|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2016 3:32 pm Post subject: On Arguing with Young Regressives |
 |
|
...nothing like a good morning chuckle.
How quaint...
| Quote: |
June 4, 2016
On Arguing with Young Regressives
By E. M. Cadwaladr
1) -- Abandon all hope.
If you decide to argue with a millennial about the merits of his or her cause, you should approach the task with either the patience of a saint, confident that your rewards are already waiting for you in heaven -- or with the steely determination of a kamikaze plunging to his doom. Going into the discussion with some hope of immediate personal success is nothing but an exercise in masochism. We human beings are thick-headed, stubborn creatures under the best of circumstances. Young regressives are much worse. They mix the youthful certainty that they are the smartest and coolest people ever born with an ideology that tells them that a government that wants to legislate all aspects of human behavior will somehow make them free. Give up hope. It will only hurt you. You may make a dent in a young regressive’s ideological armor -- probably only dawning on them years later, when your sage advice is dimly remembered -- but more likely your irritable leftist puppy will have to be beaten down by the hard realities of the world for a decade or two. Even then, they will probably not credit any change of heart to your efforts when their own wisdom is their usual candidate for praise. Still, do not be deterred by the apparent futility of your task. Go forth and fight the dragon simply because it needs fighting. Go happily. If you do succeed in changing a regressive’s mind, you can count it as a miracle and move immediately to the short list for beatification.
2) -- Know thy enemy.
Your opponent did not come out of the womb the self-righteous, virtue-signaling monster that you see before you now. It was nurture, not nature, that made this odd, androgynous creation with its multicolored hair. A young regressive is invariably the product of one of those political indoctrination centers liberals call schools. The poor creature didn’t ask to go there at age five. The unfortunate beasts were marched in innocently enough with smiling faces and receptive minds. They have all been drilled to act and think as they do. All kids want to please their friends, and what you are asking them to believe would probably make them outcasts in the ultra-cool, multicultural, experimental communities in which they imagine they live. In the battle between coolness and coherence, coolness almost always wins. The young regressive may score of certain social standing for simply shouting you down. “Educating you,” in regressive parlance. Try not to take it personally.
In arguing with young rebels from Regressiveland, try to find some point of agreement between your outrage at the world and theirs. It will not spare you their eventual knee-jerk rejection, but it will at least humanize you long enough to make discussion possible. Most regressives, I find, believe that conservatives are the defenders of Wall Street crony capitalism because we don’t believe that capitalism, itself, is evil. Theirs is an all-or-nothing ideology. Everything is black-and-white. Exposing a shared contempt for bank bailouts will not make you a young regressive’s friend, but it may put an uncomfortable kink in his, her (or its) perfectly black-and-white narrative. It may keep them from entirely dehumanizing you, and if you are especially lucky you may see a better side of them for a while. One must take what one can get. If you find yourself engaged with someone who starts by shouting or name-calling, smile (if you can) and walk away. If you find yourself engaged with a true racist (and there are many on the regressive side) -- there really isn’t anything that you can say that’s worth the breath. They don’t consider you a human being, and do not care what you think.
As tiring as young regressives are, there is still a bit of hope for them. They may grow out of it eventually. Do not forget this. The older ones are usually lost causes. These are people who have gone through life’s school of hard knocks and come out none the wiser. They have heroically resisted reality for a very long time, and will go to their graves with a rainbow-striped protest sign in one hand and a fair-trade-soy-milk-two-pump-extra-shot-latte in the other, complaining that their disability check is not enough to pay for airfare to Europe. Leave the obviously insane alone. They will eventually compost themselves in peace -- providing useful fertilizer for the green things that they’ve always claimed to love.
3) -- Only argue with people who are making arguments.
