The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

[JerrySeinfeld]

I was reading this excellent article and it occured to me (although not directly related to the topic in the article) that the left has somehow, through it's control over language and the media, managed to win in the battle of implied intent.

In a strange twist over the past decade, the left has become better than the right at sneakiness.

Through support of programs like "The John Stewart Show", "The View", support of celebrities and just general media coverage, the left really is winning the battle of language - and the terms of debate.

Let's talk about my new term: Implied Intent

Because left wingers generally make decisions based upon what "feels good" at the time (rather than what makes sense), many left wingers "imply" or "impute" good intentions upon those who make crappy decisions or even downright racist statements.

An exmaple would be a borderline racist or at least generalist statement by John Stewart about black people or Mexicans.

I won't ask left wingers to comment on the above point because they're completely blind to it. But to my fellow right wingers - how many countless times have we seen John Stewart - in mockery of the conservatives - make an absolutely disgusting comment about a minority, but not only be forgiven but to the sound of laughter and applause because, after all, he's a liberal and there is no possible way he is a racist - after all he was simply imitating what a right wing person thinks about black people. And all the while, we as the audience are expected to impute all of this into a racist remark - and it's completely accepted as truth.

This is implied intent. The audience is expected (and almost always does) to accept that his intent was good, so his remarks are forgiven.

If you are left wing and think you're immune to the indoctrination, try this test. Pretend the same remark was made by Bill O'Reilly. Is your reaction, your forgiveness, the same?

Examples:

Barack Obama on the tonight show making a mocking remark about the special olympics. Imagine Bill Oreilly saying this. Oh the horrror.

Al Gore (or Barbara Steisand) flying all over the globe in a private jet, while burning 10,000 kilowatt hours per month, while scolding the masses on carbon footprint. Now compare him to the president of Exxon Mobile flying around in a private jet. Same action, different "implied intent". One's a good guy, ones s devil.

Russell Peters making durogatory jokes about chinese people. Now stick with me here, because this is where it gets a bit foggy. In "LiberalLand" (a real place where liberals go to formulate their twisted version of reality), it's not OK to make distictions about people based upon their skin colour. But if it's a Brown Skinned dude making a race based remark, it's allowed, because brown peoplee are not whiet, which means they can't be racist, even though we never make distinctions about people based upon their skin colour...expecially brown people.

Again, implied intent.

Why is a Christian Evangelical who votes against gay marriage a bigoted hateful asshole (implied intent), but a brown Islamic man from Pakistan living in Richmond BC who votes against gay marriage "culturally equal, but different".

Implied intent.

Fellow right wingers, not even mentioning the various human rights commissions in Canada, the left has in the past decade hijacked our language.

For good orr bad, we are, in the face of a vast swath of media, evil.

I think their is one chancee of change: it's the ongoing failures of the mainstream media. The big networks aren't what they once were in terms of power. The New York Times is pretty much kaput. Our power in talk radio is well known, but the Obama machine - through it's "fairness doctrine" is aiming to kybosh that too.

We do have some great online presence. If we are to take back language, and the defining terms of debate, we must start by opposing, at every opportunity, the left's attempt to demonize, to crush, to shut us up through the use of the HRCs of Canada and elsewhere.

For now, it is still not wrong to have an opinion in this country. We know we are good, honest people. Let's fight back against this "implied intent".

[Oleg Bach]

The left are a bit sinister and don't know it..most imagine themselves to be do-gooders - a rightist will not snatch a child from a family because they respect personal singular atonomy and the family in general - a left thinker will take a child in eccense kidnap that child though their legal processes because - they feel they know better and have all the answers for everybody...The left can be dangerous because - when they commit immoral acts they actually believe they are doing the right thing ----where as a rightist knows when he is in error.

[Pliny]

What are the issues of the left?

They are about caring and sharing making everyone equal. Their slogans are all about compassion and saving the environment. They do very little thinking beyond the mushy emotional world of their slogans.

