The Left is eating itself

[jafs]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

[Pointedstick]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

Depends on the person. A liberal who cares a lot about environmental protection will pretend to care about social acceptance of transgenderism. A liberal who cares a lot about gun control will pretend to care about the plight of Syrian refugees. A liberal who cares a lot about single-payer healthcare will pretend to care about mass incarceration of black people. And so on.

Since liberals define themselves by their compassion for those identified as suffering victims, it is a sin in liberal social circles to openly express insufficient compassion about a moral issue that typically falls under the umbrella of liberalism that you really don't care much about. So you pretend to care--even going so far as to convince yourself that you really do care--to avoid the social consequences of failing at this compassion-based signaling game and losing status.

[flyingpylon]

It's like the Empathy Olympics... all day, every day.

[Pointedstick]

Yes. It is exhausting if you're a person who's not compassionate enough to care for the whole world and not capable of either doing the mental gymnastics necessary to pretend to or the social gymnastics to put up an appropriate facade. This was one of the big things that caused me to leave the fold.

[MediumTex]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

Free speech.

My impression is that many liberals like the idea of people freely expressing ideas, so long as those ideas are not offensive to liberals.

[jafs]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

Depends on the person. A liberal who cares a lot about environmental protection will pretend to care about social acceptance of transgenderism. A liberal who cares a lot about gun control will pretend to care about the plight of Syrian refugees. A liberal who cares a lot about single-payer healthcare will pretend to care about mass incarceration of black people. And so on.

Since liberals define themselves by their compassion for those identified as suffering victims, it is a sin in liberal social circles to openly express insufficient compassion about a moral issue that typically falls under the umbrella of liberalism that you really don't care much about. So you pretend to care--even going so far as to convince yourself that you really do care--to avoid the social consequences of failing at this compassion-based signaling game and losing status.

I don't see how you determine they are pretending, rather than actually caring - you're just saying it as if it's a fact.

[jafs]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

Free speech.

My impression is that many liberals like the idea of people freely expressing ideas, so long as those ideas are not offensive to liberals.

My interpretation would be that many liberals care about free speech, but also about other things that sometimes conflict with that.

In other words, they don't necessarily believe in "absolute" free speech.

[MediumTex]

I'm not sure what that would mean.

Give me an example of some way in which "liberals" pretend to care about something they don't really care about.

Free speech.

My impression is that many liberals like the idea of people freely expressing ideas, so long as those ideas are not offensive to liberals.

My interpretation would be that many liberals care about free speech, but also about other things that sometimes conflict with that.

In other words, they don't necessarily believe in "absolute" free speech.

Right.  They tend to care about free speech that is consistent with their beliefs.  Other free speech is framed as "hate speech", "microaggressions", "patriarchy", and bothersome noise from "Dumbfuckistan."

I think that some liberals feel like free speech only applies until someone gets offended, and then other factors start to chip away at the concept of free speech.  From my perspective, though, free speech doesn't really start until someone gets offended.  Prior to someone being offended, free speech is actually just "speech."

[jafs]

Sometimes reality is complex.

For example, I care about the economy, but also about the environment.  And, it's not easy to sort this out, because often what's better for one is worse for the other.  It's clearly better for the environment for people to buy/use less stuff, and at the same time, better for the economy for people to spend/buy more.

It would be unfair for somebody to conclude that I don't "really" care about one or the other.

I don't know any liberals who would say the second thing you say there - many would say the first.

[MediumTex]

Sometimes reality is complex.

For example, I care about the economy, but also about the environment.  And, it's not easy to sort this out, because often what's better for one is worse for the other.  It's clearly better for the environment for people to buy/use less stuff, and at the same time, better for the economy for people to spend/buy more.

It would be unfair for somebody to conclude that I don't "really" care about one or the other.

I don't know any liberals who would say the second thing you say there - many would say the first.

I think that the problems begin when people start saying we should use the government's monopoly on violence to coerce those who don't feel like you to make them feel that way.

Here is how Rush described a similar situation in the forest:

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

[MediumTex]

One could make the case that today's Republican Party is eating itself too.

Or maybe throwing up on itself.

[Greg]

One could make the case that today's Republican Party is eating itself too.

Or maybe throwing up on itself.

I actually think it's more like it is blowing up due to internal stresses. Much like the Wasp injection knife below. Trump happens to be the compressed air inside the knife which blows up the Republican Party (the cantaloupe).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbXeqxULvhM

[jafs]

Sometimes reality is complex.

For example, I care about the economy, but also about the environment.  And, it's not easy to sort this out, because often what's better for one is worse for the other.  It's clearly better for the environment for people to buy/use less stuff, and at the same time, better for the economy for people to spend/buy more.

