The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Theodore Dalrymple: Why Don't the Politically Correct Ever Become Bored with Their Own Thoughts?

Theodore Dalrymple writes in Taki’s Magazine:

One of the strange things about the politically correct is that they never seem to become bored with their own thoughts. And this leads to a dilemma for those who oppose political correctness, for to be constantly arguing against bores is to become a bore oneself. On the other hand, not to argue against them is to let them win by default. To argue against rubbish is to immerse oneself in rubbish; not to argue against rubbish is to allow it to triumph. All that is necessary for humbug to triumph is for honest men to say nothing.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Why would they ever get bored???? They have the excitement of daily battle with ideological foes.

    Read More
    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
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/theodore-dalrymple-why-dont-the-politically-correct-ever-become-bored-with-their-own-thoughts/#comment-1800594
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. We all know this one:

    “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

    – George Bernard Shaw

    Actually, pigs are smart and therefore not prone to circular reasoning. The same cannot be said of the politically correct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    The Left loves confrontation. They manufacture it when they can't find it. It validates their Ideology of Universal Victimisation and Oppression by giving them baskets of causes to campaign for.

    Ignore them and they might go away. "Dearie, use any restroom you want. I don't think anyone will notice."
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don’t ever become bored. It’s not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    Read More
    • Disagree: ic1000
    • Replies: @ic1000
    > It’s not like either [the politically correct or the politically incorrect] camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    To the extent it is so, you may know that. But people who get their information from the NYT do not. CBS News' audience doesn't. Students at Harvard Law, Yale, Dartmouth, and Middlebury don't; their professors are hardly better informed.

    And the ground is shifting. While much of fashionable social science sinks, certain fields have weathered the Replication Crisis with hardly a scratch. Esteemed cheats are being outed. Low-cost, high-capacity genomics has illuminated the structure of human populations.

    Uncomfortable truths -- some old, some new -- versus shopworn lies.
    , @Anonymous

    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don’t ever become bored. It’s not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.
     
    A perfect example is the the non-PC side's obsession with standardized test scores, PISA scores, and IQ. And they try to be all scientific and analytical by using graphs and elementary statistics. It's all the more tedious when none of them has any legit scientific background or work experience (save for Unz, who writes in prose and doesn't engage in pseudo-scientific sophistry).
    , @Bill
    That's weird. I'm almost always bored when I read some imbecile propounding tabula rasa or when I read some sane person responding to them. That is dull, dull stuff.

    Those websites arguing back and forth over whether the Apollo Program happened are similarly dull. It's entertaining, once per lifetime, to see the lunatics acting crazy. But only once and only for about ten minutes. Then it is a dull slog. I don't know how the anti-Apollo-conspiracists can make themselves do it.

    Notice how rarely Steve engages in this sort of thing any more. Most of his relevant stuff these days is about tracing out how Nurturism distorts the thinking and rhetoric of Americans. That's pretty interesting. But talking about the truth-value of Nurturism is dull, dull, dull.

    , @dfordoom

    Both camps hold views that have been around forever.
     
    SJWs think their ideas are new and exciting and radical. I mean take the idea of egalitarianism - nobody had ever thought of such a concept until the 1990s. SJWs are convinced that they are the most original thinkers in the whole of human history.

    When you know no history at all everything is new and exciting.
    , @Erik Sieven
    many relevant questions have never been relevant today. There never was another times with countries with a TFR below 1.5. The mass media are new, the internet. There never was as much contact between the big different human populations as today. Mass migration in the current form is new. The gender roles have changed so something totally different from what it always has been. In a way both and antiracists and anti- antiracists have totally new ideas
  4. Because the Church is State for the Leftists, their battle is both spiritual and intellectual, with their loins girded against boredom and reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I agree except I would have said it as "Because the State is Church...".
  5. I argue on the internet sometimes. I had stopped doing so for a few years but then I saw trump and I realized that the internet comment box was not in fact pointless (as people used to say there was nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet). Instead, over time the internet argument space appears to have created a world wide political movement.

    But i do find it tedious. Again and again: Islamic fundamentalists are equal to christian fundamentalists. Race is a social construct. Same old thing every day. They will not learn or evolve their arguments. They know no more than 5 things about anything and they just shout them again and again at you. This is what they know about Islam: In the Islamic golden age, the muslims were far more advanced that Europeans. And also tolerant. Cordoba had Jews and then Spain expelled them. And then there was colonialism. And we supported dictators. And then Sykes-Picolt act. And then Palestine. Done. That is everything. Therefore, Islam = Christianity = fundamentalists are all bad.

    I would like it if someone created a repository of internet argument templates against liberal arguments. You’d only need like 100 arguments because they collectively don’t know more than 100 things to repeat. And then you could just link to argument #58 whenever someone said race is a social construct. Firstly this would save time, and it would also show that they just repeat the same things over and over again and cannot actually respond and adapt their paradigms to new information.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Wally
    Spain was not alone in expelling Jews, every country that graciously allowed Jews in has expelled them.

    Why?

    , @celt darnell
    Don't make it such hard work. Occasionally you should just troll.

    If you come across the nonsense that America was founded on an idea, or some other brain dead version of the creedal nation line, just reply: Liberia was founded on the exact same values/ideas as the United States. How'd that work out?

    You can even provide a brief link to the founding of Liberia if you wish but I wouldn't bother.

    Then move on and ignore all responses.

    Some of these SJW notions are so ridiculous you'd be a fool to debate them -- so hold them up to ridicule.

    That's something they really can't stand. And their foaming at the mouth replies don't make them or their cause look good.

    Sometimes you just need to have fun. Enjoy!
  6. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Why don’t dogs ever get tired of sniffing their own butts?

    Why don’t Negroes ever get tired of rap?

    Why don’t bimbos ever get tired of staring into a mirror?

    People like things that make them feel good.
    PC is to progs what Bible is to Christians.

