The bolded passage addresses the fundamental and apparently unbridgeable difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives take a sober and realistic (not pessimistic!) view of the world and the people in it. They are reality-based, and put no faith in utopian schemes. Like good Aristotelians, they take the actualities of the present and the past as a reliable guide to what is possible, rather than the future-oriented fabrications of a high-flying reason cut loose from experience.
Just a few utopian, non-reality based schemes of conservatives:
Abstinence-only education
Elimination of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research
Global warming denialism
Liberals and leftists, by contrast, joined by many anarchists and libertarians, labor under the misapprehension that human beings are inherently good, and would achieve an optimal condition either through massive statist intervention, or the elimination of the state altogether. Strange bedfellows these, but lying together in the bed of a common illusion.
Many liberals think that most humans are inherently responsive to their environment, and while there will always be exceptions to that, the best way to reduce negative behavior is to remove the inducements to such behavior.
Oh, and his great example of hypocrisy? Noam Chomsky has the nerve take advantage fop the tax laws in the same was other rich people do! Conservatives don't bother to explain why this is hypocritical, because such explanations would be thoroughly laughable.
Posts
19 comments:
One Brow said: " Conservativesdon't bother to explaqin why this is hpocritical, becuase such explanations would be thorooughly laughable."
It seems to me that he does "explain why," at least in an abbreviated fashion:
Chomsky has called capitalism a “‘grotesque catastrophe’ and a doctrine ‘crafted to induce hopelessness, resignation, and despair"....” Apostles of economic redistribution via the income tax like Chomsky are very clever at making sure that somebody else’s nickel will fund their utopian schemes. Chomsky has set up an irrevocable trust to shelter his money, with his tax attorney and his daughter as trustees."
What is laughable about this? He claims that Chomsky advocates redistribution via income tax, all while making sure he personally pays none.
What exacerbates this stance (if true) is the shrillness of Chomsky's rhetoric. Chomsky seems to be succeeding rather well in the system which is a “‘grotesque catastrophe’ and a doctrine ‘crafted to induce hopelessness, resignation, and despair," eh? Mebbe he just shelters his money from taxes because he has been rendered desperate, deprived of all hope, and had resigned himself to it, of course.
What is laughable about this? He claims that Chomsky advocates redistribution via income tax, all while making sure he personally pays none.
Hypocrisy would be publically advocating for a change to the income tax system, while privately working to maintain it. I see no sign that Chomsky has opposed these changes privately, nor has he written anything to my knowledge that says individuals should not take advantage of the opportunites our system presents.
Sorry, but expecting liberals to live as if the world were the utopian paradise they hope for, when it is in fact not even close, is mere name-calling.
"Hypocrisy would be publically advocating for a change to the income tax system, while privately working to maintain it."
Sure, that would be hypocrisy. Are ya sayin it's the only conceivable kind of hypocrisy, Eric?
"To each, accordin to his needs, and from each, accordin to his capacity" is a fine slogan which Chomsky might favor. Of course, his "capacity" is artifically reduced by tax shelters. He doesn't adhere to the "from each" part, at least not when the he is the source of the "from," eh?
“That we should practice what we preach is generally admitted; but anyone who preaches what he and his hearers practice must incur the gravest moral disapprobation.”
True dat, eh?
There might be many forms of hypocrisy. However,I don't see one as discussin how we could improve as a society, while seeking to maximze your gain in the current society.
I do like your quote.:)
Anonymous said...
Talkin bout da Jazz, and all, ya finally gotz my sorry ass throwwed plumb da fuck offa Jazzfanz, eh, Eric?
Ya happy now, ya baztid, ya?
June 13, 2008 7:32 PM
====
Ya aint never answered that there in the more better part of a year now, eh, Eric? Ya happy, er aincha? Since you got my sorry ass throwwed off, why doncha git me back in so I can post "Sloan, he ROCKS, eh!?" a few million times durin the playoffs, eh?
You also said, that, if I reminded you, you would make a blog entry on why people, like my own damn self, who don't see how certain PC strictures are "obviously justified," just don't git it.
