Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:
In real life, everything tends to be scalar/analog. Digital is pretty much for computers only.

Experientialy, sure. But I'm a philosopher. I fall into wells while thinking about random crap.

Phryxis wrote:
Look at emo kids. Do you really think they ALL decided, completely independantly, to dress in the same ridiculous, uncomfortable fashion, and style their hair in the same floppy, stupid looking way? Of course not. They just took somebody else's bad idea, and stuck it in their heads.

But they did decide to stick it in their heads. The idea may be bad, to the extent that badness can be determined, but it was theirs to determine insofar as it related to them.

The acceptance of influence is not the necessary abdication of thought.

Did Plato abdicate thought by drawing from Socrates?

I disagree, I think self-criticism is a MUST in any truly progressive group, you shouldn't just blindly adhere to something.

A truly enlightened person is someone who takes criticism, or makes it, evaluates it as impartially as they can and then applies valuable information to their beliefs.

Plus, as a Socialist... I can appreciate the need to at times apply a form of satire or self-depreciation to my beliefs... since a lot of people seem to think we're insane 'n' all. Ofc, I mean that only within a humorous social context.

Nightwatch wrote:

efarrer wrote:

As to the bolded sentence, really? You honestly believe that critisizing another part of a very large group who falls within the same umbrella is grounds for you not being a part of that group.

I'm sorry, I did word that pretty badly. I meant to say that just because you yourself do not take offense at the mockery or insult of a group you belong to does not give you the right or grounds to offend such a group, as there are definitely other people who belong to that group who do care about it.

Of the people your initial post mentioned as not feeling a meeting was appropriate all were nominally Catholic. Now Levant's game is afoot because he's given a ridiculous standard, which I note you've bought.. criticism of meetings with the leader of an extreme sect within the Catholic Church is equal to an opposition to Christianity. That some people take Mr. Levant seriously after his lengthy efforts to defend holocaust denies and neo nazi's freedom of speech is amusing if sad.

Nightwatch wrote:

efarrer wrote:

If you don't agree with something then why shouldn't you question it?
In particular if that something is a splinter group with a scary degree of influence which has suddenly emerged in the last 30 years to being in charge of the faith.

1) Opus Dei is by no means in charge of the faith, or trying to do so.

2) If you don't agree with something, you should question it, or perhaps why you disagree with it. What I don't like is when people make statements without backing them up with evidence, like "(insert anything here) is creepy". It is very offensive.
While I don't agree with everything said in the article, what really stood out for me was the line about substituting gay, muslim, or sikh for Opus Dei. It would be intolerable.

1) Opus Dei has gained a tremendous amount of temporal power in the Catholic Church lately with the Direct support of the pope in both his current and former role (as head of the renamed Inquisition).

2)a) The Opus dei fascination with mortification is creepy to many people, and their secrecy is very concerning to some.

2)b) The problem with the comparison is it is a false comparison... Opus die=/= Christianity it equals Opus =/=. Therefor had the comparisons been Opus Dei= a subgroup of any of those groups it would have been a real comparison. He is right though had you subbed in any of thoses groups it would have been intolerable because they are far too large for such simple statements. Opus dei is not though. As it was it was a bs hatchet job... typical of Levant.

Nightwatch wrote:
Finally, not directed at you in particular, many practicing Christians find them stuck between the right and left. Both have objectionable practices, and for that reason many Christians choose to separate themselves from both parties.

Liberals
1)abortion
2)euthanasia

Conservatives
1)death penalty

These aren't the only points, but the main ones.

I find it interesting to note that you ignore social justice as an issue that Christians have with the Tories.

efarrer wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:

efarrer wrote:

As to the bolded sentence, really? You honestly believe that critisizing another part of a very large group who falls within the same umbrella is grounds for you not being a part of that group.

I'm sorry, I did word that pretty badly. I meant to say that just because you yourself do not take offense at the mockery or insult of a group you belong to does not give you the right or grounds to offend such a group, as there are definitely other people who belong to that group who do care about it.

Of the people your initial post mentioned as not feeling a meeting was appropriate all were nominally Catholic. Now Levant's game is afoot because he's given a ridiculous standard, which I note you've bought.. criticism of meetings with the leader of an extreme sect within the Catholic Church is equal to an opposition to Christianity. That some people take Mr. Levant seriously after his lengthy efforts to defend holocaust denies and neo nazi's freedom of speech is amusing if sad.

Nightwatch wrote:

efarrer wrote:

If you don't agree with something then why shouldn't you question it?
In particular if that something is a splinter group with a scary degree of influence which has suddenly emerged in the last 30 years to being in charge of the faith.

1) Opus Dei is by no means in charge of the faith, or trying to do so.

2) If you don't agree with something, you should question it, or perhaps why you disagree with it. What I don't like is when people make statements without backing them up with evidence, like "(insert anything here) is creepy". It is very offensive.
While I don't agree with everything said in the article, what really stood out for me was the line about substituting gay, muslim, or sikh for Opus Dei. It would be intolerable.

1) Opus Dei has gained a tremendous amount of temporal power in the Catholic Church lately with the Direct support of the pope in both his current and former role (as head of the renamed Inquisition).

2)a) The Opus dei fascination with mortification is creepy to many people, and their secrecy is very concerning to some.

2)b) The problem with the comparison is it is a false comparison... Opus die=/= Christianity it equals Opus =/=. Therefor had the comparisons been Opus Dei= a subgroup of any of those groups it would have been a real comparison. He is right though had you subbed in any of thoses groups it would have been intolerable because they are far too large for such simple statements. Opus dei is not though. As it was it was a bs hatchet job... typical of Levant.

Nightwatch wrote:
Finally, not directed at you in particular, many practicing Christians find them stuck between the right and left. Both have objectionable practices, and for that reason many Christians choose to separate themselves from both parties.

Liberals
1)abortion
2)euthanasia

Conservatives
1)death penalty

These aren't the only points, but the main ones.

I find it interesting to note that you ignore social justice as an issue that Christians have with the Tories.

What do YOU mean by social justice? Just clarifying here, not searching for fights.

As for the power thing: (sigh)
Perhaps they have power. But what have they done with it?Where do you see a misuse of power by Opus Dei?

Yes, I agree, the comparison of Christianity-Opus Dei is a bad one. However, Martin is speaking out unfairly and discriminately against an approved subgroup within the Catholic Church, which is intolerable both as a Catholic and as a politician, and also as a citizen of Canada.

Ok, how about this? If a Muslim politician said he found Sufism creepy (in Canada), would it be politically correct, or tolerable?
I think that is a fairly accurate swing-over to the non-Christian areas.

Finally,

What is it about Opus Dei that you find secretive? I'm curious, as I don't see any behaviour as particularly secretive.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and also: Opus Dei isn't a sect, nor is it extreme by any means.

Nightwatch wrote:
What do YOU mean by social justice? Just clarifying here, not searching for fights.

Equality.

Nightwatch wrote:
As for the power thing: (sigh)
Perhaps they have power. But what have they done with it?Where do you see a misuse of power by Opus Dei?

Well that all depends on what you feel their goals as a collective are.

Since the current pope who supports them has privately concealed all manner of priestly abuse in his former role...

Nightwatch wrote:
Yes, I agree, the comparison of Christianity-Opus Dei is a bad one. However, Martin is speaking out unfairly and discriminately against an approved subgroup within the Catholic Church, which is intolerable both as a Catholic and as a politician, and also as a citizen of Canada.

No. He isn't his speaking out is appropriate in his role as a member of an opposition party, and as a private citizen. As to whether or not criticism of Opus dei is appropriate for a Catholic I leave that to his priest.

Nightwatch wrote:
Ok, how about this? If a Muslim politician said he found Sufism creepy (in Canada), would it be politically correct, or tolerable?
I think that is a fairly accurate swing-over to the non-Christian areas.

Again apples to Oranges... Sufism is generally considered distinct from Islam. Again you are trying to make a tiny but influential group into something major.

Nightwatch wrote:
Finally,

What is it about Opus Dei that you find secretive? I'm curious, as I don't see any behaviour as particularly secretive.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and also: Opus Dei isn't a sect, nor is it extreme by any means.

The acceptance of influence is not the necessary abdication of thought.

I'm saying, I think it is.

Compare:

Kid 1: Ok, I'm going to get jeans for a girl that are also about three sizes too small for me... And then I'll go roughly the same route with a t-shirt. For my hair, I'll cut it all off except for the part that would fall into my eyes, and that I'll leave long, possibly blue. I'll also always be on the edge of tears.

Kid 2: Yeah, that.

Clearly Kid 1 has done a lot more thinking. Kid 2 just looked at Kid 1's thinking and said "ok."

It's the difference between watching a movie and making a movie. We know which of those takes more thought/effort.

Phryxis wrote:

The acceptance of influence is not the necessary abdication of thought.

I'm saying, I think it is.

Compare:

Kid 1: Ok, I'm going to get jeans for a girl that are also about three sizes too small for me... And then I'll go roughly the same route with a t-shirt. For my hair, I'll cut it all off except for the part that would fall into my eyes, and that I'll leave long, possibly blue. I'll also always be on the edge of tears.

Kid 2: Yeah, that.

Clearly Kid 1 has done a lot more thinking. Kid 2 just looked at Kid 1's thinking and said "ok."

It's the difference between watching a movie and making a movie. We know which of those takes more thought/effort.

If it ONLY follows the procedures you've mentioned, then yes, Kid 2 is abdicating his thought.
However, if:

Kid 2: Hrm: does that makes sense? (y/n)Why is this kid deciding to do this? Do I want to follow what this guys is doing? (y/n) What are the pros and cons of doing this?

Then he is still being influenced, but he is not abdicating his thought.

Phryxis wrote:
It's the difference between watching a movie and making a movie. We know which of those takes more thought/effort.

I read your first example, and my mind immediately jumped to the business world. You go into an office building, and you'll see a lot of people wearing really similar clothes. Why is this? Are these people really all mindless automatons, devoid of any ability to think? Maybe, but I like to give people more credit than that. I think these people all dress in a similar fashion, because its what we expect them to do. It isn't as though business casual is the most comfortable form of dress, or even the most utilitarian, I doubt you'd find many people choosing to relax, or garden, in a shirt and tie. However, we have been trained to think of it as being professional, and so we expect professional people to dress in that way. People adhere to this expectation because they either do not feel the need to violate it, or they consider the desire to do less and important than the desire to be viewed as a professional, they may even simply like it.

Now, when we apply this type of thinking to Emo fashion, we get a similar situation. At some point an undefined number of people created the Emo look, likely by combining numerous influences from other cultural sources over a period of time. One of the typical Emo shoes, for example, has its origins in skater culture. In my view this process isn't one that involves a lot of thought, just a lot of aesthetic feeling. I know that when I buy clothes the only real thought I put into it is a combination "Does this look good?" and "Will I wear this?"

Eventually this look entered popular culture, and from there began to be emulated by the youth. Being 24, it wasn't so long ago that I was a kid trying to navigate childhood. Its a pretty uncertain time, thanks to all those wonderful discoveries about self and others that need to be made. So, naturally, you look to things that you like, and that you're peers like, to try and create some kind of qualitative hierarchy in your life. So you hear some music, watch a tv show, or see someone on the street and decide "Hey, that looks pretty good, maybe I could try that out." You may also notice that one particular look is the dominant one, and decide that aping it will help you fit in. You would, of course, be correct in this assumption, as my business world example shows. After all, you wouldn't take an office worker very seriously if he were wearing nothing but a smile.

The point of all this is that there is thought involved in accepting influence, just as there thought in involved in influencing. The thoughts are simply different, and generally related to the visible action only indirectly. In fact, I would suppose that 'thought', in the sense that we seem to be using it here, is the product of being influenced by a wide variety of sources. This is why kids tend to dress stereotypically, they simply haven't been alive long enough to assemble multiple influences into something that at least approaches uniqueness.

To consider your movie example: the movie maker is someone who has absorbed a ton of information about film, and assembled that knowledge, all essentially the result of being influenced by various sources, into a cohesive production. Similarly, the movie watcher has assembled a body of knowledge, also from various influential sources, that have spurred his decision to watch this particular movie. In both cases it was the influence which enabled the making of the choice, or series of choices. Now, its clear that making a movie a more significant endeavor than watching one, but that doesn't bear on the fact that influence was the thing which enabled the action.

Damn, I didn't think this would turn out to be that long of a post.

efarrer wrote:

Nightwatch wrote:
What do YOU mean by social justice? Just clarifying here, not searching for fights.

Equality.

Equality? For whom? I'll just ignore this comment for now and assume you're right, although I haven't seen any obvious blocking of equality from conservatives. This isn't the main point the thread is about.

Nightwatch wrote:
As for the power thing: (sigh)
Perhaps they have power. But what have they done with it?Where do you see a misuse of power by Opus Dei?

Well that all depends on what you feel their goals as a collective are.

Since the current pope who supports them has privately concealed all manner of priestly abuse in his former role...

(sigh)....While I'd like to argue against that, that's going off topic....

