Nature abhors a vacuum, even in her choice of methods of change. Today a bizarre battleground was selected for the culture wars: fast food.
The story is fairly well-known: CEO makes relatively mild statement about his company’s support for traditional marriage. Liberal lynch mob forms, foaming with hatred over the idea of dissent, and demands a boycott of the CEO’s company.
Tired of being pushed back into a defensive position by liberals, conservatives and those who support freedom of association today flooded Chick-fil-A restaurants across America. It’s not about the better-than-average fast food; it’s a powerful statement of resistance, a type of peaceful revolution the likes of which are often touted in the media.
Except in this case, the media isn’t singing its praises. However, it has also fallen off with its snide and sneering moralistic and pretentious campaign of slander. Instead, it is falling into shocked reporting of literal, prosaic facts.
Slowly the world is realizing something important: the massive turnout today is about more than fast food, or even gays.
This is about the pushback. It’s a story of how middle America, the casually conservative white middle class that is the backbone of this country, approved liberal egalitarian reforms over the past 50 years to correct the wrongs of the past.
However, they misinterpreted liberalism. It is not about making things better. It is a power grab by those who are not ready for power. It emphasizes the individual in its quest for novelty, ego adornment, socialization and validation of its impulses. As a result, it is a consummate reality-denial engine, and one upon which its victims rest their self-esteem. It is pathological, like a mental disease of a parasitic nature. It drives its victims on to commit completely unreasonable acts while insisting that they are taking the moral high ground.
Middle class America approved of liberalism when it promised to correct historical wrongs. Middle class people generally dislike cruelty, unfairness, injustice and a lack of opportunity.
They thought they were doing the right thing when they accepted the changes of the 1960s and then the second wave of those changes in the 1990s, and finally when they elected a half-black president. Finally, they thought, we have atoned for the past and fixed our problems!
And then two years later it became clear that, far from seeing Obama’s election as an end of obligation, the left saw it as an open door. To increase entitlement programs, sure, but even more, to increase guilt. It wasn’t so much the ongoing wealth transfer to the poor but the shift to Soviet-style propaganda everywhere.
Tolerance went from being an acceptance of others, to being a political standard which was enforced with ostracization. If you did not accept everyone, you were racist, homophobic, sexist, or classist. Even if you had good reasons for not accepting them.
This is the socialized natural of liberalism. It is not a political order, but a social one. It stays popular by insuring that all people are included, by removing any standards or values that could possibly preclude the inclusion of any individual.
Naturally, this task will never end. It literally requires the destruction of all differences between all human beings. And this slowly dawned on middle class, casually conservative America.
They began to realize that leftism is never tolerant. It is a universal standard that norms us into conformity with violence. What happened in Russia in 1917 and France in 1789, where revolutions quickly degenerated into orgies of murder in the name of ideology, were no accidents. They are the normal course of things under leftism.
The great Chick-fil-A protest of August 1, 2012 was a pushback against the United States going full Soviet. Hopefully Europe will have a similar moment; I think it’s likely. Starting in 2009, people have seen leftism for what it is, and began unraveling the 220 years of leftward drift before it.
Gays, like African-Americans, are proxies in the battle of leftism. Although just about every major corporation bows to the gay interest lobby, it isn’t because a huge number buyers or employees are gay. It’s because being pro-liberal guarantees you approval, and not going alone with the liberal plan guarantees sabotage by leftist zealots.
Except that as Chick-fil-A found out, sometimes there’s an inverse boycott or counter boycott. People get sick of being pushed around and told what to think, especially when it clashes with what they know as a way of life.
“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy said. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” – CNN
Leftism is not a plan for making life better. It is a mad crusade that uses people in exchange for making them feel relevant. Its tolerance is for show, and its real agenda is social, which is to force acceptance of everyone. Like confirmation bias, it is a mental trap that is inherent to being human. In 100 years, future citizens will look back on our present era as one of mental disease being understood as “normal.”
The first step on that path was the pushback we saw today. People pushed back against liberalism and the political correctness regimen. Even more fundamentally, they pushed back against the idea that you either accept every behavior no matter how objectionable, or you’re a hater and a bigot. They’re tired of being held hostage to liberal ideology.
43 queries. 1.195 seconds
My first impulse is to side with gay marriage: “I don’t really care what you guys do.”
Really, I still don’t care what they do.
However – marriage is necessary for the consummation of healthy children and therefore the basis of civilization. As an intuition, I see why traditional conservatives are defending it so strongly. The left is trying to destroy every last vestige of order and invert the meaning therein. It isn’t just about marriage, but about the very basis of society.
On the nose!
I defend DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) because it allows heteros to be hetero and raise their kids the way they, as 90% of society, need to; it also allows homosexuals to be themselves, but quietly.
The gay marriage debate is a political flag-waving exercise for the left.
Intuition = Institution (lol)
“Middle class America approved of liberalism when it promised to correct historical wrongs. Middle class people generally dislike cruelty, unfairness, injustice and a lack of opportunity.”
Sounds sane to me. Can you prove to me, this wouldn’t happen again as your revolution take place? Both the tyranny and that the middle class wouldn’t correct the historical wrongs and yet again bring forward another Democratic revolution with it’s ‘goodies’. As I pointed out last thread, you’d be the grandfather of it. I don’t think you’ll find your solution in this conservatism, you’re not going back to something what worked, you’re just creating more socialism. If that is not too paradoxical.
“They thought they were doing the right thing when they accepted the changes of the 1960s and then the second wave of those changes in the 1990s, and finally when they elected a half-black president. Finally, they thought, we have atoned for the past and fixed our problems!”
All you do is talk about right and wrong, goodness, atonishment, correction, perfection and ideals.
You’re just being continously self-righteous, sitting on a high horse and telling people how to be good citizens when you don’t have a clue! You consider yourself good? I say you’re not. You decide who and what is good and call the rest whatever you please. Something lowly. And you won’t be until you change perspective. But perhaps you don’t believe ‘change’ is ‘possible’?
If you were to be honest with yourself, I believe you’d agree I am ‘right’. You are not to decide who’s good and right, and your dismissal of all sorts of people and your politics is just testament to cruelty and lack in character. A good man is good. Not just to his selected group, but to everyone. That has nothing to do with equality. If you place as high standards upon yourself as I believe you do, you’d prefer to be good to everyone. Or simply good, that is. You could become a great leader, lots of people would join you if you didnt act like they are worth less than you. It is very problematic for two reasons.
1. You’re giving honesty a bad name. The people that turn away from you will turn away from the ideal of honesty. I think this brutal honesty thing is great, but when combined with your judgements and political self-proclaimed truths it becomes a great issue. If you’re to make your revolution possible, I say you gotta change attitude. As it is now, only people very interested in the ideal of honesty or very interested in conservatism have any possibility to join with you. The rest turn away, or become enemies. So do you believe in your ideals, or in your select evolved elite group? Few like me will come around to tell you this. Perhaps that means your honesty IS working, after all. But your personal political truth is mixed in with it. I don’t know which comes first. Is honesty the means by which you plan to make your vision reality or is it how you choose to live your life? Which comes first? One of them is great, the other is simply your typical tyrant.
2. If you somehow take an active roll as a leader in this revolution, you’ll be a bad one.
You’re not really bad, and I know it sucks to hear things like this when you already have such high standards for yourself. But if you’re to lead or bring forward a cultural revolution, you better hear it. Might as well be me telling.
Brutal Honesty
-T
Golly, Tucken, what are you doing here?
Did your camouflage suddenly fall apart?
The mindlessly biased leftist emerges.
I guess that’s what university in a socialist regime does to you.
Sad.
It is mindless, I have no idea if it’s right to call him out, or not.
But I will test this radical honesty thing. I recognize the nasty in Brett that are also my own. I will say so. Then debate can go from there. But all of this begins with Brett, Brett comes before even honesty. I don’t know if honesty comes first to him, or his conservatism. It is very important that political leaders really ARE good, and that it is not just the appearance of it.
When did you become so political that you turn to calling people who do not side with you by judging political terms? You recognize a supportive type is there to support. You recognize people belong to different sorts, groups, roles, types – whatever we want to call it. But you’ve swallowed all of this completely…The basic of conservatism is that traditional works, it has never worked. It will always evolve from there to something new, for better or for worse. It is the same silly politics it has always been, but you side so much by it. You can live conservatively, it is OK, but for someone else that may not be right. How can the answer to it be tradition?