I still don't git it...and would actually rather talk about that the Confederacy, the Emancipation Proclamation, etc. Why is the confederate flag deemed to be objectively, and per se, "offensive," I wonder?
I don't know why people thought I didn't like you on JazzFanz; you certainly should know better. I enjoy our discussions there,and I enjoy them here. I don't want to reveal the contents of the moderator's discussions further than that.
I'll makethat blog post today. There's already a topic on on the Confederacy.
"I don't know why people thought I didn't like you on JazzFanz; you certainly should know better." I do know better, but ya still got me banned by issuin a couple real lame-ass warnins, eh, Eric? Then some mod comes along and the coup-de-grace they been waitin for is all set up. Jason said in the general forum that my last offense was bein "racist," as I recall. That's an utter joke, and I have no idea what the bannin was based on.
"I don't want to reveal the contents of the moderator's discussions further than that."
Well, I definitely git the feelin it AINT based on what they announce is the reason. Big-ass secrets here, eh, Eric? Why doncha just git me back on, eh? Sloan haters and Sloan lovers need me, see?
I do know better, but ya still got me banned by issuin a couple real lame-ass warnins, eh, Eric?
I don't recall if I voted for any warnings for you, or merely delivered the message. However, it did/does take three moderators to vote for warnings, and I doubt I was the essential third on any of them.
Unlike some other banned posters, from what I can tell you have not tried to get back on JazzFanz since the ban. I know Jason will at least see this as a sign of respect. If you send Jason and email and discuss the situation with him, he may be willing to let you post again, possibly under certain conditions. This is not without precedent. However, I no longer have any say or influence in that.
If you were really confused about it, I will clarify my understanding of the "racist" accusation: even among the people I have met who sounded something like you type, I have never come across a person who typed it out that way. I don't believe any of the other mods had either. This created the suspicion that your typing style was a deliberate affectation. This was further enhanced by 1) when you discussed highly technical situations, your typing style would more closely resemble standard English, and 2) towards the end of your time on JazzFanz, I think actually after the second warning, you style deviated from standard English even more than usual. It was very easy to see this affectation as a slight, even if you did not intend it as such. Personally, I agree that it is an affectation, but I don't think you mean it as a slight, rather you see it as giving yourself some character in the sterile world of text.
Why doncha just git me back on, eh?
Strictly up to Jason. You can tell him we talked and I have no objection, if you like. I think you honestly want to respect teh rules, and if you can convince jason of the same, he likes to think of himself as reasonable in that regard.
Well, Eric, congratulations to you for realizin it aint no "slight," eh?
Butcha see, here's the thang...it kinda goes with the PC thread, I figure... Why would someone see it as a "slight" (I'm not sure if ya mean to them, er ta black peoples, er ta white peoples, er what, exactly, but...)?
Now, assumin they duz see it as a slight, does that make it a "slight?" Well, to them, sure. And that's all that matters, right? It's never a question of offense given, just a simple matter of offense "taken," no matter how groundless.
Zup wit dat? Should the self-perceived perceptual victims always have the last say on what will be permitted? Should their idiosyncratic "sensitivity" really govern the question of whether others are allowed be in the same room with them (when it's a common room, not their private room)?
How quickly some go from the stance of "I don't like it" to "he should be permanently banned," eh? If chumps like that, and their mentality, is what governs Jazzfanz, then I don't even wanna be there.
Of course they will all high-five theyselves and congratulate themselves on gittin rid of the "diversity" that they can't tolerate. Goes with victim/chump territory, I figure. Without their incessant mutual reinforcement, they might git a lil insecure, I spect.
If only there was no history behind it...
but there is. For generations, black people were portrayed within certain parameters, all based upon, if not deliberately designed, then certainly strongly encoraged charicatures by people who sought to justify their inferiority. Your imitation of the spoken pattern brings back this history.
I think words matter, and when we speak carelessly, and it causes pain, playing the "oversensitive" card rings hollow.
For the record, I don't recall any of your warnings being specifically directed at your writing style. Do you want to to go back and check?
"For generations, black people were portrayed within certain parameters...by people who sought to justify their inferiority. Your imitation of the spoken pattern brings back this history."
