It’s axiomatic that no thoughtful resolution of the abortion [or any other] question is going to issue from glib pronouncements of gloating liberals but only from heartrending deliberations of humbled conservatives.
I’ve long ceased commenting on current affairs for lack of any discernible meaning, and instead turned my attention to the theoretical, with an eye to a brighter tomorrow. Well, the 2012 elections may well prove to be an exception, a portent of something new, something different. No, not because the Democrats have won, but because the Republicans have lost!…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
Can't be responding on a point-by-point basis, Dreadful, only to the gestalt.
First off, nowhere have I given you an indication that I was addressing your personal beliefs and presuppositions, only those which I take to be fairly representative of a "typical liberal mindset"; and that's a horse of another color. You may or you may not identify with them. Neither do I have a way of telling, nor does it concern me since that wasn't the purpose or the intent of the article, drawing a portrait was. And you may of course disagree with my portrait, on which subject you continue to remain mute and choose instead to make things personal. That's precisely what I meant earlier when I spoke of "taking things out of context." Why? To derail the conversation? To make Cindy a potential target if she were to follow your line of questioning? I hope the answer to these questions is an unequivocal "no," for none of that serves any useful purpose, a thoughtful discussion of the ideas raised does. But I won't know, of course, until you change your tack and stay within the bounds of the written matter. That's why we write papers, articles, etc., for crying out laud, to delineate a context for the subsequent discussion. Surely you must know that. Things would be smoother, much smoother, I assure you, if you were also to observe that. So no, you haven't criticized my ideas thus far, only my bedside manner, not the same thing.
I do happen to agree that Cindy's statement is rather extreme, but the cult metaphor is rather striking, I must admit. Liberalism, as I see it, is a kind of religion, especially given our thoroughly secularized society; and so are some of the responses by many of its practitioners. But then again, why place yourself in that category and react rather than examine the metaphor on its merit? Did Cindy suggest that discussion with you is impossible? Did I? And since neither of us have, why take on the burden of defending what is merely a type? And if there is anything wrong with positing a type, why not discuss that.
You speak of me and Cindy as though forming a clique. Two makes for a very small clique, don't you think. Come to think of it, she may have misspoken. Should have referred to both of us as forming a cult, the cult of anarchists, if by cult one means something esoteric or, in any case, as departing from what is considered normal, orthodox and perfectly ordinary. so yes, you may be right on that score.
In any case, rest assured that both she and I wish for this cult to be more inclusive, as inclusive as humanly possible. Yes, we're in dire need of more members, the more the better. So in that sense, yes, you are the intended target, and so is zing and many others.
Happy Thanksgiving.
27 - roger nowosielski
" ...besides, I’ve always taken her to be a member of the opposite sex ..." page 2
Zing, this is but a literary form whereby a male is being referred to by the pronoun "she." I would have hoped you know that.
Happy Thanksgiving.
28 - troll
you're both right...an hellacious conundrum
"Welcome to the [cult] of the real"...or at least really brainwashed
29 - Igor
Well Roger, I'm just surprised that you still assign any meaning to the old "left/right" or "liberal/conservative" divisions after all that's happened in the last 50 years. It's all so old-fashioned. In any case, those pairings never established a true dichotomy because they were not exhaustive (didn't include all possibilities) nor exclusive (didn't exclude mutual possibilities) so it was bogus intellectualism all the way. In fact, of course, capitalism and communism were brothers (you get to pick which was Cain and which was Abel). So with communism gone capitalism was left to flail itself to death (which it is doing nicely) being deprived of an enemy to lean against.
...the dispute over the self-sufficiency versus the dependency question isn’t political at bottom, although it’s made out to look as though it were political. It’s a dispute, plain and simple, about economics, personal economics, about who can keep what, about who is entitled to what, and at what cost. Politics is just a veneer,...
Economics, yes, but more importantly morality. In fact, self-righteous morality.
