ext_370466 ([identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics2013-09-07 06:55 pm
Entry tags:

An open letter from a dinosaur

Dear Progressives,

Turn-about being fair play, I figured that I'd write a mirrior of Bean's post But where to start?


A couple months back Johnathan Korman wrote an excellent post on the poles of american politics. In it was the following line ...the correct social order is natural but not effortless — without devotion to the correct social order, conservatives believe we devolve into barbarism.

Do you genuinely believe that if you'd been transported back to fifteenth-century London as a baby, you'd realize all on your own that witch-burning was wrong, slavery was wrong, that every sentient being ought to be in your circle of concern? If so I'd like to know why,because as far as I can tell Homo Sapiens today are no more mentally capable than the Homo Sapiens of 500 years ago. I assert that our current high quality of life has more to do with culture and technology than it does with any inherent superiority to those who came before us. The fact of the matter is that we live in a civil society where, for the most part, people raise their kids to obey the law, pay their taxes, and generally not kill each-other without a damn good reason. It is this state of civility that conservatives seek to conserve.

The majority of these conservation efforts focus on individual and family responsibilities/virtue. They operate on the theory that if you want innovation you need to reward innovation. If you want virtue reward virtue. If you want stable kids reward stable families, because barbarity is never more than a generation or two away. If you want good social order we must reward virtue and punish vice.

It is in this space that intent runs head-long into perceived intent, and I start to turn into my grandad...

Using anfalicious' recent example, I am simply flabbergasted that a "post-gendered society" is even a topic of discussion outside of science fiction. Feminism has moved from arguing that women should be treated equal and have the same rights as men, etc... To that that men and women should be interchangeable. I am expected ignore the fact that the burden of reproduction is carried disproportionately by the female of the species. I am expected to ignore the differences in biology. To ignore the different strengths and weaknesses of both and how they compliment each other. I am expected to be genderless. I am not therefore I am a misogynist.

Global warming is based on computer models that keep failing. Catastrophic predictions are constantly proven wrong and (surprise, surprise) the only solution ever proposed is higher taxes and greater regulatory powers. I suspect that a dog is being wagged therefore I am a "denier".

I don't want to live in a world of "Honor Killings" and medieval torture and I refuse to coddle or kow-tow to those that do therefore I am a Islamiphobe.

I oppose gun control therefore I want children to die.

I support voter ID laws therefore I am a Racist.

Fascist.

Terrorist.

Killer.

I could go on...

These are labels that have been applied to me by my so-called intellectual and moral "betters" in an effort to shut me up.

I am a dinosaur. Hear me roar.

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:36 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, but you're forgetting. W and his hawks are No-True-Conservatives(TM).

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:38 am (UTC)(link)
Hey, that's what POVs are for. Weren't you the one who was so actively promoting unsubstantiated assertions posing as POVs? Care to show some consistency or not?

He may know better, but do you?

[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:40 am (UTC)(link)
Well, absolutes seem to be dwelling just fine inside the mind of the OP, that's for sure.

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:42 am (UTC)(link)
What I see as a 'true' conservative, as opposed to a Republican Voter, is one who wishes to keep government safe (from radical ideas that would not work, as opposed to radical ideas that will)..

That's an interesting interpretation. Would you be so kind to give just one example of a radical ideas that would work, which has been supported by 'true' conservatives? I mean, if there are still some true conservatives around, that shouldn't be a difficult example to make.

[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:43 am (UTC)(link)
If something is a "wing", how could it simultaneously be a "majority"?

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 09:47 am (UTC)(link)
Indeed, from the title I was expecting to see some diatribe on the liberals' double-faced double-standards and transgressions (and sure the OP could've come up with many) - but instead, what I got was a lot of complaining and excuses.

*iz disappoint*

[identity profile] malasadas.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 10:55 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-stopped-how-to-fool-people-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/

[identity profile] meus-ovatio.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 12:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I can assure you that people in the 16th century knew that those various things were wrong. And they fought them. And they protested against them. And they were right and every one else was wrong, knowingly so, guilty consciences and all.

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:18 pm (UTC)(link)
*shrugs* it is their illogical labels they use on themselves, not mine.

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Easy: the removal of certain substances from the black market, to a well regulated one.

A True conservative wants to end the war on some drugs, (which to many is still a radical idea) that many feel would work better than the alternative.

True conservatives never support Oil Wars, as opposed to their GOP brethren and sistren. True conservatives would rather conserve energy, than spill blood over it.

I know you asked for one, but I hope you can accept two.

Oy! always about me again!

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you understand the difference between POV and childish contrarianism?

Simply answering "Wrong" is not POV, it is what people call 'trolling'. I refer to it as intellectual laziness.

Try harder :)

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:30 pm (UTC)(link)
unfortunately, as bro dour intones, these absolutes also seem to be dwelling outside the mind of the OP as well. There are several liberal in this community that have that same black/white view of their...enemy, their conservative.

That is the thing about wing nuts, they are always seeing things and thinking the worse case scenario would be the obvious outcome.

almost right...

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Not-True-Conservatives™

FTFY and I didn't even need science or Bush!

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:46 pm (UTC)(link)
Actually the term is "no-true~ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)", rather than "not-true~".

[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Do you understand the difference between POV and childish contrarianism?

I may or may not, but do you?

Try harder U first.

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I asked about radical ideas. Conserving energy and putting a comprehensive control on drugs are not radical ideas. Again, could you come up with radical ideas that true conservatives have supported merely for the fact that they're workable?

[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 02:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Really? Conservatives call themselves "right-wing"?

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:08 pm (UTC)(link)
OK now you want to fall into the nuance of what 'radical' is.

If you can not comprehend that for the last 35 years conservatives who have been advocating legalizing drugs, were viewed and labeled as extremist radicals, then you have not been paying attention to history (or at least not living it).

Alternative energy development was considered radical as far back as the 70's and 80's but conservatives embraced the concept since it meant ending dependence on foreign energy sources.

here is another one: eliminating the Fed and Central Bank system. Removing the requirement of compulsory education, giving parents the choices they had 120 years ago. Lowering the minimum age for education from 18 to 16, which might lead to less school violence by those who just do not want to be a positive asset to the education process.

I hope these pass muster with your interpretation of 'radical'. If not, I doubt you will ever be sated.

[identity profile] telemann.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:12 pm (UTC)(link)
And one of those items (or close to the sentiments) was used below. Haha. I love it.

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:13 pm (UTC)(link)
Not always because they (right wingers) can't face the truth. It was the 'moral majority' label I was referencing. They are neither moral nor a majority and most are closet right-wing extremists.

If one thinks becoming a christian is the only way to good government, that is right wing extremism.

Trust me. This is my first language :)

[identity profile] rick-day.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I agree. Don't you think we ALL stop this tit for tat name calling and try to work together?

Oh wait.... you missed where the OP was in response to someone who was doing the same thing? That irony got missed, eh?

[identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Several? I would say, most.

Personally, I think that it takes more than supporting voter registration laws to be a racist. A lot more. Just as I think it takes a lot more than supporting unions to be a 'Socialist'.
Edited 2013-09-08 15:17 (UTC)

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think it's a matter of nuance at all.

"The term political radicalism (or simply, in political science, radicalism) denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_radicalism

Or, as I suspect, in case you don't trust Wikipedia as a source, you may use this:

"Favoring or effecting fundamental or revolutionary changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/radical

If you are so willing to join some conservative extremists in the belief that conserving energy and putting control on drugs are "radical", more power to you. Just don't attribute this delusion to some sort of incomprehension on my part.

eliminating the Fed and Central Bank system
Removing the requirement of compulsory education

Now you might be getting somewhere. Except, now you'll have to demonstrate that this proposal is "workable". Then your utter concern about my insatiability might be put to rest. ;-)

[identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:19 pm (UTC)(link)
You never know with those Murkins and their use of a foreign language, namely English.

[identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com 2013-09-08 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
The idea that you can't victimize the majority in any way is totally dependent on your definition of victimize.

Really it's just another way to explain away not doing unto others as you would have done unto you.

Page 2 of 15