The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
How Liberals Think
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Commenter X-Ray explains:

August 20, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT • 500 Words

Liberals believe whatever helps their side and harms their enemy. That explains the hypocrisy between now and yesteryear concerning corporate influence (and everything else):

Past: corporations stigmatized as being conservative –> corporations bad.

Present: corporations police speech the establishment legally can’t –> corporations good.

There is no contradiction here. They support whatever they think helps them, and then seek to justify it to using words. This explains the many contradictions of the left.

Religion.

Past: Christian Right supported conservatives –> organized religion is bad.

Present: Muslims and their descendants will vote against conservatives –> Islam good.

Climate Change.

Past: white voters don’t care about fringe environmental issues –> environmentalism good.

Present: limiting immigration would mitigate Climate Change but help conservatives –> environmentalism is good but we shouldn’t do anything about environmental issues, except close down coal jobs in conservative-voting areas, sign unenforceable climate deals that will probably fail, and increase immigration to the United States.

War.

Past: people being killed might vote liberal if they were here in the US, people doing the killing are majority white –> war is bad.

Present: people who might be killed would vote conservative if located in the US (white Russians) –> war against Russia is good.

Free Speech.

Past: vast majority of Americans are non-fringe whites and could censor speech if they didn’t particularly like it –> free speech is good (to prevent liberals from losing their rights).

Present: liberals have the power to censor speech without recourse, free speech is undermining the liberal narrative –> free speech is bad.

Violence.

Past: violence is bad because it could be used against liberals by the majority ~conservative population –> violence is bad.

Present: violence can be used against opponents of liberals without recourse –> violence is “justified” (see Marco Rubio’s tweet).

Government Spying.

Past: conservative Bush doing the spying –> spying bad.

Present: Obama/anti-Trump Deep State doing the spying –> spying good or at least a non-issue.

Poverty

Past: some poor whites voted democrat –> socialism good.

Present: most poor whites don’t vote democrat –> corporatism isn’t really that bad (Hillary: “sure, I’ll break up the big banks, wink wink”).

Multiculturalism.

Past: country mostly white, blacks lived in conservative areas –> integration, busing, diversity…all good everywhere.

Present: country increasingly non-white everywhere, too many blacks live in liberal areas –> integration bad because that’s cultural appropriation – also deport blacks to the heartland.

As you can see, Liberals aren’t really hard to understand, despite all the articles from high-minded conservative types trying to explain their mystifying hypocrisy. Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves by proving that they are better than some foil (whites, lower-class “uneducated” types, Southerners). They’ll support whatever cause they think allows them to do so while opposing (or changing their minds) about whatever issue they believe either does not serve that purpose or empowers their foil in some way.

 
49 Comments to "How Liberals Think"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonym says:

    Mostly good, and true.

    However, I would change this:

    Present: people who might be killed would vote conservative if located in the US (white Russians) –> war against Russia is good.

    To this:
    Present: War in non-white areas results in non-white refugees who we can browbeat the government into accepting and who will reliably vote Democrat -> wars in non-white countries are good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sid
    Right. Taking in Iraqi refugees wasn't something people were generally aware of in the 2000s.

    Now, there is more of a conception and incentive to go around smashing piggy banks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/how-liberals-think/#comment-1977064
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Dr. X says:

    As you can see, Liberals aren’t really hard to understand, despite all the articles from high-minded conservative types trying to explain their mystifying hypocrisy. Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves…

    In other words, they’re pure Machiavellians.

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and “Scout’s honor.”

    No wonder we’re losing…

    Read More
    • Agree: NickG
    • Replies: @Stealth
    They don't have any intention of using those pocket knifes.

    It's hard to win when your politicians are playing to lose and two thirds of your side's voters are ignorant, uninformed and just plain dumb.

    , @Peter Akuleyev

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and “Scout’s honor.”
     
    It is pretty much insanity to believe that. You are talking about a party that rolled over and let Bush steal the 2000 election because Gore was a pussy. The Democrats are more like a street gang from "West Side Story".

    The Republicans are demonstrably far more effective at grabbing and using the levers of political power than Democrats. Despite a growing demographic disadvantage the Republicans now control every branch of the government, and most state governments. The Democrats are such sticklers for form over substance that they nominated Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are so focused on political power that they got in bed with Trump even though he is not a Republican at all, and maybe not really a conservative. The Republicans like to use people like Limbaugh to spread the myth of Republican incompetence simply because the goals of the GOP leadership are not the same as most of the people who vote GOP. The Democrats win most of the battles on social issues because the Republican leadership doesn't really care, they just want the money.

    It's not the Democrats who are cutting Trump off at the knees. Pay attention.
    , @JackOH
    Machiavellians, sure, or, as an alternate, ultra-utilitarians. Whatever line of rhetorical twaddle works to get into office and get power. I gave up on both major parties thirty-some years ago and have no regrets.
  3. Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    That's incredible. I've never read any of that guy's books, although I do remember the bookstores promoting the crap out of them when they came out. Is he always that insane? Does anybody know?
    , @Steve Sailer
    "He’s a creative guy."

    Right. As an op-edster he's kind of embarrassingly on the nose. He's not a particularly sophisticated intellectual. But his punditry is pretty revealing of how an awful lot of important people feel because, as a gifted novelist, he's in touch with feelings.
  4. Rifleman says:

    If 1400 White women and girls are racially targeted, raped and prostituted by Pakistani muslims in one town in England the problem is not the crime but that you noticed and objected to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Speaking of how you're not supposed to notice Muslims raping British girls, the police department of Bedfordshire was criticized by a lot of people for spending more time worrying about "online hate" than they were about actual crimes.

    You'll never guess what happened next!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-40975669
  5. This is quite true. Limbaugh often tells his listeners that it’s useless to call liberals out on their hypocrisy. It’s not a winning strategy. They don’t care that they’re hypocritical. They just care that they’re winning by whatever means necessary.

