Talking to a Right Winger These Days

By -
Typically it seems to go like this:

RW: Man, I got a bee sting. Really hurts!

ME: That's too bad.

RW: Yeah, friggin' Obama.

ME: Huh?

RW: Well, Obama is into the environment, isn't he?

ME: I guess.

RW: And bees are part of the environment, aren't they! There you have it: Friggin' Obama!

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:39 PM

    What do you mean by "right winger"? It's a term that is quite open to interpretation. Surely, many modern liberals would consider me to be far right, but I don't consider that to be the case. I personally think that I've adopted a wide spectrum of political beliefs, usually going with what I feel to be correct rather than political association (left/right), and it continues to evolve as I become aware of new ideas.

    Jeffrey Tucker has actually been a real influence on me regarding political labels, ideology, and the like. Hopefully you know what I mean by this. If not, I can elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Prateek10:41 PM

    I believe J. K. Galbraith was correct in saying that there is no such thing as the "right wing", but only a lot of noise that pretends to be analysis.

    Giving them any name or label implies they are learned people who happen to be on the different side of the debate. But things like blaming a President for anything and everything is just bad logic - it's not an alternative philosophical tradition with its own merits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason B10:57 PM

    Should've asked him/her what they think about Romney's economic policies. When they just look at you with a blank stare you can reply, "Don't worry, Romney doesn't know what they are either."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jonatan Krovitsky2:09 AM

    Israeli prime minister is rather centrist, so any given political activist can blame him on whatsoever. We keep a Facebook group called "beacuse of Bibi", to refer to when anyone gives any unspecified complaint.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John Goes10:17 AM

    Unsophisticated right-wingers lack the ability to articulate the real reasons for their fear, so it often comes sputtering out in nonsensical ways that sophisticates enjoy scoffing at. Given that the mainstream right-wing leadership in America is weak-kneed and liberal (in the sense of Jim Kalb's definition), it is not surprising that the rabble rabble conservatives are like chickens with their heads cut off, unable to find the words or coherent reasons to explain their rage at what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:53 AM

      Are you saying there incoherence is ALSO Obama's fault?

      Delete
    2. John Goes6:01 PM

      Gene, that interpretation would require very poor reading comprehension.

      Delete
    3. Jason B12:14 AM

      Gene, the only way someone could have possibly questioned John Goes' response to be "are you saying it's Obama's fault?" is to basically secede that you're an Obama voter. If that is the case then just say, "yes". Otherwise, explain how you could possibly come up with such a ridiculous question to what is essentially basic analysis.

      Delete
    4. gcallah10:44 AM

      "Given that the mainstream right-wing leadership in America is weak-kneed and liberal"

      Sorry, I was reading too fast, and just saw "mainstream leadership." Missed "right-wing."

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more