreme Court. These people don’t care that much about ordinary policies like taxes and regulations, which are easy to change in any case. But the specter of a more conservative SC drives these people insane to the point that they enter into their own fantasy reality about Trump.
And in a sense they are right: A couple more SC appointments could have a 30-year impact on the direction of the country. Let’s hope it happens.
physicsguy, sounds pretty sciencey. 🙂 My first thought was mass spec, which would presumably have come in handy with the archaeological work. But the high-energy aspect broadens the scope.
Hi, stan. That’s an interesting example, but on the other hand, if he’s the only one that stands out to you as having taken such a turn, maybe your alma mater is holding up okay.
Philip, for the archaeology we were using PIXE: proton-induced x-ray emission which is non-destructive for sensitive elemental analysis.
Jimmy, the background of the importance of the SC to liberals has always been that it is their last resort. Being unable to convince a majority of the people of the rightness of their “moral” stance, hence unable to enact their values through legislation, they fell back to using the SC to enforce their will. On the “don’t care about taxes,etc” the weeping and wailing about the SALT deductions changes pretty well put the kibosh on that opinion.
On another topic, here in Florida, the BIden ads are outright – Look at all the money we are going to give you, vote for us. Money for daycare, money for your house, free healthcare. Image after Image of people, families, with amounts and $$$ written underneath. It is really disgusting and blatant.
Fascinating timing. I have begun reading “Veritas”, non-fiction about a hoax ancient Christian papyrus foisted on a feminist Harvard academic. The papyrus purported to reference Jesus’s wife, something the academic desperately wanted so as to begin discrediting traditional Christian concepts of marriage & “patriarchy”. As I reacted to the book, I went to Amazon and read some reviews to see if anyone else was seeing the same thing. One review quoted some lines in parts I had not yet read about how the academic, when the hoax began to come into view, used words pretty identical to neo’s post about “moral” truth and the tyranny of facts.
On the “don’t care about taxes,etc” the weeping and wailing about the SALT deductions changes pretty well put the kibosh on that opinion.
Yes, but that’s just normal political discourse. The TDS is something else entirely, and we saw it under the Bushes as well. I agree with you that the SC is the left’s ‘last resort,’ but that’s why having a Republican President and Senate has driven them insane. They will have no last resort before long if Trump is reelected.
My wife suffers from TDS and it has become tricky talking about political issues in recent years. I am no Trump supporter, but I like to try and look at things as objectively as I am able. In a recent dispute, I was accused of wanting to be right. I was confused and asked as opposed to being wrong or being left? I later realized she meant as opposed to being moral. In summary, if the facts don’t make the correct moral case, they should be disregarded. I suppose I already understood this, but to be told so directly was jarring.
It has actually made things easier for me. Now it has been explicitly stated that she wants to live in an imaginary reality, I am ok keeping hurtful facts to myself.
In looking it up, I find that I am familiar with the general concept from psychology and biology classes taken decades ago, but not the specific terminology used to characterize the phenomenon, which first dates to 1995 apparently. It was probably called a “fight or flight” reflex takeover provoked by the limbic system, or something along those lines back in the early 80’s
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Amygdala
What I did notice a more recent number of years ago was a great deal of interest shown by progressive polemicists in referencing the supposedly overgrown amygdala of persons who are, or who present as conservative. In other words, the etiology of conservatism. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/liberals-are-from-the-acc-conservatives-are-from-the-amygdala
Whereas progressives because of their finely developed brain structures, are: rational, intellectually flexible, curious, novelty embracing, creative, tolerant of uncertainly, loving, generous, expansive, caring, compassionate, equable, supremely intelligent and fearless. Such excellent-in-every-way people can naturally be forgiven for surmising that they are indeed the process of the universe giving birth to God.
Chicago area and ditto
I very much relate to this post, and I don’t even engage people in debate. Discourse has broken down. The consequences have the potential to be injurious for the republic. For me? Just makes me feel even lonlier.
Agreeing on moral truth is problematic, and agreeing on Truth is near impossible, but we can’t even agree on reality.
I was thinking the other day the possible ramifications of that. We are marching to a reality that redefines what being male and female is. What other realities will be bent to fit the narrative. The narrative uber alle.
Parker: my youngest car is partially a Russian blue and can discourse at length on the various series of St. Petersburg, although he gets bossy if you call it Leningrad.
He is much better at conversation than any liberals have been the past five years or so.
Simon:
One relative of mine told me something very similar to that. It is very sobering to hear it. She said she did not want her view of reality, the one she’d had her whole life, challenged. At least that sounded honest and forthright to me.
It just struck men that here’s a good way to distinguish what’s going on now with previous political hates.
We had birtherism with Obama, which held that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and a bunch of other stuff that flowed out of it. The differences between that and what we see with Trump are:
1. Birtherism was almost entirely confined to the fringes of our political discourse. Our entire political establishment spent 2+ years believing Donald Trump was a Russia sleeper agent and major political and media figures are spreading doubts about the safety of a COVID vaccine “because Trump” and questioning on Twitter whether President Trump really has the coronavirus.
2. The birthers had a pretty well-developed conspiracy theory with specific places, dates, and names. Trump hatred is remarkably unspecific and omni-directional. The Mueller investigation was supposed to find SOMETHING but I’ll bet most Russia hoax believers couldn’t tell you exactly what.
3. When challenged, birthers might deny or evade or obfuscate, but I don’t recall much evidence or indication of them just losing their damn minds and throwing tantrums like frustrated toddlers.
Mike
Oh, and one more:
4. Birtherism acknowledged a circumstance or situation in which it could be disproved. When President Obama released his birth certificate, birtherism essentially vanished from even the fringe of American politics. On the other hand, Trump-haters will not acknowledge anything contrary to their viewpoint.
Mike
Good point.
When President Obama released his birth certificate
He released a certificate of live birth. Even so, people did not conduct witch hunts, warlock trials, or protests. Not for 16 trimesters or even 1.
Fascinating and important observation. But, damn! I wanted to drop this thread, but I could not help returning to look; and then you say that, and then I recall what I had meant to say yesterday and had forgotten. And so…
Back in ’90, worked for a company that employed a couple of retirement aged ladies as bookkeepers and secretaries. One, Barb, was a generous minded, and friendly Episcopalian church lady, and an earlier era version of a social justice activist.
I have previously commented here on how proud she was of having been instrumental in the diversification of her old residential neighborhood. And also how when I asked her why she did not still live there, she informed me without the least trace of recognizing the irony involved, that she moved out as her boy and girl were being repeatedly beaten up, and their bicycles stolen. When I asked her if she had not anticipated that, as I’ve stated previously, she just stared at me as if uncomprehending of the meaning of the words I used.
More to this present point, one day – she liked to discuss such issues- we began talking about what was really important, or should be important to or valued by the individual: what persons should want or strive to acheive failing all else. I said something a bit pompous, like, “to know the truth, whatever it might be”. She actually snorted before laughing. “Truth? Truth! Who cares about that?!” And then, “I want to be happy!”.
Now I suppose if we were both more conventional -me less priggish and she less aged – a psychologist might have said that we should both have said ” love” or something. But I feel fortunate to have said what I did, because it allowed me to gain insight into what this pleasant Episcopalian church lady and social activist really considered the proper ranking of truth in the hierarchy of her value system. It didnt mean jack shit to her when push came to shove.
Reminds me too, of the politically minded mail lady who after asking me what I thought was the most important issue in a previous election, responded by laughing derisively and shouting at the ceiling: “Freedom?! You sound like Mel Gibson! Hahaha. ‘Oh, freedom, oh freedom. Let me have my freedom’ hahaha”. (A near if not perfect quote of her amused mockery)
Yeah, freedom, truth, and all that movie stuff. Who needs it? Girls know better. Girls just wanna have fun, or security or good feelz or something.
Fortunately that does not describe the ” girls ” in my immediate family, who are made of, if I dare use the term, “nobler stuff”
Everyone has a religion (i.e. moral or behavioral philosophy), if only something (e.g. Pro-Choice) that is notoriously selective, opportunistic, relativistic (“ethics”), and politically congruent (“=”). However, the effects of these ostensibly “secular” religions do not have equal consequences. For example, unlike one-child, selective-child reflects normalization of a religion that debases human life for light and casual purposes, including social justice, social progress, friendship with “benefits” (e.g. casting couch, virtual polygamy), and taxable commodities (i.e. women, girls). It was their need to normalize reproductive rites that demanded founding of a movement based on a rape… rape-rape theme to convince normal people to tolerate Planned Parenthood “clinics” including abortion chambers and Mengele clinics.
Ending Obama’s wars, social justice adventures, which were first-order forcings of catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform. Peace in the Middle East. The very model of Hitler.
Ending Obamacare. Addressing progressive prices and affordability in medical care. The very model of Mao.
Ending diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) or class-based affirmative discrimination. The man must be aborted… cancelled for the sake of social justice, social progress, and other selective, opportunistic, politically congruent (“=”) things.