There may be something to conservative living, to you, the same way there may be something to socialistic living to another(not that I support socialism, just to be clear.)
Call me leftist with this ‘attack’, if you want to. Anyone with computer access can do this, and I say it’s fine. It makes this vision the more bulletproof, if it can take the attack. I believe in debate, and I believe in calling things for what they are, I took this opportunity to do so and test ‘honesty’ and Amerika.
I like reading from you, Tucken. You’re Swedish, right? I really want to know what a Swedish person thinks. I have friends from Sweden and they are too polite to comment about things like this. So what you have to say is valuable to me.
Thank you very much Lisa. I’m happy that you think so, and that you say so :).
Yep swedish. I can only speak for myself and not the nation but even that I think is important and of more value than any official comment the government could hope to produce :). All lies, tsk! Many people are unhappy here, but it’s very hard to compare communities unless you live in two countries at once.
Every individuals truth is very important. I’d say that is typically a swedish notion. Some people do believe in equality the way it is called out here on Amerika, and they could be called crazed leftists but respecting individuality is common also and if I may say so I consider it more sane. There is only the question of whether the truth is really true or not. Some recognize that, but sadly most don’t.
Speaking politics, individuality is a case with health care, as an example. People are treated as individuals with different needs, I know because I was studying to become a nurse. I quit because there was also a whole lot of Bull, hypocrisy and backwards-thinking to the system. I couldn’t take it. I realized health care means preventing disease, not talk politics. There is a lot of gobbeligock(or whatever Crow calls it) that we need to hire more nurses and raise their salaries and such. It is completely and utterly untrue. What needs to be done is people need to be happier so they take less drugs, they need to eat better that they don’t put acidic sugars and other foods into their bodies lowering their PH-levels and making them sick and prone to cancers. You have to cure the root, and not the surface. Solve political problems where it begins. And such. :)
A grapefruit a day and soaked quality grains/rice for optimal health ;). Saves your wallet too.
Best wishes
“Every individuals truth is very important.”
I think truth itself (based on reality in the world) is important, and that’s what makes me a conservative and you a bit farther left.
And yet you assert you are.
In other words, we must not be discriminating. I am so old I can remember when being called “discriminating” was a high compliment indeed. Now, it’s a crime. At times like this, I (not religious) pull out my K.J. bible, and this is what I see:
2Tim.3
“[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
[6] For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
[7] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
And: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
This seems a common myth of the end of the world or civilization. Trust is dead, because faith is dead, because the integrity of individuals has collapsed.
It’s up to us to fix this and transition to a healthier age.
“This seems a common myth of the end of the world or civilization. Trust is dead, because faith is dead, because the integrity of individuals has collapsed.
It’s up to us to fix this and transition to a healthier age.”
I really like that. My archetype for a ‘leftist individual’ is that of someone who struggles with trust, for they are without faith. And I value integrity pretty much above all else.
A healthier age begins with a healthy people. How does conservatism make people healthy?
You still can’t see it?
By dealing directly with reality, instead of with appearances.
“Every individuals truth is very important.” (appearance)
Contrast “dealing directly with reality.” Conservatives pay attention to the consequences of our actions in reality, which requires we know reality, which in turn requires we have a perspective of the eternal, unchanging and true instead of our human wants and trends.
The sun turns black, | earth sinks in the sea,
The hot stars down | from heaven are whirled;
Fierce grows the steam | and the life-feeding flame,
Till fire leaps high | about heaven itself.
Geeze, if I didn’t know better, the above sounds like something from Revelation (of John). What do you think.
It’s easier to read than most Biblical stuff :)
You are absolutely right. If I called you out on it, I’d be a hypocrite, but so would I be if I hadn’t. Because isn’t this the ideal Amerika rests upon? I was asked to comment here, I decided why not?
However I see flaws in the politics, I will say they come from you, and I say further that you can improve your politics tremendously and really get somewhere if you simply ask yourself if you’re truly better than other people, or not.
It is not about equality, not politics. It is that you center your life around being better and more intelligent than other people and it flows into your politics, turning everyone away from them. I know, I used to say I was always right. And I still struggle with it, and lots of other shit.