    On the other hand, Limbaugh is deluded enough to think that the DemsRRealRacists angle has traction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @a Newsreader
    DR3 is useless at converting liberals, but it is helpful for reminding lukewarm conservatives that they aren't the bad guys, and that their instincts aren't atavistic or immoral. It's a morale booster.

    Of course, it does backfire spectacularly on occasion *cough-Jeb*.

  6. Stealth says:

    That was a great assessment.

    Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves by proving that they are better than some foil (whites, lower-class “uneducated” types, Southerners).

    I don’t know about principles, but they do have a few core beliefs. They will always be pro-choice, for instance. They will always believe that deviation from the sexual norm is good. They will always believe that black poeple are mystical and wise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Allen
    Yep, I tend to agree with James Burnham's analysis in The Suicide of the West. Burnham concluded that the core principle of Liberals was not equality but "loyalty to the other." Thus, the liberals will always side with whatever is non-Western, non-White, non-traditional, and non-Christian (or at least non-orthodox Christian).

    For this reason, both the patriarchal, anti-egalitarian religion of Islam and rabid, equality-minded feminists are viewed positively, because the both meet the criteria of non-traditional, non-western, and non-christian.
  7. Sid says:
    @Anonym
    Mostly good, and true.

    However, I would change this:

    Present: people who might be killed would vote conservative if located in the US (white Russians) –> war against Russia is good.
     
    To this:
    Present: War in non-white areas results in non-white refugees who we can browbeat the government into accepting and who will reliably vote Democrat -> wars in non-white countries are good.

    Right. Taking in Iraqi refugees wasn’t something people were generally aware of in the 2000s.

    Now, there is more of a conception and incentive to go around smashing piggy banks.

    Read More
  8. Stealth says:
    @Dr. X

    As you can see, Liberals aren’t really hard to understand, despite all the articles from high-minded conservative types trying to explain their mystifying hypocrisy. Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves...
     
    In other words, they're pure Machiavellians.

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and "Scout's honor."

    No wonder we're losing...

    They don’t have any intention of using those pocket knifes.

    It’s hard to win when your politicians are playing to lose and two thirds of your side’s voters are ignorant, uninformed and just plain dumb.

    Read More
  9. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rifleman
    If 1400 White women and girls are racially targeted, raped and prostituted by Pakistani muslims in one town in England the problem is not the crime but that you noticed and objected to it.


    https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/899302706178818048

    Speaking of how you’re not supposed to notice Muslims raping British girls, the police department of Bedfordshire was criticized by a lot of people for spending more time worrying about “online hate” than they were about actual crimes.

    You’ll never guess what happened next!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-40975669

    Read More
  10. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @C. Van Carter
    How Jews think:

    https://extranewsfeed.com/to-our-fellow-jews-in-the-united-states-in-israel-and-around-the-world-ff421a1d325d

    That’s incredible. I’ve never read any of that guy’s books, although I do remember the bookstores promoting the crap out of them when they came out. Is he always that insane? Does anybody know?

    Read More
  11. Sid says:

    This is a common phenomenon – “I like the rules, until they limit me rather than protect me.” Martin Luther thought that heretics shouldn’t face earthly punishments until he and his followers took over religious affairs in his province. Then he was all for, ahem, coercing people who disagreed with him.

    That said, this is especially common on the left. They commonly believe that the ends justify the means, and good intentions usually outweigh bad deeds. (If BLM’s protests and riots result in thousands of people winding up dead, they still meant well! But Nazis are meanies so even if they obey the rules, it’s still OK to batter them.)

    Look at how they perceive disparate impact. They consider equality of outcome to be more important than equality of opportunity. Again, ends over means.

    We all make fun of “cuckservatives” who whine about “muh values” and “muh principles,” but that still betrays the underlying mindset on the right, that of valuing rules and principles, even if the outcome isn’t as we wish. George W. Bush summarized it thus, “Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.”

    Ultimately, our intentions are clouded by our self-interest, so the left’s emphasis on meaning well, ignoring the rules, and going for the best possible outcomes has degenerated into the nihilistic cynicism we saw in the Clintons and the Podesta emails, where they have no ideals or values beyond what benefits them directly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Allen
    At least in the case of Martin Luther and other religious leaders they were being consistent. They had a certain specific view of how the world should be ordered and sought methods through which they could establish that order. I'm pretty sure Luther, Calvin, and others were pretty open about what they thought an ideal society should look like.

    The modern left however, pretends to value things like "free speech" and "open-mindedness" as ends unto themselves, when they really value them as means to power. They have a vision of what the world should look like, they just won't admit that it involves destroying all traditions and crushing all dissent.
  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The Antifa types aren’t really liberals though. They despise “liberals”, and for many of the right reasons. I would be surprised if some of them aren’t taking a hard look at the fact that they are now promulgating mayhem on behalf of the corporate giants. I’m not at all surprised that “Unite the Right” organizer Jason Kessler was an OWS guy just a year or two ago. Unfortunately, he really screwed things up, and this is not surprising either. There is not really any framework currently existing for those with heterodox personalities to engage with conservative values. So far as I can tell, most of Western civilization hinges on those with heterodox personalities engaging positively with conservative values, so I think it is pretty important that we get on this job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stealth
    The Antifas like to hurt people. They're evil.
    , @Wilbur Hassenfus

    I would be surprised if some of them aren’t taking a hard look at the fact that they are now promulgating mayhem on behalf of the corporate giants.
     
    That would require principles other than will to power and sadism. They don't have any.
  13. @Harry Baldwin
    This is quite true. Limbaugh often tells his listeners that it's useless to call liberals out on their hypocrisy. It's not a winning strategy. They don't care that they're hypocritical. They just care that they're winning by whatever means necessary.

    On the other hand, Limbaugh is deluded enough to think that the DemsRRealRacists angle has traction.

    DR3 is useless at converting liberals, but it is helpful for reminding lukewarm conservatives that they aren’t the bad guys, and that their instincts aren’t atavistic or immoral. It’s a morale booster.

    Of course, it does backfire spectacularly on occasion *cough-Jeb*.