    Most people don’t like ideas that challenge them or pop their bubble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    "Why don’t dogs ever get tired of sniffing their own butts? "

    It's other dogs butts they sniff . People that study that sort of thing tell us that there is a wealth of information to be had there .
  7. Probably a feminine thing that a lot of us guys wouldn’t/can’t understand. Women are relentlessly “correct” in their conduct (in their minds), yet there are endless variations on correct conduct, many of which are at war with each other.

    Best to avoid this stuff and be a hopeless ignoramus about political correctness, but also don’t fear it and be brave. In other words, don’t argue with them, but rather just speak the truth when it’s called for.

    Men aren’t cut out for political correctness, and we shouldn’t try to be. Even women think it’s unseemly in a man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Yeah, it can be understood as haute couture for the mind.
    , @attilathehen
    Men aren’t cut out for political correctness...I think many men are
    supporting political correctness because of cowardice. I believe in IQ/evolution and my Christianity and politics are based on this. First, I define "men." Since Caucasian men (and women) have the highest IQs and form the West, black/Asian men are excluded from anything that has to do with the West. This is the civilization that is under attack.

    Then I look at the institutions/beliefs that are undermining the West. The most destructive ones are those which advocate "universal brotherhood," "universal church." Marxism, Freemasonry, and the Roman Catholic Church promote these beliefs. I left the RCC since I don't accept black/Asian priests-popes. An IQ starting at 90+ is needed to have a functioning society/country. This excludes blacks/Asians and means separation. I have put forth these beliefs to men and women I meet. The men run away and the women start crying.

  8. @Bill P
    Probably a feminine thing that a lot of us guys wouldn't/can't understand. Women are relentlessly "correct" in their conduct (in their minds), yet there are endless variations on correct conduct, many of which are at war with each other.

    Best to avoid this stuff and be a hopeless ignoramus about political correctness, but also don't fear it and be brave. In other words, don't argue with them, but rather just speak the truth when it's called for.

    Men aren't cut out for political correctness, and we shouldn't try to be. Even women think it's unseemly in a man.

    Yeah, it can be understood as haute couture for the mind.

    Read More
  9. The core of the political correct movement are pretty religious, which makes them quite different from ordinary liberals:

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/

    Religion can seem utterly baffling to the non-religious. Even more so, PC seems to be a pretty strange religion, unintelligible even to the normally religious, but its manias are apparently quite gripping to its adherents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Religion can seem utterly baffling to the non-religious. Even more so, PC seems to be a pretty strange religion, unintelligible even to the normally religious, but its manias are apparently quite gripping to its adherents.
     
    I have often thought that. Although not religious myself, I am fairly familiar with the outlines of the main Bible stories, Christmas carols, and the history of Christianity, yet I often find myself during the course of work in people's homes where the TV is tuned to religious channels and marvel how completely uneducated people seem to be very well able to understand the religious talk that sounds quite devoid of any kind of meaning to me. The key is clearly that you are an insider and that the true significance of belonging has nothing to do with the part of the brain that reasons about the meaning of life or what is right or wrong.

    PC is all about "virtue signalling" and adherents tend to strongly push their arguments to cover up a deep fear within themselves that it is all cock and that they will let slip something that will reveal to their peers what they really think. Being overtly non-PC is like coming out as gay, I would think, in that it suddenly releases the individual from the stress of having to carry on pretending. Like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, really.

    http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/576344/Hans-Christian-Andersen-Movie-Clip-The-King-s-New-Clothes.html
  10. CS lewis, in mere christianity stated it clearly-
    It’s no use telling our rulers to mind their own business,” C.S. Lewis observed. “Our whole lives are their business.”
    and
    ” Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication. (C.S. Lewis on theocracy) C.S. Lewis (1898–1963)

    hence all reublicans are evil

    Read More
  11. Yeah, actually Dalrymple has hit on a huge problem that explains why I keep trying to quit iSteve and learn more math and languages and yet keep getting drawn back. (Not that I’m actually accomplishing anything in the good fight with my comments here, but my heart is in the right place at least.)

    I would suggest that they never get bored because their program is essentially social signalling, and they tend to be obsessed with themselves and their identity.

    Read More
  12. This is why I respect writers who take time to refute what on its face is utterly foolish. Thanks Steve.

    Read More
  13. PC people don’t get bored hearing their own gibberish because their cause requires sustained victim cult hysteria for success.

    Their cause is to procure as many government entitlements as possible for their peculiar victim cult, and a victim cult maintains group focus on a cause via collective hysteria.

    Exhibit 1: Inane ranting of Shia Labeouf

    Exhibit 2: Disrupter sloganeering at Yiannopoulos and Coulter public forums

    Exhibit 3: Riot incitements after a police shooting in the ghetto

    Exhibit 4: Obama demagoguery

    Exhibit 5: College speech codes

    Read More
    • Replies: @Studley
    Exhibit 1: Inane ranting of Shia Labeouf

    Old Hollywood versus New Hollywood?

    Whatever you think of the old Hollywood liberals (Brando, Newman, Poitier) at least they were comprehensible in what they were advocating. But this Laboeuf fellow (think he got done for plagiarism of some modern art presentation) he just rants, as you say.

    He's been in Michael Bay blockbusters, Steven Spielberg blockbusters, so he's some sort of A-lister but there's no one in the Hollywood higher-ups now to tell him to cool it.
  14. Rough answer: They don’t get bored with it because it’s their substitute religion.

    Look: Do you spend a large portion of your day interacting with a reasonably broad cross-section of the public who are angry about politics? Because I do. And when you are in such a position, the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives becomes much clearer.

    Conservatives engage with politics out of habit and frustration. I like reading iSteve, but it’a not my life. I sometimes go for long periods without checking iSteve and other sites, because I have a life filled with other interests. I can get very angry and worked up about politics, but I’m easily distracted by my non-political interests.

