Intellectual frauds?
Over in Progressiveville an interesting conversation is going on about “Whatsa Progressive Blogger to do?” It sounds a little religious but it is an interesting read.
What caught my eye was this, “That’s what’s so frustrating about intellectual frauds like #9. They engage in discussion in bad faith. They’re not out to learn; they’re out to proselytize their disinformation to the credulous. And see, that’s where this whole bargain breaks down – because it’s *their* mission to spread *their* version of events, or whatever, and it’s completely at odds with your mission. That’s an irreconcilable collision.”
If you have ever engage “progressives” ie “liberals who can’t really admit they are liberals” in any kind of discussion you may appreciate the Pot calling the Kettle black meme here.
I don’t know what brought this about, maybe the specter of Fred Thompson getting into the Presidential race, but there is no joy in Mudville Progressiveville.
When you have had discussions with “progressives”, do you feel they engage in discussion in good faith?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I see they are bitching about draconian anti-crime lockdown measures in Baltimore.
Yes, largest city in the People’s Republic of Maryland…aka gun control haven. No connect there…
May 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Memphis has some self-styled “progressive” bloggers and they are the most corrosive, quick-to-insult bloggers here. LeftWingCracker, Freedonian, Pesky Fly, etc. care about nothing more than shouting you down and “winning” the argument.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I know why I don’t get the love in Progressiveville. I don’t insult them and I ask questions. That is why I was booted. I disturbed the Borg continuum.
An interesting comment from a person who once called me a pedophile here on SayUncle. He quickly recanted, apologized, and declared it as rhetorical, but it is the zenith of insults I have received. To a small degree I feel a satisfaction that he now understands what I was trying to do.
In his own words:
Ok then.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Yeah, progressives are evil buttfuckers, aren’t they? Yawn…
Seriously…what the fuck good can possibly come from an arbitrary “those people are bad and we’re not” type name calling post like this.
You continue to shit up what is otherwise one of my favorite blogs. Please…knock it off.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Yeah, progressives are evil buttfuckers, aren’t they?
PGP, what does “progressive” mean. Does it mean “liberal” or does it mean “open minded and forward thinking”?
Words have meaning. If you try to change the meaning of a word isn’t it only reasonable that you will be challenged?
Stop making my case, I can do this without any help.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It means focused on pragmatic efforts to improve the human condition, at least when I use it. It can mean a lot of things.
That’s true of a lot of words. Get over it.
Not sure what word you think I’m “changing”, anyway. Or what “case” you think you’re making.
You do realize that a bunch of liberals and lefties could get together, replace the words liberal and progressive in your post, and have the same conversation? Happens all the time. Everybody seems to think they have the corner on open mindedness…
Pretty funny coming from a guy whose favorite topic is trying to convince us that scientists don’t think what they apparently think. Open minded indeed.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“Pretty funny coming from a guy whose favorite topic is trying to convince us that scientists don’t think what they apparently think. Open minded indeed.”_PGP.
That is patently dishonest, and you know it. He challenged the artificial consensus you claim. But, then you can’t win that argument, can you? So you must pretend he said what you wish he said so your argument might look logical in comparison.
You surrendered the field again. Don’t you get tired of giving up? If you must give up on the issue and attack the holder of a different opinion by misstating what he said, shouldn’t you re-examine your premise? You just might be wrong could be the cause of all that quit.
Just a thought.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
The score is thousands on my side vs. dozens on yours. If you don’t think that’s “consensus”, I dunno what is.
As for the rest of your blather…it’ll be a sad day when I bored enough to dignify that with a response. The funny part is that you’re pretty much describing your own tactics.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
If you must give up on the issue and attack the holder of a different opinion by misstating what he said, shouldn’t you re-examine your premise?
That is the point of this post.
I wanted to examine the point made on KnoxViews “That’s what’s so frustrating about intellectual frauds like #9. They engage in discussion in bad faith. They’re not out to learn; they’re out to proselytize their disinformation to the credulous. And see, that’s where this whole bargain breaks down – because it’s *their* mission to spread *their* version of events, or whatever, and it’s completely at odds with your mission. That’s an irreconcilable collision.”
In fact the mantra of the “progressive mind” is to do exactly what they accuse others of doing. Does anyone think that a person would spread the gospel of the opposition? What would the point be?
I posted this so people could see the intellectual confusion of the progressive thought process. It is a literal “us versus them” universe. It is progressives who have no intention of learning. It is the progressive mind who chooses only to proselytize without seeking opposing viewpoints.
You see in their own words a mental and philosophical breakdown. All people proselytize their point of view. That is natural and to be expected. Some of us ask questions to learn about the point of view of others. You can see how this is viewed as nefarious by the progressive mind.
Is progressive mind an open mind? Not from what I see quoted above.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The way I see it, progressives (liberals, whatever) come to their conclusions through much thought.
Non-progressives (conservatives, whatever) see their conclusions as common sense, plain as the nose on your face facts.
The thing is, common sense will ultimately win out over intellectual thought, because an intellectual premise can only go so far. Take the case for gay marriage. People make a good case for it, intellectually. Consenting adults in private/no one’s getting hurt and all that.
Some people extend the argument to polygamy,sibling sex, etc. However, the further “out” you take the argument, the less sense it makes.
So, how does it make sense in the first place?
I’m not trying to hijack the thread, just using the marriage thing to make my point. The same could be applied to global warming, socialized medicine, etc.
Arguments require facts, and those who rely on the past as proof of their views usually feel secure in their position. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
There’s a little captain-coo-coo-banana from all political stripes.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Yup. Which is precisely why I find these “geeze, look how awful those pesky progressives are” threads so tiresome.
NOBODY needs to tell me that there’s plenty of that on the left side of the fence. Let’s see, I’ve been booted from WashingtonMonthly, TPMCafe, DU, Democrats.com, etc….uh, yeah. I get it.
I just resent how easily people ignore it from their own camp. It’s pretty petty, pretty boring, and pretty overdone.
Adieu.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Rust: Progressives (so self-called; the idea that whatever they support is automatically “progress” is one that should be challenged at all times) are not, in my experience, any more intellectually justified than conservatives, or use more thought, let alone “much thought”.
Most people on either side, in my experience, haven’t really thought through most of their positions, let alone in detail, trying to find counter-arguments, and with thought given to the possible negative consequences. This affects “progressives” somewhat more strongly if only because they’re the ones arguing for change (often radical), wheras with the conservatives, we have a pretty good idea about how things are already.
Sebastian: Interesting how “scientists” are a monolith in your discussion. Almost as if disagreement between them was forbidden or non-existent. And yet it plainly exists, especially if you ask the paleoclimatologists about the issue of AGW caused by CO2 emission. (The “consensus” among that subset appears to be best summarised by derisive snorting.)
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
,i>Yup. Which is precisely why I find these “geeze, look how awful those pesky progressives are” threads so tiresome.
If you find it so “tiresome” why do you insist upon reading that statement into any and all criticism no matter how mild?
As I inferred in a previous thread, your defensiveness smacks of religious zealotry. You seemingly cannot tolerate any dissent and must immediately resort to self-righteous indignation.
The score is thousands on my side vs. dozens on yours.
By what method of scorekeeping?
Does it count as one for you every time you “Yawn”?
Or perhaps
Yeah, progressives are evil buttfuckers, aren’t they?
Was a score for your side?
If meaningless platitudes and vulgar words score, then I guess you’ve got us there. You win.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
To both Sebastian and SayUncle:
The word “Liberal” was hijacked – quite deliberately – by the Communists and their fellow-travelers, the socialists. Liberal used to mean “in favor of liberty.” Now it means “in favor of socialism.” Once enough of the population figured that out, they changed their tactics a bit and chose “progressive” as the next word to suborn. In other words, “progressive” now means “socialist” just like “liberal” does.
For those of us who actually believe in the expansion of liberty, I don’t know what term we can use. “Libertarian” has been suborned by the isolationist anarcho-capitalists…
May 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Why are you posting on KnoxViews, No. 9?
If you want to get all ticked off, just get on one of the ammo sites (NewOutdoormarksman.com), like I just did.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Terms like “liberal”, “progressive”, “conservative”, “libertarian” – they all have meanings in terms of ideology, and they have even greater meaning in terms of tribalism.
The secret is that your ideas shouldn’t be determined by an ideology – if my ideology is “liberal”, it should be because my ideas, formed through a rational process, all mirror a “liberal” ideology. If it’s the other way around (and it always, always is – even for those of us who try very hard to avoid it), then it’s wrong.
The other secret is that tribalism is a recipe for strife. Unfortunately, it’s too deeply ingrained in human nature, so that it’s near impossible to avoid it.
The last secret is that tribalistic corruption of one’s thinking is worse than ideological corruption of one’s thinking – though it, too, is inevitable even in those of us who guard against it.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
When? I mean, when did it just mean that? If you think about it, looking at social and national security, rather than economic issues, liberalism is the modern philosophy more in favor of liberty even now. But, it seems to me that it has always had a broader meaning, including themese of progress, non-traditionalism, and generosity.
I’m half-given to dispute this, and half-given to agree with it.
I guess the big question is how you are defining socialism, and whether you are talking about liberalism’s ideas about what a utopian ideal would look like, or whether you are talking about liberalism’s ideas about what we should do in the real world. By the way, how do you define socialism in the context of your statement?
I define it as
(from dictionary.com, of course). I don’t know of any mainstream liberal who advocates that as something we should do in the real world.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
“As for the rest of your blather…it’ll be a sad day when I bored enough to dignify that with a response. The funny part is that you’re pretty much describing your own tactics.”-PGP
You make my point better than I do. You are once again in full retreat. Of course you won’t dignify that with a response. You have none. Except to close the paragraph with a falsehood.
Do you not realize how many points of discussion you have avoided? Not just mine, you do it regularly. You make a statement from deep left field, then hide under the bleachers when called on it, but disparage the quesioner instead of addressing the issue.
Progressive my ass. Just a scared little boy.
May 18th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Why are you posting on KnoxViews, No. 9?
I know, I could let it go. The hypocrisy of Andy Axel’s post is why I didn’t. They are in a lather on KnoxViews trying to figure out the most basic part of discussion and debate. It is so simple but so foreign to their thinking. The last comment over there is that there hasn’t been much discussion. Ironic but fitting.
This thread turned out pretty good as it got to what I was interested in. The term “progressive” has bugged me for some time. I have to hand it to the commenters here as it has been well explained why people desire to use the term. It seems a non-sequitur to me.
It was also satisfying to see rikki post a comment on KnoxViews of what I had been trying to get across for over two years. There are good people over there. There are also some that I should never have wasted time on. I do this for the same reason listed on Uncle’s masthead. To entertain me. And to learn.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Number 9, you are aware that “progressive” had a specific political meaning from the late 19th century until the early Forties? It was related to, but separate from, the terms “liberal” and “socialist.”
Modern liberals have adopted the term because “liberal” has been so thoroughly demonised. They don’t mean “progressive” in the historic sense at all. It’s a way to slip out from under the damaged “liberal.”
May 18th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Mental Midget,
Liberalism: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook18.html
Progressivism: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture11.html
Signed,
Your Daddy Who Is Neither Liberal Nor Progressive
May 18th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Your Daddy Who Is Neither Liberal Nor Progressive
Well, a socialist “Is Neither Liberal Nor Progressive”…to be fair I always saw you as a socialist democrat ala Ségolčne Royal of France. Even in France they have figured out the madness of social democracy.
Burn enough cars and homes and even the dumbest people can figure out that social democracy is the path to anarchy.
I read in KnoxViews that things are tough up North even where you live. Maybe someday people will figure out that self reliance is vital to self defense. Then the bad guys will stop preying on the herd.
Gun free zones create criminal zones. A self reliant society is a civil society.
It may take a little longer for people in America that subscribe to the virus of social democracy to be cured. As mentioned in another thread on SayUncle, San Francisco has passed the tipping point. Might as well call it New France. It is sad when even the French have more common sense than those in Crazy Cali. Maybe San Fran could learn a thing or three from Nicolas Sarkozy.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Over in “Progressiveville” a guy that signs his posts with the word “peace” explains everything.
He knows what the words liberal and progressive mean.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
It looks like a three parter over at Progressiveville. There is a disturbance in the continuum.
The interesting question is “Why do we do this?”
One solitary thinker says converting and recruiting is part of that reason. The usual suspects say “Just smack them around and show them how smart we are then run them off”. Butterfly and Andy will never learn.
Part III
Will they have to come over here for real discussion? Time will tell.