“I moved into a wonderful new house and my neighbors, naturally, have one of those catechism lawn signs:”
The local Unitarian Universalist church has one of those signs out front. Are your neighbors Unitarians?
Ask them to list the 3 laws of thermodynamics.
Uh…erm…
The issue with such slogans is that these are all phrases most of us can agree with, but many of us disagree with the implicit meanings according to those who post such signs. Yes, “Black Lives Matter,” says the sign, but most posting the sign also believe it is racist to also say “All Lives Matter.” Yes, “Kindness is Everything,” but many or most posting the sign also believe that Deplorables are to be shunned. And someone who disagrees with them is, by definition, Deplorable.
And so forth. Nothing new here.
Ray
As a former vice president of the local chapter of Liberal Religious Youth (UU), I am always good for a round of Unitarian jokes.
BTW, The Unitarian Universalist Association considered LRY too radical even for them, and disbanded it in 1982.
DNW. Wrt your colleagues: I can picture the puzzlement on the face of the lady whom you asked about what had changed in her neighborhood. The issue is what makes her “happy”, and unthinking good feels as defined by…maybe the piskie hierarchy? is “happy”.
seems like sixty years ago, seeing a picture in a local sports section of a high school cheerleader weeping after the team had lost. I wondered if we have a supply of emotion in excess of current western world’s needs and have to apply it to something, anything. I was in high school at the time and I suppose that’s an excuse. But perhaps we have rounded off so many corners that incorrect assessments of situations and likely results of one course of action or another are not punished sufficiently to encourage engaging with reality. After all, she could move when things got, predictably, difficult and so…not a big deal Had the money, could find a place, etc. Thinking about what was happening to her old neighbors–at her partial behest–would be disturbing if any connection could be drawn ,and would also seem impermissibly racist to consider anyway, particularly if it came up in conversation with one of her old neighbors.
No harm. No foul. No lesson. Imagine trying to get her to see the connection and why it should have been foreseen.
I’m not looking for sharp corners to be multiplied but perhaps some kind of education…..Ah, I kill myself here.
But there’s a SF short called The Cold Equations which I found in a high school anthology, to my surprise. Math didn’t care about your feelings. Might be useful to include it in more literary readings.
Gringo….”The issue with such slogans is that these are all phrases most of us can agree with, but many of us disagree with the implicit meanings according to those who post such signs.”
Willi Munzenberg, who was Stalin’s favorite propagandist, created numerous organizations which he termed ‘Innocents’ Clubs.’ These organizations, such as Workers International Relief and the World League Against Imperialism, were superficially devoted to an undeniably benign cause such as famine relief, anti-imperialism or peace, but Münzenberg created them to enlist the support of liberals and moderate socialists in defending the Bolshevik revolution.
Richard Aubrey…”I wondered if we have a supply of emotion in excess of current western world’s needs and have to apply it to something, anything.”
Arthur Koestler talked about the Tragic and the Trivial planes of human existence. The concept was explained well by his friend, the writer and fighter pilot Richard Hillary:
“K has a theory for this. He believes there are two planes of existence which he calls vie tragique and vie triviale. Usually we move on the trivial plane, but occasionally in moments of elation or danger, we find ourselves transferred to the plane of the vie tragique, with its non-commonsense, cosmic perspective. When we are on the trivial plane, the realities of the other appear as nonsense–as overstrung nerves and so on. When we live on the tragic plane, the realities of the other are shallow, frivolous, frivolous, trifling. But in exceptional circumstances, for instance if someone has to live through a long stretch of time in physical danger, one is placed, as it were, on the intersection line of the two planes; a curious situation which is a kind of tightrope-walking on one’s nerves…I think he is right.”
I think we have a lot of people who live entirely on the Trivial plane, but have a deep longing to experience the Tragic plane.
“I have previously commented here on how proud she was of having been instrumental in the diversification of her old residential neighborhood. And also how when I asked her why she did not still live there, she informed me without the least trace of recognizing the irony involved, that she moved out as her boy and girl were being repeatedly beaten up, and their bicycles stolen. When I asked her if she had not anticipated that, as I’ve stated previously, she just stared at me as if uncomprehending of the meaning of the words I used.” – DNW
That’s just sad.
She probably reads fact checks of the Babylon Bee and nods along.
David Foster
I think the trivial versus the tragic is a good metaphor. Now that I think about it, perhaps most of us grow out of getting confused about it.
The cheerleader I mentioned was in the tragic mode because…among other things, high school is full of trivial.
So the capacity for the tragic perhaps requires us to find it someplace, even if it’s a high school football game.
