Is it useful to understand the philosophies behind “wokeness”?
Thinking more about the video I posted yesterday, I noticed this comment by “John Tyler”:
No point in really in trying to understand what motivates the adherents of wokeness, Nazism, communism, ANTIFA’ism, BLM’ism, etc. , because any sentient carbon based life form realizes what their end goals are.
No point in even trying to discuss what are the logical inconsistencies of these political socio-economic theologies because their adherents are immune to – or more likely do not care – about what non-adherents have to say, irrespective of the logical elegance of any arguments pointing out the deficiencies in their beliefs.
You cannot argue or debate a pseudo-religious belief system!!
It’s like arguing for/against the existence of God; one either believes or does not.
No, you cannot argue with such a person – if by “argue” you mean in the conventional sense of using reason and logic, those quaint (and apparently racist – who knew?) notions.
But I strongly disagree with the idea that there’s no point in really trying to understand what motivates them, “because any sentient carbon based life form realizes what their end goals are.” Perhaps my definition of “sentient” is different from Tyler’s, but I know plenty of people who appear to be quite sentient and who have no idea what the end goal is. They think the end goal is racial harmony, for example. Now, you can mock them all you want, but the vast majority of people who feel this way (“useful idiots,” as the Communists would say) have no idea whatsoever what the endpoint is. And the support of those people is vital to the activists. They count on that support and actively court it by coming up with such monikers as “Black Lives Matter,” which plays into this desire for an end to racism and suffering.
These unaware supporters include some people who place BLM signs on their porches, but an even greater number don’t go that far and yet they regularly vote for Democrats both locally and nationally, and fail to object when white-hating programs are implemented in their children’s classrooms. You can call them stupid or any other name you wish, but they are not stupid – merely idealistic, somewhat uninformed, and gullible.
I also think they are reachable, if they were to learn what underlies the goals and slogans of activists in movements such as BLM and the “anti-racism” educators. Those are discussions anyone can have with these unaware supporters. The discussions might not bear fruit, but in most cases you would not be arguing with an activist or someone who is familiar with the concepts involved. The majority are probably like those friends of mine who know only this about Antifa: that the name means “anti-fascist,” and so the group is probably fighting the good fight against hatred. The MSM endeavors to keep most people ignorant, and so it’s up to the right (and anyone else who is aware and not on board) to tell them what’s going on.
There’s another reason to try to understand, and that involves the next generation. If you are alert to the sorts of philosophies and areas of study (“critical” this and “critical” that) that are involved, you can teach your children or grandchildren what they mean and how to guard against them, so that they are forewarned and forearmed. You can also notice whether a certain school system or university is buying into this stuff, and try to bring to the public’s attention exactly what’s happening and why it’s both wrong and dangerous.
Lastly, if you ever find yourself in a confrontation with a True Believer, it can be helpful to know as much as possible about what they’re saying and what lies beneath – especially if there are onlookers who are paying attention. No, “You cannot argue or debate a pseudo-religious belief system,” as Tyler says. But you can confound them (perhaps, now and then) by (a) knowing their game and showing great awareness and knowledge of it (b) coming back at them with something unexpected in terms of argument or rejoinder (c) speaking to them in such a way that the onlookers learn something about what is going on here.
All those things seem potentially valuable to me.
[ADDENDUM: I’m surprised at the level of defeatism I see in most of the comments here, as well as the level of generalization regarding all people on the Democrat side. I’ve responded at some length in several comments, but right now I just want to highlight that the people I’m advocating talking to don’t ordinarily spend a lot of time on political topics and they are far more amenable to reasonable arguments from the other side than either activists or people who are intensely political.
Doesn’t anyone know people like the ones I’m talking about? I certainly do.
It may not be how you choose to spend your time. But I’m suggesting one-on-one exchanges with a friend or relative who fits the description I’ve given of the sort of person amenable to listening. They exist, and their numbers are not infinitesimal.
A great deal of patience is required. But if every single conservative chose even just one or two such people to talk to, I think some worthwhile change might occur. If you give up before you start and don’t even try, however, it’s less likely to occur.]