I wish you good luck, I really do, but not your politics as they are but for what they could be.
You were asked to comment here because, to that point, you had demonstrated calm balance. It’s not necessary to suddenly become a monster, or to play ‘devil’s advocate’ by the simple act of showing up.
You have been behaving like a hardcore leftist ever since you arrived. Yet you claim you are not one.
Either your honesty is in question, or your need to appear to be something you are not.
You are, as I recall, an ISFJ personality, no?
The Nurturers.
Nurturers make no distinction between those they nurture.
That, perhaps, is the very thing that most challenges them.
Yinyang.
I don’t know if you’re talking about Americans in general, but I would like to make a distinction here: Americans have this thing we call American pride that others call jingoism. It does get jingoistic and pathetic and annoying. However, there is a finer thread hidden in it. I would describe it this way: Many of us understand how fragile our political system and our country really are. We feel that criticism of it needs to be well-considered and purposeful, but too often people are just bitching, complaining and tearing it down. They think they’re intelligent but they’re stupid. They think we would be much cooler if we were like Europeans. But I’ve been to Europe, loved it, and then when I came home I realized America isn’t Europe and we need to be who we are. This puts me into the jingos’ camp, but I’m not like that. I just think if you criticize the US you really should have some understanding. (by you I mean the general ‘you.)
I think this is profound. Europe is going its way and we are going ours. The two need different solutions because the parameters are so different. However, at some level, both are very similar in terms of what they need but it’s several levels under the skin. Europeans are mad at Americans for “Americanization” but Europe is doing the same thing to itself by accepting globalism and consumerism. Blaming it on America is just displacement.
“You consider yourself good? I say you’re not.”
A priceless piece of eternal truth. And well argued.
I will try to use it widely when making friends, talking with the boss, etc. Good enough even for the shirt design.
I have left many friends behind, and I have no boss to talk to as I prefer to make my own living. It WOULD be good for a t-shirt design =).
Are you trolling or fifteen?
Does this offend you? Leave. Or sue Amerika. )))
You remind me of my past self.
Well I read this essay and found it to be profound.
Even more so than usual.
Good reporting, and as unbiased as could be reasonably expected of anyone not hopelessly in the thrall of leftism.
Yet leftists respond to it as leftists inevitably do: there can be no discussion, and no compromise. It’s make-an-enemy-time. As always. Which is a bit odd, really, given the ‘nice’ nature of leftists. Such people claim a ‘good’ person is ‘good’ to everyone. Yet somehow ‘everyone’ only includes those who agree with them.
Tolerance for all, and to all.
Except for those who, in their tolerance, they judge to be intolerant.
No tolerance for them!
You couldn’t make it up :)
My sister is a feminist. Some ten years ago or so, she was considered top five ‘most dangerous feminists in the country’. Whatever the hell that means =).
I DO have a battle mode. I could give you the theory of it, and where feminists and leftists come from. Why they are as they are, because I believe you never got very into THAT particular theory to describe people in that other place.
I don’t think battle or fighting is necessarily ‘bad’… I could not help but to make an enemy of Brett, but now I hope, it is over and debate time. It’s not in my nature to battle more than I have to. I believe in gentleness…Guess I should go comment upon it.
Have you ever bothered to make the distinction between discussion and debate? They are very different approaches.
Discussion doesn’t generally alienate everybody, whereas debate often does.
Discussion allows compromise and respect.
Debate is only about winning, and at any cost.
Well said.
“Debate is only about winning, and at any cost.”
And it’s about satisfying one’s amour-propre.
A simple test for this condition: count all these “I”, “my”, “me”, and “you” in the comment, and get the picture.
To Crow
I believe you misunderstand the mentality of ‘leftist’ completely. It is a case of misunderstanding, that is Crow-wisdom.
The ‘leftist’ is simply a born fighter.
In nature there are flocks with a flockleader. Leaders are people who superimpose rules, beliefs and morality. Naturally leaders can be good, bad and anything in between. Challengers appear to test the mettle of leaders, it brings better leadership. The challenger may see things clearly or imagine problems. Why not let time and honesty uncover, which is which?
The socialist creature is simply a human being with great in-born qualities. They are born fighters, with the quality to be humane for the well-being of a group. They are at heart true gladiators with big hearts fighting for each individual. They will fight oppression. Amerika is not bullet-proof. There is a lot of bull going on and I call a spade a spade. How could I do otherwise?
