House of Eratosthenes

The question is… why? Why promote “gun free” zones when ANYONE, even a liberal, would know that it means the only person who will have a gun is the bad guy. Why make American society into one big pond of sitting ducks?
:
It seems like liberals want to feel good about themselves regardless of the consequences. Did it ever occur to them that creating an atmosphere in which one race (any race) can feel like they can do anything and the media and politicians will be on their side could have devastating consequences?
:
The mind of a liberal is almost impossible to understand. They are so bent on making themselves feel good, but they pay little attention to the people they say they are helping. If you can figure them out, you are certainly smarter than I am.

No Thanks I'm a Liberal I don’t think we can lump them all together. Theirs is an ideology built on deception, and where you have deception you must necessarily have deceivers and deceived people. Where you have those, you have different factions of people toiling away working toward different goals, with different priorities. At least two sets; two at the very least. Were they truly unified, there wouldn’t be any need for deception.

In the comments, I thought JDZ brought up a great point:

One obvious difference between a conservative and a liberal is how they approach budget management, and to show the effects of these differences, just compare the fiscal sta[t]us of a Republican controlled state or city to a Democrat controlled state or city. Every conservative state has their finances under control or improving whereas most liberal run states are sliding even more into growing budget deficits with higher taxes and fees in an attempt to stop the bleeding.
:
The liberal mindset seems to feed on political correctness and social justice as the focus of human life while conservatives embrace the whole spectrum of human life with individual freedom and responsibility being a fundamental premise in their lives. Conservatives are more pragmatic and fully embrace the basic thought that the individual most create an independent life for themselves through our free enterprise American [capitalistic] system whereas liberals embrace socialism and a lower standard of living built around a nannystate government providing more and more welfare like government subsidies for more and more people. The connection between “makers” and “takers” seems to be missing in the liberal mindset. They fail to acknowledge that for millions of people to be living off of government handouts (takers), the government has to confiscate earnings of taxpayers (makers) and that this dynamic is a destructive dynamic when unbounded through unreasonableness, and is the core reason fr the failure of socialism across the history of the world.

Liberals have a strange view of time; time is the T in the S.T.A.C.I. quintet of reasons why liberal ideas always turn out to be wrong. Any honest inspection of these conservative vs. liberal states & counties, is going to eventually conclude that the difference has to do with looking down the road. Conservatives do and liberals don’t. A great example of this is the bill our Gov. is about to sign raising the minimum wage to ten dollars an hour. There are many other examples, but let’s just look at that one. Who, in their heart of hearts, thinks this won’t raise the price of goods & services, and drive businesses out of the state. Who? I’m sure you can find some liberals who will mouth or write some words about “making the economy better for the least among us” and so forth, but you’d never get them to actually bet anything on it. What they’re doing by arguing this all has to do with looking good in the moment. Winning the argument. That’s the eminent trend: Winning the argument and looking good, to other liberals, as opposed to acting toward the realization and ultimate fulfillment of long-term goals.

Liberals are narcissists. Actual, diagnosable, DSM-V narcissists. I’m really starting to believe it’s just that simple.

The narcissist feels she is the main character in the movie that’s constantly playing in her head. The rest of us are just the peasants she’s going to save from the dragon… or the dragon. Our jobs are either to get into trouble, so she can save us, or to cause trouble for others, so she can save them. And, of course, to applaud when she inevitably saves the day.

Note that this is different from grandiosity. I’d almost be ok with that, since grandiose people actually do stuff. Thanks to the law of stopped clocks, a grandiose person who feels compelled to always try and save the day might actually save the day every now and again. A narcissist, by contrast, is the protagonist by default. She saves the day simply by existing, since movies have happy endings.
- Severian | 09/19/2013 @ 07:16
So they’re living out their lives in a never-ending episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

You may be on to something there. I was watching some old episodes from Sliders Season 3, because Kari Wuhrer…rawr. And I was struck by how unbelievably snotty and self-righteous the characters are…the show is…the plot is. Had half a mind to stick Star Trek IV back in the player to see which one’s more holier-than-thou. With Sliders, the plot of the episode very often is nothing more than something ending with “…and then that will be our fault.” Hey, it’s great to have a moral compass, great to have a code against littering. But it’s a little embarrassing when entire worlds are created, in which slavery/genocide/witch-trials are accepted and encouraged, just so we can get it on the record that the Sliders think these are really, really bad ideas.