It is very useful — for the reasons you stated. Thank you so much for these posts.
Unfortunately, most of the people Neo describes, and that I know, are not reachable even though I would classify them as part of the “useful idiots” group. Most are college educated, smart, and yes gullible. However, the one aspect at present which makes them unreachable is they all have an extremely severe case of TDS. It affects everything they do, and seems to occupy an extreme amount of all their thoughts. Any attempt to inject any rational argument is immediately met with vitriol and the statement it’s “all Trump’s fault”. Usually these people are seemingly normal until politics, covid, climate change, etc etc come up, then they turn into wild-eyed, spittle spewing maniacs.
Just yesterday I pointed some of these people to a great video by an Irish engineer who is reviewing the covid situation both in Europe and here. It was immediately met with the statement: “This is such horseshit!” and “This man is a threat to all of us!”, and then inevitable, “There’s even Trump supporters in Ireland!”
Never thought of any of those reasons. My interest was much more abstract on the one hand, and practical in terms of – a judgment day if there is one – on the other; i.e. the moral justification for killing them if needs be.
I’ve never thought of converting them. Just hoped to preserve the social distance that our political institutions once afforded us as a matter of course, and declared as our natural right. I didn’t and don’t see how you can change an appetite, or a corrupt collectivist life strategy that is baked into the organism.
They may seem naive and mild, but on my take they are not. It looks like a pose, a strategy, part of the camouflage. They know what they are about, and how they are using their “fellow” man.
I’d like to be shown I am wrong. Never being a changer, having been a kind of anarchist-in-principle, or conventional acting libertarian since the earliest time I can remember, it is difficult for me to understand how a taste for a dish of liberty and respect for the independence of others which did not exist on Monday, can suddenly appear to be not only to be a palatable but delicious prospect on Tuesday.
I’m not sure I believe in natural naivete in adults.
For anyone interested in arguing against a true believer in the destructive mendacity and the ideological insanity of BLM, the articles posted by Soeren Kern at the Gatestone Institute are an excellent resource, but I must concur with physicsguy that no rational argument, no matter how solidly based in facts and evidence, will ever have the slightest effect on the vast majority of those whose minds have been destroyed by “wokeness”, by TDS, and by indoctrination from childhood through university into unchallenged leftist dogma.
And, unfortunately, again, I think that you are correct; with one proviso. And that is that Trump Derangement Syndrome, is a symptom, a manifestation of a much deeper commitment, or worldview they hold, which generally passes by unnoticed – either through the polite aversion of our eyes, or from lack of close attention – when we are dealing with these people.
Only when it flashes and flares up, sparks against the steel, do we put a name to the effect of their predisposition; giving the effect a name, rather than the cause.
At least that is my view. Again, I’d like to be proved wrong, and persuaded that these flashes and flares and alignments are NOT indicative of much deeper and longstanding strategies they employ on a daily basis to a much less noticeable effect.
I am not speaking here of converting radicals. I am talking about the average Democrat voter, particularly those who have voted Democrat in habitual fashion and don’t follow politics with great intensity. I think that at least some of them can be reached. If you give up too easily or too quickly, though, they certainly will not be reached.
Even radicals (or people who are somewhat more radical) can sometimes be reached, or at least some doubt engendered in them, if their commitment to radicalism isn’t great or deep.
It’s not the least bit easy or quick. But I would not write it off; I think that’s a mistake.
DNW:
I have three types of friends who vote Democratic. The first are active and leftist; I mostly don’t bother talking to them about these things, although I would be willing to depending on the person and the situation. But the other two types are those who are pretty much onboard with the program philosophically although they aren’t all that intense about it, and those are really are unaware and somewhat naive and are voting mostly out of habit and because they’ve never really talked to an intelligent and knowledgeable conservative nor have they read anything written by an intelligent and knowledgeable conservative. It’s members of this last group who I think are most amenable to changing their minds. But it won’t occur in a single conversation. They have to be willing to have a series of conversations and/or read some recommended works or watch recommended videos. I know a few people like this. They are curious about the other side, and curious as to why I am on it, because they know I’m intelligent and that I mean well. They are not casual acquaintances.