    Leftists feed off this stuff. It’s their God and their drug. You should see what I have to deal with on a daily basis. These folks eat, sleep, drink and breathe politics. They can no more get bored with political correctness than a normal person can get bored with breathing. Their entire lives revolve around purifying themselves to please their non-god Gods and fighting the apostates who reject their non-religion religion.

    The only other people I’ve ever met who possess such singular dedication and focus for a particular ideology are hardline Christian fundamentalists. That there tells me everything I need to know about the radical Left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Their entire lives revolve around purifying themselves to please their non-god Gods and fighting the apostates who reject their non-religion religion
     
    Yeah, right: Purity!***


    cf. ***Purity, Novel, Jonathan Franzen - Being pure is to be ideal - therefor to purify ourselves (and th whole wide world...) means to get rid of our earthly troubles. - And all through the power of your mind! - It's a miracle - you can do wonders - simply by purifying the world!

    "You can leave it all behind - sail to the higher - just like the missionaries did - so many years ago (...)" (The Eagles)

    , @celt darnell
    You hit the nail on the head.

    Politics is all these people can talk about.

    That's why when they discuss anything else -- art, literature, music, sports,whatever, they always have to inject politics into it.

    Well said.
  15. Because for them it is a daily act of virtue; a good deed for the day that makes them feel like virtuous human beings. And more important, allows them to treat their opponents as evil people.

    Read More
  16. @Anonymous
    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don't ever become bored. It's not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    > It’s not like either [the politically correct or the politically incorrect] camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    To the extent it is so, you may know that. But people who get their information from the NYT do not. CBS News’ audience doesn’t. Students at Harvard Law, Yale, Dartmouth, and Middlebury don’t; their professors are hardly better informed.

    And the ground is shifting. While much of fashionable social science sinks, certain fields have weathered the Replication Crisis with hardly a scratch. Esteemed cheats are being outed. Low-cost, high-capacity genomics has illuminated the structure of human populations.

    Uncomfortable truths — some old, some new — versus shopworn lies.

    Read More
  17. To argue against rubbish is to immerse oneself in rubbish

    Therefor, I’d conclude: Steve Sailer is the dirtiest writer of them all!***

    *** He seems to like it, though! I like it, too – a lot! – Always look at the bright side of life!

    Poet Enzensberger has it this way: People are used to complain about the clumsy and rusty snowplough in the summer…

    Read More
  18. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don't ever become bored. It's not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don’t ever become bored. It’s not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    A perfect example is the the non-PC side’s obsession with standardized test scores, PISA scores, and IQ. And they try to be all scientific and analytical by using graphs and elementary statistics. It’s all the more tedious when none of them has any legit scientific background or work experience (save for Unz, who writes in prose and doesn’t engage in pseudo-scientific sophistry).

    Read More
  19. @Mr. Blank
    Rough answer: They don't get bored with it because it's their substitute religion.

    Look: Do you spend a large portion of your day interacting with a reasonably broad cross-section of the public who are angry about politics? Because I do. And when you are in such a position, the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives becomes much clearer.

    Conservatives engage with politics out of habit and frustration. I like reading iSteve, but it'a not my life. I sometimes go for long periods without checking iSteve and other sites, because I have a life filled with other interests. I can get very angry and worked up about politics, but I'm easily distracted by my non-political interests.

    Leftists feed off this stuff. It's their God and their drug. You should see what I have to deal with on a daily basis. These folks eat, sleep, drink and breathe politics. They can no more get bored with political correctness than a normal person can get bored with breathing. Their entire lives revolve around purifying themselves to please their non-god Gods and fighting the apostates who reject their non-religion religion.

    The only other people I've ever met who possess such singular dedication and focus for a particular ideology are hardline Christian fundamentalists. That there tells me everything I need to know about the radical Left.

    Their entire lives revolve around purifying themselves to please their non-god Gods and fighting the apostates who reject their non-religion religion

    Yeah, right: Purity!***

    cf. ***Purity, Novel, Jonathan Franzen – Being pure is to be ideal – therefor to purify ourselves (and th whole wide world…) means to get rid of our earthly troubles. – And all through the power of your mind! – It’s a miracle – you can do wonders – simply by purifying the world!

    “You can leave it all behind – sail to the higher – just like the missionaries did – so many years ago (…)” (The Eagles)

    Read More
  20. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    They don’t get bored because they get validation for their beliefs everywhere they go in our culture.

    Read More
  21. Of course they’re bored with their own thoughts, but the alternative is unemployment and social ostracism. Therefore, bored is better than broke.

    Read More
  22. Yeah, well, freedom of speech and democracy provides enormous advantages to the verbally adroit, the dishonest, and the sociopathic. Get those all concentrated in one person, and you have a “natural politician.” Get those all concentrated in one group, and you have a politically dominant group. This isn’t especially surprising if you actually think about it—where actually think about it means going beyond repeating the rubbish you learned in middle school.

    Read More
  23. @Buzz Mohawk
    We all know this one:

    "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

    -- George Bernard Shaw

    Actually, pigs are smart and therefore not prone to circular reasoning. The same cannot be said of the politically correct.

    The Left loves confrontation. They manufacture it when they can’t find it. It validates their Ideology of Universal Victimisation and Oppression by giving them baskets of causes to campaign for.

    Ignore them and they might go away. “Dearie, use any restroom you want. I don’t think anyone will notice.”

    Read More
  24. @Anonymous
    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don't ever become bored. It's not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    That’s weird. I’m almost always bored when I read some imbecile propounding tabula rasa or when I read some sane person responding to them. That is dull, dull stuff.

    Those websites arguing back and forth over whether the Apollo Program happened are similarly dull. It’s entertaining, once per lifetime, to see the lunatics acting crazy. But only once and only for about ten minutes. Then it is a dull slog. I don’t know how the anti-Apollo-conspiracists can make themselves do it.

    Notice how rarely Steve engages in this sort of thing any more. Most of his relevant stuff these days is about tracing out how Nurturism distorts the thinking and rhetoric of Americans. That’s pretty interesting. But talking about the truth-value of Nurturism is dull, dull, dull.

