Does Anybody on the Right Try to Understand the Left?

[iluvatar5150]

Sounds like a very clear description of the leadership in the democratic party, and the MSM that's their cheerleaders

The Trump Russia Hoax, bought and paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton in a fictional Christopher Steele dossier, as they tried desperately for 2 years to remove a duly elected president in Donal J. Trump, holding America hostage, with the outcome being the dossier was a fabricated "Lie"!

Fact is the progressive liberals don't have a live and let live agenda any longer, that was 30-40 years ago

They want complete control of the elementary schools, media, and the Christian Colorado cake baker (Jack Phillips) is a prime example

Jack wouldn't bake a cake depicting homosexuality, and he was taken to court like 3-4 times over a 6 year period, costing untold $Money$ in his defense, it was intended, targeted, "persecution" of the conservative Christian, and the liberal media and its support "cheered the persecution of Jack Phillips

Live and let live?

off topic

 

[iluvatar5150]

Untrue

That is what the right is doing now. This line is projection

This is absurd. A cake is a cake, and it is made as dessert for a celebration. Secondly, the cake was for celebrating a sex change, not homosexuality.

Because the cake maker was accused of discrimination. Personally I would rather critique his poor baking skills and terrible tasting confectioneries, but all I am left with is critiquing his hateful demeanor towards people different than him.

Yes, live and let live. It sure isn't the left calling for civil war. More projection here.

o/t

 

[Truth7t7]

off topic

"False Claim"

"I'm On topic" talking about the liberal left and understanding them, they use to be live and let live, not so today

I clearly used Colorado Christian Cake baker Jack Phillis as an example, in comparing a comparison in understanding the progressive liberal left

 

[NxNW]

If the left wanted to educate themselves on who they are, the late Great Rush Limbaugh can tell you all about yourselves.

Rush Home

RUSH: No longer is this just gonna be a long list of stories that I might mention on the program. Now, you will get specifically the stories that I talk about on the program and a select list of a few others that I intended to get to but ran out of time. It's going to be more of a real-time base...

www.rushlimbaugh.com

Gee, thanks for the information. Maybe I'll read an Ann Coulter book, too. Both of them are so unbiased!

 

[Matt5]

As I mentioned in another thread, I’m a big fan of the Know Your Enemy podcast, which is a long-running deep dive in the history of the intellectual wing of the Right, particularly in the US post WW1. Through them I’ve become aware of another podcast, In Bed with the Right, which covers similar ground but with an academically-minded focus on issues related to gender and sex. Others focus on legal theory and the supreme court.

Numerous columnists and writers have published pieces, especially in the wake of the 2016 election, from the Left pondering what the Left doesn’t understand about the Right. These writers aren’t merely dismissive of the Right; many (and most of the ones I find interesting) take the Right seriously even though the authors may not agree with them.

This material is common enough that I don’t even have to try to find new stuff; it just falls into my lap now. But I can’t think of a single counterpart on the Right who tries to understand the Left in the same way, and I’m wondering why that is. Do they not exist? Do they exist and I’m just not familiar with them? If they do exist, can anybody give me any recommendations?

The following video has been called the Unified Theory of Modern Liberal Thinking. It was posted about 10 years ago.

Evan Sayet - Regurgitating the Apple How Modern Liberals "Think" - YouTube

My thinking on modern liberalism:

Everything is filtered through the "equality" lens.

If we're all equal then how did some people, groups or countries get ahead of the rest? There can be only one answer: they cheated.

If we're all equal then how did some get behind? There can be only one answer: they were victimized. By whom? Those who got ahead.

Why are some people violent? Because they were victimized by those who got ahead.

The solution is to drag down all those who got ahead because they're cheaters.

Note: Once people start using the equality lens there is no going back. Facts and logic are irrelevant.

How does the right think?

There is no equality lens.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The following video has been called the Unified Theory of Modern Liberal Thinking. It was posted about 10 years ago.

