Friday, July 24, 2009

"The notion that someone could disagree with them, on abortion, for example, is not merely incomprehensible, but fury-making"

Excellent video

Harry Stein, author of "I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican", lives just north of the Upper West Side of NYC. A former communist, he shares insight into the mindset of New York liberals:

People on the left do not really argue the facts. It's really an emotion based sense of the world. And when it's challenged, they do not quite know how to argue back. They are taught, they assume, that those on the right are not merely wrong, but evil. The notion that someone could disagree with them, on abortion, for example, is not merely incomprehensible, but fury-making.
Essentially, they just cannot get their heads around someone not sharing their views.
As much as anything else: they're baffled [at how I could be conservative]. They really don't get it . I don't look like a monster. I don't drag my knuckles when I walk.
To be not part of the left liberal herd is to be incomprehensible; and, perhaps worse than that, evil.
None of these people listen to Limbaugh, but they all hate him. In fact, they don't know what conservatives think at all. Basically, they deal in the crudest kinds of caricatures: we are racists, sexists, homophobic, whatever other epithets get thrown around by various NYT columnists. And that's good enough for them. There is no real interest in investigating the ideas of the other side. And I think this is a real difference [between left and right]: we know what they think. We can't help but be aware of the predominant attitudes on every major social and political issue. They know what they know of us basically by rumor and innuendo.
You're never going to win them over. In my previous book, "How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and Found Inner Peace", I actually hoped to speak to people on the other side. It doesn't work. It's impossible. I don't think a single liberal read that book, and I'm including members of my family. They were appalled by it. [...] In this book, I don't want to spend any time arguing with persons of the left. It's almost the definition of a fruitless endeavor.
I absolutely agree, you have to fight back [against the left's prejudice against and intolerance of the right, and against the left's mischaracterization of the right], to push back. But I would caution: they're very very hard to embarrass. [Intolerance of the right] doesn't have the same moral weight in their universe as a black person. By the way: if you're a black conservative, it doesn't help much either. Look what they did to Clarence Thomas.

On the Conservative Tribe subtly signalling to each other - as Communists in America used to, as gay persons still do:
I'm very keenly aware, when I'm at a party, if there are one or two other people who are not responding - when the talk turns to Obama - with the amen chorus. And, potentially, those are people I could get along with.


"The notion that someone could disagree with them, on abortion, for example, is not merely incomprehensible, but fury-making."
Why is it fury-making?

It's the injustice, and it's the evil persons [bigoted conservatives] who create the injustice. The left are furious at the injustice and at the evil bigots. When someone disagrees with them, they do not react like this: Hmm, we disagree. What is the truth? Rather, they react like this: THIS is the infuriating bigotry which causes the infuriating injustice which ruins the world.

The left do not perceive themselves as being intolerant of thought. Rather, they perceive themselves as virtuously attacking injustice. The greater their fury at injustice, the greater their virtue. Their fury amounts to action. Their enemy: injustice (grrr!) is often ethereal. Therefore, much of their action against the enemy (fury! emotional reaction!) is necessarily ethereal.

Spice in the left's ego/self-image investment in being on the righteous and virtuous side of political thought. Such only adds to the shutting down of reason and the ramping up of emotion.
"Essentially, they just cannot get their heads around someone not sharing their views."
Most committed left persons believe their political opinions confer virtue upon them. Their political opinions must be correct, as holding an incorrect opinion amounts to being unvirtuous (according to their thinking), and they cannot possibly be unvirtuous. Besides, everyone they respect holds the same political opinion, ergo the opinion must be correct. Echo chamber.

Most committed left persons cannot logically defend their opinions. They sometimes try to defend based upon clueless belief in fantasy. They sometimes try to defend with deception (which they rationalize as virtuously serving a greater good - plus, at any rate, "Tu quoque, you hypocrite righties!"). They sometimes try to obscure via throwing out huge clouds of flak, for instance: false-info flak, ad hominem flak, straw-man flak - all of which take forever to completely round up and refute, most of which serve to obscure and wrest attention from the original opinion which the left person was unable to logically defend.

In absence of understanding the logic of leftist cant, most committed lefties have faith that some smart lefty - at Daily Kos, or somewhere - can defend what they consider obviously correct leftist cant. That faith is enough. FAITH. Their opinion is based upon their faith. Everyone whom they trust holds the same opinion - which reinforces their faith the opinion must be correct. They don't understand the logic of why their opinion is correct, yet it simply MUST BE.


This rant is fun, and is an example of standing up against leftist intolerance of thought:


No comments: