I am tired of pointing out leftist hypocrisy. It’s too easy. My new interest is underlying causes. Here are a few theories, and after writing them, they all seem like restatements of the same theory:
1. Thomas Sowell’s paradigm that conservatives see the world in terms of trade offs, while the left sees it in terms of good vs evil. If you believe yourself to be fighting evil, lies are more acceptable.
2. Haidt’s morality chart showing Harm-Care and Fairness as the ONLY positive dimensions of morality for radical leftists. (Sanctity, Authority, Loyalty are not only less important, but in fact, negatives.) Perhaps they are on one hand, desperate to exercise Harm-Care, and on the other indignant toward the “Sanctity” and “Authority” of the rules of debate: truth telling, consistency, precise meaning.
3. Evolutionary biology as the consilient field of all social sciences: The left is intuitively female, the right is intuitively male. If you’re exercising the moral instincts that evolved with childrearing, it makes perfect sense that you treat every impulse and whim as if it were a universal principle. We want mothers to care for babies and families in such a devoted, uncompromising way. But this moral intuition cannot be allowed to govern all of society because it’s so inconsistent and impulsive. It needs limits. The male moral intuition evolved to solve the prisoners dilemma of facing danger as a group (duty, honor, courage), and therefore, much more readily embraces “no matter what” type rules and principles.
It would be difficult, honest, and helpful for Sam Harris to identify and compare moral frameworks.
Instead he does what is easy, dishonest, and damaging.
1. Rely on emotional arguments and analogy
2. address the most literal interpretation of scripture (shooting fish in a barrel)
3. completely ignore the role of tradition and sanctity in society’s survival
4. conclude with a blatant lie: “if there is a less moral, moral framework, I have not heard it.”
Has he not heard of atheistic communism which is not only indifferent to the suffering of the unfortunate (the charge for which he condemns Christianity), but actively creates and justifies such suffering???
That thing at the end is the slight of hand you often see. You get hooked on the emotional arguments he feeds you, and then boom, the subject changes. All of sudden it isn’t that literal religion does correspond to our moral intuition, but rather, religion is the WORST THING EVER. Study Haidt for the role of sanctity and tradition in a society’s survival.
So I had to eventually listen to this Sam Harris – Jonathan Haidt discussion:
(It starts at 27:00.) If anyone has already read some of Haidt’s work, this discussion reveals more about the participants than the subject.
Harris seemed out of his depth. His shtick seems too much like Frankfurt School “deconstruction” — using partial explanations to ridicule and condemn a whole social framework while applying no scrutiny whatsoever to the vague plan you have for improvement.
I think he’d do great work if he did comparisons instead of criticisms.
Harris gets no traction with his usual emotional appeals and analogies, and a couple of times, when Haidt introduced new ideas, it seemed like he responded with “word salads” — basically saying, “Look! I know things too! I’m relevant!”
In the end, Harris does the gentlemanly thing and relegates himself to the role of interview.
My left-leaning friends may not accept hearing this from me. Just as economic Marxists apriori dismissed arguments by people of the wrong economic class (via dialectical materialism), today’s cultural Marxists apriori dismiss arguments of the wrong ethnic/gender class (via all the invisible flavors of racism).
So here is a person from one the “good” classes making the same argument:
This is absurd, but it seems unavoidable when 300 million people are sanctioned to tell each other how to live. Two solutions:
a) Deny people access to political power.
b) Minimize the role of government in our lives.
States rights accomplish both of these things, at least to a limited extent.
“I was at the main hub where Hillary was supposed to give her victory speech. Jesus Christ it was the WORST experience of my life. My mom dragged me along because she wanted to witness history and be there when the first woman president addressed the country. I KID YOU NOT, Every time (and I’m fucking serious i mean EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.) it was announced that another state had voted trump, maybe around 4 women would collapse, or just straight up bodyslam themselves to the ground and begin to either convulse, scream their heads off with tears streaming down their faces as if they’ve just been stabbed, or pretend to faint and lay on the ground for like 20 seconds like an idiot playing dead. I’d even hear screams from women across the crowd yell out “Oh my god, she’s having a heart attack, someone call 911!” meaning that it wasn’t just happening around the area I was standing. There was so much fucking screaming from the women near the end (like emotional screaming, not cheers) that I almost left before it was over. I even remember seeing one white chick screaming so hard that her whole head and eyes were bloodshot red, veins throbbing on her neck and everything. I moved my mother and myself towards the back of the crowd when they were going to announce the final vote because I knew the exits would be clogged up by more retards pretending to be ill or some shit causing the only exits to be blocked and everyone unable to leave. I wasn’t wrong. Luckily I was one of the first ones out. Godamn it, even when we were walking down the hallways to get to the parking lot, there were so many fucking women sitting on the ground against the wall slumped over with people fanning their faces with homemade Hillary Clinton posters, screaming “Give her some air! Move away and give her air!”. The whole thing was fucking wild, like what could you possibly change by acting out like that?” Anonymous /pol/
Conservatives aren’t the utopian ones b/c we tend to look at the world in terms of trade offs. It is the progressives who see the world as a struggle between good and evil, which is why fanaticism is born on the left. Right wing fanaticism is always reactionary.
It’s already been established that making the West more Muslim is more important to leftists than making it more feminist. So Feminists, sit down and shut up. You’re being thrown under the cultural marxist bus, just like you threw working class white men under the bus.
Pro tip: As German authorities recently advised in their country, you should wear sneakers to outrun rapists. Good luck.
Good discussion in this video. I thought I understood the alt-right, but I learned a lot here.
“White Americans are beginning to learn that they need to play the game like everyone else.”
The assumption of universalism is being lost. This is an seismic shift in the psychology of the American political scene.
Universalism may have persevered if we’d maintained a meritocracy, but the left created a religion out of ethnic and gender groups assigning white men the role of the devil. The rise of white identity politics, for better or worse, seems inevitable.
It’s a tragedy to see so many good people fall for this nonsense. I console myself by imagining that this as the process through which humanity sheds from its gene pool that excessive nurturing instinct which is probably no longer a benefit to one’s genes in the modern world.
In the modern world, long free from the Malthusian Trap, aggression (at least a little) seems a better evolutionary strategy than boundless altruism.