Evan Sayet - Regurgitating the Apple How Modern Liberals "Think" - YouTube

I’m 23 minutes in and… I feel embarrassed for the Heritage Foundation. Most of what he’s said so far is nonsense. Anybody (including folks on the left) who describes their opponents as “always siding with evil over good, wrong over right” is not making a serious attempt to understand anything; they’re making a strawman or a caricature intended to bolster the egos of their audience. It’s even more amusing when you take these comments and juxtapose them with others where he defends the Iraq war, conflates Saddam Hussein with perpetrators of 9/11, and belittles the media attention given to torture in Guantanamo Bay. Now who’s siding with evil and being wrong?

I asked for people genuinely trying to understand people who disagree with them. This guy is not that. This guy is a standup comic doing an act for an audience who’ll listen to his material. I’m not surprised the two biggest recommendations quoted are from Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Matt5]

I’m 23 minutes in and… I feel embarrassed for the Heritage Foundation. Most of what he’s said so far is nonsense. Anybody (including folks on the left) who describes their opponents as “always siding with evil over good, wrong over right” is not making a serious attempt to understand anything; they’re making a strawman or a caricature intended to bolster the egos of their audience. It’s even more amusing when you take these comments and juxtapose them with others where he defends the Iraq war, conflates Saddam Hussein with perpetrators of 9/11, and belittles the media attention given to torture in Guantanamo Bay. Now who’s siding with evil and being wrong?

I asked for people genuinely trying to understand people who disagree with them. This guy is not that. This guy is a standup comic doing an act for an audience who’ll listen to his material. I’m not surprised the two biggest recommendations quoted are from Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh.

At the time, his video was very interesting. Now maybe not as much. I've listed some of his ideas below.

THE LAWS OF MODERN LIBERALISM

1. Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process – is an absolute moral imperative.
2. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.
3. Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.
4. The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

THE COROLLARIES

1. The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.
2. Modern Liberals do not and cannot seek to better themselves or society. Instead they must lower others and society to their level.
3. Modern Liberals have secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that their primary policies created or exacerbated.

Note: There is no room for "better" in a world of equal.

 

[iluvatar5150]

At the time, his video was very interesting. Now maybe not as much. I've listed some of his ideas below.

THE LAWS OF MODERN LIBERALISM

1. Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process – is an absolute moral imperative.
2. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.
3. Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.
4. The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

THE COROLLARIES

1. The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.
2. Modern Liberals do not and cannot seek to better themselves or society. Instead they must lower others and society to their level.
3. Modern Liberals have secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that their primary policies created or exacerbated.

Note: There is no room for "better" in a world of equal.

Like I said: nonsense.

 

[Pommer]

At the time, his video was very interesting. Now maybe not as much. I've listed some of his ideas below.

THE LAWS OF MODERN LIBERALISM

1. Indiscriminateness – the total rejection of the intellectual process – is an absolute moral imperative.
2. Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policies. It leads to siding only and always with the lesser over the better, the wrong over the right, and the evil over the good.
3. Modern Liberal policies occur in tandem. Each effort on behalf of the lesser is met with an equal and opposite campaign against the better.
4. The Modern Liberal will ascribe to the better the negative qualities associated with the lesser while concurrently ascribing to the lesser the positive qualities found in the better.

THE COROLLARIES

1. The Modern Liberal may have personal standards but he must deny them and militate against their use and those who use them in the public arena.
2. Modern Liberals do not and cannot seek to better themselves or society. Instead they must lower others and society to their level.
3. Modern Liberals have secondary policies that are meant only to somewhat mitigate the greater suffering that their primary policies created or exacerbated.

Note: There is no room for "better" in a world of equal.

The whole idea that denigrating “the other side” is silly at best.
Yes, we’re going to have differing opinions, but when we stop with the constant attacks we’re more better able to see the other people (actual) point-of-view and rely much less on “our side’s” view of “their side’s views”.

We’re your political adversaries, we’re not your “enemy” though.
That sort of thinking needlessly ratchets it up to demagogic levels of rhetoric and is ultimately useless to dangerous.

We’re all Americans, we all love our country, we just have different ideas about how to “make things better”.

 

[Ordinary Christian]

The whole idea that denigrating “the other side” is silly at best.
Yes, we’re going to have differing opinions, but when we stop with the constant attacks we’re more better able to see the other people (actual) point-of-view and rely much less on “our side’s” view of “their side’s views”.