    Read More
  25. @Thursday
    The core of the political correct movement are pretty religious, which makes them quite different from ordinary liberals:
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/
    Religion can seem utterly baffling to the non-religious. Even more so, PC seems to be a pretty strange religion, unintelligible even to the normally religious, but its manias are apparently quite gripping to its adherents.

    Religion can seem utterly baffling to the non-religious. Even more so, PC seems to be a pretty strange religion, unintelligible even to the normally religious, but its manias are apparently quite gripping to its adherents.

    I have often thought that. Although not religious myself, I am fairly familiar with the outlines of the main Bible stories, Christmas carols, and the history of Christianity, yet I often find myself during the course of work in people’s homes where the TV is tuned to religious channels and marvel how completely uneducated people seem to be very well able to understand the religious talk that sounds quite devoid of any kind of meaning to me. The key is clearly that you are an insider and that the true significance of belonging has nothing to do with the part of the brain that reasons about the meaning of life or what is right or wrong.

    PC is all about “virtue signalling” and adherents tend to strongly push their arguments to cover up a deep fear within themselves that it is all cock and that they will let slip something that will reveal to their peers what they really think. Being overtly non-PC is like coming out as gay, I would think, in that it suddenly releases the individual from the stress of having to carry on pretending. Like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes, really.

    http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/576344/Hans-Christian-Andersen-Movie-Clip-The-King-s-New-Clothes.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @imnobody00
    I had the same impression as you, when I was an atheist. Religious talk or messages didn't say anything to me and seemed simple and dumb.

    It was tempting for me to think that people are dumb and I was the smartest one. After all, I was the typical aspie nerd, with a high IQ and a lot of academic successes (a PhD, two masters, four languages), while the other aspects of my life were bad. I was proud of my intelligence.

    When I became a Christian, I understood. Jorge Bucay says: "The deaf always believes that those who dance are crazy.". Turn off your TV's volume when people are dancing and see how ridiculous people look.

    Religion is the same. When you see the religious practicing their religion (even if it's only watching a religious TV show), you only see people dancing but you don't hear the music. This is what makes it so difficult to understand.

  26. Because political correctness MUST be true but never stops failing to coincide with reality, so the mental game never ends, nor the need to affirm faith and signal it to others.

    Read More
  27. @Joe Franklin
    PC people don't get bored hearing their own gibberish because their cause requires sustained victim cult hysteria for success.

    Their cause is to procure as many government entitlements as possible for their peculiar victim cult, and a victim cult maintains group focus on a cause via collective hysteria.

    Exhibit 1: Inane ranting of Shia Labeouf

    Exhibit 2: Disrupter sloganeering at Yiannopoulos and Coulter public forums

    Exhibit 3: Riot incitements after a police shooting in the ghetto

    Exhibit 4: Obama demagoguery

    Exhibit 5: College speech codes

    Exhibit 1: Inane ranting of Shia Labeouf

    Old Hollywood versus New Hollywood?

    Whatever you think of the old Hollywood liberals (Brando, Newman, Poitier) at least they were comprehensible in what they were advocating. But this Laboeuf fellow (think he got done for plagiarism of some modern art presentation) he just rants, as you say.

    He’s been in Michael Bay blockbusters, Steven Spielberg blockbusters, so he’s some sort of A-lister but there’s no one in the Hollywood higher-ups now to tell him to cool it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Poor Shia. He can't even console himself by humming "Rally Round the Flag, Boys". Cuz he ain't got no steenkin' flag no more ahhahhahhahhhahhaaa!
    I recommend he takes up excessive drinking as a hobby from now on. It's a natural fit.

    https://i.redditmedia.com/mLvbS7fOSoEpgx3oVZidCXfM6Pt8C6oNlzHiOhcD7eg.png?w=630&s=f1b89f20c5d66af7edfed54b77f8b0b9
  28. @Anon
    Why don't dogs ever get tired of sniffing their own butts?

    Why don't Negroes ever get tired of rap?

    Why don't bimbos ever get tired of staring into a mirror?

    People like things that make them feel good.
    PC is to progs what Bible is to Christians.

    Most people don't like ideas that challenge them or pop their bubble.

    “Why don’t dogs ever get tired of sniffing their own butts? ”

    It’s other dogs butts they sniff . People that study that sort of thing tell us that there is a wealth of information to be had there .

    Read More
  29. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The left deals with boredom by inventing now categories of victims and then tries to gin up more outrage. No one ever heard of microaggressions or tranny bathroom rights ten years ago. The left has a lot invested in keeping the outrage machine going. Leftist organizations get large sums donated to them by the usual suspects, and the professional leftist elite cannot pay their own salaries or their foot soldiers without this cash. Without this outrage, donations will fall off. Therefore, new victim classes must be invented and frothed about. There are a lot of suckers out there.

    One of the reasons why there’s so much outrage right now is because a lot of young liberals are unemployed. Once you get a full-time job you no longer have time for professional agitation. A lot of the radical air was sucked out of the 1960s when the baby boomers moved into the job market in the 1970s. Then they started making so much money that they invented the whole yuppie fad and a lot of them became Reagan consumers.

    Currently, leftist outrage is the substitute ‘job’ of the young right now. If Trump gets rid of unemployment by kicking out large amount of Mexicans, and our young start getting real jobs, their voices will fall silent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Speculative Victimhood.

    Fictims.
    , @Wally
    Most leftists do not want a job, hence their love for the welfare state.
  30. Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    From Matt Bruening:

    "If diversity and justice really are at odds with one another, then which one should you pick and why? ... Beauchamp’s article gives a clue as to where liberals will go with this. Since they believe 1) diversity is incompatible with justice, and 2) that diversity is important and good, they will reach the conclusion that 3) justice should be sacrificed in order to “beat” right-wing populism."
     
