...where should we establish the balancing point?
"Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet - and this is its horror - it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world.- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil"
Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.
31 comments:
"The evils that we, ourselves participate in" = voting for and supporting Donald tRump and embracing racism as peddled by the likes of Charles Murray... for starters.
...or being seduced by the Siren singers and Pied Pipers of SoJus...
...and trading an "old" racism for a new one with the Orwellian MiniTru approved name of "anti-racism."
LOL! ...science fiction author and data scientist, Yudhanjaya Wijeratne ... made an interesting observation about how language helps shape one's worldview: In 1984, Orwell highlighted the efforts on the part of his fictional government to simplify languages down to very basic ideas to avoid free thought as a form of control reducing people’s abilities to express complicated thoughts and concepts.
Wijeratne noted that the right seems to be on a similar path: simplifying arguments and their associated language to effectively spread them to their followers. By contrast, he said, he's seen the left go in the opposite direction: introducing more nuanced language or emphasizing a diversity of opinions or worldviews.
There's an irony here: that the rhetoric invoking Orwell's imagery is coming from a political movement that is essentially putting its head in the sand and denying actual reality. ...it's an established fact that climate change is a hoax, how the Democrats are secretly trafficking children, the left stole the election for Biden, or that the entirety of the political right is being silenced because of a cabal of tech companies conspiring against it.
And those beliefs are supported by a larger media ecosystem of TV networks, talk radio, alt-right blogs, and social media platforms, all of which have convinced a large segment of the population that reality isn't really what it seems... Remember: A prominent member of this party once championed the phrase "alternative facts" with a straight face. Now that's Orwellian.
"LOL" ...indeed!
In the novel, the ruling English Socialist Party (Ingsoc) created Newspeak to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania. Newspeak is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual’s ability to think and articulate “subversive” concepts such as personal identity, self-expression and free will.
Whether operating in academia, the media, social justice movements, or the Democrat party, the left has stifled free speech and intimidated Americans into submission (as we’ve seen in corporate America and professional sports) through its cancel culture and lies (Russia collusion, Russian bounties, Russian disinformation). It’s achieving its goals through the perversion of language to control society.
This is nothing new. Recall the days when the world was going to end from “global warming.” When that prediction failed, the left devised the term “climate change,” understanding that any weather event would easily fall under that reimagined term. As expected, every weather event is now used as an excuse for government and progressives to decry human consumption of energy and limit our freedoms.
LOL!!! Your quote (from yet another fake news website) is 100% contrary to reality (starting with the 2nd paragraph).
Media Bias Fact Check: "Stillness in the Storm"...
Conspiracy Level: Tin foil hat (scale: Mild, Moderate, Strong, Tin Foil Hat).
Pseudo Science Level: Strong (scale: Mild, Moderate, Strong, Quackery).
Factual Reporting: Low (scale: Very High, High, Mostly Factual, Mixed, Low, Very Low).
History: Founded in 2015, Stillness in the Storm is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website with a strong right-leaning pro-Trump agenda. ... The website lacks transparency as it does not name authors or disclose ownership.
That's okay, the "kicker's" in the first. In the novel, the ruling English Socialist Party (Ingsoc) created Newspeak to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism in Oceania.
My party doesn't need to meet the ideological requirements of "socialism".
The kicker is that you left out "in Oceania". "Oceania" was a fictional country. Though it was a stand in for Stalin's Russia, which is what Orwell was criticizing, NOT socialism.
Orwell was a socialist. Stop using his books to attack socialist policies. (excerpt) Orwell actively identified as a democratic socialist, writing in an essay: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 [Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four were written in 1945 and 1949 respectively] has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism... He took pains to distinguish his own leftism from Soviet authoritarianism, viewing socialism as compatible with -- perhaps even essential to -- freedom...
[Orwell] strongly believed that it was possible to both have strongly leftist views and be critical of [a]... regime that claimed to espouse the same views. [end excerpt]
Your party created "alternative facts" to meet the ideological requirements of trumpism (White Supremacist authoritarianism).
So you are of the belief that morality resides with "the system" and not the individual. Good to know. It means that neither Trump nor I could possibly be the immoral "White Supremacist Authoritarians" you charge us to be. It's your "socialist" system that's morally at fault. :)
All just good little Eichmanns....
How can it be "good to know" something I never said? Again you set up your strawman and knock it down. Any system can be morally corrupted. That's the point Orwell made.
I simply brought the argument BACK to the topic of the post.
And what Orwell neglects in his argument is the possibility Madison reflects upon in his "Memorial and Remonstrance" against the "tyranny of the majority" that accompanies democracy and becomes most obvious in the "socialist" struggles between Catholics and Protestants, or Catholics and Calvinists. Groups (socialisms) can develop "tyrannical" principles as easily (if not more so) than individuals.
....the reasons "why" Madison was against funding religious groups (socialisms).
Madison’s fundamental argument was that religion “must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man,” because it depended on “the evidence contemplated by their own minds” and “cannot follow the dictates of other men.” For that reason, religious conviction was an inalienable right over which no government, including government based on majority rule, could have legitimate power.
Governments need to be socially "agnostic" and refrain from acting with "charity" towards any of its individual or groups of citizens for the benefit of ALL of them.
...that are wealthy.
And that's the whole point. fyi, all citizens are members of the government (via voting, which you want to suppress). Which isn't the case with the numerous religions. Democratic government does not NEED to do what your faction demands. Democratic government NEEDS to do what a majority of the voters want. I'm not voting for your "refrains".
Why you voted for the "authoritarian outsider". Perhaps more so than for the White Supremacy.
...Which isn't the case with the numerous religions.
You've never been involved with a church group, have you? Because at the churches I attended in my youth, they were ALWAYS voting on one thing or another.
Democratic government NEEDS to do what a majority of the voters want.
...and THAT's precisely the problem with such "positive" liberties of the type YOU advocate, there is no private space belonging to the individual into which they cannot meddle. No space for "negative liberty" of the kind that strict interpreters of original intent in the US Constitution demand.
btw - Better to vote for an authoritarian outsider than a totalitarian insider. The latter meets no systemic resistance and operates completely without moral or ethical constraints.
So (for example) Joe Biden (as a Catholic) voted for the pope he wanted? Who knew?
"operates completely without moral or ethical constraints" = Donald tRump as president.
Not all religions are Democracies, and neither or all governments. Which Chinese vote for Xi?
The point is that a democracy has the potential to be even more totalitarian than an autocracy. Why do you suppose that the Greeks weren't big fans of democracy, even in Athens? And no, they didn't vote for their leaders, they drew lots for jobs on a rotating Deme basis.
:P
LOL! The video you link to explains how we got the demagogue Dotard Donald. You love the sweets he sold (hate).
...says the man 'hating' on Trump... LOL!
Right. I hate his guts and can't wait to see him suffer.
Sounds like your hate has gotten the best of you. Did Rachel Madcow sell it you to you?
Sounds like your hate has gotten the best of you. Re your repeating of lies about Joe Biden. btw, someone who doesn't exist can't sell anything.
You don't exist? Then I'd better stop talking to myself, people will call me crazy.
LOL! They must only be calling you crazy behind your back currently. btw, I exist. "Rachel Madcow" does not.
Neither does the Dotard (Biden), but if the show fits...
Joe Biden is clearly not a dotard. And he also clearly exists. As for the shoe fitting, that is why Dotard Donald received the accurate label.
... but now Biden has stolen the dotarding crown.
No. Although you admit it was held by tRump?
No, I simply recognize the fact that it has been falsely applied by others.
Post a Comment