What do these people tend to have in common? Their epistemology is, to put it generously, less than wholly clear. The question of truth itself is for many of them a reflection of bourgeois snobbery and microagression. Truth is contextual, complex, nuanced, engendered, evolving, blah, blah, blah. Thus the only threat to diversity is any claim to exclusivity.
Now if that is true, then how is one to find "truth?" The short answer is that truth must be supplied for you by people. It is your job to find each individual's truth. So, we can now see the logic of this thing. If I reject a liberal person's truth, and truth comes from people, it is not a rebellion against truth; it is a condemnation of a person. It is aggression. The only way to fight aggression is with aggression.
How can I live up to the demands of every arbitrary standard of the liberals around me? For example, if I don't think it is necessary to manufacture a section in the history textbook that celebrates "gay historical pioneers," then I'm a homophobe. Again, my problem isn't with truth; it is with people. I'm not arguing the best educational practice in the subject area of history; I'm arguing against the disenfranchised. If there is a gay man of historical repute, then surely he should not be arbitrarily excluded. But should the trivial contributions of some gay man in history be arbitrarily included? And who determines this? Again, if liberals or atheists are in charge, then only authorized intellectuals should make these decisions.
The stunning irony or hypocrisy of these people is revealed when they lose to the "less enlightened." They affirm equality, tolerance, pacifism, inclusivity, etc., when they are in control. They are apoplectic when things don't to go their way politically. They can't understand their country. They weep and wail and make apocalyptic predictions. Their sophistry is shrill, striated, sophisticated and sardonic in the extreme (see anything from Chelsea Handler or Amy Schumer). They call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It is a convenient charge, because if your enemy is inferior, then you don't need to understand him. You need only to control him, or beat him, or quarantine him in some way.
The curious point here is that for an atheist or leftist, the problem with other people is always intelligence or character and not the argument itself. Because they have abandoned all metaphysical and epistemological realism (a common ground in truth for us all to appeal to and around which we could arrive at some understanding), others don't suffer from a lack of the truth or moral ignorance. They are just stupid or bad people! Probably both! The poor rubes have not been exposed to the beautiful ideas in the leftist university. So they cling to their guns and religion, like some neanderthal clinging to his club, ready to whack the mouthy woman and drag her around by her hair. This is really the way these people think.
This is why these people are so insufferably pretentious when addressing those with whom they disagree. Their communication is shrill (yes, I used shrill twice) and condescending, directed not towards the truth but towards demoralizing their enemies. Curious that the worldview that insists words can only be used as a bludgeon uses words exclusively as such. Credit them for foolish consistency.
I recall a conversation I had with several left leaning "theologians" at one of those enlightened liberal seminaries. The question was over feminism. Their arguments against me were not particularly interesting or winsome or substantial. They just called me names and insisted that I be shipped off to a gulag. They were grandstanding for each other, but that is where leftist communication leaves us. We don't need to engage people of differing views; we only need belittle them or shout them down or erect an uncritical "scholarly consensus" against them. Why engage people who are clearly intellectually and morally inferior?
How can I live up to the demands of every arbitrary standard of the liberals around me? For example, if I don't think it is necessary to manufacture a section in the history textbook that celebrates "gay historical pioneers," then I'm a homophobe. Again, my problem isn't with truth; it is with people. I'm not arguing the best educational practice in the subject area of history; I'm arguing against the disenfranchised. If there is a gay man of historical repute, then surely he should not be arbitrarily excluded. But should the trivial contributions of some gay man in history be arbitrarily included? And who determines this? Again, if liberals or atheists are in charge, then only authorized intellectuals should make these decisions.
The stunning irony or hypocrisy of these people is revealed when they lose to the "less enlightened." They affirm equality, tolerance, pacifism, inclusivity, etc., when they are in control. They are apoplectic when things don't to go their way politically. They can't understand their country. They weep and wail and make apocalyptic predictions. Their sophistry is shrill, striated, sophisticated and sardonic in the extreme (see anything from Chelsea Handler or Amy Schumer). They call everyone who disagrees with them a racist. It is a convenient charge, because if your enemy is inferior, then you don't need to understand him. You need only to control him, or beat him, or quarantine him in some way.
The curious point here is that for an atheist or leftist, the problem with other people is always intelligence or character and not the argument itself. Because they have abandoned all metaphysical and epistemological realism (a common ground in truth for us all to appeal to and around which we could arrive at some understanding), others don't suffer from a lack of the truth or moral ignorance. They are just stupid or bad people! Probably both! The poor rubes have not been exposed to the beautiful ideas in the leftist university. So they cling to their guns and religion, like some neanderthal clinging to his club, ready to whack the mouthy woman and drag her around by her hair. This is really the way these people think.
This is why these people are so insufferably pretentious when addressing those with whom they disagree. Their communication is shrill (yes, I used shrill twice) and condescending, directed not towards the truth but towards demoralizing their enemies. Curious that the worldview that insists words can only be used as a bludgeon uses words exclusively as such. Credit them for foolish consistency.
I recall a conversation I had with several left leaning "theologians" at one of those enlightened liberal seminaries. The question was over feminism. Their arguments against me were not particularly interesting or winsome or substantial. They just called me names and insisted that I be shipped off to a gulag. They were grandstanding for each other, but that is where leftist communication leaves us. We don't need to engage people of differing views; we only need belittle them or shout them down or erect an uncritical "scholarly consensus" against them. Why engage people who are clearly intellectually and morally inferior?
No comments:
Post a Comment