Internet forums and comment sections are not “the marketplace of ideas”. They are places where people can indulge in either virtual ego baths or in political bar brawls without the risk of losing teeth. I’ve been there. When was the last time you saw a real winner in a name-calling fight? If you think that you can walk into a hostile echo chamber and dazzle its occupants with facts -- go find a mirror and look for the halo. If you have one, go for it. Otherwise, forebear. Online, as elsewhere, ignore anyone who is clearly speaking to impress his friends. Look for the people who are actually trying to defend their positions rationally -- or, better still, who are asking intelligent questions about other people’s positions. These are the people who have at least a vestigial interest in objective standards. They are the light of the world under a basket -- or perhaps under a sizable heap of manure. You might still be able to lever them partially out of the regressive quicksand with an inconvenient fact or two. Whatever you do, never argue with the crowd. They will exhaust you like a pack of wolves dragging down a moose. Your ideas won’t matter. It will merely be a contest of brute stamina -- which their superior numbers and sheer viciousness will probably win. Single out the most promising mind among the crowd, and leave the others to their self-indulgent self-congratulation ritual.
4) -- Never do unto others the same evil nonsense that they’re prepared to do unto you.
This is an enormously difficult rule to live by -- but then it would be because it’s God’s. Often, you will find yourself confronted by people who are enraged about circumstances over which you have no control. Some of those circumstances are real, and some are purely fantasies. Expect to be blamed for all of them nevertheless. Regressives will see you as an instance of a class, a gender, a religion, or of some set of ideas they have learned to fixate on. You will merely be a proxy for the things they have been taught to hate. Ironically, you are probably more tolerant than they are, having put up with their nonsense for decades while they hunt for the slightest cause to take offense. Do not be unduly troubled by their noise. The “wrong side of history” they say you are on is the history that has actually happened, is happening now, and will continue to happen so long as humans walk the Earth.
You should think of regressives in the way that you would think of a natural disaster. When faced with a flood or an earthquake, there is plenty of work to do -- and you accomplish nothing by indignantly shouting and shaking your fists at the destruction. There are millions of confused, demoralized, brainwashed people out there and they are not going to just evaporate after the next favorable election. They are going to have to be coped with one way or another, each in accordance with his individual character and the dangers he or she presents. We will need to somehow separate the wheat from the chaff.
This call for restraint is not just another way of asking “Can’t we all just get along?” The self-evident answer to that question has always been “No -- we can’t.” Truly dedicated social justice warriors will never make useful members of any society. The desire to go through life with a chip on your shoulder is a fundamentally anti-social one. If I believed in psychiatric treatment I’d suggest it -- but the psychological profession has only contributed to the problem. Banishment might be a more practical solution for the problem of intractable SJWs. Maybe there is a disused island somewhere big enough to hold all of their grievances -- a place where victimhood can reign supreme forever, where the sun will never shine, and the ocean level (we hope) will never cease to rise. |
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/on_arguing_with_young_regressives.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_second_amendment_is_the_first_domino_in_the_toppling_of_the_bill_of_rights_.html
| Quote: |
July 5, 2016
The Second Amendment Is the First Domino in the Toppling of the Bill of Rights
By Michael N. Mattia
The recent typical Democrat faux hysteria over the shooting in Orlando has nothing to do with “gun control” but rather with “people control.” If they were serious they would address the ongoing situation in Chicago, where the gang murder rate attributed to illegal guns is out of control. The major objective of the Democrats is the elimination of the Second Amendment by extra-constitutional means in order to establish a precedent for eliminating the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
This is the time to actually review the Constitution. This document drawn up over a number of years is basically an organizational plan for the establishment and operation of a federal representative republic form of government. It lays out the establishment of the three branches of government, Legislative, Executive and Judiciary and specifies the functions of each office and the requirements for individuals to hold an office. Age, residence location, citizenship, and so forth.
The length of the Constitution and the specific issues and concerns addressed demonstrate the work of highly intelligent people familiar with the faults and foibles of human beings. It lays out very specific methods for changing or amending the Constitution. These methods are intricate, time consuming and designed to make any changes difficult to achieve. It recognizes the dangers of changes to the Constitution made in the emotional heat of partisan politics and does everything to eliminate that possibility. Of course nothing is perfect and the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act, better known as Prohibition, are a glaring example of how good intentions can produce bad results.