Brett has a slippery slope to coldness, he calls goodness while judging the rest and if he has the vision to bring forward a revolution in one of the most influential countries of the world, with a big population – then perhaps his mettle must be tested?
You are a lousy debator. I know, I have observed. You are as much an instigator to the battle as the ‘leftist’. You must have noticed that you have that effect on people. I know you have great care and tolerance. You live by your honesty and I respect that. I didn’t always believe what you said or considered it true to me in my life but I always listened to you and respected what you had to say. Apparently even I have a hard time discussing things with you. It is not honesty that gets in the way. Leftists must have their Good intentions respected and you push too much.
The ‘leftist’ go at it carefully and with respect as any combatant. You answer honestly and the two of you discuss/debate for a while. Usually your opponent tries and pull out. But you don’t take the cue, you continue to go at it, pushing him. He tried to pull out and you wouldn’t let him, naturally he must defend himself. He reacts with a counterattack, not knowing any better. Then you call him disrespectful, or leftist and naturally he grows to a full-on assault. You may think you’re just being honest and that they can not handle it. But I say you’re as much an instigator to it as they are. One cannot happen without the other.
A ‘leftist’ is no leftist at all. That is just fiction calling things what they are not and generally calling leftist means siding with the right and not seeing things as they are. They are simply humans with a lot of heart, fighting their way through life until they learn not to. They have the quality to be humane and they will fight that which they find is not, whether they are in a position to call injustice or not. They can stand only so much before getting defensive. It is natural, it is good.
You make mistakes debating, it turns into a brawl and you gather they fight mindlessly and without tolerance. Now you have a new name for it, ‘leftist’, and that cuts you off from half the population, while turning you political. It is Crow-folly.
To me, you seem to be the one siding with opposites. I am as critical to social ways as you are, we both live in leftist areas and see problems with it. Left or right doesn’t make any sense. Brett steven is simply a socialst, he has the same visionary outlook, trying to make the world a Good place. Left is right and right is left, neither makes any sense. Neither left nor right works. There is nothing wrong with a challenge. A so called leftist is simply a beautiful human being with a lot of heart. That is easy enough to see unless you call them leftist first. There really is something to them and their ways. You cut society short, and miss out on something when you cut them out and chase them away with leftist here and there. There is no such thing as leftist.
You may think it hypocritical of these people, or I, to attack and call cruelty that they may not be in a position to judge. If there is nothing to what they say, then their words carry no meaning anyways and there’s no problem. If there is something to what they say, then it makes better and there is no problem either.
“They are at heart true gladiators with big hearts fighting for each individual.”
The true fighter would first figure out if his approach is right.
Fighting for each individual, or for themselves, because they are individuals who will benefit?
That takes you to crow’s (he seems to prefer his name in lowercase, so no capitalized first letter, not out of disrespect) comment. Conservatives prefer reality, and everyone else likes appearance.
True benefit is measured in reality, in the consequences of our actions and the responsibility to know our world enough to know the difference.
Leftists are born-cowards. That is what makes them leftists.
They like to band into ever larger groups, for self-defense, until all possible threats are eliminated.
But to a leftist, everything is a threat. And so, ultimately, nothing is left. Just hordes of aimless lunatics searching out that final, tiny, unobtrusive possible threat…
Sorry Tucken, but any respect I had for you has been obliterated. By you. You’re just another faux-spiritual ego, forcing the concept of spirituality to fit something it can’t possibly ever fit. Happy delusions. I have no more time for you.
A born coward is a matter of perspective. Fear is for him to struggle with until he grows courageous. I give you the perspective they are people with potential for courage because they are only seen as cowards. That is what’s lacking, otherwise I would just call them cowards.
A political person is usually a small person. You know people are at different stages of growth and development, cowardly leftist are simply the smallest of these individuals. Yes they are cowards, but they belong to a tribe respecting courage. You don’t look into them.
There is no such thing as leftism, leftism is mereley appearances. It is superficial, and you deal with apperances when you could respect motivation. One ounce of respect and acknowledgement goes a long way, you wouldn’t have to chunk down gallons from that pool of tolerance of yours.