    Read More
  14. Stealth says:
    @Anonymous
    The Antifa types aren't really liberals though. They despise "liberals", and for many of the right reasons. I would be surprised if some of them aren't taking a hard look at the fact that they are now promulgating mayhem on behalf of the corporate giants. I'm not at all surprised that "Unite the Right" organizer Jason Kessler was an OWS guy just a year or two ago. Unfortunately, he really screwed things up, and this is not surprising either. There is not really any framework currently existing for those with heterodox personalities to engage with conservative values. So far as I can tell, most of Western civilization hinges on those with heterodox personalities engaging positively with conservative values, so I think it is pretty important that we get on this job.

    The Antifas like to hurt people. They’re evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Every human would like to hurt someone. That is part of the human condition. We need to mostly redirect this desire. Denying this fact very often leads to evil. No human is inherently evil, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, not George Soros, etc.

    At times I would like to inflict horrible suffering on my enemies. But sometimes I gain control of myself and realize that I would much prefer to inspire them to pursue beauty and truth.
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Marx & Engels always said ideology was just the superstructure of class interests. So I guess that’s a pretty good Marxist critique of “liberals”…?

    It actually doesn’t describe liberalism or new-wave progressivism at all, just the dumbed-down vulgate equivalent bearing the imprimatur of the TimeWarnerViacomDisneyNewsCorp Holy Apostolic Church of Midtown Manhattan. Whether the authentic dead-end pinkos can inveigle their way into power, by a triple bank shot in other words, remains to be seen. They couldn’t even install Rodham (whom they didn’t really like, to be fair; but unquestionably a net loss for their side). Meanwhile it’s sinking in that Barack was a limited messiah outside of lawyers, academics, and rich mulattoes (many of whom work in lawyering/academia/gov’t). As an American Allende he was otherwise a fraud. There is a fraction of the left not given to screeching about Russia and statues from sun-up and they aren’t palpably better organized than you are.

    Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media’s run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    "Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media’s run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women."

    It wouldn't do any harm if the right learned to get along with women. Those who want to live out the 'apple-pie woman at home with 6 kids', good luck to them. But those who want to share childcare or even, god forbid, have a stay at home dad, are also capable of living decent euro-derived-christianish lives. And those not yet with child are young and persuadable.
  16. Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media’s run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women.

    With the added nice twist of a leadership (sic) class who grew up believing that same media was holy and who haven’t clued into the change yet, or if they have believe that restoring the media glory age is just around the corner.

    Read More
  17. Allen says:
    @Stealth
    That was a great assessment.

    Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves by proving that they are better than some foil (whites, lower-class “uneducated” types, Southerners).
     
    I don't know about principles, but they do have a few core beliefs. They will always be pro-choice, for instance. They will always believe that deviation from the sexual norm is good. They will always believe that black poeple are mystical and wise.

    Yep, I tend to agree with James Burnham’s analysis in The Suicide of the West. Burnham concluded that the core principle of Liberals was not equality but “loyalty to the other.” Thus, the liberals will always side with whatever is non-Western, non-White, non-traditional, and non-Christian (or at least non-orthodox Christian).

    For this reason, both the patriarchal, anti-egalitarian religion of Islam and rabid, equality-minded feminists are viewed positively, because the both meet the criteria of non-traditional, non-western, and non-christian.

    Read More
  18. Allen says:
    @Sid
    This is a common phenomenon - "I like the rules, until they limit me rather than protect me." Martin Luther thought that heretics shouldn't face earthly punishments until he and his followers took over religious affairs in his province. Then he was all for, ahem, coercing people who disagreed with him.

    That said, this is especially common on the left. They commonly believe that the ends justify the means, and good intentions usually outweigh bad deeds. (If BLM's protests and riots result in thousands of people winding up dead, they still meant well! But Nazis are meanies so even if they obey the rules, it's still OK to batter them.)

    Look at how they perceive disparate impact. They consider equality of outcome to be more important than equality of opportunity. Again, ends over means.

    We all make fun of "cuckservatives" who whine about "muh values" and "muh principles," but that still betrays the underlying mindset on the right, that of valuing rules and principles, even if the outcome isn't as we wish. George W. Bush summarized it thus, "Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions."

    Ultimately, our intentions are clouded by our self-interest, so the left's emphasis on meaning well, ignoring the rules, and going for the best possible outcomes has degenerated into the nihilistic cynicism we saw in the Clintons and the Podesta emails, where they have no ideals or values beyond what benefits them directly.

    At least in the case of Martin Luther and other religious leaders they were being consistent. They had a certain specific view of how the world should be ordered and sought methods through which they could establish that order. I’m pretty sure Luther, Calvin, and others were pretty open about what they thought an ideal society should look like.

    The modern left however, pretends to value things like “free speech” and “open-mindedness” as ends unto themselves, when they really value them as means to power. They have a vision of what the world should look like, they just won’t admit that it involves destroying all traditions and crushing all dissent.

    Read More
  19. Thomm says:

    Anyone who still refers to leftists as ‘liberals’ is part of the problem…

    Read More
  20. RCB says:

    Yawn.

    How can holding these beliefs help them if they don’t have some larger set of values or goals? How are they being helped?

    Not very insightful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The goal is right here:

    proving that they are better than some foil
     
    Always keep moving in some direction to prove you're more enlightened your predecessors and contemporaries. Then add social constructionism. It's very useful when you need a new fad (like trans rights) to prove you're superior to the laggard masses that have now passed your last litmus test (gay marriage).

    I imagine the seeming hypocrisies would be reconciled in the liberal's mind as cumulative "progress".

  21. @C. Van Carter
    How Jews think:

    https://extranewsfeed.com/to-our-fellow-jews-in-the-united-states-in-israel-and-around-the-world-ff421a1d325d

    “He’s a creative guy.”

    Right. As an op-edster he’s kind of embarrassingly on the nose. He’s not a particularly sophisticated intellectual. But his punditry is pretty revealing of how an awful lot of important people feel because, as a gifted novelist, he’s in touch with feelings.