It would be unfair for somebody to conclude that I don't "really" care about one or the other.

I don't know any liberals who would say the second thing you say there - many would say the first.

I think that the problems begin when people start saying we should use the government's monopoly on violence to coerce those who don't feel like you to make them feel that way.

Here is how Rush described a similar situation in the forest:

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Government's "violent monopoly" can't make anybody "feel" any way - it can only coerce behavior.

[MediumTex]

I don't know any liberals who would say the second thing you say there - many would say the first.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10 ... age-cause/

A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”

Leftists are mentally undeveloped. They are just not wired correctly to see and respond to threats. That's why they can say and do crazy stuff like this and it doesn't bother them. They simply aren't able to process the information correctly.

Stalin leveraged that leftist willingness to stay quiet in the face of political dissonance and millions died because of it.

Stalin's purges were only possible because of leftist guilt at not being liberal enough.

The reason that several famous WW2 Soviet generals had mouths full of metal teeth (which was the inspiration for the character "Jaws" in the James Bond movies) was because they had all of their teeth pulled out while being tortured in the 1930s as part of Stalin's purges.

[jafs]

I didn't mean they wanted to "keep Muslims out", I meant that they don't believe that rape/abuse of women is just a cultural difference.

Talking to you about this is sort of like talking to Michellbell about marriage.  1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in our country, and we're not a homogeneous society.  From very early on, we've been a culture of immigrants from a lot of other countries, and so our culture is a patchwork mishmash of all of those.

Protecting the "purity" of "American culture" from the threat of immigrants reminds me a lot of MB's wanting to protect traditional marriage from gay and lesbian folks.

My best guess would be that two different values co-exist for many liberals, one being the concern about women's rights, and the other a belief in diversity and religious freedom.  We already have a diversity of religious belief/practices, including a number of those that aren't as egalitarian as our secular culture/values - in Orthodox Judaism, a woman can only get a religious divorce if her husband agrees, Catholics don't believe in divorce/re-marriage, etc.  The Amish can even "opt-out" of Social Security/Medicare.

So clearly our culture includes and allow for a certain amount of diversity within religions - the question would be where the line is.

[MediumTex]

The U.S. accepts more immigrants every year than any other country in the world.

Simply cutting back on the immigrants coming from countries that are hostile to us doesn't seem like a crazy idea.

[jafs]

There are any number of reasonable ideas about immigration, including a total ban on it for some period of time.

But let's not create a mythical USA that has some sort of racial/cultural purity and homogeneity.

[MediumTex]

There are any number of reasonable ideas about immigration, including a total ban on it for some period of time.

But let's not create a mythical USA that has some sort of racial/cultural purity and homogeneity.

Is anyone doing that?

[MediumTex]

There are any number of reasonable ideas about immigration, including a total ban on it for some period of time.

But let's not create a mythical USA that has some sort of racial/cultural purity and homogeneity.

i don't know anyone who claims racial/cultural purity, but up until relatively recently there has been a type of cultural homogeneity, withing the second generation or sooner all immigrants "became American", and adopted our overarching cultural norms. while still being free to hold on to whatever home country culture religion and traditions they felt like...  the idea that anyone can come here and hold onto all or any part of any culture and ignore "becoming American"  is a new thing...

If I moved to France, I wouldn't make a big deal about not speaking French, not drinking wine, and being polite.

I would just quietly try to learn the language as quickly as I could, drink wine when I could, and try to be a jerk often enough that it appeared I was taking their culture seriously.

I might even stop showering for a while as a sign of respect.

I certainly wouldn't talk endlessly about how Texas was superior to France and how the French briefly had a Texas colony that failed because the French smelled so bad that the Indians had no trouble finding them when conducting raids.  I wouldn't do that.  It's disrespectful.

Any immigrant should plan to assimilate in the society they are moving to, at least to some degree.  Why wouldn't you want to do that?  If you don't think there is anything worth learning about the society you are moving to, why move there in the first place?

thats the big question, what are the motives? if you don't assimilate and have no intention of doing so then you are basically acting as an agent for turning here in to the sh*%hole you came from.. and PC liberal cultural relativism is missing the difference... import architectural influences, traditional music, or food, dress in your traditional clothing, worship your own god and so on ....have at it..
but don't demand we become where you are from (even if some will let you or support the idea) if you cant or wont homogenize with the larger culture you add nothing, and potentially subtract from it

[Pointedstick]

It isn't really right to suggest that liberals are broken--their brains just work in different ways. Liberals are more open to and interested in experiences, sensations, and novelty. As a result, their failure case is when they don't realize when something new, cool, or exotic is actually dangerous, and ends up hurting or killing them or someone they love. Conservative-minded people are more closed off and sensitive to these kind of threats, which means they're much better at avoiding them, but their failure case is when they perceive something new and unusual to be a threat when it's really not dangerous at all, setting back cultural or economic progress or hurting the people behind the changes.

Each mindset has a time and a place, and what I often find fascinating is that liberalism is powerless without conservatism. On their own, in a hypothetical non-conservative society, liberals are not able to ensure enough safety and basic prosperity to sustain themselves. They need conservatives to do that. Liberal society only exists because of the prior efforts of the conservatives to make it a safe enough place that people who are not concerned about safety can avoid being robbed, raped, and murdered around every corner. Once that baseline of safety exists, liberals manifest and make that society society interesting and adaptable through their artistic, social, cultural, and educational efforts. A purely conservative society that totally represses liberal tendencies tends to stagnate and wither, and be socially repressive.

Basically, I want my border patrol agents and soldiers to be conservative, and I want my entertainers and artists to be liberal. But an attempt to implement a more liberal border policy is as dangerous as an attempt to manufacture conservative art is laughable.

[jafs]

I didn't mean they wanted to "keep Muslims out", I meant that they don't believe that rape/abuse of women is just a cultural difference.

Of course it's a cultural difference. The evidence is stark in conclusive.

Talking to you about this is sort of like talking to Michellbell about marriage.  1 in 6 women are sexually assaulted in our country, and we're not a homogeneous society. 

First of all I don't believe 1 in 6 women in a western country are being raped. But even if true, in left conflict terms we again see:

1) There are too many women being raped in Western society!
2) Let's import a culture that shows they have a high rate of rape and poor treatment of women.

For some reason this conflict exists in leftists heads but they don't see the problem.

Missing the point again - liberals don't believe that rape/abuse of women is "just" a cultural difference - they (and I) think it's a bad thing.

I got the statistics from a quick google search on rape statistics.  And, my point was that our culture isn't some sort of safe woman friendly culture right now. 

[MediumTex]

It isn't really right to suggest that liberals are broken--their brains just work in different ways. Liberals are more open to and interested in experiences, sensations, and novelty. As a result, their failure case is when they don't realize when something new, cool, or exotic is actually dangerous, and ends up hurting or killing them or someone they love. Conservative-minded people are more closed off and sensitive to these kind of threats, which means they're much better at avoiding them, but their failure case is when they perceive something new and unusual to be a threat when it's really not dangerous at all, setting back cultural or economic progress or hurting the people behind the changes.

Each mindset has a time and a place, and what I often find fascinating is that liberalism is powerless without conservatism. On their own, in a hypothetical non-conservative society, liberals are not able to ensure enough safety and basic prosperity to sustain themselves. They need conservatives to do that. Liberal society only exists because of the prior efforts of the conservatives to make it a safe enough place that people who are not concerned about safety can avoid being robbed, raped, and murdered around every corner. Once that baseline of safety exists, liberals manifest and make that society society interesting and adaptable through their artistic, social, cultural, and educational efforts. A purely conservative society that totally represses liberal tendencies tends to stagnate and wither, and be socially repressive.

Basically, I want my border patrol agents and soldiers to be conservative, and I want my entertainers and artists to be liberal. But an attempt to implement a more liberal border policy is as dangerous as an attempt to manufacture conservative art is laughable.

Good points.

Liberals are good at having fun.  That's important.

The largest blind spots I see in the way liberals think is their confidence in government as an agent for improving human nature, and in their lack of respect for the rights of those with whom they disagree, especially when it comes to property rights.

[jafs]

Well, the source I found is sarsonline.org - if you google "rape statistics", you'll find it easily in the first ten or so hits.

The 1 in 6 figure came from the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - 1998.

If you have other sources that challenge those figures, I'll gladly look at them.

As I said before, there are values that may conflict - the value of keeping women safe, and the value of cultural diversity.  That doesn't mean that they don't actually care about either/both of those, it means that they care about both of them, but may have trouble sorting that out.  Just like my example of the economy and the environment.

[jafs]

I like some of PS's comments, particularly the idea that both conservatives and liberals bring things of value to society, and that we're better off incorporating both of those elements.

And, generally speaking, I find liberals to be more open, warmer and more friendly than conservatives, who tend to be more closed, cooler and more restrained.

But, as far as openness to new experiences, that seems more like an age-linked thing to me - young people are generally more interested in that, and as we get older, we get more set in our ways.  My father was pretty liberal, and he had a pretty set routine towards the end of his life, with little interest in exploring new experiences.  My father-in-law is very liberal, but sticks to similar routines as well.  And, I've become much more set in my ways as I've gotten older too.

[Gabe]

Hahaha, it just gets better!

https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this ... y-on-femin