Hmmm, so I am imitating "black" spoken patterns (which are what--inferior?) and therefore makin tryin to "justify" their inferiority? Did anyone ask me about that? I think the body of my posts clearly indicates otherwise, but try tellin that to the PC crowd whose raison d'etre seems to be to attempt to announce their moral superiority by accusing others of bein racist, anti-semitic, sexist, etc. at the drop of a hat without any persuasive evidence to support their conclusions. Evidence aint the point....if I accuse you of bein racist, that proves a lot about ME. I aint racist. I am morally enlightened and can detect the defectives because of my superiority, etc. THAT is the point, if ya ax me.
I am not sure what the warnings be were based on...I was basically responding to what you said you thought the basis of the "racist" accusation was.
"I think words matter, and when we speak carelessly, and it causes pain, playing the "oversensitive" card rings hollow."
Well, a very nice abstract sentiment, Eric, but what are ya really tryin to say here? What is "careless?" Are ya claimin that the "cause" of any "pain" that is felt by truly oversensitive people is the words themselves (perhaps coupled with the "carelessness" of someone who didn't make sure they didn't use any words (such as a sentence which might suggest you don't think the person you're talkin to is infallible, for instance).
I'm not bein facetious here. I have encountered many people who seem to "feel pain" if you don't express 100% agreement with them, and complete approval of any/every action they take. Am I "careless" if I don't anticipate this? Am I morally obligated to feign approval and agreement, no matter how ingenuine?
In the context of my posts at Jazzfanz, I wonder who could have "felt pain," if anyone, and assumin anyone did, I wonder why?
Hmmm, so I am imitating "black" spoken patterns (which are what--inferior?) and therefore makin tryin to "justify" their inferiority? Did anyone ask me about that? I don't recall saying that you were making such an effort, but it was clear other posters did, and the intentional use of such patterns will inevitably lead to these accusations. The history is there, and will continue to be there, no matter how different your intentions are.
If you want an interesting contrast in reastions, though, compare what happened to Imus with what happened to Cosell. You found many major figures in the "black" culture who lined up behind Cosell, while only a couple tried to lead an attack, and his job was not threatened in part because of their support. In terms of numbers/market power, the opposite happened for Imus.
Also, I don't believe your writing style is careless or accidental. It reads as a deliberate choice. Maybe you laid out a substantive reason for making that choice than merely having the right to express yourself as you saw fit, but I don't recall seeing it. In that vacuum, people will inevitably fill in their own motives. Maybe you think that's wrong, maybe that's even the point. It doesn't change the fact that people do this.
I don't know who you may have actually insulted, and who was reacting based on the perceived insults given to others. As much right as you may or may not have on your side in this, JazzFanz is a group that has a specific culture, and if you had presented more reasons on why you choose to use the wtiting patterns you use, you pobably would be more well-received.
Interestingly enough, in a recent post that referred to the combining post counts for users that had changed their user names, you and the pearl were metioned as being the same person. Is that true (just curious, I won't mention it to anyone else)?
Well, Eric, as I recall, the Cosell deal was much different from the git-go. How-wad said "Look at that little monkey go!" or sumthin like that. The football player he was describing happened to be black. There was NO objective reason to think Cosell was in any way tryin to denigrate the guy's race.
Yes, a ton of people tried to make it into that, but that's just the predictable way in which the PC types operate. Always lookin for someone to "correct," and makin their own latent racism obvious in the process.
Most black people I know would much rather deal with an outspoken racist than whites who are super-sensitive to race in all of their conversation, actions, etc. Blacks read that as suspicious and untrustworthy. Such people, who make it painfully aware that they are always considering race, are NOT treating the other race as "equal," but rather as "different" (at best).
On the reverse side, some blacks are so super-sensitive and laden with their own insecurities that they see "racism" in every setback and in every dealing they have with whites.
Of course that subjectivism is what's really at the bottom of my intense dislike of the whole PC concept. Evidence, proof, and common sense all go out the window in favor of rigid, blind, categorical "thought." It is a way for one to be constantly "offended" at the drop of a hat, based strictly on robotic responses of a subjective nature. Of course, once offended, these passive-aggressive victim types think they have the upper hand. Now, in their minds, you owe their superior selves an apology (money would be good, too, of course). What a cheap gimmick.
They are human, you are a brute; they are cultured, you are uncouth; they are good, you are bad. It all just smacks of UTTER weakness to me, ya know?
Pearl hates my ass. For a variety of reasons, no doubt, but I suspect that high on the list is that I am too frivolous for his tastes. That guy takes himself way too seriously if you ask me. His smug arrogance invites people to laugh in his face, but he don't like no laughin.
As far as my vernacular goes, anyone who sees a "pattern" aint seein no pattern; they are simply focusin on short phrases, read entirely out of context (as PC types always tend to do). I use some phraseology that one might argue is "typically" used mainly by blacks, but I do the same with southern, east coast and other ethnic/regional peculiarities. There are many, many diverse types in our country, which is one thing that makes it so great.
Every Irish, Jewish, Polish Italian, German (or whatever) ghetto in the metropolitan areas of this country had sayings and prounounciations that were unique to their group. Now they're all just "American" phrases, in my book.
The whole PC thing is just a pretense. In fact, no one really cares if you call them a Kraut, or a Wop, or a Mick, or a Fag, or a Nigga to their face, as long as they know it's not mean-spirited. It aint the words, it's the intent behind them. Well, for the PC types, it's just the words, per se, intent be damned, but, I mean, apart from them kind, ya know?
Well, Eric, as I recall, the Cosell deal was much different from the git-go. How-wad said "Look at that little monkey go!" or sumthin like that. The football player he was describing happened to be black. There was NO objective reason to think Cosell was in any way tryin to denigrate the guy's race.
Yes, a ton of people tried to make it into that, but that's just the predictable way in which the PC types operate. Always lookin for someone to "correct," and makin their own latent racism obvious in the process.
Interestinly, if you read Cosell's take on it in "I Never Played the Game", he describes most of the prople who would normally be declared as being on the "PC" side of things (e.g., Jesse Jackson) as offering him their personal support, and assigns purely political motives to Lawry(sp?) and personal motives to the sportswriters who tried to fan the flames.
You think maybe there are other reasons why Cosell was not considered a racist to be outed, and Imus was?
Most black people I know would much rather deal with an outspoken racist than whites who are super-sensitive to race in all of their conversation, actions, etc. Blacks read that as suspicious and untrustworthy.
That's an interesting group of people you know. It would not intersect greatly with the group of people I know.
On the reverse side, some blacks are so super-sensitive and laden with their own insecurities that they see "racism" in every setback and in every dealing they have with whites.
Those of us of a certain age remember when this was more often true than not. The fruits of that culture still give rise to their own offspring today, although much less vigoriously.
Now, in their minds, you owe their superior selves an apology (money would be good, too, of course). What a cheap gimmick.
They are human, you are a brute; they are cultured, you are uncouth; they are good, you are bad. It all just smacks of UTTER weakness to me, ya know?
Well, there will always be people who try to game the system. You can't judge a system by it's abusers, but by whether it is still serving a valid need.
As far as my vernacular goes, anyone who sees a "pattern" aint seein no pattern; they are simply focusin on short phrases, read entirely out of context (as PC types always tend to do). I use some phraseology that one might argue is "typically" used mainly by blacks, but I do the same with southern, east coast and other ethnic/regional peculiarities. There are many, many diverse types in our country, which is one thing that makes it so great.
Every Irish, Jewish, Polish Italian, German (or whatever) ghetto in the metropolitan areas of this country had sayings and prounounciations that were unique to their group. Now they're all just "American" phrases, in my book.You don't have the only book on the planet. If you want to be part of a social group, you have to understand their book, as well. Of course, since you're not even sure you want to go back to JazzFanz, I suppose that point is moot.
The whole PC thing is just a pretense. In fact, no one really cares if you call them a Kraut, or a Wop, or a Mick, or a Fag, or a Nigga to their face, as long as they know it's not mean-spirited. It aint the words, it's the intent behind them. Well, for the PC types, it's just the words, per se, intent be damned, but, I mean, apart from them kind, ya know?I'll just have to disagree there. Even though I'm not especially thin-skinned, saying I don't really care if someone calls me any particular word that belongs on that list and is defined to describe me would be untrue. It does annoy me, because the word comes with a whole baggage of meaning behind it, bagtgage that is intended to separate me from the "best" population. It's very different from being called "hairy", "Kool-Aid", or "Poindexter", which were aimed at me as an individual, and did not annoy me.
