Let's not talk about sex, baby, let's not talk about you or me...
First of all, sorry I haven't been around more on LJ, but NaNoWriMo is eating my head. You'd think for someone like myself (who tends to fall more on the garrulous side of the spectrum) writing a mere 1,667 words per day would be no big deal...but no matter how you slice it, there's a time commitment involved. And then there's the fact that writing
( Read more... )
I intend to demean them because I think they are self-deceptively disingenuous, and I object to that.
I mean, honestly, do you really believe that when a modern human being does something publicly on principle, with stated intensions that immediately appear for the common good, that is actually what's happening? Maybe I'm another cynic, or maybe I'm a realist. But cynics have been claiming realism to a clich' extreme, anyway.
I propose that as soon as you see the proxy argument -- i.e., "we are speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves" the ostensible subject-matter is a means to an end, the end of grabbing power in a representative democracy. This is how we Liberals shot ourselves in the foot: by representing the interests of those who cannot speak or do not speak or cannot be heard for lack of political power--animals, African-Americans, Native Americans, and more. Especially when they did not (whether because they could not or would not) ask for representation. Afterall, we know what's good for them.
Reply
"Self-deceptively disingenuous"? That sounds oxymoronic. It seems to me that lying to myself is mutually exclusive of lying to others about the same subject matter. Could you clarify what you mean, here, so that I understand what these people have done to earn opprobrium?
I mean, honestly, do you really believe that when a modern human being does something publicly on principle, with stated intensions that immediately appear for the common good, that is actually what's happening? Maybe I'm another cynic, or maybe I'm a realist.
I would certainly not use the term "realist" to describe someone who is arguing that modern human beings do not (or perhaps cannot) act out of principle. I would suggest that such an individual has moved beyond rational cynicism, as well.
Are there unprincipled people in politics? Certainly. Are there people who advocate for or against a cause out of naked self-interest while pretending to principle? Of course. But the presence of dishonest crapweasels doesn't imply the absence of good faith advocates, if for no other reason than the fact that self-interest and principle are not necessarily incompatible.
I propose that as soon as you see the proxy argument...the ostensible subject-matter is a means to an end, the end of grabbing power in a representative democracy.
If you mean to say that people who presume to speak for silent majorities are often, at least at the moment of the utterance, more concerned with political advantage than actual principle, then as a general proposition I agree. The whole, "Do it for the chiiiiiiildren," form of politics disgusts me, too. But the use of such rhetoric alone, without more, hardly seems to be a legitimate basis upon which to draw conclusions about an individual's underlying sincerity.
This is how we Liberals shot ourselves in the foot
You won't catch me disagreeing with the proposition that cultural elitism and the embrace of identity politics have been damaging to liberal political fortunes. But I would submit to you that there a few more bulletholes in liberal toesies than just that one.
Reply
The email preserves the text of our short political discussion (which I'll forward if you are interested in the full context rather than my brief summary) about our invasion of Iraq, our interference in other nations' affairs (I talk about Chili) and my objections and a few related issues, including your politically saavy and perspicacious analysis of why the French and German leaders were rather uncooperative with us, and your taking issue with my offering up the European sentiment that Americans are the "Infants of the World." For sure, my comment was politically charged opinionated, and sarcastic, and I realize that invites the same. However, the your last sentence [italicized] read
"Is it possible that there are other regimes the world over which would fulfill my criteria for needing to have the Arsenal of Democracy busted open on them? It's not only possible, it's probable. But that's neither relevant or exculpatory -- it's just a transparently disingenuous (if we were talking about invading Chile, you'd be bitching about all the oppressed Iraqis whose plight we were ignoring) attempt to change the subject."
Your last sentence suggests you were more interested in insulting and silencing me rather than persuading me. Since I'm not likely to put myself in the subordinate and doomed-to-failure position of trying to prove to you that I would not be bitching about Iraqis' plight and that I--dissenting, unAmerican ideologue that I am--was not attempting to change the subject, I opted for silence. There didn't seem to be a reason to reply. So before I spend more time replying to your points, I'm concerned that our dialog will end similarly, rather than in discussion.
Reply
Take care.
Reply
Reply
Since when does agreeing with someone that discourse is probably not possible constitute a "case in point" of an insult or an attempt to "silence" them? Good Lord.
Reply
Leave a comment