Well, I am old, heard all this BS before. I have zero patience for engaging the brainwashed, simply because they are brainwashed. These people believe in what they don’t understand, have no awareness of human nature or history, in other words, members of a cult.
And, they want me dead. Although the more squeamish don’t want their hands bloody, they will look the other way when the thugs carryout their desire. What they don’t realize is they will be the last on the thugs’ list and they will be shown no mercy.
“They are not casual acquaintances.”
When it comes down to dust, they will deny you.
j e and physics guy. Concur.
The gullible idiots have not been sold a bridge too short for the river. They cannot be convinced by getting out the tape measure.
They hate and no reason, no matter how silly, is too silly to seem to them as objective fact.
They hated when Obama was president. The nicest, sweetest people you could meet hated conservatives, right wingers and the omniuseful ‘racists”. They need a reason to hate and even when those reasons are overturned–Michael Brown did not have his hands up–they still hate because of hands up don’t shoot.
I am working on some restraint here, not putting in all caps with an obscenity inserted….”mean effing tweets”. If you try to speak about something rational….mean tweets. As if that’s relevant to our situation.
Some of it I suppose I could understand. I know a guy who studied what I’d call natural science, worked green his whole life, donated green I imagine, thought poorly of those who did not think green, buys climate change….. What would happen to his view of himself–good guy green–if it turned out that, beyond his ability to rationalize, global warming is not happening. I submit he cannot, no matter the facts, allow that support of his image of self to be excised.
The same is true of those who “fight racism”. They cannot allow that it is disappearing and, in most cases they point to, never existed. If there were no racism to fight, there would be no good fight. Then who would they be?
I know people in left wing churches whose facebook posts sound even more syrupy than Hallmark sentiments. But they hate the proper objects and they hate contradictory facts and they lose all propriety, not to mention the presumed relevance of relevant facts, when issues–this precedes Trump–which have been the objects of their righteous hate are shown perhaps not to be true. TDS is, of course, the same on steroids.
They will use a vile word, an adjective, as if it is an objective fact, a noun. And nothing can be said to object to it.
The only thing I can think of is to have my little fun and watch them go further and further around the bend to validate their hate. Can’t wait to mention peace in the Middle East. One can jerk them around using facts, logic, consistency, conventional morality, and get a kind of satisfaction from it, as long as you don’t expect rational discussion. Expecting rational discussion will make you frustrated.
Presuming the Harris/Bill Ayers ticket wins, I can only presume their justifications for every totalitarian injustice imposed on us. A very nice lady at church, speaking of the dead of Waco, said, “They were a cult.”. QED. No problem the feds massacred them.
I suspect there’s a smug satisfaction in seeing punishments dealt out to the Bad People. Problem is, now, anybody punished is…Bad People and thus it’s justified. As…they were a cult.
My point is that the gullible idiots are unreachable because their view of themselves is that they are—what we would call gullible idiots–and they’re proud of all the things that make them gullible idiots and can’t afford to give them up. Including righteous hate.
“Unfortunately, most of the people Neo describes, and that I know, are not reachable even though I would classify them as part of the “useful idiots” group. Most are college educated, smart, and yes gullible. However, the one aspect at present which makes them unreachable is they all have an extremely severe case of TDS. It affects everything they do, and seems to occupy an extreme amount of all their thoughts.”
The other day, I was on the Slate site reading comments for the “Cuties” article and this is exactly what happens. Not to detour from this subject to “Cuties,” but it provides a good example. I would say that any time more than 5-10 years ago, average people – both left and right – would be uncomfortable with a film production showing pre-pubescent girls doing crude sexual gestures. I have no issue with crude sexual gestures – but not with the idea of paying pre-pubescent actresses to do it, so adults can watch it. That’s just nasty. I am not a christian or a prude; I am just a normal human being who thinks that non-sexual creatures, like pre-pubescent children, shouldn’t be asked or paid to do overt and crude sexual things so that adults can watch them do it. I don’t f’ing care what the stated goal of the film was.
If you read the comments there, it was constant and troll-like. Anyone who took exception with this disgusting idea was immediately shut down by “Trump” this and “Trump” that, to the point where commenters were stating their bona fides up front like “I voted for Hillary, and I actually watched this thing, and I think it’s inappropriate,” and immediately, down would come the “…but TRUMP!!!!” boot.
Seriously, that gives you an idea of what TDS is used for.
KyndyllG:
The people I’m talking about (and I hope you’re read my comments above) are NOT hanging out on Slate making comments. They don’t spend a lot of time on political things and they are far more amenable to reason than the people you are citing.
Doesn’t anyone know people like I’m talking about? I certainly do. I’m surprised at the level of “give up, it won’t help” that I see here. The examples people are giving are not of the sort of listener I’m describing.
Nor is it easy. Nor does it happen, ordinarily, at a site such as Slate, even if you try to engage someone. I’m talking about and recommending one-on-one exchanges with a friend or relative who fits the description I’ve given of the sort of person amenable to listening. They exist, and their numbers are not infinitesimal. And a great deal of patience is required.
But why give up so easily? If every single conservative chose even just one or two such people to talk to, I think some worthwhile change might occur.
Is it useful to know about the pathologies and psychologies of alcoholism when trying to deal with an alcoholic? Or a schizophrenic? Sure. But until those people are willing or able to come to terms with their condition, any such usefulness has very clear and sharp limitations.
The fundamental and systemic problem is that the values and philosophies that have held sway in the United States and the West in general not only since the end of the Cold War but the end of World War II are less and less applicable to the challenges facing us today. Some of those values and philosophies are not only failing to deal with those challenges, they are worsening them. And people who have much if not all of their sense of self tied up with those values and philosophies are fighting like hell to deny that reality.
I think I’ve put it this way before around here but there were people who felt everything was just fine on November 7, 2016. Sure, they may have had complaints and partisan grievances but their basic, bedrock conviction is that the world was in pretty good shape and the people running the world were doing a good job. Those people were wrong. Things were not fine. The election of Donald Trump is proof of that.
Now, those people could have taken the opportunity to reexamine and rethink their assumptions but that would require them to admit…
1. They’re not as smart as they think they are.
2. They’re not as good as they think they are.
Acknowledging you don’t understand the world around you and don’t really care about the misery and suffering of those not like you is hard for anyone. But the people I’m talking about literally define themselves and their place in the world by their supposed intellectual and moral superiority to others. That’s what makes them like alcoholics who won’t admit they have a problem or schizophrenics who refuse to take their medicine.
So, understanding is great but until those people are willing to change or until someone is willing to make them change, there’s only so much that can be done. Maybe a Trump win in 2020 will be rock bottom for those people. Maybe a disastrous Biden administration will summon up someone far worse than Trump who will no longer indulge their adolescent nonsense. But talking is not going to solve this.
In 2016, those on one side of America’s political divide said “No” to the established order. Until the other side is willing to do the same, nothing is going to get better.
Mike
I think you’re right, Neo. A great tactic that I’ve been reading about re another issue is the asking of questions. Questions that “put a stone in their shoe.” Questions that bring out the logical conclusions of certain beliefs. Questions that cannot be answered without thinking about where their belief is headed. This is the Socratic method, or the method Columbo used in the old detective tv series. And it doesn’t necessarily bring about a “conversion,” but over time, and patiently, it may change some thinking. “What do you mean by that?” Can you give me an example?” “How did you come to that conclusion?” “Did you consider …?”
Earlier, I responded to physicsguy, affirming what he said generally, but offering what I called a “proviso”.
That proviso was that the manifestation of Trump Derangement Syndrome he mentioned, which was inexplicably exploding (given certain assumptions about the people in question) out of some of his acquaintances, was not inexplicable at all, if we faced certain infer-able facts about their moral constitutions and character. These would be facts which we would generally prefer not to notice, for reasons of convenience, propriety, or our own peace of mind.
But, on rereading what physics guy said, I see that in fact, when it comes down to it, he anticipated what I was about to say (or what could be said), even if he did not say it outright himself.
He said, “Usually these people are seemingly normal until …”
” … seemingly normal …”
It is not pleasant to come to terms with the fact that we are in our daily lives dealing with pod people, or serpents, or innocent looking manipulators, users, and self-dealers. It’s too much like some Roman Catholic metaphysics of morality wherein at a very deep level, each damned soul makes an eternal choice for corruption which may be belied by all outward appearances, yet which will damn them, all the same.
Why this should be so hard to accept as anything more than a heurestic metaphor employed in some fundamentalist catechism, is kind of hard to explain, given that the history of the world in the last hundred years is stuffed to overflowing with stories of informers, betrayers, collaborators, opportunists and worse who seemingly normal before the moral choice became stark, quickly sold out their own mothers, lovers, and friends for a little position, place and comfort.
But no … that could not happen here. My relatives, my friends, my coworkers and acquaintances, are just ill informed and misled. They don’t have any barely hidden malevolent or vile traits or dispositions I have been ignoring … No, not my friends …
And that is not directed as any kind of reproach at you, Neo. That is a general statement of how I see things as shaking out in the final reduction.
Again, I would like more than I can say, to be proven wrong.
As Dan Bongino has pointed out (and makes Neo’s point) know who you are trying to inform and convince, it isn’t the dogmatic inflexible leftist, it is the bystander who still has a rational brain. You may be able to convince this still rational person by knowing your position and the flaws in the left’s position and not falling into the angry emotional shout down response that the left will fall back on and try to get you to fall in to. Hard to do.
Neo – yes there is a sense of defeatism in this thread. As I posted earlier I have a good friend that is hard core Trump opponent but I still talk to him. Because at one point something will change that will shift his perspective. In his case, I think it will the threat to the second amendment. I don’t argue positions per se, I always talk about his assumptions and why he holds them. He has an elitist mindset.
You had an epiphany after 9-11. This Black Lives Matter I believe is waking other people up and causing them to examine their assumptions. The video of the Minneapolis North High School principal is a sign that things are shifting significantly from June. Particularly in the black community. You have to be ready to engage. Not to argue but to explain. It was a shock to a neighbor to hear that BLM manifesto has the disbandment of the nuclear family.
It is a process not a moment. Be joyful, be happy, let people see that and they will respond. I am door knocking this election and I see some movement. That is why I hate this very early voting.
Neo. We have some relations due to visit and my wife and I have sworn not to mention politics nor get drawn into them.
Example, the woman said, smugly, years ago, that we were running out of oil and we needed to go green. I said, “Looks like the Bakken fields are coming in nicely.” This will give you an idea of the dates.
She, having never heard of the Bakkens, said, “Not enough.” She had no idea but needed to defend her green and so said, “Not enough.” Had I persisted, she’d no doubt have said something referring to Rush Liimbaugh.
No percentage in noting they’ll be paying under $2 per gallon to visit. My last coffee in a gas station cost five times as much as the gas.
There is absolutely nothing different from her response to that issue to any other issue on which she is absolutely ignorant. Nor have I found any different sorts of responses. And she will go personally insulting in two or three go-rounds on an issue.
With one exception: One woman knows that Michael Brown did not have his hands up, but says he did. The same is true of other issues. Okay. But she asked not to be “corrected” as it makes her uncomfortable.
I may have mentioned this earlier. A college friend who spent his whole life in big pharma insisted nobody knew of HCQ was safe. He knew his industry had been shipping by the boatload for sixty years. And, after a couple of go rounds, he knew others knew. But he continued to deliberately lie, knowing the people to whom he lied knew he lied. Hell, he took the stuff in SEA.
An addendum to my thoughts @ 6:38. Remind that person what Reagan said. “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”
That is a mechanism where a person can feel safe about changing. Ie. I haven’t changed but the party/people I supported have. For blacks talk about the Democrats have endorsed and embraced LGBT rights as equal as their. Ask if they are okay with that. Get them thinking.
Again it is a process and not a moment.
I appreciate Neo’s exhortations to try and reach the not-quite-unreachable, but I can’t pass up this straight line out of one of her comments.
“It’s members of this last group who I think are most amenable to changing their minds.”
https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Change-My-Mind.jpg
Off topic but important: Ruth Bader Ginsburg just passed away.
“Off topic but important: Ruth Bader Ginsburg just passed away.”
I just deleted my comment about noticing sparks and a puff of smoke emerging from the sewer grate while driving on my way home. It was uncalled for and in poor taste, and a callow remark unworthy of any sensitive conservative.
Am I a sensitive conservative? No, but I try to be as should we all, even as it ruins our polity, diminishes our lives and ultimately kills us as a reward for our mealy-mouthed passivity. Amen.
Oops. Returned after second, actually third, thoughts with too few seconds left to delete even the revision I had posted up.
Neo, if you wish, you are welcome to delete my comment on Ginsburg with my full assent.
This is not the Death of Stalin, quite. But it’s getting there I fear, when someone so generous minded and feeling as myself finds himself sneering at the dead.
Regards,
DNW
DNW:
You write, attempting to describe the attitude you’re critiquing:
“This Black Lives Matter I believe is waking other people up and causing them to examine their assumptions. The video of the Minneapolis North High School principal is a sign that things are shifting significantly from June.” – Sparticus
The #WalkAway movement that started 2 years ago (was it really that long??) is good evidence that there are still some reachable people.
https://www.walkawaycampaign.com/our-mission
Reagan, of course, was absolutely correct that his Democrat Party “walked away” from him, and that may be a good approach to take with classical liberals who are not on board with radical communism.
@Neo I am optimistic for perhaps a different reason – I see what is happening as a political paradigm shift in the sense of Kuhn’s description of a scientific paradigm shift. As Kuhn noted the defenders of the old paradigm hang onto it until they are forced to recognise that their understanding of reality has simply changed. So yes, Democrats are difficult to argue with, but what is happening is not taking place exclusively at the level of reason and logic. It is a deep cultural and socio political paradigm shift that involves the limitations of the world view that has dominated the Western world since the Enlightenment – particularly as that world view as politically instantiated in the French and American Revolutions. The French devolved into murderous tyranny in 3 years and Marx, deeply disappointed by the replay revolutions of 1830 and 1848, created a huge intellectual edifice dedicated to ensuring La Revolution’s inevitable triumph. Ditto the Gramscian march, and the direct transplanting of the 30’s German communist Frankfurt School into US academia by Horkheimer and Adorno and in turn the current endgame being played out on the streets with mock guillotines. Like many here, I try to put forward my views to friends and family with mixed success, but have learned that I much too easily fall into argumentativeness – AND THAT ONLY MAKES THINGS WORSE. So I am compelled to recognise it is not entirely up to me, and quite beyond my control in any case. I do not despair because it is obvious to me that the paradigm is exhausted and I take heart that the collective genius of our kind and our culture has thrown up quite impossibly talented individuals to take the old paradigm down – as diverse as Jordan Peterson or Candice Owens, but also Trump. In 2016 he grasped with both hands the third rail of elite political orthodoxy of both political parties – open borders and the betrayal of the American proletariat white and black and brown. Now he is taking on the Gramscian march directly and explicitly, but it will be the excesses of the Jacobin spirited marchers in the street that will sooner or later bring the old paradigm down. So take heart comrades, Biden my win the election, but the fatal iceberg has well and truly penetrated the core of the old paradigm.
I know nothing about this “star” but she might have some success reaching the unreachable who DO know her.
https://www.redstate.com/mike_miller/2020/09/18/%e2%80%98o.c.%e2%80%99-actress-samaire-armstrong-backs-trump-in-fiery-video-%e2%80%98far-left-mob%e2%80%99-has-silenced-americans/
FWIW, Red State has, at this time of writing, 7 posts up about RBG that pretty much cover the water-front of issues facing the nation.
If you haven’t started prepping yet for CW2, now might be a good time.
Neither of these political red vs blue activists or fanatics are “awake” in the sense that Ymar is awake.
If anyone is close to awakening, it would be Q anon observers and researchers.
If you haven’t started prepping yet for CW2, now might be a good time.
Big sea change from back when people hated on Ymar’s comments about Civil War 2. Now they have even more hate, except they can’t find a topic now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux8GZAtCN-M&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEdIPk1L1RU
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=walkaay
DNW,
“I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” usually attributed to Mark Twain
At the most superficial level, the problem is that it’s all devolved to be tribal. If I state not a philosophical position, not even a political opinion, but something as basic as a fact that seems to support a “Red” position, the reaction ranges from discomfort to anger, and in all cases an end to the conversation. Saw this the other day with someone who trotted out a lamentation she’d doubtless heard on tv about how awful it was that schools were opening. Was she relieved when I told her kids and their relatively young teachers are at little risk from Covid? Or rebut me that they were so? Did an informed discussion of risk and reward follow? No, I had shown I was a bad, unenlightened one of “them” endangering the world with my selfish, stupid, republicanism.
And the left has been tailoring their messages to stoke this, to delegitimize any dissenting opinions and license the non-personing of those that hold them. And they are getting almost to Rwanda level of rhetoric with that.
But at a deeper level, the blue tribe sees the red tribe as purveyors of the Judeo-Christian Morality that they believe oppresses them. I think that’s why the label of “liberal” for these people still sticks, although they’ve long since ceased to believe in the liberal process. “Don’t you dare impose your morals on me!” they cry.
On a deeper level still, how is that liberation working out? Abortion is interesting. Even with birth control, you couldn’t have sexual liberation or even feminism without abortion — just too many “accidents.” A young girl shouldn’t have to be “punished with a baby” (in Obama’s term) and Pappa preaching at her for enjoying her sexuality.
But Pappa don’t preach any more, and there aren’t many babies. There isn’t even much sex, and certainly not guiltless, joyous sex. I don’t think even most of the people reading Neo are willing to give up on the promises of feminism, but surveys show most women aren’t happy. Despite RBG’s demise, I think perhaps the oomph that often made women one-issue voters on abortion may fading.
And look at the ruins of our culture: again the joylessness, the anger, the humorlessness, the ugliness. We can’t produce much, though we’ve made some nice bike paths and waterside parks with the ruins of our industrial base. We had some prosperity because our political stability made us an attractive place for the world to park its money, but that looks like it’s about to go poof. Our fashion has more or less devolved into crudely sewn (abroad) t-shirts that are ok on good-looking women, but don’t allow the less than perfect a way to look and feel good about themselves (thanks Neo for the corset-video) and fashion that is designed to challenge your repugnance, not to allure or attract — the opposite in fact, as heterosexual attraction at least is now iffy. The level of (mainline) art, movies, music, graphic design has collapsed, and has literacy and numeracy in journalism.
Some of this was exemplified in that pathetic DNC video of the 54 year old youth anthem, “For What It’s Worth” accompanied by its original geriatric guitarist, and sung or lip-synched without conviction by someone designed to meet the woke targets of “ooh Black Guy, ooh Gay, ooh Gender-bending Costume.” Meant to be edgy, seemed totally pathetic to me.
In short, they may even be noticing that they’ve dug a dry well.
I agree it’s useful, and that defeatism is dangerous.
Nancy B.
Never seen anything else when libs are faced with actual facts. Sometimes they’ll reference Fox News or Limbaugh.
Nancy B.
Wrt your first graf and Covid in schools;
Never seen anything else when libs are faced with actual facts. Sometimes they’ll reference Fox News or Limbaugh.
Nancy B….”At the most superficial level, the problem is that it’s all devolved to be tribal. If I state not a philosophical position, not even a political opinion, but something as basic as a fact that seems to support a “Red” position, the reaction ranges from discomfort to anger, and in all cases an end to the conversation.”
The way I’ve thought about it is that everyone is acting like *lawyers*, in that they have a case they want to prove, and the only interest they have in contrary facts is how they can refute them so that their side wins.
This approach works in the courtroom because not only are there the two adversaries, there are also a judge and jury who are supposed to be objective assessors of what they say. It doesn’t work in society as a whole, because the disputants, as voters, are also the judge and jury.