While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[Thlayli]

I defend LoE when everyone decides to gang up on him too. It's just not cool to play schoolyard internet forum bully.

 

[Jehoshua]

Looks like my assertion that leftists don't read their opponents writings was right on the money incidentally you don't deny that precisely what you an company were doing before I came back online was characterising me through the lens of the old caricatures (and indeed you can't) rather than making an intelligent point, so looks like I was right about your gimmick as well. So Masada, since you haven't come up with some original spiel, perhaps you'd like to make an intelligent point, or would you rather go back to the old rhetorical two minutes hate, perhaps it will make you feel better to reaffirm yourself in the eyes of your comrades your lefty moral credentials?

-

@Luckymoose: My position obviously is in the minority. Nevertheless I am confident it is more enduring in the long term than yours, mainly because it takes stock of reality as it is. The funny thing about the current anarchy in Iraq and Syria is that any chimp with a brain could see it coming, yet a good many on the left kept on with the delusion of democracy promotion and the old game of "oppose the dictator who happens to bring stability". To your credit, being somewhat more intelligent than the run of the mill leftist street-lackey opposed those calling for Assad's head, unfortunately you were in the minority when it comes to those of your ideological mold.

@Thlayli: Although I appreciate the gesture, I don't need sympathy or defending. If masada (bless him) wants to do the old routine than I say let him. Its always a good laugh to observe a lefty guilt-expiation session where they pretend their caricaturisations actually serve any purpose whatsoever other than to make them feel better about themselves.

 

[Luckymoose]

I don't read hate speech.

 

[m.t.cicero]

I was merely trying to rebut the idea that someone who holds fairly mainstream liberal views, with perhaps a few eccentricities, follows "radical and intolerant ideology," while someone who, I would say, fairly openly holds a hard line for an organization which actively stomps on the rights of some of our Republic's most vulnerable citizens does not also somehow follow a "radical," and certainly "intolerant" ideology.

 

[Masada]

So, since you haven't come up with some original spiel, perhaps you'd like to make an intelligent point, or would you rather go back to the old rhetorical two minutes hate, perhaps it will make you feel better to reaffirm yourself in the eyes of your comrades your lefty moral credentials?

I'm pretty sure the right has about as much time for your politics as I do.

 

[North King]

Hey, my point wasn't to snark, it was that saying "dialectical discourse" is an abuse of the English language.

 

[Jehoshua]

@Cicero: I would think that my point regarding liberal intolerance was shown as valid by the two minutes hate I got for expressing it Cicero. After-all you don't see me characterising my opponents, rather I point out what they actually do and say.

Oh, and the Catholic Church doesn't stop you from using contraception or having indecent relations with another male if you want. So apparently expressing a dissenting moral opinion is intolerant now, or maybe what you mean to say is that calling any behaviour at all as immoral (or let alone saying we should uphold moral standards in society as if we believed in them!) is intolerant. (How dare the Church judge our actions as immoral!, we must henceforth force the church and its institutions to accept our views and close them down if they don't. How very enlightened)

-

@North King: You were fine, although I think it was acceptable usage (I used the term to mean a discourse based on the dialectical method rather than on amusing, yet ridiculous rhetorical stupidity)

 

[North King]

@North King: You were fine, although I think it was acceptable usage (I used the term to mean a discourse based on the dialectical method rather than on amusing, yet ridiculous rhetorical stupidity)

I don't particularly mind fancy words being bandied about, but I would think it clear that a dialectic would produce a discursive formation/discourse pretty much definitionally. Using both at once is consequently a bit redundant.

 

[Masada]

It's nice that you've given up the fiction that the right wing would be any more sympathetic to your particularly nutty political views than the left wing Jehoshua.

 

[erez87]

Yes Joshua, telling two consenting adults of the same sex they are immoral or "indecent" is indeed intolerant. Telling about it to others is spreading intolerance.

 

[North King]

Well, to be fair, intolerance oops, sorry, rampant homophobia is far from limited to the far right, but it certainly is on the decline.

Though some views which are not currently under discussion are a little more extreme, yes.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

My question was totally sincere, I actually have no idea what LoE believes - the quality of discussion on this thread has made it hard to assess what anyone believes with the exception of Symphony.