I recall urban lefty students–mid sixties variant–who thought well of themselves, their intellect and political viewpoints literally screaming insults or rooting at football games. This was at a Division One school where the term “student athlete” in the revenue sports is a joke. Something had to be important, somewhere.
The more I think about it, the more I think about rounded corners. And I also think about the metaphor of the traveler finding a stone wall. The conservative considers somebody expended a certain amount of energy and resources to do this and necessarily thought it was the most important thing to do in comparison to other options at the time. There must have been a reason and it would be well to see if the reason still obtains before we kick the wall over. The liberal traveler kicks the wall over because it’s between him and what he wants, reason for the wall being irrelevant. If it’s brought to his attention, he’d probably wave it off with references to dead white men.
Why? Because he’s never had any actual or vicarious experience with screwing up that couldn’t be easily fixed with no harm to him, or blamed on somebody else thus excusing him.
Now that I think about it, maybe The Cold Equations should be required reading in high school.
“She probably reads fact-checks of Babylon Bee and nods along”–My own sister, for Pete’s sake, stalked me onto an Facebook MSNBC comment section in which people were snarking about how the President deserves to get COVID, and in which I’d just posted the Bee’s crack about how the people who want to put government in charge of medicine are rooting for their political opponent to die. She posted a response consisting of a Snopes fact check, which noted gravely that the Bee is a satire site. This is an intelligent, educated woman.
Texann. From time to time, I tell people a fact and explain I’m doing it not because I think they don’t know it but because they obviously think i don’t know it.
What, do you think without messing up family relations, would your sister say if you told her everybody (but she and her likeminded friends) knows about the Bee?
Richard Aubrey – Cold Equations was the fist SF story I read, and it hooked me.
Faith. Absolutely crappy television production. Good lesson. Math–and by extension reality–don’t care about no feelings, man.
First disclaimer: I read Cold Equations as a young adult who was already a staunch SF fan (including of Heinlein’s oevre – yes, that’s relevant), and became a member of the Hooked Generation.
Second disclaimer: these are not the vaguely-remembered posts I was looking for, which are never anywhere to be found on the Internet, working from a vague recollection of a modern SF story published as a deliberate reverse of the Equations mindset (IIRC, the Sad Puppies campaign was involved in bringing it to my attention).
Third disclaimer: I don’t particularly agree with the authors of the posts l am linking, but this thread is about the different species of Truth populating the universe, so they constitute a relevant entry in the discussion, and I think they make points worth considering, if only as an exercise in anthropological research (cf Haidt’s liberal-conservative spectrum).
https://locusmag.com/2014/03/cory-doctorow-cold-equations-and-moral-hazard/
https://www.tor.com/2019/04/29/on-needless-cruelty-in-sf-tom-godwins-the-cold-equations/
She said she did not want her view of reality, the one she’d had her whole life, challenged. At least that sounded honest and forthright to me.
MBunge on October 2, 2020 at 4:34 pm said:
I Love 2020. It is the first year of the prologue and already, humanity’s arrogance and pride are being broken, even challenged.
Second disclaimer: these are not the vaguely-remembered posts I was looking for, which are never anywhere to be found on the Internet
Used to be on the first 5 pages of google. Until they borked themselves.
AesopFan:
Re: Doctorow.
==================
From your link to Locusmag:
‘‘The Cold Equations’’ never asks why the explorers were sent off-planet without a supply of vaccines.
==================
This was apparently supposed to be a ‘gotcha’, demolishing the plot line. Yet here we are, not even off-planet, and without a vaccine. Maybe there’s a reason I’ve never been impressed with Doctorow.
I’m not picking on you. That was a good link to a different point of view.
Argue for the Truth?
You can’t handle the truth
…
The truth is … even the optimal choices have bad aspects. My son won’t support Trump because he’s vulgar and a bully.
Well, he is.
Buh, buh, but his policies! …
Who a person is trumps his policy; character is more important.
Whatabout the other guy being worse? That’s just whataboutism. (too close to autism?)
Magic thinking is based on good intentions leading to moral superiority, making one become one of the good folk, despite the results.
—
I’m trying:
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Has the Dem media fooled you? About Trump? Obama spying on Trump? Clinton colluding with Russia, not Trump? Biden being corrupt in Ukraine, not Trump? Dems being racist, not Trump?
What if their reaction is:
screaming that I’m lying,
Clearly they are more emotionally invested, in their heart, rather than rationally, objectively invested.
Perhaps a question, instead of comment:
Are you in love with your idea? I mean, would you become enraged if I disagreed or if I knew some facts you don’t know?
Being “morally superior” is a strong addiction; and too many college educated folk are infected with a lust for that, beyond reason.