    This Bruening seems a smart fellow, but has he been asleep for the past 50 years? Liberals "will" reach the conclusion? Apparently he's missed the massive metastization of Affirmative Action (i.e., sacrificing justice to diversity), hiring quotas, awards quotas, the Racialization of Everything, Negro sacralization, excusing of crime followed by endorsement of crime, the licensure of the Diversity Industry, the gerrymandering of political districts, the invention of "hate" crimes, speech codes for non-leberals etc. Yes, Matt, liberals will sacrifice justice to diversity, just as they have been doing for your entire life. Great prediction!
    , @Seth Largo

    When I was coming up back in the day, this was not the liberal view on diversity, at least not the one I saw. The view then was that racism is a historical development, not an impenetrable feature of the tribal human brain. On this view, human beings are fundamentally the same and socially constructed categories used to divide them (whether race in the US, religion in Ireland, or caste in India) can be overcome by uniting around what human beings have in common.
     
    I don't know how anyone can arrive at this view with even a cursory understanding of history. It is alien to me. Yet it is probably, at bottom, one of those deeply held priors that ultimately separates the right-leaning from the left-leaning populace.
  31. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anon
    The left deals with boredom by inventing now categories of victims and then tries to gin up more outrage. No one ever heard of microaggressions or tranny bathroom rights ten years ago. The left has a lot invested in keeping the outrage machine going. Leftist organizations get large sums donated to them by the usual suspects, and the professional leftist elite cannot pay their own salaries or their foot soldiers without this cash. Without this outrage, donations will fall off. Therefore, new victim classes must be invented and frothed about. There are a lot of suckers out there.

    One of the reasons why there's so much outrage right now is because a lot of young liberals are unemployed. Once you get a full-time job you no longer have time for professional agitation. A lot of the radical air was sucked out of the 1960s when the baby boomers moved into the job market in the 1970s. Then they started making so much money that they invented the whole yuppie fad and a lot of them became Reagan consumers.

    Currently, leftist outrage is the substitute 'job' of the young right now. If Trump gets rid of unemployment by kicking out large amount of Mexicans, and our young start getting real jobs, their voices will fall silent.

    Speculative Victimhood.

    Fictims.

    Read More
  32. @Gapeseed
    Because the Church is State for the Leftists, their battle is both spiritual and intellectual, with their loins girded against boredom and reason.

    I agree except I would have said it as “Because the State is Church…”.

    Read More
  33. @Ivy
    OT iStevey item - choose diversity or justice

    https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/liberals-and-diversity-85c169580d14#.nf5dg8sqa

    From Matt Bruening:

    “If diversity and justice really are at odds with one another, then which one should you pick and why? … Beauchamp’s article gives a clue as to where liberals will go with this. Since they believe 1) diversity is incompatible with justice, and 2) that diversity is important and good, they will reach the conclusion that 3) justice should be sacrificed in order to “beat” right-wing populism.”

    This Bruening seems a smart fellow, but has he been asleep for the past 50 years? Liberals “will” reach the conclusion? Apparently he’s missed the massive metastization of Affirmative Action (i.e., sacrificing justice to diversity), hiring quotas, awards quotas, the Racialization of Everything, Negro sacralization, excusing of crime followed by endorsement of crime, the licensure of the Diversity Industry, the gerrymandering of political districts, the invention of “hate” crimes, speech codes for non-leberals etc. Yes, Matt, liberals will sacrifice justice to diversity, just as they have been doing for your entire life. Great prediction!

    Read More
  34. @Ivy
    OT iStevey item - choose diversity or justice

    https://medium.com/@MattBruenig/liberals-and-diversity-85c169580d14#.nf5dg8sqa

    When I was coming up back in the day, this was not the liberal view on diversity, at least not the one I saw. The view then was that racism is a historical development, not an impenetrable feature of the tribal human brain. On this view, human beings are fundamentally the same and socially constructed categories used to divide them (whether race in the US, religion in Ireland, or caste in India) can be overcome by uniting around what human beings have in common.

    I don’t know how anyone can arrive at this view with even a cursory understanding of history. It is alien to me. Yet it is probably, at bottom, one of those deeply held priors that ultimately separates the right-leaning from the left-leaning populace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Yet it is probably, at bottom, one of those deeply held priors that ultimately separates the right-leaning from the left-leaning populace
     
    I hope you're not quite right. Because, if you were right - - it would imply that there is no place for reason in the leftist worldview.

    I agree with you, though - there is a huge problem: That the human will might dominate reason.
    On a lesser scale: It makes no (good, at least) sense, to make no distinction anymore between wishful thinking and thinking.

  35. @little spoon
    I argue on the internet sometimes. I had stopped doing so for a few years but then I saw trump and I realized that the internet comment box was not in fact pointless (as people used to say there was nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet). Instead, over time the internet argument space appears to have created a world wide political movement.

    But i do find it tedious. Again and again: Islamic fundamentalists are equal to christian fundamentalists. Race is a social construct. Same old thing every day. They will not learn or evolve their arguments. They know no more than 5 things about anything and they just shout them again and again at you. This is what they know about Islam: In the Islamic golden age, the muslims were far more advanced that Europeans. And also tolerant. Cordoba had Jews and then Spain expelled them. And then there was colonialism. And we supported dictators. And then Sykes-Picolt act. And then Palestine. Done. That is everything. Therefore, Islam = Christianity = fundamentalists are all bad.

    I would like it if someone created a repository of internet argument templates against liberal arguments. You'd only need like 100 arguments because they collectively don't know more than 100 things to repeat. And then you could just link to argument #58 whenever someone said race is a social construct. Firstly this would save time, and it would also show that they just repeat the same things over and over again and cannot actually respond and adapt their paradigms to new information.

    Spain was not alone in expelling Jews, every country that graciously allowed Jews in has expelled them.

    Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    When did the following countries expel Jews? United States, United Kingdom (not England), Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India? All have Jews number at least in the thousands.

    Turkey and Morocco also never expelled Jews. Nor did the Netherlands except under German occupation. Or Belgium. Or the Czech Republic. Or Bulgaria.