Just listen to the self-righteous tone come into the conversation from the rightists, who are simply more blatant than passive-aggressive leftists.
"Economics" of course, was invented by power-seeking clerics to justify the predations of merchants and Princes and give their excesses the blessings of institutional morality. That the ink-stained clerics could thereby secure cushy positions in the hierarchy was not just a side effect, but, in fact, the point of those rationalizations. Thus, we get Adam Smith, David Ricardo and all those worthies.
Too bad that their practised lies still have a hold on people.
30 - roger nowosielski
Granted, Igor, the categories may no longer be as useful as they once were; and I believe I addressed this matter, albeit less than adequately, it appears, in prior essays. Still, there is no denying that we're experiencing a major ideological divide and this is the focus of this article. So does it really matter what we call it? A rose by any other name ... Suffice it. however, that lots of people, here and elsewhere, identify themselves as liberals or progressives, sufficiently so, at least, to take offense, so the terms haven't altogether lost all their meaning.
Sure, there is righteous moral indignation from the extreme right, but as you yourself have noted, there is no shortage of it from the left as well. So I agree with you than in addition to politics, morality is also being invoked to justify the economic status quo as part of the ideological battle.
31 - Igor
Those categories never were useful. They were illusions created and nurtured to keep people in fear so they could be easily manipulated.
32 - roger nowosielski
Well, I'm glad you said it, not I. Perhaps we're on to something now.
33 - Anarcissie
Part of my problem with this discussion thus far is the use of terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative'. The meanings of 'liberal' are, of course, spread all over the map, but the basic meaning in political philosophy is something like 'believing in and desiring the rights named in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and in capitalism', which comprises a very wide swath of politics in the U.S., so wide as to be virtually meaningless -- only some of the religious Right and the tiny Left are excluded. 'Conservative' also denotes a very broad collection of views, such that it often intersects with 'liberal'. If we fall back to the common-sense meanings of these words, in which 'conservative' means 'not desiring much change', then we find that the Democratic Party is the conservative party, but the Republican Party is not, since it is the Democrats that are trying (or are supposed to be trying) to hold on to the remains of the social democratic state (Social Security, Medicare, the Welfare State in general, encouragement of unions, regulation of business, distaste for large-scale foreign adventures, and so on) whereas the Republicans, in general, are trying to destroy them, a radical experiment.
We might try to use the terms 'Right' and 'Left' instead of 'conservative' and 'liberal', but here we are impeded by the fact that both parties are authoritarian, that is, rightist, the main disagreement being as to which authorities are preferred, the Republicans preferring the explicit authority of Capital and the military, while Democrats prefer that the ruling class operate its authority through bureaucrats, academics, and legislative procedures. (The Left, as I use the word, people who prefer actual peace, freedom, and equality, are a small, marginalized minority.)
Rightist leaders and theoreticians are already very smart and very thoughtful. From my point of view, this is not a good thing, because I dislike their intentions. In any case, the demographic shifts which produced Mr. Obama's undeserved victory will not particularly increase their mental activities: you win some, you lose some, let's move on. They are already hard at work on the next election, the next war, the next intensification of surveillance and police power in general. If 'liberals' (popular usage here) think their opponents are in disarray or disheartened, they will get taken to the cleaners -- again.
In the matter of abortion, anti-abortionists do not particularly wish to reduce the number of abortions but rather to keep the state pure of the kind of permissiveness which tolerates it. Their core complaint is against the free expression of sexuality, in particular female sexuality. I suppose female sexuality is still held by many to be a kind of huge dark amorphous monster which destroys (patriarchal) families and eats babies; one cannot compromise with it. From that point of view, someone who advocates more access to sex education and contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions has already gone over to the Dark Side.
In general I see the recent election as a temporary, partial defensive victory, a hanging-on of already-tattered social democracy against an assault which will certainly be renewed in the near future. The silver lining is that things are not worse, that we are not yet rushing over the edge of the abyss but only walking steadily towards it.