Assuming that what you say about the pope is right (which it isn't, according to me and several million other people)
Then wouldn't you agree that someone can be right about one thing and wrong about another?
I can say that

a)eating too much pizza will give you health problems
and
b)people who eat too much pizza are bad people

then a) would be right, and b) probably wouldn't. But I would have said both of them. So I can be right about some things, and wrong about others.

Nightwatch wrote:
Yes, I agree, the comparison of Christianity-Opus Dei is a bad one. However, Martin is speaking out unfairly and discriminately against an approved subgroup within the Catholic Church, which is intolerable both as a Catholic and as a politician, and also as a citizen of Canada.

No. He isn't his speaking out is appropriate in his role as a member of an opposition party, and as a private citizen. As to whether or not criticism of Opus dei is appropriate for a Catholic I leave that to his priest.

(sigh again)
Alright, we'll leave this here.

Nightwatch wrote:
Ok, how about this? If a Muslim politician said he found Sufism creepy (in Canada), would it be politically correct, or tolerable?
I think that is a fairly accurate swing-over to the non-Christian areas.

Again apples to Oranges... Sufism is generally considered distinct from Islam. Again you are trying to make a tiny but influential group into something major.

And no, it isn't. All Sufis are Muslims. Not all Muslims are Sufis.

All numeraries of Opus Dei are Catholics. Not all Catholics belong to Opus Dei.

In the case I mentioned, a Muslim would be condemning a subheading of his/her faith that he/she might not believe in.
In the real case, a Catholic was condemning a subheading of his faith that he did not believe in.

He was entitled to his opinion, but the manner in which he voiced it was crude and irrelevant, and if it had been on an internet board, he would have been modquisitioned for trolling.
Opus Dei is big, yes. Is it as big as you are making it out to be? Regrettably, no.

Sect no. It was the wrong word.

Extreme hell yes

You still haven't defined in any way exactly what Opus Dei has done to displease you.

Then he is still being influenced, but he is not abdicating his thought.

In that case he's still thinking less. He's certainly being more measured, taking one facet at a time and examining them, but he's still not creating entirely novel thoughts.

This would be like carefully, thoughtfully studying a movie, scene by scene, trying to fully understand the director's intentions. It's good, but it's still not making a movie.

Are these people really all mindless automatons, devoid of any ability to think? Maybe, but I like to give people more credit than that.

I don't mean to imply that following somebody else's lead is BAD, just that it's less proactive, more of an abdication of thought. If somebody did this in all things in their life, then, yes, they are a bit of an automaton. But, the fact is, we have many, many decisions to make each day, and we don't usually care about the great majority of them.

So you hear some music, watch a tv show, or see someone on the street and decide "Hey, that looks pretty good, maybe I could try that out."

Absolutely. But as was said earlier, life is about scalars. It's not like were all either automatons or perfect free spirits. We're some point on that continuum. So, yes, we all do a lot of what you describe, especially early in life when we don't have the confidence to go it on our own. But even as we do this, we also set off on our own to varying degrees.

The point of all this is that there is thought involved in accepting influence, just as there thought in involved in influencing.

There's thought involved, it's just not necessarily as complete, rigorous, challenging or novel.

When somebody decides to be an emo kid, clearly they are thinking about many things... What group just "feels" best to them? Which group has a niche that they can fit into? Who will least judge them for breaking into tears periodically? Picking a group like that isn't necessarily a simple decision. But at the end of the day, it's still a pretty short checklist. Jock, nerd, emo kid, theater fa..... You get the idea. It's about ten items long at MOST.

Compare that to the list that included "wear girls pants that are three sizes too small." It's a REALLY long list, so, if nothing else, it required a lot of effort to review the whole thing.

Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, would be to compare a multiple choice test to an essay test. Which is easier? On an ABCD multiple choice test, a chimp will score a 25% on average. A chimp will NEVER write a worthwhile essay.

As you point out, everything is still a reinterpretation of something that's already been done. There's really very little that's truly "new" in the world. But there's a continuum between just pointing to a big monolithic concept and saying "YEAH, THAT" and collecting a little of this, a little of that, a bit of something incongruous, yet complimentary, and coming up with a refined, novel collection of old ideas.

The article in the OP mistakes silly ideas about Catholicism and a few silly people taking them very seriously with oppression. That doesn’t work.

I mean, there is an interesting conversation to be had on why Catholic imagery and the Catholic church itself is so heavily used in Hollywood and popular books as the go-to guy for religious conspiracy and evil*. Just once can the villains be Unitarians? But this can only look like oppression to people who have no idea what oppression really is.