I will do my best to show why this is all folly and you just have to prove to me why it is not so. Not knowing goes both ways. If you withdraw that is totally up to you. I will battle on until I see success, I will support until I have no more to give. That means tearing down old walls, pulling dead tissue from the wound and pulling weeds from the garden. So there can be something to build upon.
I have created a story for you and a couple of questions. If I still have respect for you at the end of august when I intend to leave Amerika then I will mail it to you. If you have respect for me you’ll answer my questions, otherwise I will take it that you don’t and that’s that.
You withdraw prematurely, it is a walk-over. You have proven to me discussing politics isn’t possible here. I have changed tactic, I have turned the table around. I will not try any discussion with you, now its up to you to reach out and try debate. I had heard it before, “The master leads creating confusion in those that think they know.”, now I have a new understanding of it. Discussion is not possible until you shake their core into not-knowing.
Tucken says, “A good man is good. Not just to his selected group, but to everyone. That has nothing to do with equality. If you place as high standards upon yourself as I believe you do, you’d prefer to be good to everyone.”
So true–a good man is good. We judge a tree by its fruit. You’ll always get orange juice if you squeeze an orange, even if you wish for grapefruit or apple juice.
But it’s the second statement I want to really look at.
There’s being good as in calm, temperate, thoughtful kindness.
And then there’s being good as in doing what’s right even when it isn’t popular. In liberalism, ‘popular’ is more important than ‘right.’
It reminds me of my gramma, who used to give money to my drug-addicted cousin because she felt sorry for him. Her good was in her generosity but the effect of it was bad. Not that withholding money from him would have kept him from doing drugs and going to prison for theft and dealing, but in giving money to him she sold out. She bought a little bit of relief, and paid for it in more of his bad behavior and the effect it had on her. It hurt her and everyone else. She valued open mindedness.
There was nothing that could be done about my cousin–he was a three-legged stool of pain, disfunction and blindness. Still is. Being good means staying away from him because he says nasty things, and if we are going to be true to ourselves, we avoid subjecting ourselves to that. I can see being good to him as a child, but money was not what he needed. He couldn’t ever have what he needed, which was a strong, loving father who stayed with him.
What your cousin needs is spiritual guidance – most junkies/alcoholics are seeking relief from the burden of spiritual malady with material things (most of them don’t know any better). Imprisoned in a world dominated by their ego and its selfish desires. One must overcome the Kali Yuga within in order reach beyond such selfishness. Its this same immature ego that projects the blinding illusion of “good and evil”.
Brett Stevens realizes that sometimes we must act in a manner that appears “evil”, in order to get healthy results (pave the way for the continuity of life). This has nothing to do with being a “good/bad” person.
I did see some of what my cousin got into for spiritual guidance. He did have something. I can’t remember what it was called…Animism I think.
I was addressing what Tucken said, about being good to everyone. I was wondering what exactly he meant by good. I think too much kindness and generosity results in evil–it needs to be tempered by limits and definitions. Too much restriction and control results in evil too, and it has to be tempered. But when too much “niceness” goes too far, it turns into cruelty. Things exist on a spectrum because the other side of the spectrum is the other side of the coin, and the coin does flip.
That’s why I always look at slogans. I went to a church that called itself “a fellowship of open minds.” It was the opposite of that!
Goodness at one’s own expense. Is that good? Being true to yourself is good for everyone as long as it extends to the end of your own fingertips and leaves others alone.
Nice discussion.
To Lisa.
Goodness… I believe it is something that flows naturally or is easy to choose when you as an individual ‘work right’.
We are like engines that need the right oil. Good food, not too much. Good oxygen, slow breathing. But we don’t do much about these. Generally we fall for temptations to inject cheap oil and foul air in quick goes.
To be good is simply to like people whether they are foul stinky combatants or pure saints. It is to help people forwards to what is right for THEM and not what you yourself deem people should be like.
I don’t know how to explain it better than that. Where have we as people gotten(Crow, grammar?) when we don’t know what it is like to be good? Good is just good, good-nature.
Nice discussion =).
To be ‘good’ is to ‘like people’?
I’ve never heard that before.
It’s only to begin with. Next step is “to help people forwards to what is right for THEM”, that is, to help a thief to steal, a murderer to kill, a loser to lose, and so on. Just to be a booster.
