Conservatives Cannot Distinguish Between 'I Don't Like X' And 'X Is Harmful/Wrong'
I've often thought that one of the major failings of your average conservative is that he can't tell the difference between (a) I don't like x, (b) x is harmful and (c) x is morally wrong.
Here's yet more support for that thesis: Stephen H. Webb, "How Soccer is Ruining America." Biggest problems with soccer? (1) It's European, and (2) girls play it. Now, as we all know, females are deplorable and defective unless one of them is raising your children or cleaning your house...or if you are having sex with one. Assuming, of course, that you are male, and the purpose is reproduction. If you're just doing it for love or fun--especially if you yourself are a girl--then that is wrong.
Webb indicates that he is, to some extent, kidding...but it's not clear to what extent. Nor whether he's serious about the suggestion that he's kidding.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't much like soccer--though it's hard to like a sport you've never really played much. I agree with the point that there's something lame about not using your hands...though Webb sees something sinister behind that--it's a way of making sure that everyone is disadvantaged--which is, of course, the liberals' dream! (How about non-contact sports like hoops? Is that a conspiracy of the weak as well? Should all sports be full-contact in order to be politically correct?) Me, I think not using your hands just lame. Like, say, the DH. But being lame doesn't make something evil. And being something you don' t want to do doesn't, either. Liberals tend to be capable of making the relevant distinctions, and recognize that lots of things are morally indifferent, occupying what they see as a fairly wide spectrum of permissible, non-obligatory options. Liberals never say, e.g., "everyone must have casual sex!" That's because they recognize that it would be stupid and wrong to think such a thing. It's permissible, but in no way obligatory. It's conservatives who want to enforce their personal preferences on others, and who mistakenly see those preferences as obligations; they're the ones who say, e.g., "no one may havecausal [er, that would be casual] sex!" Conservatives, like the Soviets, think that everything that is not obligatory is forbidden. Liberals recognize that many things are just permissible, period.
But there's no reasoning with these people, so instead of trying, I think I'll go do some actual work.
[Note!!!:
As I note in comments below:
Ooh, I'm totally busted on this from all angles!
Mac's right, it's a parody. I was too annoyed and rushed through the final para.
Busted, busted, busted!
Shows something important about my cranky, anti-conservative prejudices, I'd say.
Anonymous also busts me--though in my defense, I'm usually pretty careful about that point. It's really political extremists who are bad at this, left and right, the left in just the ways A points out. It's just that leftist extremists are fairly rare in the U.S., confined mostly to the weaker reaches of the humantities and social sciences, in academia.
I totally stand corrected on this.]
I've often thought that one of the major failings of your average conservative is that he can't tell the difference between (a) I don't like x, (b) x is harmful and (c) x is morally wrong.
Here's yet more support for that thesis: Stephen H. Webb, "How Soccer is Ruining America." Biggest problems with soccer? (1) It's European, and (2) girls play it. Now, as we all know, females are deplorable and defective unless one of them is raising your children or cleaning your house...or if you are having sex with one. Assuming, of course, that you are male, and the purpose is reproduction. If you're just doing it for love or fun--especially if you yourself are a girl--then that is wrong.
Webb indicates that he is, to some extent, kidding...but it's not clear to what extent. Nor whether he's serious about the suggestion that he's kidding.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't much like soccer--though it's hard to like a sport you've never really played much. I agree with the point that there's something lame about not using your hands...though Webb sees something sinister behind that--it's a way of making sure that everyone is disadvantaged--which is, of course, the liberals' dream! (How about non-contact sports like hoops? Is that a conspiracy of the weak as well? Should all sports be full-contact in order to be politically correct?) Me, I think not using your hands just lame. Like, say, the DH. But being lame doesn't make something evil. And being something you don' t want to do doesn't, either. Liberals tend to be capable of making the relevant distinctions, and recognize that lots of things are morally indifferent, occupying what they see as a fairly wide spectrum of permissible, non-obligatory options. Liberals never say, e.g., "everyone must have casual sex!" That's because they recognize that it would be stupid and wrong to think such a thing. It's permissible, but in no way obligatory. It's conservatives who want to enforce their personal preferences on others, and who mistakenly see those preferences as obligations; they're the ones who say, e.g., "no one may have
But there's no reasoning with these people, so instead of trying, I think I'll go do some actual work.
[Note!!!:
As I note in comments below:
Ooh, I'm totally busted on this from all angles!
Mac's right, it's a parody. I was too annoyed and rushed through the final para.
Busted, busted, busted!
Shows something important about my cranky, anti-conservative prejudices, I'd say.
Anonymous also busts me--though in my defense, I'm usually pretty careful about that point. It's really political extremists who are bad at this, left and right, the left in just the ways A points out. It's just that leftist extremists are fairly rare in the U.S., confined mostly to the weaker reaches of the humantities and social sciences, in academia.
I totally stand corrected on this.]
posted by Winston Smith at
3:00 PM
6 Comments:
I think this is a more equal opportunity failing than you suggest. Environmentalism, for example, sometimes confuses dislike/harm/morality. The same sort of thing happens in nutrition and other parts of public health. We've also seen the phenomenon with pornography, video games, rap lyrics, and speech codes.
they're the ones who say, e.g., "no one may have causal sex!"
Actually, what the cons say is that no one may have non-causal sex. Te-hee.
Winston,
I read that article, and ... it's hilarious. He is making fun of some of the worst tendencies of conservatives, or so it appears to me. (The aside about golf and bowling should make that clear, if nothing else.) Of course, he's making fun of some of the worst tendencies of liberals as well, but it's all good.
I have no doubt that, like some liberals, some, perhaps many, conservatives will read it straight. But for those conservatives, well, there's no hope for them anyway.
In any case, thanks for the link.
- mac
PS:
The final paragraph of the article should convince you the whole thing is parody.
-mac
Yarg, "casual" indeed, LL...too much metaphysics I guess...
Ooh, I'm totally busted on this from all angles!
Mac's right, it's a parody. I was too annoyed and rushed through the final para.
Busted, busted, busted!
Shows something important about my cranky, anti-conservative prejudices, I'd say.
Anonymous also busts me--though in my defense, I'm usually pretty careful about that point. It's really political extremists who are bad at this, left and right, the left in just the ways A points out. It's just that leftist extremists are fairly rare in the U.S., confined mostly to the weaker reaches of the humantities and social sciences, in academia.
I totally stand corrected on this.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home