There ARE honest people on the Left.

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I thought I indicated that I was using "classical liberal" in a non-standard way. Perhaps a better phrase would be "traditional liberal".

But there is a connection between "classical liberalism" and "traditional/modern liberalism" and that is individualism. Individualism is probably an inevitable result of modernity, first of all economic modernity. And what we see with the modern Left is individualism taken to the extreme: the 'Me Generation'.

That's why it's so easy for young Leftists to close down conservative meetings on campus: they're offended by what the think the speaker might say, and anything that offends or upsets them has to be destroyed. The rights of others simply are not part of their mental calculus. (We're stuck with the words "Left" and "Right", unfortunately.)

The Old Communist Left -- those who saw the Soviet Union (or, later Mao's China) as their ideal society -- were also against free speech for their political opponents, but for a very different reason: they saw it as a necessary aspect of the class war they were fighting, and you don't allow the enemy to have newspapers in your territory while you're fighting a war.

Yes. The left wants no speech, pronouns, terms, characterizations, thought etc. etc. etc. to be allowed that is not what they declare proper. And they have become increasingly militant in enforcing that rule in media, education, government, institutions, entertainment, on social media, even here at USMB.

Classical Liberals strongly defend anybody, even their enemy, against libel and slander or bullying and encourage civility in all of society, but otherwise promote free speech including ability to express thought, feelings, beliefs, opinion freely and without retribution.

 

[Doug1943]

I'm still trying to figure out what Trump supporters are supporting here. She says Tucker misrepresents what the video's show and that everyone that was violent should be protested.

What is it exactly?

Did anyone actually read the piece?

It's well worth reading, although if you're pressed for time, you can skip over the survey of 19th Century history, and Bonus Army in the Depression, etc. (Actually, all the essays on her blog are very interesting. Substack is becoming a magnet for interesting thinkers.)

She says that she bought into the media's representation of the Jan 6 events, but that she was misled. She also doesn't agree with Carlson's depiction of the events as 'mostly peaceful chaos'. (I assume that Carlson was making an ironic reference to the media's presentation of the summer riots as 'mostly peaceful protests'.)

Here's what she says:

I don’t agree with Mr Carlson’s interpretation of the videos as depicting “mostly peaceful chaos.”[https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3887103-tucker-carlson-shows-the-first-of-his-jan-6-footage-calls-it-mostly-peaceful-chaos/] I do think it is a mistake to downplay how serious it is when a legislative institution suffers a security breach of any kind, however that came to be.

But you don’t have to agree with Mr Carlson’s interpretation of the videos, to believe, as I do, that he engaged in valuable journalism simply by airing the footage that was given to him.

And what makes her essay interesting from the point of view of the Right is this:

I believed a farrago of lies. And, as a result of these lies, and my credulity — and the credulity of people similarly situated to me - many conservatives’ reputations are being tarnished, on false bases.

The proximate cause of this letter of apology is the airing, two nights ago, of excepts from tens of thousands of hours of security camera footage from the United States Capitol taken on Jan 6, 2021.

and

You don’t have to agree with Mr Carlson’s interpretation of the videos, to conclude that the Democrats in leadership, for their own part, have cherry-picked, hyped, spun, and in some ways appear to have lied about, aspects of January 6, turning a tragedy for the nation into a politicized talking point aimed at discrediting half of our electorate.

From the start, there have been things about the dominant, Democrats’ and legacy media’s, narrative of Jan 6, that seemed off, or contradictory, to me. (That does not mean I agree with the interpretation of these events in general on the right. Bear with me).

There is no way to un-hear the interview that Mr Carlson did with former Capitol police office Tarik Johnson, who said that he received no guidance when he called his superiors, terrified, as the Capitol was breached, to ask for direction.

So Trump supporters, and everyone else on the Right, have a lot to "support". You don't have to love Mr Trump (I do not), or even be on the Right, to say that, in this particular instance, what the Democratic leadership is claiming, is false. And you certainly don't have to think that the Jan6 rioters (and those who got caught up in the whole thing) did something good, or smart. It was a boneheaded stunt and a huge gift to the Left.

(And, yes, there were a few people there who almost certainly were ready to, perhaps technically did, commit sedition: I'm thinking of the 'stack' of men in camo, wearing helmets, probably with AR15s in the trunks of their cars. Dumb dumb dumb. There is no small amount of romanticism in a certain section of the Right, people who get their ideas of how the world works from Rambo movies. Usually it's just hot air, but in this case maybe it wasn't.

