Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make a…
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make any sense. You simply presume what you say is true. A good reading of William Buckley might show you what I mean. He was committed to clarity of thought and word, so perhaps he'd challenge you with three thoughts. One, your accusations of fascism and Christo-fascism come without any definition of the terms. Because of this they are empty generalizations. For example, a traditional understanding of the concept of fascism clearly has little to do with the right. (I’ve previously written to Thom about how the term simply does not apply.) Second, you completely depend on simple binaries. These social issues are extremely complex, but your thoughts don't allow for any complexity. You feel the other side wrong and you resort to name calling. You've reduced the matter to simple presumptions and declare your side to be morally superior. And third, which is related to the second, your accusations are clear echoes of the preferential value judgments of other people. Ironically, you’ve accused the right of this, but clearly your rhetoric sounds as though you’ve allowed someone else do your thinking for you.
Perhaps the right “tunes in and click the links” they like to hear. But there’s nothing in your latest post that that is original. Your thoughts simply repeat fashionable progressive talking points. Maybe a few questions would help understand my challenge. How does a traditional understanding of fascism reflect the agenda of the right? In other words what’s the philosophical understanding of the term? How are Constitutional or democratic principles being undermined by the right? How do you define conservatism of Bill Buckley? What does it mean to listen and inquire with an open mind? How is the right exploiting and manipulating our society? I agree we shouldn’t compromise with evil, but what make your values “good” and theirs evil? Compassion doesn’t explain what is good, nor do simple accusations of mendacity or a sheep-like inability to think independently explain anything. These are feelings not facts.
You may not see it, but in the end your arguments sound like slogans and they come with simple conclusions about good and evil. I realize this kind of forum/platform doesn’t allow for depth. It does however remind me of a good Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
At the age of 81 (in less than a week), I am not prepared to begin a new career of philosopher king. I would love to try to answer some of those questions, but something tells me that it would lead to another long list of questions, none of which would bring satisfaction or closure. You are still talking about my "side" and the other "side". Made-up talking points, false propaganda, irrationality, name-calling, and pretentious or pious blather do not qualify as a side. There are well established definitions for words, such as fascism, and evil and mendacity are not shaded and complex. Morality which respects life, autonomy, dignity, humility, love, etc., is indeed superior to immorality which comes from hatred, fear, and greed. I strongly suspect that the people will make some of those distinctions for us in November and in 2024. In the meantime, I am on a mission and cannot afford any more distractions.
Thanks for the note! Appreciate your thoughts. My goal with all my correspondence on this site has been to learn from people that have different perspectives. I suppose I learn best by asking questions so that maybe I can find clarity. You may not agree that both “sides” are fighting an uncivil war but given the way they demean and disparage each other, its clear both sides are on a missions to undermine their opposition. Thom Hartmann is certainly on that mission. But the great thing is, we still live in a great country which allows people on all the sides of the political spectrum to be on whatever mission they feel they need to be on. I hope your mission is blessed with and guided by your stated values of dignity, humility and love.
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make any sense. You simply presume what you say is true. A good reading of William Buckley might show you what I mean. He was committed to clarity of thought and word, so perhaps he'd challenge you with three thoughts. One, your accusations of fascism and Christo-fascism come without any definition of the terms. Because of this they are empty generalizations. For example, a traditional understanding of the concept of fascism clearly has little to do with the right. (I’ve previously written to Thom about how the term simply does not apply.) Second, you completely depend on simple binaries. These social issues are extremely complex, but your thoughts don't allow for any complexity. You feel the other side wrong and you resort to name calling. You've reduced the matter to simple presumptions and declare your side to be morally superior. And third, which is related to the second, your accusations are clear echoes of the preferential value judgments of other people. Ironically, you’ve accused the right of this, but clearly your rhetoric sounds as though you’ve allowed someone else do your thinking for you.
Perhaps the right “tunes in and click the links” they like to hear. But there’s nothing in your latest post that that is original. Your thoughts simply repeat fashionable progressive talking points. Maybe a few questions would help understand my challenge. How does a traditional understanding of fascism reflect the agenda of the right? In other words what’s the philosophical understanding of the term? How are Constitutional or democratic principles being undermined by the right? How do you define conservatism of Bill Buckley? What does it mean to listen and inquire with an open mind? How is the right exploiting and manipulating our society? I agree we shouldn’t compromise with evil, but what make your values “good” and theirs evil? Compassion doesn’t explain what is good, nor do simple accusations of mendacity or a sheep-like inability to think independently explain anything. These are feelings not facts.
You may not see it, but in the end your arguments sound like slogans and they come with simple conclusions about good and evil. I realize this kind of forum/platform doesn’t allow for depth. It does however remind me of a good Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
At the age of 81 (in less than a week), I am not prepared to begin a new career of philosopher king. I would love to try to answer some of those questions, but something tells me that it would lead to another long list of questions, none of which would bring satisfaction or closure. You are still talking about my "side" and the other "side". Made-up talking points, false propaganda, irrationality, name-calling, and pretentious or pious blather do not qualify as a side. There are well established definitions for words, such as fascism, and evil and mendacity are not shaded and complex. Morality which respects life, autonomy, dignity, humility, love, etc., is indeed superior to immorality which comes from hatred, fear, and greed. I strongly suspect that the people will make some of those distinctions for us in November and in 2024. In the meantime, I am on a mission and cannot afford any more distractions.
Thanks for the note! Appreciate your thoughts. My goal with all my correspondence on this site has been to learn from people that have different perspectives. I suppose I learn best by asking questions so that maybe I can find clarity. You may not agree that both “sides” are fighting an uncivil war but given the way they demean and disparage each other, its clear both sides are on a missions to undermine their opposition. Thom Hartmann is certainly on that mission. But the great thing is, we still live in a great country which allows people on all the sides of the political spectrum to be on whatever mission they feel they need to be on. I hope your mission is blessed with and guided by your stated values of dignity, humility and love.