It's not clever. It grates on my brain. If the current Left is as oppressive as you say they are, then stick to your examples, point out their fallibility.
Leftaliban is something Stephen Colbert would make up, and while it's funny when he does it, because it is parody, it's disappointing when you do, because you parody yourself without realizing it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you had to read Colbert rather then listening to him I'd wager much of what he says would be far less funny.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I was wondering if you could give a bit more details on the because you parody yourself without realizing it? It seems to be a term to describe the far left and how crazy they can be. Scott seems to be more conservative in his leanings. So I guess I just don't understand your point and assume I'm missing something. Thanks
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I think Animemandan is trying to say is that the phrase "Leftaliban" is so egregiously hyperbolic that it comes off as self-parody.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
He is not refering to the entire left as the Leftaliban, any more than people who use the term islamofacist are using that term to refer to all islamic people.
Are people refering to all conservatives when they use the term Neocon? Hardly. It's used to refer to conservatives who believe certain things.
In this case, Card's using it to refer to members of the Left who have come to view their views in much the same way that religious people view theirs, with dogmas and faith and other things. The kind of thing he writes about a lot. Leftaliban is a way to say "People on the left who practice their politics the way religious extremists practice their religion."
Leftaliban is shorter and cleverer.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No, it really isn't clever. I agree with the OP. It's obnoxious. Why stoop to the level of the people who frustrate you? That is what frustrates me about OSC's articles. Because I don't think he could get me on his side by using so many rude and sweeping statements. It's not that simple. The world is a lot more complicated than it seems. It's frustrating me because I'm not learning anything new. Coulter and Rush annoy me, but I'm not about to sink to their level. I'd write in a polite way why they annoy me so much, why I dislike their point of view and I'd present a better more balanced point of view of things because middle ground is so much better than extremes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Card's using it to refer to members of the Left who have come to view their views in much the same way that religious people view theirs, with dogmas and faith and other things.
Do you think Card would use it to refer to members of the Right who "view their views" in the same religious way they always have?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:Because I don't think he could get me on his side by using so many rude and sweeping statements. It's not that simple. The world is a lot more complicated than it seems.
So's the analogy. It is not a clever way to say, "People on the left are bad guys," and I think that's what the people saying, "Card Called Me A Terrorist" are thinking. The analogy's not that simple.
He could not, for example, substitue in the word "nazi" for "taliban." He's actually making very specific accusations and comparisons about what the type of people he uses the term to describe are doing.
He's not just throwing the term in there as a substitute for "bad people."
If that was all he was doing, I'd agree with everyone that it was just mean.
Instead, he's found one word that sums up a number of things that he's taken a lot of words to explain in various essays. There are real concepts and ideas in the word.
He's not reffering to all of the left, and he's not reffering to all terrorists.
quote:I'd present a better more balanced point of view of things because middle ground is so much better than extremes.
Do you mean extremes of rehetoric or extremes of positions?
quote:Do you think Card would use it to refer to members of the Right who "view their views" in the same religious way they always have?
Sure, if they actually are pushing their real religions in the extremist way I clarified in the last sentance of the paragraph you quoted. Card's always been critical of those who leverage their religions this way.
That's not to say he's always critical of religion, but he feels (correctly, in my view)not every religious person in America leverages--or is even really capable of leveraging--their views in the way described any more.
Besides, when he's railing on conservatives, Card is more inclined to compare purely capitalistic ventures with Stalinist Russia.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
He really does seem to be stating that the whole entire left is destroying the structure of America. And all of Hollywood. That point of view makes me insane. It's not all black and white, there's a bunch of underlying issues that his articles and Rush, or even Moore just don't touch upon or even see. People are not evil and bad because they don't agree with your point of view, and presenting a different prespective doesn't mean you're trying to destroy the country. He doesn't seem to get there are quite a few Christian left wing people, that many of us have legit reasons for disagreeing with the war besides hating Bush and wanting to see him fail.There are some soldiers that may not agree with the war, it doesn't make them fake. I'd like to see him be above these pesky nutwit who have no subtlety. He's smarter than that.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm sorry, but to even jocularly compare those you disagree with in your own country with a group widely seen as an enemy of the state and a terrorist organization is not clever. It's hateful. It begs- even demands- that every statement, comment, and work produced by those so described be dismissed out of hand; after all, would you want to be seen as a sympathizer with the "Leftaliban"? It urges a knee-jerk reaction of the very sort associated with the group it supposedly describes.
The only thing words like this are used for is as a bludgeon. And even if the author's intent is clear in his mind, it begs misuse. "That's just the sort of P.C. group-think I'd expect from a member of the Leftabliban..." And with such a catchphrase, many people will never even consider that they're also enforcing a kind of political correctness. Many people won't think at all.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's exactly what bothers me about it. You've got to allow for different perspectives of things, even when you don't agree with them because without those alternative perspectives, it's too easy for abuse to take place. But, it has to be done with respect and logic, otherwise, it's a turn off. I never really see what is so bad about being on the left (providing that one isn't a Communist, Communism frustrates me, but Socialism has some good points) the right tends to annoy me, but often they make good points about things, but sometimes both sides try to make things seem too simple. The world isn't a child's colouring book after all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If you had to read Colbert rather then listening to him I'd wager much of what he says would be far less funny.
Which is why is writing is DIFFERENT from his speaking.
I was terribly offended by the article and decided to just stop reading it. An author gets one chance from me with this kind of thing. If he does something like that again I'll just stop reading his articles.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: He is not refering to the entire left as the Leftaliban, any more than people who use the term islamofacist are using that term to refer to all islamic people.
Are people refering to all conservatives when they use the term Neocon? Hardly. It's used to refer to conservatives who believe certain things.
Leftaliban is shorter and cleverer.
No, I'm sorry, but calling someone a neo-con is not the same thing as referring to someone with the invocation of the Taliban, a party of murderers and REAL fascists. Hate to violate Godwin's constant so early in the discussion, but this is no different from calling someone a femi-nazi or a nazi conservative. It's unfair.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: The only thing words like this are used for is as a bludgeon. And even if the author's intent is clear in his mind, it begs misuse. "That's just the sort of P.C. group-think I'd expect from a member of the Leftabliban..." And with such a catchphrase, many people will never even consider that they're also enforcing a kind of political correctness. Many people won't think at all.
Gotta love that Docmajk is assuming your reaction is a stupid knee-jerk reaction to Card's hyperbole, as if he really is suggesting that you ARE in fact a terrorist. We understand that isn't what it means, but the subtler, more reasoned explanation (likely the correct one) for its usage is still aggressive and quite pointless. This is clearly preaching to the choir though: I'll never convince those lefty extremists anyway, so I'll just go ahead and burn this bridge right now.
Posted by Animemandan (Member # 10245) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I think Animemandan is trying to say is that the phrase "Leftaliban" is so egregiously hyperbolic that it comes off as self-parody.
Thank you.
I know he isn't referring to everyone with Left-leanings. Thats not the point.
Historical context, intelligent rebuttal to popular belief, and a call to action are the hallmarks of World Watch articles. Something like "Leftaliban" is so jarringly out of place and unnecessary that it is embarrassing to read as a fan, and should be embarrassing to OSC as a writer of his caliber.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
No, I'm sorry, but calling someone a neo-con is not the same thing as referring to someone with the invocation of the Taliban, a party of murderers and REAL fascists. Hate to violate Godwin's constant so early in the discussion, but this is no different from calling someone a femi-nazi or a nazi conservative. It's unfair.
Does this really violate Godwin's Law? You're not comparing someone or something to Nazis; you're comparing something to comparing someone or something to Nazis.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
"Violating Godwin's law" seems to have evolved to the point that any mention whatsoever of Hitler or Naziism is taboo for debate. I saw the same thing when people criticized John McCain (specifically citing Godwin's Law) in the last debate for saying Ron Paul's thinking was the same as what led to the conditions under which Hitler rose to power. McCain didn't compare Paul to Hitler at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sorry but, when he uses language like that, he's almost demanding for at least half the country to not take him seriously.
He's preaching to the choir, and isn't interested in changing minds on the other side. How do I know this? Because in rational discourse, you don't compare the people you disagree with to THE TALIBAN!
He's just hurling invective, no different from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
What's most disturbing to me, personally, about his apparent vendetta against "The Left" is that its starting to creep into his "Review Everything" column.
Like its becoming all encompassing...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: "Violating Godwin's law" seems to have evolved to the point that any mention whatsoever of Hitler or Naziism is taboo for debate. I saw the same thing when people criticized John McCain (specifically citing Godwin's Law) in the last debate for saying Ron Paul's thinking was the same as what led to the conditions under which Hitler rose to power. McCain didn't compare Paul to Hitler at all.
To be fair, I was mentioning the act of comparing someone to something being like comparing someone to a nazi.
So I guess I mentioned Godwin's constant as being quite similar to the Leftaliban comment- it immediately shuts down the argument and awards moral victory to the other side.
It's true though, the whole Nazi history is becoming taboo because of its overuse. Which is too bad because we obviously still have things to learn from that part of history.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
What I find kind of funny about Godwin's Law is that, supposing our government were to take a turn down the same paths that Germany found itself on in the 1930s and 40s, that no one on the internet would be able to talk about it without being laughed at.
It's sort of like that "doomed to repeat history" concept - if the comparisons can never be made, might such a situation have more of a chance of recurring?
Just a thought I found interesting. Carry on....
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:He's just hurling invective, no different from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.
I don't think Michael Moore deserves to be lumped in with Limbaugh and Coulter. That's a little bit of a harsh lump-in.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah I agree, but I figured if I just mentioned the two of them without SOMEONE to balance the equation then I'd be pegged as a typical liberal. I can't think of ANYONE on the left that equals Limbaugh and Coulter.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Right. That's what it looked like you were doing, I just wanted to make the point.
Moore is not a propagandist. He just looks a little like one to the untrained eye.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
summary of this last worldwatch
*ahem*
The democrats overturned a veto, so they are the most partisan group I have seen or read about in American history, how is this possible, you say? Because I don't read about or look at any other group in American history. The republicans are better only because the liberal media keeps them in line. Oh, nuts, I shouldn't say that, I'm giving them credit for something. The democrats are totally and wholly unfit to govern for whatever completely condemning new reason I've focused on this week, we should elect them out of power. Peace out to my democrat brothers (I'm a democrat, really! that's not implausible at all, right?)
P.S. I am going to say Leftaliban now because I'm tired of being left behind in the escalation of Coulteresque overblown rhetoric.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I dislike the tone Card's adopted in his essays (and from the sound of it, in his forays into talk radio) as much as anyone, but it's a mistake to claim that he isn't well read, Sam. Doing so when it's blatantly untrue undermines your larger point.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
The problem seems to be that by your own rhetoric you prove Card's point. The responses are so emotional and overwroght that it is hard to make an intelligent comment.
The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive.
For example, when I occasionally listen to Rush, I note many people find he makes a good deal of sense. When I watch a Moore movie, I find he is manipulative and dishonest. I am sure you find the opposite. I can understand that, but I find that left-leaning acquaintances can't reciprocate. I find lefties are much more offensive than righties. Maybe I am wrong. How could we do an independent assessment of that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
lynn, Are you seriously saying that people here are equivilent to the Taliban?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive.
Do you consider "Leftaliban" to constitute invective? If not, why not?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wha? Like the Taliban? Left wing people don't seem to be taking over the country forcing people to drive VW bugs and wear Birkenstocks with wool socks and become vegetarians upon pain of death. How can Rush be called reasonable when he says so many things that are just rude and disrespectful?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
How about Reighziz's for the far right?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:For example, when I occasionally listen to Rush, I note many people find he makes a good deal of sense. When I watch a Moore movie, I find he is manipulative and dishonest.
To me the difference between someone like Limbaugh and someone like Moore could not be more clear. Moore, at least, seems to have done real research, gathered evidence, and come to a conclusion based on the available information. I believe that he is *trying* to tell the truth. He may not always hit the mark. I don't know. But his cause is clearly not to beat the drum of liberalism; he'll burn any bridge if doing so furthers his agenda.
I think Moore and OSC are a lot alike as political commentators; they say some things that you and I probably find weird but at least they believe what they say.
I listened to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis for several years. I never once heard him do anything other than propagandize the conservative agenda. Every story: the left is evil and the right is right. Every issue: the left is evil. Every problem: caused by the evil left. Every positive gain: caused by the right. Every event in human history is proof of Republican righteousness and of the failures of liberal thinking.
That is ridiculous to the point of being desparately transparent. I want to believe that no one could really believe it; the kool-aid of the conservative agenda can't be that strong.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: For example, when I occasionally listen to Rush, I note many people find he makes a good deal of sense. When I watch a Moore movie, I find he is manipulative and dishonest.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. With Limbaugh you're judging things based on what "many people" think of him, whereas with Moore you're judging things based on what you yourself think of him. Those are two very different things.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: The problem seems to be that by your own rhetoric you prove Card's point. The responses are so emotional and overwroght that it is hard to make an intelligent comment.
The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive.
No one here is urging Card's destruction, literal or metaphorical. No one here is suggesting the boycott of Card's works, or any other act causing financial harm. No one is denying Card's right to state his point of view, here, or elsewhere.
Which is a damn sight far from proving the accuracy of a comparison between those he disagrees with, and the Taliban, I warrant.
Now, I find the rhetoric of some of Card's columns abhorrent. And whether one is "actually" one of those described by that vile term or not, it makes one look over one's shoulder... "Is that me? Am _I_ being tarred with that brush?"
Few things are less conducive to productive conversation- or democracy, for that matter- than for a speaker to wonder if he's been introduced as the Left Hand of Satan and an eater of puppies before he ever gets to the podium, so to speak.
And so it seems perfectly reasonable to say- you shouldn't do this. It isn't helping anyone. It's insulting to many reasonable and intelligent people, people who might have interesting things to say if they felt they hadn't already been tuned out by default. If they felt that all their motivations, all their arguments, everything that resides in their mind and soul hadn't already been declared by those they'd talk to by fiat.
To refuse to accept a label in these circumstances is far from "invective". It's self-defense- more to the point, it's defense of everything one might say, and defense of the ability not to be collectively judged before one says it.
For myself, a quote and an event come to mind.
One, attributed to Voltaire: "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
The other: during the last presidential campaign season, researchers attended a Bush rally wearing Kerry t-shirts, and a Kerry rally wearing Bush t-shirts. At the Bush rally, they were escorted out. At the Kerry rally, they were noticed, but one of the observers pointedly told another that the ability of such opposition to make itself manifest was the kind of thing their candidate and party should stand for.
That stance is a good part of why I do identify as a liberal.
And if anyone wishes to compare me and mine to the Taliban, my "violent opposition" is just this: they're wrong. Manifestly wrong, to those who care to examine the idea.
How shameful if a catchphrase should make them feel they don't have to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like
There's a certain amount of irony there since an oft used Conservative diss on Liberals is to basically call them weak willed sissies.
Ya'll can't have it both ways. Are Liberals crazed cut throats that will kill you for not agreeing with them? Or are they weak and dovish? I guess it isn't mutually exclusive, they could be both, but geez, there're competing messages in there.
How does Card think that the kind of language he's using is any different from what he's accusing Liberals of?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I dislike the tone Card's adopted in his essays (and from the sound of it, in his forays into talk radio) as much as anyone, but it's a mistake to claim that he isn't well read, Sam. Doing so when it's blatantly untrue undermines your larger point.
There's a big difference between (1) claiming that he isn't well read and (2) intoning that he's presently writing articles so bad that they make him sound like he's either ignorant or not well read on the subjects he's talking about.
quote:The problem seems to be that by your own rhetoric you prove Card's point. The responses are so emotional and overwroght that it is hard to make an intelligent comment.
The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive.
Tell me you are not serious. When people object openly to lame invective it makes them akin to the Taliban?
I mean, come on.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Indeed. It just seems to be to be one of those rude phrases used to tear apart another group of people because you don't agree with them. I can't really think of an equililent phrase for the right, but both sides have useful things to say, even underneathe all the stuff that one doesn't agree with there's some truth. But just calling the other side rude names *coughrushanncough* doesn't add to intelligent discourse, but it just adds to more stupid unnecessary fighting as we are all trying to do what we think is best for this country. We all love it despite our political leanings. Claiming otherwise is just useless and will not make this country a better place. Respecting each other and not stirring up the same prejudices (ie, certain inaccurate articles come to mind) will not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: What I find kind of funny about Godwin's Law is that, supposing our government were to take a turn down the same paths that Germany found itself on in the 1930s and 40s, that no one on the internet would be able to talk about it without being laughed at.
It's sort of like that "doomed to repeat history" concept - if the comparisons can never be made, might such a situation have more of a chance of recurring?
Just a thought I found interesting. Carry on....
The concept of Godwin's law is not to compare your particular opponent's opinions to naziism or to Hitler. I think third parties can sometimes get a pass if they are compared similarly.
The point of the law is to prevent meaningless, hyperbolic invective that drowns out the reality and meaning of the holocaust, thus attempting to preserve it as a useful lesson in history rather than just a big bucket of red paint to throw at people you don't agree with.
Ironically I think Godwin's law can be read in such a way that OSC may have broken it with his article- if you take the spirit of Godwin and apply it to talk of the Taliban.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I dislike the tone Card's adopted in his essays (and from the sound of it, in his forays into talk radio) as much as anyone, but it's a mistake to claim that he isn't well read, Sam. Doing so when it's blatantly untrue undermines your larger point.
Just cause you read alot doesn't make you "well read." It means you've read alot. You can read a lot of the same things over and over and over again. Just look at a book by any given right wing media personality... or a left wing one for that matter.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: For example, when I occasionally listen to Rush, I note many people find he makes a good deal of sense. When I watch a Moore movie, I find he is manipulative and dishonest. I am sure you find the opposite. I can understand that, but I find that left-leaning acquaintances can't reciprocate. I find lefties are much more offensive than righties. Maybe I am wrong. How could we do an independent assessment of that?
You are wrong.
For the record, I find Rush Limbaugh to be intellectually dishonest to a literally horrifying degree.
I feel the same way about Moore. Guess what? I can think for myself.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I dislike the tone Card's adopted in his essays (and from the sound of it, in his forays into talk radio) as much as anyone, but it's a mistake to claim that he isn't well read, Sam. Doing so when it's blatantly untrue undermines your larger point.
There's a big difference between (1) claiming that he isn't well read and (2) intoning that he's presently writing articles so bad that they make him sound like he's either ignorant or not well read on the subjects he's talking about.
Maybe, but when you said in "Card's voice" (so to speak; I'm drawing a blank of a better way of phrasing that) "The democrats overturned a veto, so they are the most partisan group I have seen or read about in American history, how is this possible, you say? Because I don't read about or look at any other group in American history", it read to me as though you were saying the former rather than the latter. And since Card has read quite a bit of history, both American and otherwise, the appearance that you were saying the former made me less receptive to the rest of what you were saying.
Maybe it's because I already know that he's read a lot of history, but my assumption with essays like this has been not that he doesn't know history, but that he doesn't think that his intended audience does.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I ain't claiming what he does or does not know. Not about american history, or about whatever. But when I read that article I just wonder how it could be for real.
He literally says that the Democrats are the most partisan group he has seen or read about in American history. I did a double-take over that. Sure, it's .. 'comical' enough that he's started recycling "Leftaliban" and sounding like an accidental self-mockery in shades of Colbert. But really, what? How do you say this and expect to be taken seriously? When someone is doing a political column, I typically highly reccomend that it be something that sounds like it was geared for political lifeforms above a Freeper troll.
Seriously, he's turning into the spectrum opposite of those nutbars who call Bush the new Hitler. His article here, just now, was legitimately less readable and more baldly, blindly partisan than your average NewsMax article. That's bad. WorldWatch is presently an incredibly bad feature. I'm not being polite about it or writing out a somber multi-page comprehensive essay about how bad it is or presenting its failings and disreputable rhetoric in a formal manner (though that used to be what I would do for things like this), I'm just making fun of it and honestly expect Card to change not a bit.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I ain't claiming what he does or does not know. Not about american history, or about whatever.
That's fine. I'm saying that your post read to me as though you were, at least to me. And if it read that way to me, I'm guessing that it did to others as well (probably not everybody, but still).
As for the rest, I don't feel comfortable going into it on Card's forum. We can discuss it elsewhere if you like, but not here.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I must confess, the folks who compare Bush to Hitler annoy me just as much. I'm only interested in facts and truth, not Liberal vs. Conservative.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Synth, haven't you compared Bush to Hitler within the last three years?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Synth, haven't you compared Bush to Hitler within the last three years?