My thoughts for so aptly named Black Friday.
34 - Igor
Yes, IMO anti-abortionists are not really interested in preventing abortions but rather in having a moral imperative to hold over peoples heads to shame them into following orders (starting with the order: no extramarital sex!).
Once you control peoples sex lives you've REALLY got control of them.
35 - Igor
Oh, and I don't know how or when Capitalism got absorbed into conservatism as an essential ingredient. Looks totally spurious to me. Like the words "under god" that got stuck into the Pleadge of Allegiance (in fact, the whole pledge is spurious).
36 - Clavos
Liberalism, as I see it, is a kind of religion...
True, but also true of all other political philosophies. In fact politics itself is nothing more than a secular religion (at least as practiced in this country, most of Europe and certainly in the middle east) -- complete with prayers (the declaration of independence), sacraments, sins and penances, and of course, a clergy (the political class).
37 - roger nowosielski
Of course you're right, Clavos -- all political philosophies which function as ideologies. I was referring, however, to the missionary aspect of liberalism, a unique characteristic if I may say so.
38 - Clavos
I was referring, however, to the missionary aspect of liberalism, a unique characteristic if I may say so.
True in today's world, yes. But just in the relatively recent past we can also point to Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism - the Nazi movement) and Communism (and perhaps others) as exhibiting missionary aspects as well, don't you think?
39 - roger nowosielski
No question, I'm living too much in the present, so thanks for pointing it out.
I suppose the object then must be to free politics of any kind of ideological taint, to think of it as nothing but a process.
Is it possible? I seriously doubt it. Humans are endowed with a sense of purpose and their sense of purpose is bound to color everything they do. Ideology is rooted in a sense of purpose, in trying to impose our sense of purpose on others.
Is there be a purpose that, potentially at least, that can be free of the ideological stain and eventual contamination.
Justice perhaps.
40 - Cindy
Cindy's #18 epitomises this nicely: The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
In other words, no matter what anyone says who doesn't happen to toe the line of Roger and Cindy's little clique, no matter how much variability their utterances may have from anyone else's, they can automatically be dismissed as brainwashed.
Dear Dr.D,
I assure you the context is much different than you think. Me and Roger, among other people whose analysis lays along a similar observation, are included in the cult.
"Their" means "they who are members of the particular cult" (culture). Even cultures I admire--say, the !Kung, for example are "enculturated".
My reference was to suggest that this is insidious and clouds the very nature of reality. There are no set of beliefs that some "they" have--"their beliefs". Only multiple sets of beliefs that overlap in particular cultures.
I am not personalizing some attack on anyone. If I criticize, it is because of an unwillingness to explore what I am saying as a reasonable proposition rather than as a personal attack.
It makes me throw my hands up. I am speaking of our (yours, mine, zing's, everyone's) human condition. These are not personal insults.
I wish one of you would take the challenge to try and understand and get past the level of simply interpreting what I say as some personal slight to be defended against.
And I won't hear any of that nonsense about how it's all my fault cuz I am a meanie who puts people off. You are all grown up people. take a challenge. Or don't. Just end the conversation figuring I am a snob or a bitch. It's all the same to me. Though I really would like to see someone at least TRY to take what I am saying and imagine it as a possibility and see where it leads.
41 - Cindy
Dr.D,
Allow me to give you a brief picture. As a girl growing up in the USA I learned to have certain likes and dislikes, interests, and goals, and beliefs about the world and what was real.
Perhaps a girl (though not I) will be inclined to dress in pink and play with My Little Ponies. Perhaps she will identify with the princess in a Disney film. If she is brown-skinned, she likely will smart with the lack of such characteristics among Disney princesses (until new markets were explored--the "brown girl's market", say).
