Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Friday, December 19, 2014 8:35 pm

Get a clue: Your tender fee-fees do not trump HUMAN LIFE


This is a point I’ve made many times in the past, usually in the context of privileged conservatives trying to cast themselves as victims.

Athenae at First Draft:

Your vague resentment of a public worker’s pension doesn’t mean he shouldn’t eat.

Your unnerved-ness about gay people doesn’t mean someone else should be prevented from receiving full equality under the l aw.

Your discomfort with abortion doesn’t mean a woman should die from a medical procedure.

Your belief in God doesn’t mean an atheist owes you something.

And once and for all time, mah fellow white peoples, your itch when you see a black dude you do not know is not something black people are required to indulge by dying.

People keep trotting out “sincere beliefs” as the reason their idiocies should be tolerated, as the reason minority groups or anyone they consider “other” should continue to be beaten down. As if the foibles of the fearful are equivalent to the beat of a human heart.

You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re even entitled to your “sincere belief,” as misguided, or, indeed, wackaloon, as it be. But you’re not entitled to have your feelings, your opinions, your sincere beliefs indulged at every turn, and you’re sure as hell not entitled to that indulgence if your tender fee-fees have a body count. Indeed, all you’re entitled to then is ridicule, or worse.

Advertisements

12 Comments »

  1. You are entitlrd to your insanity

    THE LIBERAL MIND: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness

    ” The Liberal Mind is the first systematic examination of human nature and human freedom. It is the first book to explain why certain economic, social and political arrangements are compatible with human nature — and why some are not.

    The Liberal Mind is the first book to explain how modern liberal collectivism undermines the legal and moral foundations of ordered liberty.

    Read The Liberal Mind and learn why:

    The laws and moral codes–the rules–that properly govern human conduct arise from, and must be compatible with, the biological, psychological and social nature of man.
    The liberal agenda’s Modern Parental State violates all of the rules that make ordered liberty possible.
    The modern liberal agenda is a transference neurosis of the modern liberal mind, acted out in the world’s economic, social and political theaters.
    The liberal agenda’s Modern Permissive Culture corrupts the foundations of civilized freedom and is destroying America’s magnificent political achievements.
    The liberal agenda’s basic principles are not only antithetical to our most cherished liberties; they are also directly contrary to all that is good and noble in the human enterprise. The Liberal Mind is the first work to explain why modern liberalism appeals to the irrational tendencies of the human mind. It is the first work to explain how liberalism can be defeated.

    In the course of this analysis, The Liberal Mind asks and answers the following critical question: Why would anyone want a political system that restricts personal freedom instead of enhancing it; denounces personal responsibility instead of promoting it; surrenders personal sovereignty instead of honoring it; attacks the philosophical foundations of liberty instead of defending them; encourages government dependency instead of self-reliance; and undermines the character of the people by making them wards of the state?

    The Liberal Mind contains the elegant solution to the problem of modern liberalism; it is a systematic, fact-based analysis of why the left’s collectivism not only does not work but cannot work.

    The Liberal Mind explains:

    The two major goals of the modern liberal agenda: the Modern Parental Society and the Modern Permissive Culture, and why they violate the basic principles of freedom.
    How the modern liberal agenda attacks the moral and legal foundations of individual liberty.
    How the modern liberal agenda violates the defining characteristics of human nature and ignores the essential realities of the human condition.
    How the modern liberal agenda corrupts the character of the people by appealing to their base instincts and undermining the constraints of conscience.
    How the modern liberal agenda’s ideas and goals are self-contradictory and logically inconsistent.
    Why the liberal mind believes in the irrational principles of the liberal agenda — and what it takes to effect a cure.
    The Liberal Mind is the most comprehensive, intellectually-coherent analysis of political psychology ever published. The Liberal Mind will empower you to understand why the political madness of modern liberalism is destroying individual liberty in all corners of the world.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, December 20, 2014 12:34 am @ 12:34 am | Reply

  2. Real Americans don't live in fear of one another
    So you think it’s OK to kill people because they make you feel weird? Good to know. And spare me the pseudoscience.

    Comment by Lex — Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:49 am @ 8:49 am | Reply

  3. Author says nothing of the sort !

    Er, spare me your uncontrolled incohernce. Miss your meds ?

    Liberalism Really is a Mental Disorder

    ” I have no patience for delusion or intellectual dishonesty. It’s largely why I don’t have any liberal or leftists friends and if I do, they are honest people, but misinformed and haven’t spent the time needed to become an informed citizen. Heck, I can’t even say that as nearly every one of my liberal friends in college are now libertarian or conservative. Regardless, the reason I do not brook intellectual dishonesty of delusion is because I am sane. I am an adult. I live in the real world.

    This cannot be said of the vast majority of leftists and liberals.

    This isn’t to slam on them. This isn’t to over simplify an issue in order to dismiss an entire ideology.

    It’s true.

    Leftists do not adhere to reality or act like adults.

    You see this everyday and it gets frustrating.

    Liberal – “We need to spend more money”

    You – “How much more?”

    Liberal – “I um…don’t know. BUT WE NEED MORE!”

    You – “How can you advocate spending more when you don’t even know what we spend in the first place?”

    Or another.

    Liberal – “Racism is why the blacks aren’t doing well as whites.”

    You – “While racism may exist in the form of Cletus the trailer park schmuck in Casper, Wyoming, the real reason blacks suffer such lower standards of living is because they have a 70% illegitimate birth rate.”

    Liberal – “RACIST!!!”

    Had I still some hope for the future of the country, I might care to try to convince or explain to my leftist brothers and sisters why they’re wrong, but you can’t because…

    they have a mental condition.

    I don’t know about you, but my time is precious to me, and if I can’t convince somebody with statistics, logic, reason and reality, then I’m never going to convince them. Some idiots recently made some comments on my youtube video about “The Reality Principle.” They essentially said that they agreed with my concept (that you shoudl live in reality), but that i was completely forgetting the humanity aspect of humans. That they have emotions. And in ignoring that part, I was wrong.

    It was such idiotic and outlandish bullshit because they actually think their feelings and emotions are just as valid as reality.

    You – “Look out! Here comes a train!”

    Liberal – “Yeah, but I feel that the train isn’t coming.”

    Of course, that analogy is a bit simple and outlandish, but consider feminists (the most psychologically damaged of them all) who have gone to such delusional lengths as to claim things like the scientific method and math is sexist. So exactly how do you argue with them?

    You can’t.

    You can’t argue or debate an insane person.

    What I find particularly interesting, not to mention scary at the same time, is just what a high percentage of the population has this mental condition. Yes, a lot of it is just brainwashing. The young 21 year old suburbanite girl majoring in philosophy may not actually have a mental condition. Yes, the young black man is likely to blame everything on racism, because of brainwashing. But what gets me is when this brainwashing solidifies, rendering them imperviousness to any attempt to an alternative explanation of reality. At this point I don’t know if it’s brainwashing or an actual mental problem, but it still presents me the same problem (though I’ve had better luck getting some of our black brothers to wake up than Tilly the English Major). Ultimately, I fear the liberal zombie (which I’ve written about before) where you’re no longer dealing with a sane human, capable of reason and independent thought, but a highly functional zombie that doesn’t want to eat your brains, as much as they want to take your money.

    Thank god I have neither.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:19 am @ 12:19 am | Reply

  4. BTW … Buon Natale

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:59 pm @ 10:59 pm | Reply

  5. Real science actually discerns reasons why conservatives think as they do. Naturally, the scientific explanation is more nuanced and doesn’t dismiss any one way of thinking on the political spectrum as “mentally ill.” So spare me the pseudoscience.

    Moreover, blaming black people’s feelings about racism, in the face of all their well-documented lived experience, as either “brainwashing” or mental illness is despicable, racist trash.

    Comment by Lex — Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:46 pm @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  6. A Christmas present for you but you gotta buy it ( available at Amazon )

    The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

    “For more than two centuries, our political life has been divided between a party of progress and a party of conservation. In The Great Debate, Yuval Levin explores the origins of the left/right divide by examining the views of the men who best represented each side of that debate at its outset: Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. In a groundbreaking exploration of the roots of our political order, Levin shows that American partisanship originated in the debates over the French Revolution, fueled by the fiery rhetoric of these ideological titans.

    Levin masterfully shows how Burke’s and Paine’s differing views, a reforming conservatism and a restoring progressivism, continue to shape our current political discourse—on issues ranging from abortion to welfare, education, economics, and beyond. Essential reading for anyone seeking to understand Washington’s often acrimonious rifts, The Great Debate offers a profound examination of what conservatism, liberalism, and the debate between them truly amount to.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:25 pm @ 6:25 pm | Reply

  7. If today’s Republicans would just comport with Burkean thinking, I imagine most Democrats would be willing to work with them and things would get done. But they don’t and they won’t, and so we’re screwed.

    Comment by Lex — Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:35 pm @ 6:35 pm | Reply

  8. Yeah, if Republicans will confess their racisim, kiss the ring and agree to your postion. Got news for tou ….. ain’t gonna happen

    An honest dicussion with Dems/Lefties/Socialists/ etc on most any dividing issue is impossible… and I have tried

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 24, 2014 1:24 am @ 1:24 am | Reply

  9. Well, then, I guess you’re wasting your time here, aren’t you?

    Comment by Lex — Wednesday, December 24, 2014 8:39 am @ 8:39 am | Reply

  10. Here is a clue for you

    The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree

    “The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing — and that could mean democracy is failing.

    This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface — not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

    As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, December 25, 2014 4:15 pm @ 4:15 pm | Reply

  11. Have you read the book?

    Comment by Lex — Friday, December 26, 2014 10:56 am @ 10:56 am | Reply

  12. You are in need of it more than moi.

    Speaking of the great divide, FYI:

    Tribalism and Peak Left

    “Where you stand depends on where you sit” is favorite aphorism of progressive activists. It’s used to imply that “privilege” can blind someone to inconvenient facts, e.g. police aggression against minorities. But based on the events of the past few months, from Ferguson onward, it has become pretty clear that both left- and right-leaning groups suffer from this sort of narrowed vision. Writing in USA Today, Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) points out that tribalism—the desire to identify “your” group and stick with it, no matter what—explains an awful lot about these recent national tensions:

    ****[T]here is much opportunity for political empire-building in tribalism, and if the benefits of stoking tribal fires exceed the costs for political actors, then expect political actors to pour gasoline on even the smallest spark.

    That’s pretty much what’s happened in the last few months, and the results haven’t been good. In America, we have both a police culture that is too quick to escalate force, and an aggressive victim culture, embodied by the loathsome Al Sharpton, that seeks to portray every police use of force, at least against members of the wrong racial and ethnic groups, as excessive.

    A healthy society would stigmatize, marginalize and shun the tribalizers. Sharpton, who has incited racial violencein the past, would not have a network TV show (even on MSNBC), and would not be treated as a legitimate civil rights spokesman. Police unions, which have a history of interfering with efforts to hold officers accountable for acts that, if they were committed by civilians, would be prosecuted as crimes, would not be given a preferred political position, if they were allowed to exist at all. (Personally, I agree with FDR that public employee unions are essentially a conspiracy against the taxpayers; it’s an even more significant matter when they’re public employees who carry guns.)*****

    Tribalism would seem to explain the “police wars” better than racism: as we have pointed out, the NYPD is roughly 50 percent minority, a number that closely echoes the figure for the city as a whole, so for most people, allegations of “New Jim Crow” just don’t wash. But the idea that people reflexively retreat to “their” side during a time of crisis certainly makes sense. And often that side is as much ideological (or job- and culture-based, in the case of the NYPD cops who turned their backs on de Blasio) as racial.

    Read Reynolds’s whole article; it’s a necessary look at a phenomenon that should disturb us all. Tribalism afflicts everyone, no matter their affiliations and no matter how they reassure themselves that they operate on the basis of fact alone. Indeed, one of the chief causes behind the “Peak Left” moment that Walter Russell Mead addressed recently is leftist intellectuals’ inability to recognize that they, too, are a tribe. For various reasons, the elite progressive world is much more insulated than its right-wing counterpart. In fact, the divide between the left’s view of the world (and consequently its rhetoric) and the way the rest of the country views things seems to be increasing, fueling an unhappy cycle. Recognizing the tribal dynamics at work within its own movement may be the left’s first step toward correcting this—if it’s willing to take it.

    Posted: Dec 30, 2014 – 3:36 pm –

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Wednesday, December 31, 2014 2:07 pm @ 2:07 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: