Anti Knowledge: Liberalism & the Democratic Party

[WinePusher]

Liberals seem to be obsessed about Israel. They often complain about war crimes committed on the part of the Israelis and people like Noam Chomsky make careers out of criticizing Israel.

Yet, any human rights abuses on the part of the Israeli government pale in comparison to the human rights abuses committed in neighboring Islamic theocracies, where women are forced to wear oppressive and humiliating clothing, where women are stoned for the "crime" of getting an education, where homosexuals are brutally killed and where Christians and other religious minorities are brutally killed.

When these things are pointed out to liberals, they will indignantly go on about Islamaphobia. For example, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have been labeled Islamaphobes for pointing out the reprehensible ideas many Muslims promote.

Similarly, Sam Harris has pointed out in this [youtube][/youtube] that when it comes to radical Muslims killing cartoonists, liberals actually blame the cartoonists for offending and "triggering" the Muslim community.

Sam Harris asks a succinct question that has yet to be answered: how morally confused do you have to be to blame the cartoonists who have been butchered by theocratic Muslim "maniacs" rather than blaming the theocratic Muslim "maniacs."

I would like to expand on this important question Sam Harris is asking, how morally confused does one have to be to spend all their time criticizing Israel rather than criticizing the numerous Islamic theocracies in the Middle East that kill women, gays and religious minorities? How morally confused does one have to be to call Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins Islamaphobes for pointing out that there are many Muslims who justify these barbaric practices using the Koran and the Hadith?

Any thoughts?

[micatala]

The fact that these two paradigms exist is evidence that neither group is being objective.

I'm not going to accuse you of this personally. However, this kind of statement is also used as a dodge. When the right is convinced one of their own is wrong, they generally say so and join in the prosecution. However, when the left is convinced one of their own is wrong, they say, "Well, everybody does it.", and the offender get's a pass. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton and now Hillary are cases in point.

Do you have any evidence for this alleged dichotomy? I can think of lots of cases where someone on the right has been egregiously wrong, and few if any of their compatriots even mentioned it. How many people on the right have actually joined in the 'prosecution' of birthers? Very few. We are now at the point where the leader in the Republican nomination fight is an unrepentant birther.

I'll certainly accept this happens on the left as well, but the idea that the right is somehow better at correcting their own seems, based on my experience, completely preposterous.

[Furrowed Brow]

The debate in the UK is less polarised because it is only heard at the margins. Criticism of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, is muted in the mainstream. What criticism we do get is aimed at Syria and Iran.

In the alternative media criticism of Saudi Arabia is at around the same level of Israel, but there is clearly greater sympathy and alignment with the Palestinians than Israel. This is probably a reaction to the mainstream's ignoring of the Palestinians or on the few occasions the issue breaks through there is the nudging towards a "well what are Israel supposed to do" and the subtle hint the Palestinians are a bit shady, probably terrorists.

One small example from the 2014 conflict. the Sky News (Murdoch) website announced the Palestinians broke the ceasefire with a large image of an explosion from what must have been at least a 500lb bomb. Sheeshh.

Israel is a democracy with a liberal history, but clearly its government is committed to genocide, and clearly Saudi Arabia is committed to the destruction of Syria and Iran, and is a major funder and organiser of terrorism and extreme jihadists groups. Syria under Assad a nasty place if you were opposed to Assad. Re Palestine: The Palestinians live under intolerable conditions and on the issue of Israel and Palestine as much as Palestine is an irritant to Israel it strikes me it is a relationship of a husband and wife where the wife slaps the husband on regular occasions and the husband puts the wife in hospital complaining the wife made him beat her within an inch of her life. I don't know the answers all I know is the life of one is much worse than the other ..even if one complains it is the others own fault. And one day he is going to kill her.

But let's criticise them all.

As a "lefty" atheist I do not associate Sam Harris' stripe of intolerance and support of torture as my stripe of politics or anything to do with atheism. He speaks for himself.

[bluethread]

[quote="micatala"

Do you have any evidence for this alleged dichotomy? I can think of lots of cases where someone on the right has been egregiously wrong, and few if any of their compatriots even mentioned it. How many people on the right have actually joined in the 'prosecution' of birthers? Very few. We are now at the point where the leader in the Republican nomination fight is an unrepentant birther.

I'll certainly accept this happens on the left as well, but the idea that the right is somehow better at correcting their own seems, based on my experience, completely preposterous.[/quote]

Let's take your example. The cool aid drinkers are consistent in that they accept Trumps birther accusations against Cruz. The rest of the republicans are consistent in rejecting both birther accusations, or should I say, "people are saying" statements. There are twice as many people, give or take, who oppose him as support him. That is not just supporting someone else. That is out right rejection. He is a very polarizing figure. I think the few that are wishy-washy are the lesser of two evils crowd. They do not excuse his bombast, but find Hillary's and Bernie's to be worse.

This may be a bad year to use as an example, since there is a populist revolt on both sides. This populism seems to be creating a third way that involves wearing blinders. It isn't that "both sides do it". It is more that populism leads to mob rule that crosses ideological lines.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

Let's take your example. The cool aid drinkers are consistent in that they accept Trumps birther accusations against Cruz.

I accept such for the irony of Cruz, an admittedly Canadian born, and until recently dual citizen, coming from the same party that leveled such charges at Obama.

The rest of the republicans are consistent in rejecting both birther accusations, or should I say, "people are saying" statements.

Naw, they stopped having any political traction, and so moved on to other attacks.

There are twice as many people, give or take, who oppose him as support him. That is not just supporting someone else. That is out right rejection. He is a very polarizing figure.

Or, the Republicans have a history of refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of elections that don't go their way.

They were apoplectic with Bill, then Barry, and now will be again apoplectic if there's another Democratic victory.

I think the few that are wishy-washy are the lesser of two evils crowd. They do not excuse his bombast, but find Hillary's and Bernie's to be worse.

Plenty fair. My issue is the temper tantrums we see when Republicans don't get their way - Such as shutting down the government, to summarily dismissing the Constitution they wrap themselves in, the very Constitution that says the President is obligated to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

This may be a bad year to use as an example, since there is a populist revolt on both sides. This populism seems to be creating a third way that involves wearing blinders.

Only those with blinders could ever accuse others of wearin' em. That you don't understand is one thing, but to slander entire groups over it's another'n.

It isn't that "both sides do it". It is more that populism leads to mob rule that crosses ideological lines.

What is ideology, if lines don't get crossed? Slavic adherence to the status quo?

What we're seeing is a populace that's fed up with business as usual, and want folks who'll carry out the reforms they, personally, wish to see carried out. Just like everyone else who votes.

I'm all for the notion of centrism, but when a nation is pulled too far to the right or left, center becomes to the right or left. Our nation has endured thirty some odd years of being pulled to the right (various 'leftist' victories notwithstanding).


And the implication of "mob rule" is a slander, in that in elections, it's mobs of folks who set out to vote. We're not seeing anything that much different than what should be expected in a time of highly partisan posturing. Indeed, in the Republican party - the party who sought to have Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency - her brand of anti-intelligence is seen as quaint and charming. It's seen as "anti-establishment". That's a recipe for the very disasters we encountered under George Junior.

[bluethread]

From Post 13:

Let's take your example. The cool aid drinkers are consistent in that they accept Trumps birther accusations against Cruz.

I accept such for the irony of Cruz, an admittedly Canadian born, and until recently dual citizen, coming from the same party that leveled such charges at Obama.

The party did not. Certain individuals leveled such charges, most notably Trump, who had a come to republican moment when he saw an advantage in doing so.

The rest of the republicans are consistent in rejecting both birther accusations, or should I say, "people are saying" statements.

Naw, they stopped having any political traction, and so moved on to other attacks.

Though more people in this fringe group have been or lean republican, for partisan reasons, Trump is the who has pushed it all along.

There are twice as many people, give or take, who oppose him as support him. That is not just supporting someone else. That is out right rejection. He is a very polarizing figure.

Or, the Republicans have a history of refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of elections that don't go their way.

They were apoplectic with Bill, then Barry, and now will be again apoplectic if there's another Democratic victory.

Last time I checked, Trump has not been elected to anything yet. I am referring to the approval polls. Though the other candidates individually do not have approval ratings as high, no candidate is more disliked by Republicans than Trump.

I think the few that are wishy-washy are the lesser of two evils crowd. They do not excuse his bombast, but find Hillary's and Bernie's to be worse.

Plenty fair. My issue is the temper tantrums we see when Republicans don't get their way - Such as shutting down the government, to summarily dismissing the Constitution they wrap themselves in, the very Constitution that says the President is obligated to nominate another Supreme Court Justice.

Well, it is interesting that when Reed and Pelosi did it, it was Bush that was "shutting down" the government, but when the Republican even think about doing it, they are accused of "shutting down" the government. That said, the whole "shutting down" the government thing is a canard. The only time that there has been any significant event related to "shutting down" the government was when Obama engaged in grandstanding by placing fences an guards around the open air monuments in DC. Every timer there is a "shutting down" the government workers get time off and retroactive pay when they return. By the way, where is the out cry when the whether actual does shut down the government? Why doesn't the world come to an end then?

This may be a bad year to use as an example, since there is a populist revolt on both sides. This populism seems to be creating a third way that involves wearing blinders.

Only those with blinders could ever accuse others of wearin' em. That you don't understand is one thing, but to slander entire groups over it's another'n.

So you don't think that single issue voters are not ignoring other issues?

It isn't that "both sides do it". It is more that populism leads to mob rule that crosses ideological lines.

What is ideology, if lines don't get crossed? Slavic adherence to the status quo?

What we're seeing is a populace that's fed up with business as usual, and want folks who'll carry out the reforms they, personally, wish to see carried out. Just like everyone else who votes.

I'm not arguing for ideological lines. I am pointing out that it is populism, not party affiliation, that is driving the single issue approach. Yes, both parties have pandered to single issue voters in the past and people have gotten tired of the pandering. However, populism is just pandering on steroids. It calls for more and more regulation that can not only ushers in the tyranny of the majority, but also the tyranny of the loudest minority. This is little more than mob rule, IMO.

I'm all for the notion of centrism, but when a nation is pulled too far to the right or left, center becomes to the right or left. Our nation has endured thirty some odd years of being pulled to the right (various 'leftist' victories notwithstanding).

I understand the Overton Window, but 30 years, off and on, of resistance to the momentum from 80 years of social engineering can hardly be called "being pulled to the right".

And the implication of "mob rule" is a slander, in that in elections, it's mobs of folks who set out to vote. We're not seeing anything that much different than what should be expected in a time of highly partisan posturing. Indeed, in the Republican party - the party who sought to have Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency - her brand of anti-intelligence is seen as quaint and charming. It's seen as "anti-establishment". That's a recipe for the very disasters we encountered under George Junior.

Well, at least my "slander", it would really be liable, is against a philosophy and not an individual. That said, I am confused regarding your point, since Palin has thrown in with the populist crowd.