I’m afraid we can’t ponder these different views about morality, without bringing God into it after a time. After all, think about a believer and an atheist who agree on some obvious article of morality…let’s go with the primary one, don’t murder people. The believer says “It must not be okay for people to kill other people, because God put us here, and what good would it do to put us here with the expectation that we’d bump each other off? As opposed to, taking active measures to stop each other from doing so. What purpose would that serve? That would be daffy. Therefore, as a matter of logical inference, given that we were put here by a Higher Power, it must be wrong for us to murder each other.” Whereas the atheist, in complete agreement with the final conclusion, gets there by an entirely different way: “It’s wrong to kill people because I say so.”

Not all atheists are liberals and not all liberals are atheists. But I think one is condemned to becoming a liberal, at least a liberal in the way we use the word in the here-and-now, when one comes up with these moral chestnuts just to aggrandize one’s own social status and image, with all other motivations being subordinated to this. When it’s all about becoming & remaining a part of the in-crowd, just like going back to seventh grade.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2013 @ 08:05
An atheist would, I think, give some long and complicated chain of reasoning about utility, the greatest good for the greatest number, &c. to agree that murder is bad, but that — the elaborateness of the reasoning, and the cleverness of the casuistry — is of course the real reason the atheist argues against murder. He’s just Smarter Than You, you see.

[It’s telling that these are the same people who always yell “better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned” whenever it comes to crime and punishment, or “it doesn’t work!” when it comes to waterboarding and other “torture.” I’m no utilitarian, but I’d happily trade a jail sentence for one innocent man if it meant keeping ten serial killers behind bars forever].

Before, I wrote all this off as liberals’ fundamental frivolity. I assumed it was brainless feelgoodism; we all do it from time to time, though we know full well it doesn’t really do much of anything. You know, participation ribbons, bumper stickers, all that. The solipsism of, say, Slutwalk — which, to be taken seriously, would require a large segment of the public to be pro-rape — looked like typical undergraduate muddleheadedness.

But now I’m not so sure. I believe those ladies twerking away for social justice really thought, somewhere deep down, that their silly dance materially affected the crime stats. Because we know everything’s going to turn out perfect for Bella Swan, because she’s Bella Swan.

Narcissists can’t understand the motivations of others, because to them, others don’t really exist. Others have one function in the script, and they only exist when they show up on camera to deliver their lines. Your buddy Ed Darrell is a great example of this. He really means it when he whines that you only oppose policy A because you hate group B. You’re Villain #6 in The Ed Darrell show, the only flick playing in the vast movie theater of life, and your only job is to provide the hero with occasions to demonstrate his heroism.

This is why liberal policies are simultaneously so overbearing and ineffective. The gesture is what matters, because that’s all you see on screen. It’s training montage politics — Rocky does a few pushups, runs a few stairs, chases a chicken around a yard for a few seconds while “Eye of the Tiger” plays in the background, and then he beats up Apollo Creed, because of course he does; he’s the hero.
- Severian | 09/19/2013 @ 08:43
Well, let’s just get it out there before small-tee comes in to remind us: All atheists are not liberals, and all atheists do not necessarily even have the liberals’ problems.

Heck, the curmudgeon in my sidebar graphic right now, was an atheist. More smarmy and “I-know-better”-ish than most of ’em.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2013 @ 09:38
Agreed. I’m by no means a religious man (though not technically an atheist anymore, I guess), but I’m by no means a liberal. Let’s just say that while liberals have some problems with morality, they’re fantastic moralizers.

Which I think all ties back in with their narcissism. The supporting cast keeps going off-script. “Cheerleader #2” keeps insisting we call her “Sarah Palin” and doing some ad lib about health care. “Black Guy in Crowd #6” keeps writing these op-ed columns about the free market or something. Doesn’t he — “Sowell” or whatever he’s called — know that he’s just in the shot to ad some diversity to the crowd scene? Why won’t these plot contrivances just shut up and behave?!
- Severian | 09/19/2013 @ 10:09

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“Liberals Want to Feel Good About Themselves Regardless of the Consequences”Thursday, September 19th, 2013

“Liberals Want to Feel Good About Themselves Regardless of the Consequences”
Thursday, September 19th, 2013