ext_370466 (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2013-09-07 06:55 pm
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com) wrote in 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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
"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.
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. ;-)
no subject
There are about 4 of you who just *refuses* to accept any premise some of us may type, without dissecting it, contorting it and turning it into clever retorts and jabs.
BTW, I don't "have to do" anything.
You demonstrate your policies and philosophies regarding radical ideas are 'workable'. It's not my job, nor was that the subject of my comment.
You asked, I answered. You use today's paradigm to judge what was yesterday a radical approach (in relation to the status quo).
To convince someone of something they have already decided is not part of their worldview, therefore *wrong*, is not my failing. Because it's not my job.
The biggest irony here is the OP has directed his remarks to me, a self admitted ROC progressive, and you, a LOC progressive, make dismissive remarks to me like I'm a conservative.
This is the hallmark of a true progressive independent; I must be doing something right. Thank you for vindicating my worldview :)
no subject
Just say you don't want to answer or you have no idea where the "radicalism" concept comes from, I can live with that.
I don't know what a LOC progressive is, and neither am I sure how you were able to put a label on me, but whatever. But please do feel free to keep feeling vindicated about whatever imaginary battles you may've crafted inside your head here, if that'll put you to rest for the remaining part of the day.
no subject
The more you know *wink*
no subject
Being asked for further elaboration on some of the things you say in public tends to hurt your feelings and create a sensation of persecution? That's so bad, you know.
no subject
no subject
This times a thousand ^