    Shall I keep going?
  36. @Anon
    The left deals with boredom by inventing now categories of victims and then tries to gin up more outrage. No one ever heard of microaggressions or tranny bathroom rights ten years ago. The left has a lot invested in keeping the outrage machine going. Leftist organizations get large sums donated to them by the usual suspects, and the professional leftist elite cannot pay their own salaries or their foot soldiers without this cash. Without this outrage, donations will fall off. Therefore, new victim classes must be invented and frothed about. There are a lot of suckers out there.

    One of the reasons why there's so much outrage right now is because a lot of young liberals are unemployed. Once you get a full-time job you no longer have time for professional agitation. A lot of the radical air was sucked out of the 1960s when the baby boomers moved into the job market in the 1970s. Then they started making so much money that they invented the whole yuppie fad and a lot of them became Reagan consumers.

    Currently, leftist outrage is the substitute 'job' of the young right now. If Trump gets rid of unemployment by kicking out large amount of Mexicans, and our young start getting real jobs, their voices will fall silent.

    Most leftists do not want a job, hence their love for the welfare state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What a remarkably stupid remark. Were that the case, there would be far fewer people employed.
  37. @Jonathan Mason

    Religion can seem utterly baffling to the non-religious. Even more so, PC seems to be a pretty strange religion, unintelligible even to the normally religious, but its manias are apparently quite gripping to its adherents.
     
    I have often thought that. Although not religious myself, I am fairly familiar with the outlines of the main Bible stories, Christmas carols, and the history of Christianity, yet I often find myself during the course of work in people's homes where the TV is tuned to religious channels and marvel how completely uneducated people seem to be very well able to understand the religious talk that sounds quite devoid of any kind of meaning to me. The key is clearly that you are an insider and that the true significance of belonging has nothing to do with the part of the brain that reasons about the meaning of life or what is right or wrong.

    PC is all about "virtue signalling" and adherents tend to strongly push their arguments to cover up a deep fear within themselves that it is all cock and that they will let slip something that will reveal to their peers what they really think. Being overtly non-PC is like coming out as gay, I would think, in that it suddenly releases the individual from the stress of having to carry on pretending. Like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, really.

    http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/576344/Hans-Christian-Andersen-Movie-Clip-The-King-s-New-Clothes.html

    I had the same impression as you, when I was an atheist. Religious talk or messages didn’t say anything to me and seemed simple and dumb.

    It was tempting for me to think that people are dumb and I was the smartest one. After all, I was the typical aspie nerd, with a high IQ and a lot of academic successes (a PhD, two masters, four languages), while the other aspects of my life were bad. I was proud of my intelligence.

    When I became a Christian, I understood. Jorge Bucay says: “The deaf always believes that those who dance are crazy.”. Turn off your TV’s volume when people are dancing and see how ridiculous people look.

    Religion is the same. When you see the religious practicing their religion (even if it’s only watching a religious TV show), you only see people dancing but you don’t hear the music. This is what makes it so difficult to understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    As a Christian, do you believe that Christianity has the power/grace to change people, regardless of their IQ?
  38. They don’t get bored because bullying is fun, and they love bullying.

    Some guy in Crown Heights had to change the name of his bar, because it was a “racist” name. It was called Crow Bar. And you see, “crow” was a derogatory term for blacks — in the 19th Century. So… no more Crow Bar.

    Somebody really, really enjoyed making that guy change the name of his bar.

    http://gothamist.com/2017/03/14/crown_heights_crow_bar.php

    Read More
  39. @John Taylor
    CS lewis, in mere christianity stated it clearly-
    It’s no use telling our rulers to mind their own business,” C.S. Lewis observed. “Our whole lives are their business.”
    and
    " Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme — whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence — the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication. (C.S. Lewis on theocracy) C.S. Lewis (1898–1963)

    hence all reublicans are evil

    Brilliant.

    Read More
  40. People who are politically correct usually are so out of fear. They are comfortable talking smack when its within the bounds of accepted orthodoxy but will shut down entirely when they even run the risk being outside. So there no dialectic, they already understand everything including what they are not supposed to know.

    Read More
  41. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Most leftists do not want a job, hence their love for the welfare state.

    What a remarkably stupid remark. Were that the case, there would be far fewer people employed.

    Read More
  42. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Spain was not alone in expelling Jews, every country that graciously allowed Jews in has expelled them.

    Why?

    When did the following countries expel Jews? United States, United Kingdom (not England), Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India? All have Jews number at least in the thousands.

    Turkey and Morocco also never expelled Jews. Nor did the Netherlands except under German occupation. Or Belgium. Or the Czech Republic. Or Bulgaria.

    Shall I keep going?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    England had pogroms like the York massacre of 1190 in which the whole Jewish community of that city was killed or committed suicide to avoid forced baptism.

    There was a royal investigation and the city had to pay a heavy fine.

    Goldman Sachs were not around in the time of King Edward I, but in 1290 The Hammer of the Scots kicked out all their predecessors after giving them a hard time for some years over alleged offenses like coin-clipping and there were no Jews, unless practicing secretly, in England for more than three hundred years thereafter. Jews were the personal property of the King and since Christians were not allowed to practice usury, they fulfilled a useful role until the crown and half the population owed them money, at which point they were deemed to be surplus to requirements.

    Later on Dickens was pretty hard on Jews, with Fagin definitely being a Jew and Uriah Heep probably also meeting criteria. However in modern times Jews have done rather better in England and the UK has welcomed many Jewish immigrants such as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Robert Maxwell (born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch), Harold Abrahams of Chariot of Fire fame, and comedian Sascha Baron Cohen, better known as Borat.
  43. @Anon
    When did the following countries expel Jews? United States, United Kingdom (not England), Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India? All have Jews number at least in the thousands.

    Turkey and Morocco also never expelled Jews. Nor did the Netherlands except under German occupation. Or Belgium. Or the Czech Republic. Or Bulgaria.

