TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/13/2011 09:22     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
takoma wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:I should add that since we're talking about hypothetical and/or composite people drawn from my memories and prejudices with only a few minutes thought, we might not get far examining their philosophy.

I'm glad you clarified that. Being neither composite nor hypothetical, I am relieved that you would not classify me among the mush brained liberals. I have been a fuzzy headed liberal all my political life, and have no intention of moving into the mush brained faction!

Mush-head is as mush-head does - or says, I guess.

The point is: you're not out of the woods yet. I'm watching all of you.
takoma
Post 10/13/2011 00:31     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:I should add that since we're talking about hypothetical and/or composite people drawn from my memories and prejudices with only a few minutes thought, we might not get far examining their philosophy.

I'm glad you clarified that. Being neither composite nor hypothetical, I am relieved that you would not classify me among the mush brained liberals. I have been a fuzzy headed liberal all my political life, and have no intention of moving into the mush brained faction!
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 21:02     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
I should add that since we're talking about hypothetical and/or composite people drawn from my memories and prejudices with only a few minutes thought, we might not get far examining their philosophy.
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 21:00     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
Anonymous wrote:in fact, let me back up. If a person says:

Killing animals for fur is wrong. For you and others.
War is wrong. Always
Killing criminals is wrong. For all of society.

How can that person be described in any way as a moral relativist? Those are absolutist positions.

I dunno - ask them.

I think the answer is that they're not actually moral relativists, that statements like "everyone has their own truth," "those are just Western morals," etc., are really meaningless. That's part of why I can't stand them (the statements, that is).
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 20:21     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
in fact, let me back up. If a person says:

Killing animals for fur is wrong. For you and others.
War is wrong. Always
Killing criminals is wrong. For all of society.

How can that person be described in any way as a moral relativist? Those are absolutist positions.

Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 20:19     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
How can a pacifist be a moral relativist?
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 17:54     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
I like it!!!
TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/12/2011 17:45     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
Anonymous wrote:
TheManWithAUsername wrote:I have little in common with what I call mush-head liberals. To my eye, the demonstrators are a mix; there are plenty with clear, sensible ideas.

Funny - what's your definition of a mush-head liberal? (And no, I don't think the terms are redundant.)

Hmm...I don't know if I can easily comprehensively define it, though it would be reasonable to expect me to, since I've just casually used this very insulting term...

Three common traits are moral relativism, pacifism, and myopic sentimentality. I'm not saying that every moral relativist or pacifist is dumb or foolish, of course. Some hold those views for carefully considered reasons.

"Everyone has his/her own truth." Everyone should do their own thing, but shouldn't step on anyone's toes. Everyone should get along.

There's a bland reluctance to avoid doing unpleasant things. Anti-fur b/c furry animals are cute. Pro-immigration b/c it sucks to live in a poor country. Anti-death penalty b/c it sucks to die. Again, it's not the position so much as the reasoning or lack thereof.

One reason I usually call myself a leftist instead of a liberal is that I have too many associations with those images. Also, I'm generally against immigration, I think we have too much free speech, I don't think the death penalty is a very important issue, and I think anti-abortionists have a reasonable perspective (outside of the religious bases).
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 14:33     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
TheManWithAUsername wrote:It's ridiculous, but pretty clever given the circumstances, as PP noted.

I have little in common with what I call mush-head liberals. To my eye, the demonstrators are a mix; there are plenty with clear, sensible ideas.

BTW, I have some sympathy for the TP. I think they should be upset, and I respect their activism. My main problem is their profound hypocrisy in never raising their complaints before Obama (whether that's b/c of racism or blind brand loyalty).

BTW, it's "lefties."


Funny - what's your definition of a mush-head liberal? (And no, I don't think the terms are redundant.)
Anonymous
Post 10/12/2011 10:35     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
So my question for you is, are you likewise embarrassed and horrified by the idiots in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI The groupthink collectivism looks like something out of a mid 30s Soviet propaganda film.


Can you please explain further what in the video you feel is embarrassing and horrifying? I actually didn't see any groupthink. Two opposing views were presented. Both were treated with respect.

Listening to the crowd repeat the speaker is disconcerting at first. But, if you were way back in the crowd and not in range of the bullhorn, you would understand why it is being done.

This actually highlights a major difference between these protests and the Tea Party protests. The Tea Party was financially backed by deep-pocketted organizations. It had a major television network providing PR for it. It was a "made for TV" movement. A half dozen people wearing Colonial dress-up clothes could get themselves on prime time news. When they actually staged mass events, they were forced to lie about their numbers.

The 99 Percent movement is not playing to TV, but to the people who actually attend the events. As a result, they look foolish on TV. So, what? That's probably the least of their worries.

The Tea Party supporters made a big deal out of the fact that they picked up their garbage. Somehow that seemed to make it into almost any media account of their demonstrations. Similarly, the 99 Percent Demos should never be reported without mentioning that they obeyed noise regulations.



ok, fair enough. I found the strained consensus building, the lack of leaders, the insistence that no person is above any other person in any situation, to be really silly and trite. But clearly we have different outlooks.
jsteele
Post 10/10/2011 15:37     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
Anonymous wrote:
So my question for you is, are you likewise embarrassed and horrified by the idiots in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI The groupthink collectivism looks like something out of a mid 30s Soviet propaganda film.


Can you please explain further what in the video you feel is embarrassing and horrifying? I actually didn't see any groupthink. Two opposing views were presented. Both were treated with respect.

Listening to the crowd repeat the speaker is disconcerting at first. But, if you were way back in the crowd and not in range of the bullhorn, you would understand why it is being done.

This actually highlights a major difference between these protests and the Tea Party protests. The Tea Party was financially backed by deep-pocketted organizations. It had a major television network providing PR for it. It was a "made for TV" movement. A half dozen people wearing Colonial dress-up clothes could get themselves on prime time news. When they actually staged mass events, they were forced to lie about their numbers.

The 99 Percent movement is not playing to TV, but to the people who actually attend the events. As a result, they look foolish on TV. So, what? That's probably the least of their worries.

The Tea Party supporters made a big deal out of the fact that they picked up their garbage. Somehow that seemed to make it into almost any media account of their demonstrations. Similarly, the 99 Percent Demos should never be reported without mentioning that they obeyed noise regulations.

TheManWithAUsername
Post 10/10/2011 06:43     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
It's ridiculous, but pretty clever given the circumstances, as PP noted.

I have little in common with what I call mush-head liberals. To my eye, the demonstrators are a mix; there are plenty with clear, sensible ideas.

BTW, I have some sympathy for the TP. I think they should be upset, and I respect their activism. My main problem is their profound hypocrisy in never raising their complaints before Obama (whether that's b/c of racism or blind brand loyalty).

BTW, it's "lefties."
Anonymous
Post 10/10/2011 00:56     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
We have been living with hippies and whatnot forever. So it is easier to handle the wacky.

But the reason they are all repeating what the speaker says is because they can't use a PA system big enough for everyone at the gathering to hear. It has nothing to do with groupthink.

Anonymous
Post 10/09/2011 23:58     Subject: Question for the lefty's here.
As a somewhat mainstream conservative, I cringed (while admiring their passion) looking at the tea party rallies from a few years back. I do not think they were racist, more just fired up over the bailouts and high deficits and the perception that Obama was much more liberal than perceived. The tea party cost the Republicans a few senate seats and elected a bunch of wing nuts, so I'm not even sure that the increased grass roots passion was a good thing.

So my question for you is, are you likewise embarrassed and horrified by the idiots in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI The groupthink collectivism looks like something out of a mid 30s Soviet propaganda film.