Abstinence-only education
Elimination of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research
Global warming denialism
Vast swatches of context are missing from all your plaintive wails on the above.
Even assume ESC research would yield the same results as the far more productive NON-embryonic variety, you err in saying that ESCs would be dried up due to lack of funds. The ban was merely for NEW lines, not extant ones.
Nor was private funding prohibited nor state funding. Context, brother. The feds have no more money than we do and their presence is not requisite in all transactions. Bureacracy is not necessarily synonymous with progress.
As to Global Warming and rolling cukes over zucchini, the contexts here are missing.
There is an economic component to AGW claims that is not accounted for. The ecologists DO in point of fact also act akin to a religious enclave on these issues.
I've written on all this before.
And as to abstinence? Well, granted, in OUR culture it is a hard row to hoe. Granted. And culture and media incluences are hard to get around. But as John Lott showed in Freedomnomics, the consequences of liberated sex often generate far more harm to the commonweal as a whole in terms of social services costs, disease, and marital issues than the occasional boo-boo of not having Sis on pills by her 14th birthday.
Like my poor mom said to me of my brother quite often: "don't give him any encouragement."
Vast swatches of context are missing from all your plaintive wails on the above.
Sorry it took me so long to get to this. There were no plaintive wails, though, just pointing out the obvious.
Even assume ESC research would yield the same results as the far more productive NON-embryonic variety,
You have been mis-informed. There is only one therapy with adult stem cells (transplantation of blood stem stem cells from one place to another, with no use of pluripotency), which is used for a variety of conditions. There is one therapy in human trials for ESC (retinal replacement) which does use pluripotency. So ESC are already more productive than adult stem cells.
you err in saying that ESCs would be dried up due to lack of funds. The ban was merely for NEW lines, not extant ones.
I don't recall saying that ESCs would be dried up for lack of funds. Do you always attribute positions to people they have not taken?
As sometimes happens in science, all of the extent lines at the time of teh ban had been compromised due to insufficient understanding of the requirments for caring forthose lines. So that ban did in effect prevent viable research.
Even if that had not been true, the potential genetic variation being removedfrom play was staggering. There would be no reason to think that every embryo is eaually capable ofproducing viable therapies, there may be some super-embryos out there.
Nor was private funding prohibited nor state funding. Context, brother. The feds have no more money than we do and their presence is not requisite in all transactions. Bureacracy is not necessarily synonymous with progress.
If you want to make the argument that there should be no federal funding of science, you can get a lot of support from, for example, Timothy Sandefur. Howevcer, this is a completely separate argument from choosing a specific line of research to ban for religious reasons, in a government that is supposed to be secular.
As to Global Warming and rolling cukes over zucchini, the contexts here are missing.
There is an economic component to AGW claims that is not accounted for. The ecologists DO in point of fact also act akin to a religious enclave on these issues.
No, the ecologists, and people from many other branches of science, follow the evidence.
Now, I will not dispute that there are a lot of people out there whose beliefs in AGW are more akin to religion than to accepting evidence.
And as to abstinence? Well, granted, in OUR culture it is a hard row to hoe.
So, who's opposed to abstinence? I heartily recommend abstience. I approve and appreciate that every comrehensive sex-education class includes lessons on abstinence. By the way, it's not just our culture. Abstinence has been a hard row to hoe in every culture.
Now, I did oppose abstinence-only education, for the simple reason that it delays the onset of sexual activity for only a year, while increasing levels of pregnancy and STDs by the age of 18. I'm opposed to programs that are less effective than they could be.
Of course, if your primary focus is on sin, rather than health, abstinence-only is the way to go, because people wait longer before engaging in the sin or pre-marital sex. However, public schools are not in the sin business.
Like my poor mom said to me of my brother quite often: "don't give him any encouragement."
Recognizing that a shark will attack you, and taking precautions, is not encouraging the shark.
Post a Comment