Quote:
|
This is only true if you ignore their substantive agenda -- for example, the Green New Deal, single payer, etc. -- and focus on the things which irritate you, which is what you're doing.
|
I said largely. They do have an agenda. Single payer may actually work. GND is pie in the sky. What else do they have aside from utopian goals?
Quote:
|
Would they call themselves liberals? I'm going to go for "no."
|
Don't know about Portnoy, but Rogan calls himself a liberal all the time. And he is. He's far left. Where he offends progressives, in addition to being an affront to their faux effete culture, is that he's a real, true liberal, in that he believes in total freedom of expression, entertaining opposing views of any kind, and tolerance rather than trying to force others to adhere to his views.
Quote:
|
It is quintessentially you that you are irritated by the 1619 project but not the 1776 report, which is has fewer facts and more bullshit and ideology. It wasn't edited on the fly, but that's because it's authors surely see admission of error as an inappropriate sign of weakness.
|
Why is it that progressives and Trumpers insist on this enforcement of an unspoken fairness doctrine? If I make fun of AOC for embellishing her "fear of death" on the day of the Capitol attack, and sleazily invoking a prior assault to immunize herself from criticism when cornered about it, which she did, and which is conniving and creepy, am I also obligated to make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Or vice versa? If I make fun of MTG, must I also give equal time to making fun of AOC?
No. And nor am I obligated to attack
1776. First, because there is no equal time requirement. Second, and more importantly, because it's too absurd and stupid, like MTG, to bother attacking. Where would I start?
1776 is not even attempting to be honest. It's clearly propaganda and for that reason, no one is paying attention to it.
1619 is dishonest and biased, but it is factual in certain regards. It's sophistry. It deserves scrutiny because, unlike
1776, which is naked BS which can be disregarded in total without consideration,
1619 seeks to inject ludicrous fringe arguments into mainstream by weaving them into something that looks like serious scholarship.
Quote:
|
You are, of course, completely entitled to be irritated by whatever irks you, but if you're trying to connect those irritations with some thread of intellectual principle, you're not there yet.
|
I have. It's simple. I'm citing bullshit where I see it.
Quote:
|
Incidentally, for whom did you end up voting?
|
I didn't. In the end, I simply gave up on the concept. After months of hearing from my friends on the right and left, and considering the wretchedness both parties, I decided I deserved better than to have to make a choice I did not feel like making. My inner George Carlin held sway.
And I preserve my Switzerland position, which allows me latitude in conversations others do not enjoy.
But I am thrilled to not have to listen to that fat idiot everyday. Biden seems a refreshing burst of normalcy.
