Sacred Cows: Irrationalities of the right and left.

[BoneDaddy]

I am a fervent opponent of the right wing. I challenge authority, irrational religion be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic fundamentalism, ridiculous "patriotism", male domination and patriarchy as a practice, and no "peoples voice" in the face of power.

On the same spectrum of irrationality, I also challenge "political correctness" as a way to force people to adhere to a specific doctrine of thinking, I challenge the extreme idea that the feminine is superior to the masculine, that people of color are more right than "whites", that the poor have some moral superiority in regards to the wealthy and that atheism is the only way to view the world.

The left has their own "sacred cows" as does the right and they are never so apparent as in here. For the most part I support DU, but they often fly to the far extreme, defining themselves not so much by sound wisdom and more by some alternative tribal sickness that is just the opposite of what they hate, and that in hating their own opposite, they have, in many ways become that which they despise.

I choose to reject both irrational extremes and plant myself, not in the middle (so to speak) but in opposition to the insane "sacred cows" of both the left and right.

Anyone with me?

[Yael]

1. Why do you hate America?

:P

[BoneDaddy]

6. Heheheheh

I love it.

[porphyrian]

2. I reject everything, including rejection and this statement. - n/t

[BoneDaddy]

4. I support you rejection

hehe

[porphyrian]

9. I was going to thank you, but I rejected the idea.

:evilgrin:

[Selatius]

3. I generally reject dogma and blind faith, and that usually covers the "sacred cows."

You've got to question even your own views sometimes; otherwise, people would still be thinking the earth is the center of the universe.

[BoneDaddy]

5. True

enough, the difference I do not qualify you to adhere to my point of view...This is in a sense mental masturbation.

[cali]

7. yes n/t

[MichaelHarris]

8. Why do you hate Hardee's?

[NC_Nurse]

10. Of course.

You have to choose your battles around here though, IMO. ;)

[Swamp Rat]

11. "You are all individuals!"

:D



edit: "I'm not."

[rucky]

12. The difference...

RW irrationalities are inconsiderate of minority groups.

PC-ers may be overly considerate - but at least they're considerate.

Which one would you rather have for a neighbor?

[Igel]

17. Depends.

Am I in a minority group?

In most ways, no, and I've had some "progressives" be rude to me. I was too white, too male, too American, not ethnically diverse enough, or appeared to be too upper-middle class or too Christian. LW irrationalities are sometimes inconsiderate of majority groups.

Then I've had "conservatives" be rude too me because I studied a "communist" language, belonged to the wrong kind of Christianity, and didn't much care about upward mobility. So, yes, some RW irrationalities are inconsiderate of minority and non-majority groups.


I'd prefer to have groundhogs as my neighbors, thank you. At least I can be sure what they'll do in my garden.

[spoony]

45. Brilliant post!

Love that last line, especially :)

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Okay. Finally. A thread I can agree with fully and comfortably.

KnR

[Marrah_G]

14. I feel the same

I try to come at every issue with logic and reason and realize that things are never black and white, things are never as easy as we wish them to be.

This makes me less then popular but I really cannot stomach the sacred cows on either side.

[Perry Logan]

15. I think wingers have some genuine thought disorders, not found in normal people.

For example, right-wingers have a pathological incapacity for self-criticism. The people who voted twice for the worst President ever still think they're hot shit. If you can find a Republican anywhere admitting to what screw-ups they are, contact me immediately.

They also immediately believe all accusations made against liberals. They can make up something about a liberal one minute...and believe it the next.

Wingers also believe they can read liberals' minds. Surely you've had these folks tell you what you're really feeling, really thinking, etc. That means people too ignorant to know a single thing liberals have done--and too dumb to understand a single word a liberal says--think they can read our minds. It's not a political viewpoint; it's insanity.

[otherlander]

16. Nobody thinks that atheism is the only way to view the world.

Okay, maybe somebody does, but they're just being annoying. It's not a sacred cow. I mean, if somebody actually said, "Atheism is the only way to view the world" on here, most of DU would scream at them and call them intolerant until the thread got locked.

[NorthernSpy]

18. LOL! What a crock!

I am a fervent opponent of the right wing. I challenge authority, irrational religion be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic fundamentalism, ridiculous "patriotism", male domination and patriarchy as a practice, and no "peoples voice" in the face of power.

Not that fervent, perhaps. Not when it comes to racists, anyway. But, to be fair, you didn't actually claim to be a "fervent opponent" of racism.