In any case she will feel her likes and dislikes, her longings, and her feelings about herself according to what marketing has done and what her culture permits or enforces. And they will all be taken to BE reality. That is, it is not that girls are marketed to to like pink and play with ponies, whilst boys are marketed to to smash figurines together in a mock annihilation and power struggle--it is that girls ARE this and boys ARE that. We mistake our nature for what we have been taught to do. There is very little that we ARE in our nature, except very, very flexible.
For a different example, in some fringe culture schools, she may be encouraged to take a philosophical outlook--to question reality and to explore and gain experience in discovering her own way and her own truths. Or, in a typical school, she will be introduced to law and order and the importance of being obedient and doing what you are told, all the while experiencing what we all did--the dysfunctional connection between what we were being told and what was actually happening. In this cult (culture) authority and obedience to rules without thinking is preferred, memorization of facts and dates and figures, are preferred to actual thinking.
42 - Cindy
You speak of me and Cindy as though forming a clique. Two makes for a very small clique, don't you think. Come to think of it, she may have misspoken. Should have referred to both of us as forming a cult, the cult of anarchists, if by cult one means something esoteric or, in any case, as departing from what is considered normal, orthodox and perfectly ordinary. so yes, you may be right on that score.
In any case, rest assured that both she and I wish for this cult to be more inclusive, as inclusive as humanly possible. Yes, we're in dire need of more members, the more the better. So in that sense, yes, you are the intended target, and so is zing and many others.
Very good, Roger. I am in agreement.
43 - Cindy
(Though, I will include all these ideas in my statement that "we made it all the fuck up". :-)
44 - Cindy
Except, I think of cults as not departures from the ordinary, but the indoctrinated, ingrained, or learned ordinary.
I would prefer to be among a cult of anarchists, or peaceful peoples, than a cult of capitalist peoples who use coercion and domination as if they were a necessary fact of reality.
There is a chance that in a cult of anarchists the reality is perceived as being that there will be acceptance of differences in realities. :-)
That is a good start!
45 - roger nowosielski
@33, Anarcissie (and thanks for coming out of hibernation, btw).
A number of points:
(1) That's news to me that you appear to be more concerned about the possible rise of the Right as a potentially more damaging development on the American political scene rather than with "the Left" holding on to its "gains." From the purely practical standpoint, I think your scenario is highly unrealistic. And in that, I happen to concur with such as Clavos, for example, who regards the recent demographic shift in the U.S. from "white" to non-white" majority as a permanent one and that the die has been cast. And assuming now we shall not undergo any drastic changes as regards the US electorate process in the immediate future (due to, say, any number of factors calling for "the state of exception" [Agamben]), it's really difficult to imagine how the Right would continue to appeal to the US voting public which is increasingly non-white. The so-called "liberal" ideas - such as "extra-marital" sex Igor mentioned or same-sex marriage - are getting wider and wider acceptance, if only by virtue of "being kicked about" for quite some time now (as is true of all originally "radical" ideas which have been around for a while); and "liberal ideas," so understood, have become the exclusive province of the Democratic party (at least insofar as the popular mind is concerned).
Apart from practical considerations, it would appear that that the main danger you perceive in singling out the possible rise of the Right concerns a return to a more repressive (and less permissive) society. (I would say "fascism," but I hesitate since the Right, ideologically at least, is in favor of a more limited, less intrusive state/government, but this proviso may apply only to the federal level: can we speak of "fascism" on a state-by-state basis?) Whereas I see a far greater danger from the movement toward ever greater appeasement and acquiescence, as a by-product of the policies on the liberal state. And I believe history bears me out on this, since the liberal state, since its very inception, has been steadily progressing towards an all-comprehensive welfare state, a real behemoth. So we may have an honest disagreement on this point.