No. Where did you read that? I've stated that I do not agree with him and I dislike his policies but I haven't compaired him to Hitler.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Once again, I still don't see when I've compared Bush to Hitler. I don't think I know enough about him, but waht I know makes me feel rather annoyed, but I take it with a grain of salt and try to learn more before judging solidly. But I admit he annoys me deeply.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Not that the Hatrack search function is the definitive answer, because we know it isn't, but FWIW, I did a search, and Syn has mentioned Hitler only 3 times, and none of those in connection with our Fearless Leader. But again, I repeat, the Hatrack search function isn't a definitive answer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think I may have referred to him as Emperor Palpatine at one point, but come on, Pres. Bush himself has called Cheney Darth Vader, so I consider that confirmation of my claim, and vindication and protection from any backlash. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That makes no sense. Vader is younger than Palpatine.
I mean COMMON!
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
At almost exactly the 30 minute mark in the first "hour" of the show Kent linked to in the other thread, Card explains the term "Leftaliban."
I think it should be required listening to posting in this thread, but that's probably pushing it.
Have a listen, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I listened.
He really sounds like he's getting a kick out of the whole radio gig. I'm not being mean, I'm actually kind of amused.
But he's being extremely vague on who the Leftaliban are. They're religious extremists who want to impose their views on everyone else, and though he claims he's actually not talking about the Religious Right, I don't get it. He's talking about liberals in academia, I've heard him talk about it before. He doesn't like it when they oust people from jobs (I think he's specifically only talking about evolution and global warming), which is why he calls global warming a hoax becuase too many people get money from it (a dubious claim I think). But who are they? What are their names? Where are they? It's all too vague. It looks to me like he wanted to come up with an incredibly provacative way to insult liberals, and uses it as often as possible to insult them, but when pinned down for a definition offers up something vague enough so that it actually seems to describe almost no one specifically.
And he's being extremely loose with the word "religion," and I know why he's doing it, and I think anyone paying attention would know why too. It's retaliatory for the sorts of attacks the Religious Right recieve. It's also cheap and not the right word to use. If someone went on a mission to ban trans fat as a national law, no transfat ANYWHERE, because they felt it was their duty to end obesity in America, I have a feeling he'd call them a religious fanatic. He's overusing the term to describe anyone that believes something, regardless of facts, regardless of pretty much anything, and it's an incorrect use of the word.
But I don't buy his narrow interpretation of this term he's created, because he's slapping that damned label on any liberal he has a bone to pick with, and when you describe the problem without the title Leftaliban, frankly he was right in the beginning, I do think he's talking about the Right. I think he has possibly a valid complaint, but he doesn't seem interested at all in debating it on the merits, and that's my problem with him.
To his credit, he never sounds verbally as hostile as he does on paper. I've read him, and I've heard him, hell I've even talked to him, on THIS very subject, and I never got the impression when I heard him that he was being hateful or offensive, he sounds like a perfectly nice guy. I'm even amazed that he can explain his articles without coming off smug.
Maybe he just needs to switch the World Watch articles over to a podcast. I wonder if that would really make a substantive difference. I suspect it would.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Those who questioned my Moore vs. Limbaugh take, a couple of comments: 1. I disliked Moore because his Sicko film misrepresents health care. There is no good answer, but socialized medicine is one of the worst of bad answers. (I am in heath care.)A bit of googling finds all kinds of lies and misrepresentations: http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12914 (a funny story about left wing Cannuks being PO'd about Moore praising Canadian health care.) http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm about his previous film, Farenheit 911. I didn't see it so I didn't have an opinion.
2. So I tried to compare Rush's accuracy rate. Tough to do, because AIM - apparently a right wing media watchdog - has no problem, but the wikipedia entry on Limbaugh has some somewhat vague info about people who accuse him of inaccuracy. FAIR - left wing media watch - of course does attack Limbaugh, which is should do. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895 It is a somewhat tiresome attack, focusing only on chlorine and whether the ozone is destroyed by Mt. Pinatubo. Reading between the lines, I conclude: 1. Moore consciously lies. 2. Limbaugh is sincere but somewhat lazy in his research.
Limbaugh is more entertaining and I am generally comfortable with his biases. The writer who said "You are wrong" is obviously silly. There is no right or wrong. Moore does lie, evade, and threaten with lawsuits when someone criticizes him. Limbaugh makes provocative claims that may not be supportable, but I see him as more sincere.
Too bad the left has no radio personality with whom I could compare Limbaugh. It is a mistake for me to link those two very large white men in a compare-and-contrast.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To his credit, he never sounds verbally as hostile as he does on paper. I've read him, and I've heard him, hell I've even talked to him, on THIS very subject, and I never got the impression when I heard him that he was being hateful or offensive, he sounds like a perfectly nice guy. I'm even amazed that he can explain his articles without coming off smug.
Maybe he just needs to switch the World Watch articles over to a podcast. I wonder if that would really make a substantive difference. I suspect it would.
I've noticed that same phenomenon in the past couple of years with several right- and left-wing journalists who write columns and appear on TV. Almost without exception, their print mode came across as more extreme, hostile and/or intolerant than their video mode. I guess being on camera forces you to moderate your tone somewhat.
Coulter might be the exception that proves the rule, but she is the equivalent of a shock jock.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Regarding the radio show: interesting, but terribly vague. Not for the first time, here's anecdotal, third-party hearsay in support of a very broad assumption and condemnation.
Now, are there left-wing academics who have kept people whose opinions they dislike from getting tenure? I don't doubt it. I've met people in academia who were capable of as much.
Likewise, I've known of right-wing people who might pass someone up for promotion or decide not to renew a contract for a liberal opinion expressed in a lunchroom.
"Leftaliban" still seems to me a word that will be, like the argument, as vague as the arguer needs it to be. For someone who makes such protestations of the importance of an open mind, how strange to create a word-tool that seems to divest one of the need for an open mind.
That some people, given power, will misuse that power is not remotely unique to the left, nor would it seem to be such a news flash as to require endless repetition.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
lynn, Are you planning on addressing the whole you saying people here are equivalent to the Taliban thing?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Waitaminute, lynn -- both the sites you have on Moore and the sites you have on Limbaugh essentially say the same thing about both their targets, so where 'between the lines' do we hypothesize baldly that moore's is conscious lying and limbaugh's is sincere misinformation?
It sounds like a product of pre-emptive bias, there.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
It seems Mr. Card MAY have listened to a few complaints, because in the recent WW he's moved to saying "insane left" instead--which I appreciate, even if I don't particularly think any of the views on the left are in fact "insane".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I prefer "insane Left" mainly because the use of the adjective makes it possible that there are members of the Left to whom the adjective does not apply.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I prefer "insane Left" mainly because the use of the adjective makes it possible that there are members of the Left to whom the adjective does not apply.
Although making a point without childish name-calling at all would be even better.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Dear friends,
Thanks for the interest in my meger contributions.
I teach a class at a local university, and one day was having lunch with a full time prof. We got talking and I said something vaguely positive about the war in Iraq, to the effect that if they have a democracy there, it could be preventing a much worse war later. I kind of referred to Germany and Churchill. My lunch friend was outraged, deeply offended. He then made me admit I tend to vote Republican, that I don't believe the New Deal did any real good, and that I didn't think the Great Society was great or even good.(I actually think it was evil.) I don't think there should be a Department of Education in the Federal Government and I take the tenth amendment very seriously.*
He was so upset that he later said he didn't know if he could be a friend to me - someone I have known for over twenty years, jogged with, and had many lunches with. We talked about our academic discipline. Politics never came up, so we were good friends. Now we cannot be?
I replied that I always knew he was a flaming atheist liberal and didn't find him intolerable. Why was I intolerable if I am religious libertarian (e.g., Republicans are too far left for me)? He didn't have a good answer. But he was still really angry.
I've had less violent versions of that experience several other times. So when the term "Leftalaban" comes up, it resonates with me. It shocks me to see the kind of emotionality and invictive that follows. After all, I am ridiculously over-educated, teach some college classes, drive a foreign car, and bike to work. I am personally quite "green" and live in a solar home I helped design and build. I recycle. Shouldn't I be a liberal democrat? I shock people if I speak from the heart about the kind of society I would consider good. Then I get the "we cannot be friends" reaction.
I cannot say that anyone here is a member of the leftalaban, but I know they are out there. I have tried to be friendly to them. It disturbs me to have these conversations because of the rigid quality of thinking on the left. When I read Radical Son by David Horowitz, it resonated because it explained so many of my own experiences through the years.
Now how do I know that Limbaugh is sincere? I think it is just my bias, as Sanprimary says, although how Moore could not know that the Cuban hospitals are not available to the common Cubano, I cannot imagine. How could he be so naive? Also, he threatens to sue people who say bad things about him. That defensiveness usually goes with conscious deception. So I conclude that he was consciously trying to hide the full truth. Like a liberal writer friend says(well, I like him, I don't think he likes me), he is justified in lying in order to achieve a good goal. But generally conservatives believe that lying is not acceptable. They/we tend to be deontologists, I suppose. So I project that onto Limbaugh, who doesn't seem to threaten people with lawsuits when they attack him. (To be fair, he's been married three times which disturbs me a good deal, so I am cautious about him.)
LJ
*I also have an altar set up to the Second Amendment, but don't tell anyone.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The right isn't rigid? Both sides need to listen to the other side and not name call or judge, that would probably be a lot better.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
lynn, do you honestly not see the difference between, "I disagree with your politics, so we can't be friends" (as childish as that is) and "I disagree with your politics so I am going to blow up your buildings and shoot your family"?
Because I think that's why people are objecting to the "Leftaliban" term. It's equating political snobbery to murder and terrorism. Which is a bit of a stretch.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
dkw, you make an excellent point. I didn't think about that. Perhaps I can rationalize my blindness:
Did you ever read "The Hiding Place" by Corrie Ten Boom? She talks there about her brother who studied in Germany in the late 1920s and found a kind of hardness and negativity setting in. I don't remember the exact description but rather recall the moral deterioration he described. The idea that manners and courteous discussion were weaknesses . . . well, you get the idea.
So perhaps you could view this term as a blessing in disguise. If thoughtful people are using that term, perhaps it is an early warning about a moral bankruptcy setting in. Rather than attacking the messenger, could you look thoughtfully at the message.