For instance, here I am, quoting a racist remark made here at DU to illustrate a point for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2044228#2068628


And here is the person who made those remarks, wholeheartedly applauding your opinions on blacks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2044228#2069712



And here's your response where you continue to stick it to the blacks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2044228#2077219



And here's your response to the racist:



















Oh, wait....

[NorthernSpy]

28. and here's another classic...

This memorable thread is filled with so many all-time worst performances from certain predictable characters (including another doozy from the guy whose other blatantly racist post I've already cited), that I really think it should have won some kind of award.

And there you are, repeating yourself at length about how the blacks must stop blaming racism and take personal responsibility, etc, etc. That this remains your answer, even in the face of outright, vicious racism (as I demonstrated in my other post) shows that this is not a serious answer at all, but rather just your own sacred cow, which you milk publicly for your own satisfaction -- and that of whoever agrees with you.

[BoneDaddy]

33. So unless I share your victim centered view of black culture

that makes me racist? What a tool you are.

[NorthernSpy]

44. YOU chose to berate blacks for "blaming racism" while an actual racist eggs you on...

... without you ever confronting the racist.

You can try to cover that up with the usual boilerplate about "victim-centered views of blacks" all you like. Your choice of scoldee in that situation speaks volumes, and it especially gives the lie to your silly, self-congratulatory ramblings about other people's sacred cows.

[DaveJ]

19. Basically, I guess I'm with you

Although I'm not exactly in the middle, but far left, I understand that the far left agenda is not going to instantly materialize.

Another problem I have with people on the DU lately is the constant bell ringers predicting doomsday -- financial disaster, the end of the planet, etc.

These are times when we should be celebrating and innovating simultaneously.

[ulysses]

20. I'd support this

if I knew what (specifically) you were talking about.

[ecstatic]

21. No. nt

[ThomCat]

22. It's interesting that you see yourself so differently from the way

many of us see you from your posts.

You definitely do not come across as challenging male domination or patriarchy, or gender roles.

Challenging the supposed idea that people of color are more right than white people definitely sounds like an excuse you've used to attack civil rights activists.

I see you as the type of person who defends a whole lot of sacred cows, and spends a lot of time rationalizing it.

Sorry, I have to disagree with almost all of your self-congratulatory post.

[madfloridian]

23. No.

:think:

[DefenseLawyer]

24. Political correctness

as I understand it, is simply an attempt to avoid using terms about specific groups or people that those specific groups or people have stated that they find offensive. If for example, people in the gay community have a general consensus that the term "fag" is offensive, I'm not sure how it is "forcing you to adhere to a specific doctrine of thinking" for polite society to frown upon the use of that term. It seems simple enough for me to make a mental note and avoid using that term, had I been so inclined to have used it otherwise. It hasn't forced me to do anything other than be polite. Generally, the only people I hear complaining about political correctness are fatheads who lament not being able to tell racist jokes around the water cooler anymore. Not that that is you, by any means, it has just been my experience.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. My experience mirrors yours

Whenever someone begins a statement with "I know it's not politically correct to say this but...", I brace myself for the bigoted b.s. that is sure to follow.

[BoneDaddy]

37. That is fine

I am not talking about that phenomenon. I am talking about the word policing that goes on in here that is akin to the burning of books in my eyes.

Of course we can all be more polite to one another and bigots often preface their comments with an anti PC clause, but I am referring to the posts I have read that are asking for fines if you use the n-word or c*nt or sexist language, many calling for people to be arrested if they do.

Now I do not support racism or sexism, and I think that harassment of any kind in the workplace needs to be handled with a heavy hand, but speech such as the above is free. It is ugly and mean but the "policing" of language is the far extreme on the other end.

[Chomskyite]

25. Just when I was hankering for a cheeseburger!

"I also challenge 'political correctness' as a way to force people to adhere to a specific doctrine of thinking."

Can you name an example of this. I never see it being used this way. What I do see is the broadening of the term to attack efforts to make college curricula more representative of minority or marginalized points of view. I also see the term applied to efforts to avoid generalizing based on ethnic groupings. But I don't see in that case how force is being applied. Do you oppose efforts against stereotyping? Or the inclusion of Hispanic writings in American Literature courses?

"I challenge the extreme idea that the feminine is superior to the masculine."