(2) Concerning the definition of terms
While I agree that the "liberal" vs. "conservative" nomenclature has become hopelessly befuddled by now, not to mention utterly divorced from what may have been the original meaning, I believe we can still make a number of tactical moves to help us keep our heads above the water and stop us from talking past one another. In this connection, let me suggest a number of distinctions to keep in mind:
(a) Liberalism vs. conservatism as political philosophies, the first, in particular, as an offshoot of utilitarianism a la Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
(b) Liberalism as original political philosophy vs. liberalism in modern political parlance, mainly as popular perception. The fact that the latter may have become utterly divorced and disconnected from the former doesn’t change the reality of perceptions as they play out on the political scene. Many, including our own Glenn Contratrian and Christopher Rose, consider themselves “liberals,” however much their thinking may have become divorced from the original idea; likewise, just as many detest self-proclaimed “liberals,” and you’ve got to visit the South to appreciate that sentiment and taste the flavor of the popular mind. None of which makes perceptions any less real. That’s a discourse on a wholly different level.
(c) Finally, political liberalism/conservatism divide vs. liberalism/conservatism division as regards social/sociological perspective. Let me once again cite here from Robert P. Wolff’s The Poverty of Liberalism:
“The collective character of social action is the universal presupposition of the social sciences, and modern liberals who have wholeheartedly adopted the theories of sociology and social psychology, are accustomed to view society through the eyes of conservative social theorists like Max Weber [and Emile Durkheim] …”
Now, how does “the collective character of social action” end up as “the universal presupposition” by, of all people, conservative social theorists is the right kind of question. It’s simply because, Wolff explains, “the fundamental insight of the conservative philosophy [and sociology, one may as well add], is that man is by nature a social being … social in the sense that his essence, his true being, lies in his involvement in a human community.” One would be inclined to think that liberal social theorists would have a head start here, beating their colleagues to the punch, but apparently not. It’s the emphasis on individual or group rights versus the person’s relationship to their community or, as Wolff aptly put it, the emphasis on “individualist politics,” that keeps the liberal-minded theorists behind the eight ball on this score.
All told, I consider the objection as to vague and ambiguous terms a cop-out. It’s one of the virtues of human communication, unimpeded, that we can readily ascertain what exactly we’re talking about and stay on target. In any case, some of you may find it expedient to copy and paste these remarks for future reference. I don’t intend to go through gyrations of having to repeat them.
(3) Perhaps we should start paying greater heed to Igor’s insightful remark: “Those categories never were useful. They were illusions created and nurtured to keep people in fear so they could be easily manipulated [#31].”
Do you realize, Igor, how radical your proposition really is? Do you care to extrapolate? I’m waiting.
In closing, I’d like to thank Anarcissie and Igor for keeping the fires burning, Igor in particular, for overlooking the obvious attempt to smoke him out as part of the intellectual come-on, to have him join the discussion. Too bad people like zing are too obtuse not to see through my ploy and decide, contrary to their best interests, to read me literally.
In any case, it’s becoming more and more difficult to have an honest-to-goodness dialogue anymore, on the internet or in person. To continue with my sour grapes, Ana here is more into activism than political theory. Cindy has lost her fire for the time being due to personal circumstances. Mark Eden (aka “troll”) is on a sabbatical leave or an extended vacation. One possible prospect, a mutual acquaintance of mine and Anarcissie’s, has recently remarked that “since liberalism is my cup of tea, I'll continue to swim around in its essential care for humanity” (as if one couldn’t care for humanity anymore outside of liberalism); and that essentially closed all avenues of communication between me and her until we meet in person, until, that is, the power of my personality takes effect. Consequently, I’ve got to be grateful to however few souls who are willing to keep the discussion alive.
In short, I can’t do without you guys. Writing or taking notes to myself just doesn’t cut it since all truth is relational at bottom. It must be shared or it’s nothing.
46 - Cindy
Hiya troll :-)
I think we may be on somewhat the same page. (though mine is really wavy like an lsd trip).
Tell me when I have caught up to you. ;-)
47 - Anarcissie
'[T]he Right, ideologically at least, is in favor of a more limited, less intrusive state/government.'