    Shall I keep going?

    England had pogroms like the York massacre of 1190 in which the whole Jewish community of that city was killed or committed suicide to avoid forced baptism.

    There was a royal investigation and the city had to pay a heavy fine.

    Goldman Sachs were not around in the time of King Edward I, but in 1290 The Hammer of the Scots kicked out all their predecessors after giving them a hard time for some years over alleged offenses like coin-clipping and there were no Jews, unless practicing secretly, in England for more than three hundred years thereafter. Jews were the personal property of the King and since Christians were not allowed to practice usury, they fulfilled a useful role until the crown and half the population owed them money, at which point they were deemed to be surplus to requirements.

    Later on Dickens was pretty hard on Jews, with Fagin definitely being a Jew and Uriah Heep probably also meeting criteria. However in modern times Jews have done rather better in England and the UK has welcomed many Jewish immigrants such as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Robert Maxwell (born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch), Harold Abrahams of Chariot of Fire fame, and comedian Sascha Baron Cohen, better known as Borat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Isaiah Berlin
    , @Anon
    Did you miss that part where I wrote "not England"?
  44. @Anonymous
    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don't ever become bored. It's not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    SJWs think their ideas are new and exciting and radical. I mean take the idea of egalitarianism – nobody had ever thought of such a concept until the 1990s. SJWs are convinced that they are the most original thinkers in the whole of human history.

    When you know no history at all everything is new and exciting.

    Read More
  45. @Jonathan Mason
    England had pogroms like the York massacre of 1190 in which the whole Jewish community of that city was killed or committed suicide to avoid forced baptism.

    There was a royal investigation and the city had to pay a heavy fine.

    Goldman Sachs were not around in the time of King Edward I, but in 1290 The Hammer of the Scots kicked out all their predecessors after giving them a hard time for some years over alleged offenses like coin-clipping and there were no Jews, unless practicing secretly, in England for more than three hundred years thereafter. Jews were the personal property of the King and since Christians were not allowed to practice usury, they fulfilled a useful role until the crown and half the population owed them money, at which point they were deemed to be surplus to requirements.

    Later on Dickens was pretty hard on Jews, with Fagin definitely being a Jew and Uriah Heep probably also meeting criteria. However in modern times Jews have done rather better in England and the UK has welcomed many Jewish immigrants such as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Robert Maxwell (born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch), Harold Abrahams of Chariot of Fire fame, and comedian Sascha Baron Cohen, better known as Borat.

    Isaiah Berlin

    Read More
  46. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jonathan Mason
    England had pogroms like the York massacre of 1190 in which the whole Jewish community of that city was killed or committed suicide to avoid forced baptism.

    There was a royal investigation and the city had to pay a heavy fine.

    Goldman Sachs were not around in the time of King Edward I, but in 1290 The Hammer of the Scots kicked out all their predecessors after giving them a hard time for some years over alleged offenses like coin-clipping and there were no Jews, unless practicing secretly, in England for more than three hundred years thereafter. Jews were the personal property of the King and since Christians were not allowed to practice usury, they fulfilled a useful role until the crown and half the population owed them money, at which point they were deemed to be surplus to requirements.

    Later on Dickens was pretty hard on Jews, with Fagin definitely being a Jew and Uriah Heep probably also meeting criteria. However in modern times Jews have done rather better in England and the UK has welcomed many Jewish immigrants such as Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Robert Maxwell (born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch), Harold Abrahams of Chariot of Fire fame, and comedian Sascha Baron Cohen, better known as Borat.

    Did you miss that part where I wrote “not England”?

    Read More
  47. @Bill P
    Probably a feminine thing that a lot of us guys wouldn't/can't understand. Women are relentlessly "correct" in their conduct (in their minds), yet there are endless variations on correct conduct, many of which are at war with each other.

    Best to avoid this stuff and be a hopeless ignoramus about political correctness, but also don't fear it and be brave. In other words, don't argue with them, but rather just speak the truth when it's called for.

    Men aren't cut out for political correctness, and we shouldn't try to be. Even women think it's unseemly in a man.

    Men aren’t cut out for political correctness…I think many men are
    supporting political correctness because of cowardice. I believe in IQ/evolution and my Christianity and politics are based on this. First, I define “men.” Since Caucasian men (and women) have the highest IQs and form the West, black/Asian men are excluded from anything that has to do with the West. This is the civilization that is under attack.

    Then I look at the institutions/beliefs that are undermining the West. The most destructive ones are those which advocate “universal brotherhood,” “universal church.” Marxism, Freemasonry, and the Roman Catholic Church promote these beliefs. I left the RCC since I don’t accept black/Asian priests-popes. An IQ starting at 90+ is needed to have a functioning society/country. This excludes blacks/Asians and means separation. I have put forth these beliefs to men and women I meet. The men run away and the women start crying.

    Read More
  48. @imnobody00
    I had the same impression as you, when I was an atheist. Religious talk or messages didn't say anything to me and seemed simple and dumb.

    It was tempting for me to think that people are dumb and I was the smartest one. After all, I was the typical aspie nerd, with a high IQ and a lot of academic successes (a PhD, two masters, four languages), while the other aspects of my life were bad. I was proud of my intelligence.

    When I became a Christian, I understood. Jorge Bucay says: "The deaf always believes that those who dance are crazy.". Turn off your TV's volume when people are dancing and see how ridiculous people look.

    Religion is the same. When you see the religious practicing their religion (even if it's only watching a religious TV show), you only see people dancing but you don't hear the music. This is what makes it so difficult to understand.

    As a Christian, do you believe that Christianity has the power/grace to change people, regardless of their IQ?

    Read More
  49. @Seth Largo

    When I was coming up back in the day, this was not the liberal view on diversity, at least not the one I saw. The view then was that racism is a historical development, not an impenetrable feature of the tribal human brain. On this view, human beings are fundamentally the same and socially constructed categories used to divide them (whether race in the US, religion in Ireland, or caste in India) can be overcome by uniting around what human beings have in common.
     
