Leftist violence

By -
Reader Greg Pandatshang offers the following:
I was in a movie theater a couple weeks ago, and in the row behind me were two young women, who I'd guess are maybe undergrad sophomores, not particularly tall or athletic, talking about the Richard Spencer sucker punch brouhaha, pleased as punch. One of them remarked, "If I'd've been there, I would have done more than just punch him!" I'd suggest that this is indicative of the centre-left (and parts of the hard left) reaction to the late unpleasantness: they live in a fantasy world where the possibility that they might not win at violence doesn't even occur to them. What are the chances, really, that Luke Skywalker will lose the final duel with Darth Vader? And what are the chances, really, that a short female college kid will fail to give a grown-ass fascist man the beating he obviously deserves? In light of this fantasy, it becomes merely an issue of whether their side will choose to be nice and refrain from violence. No negative consequences (except for maybe the deplorables if they act up).

Comments

  1. Ken B9:03 AM

    A timely example from Canada
    http://heatst.com/culture-wars/mcgill-students-wont-denounce-activist-calling-for-violence-against-zionists/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Samson Corwell9:53 AM

    I'd suggest that this is indicative of the centre-left (and parts of the hard left)

    God, I hate political spectrums. I'd suggest there is a qualitative difference between progressives and Marxist-types.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg Pandatshang5:07 PM

      It's progressives who find violence against deplorables so charming. A halfway decent Marxist will at least take violence seriously instead of living in fantasyland. That's what I meant when I said "the centre-left (and parts of the hard left)".

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell11:25 PM

      That may be so. But it is the "centre-left" bit that I dispute.

      Delete
  3. Unknown5:32 PM

    What do you mean by 'there is a qualitative difference between Progressives and Marxist types'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell11:22 PM

      I mean the difference between them is not one of degree.

      Delete
    2. Unknown3:34 PM

      You don't read political philosophy much, do you, Samson.

      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