What??? It is not. The more explicit Right (Republicans, neocons, jihadis, etc.) generally favors war, imperialism, police powers, prisons, surveillance, suppression of free speech, suppression of labor unions, suppression of sexuality, voter suppression, copyright and other absurdly restrictive IP laws, and above all the government-backed authority of private capital. It is not an accident that under recent Republican administrations, and the Obama administration, which has generally copied its predecessor in many areas, the Federal budget and national debt have exploded.
In regard to demographics, constructions like race, ethnicity, 'color', gender, etc., can be set aside. They were (and are) low-hanging fruit for rightists, a means of quick appeal to those who may most politely be called 'low-information voters'. It will probably take less work than you think to disengage from them and re-emphasize authority, power, private wealth, class, and related divisions, to which race and gender are fundamentally irrelevant.
You can argue that Democrats, 'liberals', 'progressives', etc., favor the same things as explicit rightists, but at least they do have the decency to put up a curtain before they get on with the dirty work. And they are functionally conservative, so they won't destroy the world as rapidly.
The need for a dialectic to make progress points to not only a need for theories to interact (discussion), but for them to interact with the material world (that is, in the realm of politics, activism).
48 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
In your definition of terms, when it comes to "liberal" and "conservative", you should also include how one's biology affects one's mindset. For instance, it's been noted in several studies that there is a significant correlation between the size of one's amygdala and whether one leans to the liberal or the conservative (as defined by the study, of course). If the amygdala is larger, one is apparently more likely to be conservative...and the stronger the "fight or flight" response. It's been posited that this is at least partially responsible for the success of fear-based political speech, punditry, and advertising on the Right.
That said, my own definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' lay in the degree of one's comfort with change - the more liberal one is, the less afraid one is of change, the more willing (and sometimes eager) one is to adapt to change. And yes, this has directly affected our major political parties as evinced by the fact that 55% of scientists self-identify as Democratic, whereas only 6% self-identify as Republican...and by my definition above, scientists - who thirst to discover the unknown - would strongly lean towards the liberal.
If one adds the philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives to the apparent biological difference, one must wonder if H.G. Wells might have been on to something when he wrote of the Eloi and the Morlocks in The Time Machine.
P.S. I'm glad to see you're still around.
49 - roger nowosielski
Interesting literary allusion, Glenn. However, I wouldn't touch the issue of biological determinism with a ten-foot pole.
50 - Clavos
However, I wouldn't touch the issue of biological determinism with a ten-foot pole.
You're a wise man, Roger. The concept invokes the horrors inherent in everything from racism to eugenics and Nazi prison camp experiments.
51 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger and Clavos -
quite true to both of you...but such is the nature of science. Hard science cares little for social constructs such as laws, moral concepts of right and wrong.
We all know and agree of the dangers Clavos listed - there's no argument. But by the same token, if the scientific studies are right, then the difference is still there. Which is the greater wrong - to deny them altogether and pretend they don't exist, or to acknowledge those differences and work to adapt our society to allow for those differences...particularly when those differences do not seem to be affected by race or ethnicity in any way?
Let me put this in a different light: my oldest son has an a-type personality, and my youngest has ADD. Which is the wiser path - to get them to ignore those conditions and soldier on bravely, or to get them to accept those conditions as (probably) unchangeable parts of their personalities? My oldest son - probably due to his a-type personality - will always refuse to accept it and could care less what people think of his personality. He's also very conservative - not in politics, but in personality. My youngest son has already accepted his ADD and now sees it as an advantage; indeed, he hopes his children have the same.
My oldest son is not my biological son - my youngest is. Looking at the two of them, half-brothers, alike in kindness and honor, but total opposites otherwise, well, this has shown me the "nature" side of the "nature or nurture" argument.
But the point is, this is science. It's real. It does not apply to race or ethnicity...and it in NO way gives the advantage of the one over the other. I have stated several times on this blog that we liberals need conservatives...and that's much the same point Wells made in his book.