Our -- people on the Right's -- problem is this: would Leftists in the same situation be treated the same way? If there is a law prohibiting throwing rocks at policemen, and one side breaks the law and is punished according to the law, and the other side does the same but is not punished ... do we have justice?

The kernal of truth behind the original Critical Race Theory (or Critical Legal Theory as it was originally called) was that whites got treated more leniently than Blacks for essentially the same crime, holding cocaine -- except 'Black cocaine' was crack, and 'white cocaine' was not. Almost everyone believes that the law should be blind to our race, sex, class or political affiliation, and where it is not, or is believed not to be ... people become cynical about the law.

Anyway, this woman was intelligent enough, had enough self-respect, and moral courage, to watch those videos and change her mind about what happened on 6 January.

I would hope that if the circumstances were reversed, people on my side would do the same.

 

[pknopp]

It's well worth reading, although if you're pressed for time, you can skip over the survey of 19th Century history, and Bonus Army in the Depression, etc. (Actually, all the essays on her blog are very interesting. Substack is becoming a magnet for interesting thinkers.)

I've been reading her since her book "Fire with Fire".

I believe it came out in the early 90's.

She says that she bought into the media's representation of the Jan 6 events, but that she was misled. She also doesn't agree with Carlson's depiction of the events as 'mostly peaceful chaos'. (I assume that Carlson was making an ironic referenence to the media's presentation of the summer riots as 'mostly peaceful protests'.)

Or lying for ratings as he is noted for doing.

Here's what she says:


And what makes her essay interesting from the point of view of the Right is this:

and


So Trump supporters, and everyone else on the Right, have a lot to "support". You don't have to love Mr Trump (I do not), or even be on the Right, to say that, in this particular instance, what the Democratic leadership is claiming, is false.

I would hope that if the circumstances were reversed, people on my side would do the same.

I really don't care what Democratic leadership says. People were duped by a grifter. It will make for an interesting study in the future. She said Tucker is untruthful and those who committed violence should be prosecuted. Again, I'm not sure what is there that Trump supporters, support.

 

[Doug1943]

I've been reading her since her book "Fire with Fire".

I believe it came out in the early 90's.




Or lying for ratings as he is noted for doing.




I really don't care what Democratic leadership says. People were duped by a grifter. It will make for an interesting study in the future. She said Tucker is untruthful and those who committed violence should be prosecuted. Again, I'm not sure what is there that Trump supporters, support.

They support the idea that the media/Democratic Party leadership lied to us about Jan 6th. Even if you believe Trump lies, Tucker Carlson lies, your own mother lies ... even if you believe all that, the fact that the media and the Democratic Party are willing to lie and, by so doing, send people to prison who shouldn't be there ... is profoundly significant.

You can lie to your spouse about what you did on a business trip. You can lie on your income tax. If you're a public speaker or a broadcaster, you can refrain from telling your audience all of your true beliefs. No one is very surprised when this happens.

But to frame up hundreds of people using the power of the state to do so ... that's a different matter. That's the sort of thing one state does to another when they're at war: no limits. "In war, the laws are silent," as Cicero said.

So Naomi Wolf has confirmed for several tens of millions of Americans that the ruling American elite see them as hostile enemy aliens, against whom all means of struggle are justified.

 

[pknopp]

They support the idea that the media/Democratic Party leadership lied to us about Jan 6th.

I'm not sure the lie.

 

[Doug1943]

I'm not sure the lie.

Well, I'll grant you this: a lot of them probably believe their own lie. People tend to believe what they want to believe, what makes them feel good to believe.

There are facts about Jan 6 which we'll probably never know: was the Capitol accidentally-on-purpose left very weakly defendend, on the "give 'em enough rope" principle? Did FBI and other agetns in the crowd deliberately encourage people to enter the Capitol? Both of those things are plausible, but unless we get a confession, we'll probably never know. If you hate Trump supporters, you'll almost certainly dismiss these possibilities. If not, not.

A lot of people on my side -- or some, anyway -- believe that Hillary Clinton takes part in Satanic child-sacrifice rituals. Others believe, or say they believe, that Joe Biden is in the pay of the Chinese Communist Party. Do they really believe these absurd things, the way they believe the sun will rise tomorrow or that swallowing a liter of sulphuric acid will kill you?

The word 'belief' is discrete, binary: either you do or you don't. But in fact there are mental states in between total disbelief and total belief.