When the arduous work of constructing the Constitution was finished the framers recognized one glaring omission. There was nothing in the document to protect the individual. Therefore they came up with the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. And recognizing the tendency of those in power to continually strive to attain more power they placed the Second Amendment regarding weapons in a place of prominence.
The Liberal/Progressive/Democrat cohort are not stupid, for the most part (there are always glaring exceptions) and they recognize that they would never be able to strike the Second Amendment and the right to gun ownership through the established process of actually amending the Constitution. So they are resorting to extra-constitutional attempts to accomplish that end. Through judicial activism, legislative bait and switch and executive actions they are striving to reach that ultimate goal: change the Constitution without adhering to the obstructive requirements of the Constitution itself.
If they are successful in negating the Second Amendment, then the other nine amendments will be fair game for elimination by fiat since a precedent has been set. The guarantees of the Bill of Rights will become null and void and government will be the only controlling power. The individual will become nothing more than a slave of the powerful.
This what Progressivism is all about. The blueprint for this type of tyranny is the European Union, where unelected bureaucrats issue orders with the force of law affecting all citizens of member states. In this country, the Democrat controlled State of California is the Progressives’ dream and the bellwether for the rest of the country.
Couple this effort to eliminate the Second Amendment along with the total, widespread and deep corruption, abuse of power and the complete disdain for the law by the present Democratic Party and its leaders Obama, Lynch and Clintons, puts the future of the United States is in dire peril.
Michael N. Mattia is Colonel, U.S. Army (ret) |
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dude, you need to find a new website. These American Thinker ones have all been pretty bottom of the barrel stuff, and that's ignoring what they argue and only looking at how poorly they argue it. Also, don't you figure if people were interested they could just go there rather than come here for the front page? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Dude, you need to find a new website. These American Thinker ones have all been pretty bottom of the barrel stuff, and that's ignoring what they argue and only looking at how poorly they argue it. Also, don't you figure if people were interested they could just go there rather than come here for the front page? |
OK, Leon.
In the last article I posted from AT, please show me, for reference, how poorly it was written regarding any false narratives and how they argue, or provide a lack of (argument).
As many of the articles are written by common folks not being filtered against the system that blocks dissent, how are they considered bottom of the barrel? Granted, there are some that simply are not worth the time but those are in the minority.
So, please....educate me, with the most recent article I posted from AT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trueblue wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Dude, you need to find a new website. These American Thinker ones have all been pretty bottom of the barrel stuff, and that's ignoring what they argue and only looking at how poorly they argue it. Also, don't you figure if people were interested they could just go there rather than come here for the front page? |
OK, Leon.
In the last article I posted from AT, please show me, for reference, how poorly it was written regarding any false narratives and how they argue, or provide a lack of (argument).
As many of the articles are written by common folks not being filtered against the system that blocks dissent, how are they considered bottom of the barrel? Granted, there are some that simply are not worth the time but those are in the minority.
So, please....educate me, with the most recent article I posted from AT. |
It's a non sequitur. The argument that democrats favor some gun control means that they secretly want to do away with the whole bill of rights doesn't follow. The author waves away this huge leap of logic with some generalization about progressivism and then mentions the EU for no other reason but to be topical. Even if what this guy was arguing was true he doesn't make a case as much as he just flails wildly about. That website must have zero editorial standards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| trueblue wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Dude, you need to find a new website. These American Thinker ones have all been pretty bottom of the barrel stuff, and that's ignoring what they argue and only looking at how poorly they argue it. Also, don't you figure if people were interested they could just go there rather than come here for the front page? |
OK, Leon.
In the last article I posted from AT, please show me, for reference, how poorly it was written regarding any false narratives and how they argue, or provide a lack of (argument).
As many of the articles are written by common folks not being filtered against the system that blocks dissent, how are they considered bottom of the barrel? Granted, there are some that simply are not worth the time but those are in the minority.
