Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The three questions liberals can’t ask, and don’t want anyone else asking, are:
1. Is there any room for doubt?
Oh so you decided God doesn’t exist because you don’t like the idea, well that’s cute. And you can “prove” it because God lets bad things happen…but that’s actually just a rationale, supporting nothing beyond a mere suggestion. What’s the foundation for the 100% certainty? Liberals would agree responsible thinkers have doubts, but somehow when it comes to them and their beliefs, it doesn’t work that way anymore and doubts are for slackers.
This mystifies and baffles me. Someone here has something short of a commanding lock on the subject being discussed, his balding tires of intellect spinning and slipping further into the mud of the argument…and I don’t think I’m the guy with the problem. They must understand the concept of excluding a possibility. Wife says I slept with a hooker in Los Angeles last Friday, here’s a receipt for a soda from a 7-11 that night in Denver, with my signature, this would be powerful exculpatory evidence, likely enough to exclude the possibility. If such a receipt is stamped twelve hours earlier, then that’s merely suggestive. The earlier receipt, paired up with a plane ticket to L.A., would be suggestive the other way…these are all different things. You can suggest, you can prove. Two different things. Not the same.
2. What makes it so?
If we are to uncritically accept all these protestations that an anti-capitalist democrat executive’s policies are good for the economy, and a pro-business Republican’s policies are bad for it…how’s that work? They won’t answer this because they can’t. The closest they get is when they express their angst about wealth inequality, which is supposed to be bad for everyone, even the guys who have most of the loot. It doesn’t seem to be within their capacity for self-assessment to realize this is all they’ve done, just express dislike.
Reminds me of computer software salesmen and company executives I used to know who’d drone on and on about how their company makes the very best stuff…but, couldn’t say what makes it so. It’s a simple question. What are your engineers doing that works so well? If it’s a trade secret, then just say that…but that wasn’t it. They just couldn’t say, just wanted to drive the narrative. That’s thinking like a lib.
3. What are we to do about this?
Since, in something approaching honesty, even they wouldn’t able able to assert that football twit is actually doing something to prevent police brutality when he kneels for the flag, or that California is doing something to help the environment by banning straws. They keep flocking back to that comforting cocoon of “but it’s symbolic!” and “it raises awareness!”
Liberals must understand something about cause and effect. They make it look like they get this, sometimes. They say things like “When the government taxes money away it uses that to create jobs”…so they must grasp the concept of a thing happening and thereby making another thing happen. But for the situations they pronounce to be most dire and presenting the most urgent demand for resources to be redirected from somewhere else — they got nothing. Squat. “Raise awareness” and that’s about it.
Truth is, they haven’t got the first clue about how to actually solve a problem. If they did they wouldn’t be liberals.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I often go back to the very first X-Men movie about this. Wolverine, as he is about to leave, tells off Storm and says that Magneto has a point about the “war” and how does she know she chose the right side? To which she so-nobly and so-stupidly says, “At least I’ve chosen a side!” At this point, the ol’ Canucklehead must have decided not to waste time even rolling his eyes, because his question was specifically “Which side is right?” and “JUST PICK ONE AND PREEN ABOUT IT” is not, in fact, an answer.
(Bender has a similar exchange in the wonderful Futurama episode “Godfellas,” when he asks the cosmic being “Is what I did right or wrong?” Cosmic Being replies, “Those are just words. What matters is what you do.” Bender huffily replies, “Yeah, that’s why I asked if what I *did* was right or wrong!”)
And if you really want to mix quotes and examples, you can toss some more CS Lewis into the pile – in The Four Loves one of his recurrent themes is that any human love, blindly followed as the Ultimate Good, stops being good at all, and indeed can hardly be distinguished at all from active enmity by its deeds. Similarly, the slavish adherence to “but I meant well,” without any regard for whether what one does actually results in what one meant, eventually leads to a place where one means no good at all. I think this probably explains how a group of people can swing around, over the course of time, from condemning a thing to suddenly promoting it and condemning the opposite, all without noticing. Their feelz never changed so to them, their position never changed either. Pointing this out gives them sadz and makes you the problem. And at the same time, any evidence anyone they dislike has ever changed their mind means that they’re hypocrites – they must have felt differently about things and you can’t do that.
- nightfly | 09/13/2018 @ 11:27[…] Crisis” Stop Making Me Defend Donald Trump! Symbolism & Propaganda in Popular Culture Three Questions The Folly of Scientism Stop Calling Me an Enemy When I’m Calling You a Liar This Is Good CXX […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/31/2018 @ 02:29