Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Hostility to the open market of ideas is bad for an ideology
Published on December 9, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

I'm just rambling here so if you're looking for a well written piece, you'll want to go elsewhere.  After 6 weeks of massive hours I'm spent..

It's not a good time to ideological. 

If you're a conservative, you're quickly discovering that victory in politics quickly corrupts.  Conservatives control the congress and the presidency only to have record deficits, sloppy governance, and cronyism. 

If you're an intelligent liberal, your ideology has largely been hijacked by very loud people who sound like they just came off their meds. 

It is kind of ironic that in the past few years conservatism, as a movement, has become more secular, while liberalism has become a secular religion unto itself.  Those who stray from orthodox liberalism are treated as heretics. I think this is one of the reasons why liberals seem much much more likely to attack Christians because they now subconsciously see it as a rival religion.

Personally, I tend to pick and choose pieces of different ideologies to create my own life philosophy. A philosophy that suits me based on my experiences.  I wouldn't be considered very conservative socially by most "real" conservatives.  I'm pro-choice. Pro-civil union for gays. Pro-higher taxes on the wealthy.  I'm not really a libertarian as I do believe in government regulation, the FDA, the FCC, the FTC, etc.  But since I don't follow liberal orthodoxy, I'm a "conservative".  And that's why Liberals are the minority because nowadays, it doesn't take much to be a conservative.  Believe in a reasonably free market? No soup for you.  Consider patriotism to be a good thing? You're off the liberal team. Think Kyoto is a bad idea? Pack your bags, righty.

The liberal religion, for lack of a better word, seems to have gone a long way towards making themselves a permanent minority.  The reason boils down to their religion being so fundamentalist.  Just as obnoxious Christians used to take the attitude "Sure, you can believe what you want, but don't blame me when you're burning in hell" liberal dogma goes something like this "Sure, you can believe what you want but you just prove you're not enlightened if you disagree with me."

I found this image on the net (from a Mac user which is unsurprising).  Pretty typical stuff. To be a conservative simply requires a frontal lobotomy.

And so it goes with most debates I get into with left of center people.  There's a smug undertone to the discussion in which my views are not being taken very seriously because it never occurs to them that any view other than theirs could have any merit.  My views are simply based on ignorance and base human desires (hate, greed, you name it). 

Liberals, would counter and say "Conservatives don't listen to opposing views either." Nonsense.  That's the basic disconnect between conservatism and today's liberalism.  Probably because conservatives believe in social Darwinism, capitalism, and the free market as a whole, bad ideas get jettisoned and good ideas take over. A belief that can't stand the test of the real world gets tossed out. Over time, the ideology gets sharper and sharper.  Liberals tend to have a lot less faith in competition of all sorts and perhaps that is why they tend to stick to beliefs that don't survive critical inspection.

As a result, over time, the conservative ideology has evolved and changed.  Consider today's conservative to one in 1972.  The typical conservative today is quite different from the ones of 1972.  The book "South Park Conservatives" is practically a case study on the phenomenon.   Liberalism, by contrast, remains almost completely unchanged other than changing the dates of predicted doom or whether it's global cooling vs. global warming.  A liberal demonstration today looks pretty much the same as it did back then. Everyone's a Nazi still (except for actual brutal fascist dictators with little mustaches) and big business is still the devil and good intentions still trump any concern over the logical result if their demands were met. It's about caring after all.  It's about fairness(TM) (whatever that means).

As liberals have lost ground, they have become even more shrill and intolerant and it shows.  Moreover, many liberals are poorly equipped to battle on anything resembling equal ground in the war of ideas. Liberals get into college which insulates them from the real world and provides them a sympathetic left-wing environment thanks to left-wing professors who never had to put their beliefs to the test outside academia, and as a result, liberals go out into the world without a good background in how to put forth a compelling argument to advocate their beliefs.

Liberal debating strategy ends up being either:

  1. Duh. (to use Bakerstreet's quote). If you disagree with me you're stupid.
  2. SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!

Nearly every liberal debate on any site will devolve into that.  Either you're stupid or you're a racist nazi. It depends on who you're debating with and whether they are feeling cornered.