    Read More
  22. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Stealth
    The Antifas like to hurt people. They're evil.

    Every human would like to hurt someone. That is part of the human condition. We need to mostly redirect this desire. Denying this fact very often leads to evil. No human is inherently evil, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, not George Soros, etc.

    At times I would like to inflict horrible suffering on my enemies. But sometimes I gain control of myself and realize that I would much prefer to inspire them to pursue beauty and truth.

    Read More
  23. Jason Liu says:

    Liberals believe whatever helps their side and harms their enemy.

    So why don’t you?

    Read More
  24. The drug war is racist. Look at its racist origins.

    As for the minimum wage and abortion, sure, they *started* out as racist, but what does that have to do with anything now?

    Google did the right thing by firing Damore. Regardless of whether he’s a good coder or not, it’s bad for morale and bad PR.

    Someone should hire Kaepernick. Regardless of team morale or public backlash, he’s still a better QB than Cutler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That last one there's just our old friend Who? Whom? isn't it?

    Historical physicist X-Ray establishes the existence of a Who? Whom? force in history by tracing the motions of liberals under changing circumstances.

  25. helena says:
    @Anonymous
    Marx & Engels always said ideology was just the superstructure of class interests. So I guess that's a pretty good Marxist critique of "liberals"...?

    It actually doesn't describe liberalism or new-wave progressivism at all, just the dumbed-down vulgate equivalent bearing the imprimatur of the TimeWarnerViacomDisneyNewsCorp Holy Apostolic Church of Midtown Manhattan. Whether the authentic dead-end pinkos can inveigle their way into power, by a triple bank shot in other words, remains to be seen. They couldn't even install Rodham (whom they didn't really like, to be fair; but unquestionably a net loss for their side). Meanwhile it's sinking in that Barack was a limited messiah outside of lawyers, academics, and rich mulattoes (many of whom work in lawyering/academia/gov't). As an American Allende he was otherwise a fraud. There is a fraction of the left not given to screeching about Russia and statues from sun-up and they aren't palpably better organized than you are.

    Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media's run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women.

    “Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media’s run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women.”

    It wouldn’t do any harm if the right learned to get along with women. Those who want to live out the ‘apple-pie woman at home with 6 kids’, good luck to them. But those who want to share childcare or even, god forbid, have a stay at home dad, are also capable of living decent euro-derived-christianish lives. And those not yet with child are young and persuadable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    It wouldn’t do any harm if the right learned to get along with women. Those who want to live out the ‘apple-pie woman at home with 6 kids’, good luck to them. But those who want to share childcare or even, god forbid, have a stay at home dad, are also capable of living decent euro-derived-christianish lives. And those not yet with child are young and persuadable.
     
    That's a big load of something-or-other. None of that is a Christian lifestyle (but, then, I don't know what "christianish" is, I'll admit).

    No normal man wants to live the lifestyle of a woman. What you write about is not getting along, for the man, and a women living that lifestyle will only realize she is unhappy later on, causing grief for everyone including the kids. If "the right" means conservatives, then why would they want to live with this leftist feminist crap?

    If the women you're writing about would just try to live per their nature, they could have many kids and stay at home nurturing them and live a much happier life, and there's not a damn thing wrong with a good apple pie, BTW. Leave the Hildabeast Clinton feminism back where it belongs, in the 1990's. Try to keep up. Conservatives want to live conservatively, meaning men and women in their proper roles. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!
    .
    .
    Yes, way, way off topic, but I complimented X-Ray on his comment after he wrote it under whatever post a day or two back. Again, nice job!
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RCB
    Yawn.

    How can holding these beliefs help them if they don't have some larger set of values or goals? How are they being helped?

    Not very insightful.

    The goal is right here:

    proving that they are better than some foil

    Always keep moving in some direction to prove you’re more enlightened your predecessors and contemporaries. Then add social constructionism. It’s very useful when you need a new fad (like trans rights) to prove you’re superior to the laggard masses that have now passed your last litmus test (gay marriage).

    I imagine the seeming hypocrisies would be reconciled in the liberal’s mind as cumulative “progress”.

    Read More
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SoCal Philosopher
    The drug war is racist. Look at its racist origins.

    As for the minimum wage and abortion, sure, they *started* out as racist, but what does that have to do with anything now?

    Google did the right thing by firing Damore. Regardless of whether he's a good coder or not, it's bad for morale and bad PR.

    Someone should hire Kaepernick. Regardless of team morale or public backlash, he's still a better QB than Cutler.

    That last one there’s just our old friend Who? Whom? isn’t it?

    Historical physicist X-Ray establishes the existence of a Who? Whom? force in history by tracing the motions of liberals under changing circumstances.

    Read More
  28. KK says:

    The same sentiment was formulated 2 years go by John Glanton at Social Matter:

    You have to admire the Left for it’s clarity of vision. It has identified its enemies, and it does what it can to drive them from the field. The recent fireworks in Indiana are a perfect illustration. Team blue knows that Christians are hateful homophobes, and so it goes to bat for the right of homosexuals to sue them over wedding cakes. The Right, with its characteristic acumen, mistakes this bushwhack for a principled stand. “Ah!” they say, “But if you support the right of a gay man to force a Christian to make a cake then you must support the right of the KKK to force a black baker to make a cake!” The average liberal couldn’t imagine a more irrelevant rejoinder. They aren’t making any such proposition at all. In their calculus, Christians (of the Not-fans-of-Pope-Francis type at least) are the bad guys and thus their interests are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. The KKK are bad guys and thus their actions are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. You attack bad guys. You don’t attack good guys. Whence the confusion?

    Full article

    Read More
  29. What is the point of this list? Seems like another shallow attack on strawmen. We already know that most people are motivated by social status – they want to increase their own at the expense of others. This is true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, muslims and 7th day adventists. The left can and does make equally stupid lists about conservatives – in most polls conservatives used to consider Russia America’s #1 enemy and that Obama was too weak on Russa. Russia hasn’t changed but conservatives elected a Russia-friendly President, so time to switch sides I guess. Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader probably tops liberal lists. And Donald Trump stocking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs globalists hasn’t hurt him as much as you might think with the anti-immigration or white poverty crowds.

    On spying or the electoral college, it is amusing how both Republicans and Democrats can turn on a dime to the opposite position depending on whether they are currently holding power or not. But not really surprising if you are the least bit cynical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilbur Hassenfus

    Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader
     
    This is a great example of Steve's point, and I can vouch for it in my own experience: There is literally no line of bullshit so obviously preposterous that a leftist can't sincerely believe it -- but only for thirty seconds, until he switches to a different talking point, with its own carefully tailored set of alleged facts (usually wrong and/or hilariously misunderstood). I have intelligent friends who turn into mindless, barking dictaphones when politics comes up. Sad! Many such cases.

    Evangelicals voted for the guy who's wearing their political coalition's team jersey -- and who's also the one who didn't promise to legally persecute them for practicing their religion. "Spiritual leader"? Christ on a crutch, you're no genius, but even you aren't THAT stupid. Government is religion on the left. Not so on the right. Lefties vote for a spiritual leader who'll bring us closer to an earthly paradise. Righties, religious or not, vote for a chief executive of the federal government.

    Part of the deep clownishness of the left is their cultivated inability to understand that other people don't always think exactly the way they do. Protective stupidity has limits.

    Steve: "The left is all about convincing themselves of their own fake superiority via disingenuous bullshit talking points."

    Leftist: "Wrong! And here are the disingenuous bullshit talking points that prove how superior I am!"

    Knucklehead.
    , @Matra
    in most polls conservatives used to consider Russia America’s #1 enemy and that Obama was too weak on Russa. Russia hasn’t changed but conservatives elected a Russia-friendly President, so time to switch sides I guess

    Your world may revolve round Russia/Poland/Ukraine but very few other people in the Western world, especially as far away as the US, care one way or another.

    One good point from this list – liberal hypocrisy on global warming would really be a great place to attack the left, and a smart way to push limits on immigration on “humanitarian” grounds.

    I suppose that could sway a few non-ideological centrist types who ordinarly would be wary of immigration restriction arguments but liberals will never fall for it. As others have said they don't care about being seen as hypocrites by the right.

  30. One good point from this list – liberal hypocrisy on global warming would really be a great place to attack the left, and a smart way to push limits on immigration on “humanitarian” grounds. Unfortunately there is no one on the right who can pull that off since the right has almost completely bought into libertarian conspiracy theories that climate change is a hoax, and refuses to support any measures for population control in Africa.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Unfortunately there is no one on the right who can pull that off since the right has almost completely bought into libertarian conspiracy theories that climate change is a hoax, and refuses to support any measures for population control in Africa.
     
    Ummm, Peter, Global Climate Disruption (TM) IS a hoax, and you don't have to be even a little-"l" libertarian to know that. What you need to be is someone who is (a) numerate (b) old enough to have seen the BS before, (c) someone who has a decent memory to remember the idiotic predictions of yesteryear, and possibly also (the weed-out stipulation) (d) someone who understands how complicated a mathematical model can be (like of the climate of a planet with an atmosphere and oceans) can be.

    You obviously don't fit the bill, Peter, and that's a shame, because the population problem of Africa is something you do understand, but you are linking a hoax to a very obvious BIG PROBLEM (as shown in "the scariest graph" or "most important graph", I can't recall. Stick with what makes sense for now. Climate predictions have been haphazard and completely wrong for years now, the observational science has been too politicized to trust (think weather station data-fudging), and any research papers purported to show changes based on mathematical modeling don't ever have follow-ups to check prediction vs. observation.

    Population growth in Africa is kid-stuff, prediction wise, at least in the medium term, like 1/2 a century.

    Lastly, I don't see why someone can't call out the hypocrisy, even if one doesn't believe the climate hoax. The cntrl-left still does, right?
  31. @Dr. X

    As you can see, Liberals aren’t really hard to understand, despite all the articles from high-minded conservative types trying to explain their mystifying hypocrisy. Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves...
     
    In other words, they're pure Machiavellians.

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and "Scout's honor."

    No wonder we're losing...

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and “Scout’s honor.”

    It is pretty much insanity to believe that. You are talking about a party that rolled over and let Bush steal the 2000 election because Gore was a pussy. The Democrats are more like a street gang from “West Side Story”.

    The Republicans are demonstrably far more effective at grabbing and using the levers of political power than Democrats. Despite a growing demographic disadvantage the Republicans now control every branch of the government, and most state governments. The Democrats are such sticklers for form over substance that they nominated Hillary Clinton. The Republicans are so focused on political power that they got in bed with Trump even though he is not a Republican at all, and maybe not really a conservative. The Republicans like to use people like Limbaugh to spread the myth of Republican incompetence simply because the goals of the GOP leadership are not the same as most of the people who vote GOP. The Democrats win most of the battles on social issues because the Republican leadership doesn’t really care, they just want the money.

    It’s not the Democrats who are cutting Trump off at the knees. Pay attention.

    Read More
  32. JackOH says:
    @Dr. X

    As you can see, Liberals aren’t really hard to understand, despite all the articles from high-minded conservative types trying to explain their mystifying hypocrisy. Liberals don’t have any core principles other than a primal need advance themselves...
     
    In other words, they're pure Machiavellians.

    The Democrat Left is like a street gang that fights dirty with chains, tire irons, clubs, knives, and crotch-kicks. The Republican conservatives are like a bunch of Boy Scouts with gee-whiz pocketknives, two-fingered salutes and "Scout's honor."

    No wonder we're losing...

    Machiavellians, sure, or, as an alternate, ultra-utilitarians. Whatever line of rhetorical twaddle works to get into office and get power. I gave up on both major parties thirty-some years ago and have no regrets.

    Read More
  33. Arclight says:

    I would say the election of Trump was a sign that some portion of the right is no longer all that concerned with principle. Unfortunately, he has been disappointing on immigration so far.