At my wife's church, there are people who are regular attenders, who go through all the rituals ... but whose "belief" in the whole set of ideas the Church is based on, is pretty nebulous. Some of these have thought it out and are, in private, agnostics. Others are not inclined to do that, but are not really believers in any way that would be recognized as such by a Bible-inerrancy Southern Baptist.

We have a finite set of discrete words to describe an infinite and changing reality.

 

[pknopp]

Well, I'll grant you this: a lot of them probably believe their own lie. People tend to believe what they want to believe, what makes them feel good to believe.

There are facts about Jan 6 which we'll probably never know: was the Capitol accidentally-on-purpose left very weakly defendend, on the "give 'em enough rope" principle? Did FBI and other agetns in the crowd deliberately encourage people to enter the Capitol? Both of those things are plausible, but unless we get a confession, we'll probably never know. If you hate Trump supporters, you'll almost certainly dismiss these possibilities. If not, not.

A lot of people on my side -- or some, anyway -- believe that Hillary Clinton takes part in Satanic child-sacrifice rituals. Others believe, or say they believe, that Joe Biden is in the pay of the Chinese Communist Party. Do they really believe these absurd things, the way they believe the sun will rise tomorrow or that swallowing a liter of sulphuric acid will kill you?

The word 'belief' is discrete, binary: either you do or you don't. But in fact there are mental states in between total disbelief and total belief.

At my wife's church, there are people who are regular attenders, who go through all the rituals ... but whose "belief" in the whole set of ideas the Church is based on, is pretty nebulous. Some of these have thought it out and are, in private, agnostics. Others are not inclined to do that, but are not really believers in any way that would be recognized as such by a Bible-inerrancy Southern Baptist.

We have a finite set of discrete words to describe an infinite and changing reality.

So no actual verifiable lies to note?

 

[sartre play]

Just no way you will ever get me to believe that HATE is a valuable resource.
That we can accomplish good things by hating each other.
defies common sense.

 

[Doug1943]

So no actual verifiable lies to note?

What do you think Naomi Wolf was referring to?

 

[pknopp]

What do you think Naomi Wolf was referring to?

No idea, that's why I am asking. She is saying she supports the release of all video, which I do also and she doesn't want access to Congress cut off to the people over the violence. That's what I got.

 

[Resnic]

It's a shame they ran tulsi gabbard off. She was a great example of a American and it didn't matter she was a democrat, she was just a decent person.

liberals have voted democrat ever since the democrat party broke away from the union to protect their right to own negro slaves....so little has changed they are still anti ameican an still own their negros

Now they own blacks in a different way. Now they use blacks as a fetish. They use blacks as excuses to push their bills, they use blacks to try and sound like they are good people, they talk about all they are doing for blacks as a way to win votes, they put blacks in seats of power so they can look better. In fact democrats only use blacks for their own selilfish needs.

I'd be offended by that if I was black. Course I'd be offended when they say they want like schools to change requirements to admit blacks, the people who say it think it makes them look good, but if I was a darkie I'd say "wait, do you think I'm dumb because I'm black and I need someone to force a school to let me in?"

Democrats don't have black slaves in the fields anymore to. But they still treat them not as humans, but as a means to their own ends.

 

[Doug1943]

No idea, that's why I am asking. She is saying she supports the release of all video, which I do also and she doesn't want access to Congress cut off to the people over the violence. That's what I got.

My take is this: what we had was a sort-of riot ... that is, it was a crowd which in composition ranged from naive people who didn't realize that by walking through the open doors between polite policemen they were breaking a law, to people who thought they were in some sort of Hollywood action movie, including people who engaged in violent assaults on policemen.

I wouldn't use the word 'insurrection' for this event, nor would I use it for the summer riots by leftists and looters. I would reserve that word for a conscious attempt to seize state power -- like the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the various Communist uprisings in Europe during the 1920s.

There's another aspect to this: could it be that the people in charge of security for the Capitol deliberately didn't prepare adequate defenses, in the hopes that what happened would happen. It's not completely implausible. There's a video -- made by Leftists -- a link to which I posted a few days ago -- which makes a very good case that in the 2010 G20 meeting in Toronto, the police did precisely this. However, I don't know enough about the issue to have a definite opinion.

On 'access to Congress'. It was useful to see that, in the past, Congress wasn't a sacred no-go area ... so people might well have assumed they could go through those doors, with something in their minds between being a simple tourist, on the one hand, and being a violent intimidator, on the other.