Take hate laws. It is not ok to hate. They would like a law that would make a crime based upon hate even worse than the actual crime. Isn't that nice? How can you argue against a hate law? Unless you are a hateful person. They are not hateful but they do hate people who hate. Doesn't it make sense to have a world without hate? Their thinking would be to get rid of people who hate. They miss the point that doing that would be hateful. It gives them the monopoly to hate and they can crush all people who don't think everyone is equal.

You and I know there are people in the world who are dangerous, as few as they may be, but we would not associate with them. They are criminals, psychopaths, power-mongers, liars, death merchants, people who bring destruction and chaos to the lives of rational people. Now add in the anti-hate law and it gives the aforementioned personalities a perfect world for them to hide. They could be gay and we would not be able to out them as psychopaths without being charged with being hateful. And psychopaths are quite able to manipulate others, if they aren't gay they could easily pretend to be gay if it suited them. You - you're a hateful person.

Take climate change. We must look after our environment. How can you argue against that? Well, climate change started out as the coming ice age, then it became global warming, now it's the more generic term climate change. It is designed to strike fear into our hearts and get us concerned about the environment and spur us to look after it. That isn't enough though. they must have laws to make sure that everything we do doesn't adversely affect the environment. They must get the government to police every aspect of our development and activities as though we are all out to destroy the planet and heavy taxation is the punishment all abusers of the environment must face.

You and I know that we will do our best to improve our environment and government solutions to problems generally make the problems worse so we need to do these things on our own and develop technologies that don't pollute. The government has no interest in the best technology they have an interest in collecting revenues so their solutions all involve some form of tax or some means of redistribution of wealth. Their plans are not particualrly about doing anything to improve the environment just making revenues from those that are polluting. If you are alive you have a carbon footprint. Soon there will be a meter on your ass to tax methane emissions.

Take overpopulation. There are too many people on the planet for us to be able to sustain ourselves. We have to be responsible and not have children. Planned parenthood looks after that advising young girls to have abortions but only if they want, because it is their bodies they have to make the decision. Wow! They are adults now and must make adult decisions - their parents don't even have to know. Sound sneaky? It is.

What's wrong with trying to curb population growth? How can you argue with that? We are depleting our non-renewable resources. We're destroying the habitat of many species of wildlife. We are polluting the air. We are defoliating rain-forests. The polar ice caps are melting.

You and I know that we may be adversely affecting our environment but we don't know to what degree. We should take these things into consideration in our development. That is not enough for the left though. We must be stopped now. We need to all be gay and if we must engage in heterosexual activity we must have access to abortion. This is why we need anti-hate laws.

Socialism is always being sold to the populace, mostly by merchants of death, power mongers and psychopaths because of the concentration and centralization of power. You and I know it has never worked where it has been initiated. It becomes a dictatorial tyranny. It takes all these "good ideas", these warm, compassionate and mushy concepts and hides in them to bring about it's tyrannical despotism. They used to call socialism - communism and fascism. Now communism and fascism are not in vogue so they are somehow dead. the way socialism morphs from decade to decade to make it palatable to the public is amazing to watch.

As Oleg says most of them imagine themselves as do-gooders and not bad people. They do not believe that other people can manage their lives without their intervention because they are stronger, less disadvantaged, smarter (obviously, they are better off, aren't they?) and people that are lesser than they are will like them if they offer them things and people that are greater than them are not better because we are all equal and the super rich need to be knocked down a peg or two so they realize the fact they are no better than anyone else.

Most of them are good people who haven't given too much thought to the issues because on the surface they look like the right thing to do so they support the socialist agenda having forgotten or not even been made aware of the warnings and failures of big government and socialist regimes of the past. Social democracies are made to look so welcoming with "free" health-care and "free" education and a wide social safety net by people like Michael Moore. There is never a discussion of how these things are provided for "free" but they are free and you don't have to worry about money. Only capitalist pigs worry about money and the socialist only has to worry about how to get at their money to pay for their free stuff.

[GostHacked]

You can't possibly think that anyone will go along with your ideas. One simple fact is that Jon Stewart and Russell Peters are COMEDIANS !!!

Bill O'reily SHOULD have been a comedian. But the difference here is that O'reily is a news reporter/anchor. The others are comedians!!. Jon is on something called the Comedy Network. Russell Peters is on there as well. Bill is on Foxnews. See the difference? Bill spews more hate than Jon and Russell combined, not only that, Bill means what he says (I think).

WTF is wrong with you right wingers getting offended by COMEDIANS??? If you want to start gagging Comedians, then you are in a world of hurt that has been created by no one other than yourself.

Why have you not singled out The Colbert Report as well? He is a comedian as well, but tows the right wing line. His whole show is a mockery of Right-wing ideology/language and actions, while pointing and laughing at the lefties.

[msj]

I saw a movie years ago that had a part in it that went something like this:

Guy 1: what do you call it when you read a book and it's not the subtext but above that?

Guy 2: you mean the "text."

Guy 1: no, er, I guess so.....

Jerry comes across as Guy 1.

Edit: As do a lot of people who watch Colbert and just don't get it:

Colbert Study: Conservatives Don't Know He's Joking

If the "left" are into "implied intent" then the "right" must be into "explicitly inattentive."

Edited June 29, 2009 by msj

[tango]

Oh what a simple world some live in. The "left" and the "right" ... as if that dichotomy defines all of us. I think its quite a bit more complicated than that, but some can't comprehend complexity so they rely on simplistic yes-no, good-bad responses, and consider themselves the holders of 'truth'.

In truth, the self-righteous are generally blind to the reality of other people's world, and consequently disrespectful of anyone not 'the same' as them.

I recall growing up in the '50's when the self-righteous controlled society.

Canada is much better now, more diverse, more tolerant, and more kind.

However, the self-righteous are still here, whining about not being in control anymore, no doubt harkening back to the pre-50's when Canada still aspired to be a "white nation".

Thank goodness for progress!

Edited June 29, 2009 by tango

[msj]

Oh what a simple world some live in. The "left" and the "right" ... as if that dichotomy defines all of us. I think its quite a bit more complicated than that, but some can't comprehend complexity so they rely on simple knee-jerk responses.

...and, evidently, some people don't get anything at all....

[eyeball]

Its occured to me for some time that in some minds the term right-wing is the same as saying the correct-wing.

..."implied" intent?

[Bonam]

The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

That's pretty much how civil war is fought these days in Western countries. Not with guns anymore, but with words. You use any kind of media you can get your hands on to bombard people with your message, denouncing those whose opinions you disagree with. Victory is achieved when you have indoctrinated enough of the population that believing or acting differently than you want becomes impossible due to the fact that doing so would get one ostracized by almost all members of a society. Defeat is when the opinion or point of view that you held becomes sufficiently unacceptable in society to the point that expressing it aloud would make you an outcast.

The "left" certainly does seem more adept at this style of warfare than the "right", as we can constantly observe society trending slowly but inexorably further and further towards socialism.

Of course, it's not all black and white: the unfounded religious dogmas that, unfortunately, form a part of what today is considered "the right" are as bad as the unrealistic socialist ideals of "the left".

Many of the ideas first brought forth by the left, such as equality for all kinds of different minority groups are of course excellent ideas, until they are taken too far to the point where the situation becomes reversed. Access to social programs for the population is helpful until it goes beyond just trying to provide everyone with an equal opportunity, and instead tries to enforce on everyone an equal outcome.

There's a whole spectrum between the extreme left and the extreme right. As much as I disagree with and repeatedly speak out against most of today's "leftist" issues, I also realize that a society with no public health care, no public education, no social safety net at all, etc, would be harder to live in. The optimum is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, but today we are tilting further and further away from that optimum towards the left.