The funny thing about the current anarchy in Iraq and Syria is that any chimp with a brain could see it coming, yet a good many on the left kept on with the delusion of democracy promotion and the old game of "oppose the dictator who happens to bring stability". To your credit, being somewhat more intelligent than the run of the mill leftist street-lackey opposed those calling for Assad's head, unfortunately you were in the minority when it comes to those of your ideological mold.

Again, with utter sincerity, what leftists are you talking about? The war in Iraq was a neo-con project, and democracy promotion was a neo-con selling point - the deep desire to start a war in Syria was additionally on the agenda of the western world's leading conservatives (UK PM / US President and their company, among others) - and was shot down by the left (in media and government) no?

Also, an aside regarding leftists: as I'm sure you're aware, a good number of polite and thoughtful leftists in NESing don't tend to write in WWW b/c it isn't a particularly polite place as of late.

 

[Jehoshua]

@ Masada: your making things up on the fly again, I've been fairly consistent in opposing a good slew of libertarian and neoliberal policies. There was no fiction to begin with to let go of.

@Erez: So since you are explicit in saying that asserting that anyone's behaviour is immoral (so long as the other party to such behaviour consents in the case of multiple persons being involved) is intolerant, you logically have no problems with consenting incest, or polygamy, or any other thing whatsoever. After all to object to such actions, or to call them indecent would be intolerant according to your own principles. For you to say otherwise would be to make unprincipled exceptions to your own ideological position (It is intolerant to say consensual sodomy is immoral/indecent, yet perfectly fine to say the same for consensual incest/polygamy?). Either way, you don't deny my point that leftists hypocritically desire to circumscribe the liberties of those who disagree with them all the while proclaiming themselves the open-minded and tolerant ones.

@J.K. Stockholme: By the left I refer to the liberal/socialist continuum. Within this group some supported assad or at least opposed supporting the rebels and intervening (pacifists, some on the very far left opposed to "western imperialism", these being the groups that as you say constituted the key opponents in the media and government) while others not of these specific groups tended to be supportive of the rebels (Free Syrian Army) in lockstep with the hawkish neocons (who share the same basic ideological template with the left anyway, their differences to a large degree is a matter of differing doctrinal interpretations of the same basic tenets) and those of a similar mind on the basis of being against dictatorship and for democracy. This is why I said "a good many" on the left, as opposed to simply "the left", since it would be inaccurate to characterise groups of people with a broad brush. As to governments, the UK PM is actually very liberal, which is why a good portion of the rank and file of his party is deserting the conservative party, and while he faced backbench rebellion in several instances (including over war in Syria, which failed because a good portion of his backbench refused to support it, labour also opposed, being the opposition and reading the public mood against intervention but iirc it would have passed if it wasn't for dissent within the government). President Obama is not a conservative at all, and his government of course for a long time has been supporting the rebels short of intervention (a bit of a catch22 now that IS has carved out a terrorist state over broad swathes of Syria and Iraq on the back of the anarchy in Syria).

 

[Masada]

So the right would be about as likely as the left to loathe you. So it isn't a "lefty" thing at all so much as a "sane person" thing.

Again, with utter sincerity, what leftists are you talking about? The war in Iraq was a neo-con project, and democracy promotion was a neo-con selling point - the deep desire to start a war in Syria was additionally on the agenda of the western world's leading conservatives (UK PM / US President and their company, among others) - and was shot down by the left (in media and government) no?

Thlayli must be a left winger.

 

[North King]

My question was totally sincere, I actually have no idea what LoE believes - the quality of discussion on this thread has made it hard to assess what anyone believes with the exception of Symphony.

The one who exploits the good working class of elvenkind is a fairly typical far-left ideologue, with particularly firm support for the more tolerant side of gender issues.

@Erez: So since you are explicit in saying that asserting that anyone's behaviour is immoral (so long as the other party to such behaviour consents in the case of multiple persons being involved) is intolerant, you logically have no problems with consenting incest, or polygamy, or any other thing whatsoever. After all to object to such actions, or to call them indecent would be intolerant according to your own principles. For you to say otherwise would be to make unprincipled exceptions to your own ideological position (It is intolerant to say consensual sodomy is immoral/indecent, yet perfectly fine to say the same for consensual incest/polygamy?). Either way, you don't deny my point that leftists hypocritically desire to circumscribe the liberties of those who disagree with them all the while proclaiming themselves the open-minded and tolerant ones.

I find slippery slope arguments dumb, and consequently want to ignore this post. But the thing is -- polyamory and incest are typically less opposed because they are indecent (mostly that word will simply cause someone like me to lol), and more frequently they're opposed because there's huge problems with consent in either one. There's an undeniable power dynamic that charges all incestual relationships, usually with the older player holding most of the power, which means that any consent that is wrung out of the non-power-holding party is extremely questionable at best.

 

[Jehoshua]

@NK: I'm not actually making a slippery slope argument (that position A will lead inevitably to position B) albeit its not actually a logically invalid kind of argument to make imo where evidence supports the assertion.

Rather, I am pointing out the logical contradiction within Erez' own ideological position. He says that asserting moral judgements about others consensual behavioural choices is inherently intolerant and thus wrong, but if he really believes that then the logical progression of that thought is that he must believe that anything whatsoever (so long as its consensual) is acceptable and that it is wrong to make condemn or call immoral things like incest and polygamy (or any other decision or action that one makes with conscious consent). Its an undeniable consequence of the position he made, and to say otherwise is as I noted an unprincipled exception to the moral principle he espoused.

Now you say that there are problems with consent in the examples I noted (age, relationship and whatever). However the error in that kind of rebuttal is that there are power differentials in every relationship that exists between people inherently, and so your own principle if it were valid as an assessment of consent (and subsequent rejection of polygamy and incest) would equally apply between two men in a homosexual relationship (strength and age differentials still exist, same with power), or between a male and a female in a heterosexual one. The only difference you could say exists is a quantitative one (relative to each individual instance), your objection would be a matter of degree rather than kind. Either way it would seem that if one was to hold as valid your position regarding consent vis a vis power dynamics and whatnot, the inherent inequalities between people would render no "authentic" (in the philosophical sense) consent is possible, which rapidly leads into absurdity when it comes to consideration of interpersonal relations, particularly in the sexual sphere.

EDIT: Ergo, this being so, one is led to conclude that the only basis one has for objection to incest/polygamy and a host of other things one could do by oneself or with others is based on moral presumptions which are societally and individually upheld, and not on any other basis whatever. This would of course render Erez' position (presuming he does not actually support incest and polygamy) hypocritical and self-contradictory, and reinforce my own point about liberal intolerance for moral positions (like my own) that disagree with liberal dictates.

 

[Lord of Elves]

I defend LoE when everyone decides to gang up on him too. It's just not cool to play schoolyard internet forum bully.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I'd like to think I am not a charity case (anymore).

On a similar note, I don't think ganging up on Jehoshua is particularly egregious or unjustified considering that he both invites and encourages harsh criticism of his racist/sexist/homophobic/antediluvian/etc ideology and gives as good as he gets. I also suspect that he enjoys the opportunity to expound on his severely dubious beliefs.

 

[Thlayli]

I'd like to make a point here that you can be tolerant of homosexuals and still think that homosexuality is wrong and/or disordered.

For example, you can think that smoking is wrong, but have plenty of friends who smoke and get along perfectly fine with them. You don't think that one particular behavior of theirs is 'right', but you wouldn't be willing to let that moral disagreement color your opinion of their entire personhood. And, since in this example you happen to be a Christian, you reserve judgment, since it isn't your authority to pass judgment.

The federal government allows divorce and remarriage, and it doesn't legally punish adultery, both of which Jesus indicates are wrong, so I'm not sure allowing homosexual marriage would be inconsistent with any of this. I don't think it's right, but I'm also not sure if the federal government has standing to deny those individuals their desire to have their cohabitation legally recognized from a civil libertarian perspective. I've already recognized a separation between Christian/Catholic law and civil law, and I respect that separation. Personally, I think that people are more likely to be 'true' Christians when there's absolutely no official social pressure for them to follow their faith anyways.

But I don't have to like homosexuality, I just have to recognize that, in the words of the Pope, who am I to judge? That is the essence of toleration.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

@J.K. Stockholme: By the left I refer to the liberal/socialist continuum. Within this group some supported assad or at least opposed supporting the rebels and intervening (pacifists, some on the very far left opposed to "western imperialism", these being the groups that as you say constituted the key opponents in the media and government) while others [on the left] not of these specific groups tended to be supportive of the rebels (Free Syrian Army) in lockstep with the hawkish neocons (who share the same basic ideological template with the left anyway, their differences to a large degree is a matter of differing doctrinal interpretations of the same basic tenets) and those of a similar mind on the basis of being against dictatorship and for democracy. This is why I said "a good many" on the left, as opposed to simply "the left", since it would be inaccurate to characterise groups of people with a broad brush ...

(emphasis and [] mine)

You needn't go very far to the left to find the moderate plurality of leftists that oppose western imperialism (without quotation marks) and US interventionism in general and in particular in Syria or Iraq. To be fair, neither the Democratic/Republican parties in the US, nor the Conservative/LibDem/Labour parties of the UK include very many of that variety of leftist, but that's a comment on poor contemporary democratic representation, not ideology. Those parties - primarily composed of neo-liberals, or neo-cons with socially liberal beliefs - do indeed follow lockstep with the neo-cons on the right (and they do share a remarkably similar template of tenets), but I don't think we ought to call out all, most or even a sizeable portion of leftists based on the the actions of centrists or the centre-right still clinging to labels of the left.

That the right and left you've described share such an incredible amount of the same template is incisive of you to point out, and would to me beg a readjustment of your spectral definitions. If a supposed "leftist" argues against an invasion of Syria because it'd be a strategic blunder for US interests, they seem to me categorically different from the leftist that argues against invading Syria on the basis that US interventionism usually ruins many more lives than it helps in the areas of intervention.

I'm the kind of leftist that thinks leftism doesn't include neo-liberals (or most liberals in North America at all for that matter) - including and especially liberals who argue against interventionism (above paragraph) solely on the former basis rather than primarily on the latter.

 

[erez87]

@Erez: So since you are explicit in saying that asserting that anyone's behaviour is immoral (so long as the other party to such behaviour consents in the case of multiple persons being involved) is intolerant, you logically have no problems with consenting incest, or polygamy, or any other thing whatsoever. After all to object to such actions, or to call them indecent would be intolerant according to your own principles. For you to say otherwise would be to make unprincipled exceptions to your own ideological position (It is intolerant to say consensual sodomy is immoral/indecent, yet perfectly fine to say the same for consensual incest/polygamy?). Either way, you don't deny my point that leftists hypocritically desire to circumscribe the liberties of those who disagree with them all the while proclaiming themselves the open-minded and tolerant ones.

There is nothing indecent or wrong in incest or polygamy among consenting adults. Saying those are indecent or immoral is intolerance as well.

Rather, I am pointing out the logical contradiction within Erez' own ideological position.

What contradiction?

EDIT: Ergo, this being so, one is led to conclude that the only basis one has for objection to incest/polygamy and a host of other things one could do by oneself or with others is based on moral presumptions which are societally and individually upheld, and not on any other basis whatever. This would of course render Erez' position (presuming he does not actually support incest and polygamy) hypocritical and self-contradictory, and reinforce my own point about liberal intolerance for moral positions (like my own) that disagree with liberal dictates.

You use a lot of words... "Sodomy", "Polygamy", "Incest" to describe the same things. There are already simpler words that describe all of these - relationship and sex. You should get used to them, they are the only ones that matter. And there is nothing wrong with sex or being in a relationship.

I don't need to "support" those forms of sex or relationship, personally I find heterosexual relationships and sex just bizarre, but whatever floats your boat.

You shouldn't presume

I'd like to make a point here that you can be tolerant of homosexuals and still think that homosexuality is wrong and/or disordered.

You can lie to yourself like that, sure. Humans do amazing things to deceive themselves. There is no differentiation between "homosexuals" and "homosexuality". Homosexuality is just the sexuality of homosexuals. I am an homosexual, being against homosexuality is being against a part of me. Thinking homosexuality is wrong or disordered or "indecent" is thinking I am wrong, disordered or "indecent" (not in thought, but in existence, I as in my self existing being). Trying to separate homosexuality and homosexuals is just another form of intolerance, you assume to know better than us who we are. We aren't inflicted with homosexuality, we are homosexuals.