The feminine literary theorists and women's studies movements often make pains never to argue to the superiority of any supposedly "feminine" way of thinking. To undertake such an argument would itself be partaking in the patriarchal preference for casting things as either superior or not. So my question to you is, are there really any examples of anyone credible arguing this?

"That people of color are more right than 'whites'. . . "

When whites have repressed people of color, whites have been wrong and the people of color, in their resistance, were right (except in a few individual cases involving the murder of innocents). I'm never going to apologize for saying so. And here's another thing. African-Americans in the US cannot be racists. And white supremacy still characterizes our institutions.

"That the poor have some moral superiority in regards to the wealthy."

They do if the wealth in question was accumulated immorally. And a poor person who burglarizes is infinitely less immoral than the founder of Blackwater. Infinitely. Do I need to tell you why?

"and that atheism is the only way to view the world."

Is there anyone saying that?

Consider your sacred cows butchered. I'm pouring A1 sauce over a patty right now.

[Duppers]

27. covered

Except what you said about atheism, my sacred...err...cat, but we're all different and you can't herd cats.

but perhaps.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SmgLtg1Izw

on edit: remember that too that males have some estrogen and we females testosterone...and we ALL used to be of 'color' at one time.

[baby_mouse]

29. Ah, the see-saw again.

It wobbles in the background.

You've lost me.

[KaptBunnyPants]

30. Sacred cows seem to be made out of straw these days...

People who complain about political correctness tend to be a bunch of pathetic assholes who can dish it out but cry when they are called on their bullshit. A description that seems especially apt for one who laments the suffering of the misunderstood rich Christian white male. Enjoy your principled stand for the plight of the victors of the status quo.

[BoneDaddy]

34. Do me a favor and read some of the

drivel on these boards that is more than just PC. Some posters have called for smokers who are outside to be arrested, for fining and arresting people for use of language they deem innappropriate, who, if you don't share their view entirely are racist, sexist, or any other ist they can find. Utter crap.

Wake up.

[MaxPlancker]

31. I am fanatically anti-fanatic.

Does that count?

[Cobalt Violet]

32. Most definitely with you.

The PC nazis can kiss my ass. No one will tell me what to think and how to think it. NO ONE.

[UncleSepp]

35. You made my morning.

Heck, you made DU worth coming back to for me. I am so tired of the divisiveness, the us v. them, no matter who's the us and who's the them. I'm tired of snark and snot substituting for real discussion. I'm tired of superiority complexes, of holier than thou fighting more logical than thou. I'm tired of hate. Anybody's hate, toward anyone, for any reason. I'm tired of dehumanization. I'm tired of silly names. I'm tired of Libtard and I'm tired of Repuke and I'm tired of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the invisible sky wizard and Jeebus and all the angelsan'saints. Mostly, I think I'm just tired :-)

[baldguy]

36. Not using derogatory terms & being considerate of others is neither extreme nor irrational.

It's simply good manners.

The RW Slapped the "political correctness" label on it is an attempt to justify their boorish behavior. Don't blame me if you want to ask like an asshole.

[LeftishBrit]

38. I agree with a large part of this..

e.g. the idea that someone expressed that 'rich people' deserve the forest fires was disgusting.

However, I also think that sometimes people accuse women or ethnic minority members of claiming or seeking superiority, when in fact they aren't: they are simply getting together to fight discrimination or unfair treatment. So it really depends on the context.

I thinl that 'political correctness' as such is simply the application of rules of good manners to groups that had previously not been seen as fully entitled to politeness. Like any other form of manners, it can occasionally degenerate into affectation or into valuing form over substance. Nonetheless, I think it's only fair that good manners should be applied to everyone.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. I know EXACTLY

what you're saying. There are numerous sacred cows around here we can't even begin to discuss. I started a thread several years ago having to do with the inequality of father's rights in child custody cases. I spent DAYS on this sucker, researching, fact-checking, reviewing. Holy goddess, you'd think I'd shit on Motherhood itself. I got called all kinds of interesting names including misogynist (which is interesting since I'm female). When free speech is suffocated, yeah, I'd say PC has gone WAAAYYYYY overboard.

Your message was loud and clear.