And as I've said, this event has exposed one of huge weaknesses of the Right: lack of organization. An organization allows average people to act like very intelligent people -- provided they choose intelligent leaders. But an unorganized crowd -- or a mob -- is predisposed to act like the least intelligent, the most impulsive, of its members.

I should also say this: if the circumstances were reversed -- if an AntiFa crowd had invaded Congress to prevent the inauguration of Donald Trump, with everything being the same in terms of preparation, or lack thereof, the presence of agents within the crowd, the apparent invitations to come in -- my side would probably be doing exactly what your side is doing.

 

[pknopp]

My take is this: what we had was a sort-of riot ... that is, it was a crowd which in composition ranged from naive people who didn't realize that by walking through the open doors between polite policemen they were breaking a law, to people who thought they were in some sort of Hollywood action movie, including people who engaged in violent assaults on policemen.

I wouldn't use the word 'insurrection' for this event, nor would I use it for the summer riots by leftists and looters. I would reserve that word for a conscious attempt to seize state power -- like the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the various Communist uprisings in Europe during the 1920s.

There's another aspect to this: could it be that the people in charge of security for the Capitol deliberately didn't prepare adequate defenses, in the hopes that what happened would happen. It's not completely implausible. There's a video -- made by Leftists -- a link to which I posted a few days ago -- which makes a very good case that in the 2010 G20 meeting in Toronto, the police did precisely this. However, I don't know enough about the issue to have a definite opinion.

On 'access to Congress'. It was useful to see that, in the past, Congress wasn't a sacred no-go area ... so people might well have assumed they could go through those doors, with something in their minds between being a simple tourist, on the one hand, and being a violent intimidator, on the other.

And as I've said, this event has exposed one of huge weaknesses of the Right: lack of organization. An organization allows average people to act like very intelligent people -- provided they choose intelligent leaders. But an unorganized crowd -- or a mob -- is predisposed to act like the least intelligent, the most impulsive, of its members.

I should also say this: if the circumstances were reversed -- if an AntiFa crowd had invaded Congress to prevent the inauguration of Donald Trump, with everything being the same in terms of preparation, or lack thereof, the presence of agents within the crowd, the apparent invitations to come in -- my side would probably be doing exactly what your side is doing.

I don't think anyone thought it would get as out of control as it did. That's just my thoughts. Maybe someone did believe it and made the decision to allow it to happen.

But I'm still not seeing the lie.

 

[Doug1943]

I don't think anyone thought it would get as out of control as it did. That's just my thoughts. Maybe someone did believe it and made the decision to allow it to happen.

But I'm still not seeing the lie.

Would you prefer 'false narrative' rather than 'lie'? My side has been conditioned by the Russia Collusion, Hunter Biden laptop, and other things like that, to expect dishonesty from the other side.

 

[pknopp]

Would you prefer 'false narrative' rather than 'lie'? My side has been conditioned by the Russia Collusion, Hunter Biden laptop, and other things like that, to expect dishonesty from the other side.

Of course. I'm not going to argue that.

Again though, her piece overall is saying Tucker was once again pushing a false narrative for ratings and those who were violent should be prosecuted.

If you want to condemn Democrats for condemning the release of the rest of the video's, by all means do so but that seems a fairly minor point.

 

[Doug1943]

Of course. I'm not going to argue that.

Again though, her piece overall is saying Tucker was once again pushing a false narrative for ratings and those who were violent should be prosecuted.

If you want to condemn Democrats for condemning the release of the rest of the video's, by all means do so but that seems a fairly minor point.

I didn't really follow the arguments about releasing the videos. That is, I read what she said, but I didn't read any of the other side's original statements... there's only so much time in the day.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, you're right. Almost all people feel more in common with those with whom they share a language and much of a common culture, than with others, even if they see the others as fellow humans. We can call this vague affection 'patriotism', and it's useful for political people to do so, since being anti- or non-patriotic is, or used to be, a career-ender in politics.

As I said, if someone is not patriotic -- because they are 'patriots of all humanity' -- I don't see that as something wicked. Patriotism is a neutral virtue, like courage. (When George W Bush called the Islamists who hijacked airlines and flew them into buildings, 'cowards', it was a deeply stupid thing to say. It took ultimate courage to do something like that. Courage is a neutral virtue.)

My quarrel is with people who burn the American flag, or stand idly by, grinning, in their demonstrations while their fellow-demonstrators do so, and then turn around and call my side 'traitors'. Or with people who pass resolutions praising the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg, and then call Robert E Lee a 'traitor', while claiming to be 'patriots'.