How did the Taliban become as they did? Didn't it start with intolerant talk? After all, the Buddha said, "thoughts become feelings, feelings become acts, acts become character. Take care of your thoughts." Or words to that effect.
Syn: I have some pretty good evidence that the right is actually not rigid, but the psych research showing it so is done by lefties who want to make it look that way. Read Radical Son and see how Horowitz was greeted by people on the right.
LJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But generally conservatives believe that lying is not acceptable.
I think this is an example of the sort of bias that is tainting the rest of your appraisal.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: Limbaugh is more entertaining and I am generally comfortable with his biases. The writer who said "You are wrong" is obviously silly. There is no right or wrong. Moore does lie, evade, and threaten with lawsuits when someone criticizes him. Limbaugh makes provocative claims that may not be supportable, but I see him as more sincere.
There is nothing silly about me. What is silly about you is that you ascribe my statement to what was said about Moore, not to what was said about liberals. It is far from silly for me to say that when you say that liberals take Moore at face value, you are wrong. It is a false statement. Aside from being far too general to argue (the point about no right or wrong is correct only because the comment is too half baked to deal with) the point is pretty moot. It doesn't stand well to counter the argument that "leftaliban" is in poor taste, by simply pointing out all of the other stuff that is in poor taste in politics and punditry. We are trying to deal with one specific incidence that is offensive, representative of what we don't like. It should follow that if we are making this argument in favor of taste, we can also see that Moore has very little of his own. Getting us to agree to that point should not be hard, and it should not be taken as a counter argument of any effect.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson:
So perhaps you could view this term as a blessing in disguise. If thoughtful people are using that term, perhaps it is an early warning about a moral bankruptcy setting in. Rather than attacking the messenger, could you look thoughtfully at the message.
I look thoughtfully at thoughtful messages. I do not believe that reprehensible statements and hate speech are things we can learn from very easily. We learn much more about the person using this kind of speech than about ourselves. This type of speech directs attention to the user consciously, and creates a barrier against understanding by alienating people. It is a statement about Card, it is not a very good statement regarding anyone else. It is unreasonable, and therefore you should hopefully see that the majority of posters here are seeking not to justify its meaning for themselves, but to understand how it is that Card came to use it, and for what reason he could possibly justify it. I think we are finding that some things are very difficult to comprehend, and that those things may not be justified.
You invoke Buddha, but I have a hard time seeing why. The harshness of the rhetoric that Card uses contradicts that missive in its aggressiveness. I have said before that I never understood why Card treats his own audience as if we haven't read his books and remembered the falseness and maliciousness of his pundit characters, and their manipulative speech.
I know he's read Emerson, (Card's thought is quite Emersonian) and Emerson echoes the buddha quite nicely : “Do not set the least value on what I do, or the least discredit on what I do not, as if I pretended to settle anything as true or false. I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker, with no Past at my back.”
I often think Card is just playing us, and refusing to admit that we realize it or that he does. Maybe he agrees with you, for some reason, that his rhetoric actually does someone some good. Personally I would prefer sincerity and directness.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom, a psychologist at U Va, Jon Haidt, has published research suggesting that conservatives have what he has called "thick" morality, and liberals have "thin." He, a left-winger, now says that conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals are blind to. http://cbdr.cmu.edu/seminar/Haidt.pdf
Note that liberals strongly endorse two of the five moral bases, and conservatives evenly endorse all five.
What would be better is if conservatives respected liberals' contributions in caring & justice (two of the five) and liberals acknowledged the value of the other three (loyalty, respect for hierarchy, and purity).
Lying is a "purity" issue, which Haidt's research clearly shows liberals discount in moral decision making.
But you are partly right, Tom. I came to believe that before I read Haidt's work, and his work simply reinforced my biases.
You could make a case that the reason I focus on truth telling is because I am personally troubled by the temptation to lie, and therefore notice it more in others. A totally truthful person wouldn't notice the lying or be bothered by it as I am.
As they say, "No innocent man buys a gun."
Guiltily yours, LJ
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Personally I have found both parties to be pretty near equally low on intellectual veracity. I think in politics, "truth" is what you can prove on paper, which you can se to convince others. It isn't anything more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Lying is a "purity" issue, which Haidt's research clearly shows liberals discount in moral decision making.
Can you show me the research in question? The paper to which you've linked is an advocacy piece and contains no actual data. I'm deeply suspicious of "lying" as a "purity" issue as it's presented here, since "purity" seems to represent instead one's level of atavistic disgust at unnatural or antisocial behavior and/or appearance. While I can see how, with very careful questions and controls, one might be able to isolate the issue of "purity" out of this, I don't think that makes a great deal of sense.
To a liberal, something like "I could not be friends with someone who lied about having an affair" is a very, very different issue than "I could not be friends with someone with a deformity;" as described, these would both be "purity" issues for the purposes of the study. I actually suspect that certain forms of lying provoke a "loyalty" response from liberals where they might provoke a "purity" response from conservatives; a Baptist preacher who was a closet homosexual, for example, would be regarded with disgust by liberals for betraying his "own kind" and lying to people who looked to him for advice -- while conservatives, recognizing the latter, would also be disgusted by the nature of the sin.
In other words, at the very least, I would like to see how the questions were worded to control for this. If I were to conduct a similar study, I'd actually consider breaking "lying" out into an axis all of its own. There are too many complicated issues tied into each lie to say "yeah, conservatives are atavistically disgusted by lying and liberals aren't." The success of Ann Coulter alone would seem to disprove this.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Orin: RE: invoking the Buddha, have you heard of "the compassionate anger of the Buddha?"
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom, the paper does have data, work your way all the way through it. At least my earlier version has data from his research. I haven't seen the PDF, just a .doc version.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The paper has graphs, but no data. I have no idea what questions were asked, or how those questions were answered. They do specifically identify things classified as "purity" as "whether or not someone did something disgusting," but don't address dishonesty specifically anywhere in that classification.
--------
BTW, the idea that the Buddha recommended "compassionate anger" is pretty specific to Vajrayana. In fact, most people I know who use the phrase are using it to compare it to the "compassionate anger" of Jesus.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom, I am greatly appreciative of your knowledge of Buddhism, it provokes me to try to study more.
You are correct - I am extrapolating from slim evidence. But Haidt clearly shows that there is a significant difference between liberals and conservatives about how we construe morality.
In other news: Why believing in God helps society.
Find this Article at: <http://tinyurl.com/34aflo>
December 9, 2007 God Effect, The By MARINA KRAKOVSKY
Some anthropologists argue that the idea of God first arose in larger societies, for the purpose of curbing selfishness and promoting cooperation. Outside a tightly knit group, the reasoning goes, nobody can keep an eye on everyone’s behavior, so these cultures invented a supernatural agent who could. But does thinking of an omniscient God actually promote altruism? The University of British Columbia psychologist Ara Norenzayan wanted to find out.
In a pair of studies published in Psychological Science, Norenzayan and his student Azim F. Shariff had participants play the so-called “dictator game,” a common way of measuring generosity toward strangers. The game is simple: you’re offered 10 $1 coins and told to take as many as you want and leave the rest for the player in the other room (who is, unbeknown to you, a research confederate). The fair split, of course, is 50-50, but most anonymous “dictators” play selfishly, leaving little or nothing for the other player.
In the control group of Norenzayan’s study, the vast majority of participants kept everything or nearly everything — whether or not they said they were religious. “Religious leaders always complain that people don’t internalize religion, and they’re right,” Norenzayan observes.
But is there a way to induce generosity? In the experimental condition, the researchers prompted thoughts of God using a well-established “priming” technique: participants, who again included both theists and atheists, first had to unscramble sentences containing words such as God, divine and sacred. That way, going into the dictator game, players had God on their minds without being consciously aware of it. Sure enough, the “God prime” worked like a charm, leading to fairer splits. Without the God prime, only 12 percent of the participants split the money evenly, but when primed with the religious words, 52 percent did.
When news of these findings made headlines, some atheists were appalled by the implication that altruism depends heavily on religion. Apparently, they hadn’t heard the whole story. In a second study, the researchers had participants unscramble sentences containing words like civic, contract and police — meant to evoke secular moral institutions. This prime also increased generosity. And unlike the religious prime, it did so consistently for both believers and nonbelievers. Until he conducts further research, Norenzayan can only speculate about the significance: “We need that common denominator that works for everyone.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But Haidt clearly shows that there is a significant difference between liberals and conservatives about how we construe morality.
Oh, no argument there. But there's a huge difference between that statement and "liberals aren't as honest as conservatives."
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom: What I said was that I think Moore is dishonest and Limbaugh is more sincere but possibly wrong. I also mentioned I know of one media-person, admittedly quite liberal, who believes it is acceptable to lie in service of achieving his social goals. I wonder if it is because the purity area isn't as strong. I didn't intend to make a general statement. I did imply -- but didn't say -- that when people on the left do lie, I am not as shocked as if I find that Limbaugh abuses drugs or divorces a perfectly good wife. I have higher standards for people on my side. That is just silly bias, but I cannot deny it is there.
But Horowitz found that many on the far left consciously lie and are proud of it. Morality was what drove him out of the far left to where he admitted that in 1984 he voted for Reagan!
Liberals would likely not lie because their intuition tells them it is wrong, and their justification would probably focus more on issues of justice, if Haidt is right. Conservatives feel dirty when they lie (to oversimplify) and liberals feel unfair and unjust. The far left would look at such qualms as signs of weakness.
So the leftaliban word is a perfectly good description of the radical left, people who in my very younger days would chant, "Up against the wall, melon flipper." I realized that if the revolution they kept jabbering about came through, I would be one of the melon flippers who would be up against the wall. I am probably scarred for life.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Lynn, the study doesn't show that God is good for society, it shows that societal conventions connect a number of words related to religion with doing the right thing. That's hardly surprising, and it of course provides no evidence that religious belief enhances generosity. It is yet another proof of good old classical conditioning.
Edit: And I'll add my own hypothesis, pretty much unsupported, but it's what I always thought: No one believes in God. Yep. I believe that there is no one in the world who believes in God. I do think that tribal superstitions and stories evolved over countless eons into a spiritual religious system, many of them, but I do not believe that anyone believes in them. As far as I am concerned, vast numbers of people are effected by classical conditioning to begin viewing their world as if it were the one described in their given religious system. I do not believe that is belief. Just me. Call me crazy, but that's what I call religion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lynn, you said, specifically, "But generally conservatives believe that lying is not acceptable. They/we tend to be deontologists, I suppose." I have no idea how "conservatives tend to be deontologists" isn't meant to be taken as a generalization.