    Read More
  34. @Anonymous
    The Antifa types aren't really liberals though. They despise "liberals", and for many of the right reasons. I would be surprised if some of them aren't taking a hard look at the fact that they are now promulgating mayhem on behalf of the corporate giants. I'm not at all surprised that "Unite the Right" organizer Jason Kessler was an OWS guy just a year or two ago. Unfortunately, he really screwed things up, and this is not surprising either. There is not really any framework currently existing for those with heterodox personalities to engage with conservative values. So far as I can tell, most of Western civilization hinges on those with heterodox personalities engaging positively with conservative values, so I think it is pretty important that we get on this job.

    I would be surprised if some of them aren’t taking a hard look at the fact that they are now promulgating mayhem on behalf of the corporate giants.

    That would require principles other than will to power and sadism. They don’t have any.

    Read More
  35. @Peter Akuleyev
    What is the point of this list? Seems like another shallow attack on strawmen. We already know that most people are motivated by social status - they want to increase their own at the expense of others. This is true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, muslims and 7th day adventists. The left can and does make equally stupid lists about conservatives - in most polls conservatives used to consider Russia America's #1 enemy and that Obama was too weak on Russa. Russia hasn't changed but conservatives elected a Russia-friendly President, so time to switch sides I guess. Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader probably tops liberal lists. And Donald Trump stocking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs globalists hasn't hurt him as much as you might think with the anti-immigration or white poverty crowds.

    On spying or the electoral college, it is amusing how both Republicans and Democrats can turn on a dime to the opposite position depending on whether they are currently holding power or not. But not really surprising if you are the least bit cynical.

    Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader

    This is a great example of Steve’s point, and I can vouch for it in my own experience: There is literally no line of bullshit so obviously preposterous that a leftist can’t sincerely believe it — but only for thirty seconds, until he switches to a different talking point, with its own carefully tailored set of alleged facts (usually wrong and/or hilariously misunderstood). I have intelligent friends who turn into mindless, barking dictaphones when politics comes up. Sad! Many such cases.

    Evangelicals voted for the guy who’s wearing their political coalition’s team jersey — and who’s also the one who didn’t promise to legally persecute them for practicing their religion. “Spiritual leader”? Christ on a crutch, you’re no genius, but even you aren’t THAT stupid. Government is religion on the left. Not so on the right. Lefties vote for a spiritual leader who’ll bring us closer to an earthly paradise. Righties, religious or not, vote for a chief executive of the federal government.

    Part of the deep clownishness of the left is their cultivated inability to understand that other people don’t always think exactly the way they do. Protective stupidity has limits.

    Steve: “The left is all about convincing themselves of their own fake superiority via disingenuous bullshit talking points.”

    Leftist: “Wrong! And here are the disingenuous bullshit talking points that prove how superior I am!”

    Knucklehead.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    The Cultural Left of the 1960s have become the Establishment, though they aren't the types appreciate irony, so don't expect them to realize this any time soon. And they are far squarer than the Nixon types ever were in relating to the opposition.

    If they didn't like the school-marmish, "hippies in reverse" Religious Right, they are REALLY not going to like the pseudo-punkish Post-Religious Right, given this reversal. It's why the future of conservatism lays less in bombastic, faith and hearth overtoned Big Papa figures like O'Reilly or Hannity and more in Sailer's Voltaire-esque sardonic, irreverent wit. (And exactly why the GOP should embrace this "countercultural" vibe and ditch their idiotic worship of the super-wealthy, ASAP.)

  36. wiseguy says:

    It’s like liberalism is just an incoherent excuse for stamping out Christianity. As Samuel Johnson said, “the devil was the first Whig.” To which Trump could point out, “yeah, and the first loser.”

    Of course, even when liberals have temporary hegemony, they still seem to realize deep down that they are going to lose again. Hence their paranoia.

    Read More
  37. Matra says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    What is the point of this list? Seems like another shallow attack on strawmen. We already know that most people are motivated by social status - they want to increase their own at the expense of others. This is true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, muslims and 7th day adventists. The left can and does make equally stupid lists about conservatives - in most polls conservatives used to consider Russia America's #1 enemy and that Obama was too weak on Russa. Russia hasn't changed but conservatives elected a Russia-friendly President, so time to switch sides I guess. Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader probably tops liberal lists. And Donald Trump stocking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs globalists hasn't hurt him as much as you might think with the anti-immigration or white poverty crowds.

    On spying or the electoral college, it is amusing how both Republicans and Democrats can turn on a dime to the opposite position depending on whether they are currently holding power or not. But not really surprising if you are the least bit cynical.

    in most polls conservatives used to consider Russia America’s #1 enemy and that Obama was too weak on Russa. Russia hasn’t changed but conservatives elected a Russia-friendly President, so time to switch sides I guess

    Your world may revolve round Russia/Poland/Ukraine but very few other people in the Western world, especially as far away as the US, care one way or another.

    One good point from this list – liberal hypocrisy on global warming would really be a great place to attack the left, and a smart way to push limits on immigration on “humanitarian” grounds.

    I suppose that could sway a few non-ideological centrist types who ordinarly would be wary of immigration restriction arguments but liberals will never fall for it. As others have said they don’t care about being seen as hypocrites by the right.

    Read More
  38. nebulafox says:
    @Wilbur Hassenfus

    Evangelical Christians flocking to playboy and serial polygamist Donald Trump as their spiritual leader
     
    This is a great example of Steve's point, and I can vouch for it in my own experience: There is literally no line of bullshit so obviously preposterous that a leftist can't sincerely believe it -- but only for thirty seconds, until he switches to a different talking point, with its own carefully tailored set of alleged facts (usually wrong and/or hilariously misunderstood). I have intelligent friends who turn into mindless, barking dictaphones when politics comes up. Sad! Many such cases.

    Evangelicals voted for the guy who's wearing their political coalition's team jersey -- and who's also the one who didn't promise to legally persecute them for practicing their religion. "Spiritual leader"? Christ on a crutch, you're no genius, but even you aren't THAT stupid. Government is religion on the left. Not so on the right. Lefties vote for a spiritual leader who'll bring us closer to an earthly paradise. Righties, religious or not, vote for a chief executive of the federal government.