Again, it's science. It would be very wrong to use it for the evil purposes that Clavos rightly listed; however, it would be just as wrong to deny its existence. Adapt - that's what we do.
52 - Clavos
if the scientific studies are right...
You haven't shown that, Glenn
53 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
Here..
And here (read the references).
And here.
And here.
54 - Clavos
Glenn,
Your three links to media all refer to one study, the Kanai one, which has yet to be peer reviewed; the third link also refers to the Amodio study, which also is described as "preliminary."
The Wikipedia article is a throwaway; there are far too many caveats right at the beginning to sustain its credibility.
But lets assume for the sake of argument that the other two studies prove to be dead on; so what? Unless you want to use the information to abort all babies born on one side or the other (take your pick), or to force politicians to undergo treatment and/or surgery to "correct' their brain architecture, both of which would be, as I said above, very reminiscent of Eugenics and/or the Nazi experiments on concentration camp inmates.
As I see it, if there is a value to knowing this, it is contained in the idea that one line of political/philosophical thought is somehow more valuable and/or desirable than the other, and then doing something about it to bring those members of the population who don't exhibit the "right" brain architecture, over to the "right" side; an idea which to me is repugnant, unAmerican and grotesque.
55 - roger nowosielski
A project of this sort would amount to programming a human being to function as a machine.
Kinda of odd that it's being endorsed by someone like Glenn who, correct me if I'm wrong? is quite content to live with imperfection in virtually every aspect of human life on account of "human nature."
56 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
There will not be any surgery to 'correct' conservatives or liberals any more than there is surgery to 'correct' A-type personalities and ADD - which is precisely why I included my sons' personalities in my comment.
Furthermore, that's why I pointed out that my oldest son is quite conservative by nature, but votes Democratic.
In other words, Clav, yes you can accept scientific findings that challenge the status quo without the sky suddenly falling on all our heads. Besides, the march of science is inevitable, unstoppable. Either understand and adapt - and learn how to make sure the knowledge is used in a way that does not offend our modern societal morality - or risk becoming a Luddite.
And you can get a clue on anthropomorphic global warming while you're at it.
57 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Where did I ever even HINT that I would approve of 'correcting' someone's personality? Did you read what I wrote about my sons? That SHOULD have given you a clue that this is all about learning WHY we have differences, that we may be better able to ACCEPT those differences, just as our society is trying to do with those who are of different races, ethnicities, religions, and disabilities or lack thereof.
It's not me who brought up 'correcting' differences - that's you and Clav. Don't project your fears on me.
58 - roger nowosielski
I have no fears, Glenn, none in any case of the sort you may imagine. But what then, if I may ask, is the point of bringing up biology as a way of accounting for our political predispositions?
Unless you intend to put these "findings" into practice, it's a moot point, don't you think?
59 - roger nowosielski
As a matter of fact, your very approach to the subject reminds me of Dan.
So what if there are genetic differences between "the races"? How we treat one another is certainly a more important question then "the findings."
"The findings" be damned! There is no point, none whatever, unless one wants to make something out of it.
60 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
But what then, if I may ask, is the point of bringing up biology as a way of accounting for our political predispositions?
Let me direct you to what I said in my most recent comment to you:
That SHOULD have given you a clue that this is all about learning WHY we have differences, that we may be better able to ACCEPT those differences, just as our society is trying to do with those who are of different races, ethnicities, religions, and disabilities or lack thereof.
The answer is there - and the way to "put the findings into practice" is the same way we put into practice the understanding that we need to accept each other as equals, just as we are trying to do with matters of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, whatever.
And one more thing, Roger, concerning what you said:
I have no fears, Glenn, none in any case of the sort you may imagine.
Don't assume that your fears are somehow beyond my imagination. That's nothing more than angst and hubris, and you should know better than that. And if you indeed have no fears, then you have more problems than you yourself may imagine.
Instead, take a clue from Socrates: "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
61 - Dr Dreadful
And you can get a clue on anthropomorphic global warming while you're at it.
It's anthropogenic global warming, Glenn, for God's sake.
Unless you want to start calling it Glenda Global Warming and making it the star of its own kids' TV series.
62 - pablo
Roger,
No offense, but I enjoy your comments much more than your articles. And I do like most of your comments very much :) Happy day after thanksgiving bro.
63 - pablo
The problem as I see it with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (and yes it is a theory, just as its a theory that 9/11 was done by a bunch of Arabs) is that the global warming mongers are blowing out so much hot air that they are in face causing climate change! Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
64 - roger nowosielski
Thanks, Pablo. I'm kinda locked in into my writing style -- the subject matter perhaps. But it's sure great hearing from you. Wish you the best, too.
65 - pablo
Roger,
I am always around. I read some comments occasionally. However I gave up most of my commenting since it falls on deaf ears, in short a waste of time. I will occasionally however just thow a barb out there to such esteemed mental thinkers such as Dread, zingzag, aucontrarian, and a few others. Too bad Nalle aint around anymore, boy was he a piece of work.
66 - roger nowosielski
We do feature a bunch of colorful characters on BC, don't we?
67 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
-morphic, -genic, whatever. You and everyone else knew what I meant. I'll try harder in the future - we don't need any Alice the Goon Warming running around (see the old Popeye cartoons).
68 - Glenn Contrarian
pablo -
putting me in the same line as zing and particularly Dread is a compliment for which I'm grateful. But why did you call me 'golden contrarian'? Je ne parle pas Francais, you know.
69 - Clavos
or risk becoming a Luddite.
OK, I'm Luddite.
When they start pointing out the differences in people's brains, it's only a matter of time before someone decides that type a is more desirable than type B (or vice versa) so, let's do something about it.
And that's when yes, I'll be a Luddite.
70 - Glenn Contrarian
Clav -
There's nothing wrong with pointing out biological differences between people. The only danger is in allowing prejudice against one group or the other based on those differences. Acknowledging that a person's conservative or liberal outlook on life is in reality not any different from acknowledging that a person has a type a personality, or has ADD, or any other mental quirk...for the people who have these are still normal people, and while these quirks may hinder a person in some fields of endeavor, they are great advantages in other endeavors.
This isn't eugenics - this is simple reality, and it's just as the man said - the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.
C'mon, Clav, I know you understand this at least as well as I do.
71 - Clavos
Oh, I understand it just fine, Glenn, But there's a difference between understanding something and embracing it.
72 - Dr Dreadful
Pablo, throwing a bunch of names around is not a theory.
73 - Anarcissie
'Biological differences', like other abstractions, are constructed out of phenomena within frameworks containing a great many assumptions, may of them unquestioned, unanalyzed, indeed, even unconscious. There is probably something wrong, most of the time, with treating them as facts rather than provisional theories.
74 - Igor
@63-pablo: calling something just a theory is not really a strong argument: everything we know or think we know is just a theory. Socrates explained this 2500 years ago, but I like the more modern explanation by Bertrand Russell about 100 years ago in terms of Sense Datum.
Nevertheless, many people think that an idea is "just a theory" and then, somehow, it graduates to being "fact", but that is intellectually indefensible. Facts are poor miserable things: you might say it's a fact that the temp in this room is 65F, but really that's just based on the presentation of some colored alcohol in a thin tube, which theoretically is proportional to the mean energy of 6.24*10**23 molecules per mole of the air in this room, whatever that's worth.
It's all theory. But theory is the best thing we've got.
75 - roger nowosielski
@74
Except for meta-language statements about rules -- e.g., grammatical, syntax rules, etc.
BTW, I think the intent of Ana's comment was to shed doubt on biological-differences claims, i.e., that they don't have the status of "bare facts."