We’re your political adversaries, we’re not your “enemy” though.
That sort of thinking needlessly ratchets it up to demagogic levels of rhetoric and is ultimately useless to dangerous.

We’re all Americans, we all love our country, we just have different ideas about how to “make things better”.

Except perhaps for those of us who are a "deplorable(s)" "threat to democracy".

 

[durangodawood]

Right here we have Christians saying that other Christians at CF are part of a diabolical force.

Can we do that?

If so, I might let some of my own thoughts off the leash a little more often.

 

[Sors]

I am pretty sure the left would laugh gleefully if they were able to get my son to castrate himself after they found out I voted for trump. This is the problem. I dont trust them and they hate me.

 

[mark46]

Someone on left trying to understand the right by critiquing it and vice versa is likely to be skewed by bias.

I think someone less partisan like Bill Maher is a better source when it comes to critiques of both parties.

One issue is that Trump Republicans consider the Bush's, the WSJ, Christie, all Democrats, and many Republicans, all to be part of the left wing that hates them and is victemizing them.

 

[durangodawood]

I am pretty sure the left would laugh gleefully if they were able to get my son to castrate himself after they found out I voted for trump. This is the problem. I dont trust them and they hate me.

I think we all need a lot more dealing with the full spectrum of real people, in real life, in ways that arent politics-first.

Thats how we learn that people are people and not demons.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

The whole idea that denigrating “the other side” is silly at best.
Yes, we’re going to have differing opinions, but when we stop with the constant attacks we’re more better able to see the other people (actual) point-of-view and rely much less on “our side’s” view of “their side’s views”.

We’re your political adversaries, we’re not your “enemy” though.
That sort of thinking needlessly ratchets it up to demagogic levels of rhetoric and is ultimately useless to dangerous.

We’re all Americans, we all love our country, we just have different ideas about how to “make things better”.

This used to fly and some believed it, but not anymore. The left has been seen for what and who they are, as described so well by @Matt5 post# 49 should be taught in schools everywhere.

 

[Desk trauma]

Like I said: nonsense.

Hey, I think you have the answer to your OP: NO.

 

[Sors]

I think we all need a lot more dealing with the full spectrum of real people, in real life, in ways that arent politics-first.

Thats how we learn that people are people and not demons.

This is so true, and something I need to remember. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[RileyG]

Fact is the progressive liberals don't have a live and let live agenda any longer, that was 30-40 years ago

They want complete control of the elementary schools, media, and the Christian Colorado cake baker (Jack Phillips) is a prime example

Jack wouldn't bake a cake depicting homosexuality, and he was taken to court like 3-4 times over a 6 year period, costing untold $Money$ in his defense, it was intended, targeted, "persecution" of the conservative Christian, and the liberal media and its support "cheered the persecution of Jack Phillips

Live and let live?

You're not wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

This is so true, and something I need to remember. Thank you for reminding me.

Youre welcome. And even though I said it, I forget it too often, and need to practice it more.

 

[Truth7t7]

The following video has been called the Unified Theory of Modern Liberal Thinking. It was posted about 10 years ago.

Evan Sayet - Regurgitating the Apple How Modern Liberals "Think" - YouTube

My thinking on modern liberalism:

Everything is filtered through the "equality" lens.

If we're all equal then how did some people, groups or countries get ahead of the rest? There can be only one answer: they cheated.

If we're all equal then how did some get behind? There can be only one answer: they were victimized. By whom? Those who got ahead.

Why are some people violent? Because they were victimized by those who got ahead.

The solution is to drag down all those who got ahead because they're cheaters.

Note: Once people start using the equality lens there is no going back. Facts and logic are irrelevant.

How does the right think?

There is no equality lens.

Your "Equality Lens" is called "Communism"

The "Inequality Lens" is called "Capitalism"

In both systems the leaders live in lavish lifestyles, homes, foods, medical, cars, jets, boats, etc

I believe Capitalism is the best system as I have personally witnessed persons come to America poor from communist countries without a penny to their name, and become millionaires in a short time through sacrifice and (Hard Work)

Trump 2024 MAGA