I’d personally much rather live in a society where I might occasionally bump into an idiot at a dinner party who thinks my membership in Opus Dei makes me part of a shadowy conspiracy, than watch the on-going debate in which a significant number of people believe members of my religion shouldn’t be allowed to wear headscarves.

The second issue seemed just as muddle headed. He kept saying that people would react badly if it was argued Jews or gays or whoever shouldn’t enter politics if they identify ‘as a group’. It was a silly claim that boiled political membership down in a binary state, a group is either ‘in politics’ or ‘not in politics’. That’s a big problem when you consider the difference between mainstream politics and activism – an activist party arguing for gay rights or Native American rights would be expected to receive most of its votes from a small section of the community, but their political input would be limited to activism on that one narrow issue, outside of that issue their members would be free to support whatever organisations they feel represent them best. Opus Dei, as a charitable organisation that does lobby government, is already somewhat like this.

That is very different to mainstream religious parties with mainstream religious affiliations. People would react very badly to a mainstream party built around any religion. The Islamic party, that sought to win seats in state and federal elections, and looked to represent Muslims as a whole would be exactly as worrisome as the Catholic party that looked to do the same.

I really don’t know Ezra Levant keeps getting read, he really is an idiot.



*I would guess it has something to with feeling edgy enough for the anti-religious set, but without any of the hassle of upsetting the large protestant market in the US. It could be an interesting discussion, if only because we’d get to say ‘Dan Brown is an idiot’ lots of times.

sexiest_hero wrote:Christians lean right, mostly. Non Christians lean left. things like abortion and the death penalty makes them political rivals, don't take it so damn personal.

Various Christian groups moving to the right is a fairly recent phenomenon, and is largely a US creation that is slowly drifting out into the rest of the world. Historically many issues of equality and social justice have been driven by religious groups. The move to the right is in part due to the rise of the prosperity doctrine (the idea that God blesses his favourite people with more wealth), and in part due to a deliberate targeting of religious groups by right wing parties – hence the constant focus on abortion, despite this being a marginal political issue.

efarrer wrote:What do YOU mean by social justice? Just clarifying here, not searching for fights.

Social justice can basically be boiled down to the idea that giving to the poor isn’t an act of charity, but an act of duty. That for the poor to receive theirs isn’t charity, but justice.

It’s based on the idea that we do not in fact live in a meritocracy, that one’s social position and bank balance is not representative of their moral character, but by the vagaries of life and society. It’s an idea that a lot of right wingers will really flip out over.

I’d personally much rather live in a society where I might occasionally bump into an idiot at a dinner party who thinks my membership in Opus Dei makes me part of a shadowy conspiracy, than watch the on-going debate in which a significant number of people believe members of my religion shouldn’t be allowed to wear headscarves.

I understand your argument. Clearly Catholicism is not as "oppressed" in Western society as Islam is...

But I don't think that's the argument being made. I think there's two valid things being said:

1) The casual mockery of Catholicism may not be true "oppression" but it's a step in that direction. If you tolerate the little stuff, you invite the slippery slope.

2) There are a lot of people who claim to be open-minded when it comes to Islam, but they're oddly unsympathetic to Western religions that happen to be popular with their local political opponents. The intent here is to expose these people as hypocrites, and demonsrate that they're not really motivated by the noble creed they claim to be.

Phryxis wrote:
As you point out, everything is still a reinterpretation of something that's already been done. There's really very little that's truly "new" in the world. But there's a continuum between just pointing to a big monolithic concept and saying "YEAH, THAT" and collecting a little of this, a little of that, a bit of something incongruous, yet complimentary, and coming up with a refined, novel collection of old ideas.

Yeah, now I understand what you're saying, and I agree.

Yes yes and oh yes. I know this guy who goes like "The whole sout are stupid conservatives and intolerent" yet not a few moment later he says religion is nothing but fairytales.

Phryxis wrote:But I don't think that's the argument being made. I think there's two valid things being said:

1) The casual mockery of Catholicism may not be true "oppression" but it's a step in that direction. If you tolerate the little stuff, you invite the slippery slope.

Sure, and it’s worthwhile to point out people who believe The Da Vinci Code are idiots, but it really does no-one any good to compare it to actual oppression.

I’d agree that there is a strange cross-section of liberal thought, where the multicultural element (and its positive thoughts towards minority religions) bumps up against the anti-authoritarian element (and its negative thoughts towards the dominant, traditional religion). In a perfect world it’d be an issue worth a lot of our time, but in a world where minority groups suffer on-going discrimination it’s a distraction at best, and can easily be seen as an attempt at deflecting attention away from real issues of oppression.

There’s also a whole other issue in there regarding misconceptions and conspiracy theories about Catholicism, and using that to imply some kind of disadvantage against Christianity as a whole… most of the conspiracy theories against the Catholic Church came from Protestant groups.

sebster wrote:
I really don’t know Ezra Levant keeps getting read, he really is an idiot.

Perhaps because he has an awesome name.

sebster wrote:
*I would guess it has something to with feeling edgy enough for the anti-religious set, but without any of the hassle of upsetting the large protestant market in the US. It could be an interesting discussion, if only because we’d get to say ‘Dan Brown is an idiot’ lots of times.

There's a historically American tendency to view Catholics as conspiratorial; most recently made manifest in the rumblings about Kennedy taking orders from the Pope. For a long time the phrase "first Catholic President" would have been on a list with the phrase "first black President". This seems to be closely to tied to Reformation politics, which were largely built around accusations of separating people from God for purposes of generating wealth for the Church.

In a perfect world it’d be an issue worth a lot of our time, but in a world where minority groups suffer on-going discrimination it’s a distraction at best, and can easily be seen as an attempt at deflecting attention away from real issues of oppression.

I disagree... Mainly because I am a very harsh, knee-jerk critic of all things "liberal."

Regardless, the concern here is that the only thing worse than ignoring a problem is entrusting the solution of that problem to somebody who has no real intention of fixing it.

The latter is how I view modern Western "liberalism." It's more concerned with expanding and sustaining its power than it is with any of the lofty goals it claims to espouse.

For example, American liberals claim to be champions of black people, but they have done very little to benefit them over the past decades. They have the black vote in their pocket, so there's little incentive to actually do anything for them. As a result their "service" to the black community has basically degenerated into using them as political pawns to skewer any political opponent who doesn't pay sufficient lip service to "multi-culturalism."

Meanwhile, corrupt incompetents like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are propped up by the white media, and allowed to enrich themselves even as they stagnate progress in the black community. Were these scumbags swept aside, it'd create room for real black leaders of quality to improve things for their people.

Unfortunately Jackson and Sharpton are very useful in the sort of media hit jobs that typify the American political left, so they're not going anywhere.

Phryxis wrote:I disagree... Mainly because I am a very harsh, knee-jerk critic of all things "liberal."

We’ve noticed

I agree with the points you make regarding specific elements of liberal politics, but the thing is there’s a big danger in bundling all of liberalism, or conservatism or any political movement into one category and then forming an opinion on the whole of the thing. They’re simply too big and too diverse to sensibly consider as one single thing.

Doing so is basically taking on identity politics, and is really very useless. It’s identity politics that keeps guys like Sharpton and Jackson in power. I am like this, he is like this, therefore I support him, and won’t bother looking at what his actual record is like.

Good and bad ideas, good and bad politicians come from all sources, nothing should ever be accepted or rejected simply because of the source.

there’s a big danger in bundling all of liberalism, or conservatism or any political movement into one category and then forming an opinion on the whole of the thing. They’re simply too big and too diverse to sensibly consider as one single thing.

I think you're very safe in taking this position, but I don't take a counter position unawares. I really do believe that the current state of American "liberalism" is to a point that it's so uniform in its dogma as to be addressable in a "categorical" fashion.

This goes along with the previous discussion of the "One Dimensional Man." The liberal PR campaign in America is so systematic, so pervasive, and so consistently on message, that the diversity you speak of is of diminishing reality.

I fully agree with you that this is a bad thing, but, obviously, I'm saying that it's the left becoming monolithic and dogmatic, and not just a shortcut in my ideology.

Phryxis wrote:This goes along with the previous discussion of the "One Dimensional Man." The liberal PR campaign in America is so systematic, so pervasive, and so consistently on message, that the diversity you speak of is of diminishing reality.

I fully agree with you that this is a bad thing, but, obviously, I'm saying that it's the left becoming monolithic and dogmatic, and not just a shortcut in my ideology.

You'd probably be aware of the exact same charge being levelled at the American right wing. I'm not sure it's a particularly accurate charge in either case, although given the disciplined nature of the GOP at the Federal level at least it makes some sense there.

One only has to look at the level of dysfunction the Democrats showed in trying to pass healthcare to see they're not all that uniformed or on message at the top level, let alone at the grassroots.

Do you really think there's a monolithic, dogmatic union between black activists, environmentalists, socialists, liberal minded soccer mums, trade unionists, fair trade activists, and all the rest?