The "Duh" argument

Liberals who use the Duh argument usually rely heavily on wit and one-liners. John Stewart of the Daily Show is the poster child of this argument. "Many people disagree with Kyoto, such as President Bush.  In related news, Bush has proposed a mission to Mars in the hopes of helping speed up the timetable in which mankind can escape to a new planet to destroy."

Liberals are often very witty. But wit is no substitute for an argument.

Here's a typical "Duh" argument example:

Mary: "We only eat organic food, it's better for the environment and more healthy."

Bill: "Really? How?"

Mary: "Well, first, it doesn't use pesticide. I'm just not big on having poison on my food. I'm just weird that way. Second, they use natural fertilizer instead of chemicals. Got enough chemicals already, thank you."

Bill: "Why do you think that's better?"

Mary: "Duh. Pesticide. Poison. Poison = Bad for environment. And chemicals = bad. Hello?"

Bill: "I've never heard of anyone dying from pesticide. And they use pesticide so that insects and weeds won't destroy a lot of the crop so that they can produce more food on less land which is better for the enviroment. Secondly, the 'chemical' fertilizer they use is nitrogen which makes up 75% of our atmosphere. Natural fertilizer is literally poop.  Are you saying you'd rather eat poop than have trace amounts of pesticide on your food?"

Mary: "You just don't get it.  You sound like you've been brainwashed  by the agribusiness."

The "SHUT UP" argument

The Shut up argument can start out a lot like a Duh argument. It depends on the intelligence of the debater on how long they are able to "use their words". Eventually, many liberals will devolve into shouting and personal attacks. Either a demand for you to be quiet or an accusation that you're evil or racist or a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis (which is ironic since this breed of liberal is unknowingly imitating the tactics of the Nazi party during the 1930s -- another issue, this breed of liberal usually knows little on history).

Craig: "Bush and his cronies are once again stuffing the pockets of their rich friends while the poor are left to rot. What's next? Bush going to send his cronies to pick pocket the poor to give to their rich buddies?"

Angie: "Well technically the poor don't pay federal taxes and the government doesn't give rich their money, tax cuts mean that less of the income earned by rich people is taken by the government."

Craig: "The rich don't need that money! (getting louder) What about the poor mother with 3 children to feed? What about them??"

Angie: "Well, perhaps they should have considered their finances before having 3 children?"

Craig: "SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!"

It's not both sides

Usually at this part of the discussion an intelligent liberal will try to argue that "both sides" have their crazies. And that is true. But numerically, it's incredibly one-sided (you don't usually find too many math majors who are liberals which I guess makes sense since statistics seem to be an anathema to them).  Cindy Sheehan who is detested on the right can give a speech uninterrupted but Ann Coulter and other conservatives have to worry about being assaulted on stage. Being able to give their speech is often difficult if not impossible because of left-wing loonies screaming  "SHUT UP YOU RACIST NAZI!"

You see it on JoeUser too.  there are right-wing boobs here on JoeUser.com.  But in terms of foaming at the mouth, red-eyed hatred, it's not even close which side is more represented.  It's not just here. Democratic Underground is a favorite whipping boy.  But there's really no right-wing equivalent.  The New Republic has some crazies, Democratic Underground IS crazy.

Many liberals are very intelligent and have many good points. But it's becoming increasingly rare to find even intelligent liberals who do more than simply complain about how bad a given policy is. Conservatives often seem more intent in actually finding a solution. It may not always be the best solution but at least they're trying. Liberals, even intelligent ones, will just poke holes in it without offering an alternative.  And the unintelligent ones will just shriek nonsense that I suspect even they don't think will be considered seriously.

And it's getting worse.  I'm not sure where things will end up.  The joke at our home is that it won't end in civil war because the right-wingers have all the guns.  But something is going to give in the next few years.  The left's shrillness from the extremes and complacent arrogance from its mainstream is causing it to lose more and more influence as the majority begins to find replacements to the institutions that those demographics have tended to control (media and academia). 

In the meantime, I'll just hope that I can debate with friends and strangers alike without them trying to patronize me or shout me down.  But I won't get my hopes up.


Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Dec 12, 2005
In the words of that vile capitalist, C. Montgomery Burns:

(steeples fingers)

"Eeeexcellent...."

Wish I could express myself this way. Well reasoned; well done.
and the ability to vacation on the mars right now.
---stubbyfinger

Actually, stubby, you can blame the Carter Admin for this. Cuts were made to NASA's exploration programs during his reign of terror. This had the effect of precluding anymore trips to the moon, and then on to Mars, which was actually planned as the next logical step.
Reagan, that conservative devil, used much of the Federal budget restoring the military and building nukes instead of giving it to NASA.
No matter, though....this had the desired effect of bankrupting and bringing down the USSR.
You remember the USSR, right? It's that old, nearly-forgotten country that the Left just loved to pieces and did its level best to emulate.
on Dec 12, 2005
This is so funny!!!! Its ture too.

The left is slowly disapearing. maybe its time for a thrid party? I think that is what is going to happen, just like in years past.
on Dec 12, 2005
Reply By: bigrickstallion
The problem is run off. It kills streams, rivers and wildlife either directly or by feeding the growth of insideous weeds that strangle the water ways. Stream stangled by weeds doesn;t have the oxygen to allow algea to grow so fish have nothing to eat so birds have nothing to eat.... etc etc etc. Basic food chain cause and effect science.

LMAO

You only proved Draginol's point. A liberal will poke holes at something and not provide a solution. Plus you basically just said that it is more important to save the forest than to feed people.



That was the funy thing on this thread. Priceless.
on Dec 12, 2005
You only proved Draginol's point. A liberal will poke holes at something and not provide a solution.


I realize you are late to the thread but we were looking at it from "Marys" point of view. Mary provides a solution of organics to the problem of pesticides, etc. If you disagree with that then fine but if it wasn't a deliberate oversight then its at least highly inaccurate to say an alternative was not provided.

Plus you basically just said that it is more important to save the forest than to feed people.


I "basically" said that did I? Can you directly quote me where I said this please?

The section you have quoted is actually a response to Draginols' assertion that pesticides were not harmful. Theres a fair chunk of science to suggest otherwise. Science that many people follow and therefore science that provides both warnings and alternatives to the current practice either by suggesting a wholesale abandonment of current practices or an evolution of the current practices that see a more holistic view of the land being taken into account.

More importantly for the purposes of this thread it offers alternatives that people such as Mary believe in and support. Not only does Mary "poke the holes" in current practice but she also has a alternative solution.i.e "organics". Draginol with his "duh" argument was essentially saying that Mary couldn't explain her position but as is clear here from your rather misinformed attempt at screwing the meaning of a quote from me, even when she or "liberals" have alternatives, conservatives cannot or will not hear them.

The subtitle of this thread is "Hostility to the open market of ideas is bad for an ideology " said in reference to liberals but clearly liberals do have a position that they can articulate. Its just that conservatives cannot and will not hear it because they disagree with it. Therefore it could be said that it is actually conservatives who are hostile to the open market of ideas to the point of not even being able to acknowledege an alternative point of view as exisiting, and as such it is the conservative not the liberal ideology that suffers as a result.

There is nothing more hostile to the open market of ideas than refusing to acknowledge that alternative ideas, such as organics, exist. Which is all you and many of the conservatives on this thread have done with your suggestions that liberals do

not provide a solution


You can disagree all you like with Marys idea but to deny its existence it is too be hostile to the open market of ideas. You're actually guilty of the very charges you level against liberals. And even when conservatives initally acknowledge an alternative with which they disagree once they find their argument losing traction or when they find themselves incapable of persuasion they resort to dismissing the idea out of hand to the point of denying its existence altogether.

As for the forest vrs starvation bit I dont believe we ever got around to discussing it. I think both sides could see that as being so extreme as to be ridiculous. A figment of your imagination perhaps?

So if you want to try and screw what I said out of all proportion and frankly to the point of bearing no resemblence to what I had originally said at all then that's your choice but i think anyone reasonably objective can see what a stretch that is.

In fact its precisely this kind of conservative whitewash that most probably instigates a "duh" response from liberals in the first place. At some point a liberal actually likes to get things done. "Duh" seems a pretty good way to shut the conservative down so they [liberals] can get on with the job at hand and deliver a result and some form of progression.

So I hope that clarifies your "basically" inaccurate interpretation of what i said.

That was the funy thing on this thread. Priceless.


Yes it's good to laugh isn't it. One of my favourite things in life thats for sure.

on Dec 13, 2005
during his reign of terror.
I think you mean Ayotellah's terror.

The left is slowly disapearing. TD>


based on Ju input? then you're correct.
on Dec 13, 2005
The left is slowly disapearing. TD>


based on Ju input? then you're correct.


nah! If you and Shades stay around, along with those that say they are left, but really are just moderate, they never will! Might even win an election if you guys get together and get rid of the leaders over there now!
on Dec 14, 2005
BTW, for people still believing that the conservative side is so much more inclusive, so much more open to disagreeement in the ranks, go read andrewsullivan.com :
"Yes, I oppose the torture and abuse of military detainees. I'm a little stunned that this is now something that now requires one to be seen as a "liberal.""
I think there's one thing on which there's no difference between liberals and conservatives, in the US => most of them are so preoccupied by hating the other side that they can't look at their side honestly.
on Dec 14, 2005

go read andrewsullivan.com :

Might as well read Michael Moore as Andy.  He left (was not booted, left) the reservation several years ago.

on Dec 14, 2005
Conservatives don't agree with torture either.  But we don't want the definition of torture changed to the point that any discomfort is considered torture.  We also don't think that terroritsts and illegal combatants should get the same rights as uniformed soldiers.
on Dec 14, 2005

Eager to prove the argument, left wingers are always willing to rise to the occasion:

on Dec 14, 2005
left wingers
They could just be plainly stupid humanoids, you know? There are still left wingers who are Americans, remember.

but really are just moderate


I accept the term to a degree, but there isn't a right-leaning bone in my body, don't forget. Frankly, I'm still a New Dealer updated.
on Dec 15, 2005
Draginol, you read DrGuy answering that Sullivan is not a real conservative ? I fail to see any difference with you being told you're not a liberal.
AS again :"I support almost all of Bush's tax cuts (I support the estate tax) but also believe in balanced budgets and spending restraint (heretic!); I oppose affirmative action; I oppose hate crime laws; I respect John Kerry's military service; I believe all abortion is morally wrong and that Roe vs Wade was dreadful constitutional law (but I do favor legal first trimester abortions); I support states' rights, especially in social policy, such as marriage; I oppose the expansion of the welfare state, as in the Medicare prescription drug plan; I supported John Roberts' nomination and Sam Alito's; I believe in a firm separation of religion and politics, but I certainly take faith seriously and wrestle with my own. As regular readers know, I'm no fan of the far left. At some point, I have endorsed every single Republican president in my adult life. All of that makes me a "liberal." "
And DrGuy is saying that this guy is just like Michael Moore, since he does not follow the conservative orthodoxy..
He did not use Kerry, or Clinton, BTW, he used Moore, the Great Satan of the right. Disagree with the party line, and you're just a loony guy on the far far left.

I really think that Stalin and Mao must be laughing, in whatever hell they are, seeing how much current politic propaganda in US looks like theirs : broad category of despise(from liberals to earth rapers, it's not far from "capitalist lackeys"), an opponent is a traitor to the country (AnnCoulter's Treason, for example), strict adherence to the party line is required, and so on...
And both sides are doing it, without any real difference.
on Dec 15, 2005

I accept the term to a degree, but there isn't a right-leaning bone in my body, don't forget. Frankly, I'm still a New Dealer updated

Your party left you, you did not leave your party.  I have often heard it said that were FDR, Truman, and JFK still alive, their party would have booted them long ago.

on Dec 15, 2005

And DrGuy is saying that this guy is just like Michael Moore, since he does not follow the conservative orthodoxy..

Actually, no I am not saying that.  I am saying that reading Andy is as informative to the conservative side as reading Mickey.  Dont put words into my mouth, and please dont pretende to speak for me.  Until you know more. Which is easy if you were a regular here and saw both what I write in articles, and what I post as comments.  The same goes with Draginol, if you have even read some of his latest political articles. By assuming, you only do a disservice to yourself. 

on Dec 18, 2005
Your party left you, you did not leave your party. I have often heard it said that were FDR, Truman, and JFK still alive, their party would have booted them long ago.
They didn't then because the "southern strategy" had not taken hold as solidly as it is now. For decades now Dems have had to compromise their goals repeatedlly because of the few Dems that still marginally exist in their camp.
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7