    Part of the deep clownishness of the left is their cultivated inability to understand that other people don't always think exactly the way they do. Protective stupidity has limits.

    Steve: "The left is all about convincing themselves of their own fake superiority via disingenuous bullshit talking points."

    Leftist: "Wrong! And here are the disingenuous bullshit talking points that prove how superior I am!"

    Knucklehead.

    The Cultural Left of the 1960s have become the Establishment, though they aren’t the types appreciate irony, so don’t expect them to realize this any time soon. And they are far squarer than the Nixon types ever were in relating to the opposition.

    If they didn’t like the school-marmish, “hippies in reverse” Religious Right, they are REALLY not going to like the pseudo-punkish Post-Religious Right, given this reversal. It’s why the future of conservatism lays less in bombastic, faith and hearth overtoned Big Papa figures like O’Reilly or Hannity and more in Sailer’s Voltaire-esque sardonic, irreverent wit. (And exactly why the GOP should embrace this “countercultural” vibe and ditch their idiotic worship of the super-wealthy, ASAP.)

    Read More
  39. This does not make sense. A minority of readers has more or less pointed that out, although perhaps not nailing down what the matter is.

    There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries. Even if the principle is not properly ideological or moral, it must be there. For example, if the unifying principle were simply: “people who belong to the democratic party, and have no discernible moral or political principle, to which we add those in the voting public and in the general population who, out of deception or other motives, act in favor of them”, it would suffice (this is just an example: I am not saying this is the unifying identity in question; the author is responsible for doing it).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries."

    How about: hate Core Americans?

  40. I recommend Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. He makes is clear that he believes gathering power and winning trump everything.

    Read More
  41. @Brás Cubas
    This does not make sense. A minority of readers has more or less pointed that out, although perhaps not nailing down what the matter is.

    There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries. Even if the principle is not properly ideological or moral, it must be there. For example, if the unifying principle were simply: "people who belong to the democratic party, and have no discernible moral or political principle, to which we add those in the voting public and in the general population who, out of deception or other motives, act in favor of them", it would suffice (this is just an example: I am not saying this is the unifying identity in question; the author is responsible for doing it).

    “There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries.”

    How about: hate Core Americans?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    More precisely "hate core America" as many get along reasonably well with core Americans but have bought into the transnational idea for various (ir)reasons.
    , @Brás Cubas
    Yes, that is probably a good definition. But when he says his 'liberals' have no core principles, is he implying they hate Core Americans for sport? Or does it stem from an ideology and that ideology is based on rootlessness, internationalism, individualism, relativism, hedonism?
    , @JackOH
    Steve, just for talking purposes let's say Core Americans = people who are not totally captives of economic consumption, sensuality, and intoxication. I'm thinking the people who've retained a remnant of religiosity and civic or community feeling, and just plain decency in day-to-day relations. Or, the good old boy who told me, shaking his head after Iraq II was launched: "Yeah, that's America being America." He didn't have to explain much.

    Yeah, hatred of Core Americans, who rightly distrust the slick stuff coming from Madison Avenue and Washington, sounds about right. The Core Americans who just don't respond to "incentives" the way they're supposed to.
  42. @Steve Sailer
    "There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries."

    How about: hate Core Americans?

    More precisely “hate core America” as many get along reasonably well with core Americans but have bought into the transnational idea for various (ir)reasons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Since they could get along so well, don't some of those reasons really make no sense without the value assigned to "progress" -- and to the those who partake in it over those who don't?

    If someone could, as an exercise, rework X-Ray's post for other Western countries, perhaps the common principle that would fall out would be clever-silly oikophobia as a demonstration of superiority, its importance cemented in the US by its use as a cover for ethnic power-plays, its importance elsewhere highlighted by the relative lack of class-mobility-through-economic-mobility.

  43. @helena
    "Occamistically, hysteria is in the news because the media’s run by bitter gay men, pandering to the dotty clickbait druthers of fat unmarried women."

    It wouldn't do any harm if the right learned to get along with women. Those who want to live out the 'apple-pie woman at home with 6 kids', good luck to them. But those who want to share childcare or even, god forbid, have a stay at home dad, are also capable of living decent euro-derived-christianish lives. And those not yet with child are young and persuadable.

    It wouldn’t do any harm if the right learned to get along with women. Those who want to live out the ‘apple-pie woman at home with 6 kids’, good luck to them. But those who want to share childcare or even, god forbid, have a stay at home dad, are also capable of living decent euro-derived-christianish lives. And those not yet with child are young and persuadable.

    That’s a big load of something-or-other. None of that is a Christian lifestyle (but, then, I don’t know what “christianish” is, I’ll admit).

    No normal man wants to live the lifestyle of a woman. What you write about is not getting along, for the man, and a women living that lifestyle will only realize she is unhappy later on, causing grief for everyone including the kids. If “the right” means conservatives, then why would they want to live with this leftist feminist crap?

    If the women you’re writing about would just try to live per their nature, they could have many kids and stay at home nurturing them and live a much happier life, and there’s not a damn thing wrong with a good apple pie, BTW. Leave the Hildabeast Clinton feminism back where it belongs, in the 1990′s. Try to keep up. Conservatives want to live conservatively, meaning men and women in their proper roles. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!
    .
    .
    Yes, way, way off topic, but I complimented X-Ray on his comment after he wrote it under whatever post a day or two back. Again, nice job!

    Read More
  44. @Peter Akuleyev
    One good point from this list - liberal hypocrisy on global warming would really be a great place to attack the left, and a smart way to push limits on immigration on "humanitarian" grounds. Unfortunately there is no one on the right who can pull that off since the right has almost completely bought into libertarian conspiracy theories that climate change is a hoax, and refuses to support any measures for population control in Africa.

    Unfortunately there is no one on the right who can pull that off since the right has almost completely bought into libertarian conspiracy theories that climate change is a hoax, and refuses to support any measures for population control in Africa.