    I don't know how anyone can arrive at this view with even a cursory understanding of history. It is alien to me. Yet it is probably, at bottom, one of those deeply held priors that ultimately separates the right-leaning from the left-leaning populace.

    Yet it is probably, at bottom, one of those deeply held priors that ultimately separates the right-leaning from the left-leaning populace

    I hope you’re not quite right. Because, if you were right – – it would imply that there is no place for reason in the leftist worldview.

    I agree with you, though – there is a huge problem: That the human will might dominate reason.
    On a lesser scale: It makes no (good, at least) sense, to make no distinction anymore between wishful thinking and thinking.

    Read More
  50. @Anonymous
    Probably for the same reason that the politically incorrect don't ever become bored. It's not like either camp is thinking drastically new and original thoughts or something. Both camps hold views that have been around forever.

    many relevant questions have never been relevant today. There never was another times with countries with a TFR below 1.5. The mass media are new, the internet. There never was as much contact between the big different human populations as today. Mass migration in the current form is new. The gender roles have changed so something totally different from what it always has been. In a way both and antiracists and anti- antiracists have totally new ideas

    Read More
  51. @attilathehen
    As a Christian, do you believe that Christianity has the power/grace to change people, regardless of their IQ?

    No. God does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    What is your evidence? Roman Catholic Haiti? RCC Amerindian El Salvador? RCC Philippines? Protestant American blacks?
  52. @Desiderius
    No. God does.

    What is your evidence? Roman Catholic Haiti? RCC Amerindian El Salvador? RCC Philippines? Protestant American blacks?

    Read More
  53. @attilathehen
    What is your evidence? Roman Catholic Haiti? RCC Amerindian El Salvador? RCC Philippines? Protestant American blacks?

    Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

    Read More
  54. @little spoon
    I argue on the internet sometimes. I had stopped doing so for a few years but then I saw trump and I realized that the internet comment box was not in fact pointless (as people used to say there was nothing more pointless than arguing on the internet). Instead, over time the internet argument space appears to have created a world wide political movement.

    But i do find it tedious. Again and again: Islamic fundamentalists are equal to christian fundamentalists. Race is a social construct. Same old thing every day. They will not learn or evolve their arguments. They know no more than 5 things about anything and they just shout them again and again at you. This is what they know about Islam: In the Islamic golden age, the muslims were far more advanced that Europeans. And also tolerant. Cordoba had Jews and then Spain expelled them. And then there was colonialism. And we supported dictators. And then Sykes-Picolt act. And then Palestine. Done. That is everything. Therefore, Islam = Christianity = fundamentalists are all bad.

    I would like it if someone created a repository of internet argument templates against liberal arguments. You'd only need like 100 arguments because they collectively don't know more than 100 things to repeat. And then you could just link to argument #58 whenever someone said race is a social construct. Firstly this would save time, and it would also show that they just repeat the same things over and over again and cannot actually respond and adapt their paradigms to new information.

    Don’t make it such hard work. Occasionally you should just troll.

    If you come across the nonsense that America was founded on an idea, or some other brain dead version of the creedal nation line, just reply: Liberia was founded on the exact same values/ideas as the United States. How’d that work out?

    You can even provide a brief link to the founding of Liberia if you wish but I wouldn’t bother.

    Then move on and ignore all responses.

    Some of these SJW notions are so ridiculous you’d be a fool to debate them — so hold them up to ridicule.

    That’s something they really can’t stand. And their foaming at the mouth replies don’t make them or their cause look good.

    Sometimes you just need to have fun. Enjoy!

    Read More
  55. @Mr. Blank
    Rough answer: They don't get bored with it because it's their substitute religion.

    Look: Do you spend a large portion of your day interacting with a reasonably broad cross-section of the public who are angry about politics? Because I do. And when you are in such a position, the fundamental divide between liberals and conservatives becomes much clearer.

    Conservatives engage with politics out of habit and frustration. I like reading iSteve, but it'a not my life. I sometimes go for long periods without checking iSteve and other sites, because I have a life filled with other interests. I can get very angry and worked up about politics, but I'm easily distracted by my non-political interests.

    Leftists feed off this stuff. It's their God and their drug. You should see what I have to deal with on a daily basis. These folks eat, sleep, drink and breathe politics. They can no more get bored with political correctness than a normal person can get bored with breathing. Their entire lives revolve around purifying themselves to please their non-god Gods and fighting the apostates who reject their non-religion religion.

    The only other people I've ever met who possess such singular dedication and focus for a particular ideology are hardline Christian fundamentalists. That there tells me everything I need to know about the radical Left.

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Politics is all these people can talk about.

    That’s why when they discuss anything else — art, literature, music, sports,whatever, they always have to inject politics into it.

    Well said.

    Read More
  56. @Desiderius
    Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

    You are evidence of absence.

    Read More
  57. @Studley
    Exhibit 1: Inane ranting of Shia Labeouf

    Old Hollywood versus New Hollywood?

    Whatever you think of the old Hollywood liberals (Brando, Newman, Poitier) at least they were comprehensible in what they were advocating. But this Laboeuf fellow (think he got done for plagiarism of some modern art presentation) he just rants, as you say.

    He's been in Michael Bay blockbusters, Steven Spielberg blockbusters, so he's some sort of A-lister but there's no one in the Hollywood higher-ups now to tell him to cool it.

    Poor Shia. He can’t even console himself by humming “Rally Round the Flag, Boys”. Cuz he ain’t got no steenkin’ flag no more ahhahhahhahhhahhaaa!
    I recommend he takes up excessive drinking as a hobby from now on. It’s a natural fit.

    https://i.redditmedia.com/mLvbS7fOSoEpgx3oVZidCXfM6Pt8C6oNlzHiOhcD7eg.png?w=630&s=f1b89f20c5d66af7edfed54b77f8b0b9

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution