Friday, November 29, 2019

Why Bother ?

Guest Post from Mustang.

Morality can only be defined within a single culture; never across two cultures.  An example of this is that we can study American Indian history and culture, but we can never compare their values with those of white persons.  We can form friendships with black people, but we cannot compare the moral compass of white people to that of blacks.  These groups never have been, are not now, and never will be culturally (morally) similar.

Human psychology causes us to reaffirm the integrity of our particular worldview.  We are always in search of information that confirms what we already believe, and we easily dismiss propositions that are hostile to our own core beliefs.  We become polarized and tend to listen less than we do talk, eager to convince others of the high moral value of our own point of view.  This leads us to an impasse when debating or conversing with others, who have their own moral compass.

Psychologists tell us that if we ever hoped to win an argument with someone with an opposing political position, our only chance of doing that is to frame our argument around what they claim to be their set of values.  It all has to do with the language one uses in their argument.  If one wants to sway an opponent, then one has to use language that reflects, in some way, what they believe to be true.  What we believe to be true is rooted in our moral foundations.

What influences our worldview is our moral foundation.  Progressives respond to such terms as equality, fairness, protecting the vulnerable, and humanity (globalism).  Conservatives respond well to such things as loyalty, purity, respect for authority, God, and Country.  This is why conservatives respond well to such phrases as, “Take our country back,” which causes progressives to retch.  But  the experts claim that moral foundations do not translate from one tribe to another.  You can’t win an argument with a German by speaking French.  You can’t win an argument with a progressive using words that reflect conservative values.

Key to having a debate with a friend, if you want to keep them as a friend, is to listen to what they are saying.  The manipulators among us refer to “listening” as “deep canvassing.”  In my view, this is a bit dishonest, not to mention disrespectful.  If you have a friend, if you respect that person, then you ought to be willing to listen carefully to what he or she is saying, without scoring a “slam dunk” with your own (contrasting) point of view.  Maybe there are occasions when a response isn’t even necessary.

But here’s the thing: if it is true that morality can only be defined within a single culture, and never between two cultures, should we begin to consider that progressive-minded persons are culturally and irretrievably removed from ourselves?  Think of this as two tribes, each with its own set of values (few to none of which are shared).  Conservatives view liberal values as “immoral,” and “Un-American,” but that only makes sense from the conservative perspective.  Likewise, progressives view their values as moral.  Hence, any conversation with a liberal is much like shoveling shit against the tide —which leads to the next question: why bother?

With this in mind, why would any conservative invite a liberal to Thanksgiving dinner, where the conversation always ends up centered on politics or politicians?  I’m sure there are hungry conservatives out there who could use a good meal.



18 comments :

  1. Excellent commentary Mustang. I won't argue with any of it. Mad and I once had some communist friends that we'd ocassionally have dinner with. We were quite peaceful but always at political odds. He was a postal service union steward and wanted government to control everything and I of course want government to control very little, thousands of times less than they do now.

    We finally, mutually, just gave up. Haven't seen them in many years now, and no doubt they still hold the same view. I listened, he listened, nothing happened. C'est la vie.

    Too bad because they were really great folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have any number of very dear friends –– all of whom are decent, kind-hearted, good-humored, well-meaning people ––, who for reasons I can't fathom have been seduced and deceived by the false ideology of Marxian claims, though none of them would ever identify their beliefs as having anythng to do with Marxian Dialectics.

      We CAN'T talk about politics, but we still love each other for many good and sufficient reasons that transcend impersonal dictates imposed by doctrines, philosophies, and our moronic, indecent, increasingly barbaric popular culture.

      Much as I may desise the beliefs they have mistaken embraced I refuse to let that stop me from loving them, because in every instance I've known these people for many decades, and they are firmly woven into the fabric of my life.

      But none of them are what-I-would-call "DOCTRINAIRE MARXISTS," and none are fanatically or kinowingly committed to fomenting UPHEAVAL to achieve VIOLENT OVERtHROW of our blessed American Way of Life.

      If they were, I might feel differently.

      Delete
    2. Go with your heart Franco.

      Delete
  2. More to the point of course is why give the slightest courtesy to the left. They are working to destroy America. Family, Friends, and Others on the left no longer get anything from me and haven't for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They simply don't play fair" Our side attempts to follow a moral compass most often in our positions. To them the ends justifies the means. In this culture divergence there is no middle. Debate at our peril.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bunk, I don't believe there is any intelligence on the left. Only misguided emotion.

      Delete
  4. I knew a guy back in the day that I worked with. Liberal unionist.
    Would mock my conservative views.
    He's co-hosted my radio show with me a few times.
    As a conservative.
    A lot of people eventually turn. I did.
    It takes engagement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of people turn? I don't believe that. I believe some conservative people just realize they are conservatives.

      Delete
    2. Yep, but until they do, they look just like liberals. :)

      Delete
    3. Ed, I'm not the end all of course, but in about 35 years of being aware of them I've never seen a liberal change their spots. With the younger ones, I think peer pressure has a lot of them calling themselves libs but when that baggage is lifted later on, some of those will disvover they were conservative all along. TO clarify my first comment.

      Delete
  5. I THINK I understand what Mustan/g has said about the fundamental incompatibility of cross-cultural values, but I have to try to challenge that by asking, "What about the nearly universal proscrptions respected by every civilized grop of which I have any knowledge?"

    Don't MURDER

    Don't RAPE

    Don't commit MAYHEM

    Don't KIDNAP

    Don't STEAL

    Don't VANDALIZE

    Don't commit EXTORTION.


    And I would add Don't BULLY, HARASS, or attempt to INTIMIDATE.

    The famous line by Scarlett O'Hara at the end of the first half of Gone With; The Wind comes to mind:

    "I don't care if I have to LIE, CHEAT, STEAL or KILL, as God is my witness, I shall never be HUNGRY again, nor shall any of my folk. As God is my witness, I SHALL NEVER BE HUNGRY AGAIN."

    Because of the dramatically tragic context in which Scarlett finds herself through no fault of her own, we SYMPATHIZE with her, as she vows to shatter most-if-not-all of God's Commandments.

    Yet in the end it is meek, mild, sweet-natured MELANIE WILKES who SHOOTS to DEATH the Yankee son-of-a-bitch bent on raping Scarlett at the bottom of Tara's staircase, –– and it is MELANIE who stands by Scarlett, despite Scarlett's desire to take Ashley Wilikes away from Melanie, to prevernt her from being ostracized, –– and it is MELANIE –– and the wise, all-knowing, touchingly loyal, very loving MAMMY –– whom we come to regard as the TRUE heroines of the epic saga.

    Melanie and Mammy are the only NOBLE, STEADFAST, truly GODLY characters in the piece , and the ones we are led to admire most.

    The line between Right and Wrong, Good and Evil often get blurred –– even erased during times of dire stress and turmoil.

    When one's very LIFE (and the lives of loved ones) is seriously threatened, doesn't the Law of Self-Preservation almost universally supersede all other considerations?

    When push comes to shove, few-if-any in the West give way to a longing to achieve MARTYRDOM for a Law, Principle or Ideal.

    That this does not appear ro be true for MUSLIMS and certain obscure SAVAGE TRIBES in undeveloped regions seems to JUSTIFY –– at least to me –– regarding these hostile, amen forces as worthy of RESITANCE, REJECTION, DEPRIVATION, and possible ANNIHILATION, if they get too big for their breeches.

    I do NOT believe, –– even as a CHRISTIAN ––, that we should offer "Acceptance, "Understanding," Consideration," "Charity," or "Tolerance" to any hostile individual or alien culture that has sworn to DESTROY US by any means fair or foul. I also feel atrong urge to FIGHT to the DEATH, if ecessary, anyone who thinks otherwise. [In THIS country and most of the Western Nations that means LEFTISTS and GLOBALISTS both of which advocate SUICDAL POLICIES, and both of which I regard as ANATHEMA].

    ReplyDelete
  6. The country started off with the enemy (democrats) deeply embedded. We should have let them have their own country then. It sure hasn't gotten any better.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting stuff but I'm inclined towards Franco. For example, was there ever an army, regardless of tribe, which extolled cowardice as a martial virtue? I don't think so. With that in mind, surely there are objective principles of right and wrong which apply across cultures. It's never right to sacrifice your baby to Moloch, regardless of whether you live in the Amazon or New York, and to say otherwise involves going against self-evident truth.

    It's precisely the denial of any such truth which pits us against the godless, nihilist, satanic revolutionaries. And look what lengths they go to, insisting that men are women, killing babies in the womb is healthcare, open borders are patriotic, exposing children to drag acts is moral and tolerant, and on.

    In short, they've abandoned truth, which is universally applicable, in favor of "narrative," a radical subjectivism that translates to pride and insanity. And I'll call the shot as I see it, the infernal logic of the Pit.

    Is the culture of truth fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable to its opposite? Yes indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LSP - Yes, "Truth" has had a wooden stake driven into its heart. This subject requires much more dialogue, but I'm not ready to lay it down at the moment. Seems it almost requires an Orwell novel to describe.... In future, I will try to lay it out.

      Delete
    2. Kid, I know... and we've been taught to think there's no such thing from elementary school up. But hey, there's a whole literature on the subject, obvs, not least CS Lewis who nails it, imo, in the Abolition of Man and its fictional counterpart That Hideous Strength.

      Viz "laying it out" -- maybe humor's the best route to go down? The opposition don't get reason, having abandoned it, but they hate to be laughed at... A. Lot.

      Delete
    3. LSP, The left won't even understand what you wrote.

      Delete
  8. Hmmm. True. It prob means war.

    ReplyDelete