“The second part of that was indeed an accusation”
I’m speaking not only of accusations, but of statements and “questions” that clearly rest upon a denigrating assumption.
“but then you gave me reason to make it.”
Not the least.
“OK let me make one last attempt to see if I have got this right. When someone to the “left” of you accuses you of, or implies you are, ignorant, close-minded, bigoted etc etc, then that is unjustified because you, and those of a conservative nature have studied the issues very carefully, taking the advice of intelligent people of proven wisdom and perspicacity, and your views are therefore founded on a solid rock of truth.”
Don’t forget the lessons of history and of experience. Also, you’re still implying that I—and those like me—don’t admit of the possibility of error in the way every rational human must. By the way, there’s no need to put “left” in quotation marks. We know who you are.
“This may *seem* arrogance to those on the “left”, but it is in fact a confident assertion of what is, after all, only true.”
The word “only” is patronizing, as is customary when a leftist pretends to objectivity. Otherwise, that’s fairly accurate.
“Conversely, when you (or conservatives generally) accuse the “left” of being close-minded, bigoted, illogical, child-like (not in a good sense) and so on, these statements are justified, by virtue of the same careful study you have made of the issues concerned.”
No, those statements are justified by observation of the thinking and behavior of leftists. I suppose it might be theoretically possible to hold those views without being “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc., but the fact is that they hold those views *and* are “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc. about it.
You know, now that I think of it, the only ways to hold those views without being “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc. are to be completely unthinking or utterly evil. You choose.
“By definition, with any particular issue, only one can actually be true. Other positions, to varying degrees, must therefore be false.”
Leftists just love to congratulate themselves on their ability to “deal with subtleties,” and see “shades of gray” and “nuance.” Like most forms of self-congratulation, this is founded on self-deception.
One good way to deceive someone regarding a simple issue is to convince him that it is actually complex. Then you can launch a blizzard of sophistry that will take in some people.
We see and deal with subtleties and ambiguities where they exist, while rejecting those that are manufactured for the purpose of deception.
“If there is no consensus as to what actually constitutes a “leftist”, then by definition what some people regard as being “left” is not exactly the same as what other people regard as being “left”.
All that means is that some people are mistaken. What’s your point?
“You yourself have said that you were once a “leftist”, but you have been working UP from that over the last few years.”
Since 1973, actually. Satan is puissant. Extremely. One doesn’t usually recover overnight.
“then logically all these people, who would be defined as the “right”
They are to the right of the left, but hardly the homogeneous mass that the left imagines.
“would have different definitions of what constitutes a “leftist” based on their relative progress.”
They would have different *opinions* regarding the definition. The last decent democrat, Sen. Daniel Moynihan, said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Neither is everyone entitled to his own definition. Where our definitions differ from the correct definitions, we are wrong.
“So you are saying that the assymetry extends to the fact that those on the left are incapable of carefully considering something and observing, because if they did, they would begin the journey to the “right”?
That’s about the size of it. As a matter of fact, the left—or, more correctly, the evil intelligence that created and animates the left—takes great pains to ensure that leftists do not do so.
In “The Closing of the American Mind” (another book you should read) Bloom describes three forms of slavery. The third type entails the slave himself being his own jailer, as in Orwell’s “1984.” This is what leftist mills (public schools and universities) strive for. They teach the young, “All decent people believe this; if anyone tries to offer a different opinion, he is evil, bereft of compassion, etc. etc. and must not be listened to. Hoot him down, do him violence if you can get away with it, or just walk away, but never, never, never accord him the dignity of listening. Be especially careful not to listen when he tells you that you have been lied to. He is the liar. Don’t listen. Don’t listen. Don’t listen.”
“Sorry about that.”
Isn’t it amazing how many ways there are to say “f*ck you” in English? What a versatile language.
? I’m confused as to why you’re sending this to me.
“I’m speaking not only of accusations, but of statements and “questions” that clearly rest upon a denigrating assumption.”
They are clearly like that if you choose to interpret them like that.
“Don’t forget the lessons of history and of experience.”
Well, I wasnt pretending that I could clearly delineate everything you believe in one simple statement. I accept history and experience have a part to play too.
“Also, you’re still implying that I—and those like me—don’t admit of the possibility of error in the way every rational human must.”
Sorry, I wasnt trying to give that impression. Consider the statement suitably modified.
“By the way, there’s no need to put “left” in quotation marks. We know who you are.”
You dont know me at all, and it is insulting for you to think you do. Bssides, I put “left” in quotation marks because I dont know exactly what your definition of that is, and it may not tie in with mine.
“The word “only” is patronizing, as is customary when a leftist pretends to objectivity. Otherwise, that’s fairly accurate.”
I could interpret the word “pretend” there to be patronising too, with rather more cause. Actually, I didn’t mean “only” in that sense, but in the sense of being “unique”. Consider the word “only” removed with my apologies if it disturbs you.
No, those statements are justified by observation of the thinking and behavior of leftists. I suppose it might be theoretically possible to hold those views without being “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc., but the fact is that they hold those views *and* are “close-minded, bigoted, illogical,” etc. about it.”
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say therefore that you
are justified by virtue of the same careful study you have made of the issues concerned AND observation of the thinking and behavior of “leftists”.
“We see and deal with subtleties and ambiguities where they exist, while rejecting those that are manufactured for the purpose of deception.”
I think thats too harsh, (or not harsh enough in another sense). If these things are manufactured it is more for the purpose of self-deception. The deceiving of others is a side-effect.
On the other hand, I agree that nothing so strengthens a lie than a little truth mixed into it.
“All that means is that some people are mistaken. What’s your point?”
I’m coming to it.
“Since 1973, actually. Satan is puissant. Extremely. One doesn’t usually recover overnight.”
Agreed.
“They are to the right of the left, but hardly the homogeneous mass that the left imagines.”
Of course not. I hope I was implying otherwise.
“Where our definitions differ from the correct definitions, we are wrong.”
Ah, but what are the correct definitions? That is what everyone is trying to find out (if they have even an ounce of morality about them, anyway). If you have been growing away from the “left” over the past 24 years, then presumably your opinions have altered, because growth implies change. During the course of this time, has your definition of what a “leftist” is altered at all? I would suspect so, because you know more now than you did 24 years ago, or 12 years ago (or even last month). If that is the case, would you concede the possibility that it might change again in the future, as your understanding further grows and develops?
“Isn’t it amazing how many ways there are to say “f*ck you” in English? What a versatile language.”
Ah now that really is a patronising assumption on your part.