[sufrommich]

40. I agree. nt.

[mondo joe]

41. Bravo, BoneDaddy.

[PATRICK]

42. That is an example

of irrationality too, unfortunately. This is political correctness swallowing its own tail to say that a naive super-arrogance should be incorrect political speech. Anything goes for the other side. The problem with the so-called left, or those attempting to be responsible and rational in this mess of a nation, is trying to enforce a set of rules upon itself that is merely the good devouring their own while the RW beat goes on toward barbarism under dictatorship. they have no scared cows but false idols. The "left' thinks that politeness and reason(the reason behind rational universities trying to enforce a free speech atmosphere like Skinner tries to keep DU from disintegrating) is entitled. A little enjoyment of power goes uncritically noticed until those REALLY interested in power itself shove them aside.

With lies, slander, violence and oppression. Hate crimes have a toehold in the legal system. That is part of the principle that is the "same" or the slippery slope as the other side? Just as the left goes in circles devouring its own principles principally because they are out of power, the RW generates circles of power madness and destructiveness while it works for them. They will mudsling a 12 year old, commit every perversion while they persecute the same for the political momentum of raw hate.

Watching these separate and conflicting circles spin toward the mutual doom of all does not invoke rationality to be sure. Not in any sense or persuasion. Both right and left are self made jokes as they circle, one on the glory road to hell, the other in impotence.

The central emotion of the poster is however correct. We, all Americans at least, are in a self generating losing mess but it is almost 100% dictated by the craft of the right which uses all the negativity that can be managed on any point of the spectrum simply to maintain power. It does behoove all the various fans of particular causes or rights or progressive ideals to unite on the basics, universally stripped from the power scene and be faithful somehow to the democratic road to making a new power to bring the nation on track to meet onrushing times of disaster. One can soothe this ultra leftiness fantasy created in fact by the true ultra right and simpler corporate interests by remembering how few the socialists and communists are. Among communists the Maoists were considered the ultra left and they used guns in demonstration of that sincerity in many equally hapless countries.
Among leftists in the western world concerned with spreading their unfair monopolization of modern prosperity among their own population(basic rational politics), America is the weakest and the worst and the most in denial of the common way to achieve the common welfare and maintain individual rights.

We can give up symptoms, fevers, rashes, aches and pains all we want but they will never give us up until we treat the body's disease. The general public is rife with the symptoms and disease as well. We go quiet in the night so as not to disturb the peace? No one has even begun to fight and all I see among those timorous for change is to placate the right by saying the 'far left' is the other extreme although it is nearly non-existent and certainly not what anyone is really talking about. What they are talking about is placating the powerful right and its control over the national mind. with an equally powerless and non-existent roadkill middle ground. Taking time to lecture the "left" about the fantasies of the right is one political correctness that is utterly self-defeating.

The middle is populist, libertarian, democratic with common interest, self interest as the goals and motivation. The top is autocratic, plutocratic and tyrannical. The game we are forced to play is their confined fantasyland, just like two idiotic populations going to war for no reason but the weird needs of the top. Getting people to wake up and get together without a top anywhere in the institutions would be pure democracy and revolutionary. Forget rationality, we are learning the hard way, the dangerous way, the way where there are no visible supports or certain hopes.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. There is no left, right, and center

"Moderate" is a euphemism for "ideas currently in power." Every position is as radical as every other. There is no spectrum, or four quadrant relational map. They are both political bullshit.

"Moderates" and "centrists" pretend that their position is some kind of "compromise" between extremes. This is a lie, although a remarkably effective one. It has always been the lie of the currently acceptable position. The sacred cows of moderation or centrism are actually the most dangerous, because they're the ones that we don't see as sacred cows, and the ones that actually affect our lives (example: the profit system tempered with small government intervention is the best way to organize a society; or, people are "incentivized" to help others through personal reward). The sacred cows of centrism disguise themselves as human nature. It's always been that way, they'll say, never supposing that our view of history is colored by our centrist lenses: It's "always been that way" because we see everything that way, and NOT vice versa. This is why moderates hate historiography and historicism: it shows that their positions and readings of history are contingent and based on current arrangements of power. Centrists like to pretend that their positions are simply the truth, rather than an effect of power. It's also why they hate so-called "postmodernism," which exposes their lies and arrogance at every turn. In centrism, it's the biology of the cow to be sacred, you see.

In this way they feign some superior rationality, and at the same time position any opposition as irrational. It's easy to beat up on the supposed "sacred cows" of the supposedly "extreme" positions. It takes no great strength or insight, and is, in fact, pathetically dull. It takes far more courage and acuity to examine the sacred cows of "centrism" or "moderation," since these are the ideas that actually hold sway, and the ideas that we can barely even perceive as ideas, since the whole thrust of political power in the broadest sense works to lend them the appearance of Truth.