When you're talking about terms like "right wing" and "left wing", yes, consensus matters. It's called "common usage" and it's the very basis of language.
Common wisdom is not always common. Many people believing something false does not make that thing true.
Except that the only way you can argue that this was all a liberal conspiracy is by defining pretty much every other diarist, letter writer, journalist, travel author, and commentator of the time as "liberal." Not to mention every historian.
Not at all. That the left drives the media, thus drives the narrative, means that those ideas come to the forefront. Many conservative writers, surely, latched onto that narrative for a variety of reasons.
I'm speaking from a place much closer to reality and the actual facts than you are.
Not that you have much in facts to go on so far. You're arguing fact via consensus, not fact via evidence.
So far you've given no indication you've read anything at all on this subject than Jonah Goldberg's whoppers.
One does not need to have read Liberal Fascism to come to these conclusions. But, then again, if you're operating under the incorrect premises about the right the the way you have been for however many years now, it's a problem that goes deeper than simply dismissing the evidence that doesn't suit you.
You assume that those who do not share your viewpoints aren't well-read. It may be that we are well-read, and that's where we've come to our conclusions, and not the other way around.
They sure as Hell aren't typical left wing viewpoints -- certainly not here in the US, and not in Europe either then or now.
Re: Shortened Version of What I Posted back in 2008:
Common wisdom is not always common. Many people believing something false does not make that thing true.
Except that the only way you can argue that this was all a liberal conspiracy is by defining pretty much every other diarist, letter writer, journalist, travel author, and commentator of the time as "liberal." Not to mention every historian.
Not at all. That the left drives the media, thus drives the narrative, means that those ideas come to the forefront. Many conservative writers, surely, latched onto that narrative for a variety of reasons.
I'm speaking from a place much closer to reality and the actual facts than you are.
Not that you have much in facts to go on so far. You're arguing fact via consensus, not fact via evidence.
So far you've given no indication you've read anything at all on this subject than Jonah Goldberg's whoppers.
One does not need to have read Liberal Fascism to come to these conclusions. But, then again, if you're operating under the incorrect premises about the right the the way you have been for however many years now, it's a problem that goes deeper than simply dismissing the evidence that doesn't suit you.
You assume that those who do not share your viewpoints aren't well-read. It may be that we are well-read, and that's where we've come to our conclusions, and not the other way around.
They sure as Hell aren't typical left wing viewpoints -- certainly not here in the US, and not in Europe either then or now.
Yikes.