I'd have more respect for them if they were like this man:
[ Patriotism is racist ]

The US flag, like all other flags, is a symbol of power. The US flag represents the US political system. So, burning the flag suggests they're not happy with the people in power.

The right wing will (look at China, and yes, there's a lot of right wing in them) ban the burning of flags because they don't want people to think the government is bad. If people don't see flag burning and protests, then the government must be good.

 

[Doug1943]

The US flag, like all other flags, is a symbol of power. The US flag represents the US political system. So, burning the flag suggests they're not happy with the people in power.

The right wing will (look at China, and yes, there's a lot of right wing in them) ban the burning of flags because they don't want people to think the government is bad. If people don't see flag burning and protests, then the government must be good.

I don't think most people believe that the flag represents the people in power. No rightwinger would burn the flag because he hates Mr Biden. You're closer when you say it represents the 'US political system', but that's a bit too vague. They don't burn the flag because they want to amend the Constitution to permit the President to be elected by majority popular vote. Only people on the Left burn the flag.

When you burn the flag, you're saying you hate the whole American system -- however you conceive it. You hate the idea of patriotism, the very idea of 'your country', everything that makes America different. It's a kind of ultimate rejection. Since the modern Left have no coherent alternative, it's an expression of nihilism.

There is one organization which pushes flag-burning quite explicitly, and which does have a coherent alterntive to the American system. Their slogan is "America was never great!" They're the Revolutionary Communist Party, a pro-Stalin cult that's been around since about 1973. They're admirably frank about their hatred for America: [ REVCOM.US HOME | revcom.us ]

I'm all in favor of Leftists burning the flag. I wish every BLM and/or AntiFa demonstration burnt a dozen flags, and also Bibles, as some of Portland protestors are fond of doing. [ Did Portland Protesters Burn Bibles and American Flags? ]

It makes it clear what's at stake.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't think most people believe that the flag represents the people in power. No rightwinger would burn the flag because he hates Mr Biden. You're closer when you say it represents the 'US political system', but that's a bit too vague. They don't burn the flag because they want to amend the Constitution to permit the President to be elected by majority popular vote. Only people on the Left burn the flag.

When you burn the flag, you're saying you hate the whole American system -- however you conceive it. You hate the idea of patriotism, the very idea of 'your country', everything that makes America different. It's a kind of ultimate rejection. Since the modern Left have no coherent alternative, it's an expression of nihilism.

There is one organization which pushes flag-burning quite explicitly, and which does have a coherent alterntive to the American system. Their slogan is "America was never great!" They're the Revolutionary Communist Party, a pro-Stalin cult that's been around since about 1973. They're admirably frank about their hatred for America: [ REVCOM.US HOME | revcom.us ]

I'm all in favor of Leftists burning the flag. I wish every BLM and/or AntiFa demonstration burnt a dozen flags, and also Bibles, as some of Portland protestors are fond of doing. [ Did Portland Protesters Burn Bibles and American Flags? ]

It makes it clear what's at stake.

Most people don't have a clue about anything.

Do we base science of what "most people think"? No. We base it on what it is.

Well...

Protesters Burn American Flag at Colorado Capitol as Inauguration Underway

Roughly 40 or 50 protesters were present at the time of the flag burning, a law enforcement official said.

www.newsweek.com

"Protesters burned an American flag outside the Colorado State Capitol building in Denver Wednesday as inaugural proceedings were underway in Washington, D.C., to commemorate the swearing-in of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris."

Me thinks these were probably right wingers.

However yes, there is a reverence of the flag on the right wing that doesn't exist on the left wing. Probably the same logic they use as calling themselves "patriots" as if everyone else isn't because they don't agree with their views.

Doesn't mean it's so.
Also, right wingers are the ones, in the South, that wave the Confederate flags, I mean it's basically the same as flag burning, waving a flag of the enemy to that flag, a flag that represents 140,000 dead US military personnel.

There's no logic in these people either.

When you burn a flag it says whatever you want it to say. You can't be deciding what people are saying when they do something just because it's convenient for you.

What is at stake if people burn the flag?

Freedom of speech....

 

[mamooth]

The left didn't lie about Jan 6. Naomi Wolf is lying about that. The only interesting question is _why_ she lies.

Drop the gaslighting, conservative liars. It fools no one outside of your cult. You're fascist liars, we're honest and moral.

And drop the "Both sides do it!", bothsiderist wimps. Grow a spine. Pretending how you're above it all makes you look pathetic.