    Ummm, Peter, Global Climate Disruption (TM) IS a hoax, and you don’t have to be even a little-”l” libertarian to know that. What you need to be is someone who is (a) numerate (b) old enough to have seen the BS before, (c) someone who has a decent memory to remember the idiotic predictions of yesteryear, and possibly also (the weed-out stipulation) (d) someone who understands how complicated a mathematical model can be (like of the climate of a planet with an atmosphere and oceans) can be.

    You obviously don’t fit the bill, Peter, and that’s a shame, because the population problem of Africa is something you do understand, but you are linking a hoax to a very obvious BIG PROBLEM (as shown in “the scariest graph” or “most important graph”, I can’t recall. Stick with what makes sense for now. Climate predictions have been haphazard and completely wrong for years now, the observational science has been too politicized to trust (think weather station data-fudging), and any research papers purported to show changes based on mathematical modeling don’t ever have follow-ups to check prediction vs. observation.

    Population growth in Africa is kid-stuff, prediction wise, at least in the medium term, like 1/2 a century.

    Lastly, I don’t see why someone can’t call out the hypocrisy, even if one doesn’t believe the climate hoax. The cntrl-left still does, right?

    Read More
  45. @Steve Sailer
    "There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries."

    How about: hate Core Americans?

    Yes, that is probably a good definition. But when he says his ‘liberals’ have no core principles, is he implying they hate Core Americans for sport? Or does it stem from an ideology and that ideology is based on rootlessness, internationalism, individualism, relativism, hedonism?

    Read More
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Desiderius
    More precisely "hate core America" as many get along reasonably well with core Americans but have bought into the transnational idea for various (ir)reasons.

    Since they could get along so well, don’t some of those reasons really make no sense without the value assigned to “progress” — and to the those who partake in it over those who don’t?

    If someone could, as an exercise, rework X-Ray’s post for other Western countries, perhaps the common principle that would fall out would be clever-silly oikophobia as a demonstration of superiority, its importance cemented in the US by its use as a cover for ethnic power-plays, its importance elsewhere highlighted by the relative lack of class-mobility-through-economic-mobility.

    Read More
  47. JackOH says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "There must be an identity principle behind any group of people, or they will not know how to identify themselves, and their adversaries."

    How about: hate Core Americans?

    Steve, just for talking purposes let’s say Core Americans = people who are not totally captives of economic consumption, sensuality, and intoxication. I’m thinking the people who’ve retained a remnant of religiosity and civic or community feeling, and just plain decency in day-to-day relations. Or, the good old boy who told me, shaking his head after Iraq II was launched: “Yeah, that’s America being America.” He didn’t have to explain much.

    Yeah, hatred of Core Americans, who rightly distrust the slick stuff coming from Madison Avenue and Washington, sounds about right. The Core Americans who just don’t respond to “incentives” the way they’re supposed to.

    Read More
  48. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Did anyone see this article by Jonathan Haidt?

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-happens-when-the-president-commits-sacrilege/537519/

    Someone on Unz, I think, but not Steve, I think, was discussing Haidt in the last few days, and particularly the issue of “purity”. (I don’t recall which article this was.) There was some discussion in the comments and the article of the fact that “liberals” tend to pay attention to only a few of Haidt’s five (or six) moral dimensions, whereas “conservatives” tend to be more balanced. In particular, “liberals” tend, on the surface, not to care about “purity”. (They’ll embrace any sexual activity that is “consensual”….) But someone commented that offending blacks violates liberal notions of purity. I think Haidt is somewhat more on the mark here.

    I think there is a deeper issue though. On the surface, “liberals” seem to reject “purity” as a moral value. But they don’t really. There is a real cognitive dissonance at work. They completely lose it when you violate their purity standards, and they have no framework for dealing with it.

    On a somewhat different note, Haidt might seem to offer some good insight on how to avoid the thought police: simply avoid saying things that overtly violate “liberal” notions of purity. Some people might not like this advice, and I perfectly well understand that, but if you are engaged in a struggle you cannot simply have things as you wish. If they are triggered by overt “purity” violations, perhaps it is best to avoid overt purity violations (unless you are actively trying to trigger them and make them lose control… that is fine too, but you should probably do so knowingly).

    (For what it’s worth, I am personally sympathetic to a number of ideas associated with “liberals”, but think they have totally botched the job…)

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Haidt is feeling the heat.

    I think we're losing him unless things improve.
  49. @Anonymous
    Did anyone see this article by Jonathan Haidt?
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/what-happens-when-the-president-commits-sacrilege/537519/

    Someone on Unz, I think, but not Steve, I think, was discussing Haidt in the last few days, and particularly the issue of "purity". (I don't recall which article this was.) There was some discussion in the comments and the article of the fact that "liberals" tend to pay attention to only a few of Haidt's five (or six) moral dimensions, whereas "conservatives" tend to be more balanced. In particular, "liberals" tend, on the surface, not to care about "purity". (They'll embrace any sexual activity that is "consensual"....) But someone commented that offending blacks violates liberal notions of purity. I think Haidt is somewhat more on the mark here.

    I think there is a deeper issue though. On the surface, "liberals" seem to reject "purity" as a moral value. But they don't really. There is a real cognitive dissonance at work. They completely lose it when you violate their purity standards, and they have no framework for dealing with it.

    On a somewhat different note, Haidt might seem to offer some good insight on how to avoid the thought police: simply avoid saying things that overtly violate "liberal" notions of purity. Some people might not like this advice, and I perfectly well understand that, but if you are engaged in a struggle you cannot simply have things as you wish. If they are triggered by overt "purity" violations, perhaps it is best to avoid overt purity violations (unless you are actively trying to trigger them and make them lose control... that is fine too, but you should probably do so knowingly).

    (For what it's worth, I am personally sympathetic to a number of ideas associated with "liberals", but think they have totally botched the job...)

    Haidt is feeling the heat.

    I think we’re losing him unless things improve.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored