Re: MD Political Correctness

From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 23:02:29 BST

  • Next message: ml: "Re: MD interaction between levels - ?"

    Hello David,

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2004 2:26 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Political Correctness

    <snip>> mel replied:
    > Ah there's nothing like the rhetoric of two groups of Liberals in an
    > argument, the Classical Liberals in the White House and the Progressive
    > Liberals on the outside.
    >
    > dmb says:
    > The "rhetoric of two groups of Liberals"? Hmmm. I get the distinct
    > impression that you're trying to minimize the importance of the issue and
    > undermine the distinction between the two sides in the debate. Why would
    you
    > want to do that?

    mel:
    David, it is often the case that the bitterest
    disagreements are between those who are
    the most alike. Great energy is often spent
    convincing themselves and each other that
    they are NOT alike.

    I see in this "conflict" the dynamic of a
    disagreement that is between two nearly
    identical groups. In actual governance the
    President will act substantially the same in
    90+% of issues and only small REAL departure
    is seen.

    Both parties still exist because they are
    multi-cultural far more than they will ever admit.
    Any new idea is greeted by at least skepticism
    and at most with rejection, until - here's the
    important part, significant support gathers around
    the idea. Then the mechanism is to coöpt the
    idea/issue/practice/stance...etc. as their own.

    The good party folk will never remember opposing
    the idea they 'originated', no matter how many
    writings exist to the contrary or from whence they
    stole it in the first place.

    So, to you their differences seem great, to me it
    would serve the accuracy of the debate were we
    to expand the scope and look at what SHOULD
    be considered, rather than just agreeing with the
    98%-status quo.

    dmb says:
    > As I understand it, the two sides involved are more
    > properly described as multiculturalists and the bigots who oppose them AND
    > that the struggle against prejudice, wherever is rears its ugly head, is
    no
    > small thing. When the PC wars are seen in that light, your attempts to
    > trivialize the conflict are, to put it politely, unhelpful.

    mel:
    If I may substitute intollerance for bigotry or
    specify intollerant as the definition for bigoted,
    then as far as the behavior of both "sides" of
    the debates, I see both as reasonable and
    wise when discussing any issue among a
    like-minded group, in their actions, but both
    are nearly complete bigots when judged by
    their rhetoric as regards ANY challenge to their
    pet world view...

    So, tell me again just who is being unhelpful
    here, is it myself for pointing out the clothing
    worn by both "would be" emperors or is it the
    behavior of their partisans and themselves?
    Remember they are 98% the same...

    dmb says:
    > I'm guessing you're not American because there has been no shortage of
    angry
    > shouting and screaming. The phrase "politically correct" has been uttered
    > with contempt a hundred thousand times as a preface to the expression of
    > some bigoted thought or attitude on talk radio, for example. And so I
    think
    > its wildly inaccurate to refer to these hateful people as classical
    > liberals. In contemporary American english, they are anti-liberal, they
    mock
    > liberalism and its concerns, as you seem to be doing with your dismissive
    > comments.

    mel:
    Angry people DO tend to sound hateful and the
    only thing worse than the 'other' side telling
    lies about yours is when your own side lies and
    gives you no chance to give input...that's politics.

    Part of the dynamic is that you get to see the general
    Classical Liberalism in part hijacked by those who
    practice Christerism. (not Christianity)

    Christerism is a highly non-Christian philosophy
    that masquerades as religious based belief, but
    pushes its own agenda of hateful, intollerance,
    ignorance, Social Control, prohibition writ large and
    finds imaginary scriptural support to justify it.

    The first rule of practical politics is to find support
    however you can. You bend over and spread'em
    for anyone with a significant voting block if you
    want to truly get your candidate IN POWER. So,
    it is a marriage of convenience.

    In historical terms it will be short term...but it's
    here now.

    Just a simple example and one that we are largely
    left ignorant of by the mediabating or newsturbating
    political experts on TV or in print is the very simple
    defference between the Classical Liberal and the
    Classical Conservative.

    America IS a liberal country through and through but
    the term CONSERVATIVE is so well loved that one
    group of Liberals has disingenuously adopted or
    tried to steal it outright and the other group agreed
    somewhere along the way to complicity in the thievery.

    dmb says:
    >
    > Is that what this is really about? Are you a conservative who is bugged by
    > the idea that PC bashers are worse than PC itself? If not, what's your
    > point?

    mel:
    My point is that the political dialog is SO completely
    narrow that I even had to explain this in the first place.
    (Not that I mind doing so with MoQ.org, but where are
    the POLITICAL EXPERTS in this whole thing? I am
    guessing there really are precious few to whom a
    microphone would be entrusted...the media has indeed
    let us down.)

    Everyone would be well served by a broader dialog.

    dmb says:
    >
    > Take it back,
    > unmake this bed.
    > So I won't think,
    > you're a ditto-head. :-)

    is this a doggerel challenge?

    I shaved with Occam's razor
    it's how I lost my head
    good thing the gourd was empty
    elsewise I would be dead :-)

    ------------------------
    by the way...
    A ditto head is just 'nother Liburl followin'
    a modern day faux-Will Rogers schtick...

    Look at Will Rogers writings and they
    are still 90% accurate today...

    The only remnant of Classical Conservatism
    seems locked in a padded cell in the back
    basement of the Libertarian Party

    thanks--mel

    "It takes a pretty small mind to not be able to
    conceive of more than one way to spell a word."
    Mark Twain

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 05 2004 - 23:18:50 BST