So, please....educate me, with the most recent article I posted from AT. |
It's a non sequitur. The argument that democrats favor some gun control means that they secretly want to do away with the whole bill of rights doesn't follow. The author waves away this huge leap of logic with some generalization about progressivism and then mentions the EU for no other reason but to be topical. Even if what this guy was arguing was true he doesn't make a case as much as he just flails wildly about. That website must have zero editorial standards. |
Leon, Leon, Leon....honestly, that sounds only like the rhetoric that academia uses to smog screen issues.
If you noticed, the author is a retired Colonel of the U.S. Army.
I think he has a valid opinion and made his points quite well.
So,...where is he going wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TorontoToronto
Joined: 20 Jun 2016
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with Leon. The author starts with a strawman and then slippery slopes it to the elimination of the bill of rights. Oddly, many of these rights the democrats are 100% behind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TorontoToronto wrote: |
| I agree with Leon. The author starts with a strawman and then slippery slopes it to the elimination of the bill of rights. Oddly, many of these rights the democrats are 100% behind. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TorontoToronto
Joined: 20 Jun 2016
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Democrats, as far as I can tell, seem to be very much for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unreasonable search/seizure, a right to not be compelled in court to be a witness against yourself, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
I'm not aware of many democrats that work to eliminate these rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TorontoToronto wrote: |
Democrats, as far as I can tell, seem to be very much for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unreasonable search/seizure, a right to not be compelled in court to be a witness against yourself, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
I'm not aware of many democrats that work to eliminate these rights. |
Generally correct, I think, but freedom of speech seems to be something in which America's political left is less and less interested. For example, according to this, over half of Democrats polled support the criminalization of "hate speech," which would be a substantial infringement upon freedom of expression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
According to U.S. constitutional legal precedent, exercise of the right to free speech can be limited when it is likely to incite unlawful actions that would infringe on the rights of others. This contrasts with the official Canadian idea of "hate speech" which criminalizes hateful expression per se without considering likely consequences...
https://cosmologicallyinsignificant.wordpress.com/tag/incendiary-speech/
The right of an individual to bear arms can similarly be limited when it is likely to infringe on the rights of others - mainly the right to life ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
According to U.S. constitutional legal precedent, exercise of the right to free speech can be limited when it is likely to incite unlawful actions that would infringe on the rights of others. This contrasts with the official Canadian idea of "hate speech" which criminalizes hateful expression per se without considering likely consequences...
https://cosmologicallyinsignificant.wordpress.com/tag/incendiary-speech/
The right of an individual to bear arms can similarly be limited when it is likely to infringe on the rights of others - mainly the right to life ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TorontoToronto wrote: |
Democrats, as far as I can tell, seem to be very much for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, unreasonable search/seizure, a right to not be compelled in court to be a witness against yourself, cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
I'm not aware of many democrats that work to eliminate these rights. |
Generally correct, I think, but freedom of speech seems to be something in which America's political left is less and less interested. For example, according to this, over half of Democrats polled support the criminalization of "hate speech," which would be a substantial infringement upon freedom of expression. |
Which is the sort of thing the author might have mentioned if he actually bothered to try and make a case.
I don't really think the issue you point to is a left or right one, for example https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/06/on-july-4th-this-man-exercised-his-right-to-burn-the-american-flag-then-he-was-arrested/
And I think you can make the case that some of our friends on this site who think of themselves on the right care far less about constitutional protections and small government than about ethnicity/nationalism/whatever their hobbyhorse is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't disagree, and in fact, I considered mentioning something along those lines, but it felt like an attempt to artificially introduce "balance" to the discussion, so I refrained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2016 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
I don't disagree, and in fact, I considered mentioning something along those lines, but it felt like an attempt to artificially introduce "balance" to the discussion, so I refrained. |
Yes, probably generally the right call. I think making it a partisan issue obfuscates the fact that a large number of Americans would like to limit free speech, the only disagreement is of which type of speech they dislike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