To Crow.
It is not so easy to explain what something is. What I was getting at was this: An underlying like for people, whether you actually like the individual or not.
Good is good. You make clear definitions, why don’t you try and define good that we can see if Amerika is Good or how good Amerika is. A standard and compare to…
To Ferret.
I find it very important to live as is right for me. I don’t know what that is, but I continue to improve upon it. It is something like the meaning of life – living – make it a great living.
People do have individual differences, to my experience. That is why that which is right for one may not be right for the next.
Isn’t living according to 10 commandments or the will of your father something conservative? Then there is a leader, someone deciding how people should live. Helping them to it.
I support the notion, but consider most leaders utterly unfit to help me with what is right for me. Why don’t you support this notion? It is as conservative as it is socialistic.
Someone always help a thief to steal, a murderer to kill and a loser to lose. There is he or she that is stolen from, he or she that is murdered and the loser is invited to lose whether he invites losing himself or someone does it for him. That is simply logical. That is why it is necessary to support people the best we can that they invite prosperity, life and winning instead. Someone always ‘helps’.
Good leaders and bad leaders. Great monarchs and tyrants. The important root to conservatism and the key to whether its a success story or not.
“An underlying like for people, whether you actually like the individual or not.”
In other words, you must have good intentions.
However, good intentions without the information and wisdom to make decisions that end in good results, is bad.
As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions…
I completely agree with this good approach to reasonable and well-intended people I meet every day. I have met some people who can’t be helped. I have trouble being nice to people who won’t ever appreciate it or be nice back, and so I have to be kind to myself and put up a wall, and stop them from invading it. But stop them kindly? Yes that is what I’d like to do.
I live in this weird left-wing “community” where people fail to detect actual friendliness, and instead expect some facsimile of it that I am unable to manage.
In fact, all of those very attributes they demand of me, I manifest, but they don’t recognize them for what they are, and detect only a lack of similar-appearing behaviour.
I can only conclude that their inability to recognize those things they endlessly accuse me of not displaying, means they are unable to display them, themselves, not knowing what they really are.
Another very odd phenomenon is:
Whenever I am friendly, which is almost always, it gets perceived as being ‘needy’. That I ‘need’ their friendship, and so, therefore, they decline to give it.
I notice this a lot, with leftists: if someone actually is needy, especially emotionally/psychologically, they are treated like pariahs, and cast out.
So much for inclusion, tolerance, goodwill and even basic friendliness.
They must be people who have got truly nothing at all, if they turn your friendliness into you being needy of THEIR friendship.
Is it so bad to give such poor people what they need? Perhaps you really would like to have and benefit from their friendship. Otherwise, why was you friendly with them to begin with? Isn’t there some small logic or grain of truth to what they say? They just manage to turn it all around 180 degrees. Tell them they are right, you need more friends and then move on. That way they could be content.
Maybe. You could try. Perhaps you have?
I’ve always been the cast out. Or outside, anyways. All groups do this. You either fit into their group or you’re out. People look for groups with individuals who are similar to themselves. Are you sure this casting out happens only with leftist groups? Otherwise they’d all be mixed-groups. Left-right groups and not left AND right groups.
“People look for groups with individuals who are similar to themselves.”
This sounds like an endorsement for nationalism.
I’m not sure conservatism does the above however. It’s not about individuals, but about correct answers according to reality in the long-term.
“Being good means staying away from him because he says nasty things, and if we are going to be true to ourselves, we avoid subjecting ourselves to that.”
I’ve had to address similar problems with family members and I think rule #1 should be never to subject yourself to abuse in the name of love or family. Abusive people are not going to change because you prostrate yourself before them. My sympathies for your family (as well as the other members of my own).
as a compassionate, justice loving person, i was turned off at first starting this, but in the end i think you’ve used this issue to illustrate the issues of utter fundamental decay quite effectively. good show!
Good article, thanks
Wasn’t the Swiss minaret ban a kind of pushback? And/or the unprecedented vote for Marine Le Pen? It seems in Europe it has more to do with identitarian issues, which seem rather absent in the US except at a very unconscious level, if that (it’s mostly an accusation made against the right, e.g. against the Tea Party).