You also said "lying is a 'purity' issue." What I'm saying in response is that I can find nothing in the article to which you linked that suggests honesty was lumped in with "purity" by the researchers. Their definition of the "purity" category actually seems quite different.
quote: But Horowitz found that many on the far left consciously lie and are proud of it. Morality was what drove him out of the far left to where he admitted that in 1984 he voted for Reagan!
We don't want to play the anecdote game, do we? I mean, sure, I have no doubt that extremists in either camp lie regularly; there's a whole book by David Brock (who's basically the Mirror Universe version of Horowitz) called Blinded By the Right that does nothing but discuss the dishonesty of his conservative colleagues.
quote:Liberals would likely not lie because their intuition tells them it is wrong, and their justification would probably focus more on issues of justice, if Haidt is right.
I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the study, Lynn. The results aren't meant to have predictive power.
quote: So the leftaliban word is a perfectly good description of the radical left, people who in my very younger days would chant, "Up against the wall...."
I'm not sure how that follows. Can you explain how, even if we grant the thesis that liberals are far more concerned with social justice than conservatives are, comparing them to an oppressive, murderous theocracy amounts to a "perfectly good description?"
--------
(BTW, read the last paragraph of your NYT article, Lynn. It sounds like we need "police" more than we need "God." *grin*)
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Sounds like we need Big Brother!
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom, couldn't there be some kind of phase shift between liberals and the far left that leftaliban describes? I am more worried about the left than the right; you may be the opposite. Something has to worry everyone, I suppose. I extrapolate from Haidt's ideas, you are going far too far to imagine I am deriving my ideas from that data. I said earlier it is just my own biases. I find his ideas useful.
If you didn't hang with radicals when young as I did, perhaps you didn't have a personal experience that affected you. Yes, I think there are some genuinely dangerous people on the left. So I think the term is a good wake-up call. Recall Corrie Ten Boom's discussion about the moral degeneracy of Germany in the late 1920s. We ignore wake up calls at our risk.
The purity thing - I think I can speak with definite personal authority. If I lie, I do feel impure. How do you experience yourself when you lie? If you use the five modules, that is.
NYT: congrats on reading the whole study. An appeal to justice works well too, even with the evil, immoral atheists. <Now don't go off on me, Tom, I am having some fun.>
Orinoco: You seem offended when I said your previous "you are wrong" comment was silly. Here you say you know the inner experience of the believing part of the world. Now how can that not be silly? I can speak with personal authority there also. I and people I know well usually believe in God when we experience Him in some unexpected way in our lives. It is usually a surprise of some kind that makes us aware of a large reality. If that happens, it is a remarkable event that changes one's life. I recall several. There weren't always comfortable or pleasant or wished for.
Haven't you read C.S. Lewis's account of his conversion and how unhappy it made him? Some conversions shock and hurt us terribly.
To be fair, Orin, that is clearly not true with all people. There is some truth to what you suppose, you have just over-generalized it. Some people are as they are because of tradition, not because of the numinous encounter. But a surprising number will tell of some phenomenal encounter. Rumi's poetry is about this encounter, meeting The Beloved.
Example: Look at www.nderf.org and track back through; maybe you can get an experience of what I mean. These may seem unusual cases, but a Gallup poll puts NDEs as occurring in about 1 / 20 people.
That's just one example. There are many more which I could detail.
My own opinion on atheists is that they experience a crisis of conscience around 13 when they experience puberty and impure sexual impulses, and reject their intuitive connection with God so as to resolve their guilt. I did some surveys on a list once and most of the atheists did "realize" (scare quotes used intentionally) they were atheists around puberty.
That is a silly idea too, but one I am quite fond of. So when I point out your idea is silly, I am also saying we are siblings.
All thanks for the stimulating dialog. Good night, all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, I think there are some genuinely dangerous people on the left.
And yet all the bombings and politically motivated domestic shootings I can think of in the last twenty years have been conservative ones. Don't get me wrong; I think there are dangerous people on the left, but that's mainly because I think there are dangerous people and these people occasionally have political opinions. I think they'd be dangerous regardless of the philosophy they settled on for an excuse.
quote:How do you experience yourself when you lie?
Impurity never crosses my mind. There's a strong sense of shame (that, in my experience, generally suffices to prevent dishonesty), but it's not tied to a "purity" impulse. I'd say it's closer to a "disloyalty" impulse, but that's at best a part of it; in general, I feel like a lie is a betrayal of the fabric of reality. It's like a kind of madness.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
A poem by Rumi
Ode 314
Those who don't feel this Love pulling them like a river, those who don't drink dawn like a cup of spring water or take in sunset like supper, those who don't want to change,
let them sleep.
This Love is beyond the study of theology, that old trickery and hypocrisy. I you want to improve your mind that way,
sleep on.
I've given up on my brain. I've torn the cloth to shreds and thrown it away.
If you're not completely naked, wrap your beautiful robe of words around you,
and sleep.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you think Rumi would recognize your God in his God? Or vice versa?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: A poem by Rumi
Ode 314
Those who don't feel this Love pulling them like a river, those who don't drink dawn like a cup of spring water or take in sunset like supper, those who don't want to change,
let them sleep.
This Love is beyond the study of theology, that old trickery and hypocrisy. I you want to improve your mind that way,
sleep on.
I've given up on my brain. I've torn the cloth to shreds and thrown it away.
If you're not completely naked, wrap your beautiful robe of words around you,
and sleep.
I adore Rumi, but do you have any idea how UNRIGHTWING he is? I mean the donkey poem alone... Rumi was a total mystic, as unorthodox as you can get. His ilk wrote poems about God as if God and his worshiper were lover and the beloved. Which meaned that many of these poems were quite steamy. They totally appeal to me as I like the concept of God as not being a separate inentity. But, perhaps he was more Right than I think, who knows?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Liberals would likely not lie because their intuition tells them it is wrong, and their justification would probably focus more on issues of justice, if Haidt is right. Conservatives feel dirty when they lie (to oversimplify) and liberals feel unfair and unjust. The far left would look at such qualms as signs of weakness.
It seems to me, now, that what you are doing is starting from a position of presuppositional bias, one that is colored by an image of the left as 'less honest' and 'more prone to lying,' this based on criteria that judge and categorize people's mental states based on what side of an American ideological line they fall on. You find some ideas with no explanatory power and read into them to justify the concept that you started with, then you use it to make sweeping demarcations. You look at two hyperbolic pundits and determine that one is a liar and one is sincere and in the end this conclusion from 'reading between the lines' is strongly originated only from your own baldly hypothesized ideas. Everything beyond this point is an attempt to pick out anything which you can use to self-justify this bias.
At which point it becomes self-reinforcing. Moore becomes a way of circularly 'evidencing' himself as am example of 'how the left lie.'
I mean, hopefully you see why this is all such a big problem.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
I think that Rumi's experience with God was valid, just as mine is for me. Being orthodox is over-rated. I don't know who actually came up with the blind men and the elephant metaphor, but it certainly is consistent with my experience.
Orinoco said belief is socially conditioned. My point was that the experience of God is what promotes belief. It is beyond words, beyond doctrine, beyond comprehension. Yet it is the most real experience one can imagine. Rumi spoke with appreciation about Jews and Christians and says their experience is valid as his is. I think that Buddhists are tremendously spiritually powerful, and have some personal reasons for thinking that.
Every society I have studied has a rich history of encountering spirits, ghosts, prophecy, soul travel, demons and spiritual antagonists. We try to make sense of that through our doctrine.
My path is the Christian, his was Islam, and the Dalai Lama's path is Buddhism. All lead to an awareness of the spiritual reality. Conservatives want to preserve and enhance what makes society work. Rumi loved people and wanted them to awaken. Those who were awake in 80 did vote for Reagan. So maybe Rumi would have voted for Reagan in 1980-84!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There was no reason to use force on a bunch of college students even if they were trespassing. What's to say that LIBERALS don't also love society and want to improve it? I want the foster care system to be reformed. I want the education system here to improve and the prison system and I don't identify as conservative. I doubt Rumi would have voted for Reagan. He probably would have been too busy meditating and dancing in circles or at least writing beautiful intense poems. Too many of Reagan's ilk would be too scandalized to notice the beauty of Rumi poems even when it's the really racy ones... I feel like conservatives don't always see the whole picture anymore than a lot of liberals do. Folks need to see the whole picture, what needs to be fixed, where things are wounded and how to make them whole.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:What's to say that LIBERALS don't also love society and want to improve it?
I don't see how anyone could argue that Liberals DON'T want to improve society. I think the argument comes from how they want to do it. Liberals want to help everybody, and they always have big grandiose ideas on how to do it. Conservatives want to help, well, let's say for argument's sake they want to help everybody, but they want to do it at the state or local level, or the community level.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why not do both? As the community and state level is just a smaller part of the whole.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it's bit deceitful to provide a report/research as evidence in your favor, but seemingly also admit that its actual veracity would would be irrelevant as far modifying your opinion in any way, as it appears to me you are saying, lynn. Or am I wrong (I could definitely be wrong)?
-- I grew up around all sorts of liberals, and married into a family of people who are even more liberal, generally, than I am. While I often think they are wrong, I also am fairly certain that they are sincere. I am also friends with more than a few conservatives, people I likewise disagree with, but I have no doubts of their sincerity either. Of course I don't hold grudges, and so wouldn't extrapolate a particularly unpleasant personal encounter into a character trait shared by people who are otherwise completely different.
-Bok
[ December 14, 2007, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Conservatives want to preserve and enhance what makes society work. Rumi loved people and wanted them to awaken. Those who were awake in 80 did vote for Reagan. So maybe Rumi would have voted for Reagan in 1980-84!
That's your summary tie-in to politics?
Conservatives are the ones who are 'awake?'
The wholesale generalizations and implications aside. Do you doubt the sincerity of liberals because you think that in contrast to conservatives they actively or stupidly do not want to 'preserve and enhance what makes society work?'
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
My experience with liberals has not been good the past few years.
I was wondering if I do think that the Leftaliban is dishonest, and if so, why? I think it is for a couple of reasons that I can identify.
First the "Bush lied" business suggested to me the psychological process called projection. In the words of PeeWee Herman, what you say is what you are. I judged that accusation as a lie in itself, repeated ad nauseum.
Second, my judgement of the Clintons was that they were terribly untrustworthy. Example: Hillary saying that the accusations were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy was, in my judgement, a conscious lie.
Third, the reading of Radical Son. I lived the tail end of that era and judge Horowitz as deeply truthful.
These reasons weren't really clear to me until I was reflecting on this as the dialog progressed. The more I reflect on it, the more likely I think it is. There are some other incidents I could mention. So I find myself moving towards less and less trust of the left. Perhaps this group of criticizers is an exception. I would hope so.
Bok's reply isn't helpful because it misrepresents my position. Bok is at a disadvantage since he hasn't read all of Haidt's work. Specifically look for the paper on the emotional dog and the rational tail. Values are not rationally derived, they are intuitive. Rationality is post-hoc. I haven't said that Haidt proves anything to me, I simply use it to illustrate a useful set of concepts.
As to conservatives being awake, yes, I think so. That has nothing to do with sincerity. Sincerity doesn't excuse poor performance. Government based programs are a waste at best and damaging at worst. The New Deal was a waste (e.g., The Forgotten Man by Shales). I recall how disappointed I was when in a college history class I tried to track the results of the New Deal through the depression. It was a moment of wakefulness, one might say.
The Great Society was positively damaging to people who were helped (read, victimized) by it. My experience is that liberals are reckless at discarding what makes society work. They are sincere.
Have you read Master of the Senate by Caro? LBJ was clearly reckless in what he did in the Senate and subsequently in his presidency. I am not sure he was sincere. I am sure he was a damaging factor in our country's history. I am sure he was quite dishonest.
You see, most conservatives view liberals as people who haven't read history. There is a quote misattributed to Churchill that if one is not a liberal in youth, one has no heart. But if one is not a conservative in maturity, one has no head.
But all of this evades the core question: Does the term Leftaliban convey a useful meaning? I argue that it does because of the narrowness and unwillness to consider the legitimacy of other points of view, precisely because of the self-righteous indignation that the term raises. The reaction proves the foundation of the word. JFK planned to tour the country in 1964 and debate Goldwater. That type of liberalism seems to be dead, replaced by a dangerous singlemindedness and narrowness. The politics of personal destruction.
Exception: McCain picked up an endorsement today from Joe Liberman. That is the kind of principled liberalism that conservatives could work with. But the politics of personal destruction has corrupted our society, and the new term, Leftaliban simply is a wakeup call for liberals to use as a soul-searching tool.
There is a need for a national project of soul searching. Politicans who call for such cannot be elected. I am not optimistic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the words of PeeWee Herman, what you say is what you are.
So OSC's a member of the Taliban? *blink* I'm not sure that's a rational argument.
quote:Second, my judgement of the Clintons was that they were terribly untrustworthy.
And the Bush Administration isn't? Oh, c'mon. Seriously, these are softballs you're throwing, here.
quote:You see, most conservatives view liberals as people who haven't read history.
That conservatives are condescending is not in and of itself a justification of that attitude.
quote:The reaction proves the foundation of the word.
Again, I think you're stretching, here. If I were to call you an "angry b**ch," and you were to become upset, would your reaction prove that I was right?
quote:That is the kind of principled liberalism that conservatives could work with.
Since your definition of "principled liberalism" seems to include "voting for Republicans with conservative agendas," I'm not sure what room is left for principled liberals in your world.
quote:But the politics of personal destruction has corrupted our society, and the new term, Leftaliban simply is a wakeup call for liberals...
Please tell me that the irony in that sentence tasted at least slightly rancid in your throat. I'd hate to think that you weren't at least that self-aware.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lynn, have you read the book mentioned before: Blinded by the Right? If you read both Horowitz and Brock, and still decide that the right is cleaner than the left, I'll be interested in hearing why.
Otherwise, it appears you have a serious case of confirmation-bias in your selection of literature. If I read only what you've read, and had a nasty run in with a liberal jerk or two, I'd probably be in your boat.
BTW, Lieberman is a conservative Democrat, not a liberal, in the sense that we're using it in this thread.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:You see, most conservatives view liberals as people who haven't read history. There is a quote misattributed to Churchill that if one is not a liberal in youth, one has no heart. But if one is not a conservative in maturity, one has no head.
But all of this evades the core question: Does the term Leftaliban convey a useful meaning? I argue that it does because of the narrowness and unwillness to consider the legitimacy of other points of view, precisely because of the self-righteous indignation that the term raises. The reaction proves the foundation of the word. JFK planned to tour the country in 1964 and debate Goldwater. That type of liberalism seems to be dead, replaced by a dangerous singlemindedness and narrowness. The politics of personal destruction.
Exception: McCain picked up an endorsement today from Joe Liberman. That is the kind of principled liberalism that conservatives could work with. But the politics of personal destruction has corrupted our society, and the new term, Leftaliban simply is a wakeup call for liberals to use as a soul-searching tool.
Well that's ironic considering conservatives talk so often about liberals living in ivory towers and being intellectual elites. Doesn't that suggest we're at least somewhat educated? Considering the moves made recently by the Bush Administration, I'm convinced most of our government and the people who think they are doing a good job haven't read a history book lately.
I don't think the term is useful because anything useful that you try to convey with it gets buried beneath the untruth. You're calling them narrow minded? Well that's alright (I sometimes agree, though I'm surprised you really see a difference in narrowmindedness between the right and left), but useful as I MIGHT find that, I immediately ignore it when the comparison ALSO includes murderers and despots. Someone who uses a term like that doesn't care about making that subtle a point, they are either stupid for thinking you'll actually follow that NARROW an interpretation, or they know you'll make the broader association to the full meaning of the Taliban. It's utterly ignorant at best, and disingenous at worst.
Honestly I think the most insultingly appropriate thing he could have said was to call them the Evangelical Left. If his goal was to call them narrowminded and NOT murderers, anyway.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lynn, Peewee, the Clintons and Horowitz are very slender reeds indeed to base your argument on.
Horowitz just lately made a fool of himself when he claimed to have 100 colleges participating in his "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week". Yet many of the colleges had no connection to it or any events. This is your "deeply truthful" icon of Rightitude?
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
What a hornet's nest! I will try to dialog with you but I am not sure it will do any good. No, in fact, I am sure that no good will come of it.
Last will be first: Morbo, it did happen on my campus, and others. I don't know that Horowitz made a fool of himself except in your own imagination and that of a writer in Minneapolis. E.g.: The Berkeley effort: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17069DA6-6C04-4E06-81C7-010C9F29AD55 I found that article moving and having integrity. Is she not from Egypt? Can she not speak with authority? I read several of Aynte's articles, and he seems to be trying to be a good reporter, although the Ann Coulter piece was clearly misrepresenting what she did say. I had to wonder what influence his personal religious views would have on trying to debunk something that clearly did happen on many campuses. I know it came off at Columbia, for example. But I do not know if there were a full 100 campuses represented.
Picking such an example from an unknown blog to disprove Horowitz seems irresponsible to the spirit of dialog. Can you find repeated factual errors in Radical Son, which I referenced? (Any book has some errors, the question is whether they are simple errors or manipulation of the facts.) Did he lie about how his affair broke up his marriage? Did he lie about how his own behavior was irresponsible? Did he lie about his role in Ramparts?
Lyr: My argument has been that words lead to action. When hatefilled words are used then that will lead to actions. Your term is excellent, his is a good one too. Google <fundamaterialist> for a similar bon mot. The idea that Lieberman is conservative seems bizarre. I would never vote for him. http://www.acuratings.org/2005Senate.htm Discussion, see David Frum: http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjBkYjU5Njk5ZjY2OWZiMGIyNTk1MmUwNThiMDA0YTI= If Lieberman is not liberal, what on earth is he, with that voting record?
Bok: I should read it. My education about the left comes from Daily Kos. Moveon, and similar web sites. Thanks for the reminder. I predict I will find it distorted, but knowing I have a bias I will do my best to counter that. Do you counter your bias when you read Caro (Master of the Senate) or Horowitz or someone similar? The Slate review of the book showed that Brock had a lifelong habit of lying and I didn't have such a burning desire to read it. His conversion to the left was about sexual politics (I guess the Logcabin republicans were unacceptable) so I don't know how seriously to take the book. Cf: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15746
Tom, you seem to confuse illustration with proof. I am not interested in proving anything, I was offering dialog. I have enjoyed some of your past contributions; this one not so much.
The incessant "Bush Lied" chant was, I repeat, a lie. Those who forget history . . . Forbes magazine ran an informal contest among its readers to find one promise that Bill Clinton had not broken. I recall someone finally came up with one. No one has / can do that with Bush. I do disagree with many of his actions, perhaps most, but the man is not a liar. If you need proof of that, you aren't paying attention.
Yes, you may call me whatever name you wish and I am not offended. I may be amused by that particular label, thanks for brightening my day. (Could that name calling be projection? I don't know, wouldn't presume to judge, he says slyly.) Have you never read Epictetus, a man (do I assume too much?) of your obvious education?
To all: I don't see value in taking this further. I liked the term and found it amusing. The angry reaction seems to me to validate it. The Taliban started with rhetoric (see the Frontpage mag reference above) and it became behavior. Hitler's rhetoric became behavior. So also Mao who killed many more than Hitler ever dreamed of. Hutu rhetoric led directly to the Rwandan genocide. Language is rehearsal. I see the same happening here. I remain not at all hopeful about the future of this wonderful country. I am not angry, I am saddened and discouraged.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Sorry you feel like the discussions at an end, Lynn. Thanks for hanging in there
-Bok
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not calling people any names, I just don't trust most politicians even if they are on my "side". It's like totally trusting commercials. But I really don't think the left can be compared to Mao or Hitler. It seems like both sides like to sling mud, which isn't helpful for the country at all... We should not sling mud. We should compromise. Fighting is just useless and doesn't help the country one bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The incessant "Bush Lied" chant was, I repeat, a lie. Those who forget history . . . Forbes magazine ran an informal contest among its readers to find one promise that Bill Clinton had not broken. I recall someone finally came up with one. No one has / can do that with Bush. I do disagree with many of his actions, perhaps most, but the man is not a liar. If you need proof of that, you aren't paying attention.
*snort*
You mean that no one could come up with a campaign promise that Bush hasn't broken? Well that doesn't surprise me at all. The man who campaigned as a uniter who would work with Democrats, that Iraq was always one step away from victory, that we'd not be the world's policeman, that we wouldn't get involved in national building, etc etc was wrong about all of those things.
I guess it was easy to say he'd work with Democrats with they were in the minority, but since they have become the majority a year ago he has flatly refused to even negotiate with them, taking a "my way or the highway" stance to working with them. It's worked, for him, but it's CERTAINLY not what he promised.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views, but come on, it doesn't look like you're really giving the other side a fair shake if you really think what you said in that quote is perfectly fair.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I can think of one example. According to a book I read, I can't think of the title right now, but it was by a fellow who was half white half Chinese. He talked about being an evangelical Christian and writing speeches for various people. He was put in charge of the faith based iniatives. According to him, Bush didn't give any of the funding that he promised he'd give. And this fellow liked Bush a lot too.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lynn, your last paragraph is incoherent. You find the term "leftaliban" amusing, then you say our angry reaction against being pigeonholed rhetorically with ultra-repressive terrorists somehow validates it's use. You conclude by rambling on about the importance of rhetoric, failing to notice your and Card's usage of extremist rhetoric as non-productive and ill-advised.
Let's all call Republicans Republithugs instead. Does that anger you? Well, that just validates it, doesn't it? Yeah, that's logical.
Card and you can both do better.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
I am a total idiot. Why do I come back here? Mascochism, no doubt in my mind.
The Syn example is actually excellent, I now recall that and do think there was a failure on Bush's part to live up to his promises. I don't agree with the government funding faith based initiatives, but he did lead people to believe it would happen. He has done some of that but not as much as you'd think. Google Faith based initiatives 2007 current status, there are a bunch of sites where you can apply for grants.
We conservatives/libertarians also feel shafted by him, although it is our own fault. But I don't see him as a liar generally. I do see him as generally principled and even extremely stubborn. That is a strength. (I think OSC says something about that currently.) He thought he could work with the Democrat party in Washington, D.C. because he was very successful at it in Austin. New game, I think he tried and couldn't do it.
Morbo's comment interested me, I must confess. I read it and paused to note my reaction. I was truly not angry at all. Such name calling doesn't anger me. (Morbo, you aren't paying attention, Tom already tried that and it didn't work then. Why did you think it would work now? Foolish to try something that already failed.)
Republithugs: There is some justification for the thuggery angle; the Alaska bridge to nowhere was thuggery and shameful. Jerry Lewis the congressman has been something of a thug. He is the Republican version of Robert Byrd. I can benefit from the name calling by reflecting on whether there is a grain of truth to Morbo's statement. I am not even angry with being called incoherent. I am sure I am some times. I don't feel incoherent but - oh, look, a bird . . .
I do think that Morbo should read Epictetus. S/he sounds a bit reactive and therefore thoughtless.
By the way, have any of you parsed Horowitz's thinking about the functional alliance between Islamofascism and the far left? His site is www.frontpagemagazine.com and if you poke around in the archives you'll see his take on that. C.f.:
Now bear in mind that Horowitz writes in a style that most of the right finds uncomfortable. Maybe except for the lovely Ann Coulter. He is rather aggressive in his language. I was nurtured by Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley types of writing, genteel and mannerly. But if you make some allowance -- the poor guy was raised by a communist mom and dad and wrote for Ramparts -- what he is saying has some value. Look at the interview. Also bear in mind that he and Todd Gitlin were close.
I really need to stop hanging out with you people.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote: I liked the term and found it amusing. The angry reaction seems to me to validate it.....Language is rehearsal. I see the same happening here.
I've stayed out of the discussion mostly, but I'd like to ask what is meant here. You relate that rhetoric (or propaganda) leads to action. My question is what you mean by it happening "here". Do you mean on hatrack? Do you mean that the left's harsh rhetoric will lead to some action on par with Hitler and Mao?
I took it to mean that, if language is rehearsal, then allowing terms like "leftaliban" to be used (a good example of rhetoric) is a bad thing, because it might lead to "action" against the left.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Oy.
A'right, if one wants to state "Bush Lied", one apparently needs to be very specific. Because certain parties, hearing such a claim, become peculiarly demanding of a kind of absolute, verifiable, pin-point accuracy... That they've never thought to demand of, say, the Commander-in-Chief.
It is much easier, if harder to chant, to claim that "The Bush Administration Lied". One of the most grotesque things about the last several years is observing that we live under an executive branch that seems to have been designed from the top down to efficiently delegate blame.
One can with some ease link blatant mistruths to Cheney (collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, definitively denied by the report of the 9/11 commission), Wolfowitz ("We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon"), Gonzales ("I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons"), Chertoff (No one could have anticipated Katrina causing a breach of the levvies), Rumsfeld ("I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war...", "never said [the Iraqis would greet us with open arms]"...) and so on.
And with gentlemen like Tony Snow and Ari Fleischer doing most of the talking to the press, there's an additional level of plausible deniability that Bush has intentionally stated mistruths.
One could, if one felt charitable, make the case that Bush has not lied, but merely made fundamental, world-changing, earth-shattering decisions based on information that proved to be incomplete, false, or incorrect.
Though with the tiniest amount of perspective, one might temper that argument with recognition that Bush also went into several such decisions with large presuppositions and little interest in obtaining information that might cast doubt on those suppositions.
I'm uncertain as to why anyone would be comforted at the notion that our leadership is only ignorant, arrogant, and pathologically unwilling to accept responsibility- but not duplicitous at the highest level. But one could make such a claim.
I suppose it might be considered petty to point out Bush's claim on ABC's "This Week" that "Stay the Course" had never been part of the Iraq policy when he had been quoted saying such on six seperate occasions.
Or that warrantless wiretapping was justified "to move quickly to detect" terrorists, when FISA allows such a warrant to be obtained three days after the wiretap is initiated.
Or a claim that 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan were the cause of deficit spending at a time when his tax cuts were responsible for three times as much of the budget shortfall.
Perhaps he's only ignorant of the law, the numbers, and... What he's said in the past.
At a certain point, though, a claim that it's a matter of perspective perhaps deserves a less than credulous response?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, you may call me whatever name you wish and I am not offended.
I think you missed the point. If that particular insult wouldn't offend you, insert a name that would offend you. What about "abortionist?" Or "whore?" Or "liberal?" Now think: is it true? I submit -- and I suspect you'll agree, if you think about it for a second -- that the degree to which someone is irritated by an insult is not necessarily proportional to its accuracy.
Let me clarify: my intent was not to anger you. My intent was to point out that, were I to anger you, it would not necessarily mean that I had insulted you accurately.
quote:Language is rehearsal.
And yet you see nothing wrong with calling someone a member of the "Leftaliban?" Keeping in mind that we have declared war on the Taliban and carpet-bombed them back to the Stone Age?
If language is indeed a rehearsal, what lesson can be taken from the use of a term that likens one's ideological opponents to a literally mortal enemy?
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Yes, Tom, of course I missed the point. Why should I be angry at any name calling? If one is angry with a name - true or false - one is foolish.
If I did react with anger, that is simply a reflection of my own immaturity. It says little about you, the name caller, and a good deal about me.
But more generally, I completely disagree with you. The accuracy of a painful name is what makes it hurt. If you hit close to home, I am more likely hurt than if you hit wide of the mark. Your premise is quite flawed. Folk wisdom: the stuck pig squeals.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Ahh...the reason "leftaliban" offends us so much is because it hits so close to home. If it weren't true, we'd just laugh it off. ok.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lynn, I think there are serious flaws with your premises and assumptions here -- like, for example, the belief that insults are evidence of a flaw in the person insulted -- that may indeed make it very difficult for you to understand the perspective of many of the people posting in this thread. Please grant before moving on that many people are in fact angered by baseless insults.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
Tom, a Nasrudin story for you:
A monk enters a tea room and states: “My master taught me to spread the word that mankind will never be fulfilled until the man who has not been wronged is as indignant about a wrong as the man who actually has been wronged.”
The assembly is momentarily impressed.
Then Nasrudin speaks: “My master taught me that nobody at all should become indignant about anything until he is sure that what he think is a wrong is in fact a wrong-and not a blessing in disguise!”
Wisdom both ancient and modern speak to the futility of being angry about insults. The fact that people are angered is not the result of the insult but their own method of thinking. Haven't you read Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail where he explains the self-purification needed before one can demonstrate for civil rights?
Launchywiggen has it right. Whether you agree, that is my position, although as I have said already, nearly every insult contains a pearl of wisdom. Have you not studied Tibetan Buddhism? You earlier showed a sophisticated understanding of Buddhism. How can you not now apply it? My enemy is always my best friend. Since the purpose of life is to perfect my character and thus avoid coming around on the Wheel again, only my enemy will point out my flaws. I must be thankful for such an enemy, since my friends are too willing to ignore my flaws.
As far as being indignant about false accusations, what a foolish thing to do! One may as well be indignant about a dog who barks as one passes his kennel.
That is my opinion, and if you don't like it, I have others.
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
I found another illustrative story:
Joseph Smith’s Method of Dealing with Personal Injury (By Jesse Crosby)
I went one day to the Prophet with a sister. She had a charge to make against one of the brethren for scandal. When her complaint had been heard the Prophet asked her if she was sure that what the brother had said of her was utterly untrue. She was quite sure it was. He then told her to think no more about it, for it could not harm her. If untrue, it could not live, but the truth will survive. Still, she felt that she should have some redress. Then he offered her his method of dealing with such cases for himself. When an enemy had told a scandalous story about him which had often been done, before he rendered judgment he paused and let his mind run back to the time and place and setting of the story to see if he had not by some unguarded word or act laid the block on which the story was built. If he found that he had done so, he said that in his heart he then forgave his enemy, and felt thankful that he had received warning of a weakness that he had not known he possessed. Then he said to the sister that he would have her to do the same; search her memory thoroughly and see if she had not herself unconsciously laid the foundation for the scandal that annoyed her. The sister thought deeply for a few moments and then confessed that she had. Then the Prophet told her that in her heart she could forgive that brother who had risked his own good name and her friendship to give her a clearer view of herself. The sister thanked her advisor and went away in peace.
(“Stories from the Notebook of Martha Cox, Grandmother of Fern Cox Anderson.” Church Archives; Lee C. LaFayette, “Recollections of Joseph Smith,” Church archives as cited by Helen Mae and Hyrum Andrus, They Knew the Prophet.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Lynn, would you be offended if Joseph Smith came back from the dead to tell you that you were a terrible Mormon and an embarrassment to Christianity? I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely nothing that someone could say to offend you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wisdom both ancient and modern speak to the futility of being angry about insults.
Sure. And if your point were merely "people shouldn't be so easily insulted," I'd have no problem with it. But your point was actually based on the following three assertions:
1) Liberals are more easily insulted than conservatives. 2) That liberals are easily insulted is a sign of a personality flaw endemic to that group. 3) When someone is insulted by a statement, it dependably means that statement is at least somewhat accurate.
I disagree with all three of these assertions.
quote:As far as being indignant about false accusations, what a foolish thing to do!
What if the false accusations are being made about you specifically to further marginalize you among people who are already predisposed to believe them, despite their falsehood? Why is indignation at shamelessness inherently foolish?
The idea that someone cannot be harmed by a falsehood spread about them is demonstrably wrong; Smith, if he indeed had that conversation and made that claim, was clearly incorrect. Moreover, it's clear from his own personal actions that he didn't reliably take his own advice to that sister.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: I do think that Morbo should read Epictetus. S/he sounds a bit reactive and therefore thoughtless.
I suppose if I react I'll prove your point? Spare us your psychobabble.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
lynn, The examples you gave actually speak against what you were originally arguing (that people don't get angry about insults unless there is truth to them). You presented examples of people getting angry about baseless insults. Now, it seems to me your point was that people shouldn't get angry in these cases, which is fine, but showing examples where they did pretty much invalidates what you initially claimed and seemed to be trying to defend.
---
Also, you used the term projection incorrectly before. In order for a situation to be projection, there would have to be strong underlying congitive dissonance/trauma about the quality in the people doing the projection. That doesn't seem to be present in what you were talking about.
[ December 19, 2007, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by lynn johnson (Member # 9620) on :
There is IMO some truth to the Taliban-Left notion. The far left is shrill and reactive, so it contains a grain of truth.
Tom misstates what I said. I have said: "The problem seems to be that by your own rhetoric you prove Card's point. The responses are so emotional and overwroght that it is hard to make an intelligent comment."
I then tried to expand that point:
"The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive. "
"So perhaps you could view this term as a blessing in disguise. If thoughtful people are using that term, perhaps it is an early warning about a moral bankruptcy setting in. Rather than attacking the messenger, could you look thoughtfully at the message.
"How did the Taliban become as they did? Didn't it start with intolerant talk? After all, the Buddha said, "thoughts become feelings, feelings become acts, acts become character. Take care of your thoughts." Or words to that effect."
What that means is that PERHAPS you are on the road to the Taliban type of behavior. In my opinion, those reacting angrily to Leftaliban certainly are. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I particularly used the Corrie Ten Boom example because the language of the 1920s became the actions of the 1940s.
Tom, those on this thread have over-reacted. The possibilities are two: You are guilty of the kind of totalizing language the Taliban started with, or perhaps you simply are too reactive. I don't know which it means in your case, but it is likely one of the two.
Actually, I thought of an exception you should have used. Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That would have been a better counter to my argument and the Joseph Smith quote. (Hum. Why didn't anyone tackle the Nasrudin story?)
Mr. Sq: Projection? No, I used it correctly. Projection means we put onto (project onto) an ambiguous situation our own meaning. I certainly doesn't require cognitive dissonance or trauma. People who watch a lot of TV project more danger into situations than those who don't.
But I am puzzled. I originally said that I thought there is some truth to the term based on the kind of emotional reaction evident, and that the left would benefit from reflecting on what degree of truth might be found therein. I don't want to "should" on you (that people shouldn't get angry), I simply responded that I don't see any real value in reacting with anger. I didn't say _you_ shouldn't get angry, I am saying that spiritually advanced leaders from many traditions tell us it is better to look for the truth in the accusation. The baseless insults sub-thread came because of Tom's "what if" scenario. I was responding to that, saying that I am not insulted.
Threads: No, of course I wouldn't be offended. I would be heart-broken. What if Buddha said I was an embarassment to Buddhists? I would be shocked and frightened. When such things have actually happened (well, living people I respect, not the Buddha or Joseph Smith or Nasrudin), I have felt a flush of anger, behind that is sadness and fear that they are right. It creates soul-searching. Would you not do the same?
Morbo: Here's the link to Epictetus. I like the Enchiridion, so I linked it. http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html I actually enjoy psychobabble and think I will continue it, but thanks for your advice.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lynn, I'm trying to remember when I ever clicked on a link thrust upon me by a smug and patronizing debater, and I'm coming up empty. So I'll pass on the Epictetus, thanks.
Since you seem to be struggling to support your thesis, you might try this book. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There is IMO some truth to the Taliban-Left notion. The far left is shrill and reactive, so it contains a grain of truth.
So everyone who is shrill and reactive is like the Taliban? That actually seems rather shrill and reactive to me.
quote:What that means is that PERHAPS you are on the road to the Taliban type of behavior. In my opinion, those reacting angrily to Leftaliban certainly are.
I'm having trouble understanding this. Do you not comprehend why I, for one, am angered by the term "Leftaliban?" And do you really think that, by being angered by the term, I am on the road to "Taliban-like" behavior -- keeping in mind that we slaughtered thousands of people to punish them for Taliban-like behavior, which included mass murder, rapine, and conspiracy?
quote:The possibilities are two: You are guilty of the kind of totalizing language the Taliban started with, or perhaps you simply are too reactive.
Not only is this a false dualism -- there are considerably more than two possibilities here, even if we grant that the people on this thread are indeed over-reacting, which is by no means a given -- but I fail to see why either of these two unlikely possibilities would constitute a justification of the term. After all, isn't the very term "Leftaliban" exactly an example of the "totalizing language" that you're saying it's justifiably used to condemn?
quote:Why didn't anyone tackle the Nasrudin story?
Honestly? Because it's completely irrelevant. That some random dude thought people shouldn't get upset when they're insulted does not mean that they don't, and that's the only observation relevant to this discussion. I "tackled" the Smith story only because it's obvious from his own history that Smith himself didn't always practice what the story says he preached.
quote:I am saying that spiritually advanced leaders from many traditions tell us it is better to look for the truth in the accusation.
Yes. This is why spiritually-advanced leaders are pretty much useless in the real world, where accusations have power regardless of their truth.
----------
Seriously, if you pretend to care about "over-reaction," if you are worried about "totalizing language," I am left profoundly confused by what appears to be a case of nearly total cognitive dissonance on your part here in your attempt to defend the use of "Leftaliban." I can't understand why you don't see it as a classic example of exactly what you're complaining about.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Projection? No, I used it correctly. Projection means we put onto (project onto) an ambiguous situation our own meaning. I certainly doesn't require cognitive dissonance or trauma. People who watch a lot of TV project more danger into situations than those who don't.
No, you didn't. In psychology, projection has a distinct meaning, which does not fit with how you are using it. Projection means putting one's own unacceptible thought and motives onto others. If you are using a different definition, it's dishonest to try to invoke this one. If you don't actually know the correct definiton, you shouldn't be trying to invoke it at all.
edit: If you are trying to describe a situation where people, by default, view others as having the same traits and motivations that they have, then the term you are looking for is probably egocentric perceptual bias.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Folk wisdom: the stuck pig squeals.
quote:I am a total idiot. Why do I come back here? Mascochism, no doubt in my mind.
Well, you squealed.
Posted by Cyronist (Member # 9691) on :
I read about halfway down the first page and I feel like interjecting my humble opinion:
Orson, with the word "Leftaliban" is saying in a nutshell fanaticism is bad. Just like Voltaire, he is saying that extreme support of a group (along with dogmaticism ect) is bad. He also also not calling everyone on the left side of the spectrum bad, he is just harshly criticizing the extreme left, and in my opinion then deserve every shred of it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson:
My own opinion on atheists is that they experience a crisis of conscience around 13 when they experience puberty and impure sexual impulses, and reject their intuitive connection with God so as to resolve their guilt. I did some surveys on a list once and most of the atheists did "realize" (scare quotes used intentionally) they were atheists around puberty.
That is a silly idea too, but one I am quite fond of. So when I point out your idea is silly, I am also saying we are siblings.
To be fair, I believe the difference between me (if not most athiests) and religious people is that I do not presume to be a reliable source of information on the subject. The thing is, no matter my experiences, I am aware of the fallability of my perceptions. I can't believe in God. It's not possible for me. If I had an experience that made me "see God" I would also be aware that my mind is capable of generating any experience I could possibly have. People have delusions all the time, and as long as I am aware of that fact, I am aware that I can't be trusted either way. People who claim to have spiritual experiences are delusional... I'm not saying they're malicious. Personally, I would always want to be aware enough of the reality of my life to realize that what I see is not the end all.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: I am a total idiot. Why do I come back here? Mascochism, no doubt in my mind.
I'm sorry I may be late to the party on pointing this out, but I will anyway.
This forum is very much a revolving door. I don't think people expect you to stay or go in a certain conversation, and I doubt people particularly mind you doing either. I've found personally that trying to edge my way out by proclaiming a lack of interest in the forum (or whatever it is you're trying to show) is just kind of tiresome and useless. On the one hand, thanks for posting... on the other hand, don't do me any favors.
Edit: And I'm in total agreement with Tom. Cognitive Dissonance is painful. Stop it!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He also also not calling everyone on the left side of the spectrum bad, he is just harshly criticizing the extreme left, and in my opinion then deserve every shred of it.
Out of interest, how do you tell the "extreme Left" from the "Left?"
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
The plain ol' Left aren't jerks about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to sum up: those members of the Left who are jerks about being leftists are like other jerks.
It seems to me like we should really be criticizing the "Jerkaliban." Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
*soulfully reflects on the grain of truth in the Jerkaliban label*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So being a jerk makes you akin to the taliban.
I never knew such an indiscriminate line existed between violent, repressive, fundamentalist, militant, totalitarian terrorist backwater warlordism, and being a kind of a jerk about politics.
Oh well. durka durka jihad, everybody :/
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
Hatrack makes me laugh. I read like the first page and then today I read the last page. Thank you Tom, Morbo, and Sam for making me laugh. (With those last three posts)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, that's logical.