As for the right "taking back language", I don't know if that's possible. Leftist ideologies appeal to emotion, and what seems immediately at first glance a good thing to do to the average member of the population. "Rightist" ideas can often appear "heartless", lacking in compassion, or even cruel to the average individual without lengthy explanation. When times are good and peaceful, and society is blossoming enough to mask the harm that is brought about by encroaching socialism, more people will naturally gravitate to the left. It is only when things get tough, when there is war or threat of war, when a people begin to feel too tightly squeezed, that they start to listen to arguments that can sound "harsh". That is when opinion shifts to the right.

In short, in times of peace and prosperity, we drift slowly to the left to "feel good" about ourselves, and in times of real war and hardship, we spike abruptly to the right to actually persevere against the realities of the world.

[eyeball]

...a rightist knows when he is in error.

They'd never admit it though.

[Remiel]

As for the right "taking back language", I don't know if that's possible. Leftist ideologies appeal to emotion, and what seems immediately at first glance a good thing to do to the average member of the population. "Rightist" ideas can often appear "heartless", lacking in compassion, or even cruel to the average individual without lengthy explanation. When times are good and peaceful, and society is blossoming enough to mask the harm that is brought about by encroaching socialism, more people will naturally gravitate to the left. It is only when things get tough, when there is war or threat of war, when a people begin to feel too tightly squeezed, that they start to listen to arguments that can sound "harsh". That is when opinion shifts to the right.

In short, in times of peace and prosperity, we drift slowly to the left to "feel good" about ourselves, and in times of real war and hardship, we spike abruptly to the right to actually persevere against the realities of the world.

You know, Bonam, it suddenly struck me that what you are describing is really just a play that we have all seen with some new actors thrown in. Logic versus emotion? That has already played out in the men versus women debate, and I do not think most people think it holds a lot of water these days.

If I were to use mental states to describe the political spectrum, I think pessimism (right) versus optimism (left) would be better, though obviously they are gross generalizations. The right tends to observe what has gone before and reasons that that is all that is possible. The left gravitates towards what has not happened before, and asks why it should be impossible to bring it about. Both employ logic and emotion, just different flavours of each.

[Bonam]

You know, Bonam, it suddenly struck me that what you are describing is really just a play that we have all seen with some new actors thrown in. Logic versus emotion? That has already played out in the men versus women debate, and I do not think most people think it holds a lot of water these days.

If I were to use mental states to describe the political spectrum, I think pessimism (right) versus optimism (left) would be better, though obviously they are gross generalizations. The right tends to observe what has gone before and reasons that that is all that is possible. The left gravitates towards what has not happened before, and asks why it should be impossible to bring it about. Both employ logic and emotion, just different flavours of each.

Heh, while we are at gross generalizations, I would disagree and say that pessimism is more a domain of "the left". It is socialists that try to instill a sense of collective guilt and shame into people so they can sacrifice to atone for perceived historic wrongs. Meanwhile conservatives (at least traditionally, not necessarily as represented by our modern political parties) just want to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

I find the rightist outlook on life to be far more optimistic. A person works, achieves something, and enjoys the rewards. The government takes some small portion of what he produces and in exchange provides some basic services that cannot otherwise be reliably provided. In the leftist version, a person works, sacrifices what they make for the betterment of others, and is left with so little that they are forced to rely on the government for all services. I find the second one extremely depressing.

Now the whole "logic vs emotion" thing, I was referring mostly to the realm of social policy. In other areas, such as views on science and religion, the views typically held by the left are more logical. So yes, both sides do use a "mix of both". The right is (in my view) deeply misguided on several crucially important issues, which is why I am not supporter of any political party. But, the majority of government action these days is related to social policy, and in that aspect, I see much more logic and reasoning in the conservative position than I do in the socialist one.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Bonam

[Remiel]

I find the rightist outlook on life to be far more optimistic. A person works, achieves something, and enjoys the rewards. The government takes some small portion of what he produces and in exchange provides some basic services that cannot otherwise be reliably provided. In the leftist version, a person works, sacrifices what they make for the betterment of others, and is left with so little that they are forced to rely on the government for all services. I find the second one extremely depressing.

Maybe, but you are only describing individual circumstances. When looking at the big picture, the right tends to be more, " The world is a crappy place and always will be, " while the left is more, " WTF? Things could be better for everyone if we play are cards right. "

[Bonam]

Maybe, but you are only describing individual circumstances. When looking at the big picture, the right tends to be more, " The world is a crappy place and always will be, " while the left is more, " WTF? Things could be better for everyone if we play are cards right. "

Nah I completely disagree. If you try to get down to such one line summaries of left and right ideas, they are both optimistic. The right says "the world would be great if only we did x", and the left says "the world would be great if only we did y". The question, of course, is how either side wants to achieve their x or their y, and what those x and y entail.

According to right wing ideology, everyone should be able to achieve success through their own hard work and enjoy the rewards. According to left wing ideology, the more able should work harder and contribute more so that the government can redistribute their wealth and ensure that the less able can enjoy the same rewards. That is the nature of socialism, and I find it quite demoralizing.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Bonam

[Remiel]

According to right wing ideology, everyone should be able to achieve success through their own hard work and enjoy the rewards.

Anyone perhaps, but not everyone. Right wing systems require people at the bottom to be screwed over in some way. That is why I find it to demoralizing.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Remiel

[Bonam]

Right wing systems require people at the bottom to be screwed over in some way.

How so?

[tango]

According to right wing ideology, everyone should be able to achieve success through their own hard work and enjoy the rewards.

See? It's a failure right off the bat. Not everyone has the same advantages of genetics and environment. The right wing ideology fails to account for 'the less able', stigmatizing and denigrating them, marginalizing them further and decreasing their ability further.

According to left wing ideology, the more able should work harder and contribute more so that the government can redistribute their wealth and ensure that the less able can enjoy the same rewards. That is the nature of socialism, and I find it quite demoralizing.

You can't see the morality of working for yourself as well as to assist those less able?

Count your blessings ... A simple car accident, a head injury, and you are in their place.

That's the ultimate arrogance of the 'right': When it happens to them personally, it's injustice. When it happens to someone else, it's their own fault.

Edited June 30, 2009 by tango

[Remiel]

How so?

They require that those at the bottom get paid practicaly nothing in order to function properly.

[benny]

They require that those at the bottom get paid practicaly nothing in order to function properly.

Workfare is indeed a right-wing idea.

[Pliny]

Anyone perhaps, but not everyone. Right wing systems require people at the bottom to be screwed over in some way. That is why I find it to demoralizing.

It isn't people at the bottom that get screwed over. People at the bottom are exploited by the do-gooder. It is people that do not wish to contribute to the creation of a society honestly. Like criminals and psychopaths and parasites. As long as someone is willing to help another person and not just help themselves to other people's good will they are a part of the fabric of society. If they are only helping themselves they are not. The left does not recognize there are people of bad will. Using the "people at the bottom" as an excuse to exploit others is rather parasitical in my view.

Certainly, there is risk in living and all risk cannot be eliminated or it would not be life but merely an existence. People make choices and must be able to judge when they have made wrong choices. Constantly bailing them out without suffering any of the consequences or responsibilities of their bad choices is not conducive to them learning to make good choices. It makes their choices irrelevent of consequence. The social safety net provided by government is a type of insurance against making wrong choices. Most people don't want to find themselves dependent upon government handouts and learn to make correct choices to avoid becoming dependent. Some make bad choices and are told that it is not their responsibility they are a victim of circumstance, they are poor, they are disadvantaged, they have been taken advantage of, anything but maybe start making some better choices. It is too easy to become a victim being bitter about life and people and society and remain in that state because of parasites that tell them they should be bitter and remain victims, all so those parasites can run their little empires. Real help is enabling; not crippling, and interventionist do-gooders are more often crippling and/or exploitive. Certainly, I would expect that anyone who really helped would be fairly compensated for their help or charitably not expect compensation.

Where does left and right fit in? The left in it's frenetic attempt to create all people equal and leveling the playing field cannot determine who the real criminals in society are since it can't discriminate and everyone must be viewed through the same rose-colored glasses. The only ones they feel are evil or delusional are people that do see differences in people. A criminal is a criminal whether he is white, black, gay, straight, male, female, poor, rich or whatever. Somehow it seems to me it escapes the left that a psychopath could be a poor, black, gay person. Psychopaths are more likely to be envisioned by the left as active, well off, white persons.

The fact is all poor people are not victims of circumstance. Some are poor because they are attempting to restrain themselves and not cause any grief to others because they know themselves too well and do not wish to cause any more damage. Now that's a pretty far out idea but if you believe humanity to be basically good you have to come to that conclusion in some cases.

The rich are easy targets. The middle-class majority are easy targets. And targets they are made. Why must they be targets? If they are criminal then indict them but don't use them as targets to be brought down to the level of bitter victim or guilty citizen so that bitter victims don't feel misunderstood or use them as a mechanism to live off the productivity of those who contribute to the structure of society and don't just live off it.

I think the left is winning out but that is how socialism works. It is an evolutionary process and in a social democracy where people can vote themselves benefit from the public coffers it is inevitable it will grow until it can no longer sustain itself and destroys the productive element of society through overburden. This point has to be understood. Government must remain limited in it's mandate and should not be trusted to engineer society becaus ti will do so in it's own interests.

Of course, sometimes we recognize that tyranny does not originate in our capitalist endeavours, that an economy will only thrive when it is not extorted from by those wishing to live off the avails of others and enabled by government to do so. Even the lowliest person can contribute and should be allowed to contribute in their own way to society. They must in order to feel apart of it and it's creation and have any sense of self-worth and self-respect. Otherwise they are not a part of it and will eventually eat it away. If they are anti-establishment leave them alone to their own devices. They will either thrive by creating their own niche or die just like the rest of us. As long as they are not criminal or destructive to others they should be left to their own devices as all of us should.

[benny]

The left in it's frenetic attempt to create all people equal and leveling the playing field cannot determine who the real criminals in society are since it can't discriminate and everyone must be viewed through the same rose-colored glasses.

Like always, this view omits the main point: the Left is targeting first and foremost polluters.

[Pliny]

See? It's a failure right off the bat. Not everyone has the same advantages of genetics and environment. The right wing ideology fails to account for 'the less able', stigmatizing and denigrating them, marginalizing them further and decreasing their ability further.

Sorry but you are exploiting them by telling them they are disadvantaged. They have poor genes and their environment is bad well what a way to stick it to them. Put a label on them so they can remain forever stigmatized, denigrated and marginalized. It is too bad everyone is not equal and can't contribute equally, saying they are equal does not make it so. They can at least feel some sense of self worth by doing what they can to contribute to society. It is only that way that they will gain any self-respect. It doesn't matter that they will never be rich or achieve greatness or even mediocrity. It matters that they contributed something.

You can't see the morality of working for yourself as well as to assist those less able?

Assist or exploit?

Count your blessings ... A simple car accident, a head injury, and you are in their place.

No. you may need assistance but you can have some sense of self worth if people aren't continually pointing out your victim status. We are all victims in some sense but most of us don't wallow in it.

That's the ultimate arrogance of the 'right': When it happens to them personally, it's injustice. When it happens to someone else, it's their own fault.

Sometimes it is injustice sometimes the left can convince us we are victims and it isn't our fault so we must remain victims. We are all victims and it's never our fault is the left's refrain.

[benny]

Sorry but you are exploiting them by telling them they are disadvantaged. They have poor genes and their environment is bad well what a way to stick it to them. Put a label on them so they can remain forever stigmatized, denigrated and marginalized.

Having some specific genes is an objective fact, it is not a stigma at all.

[Pliny]

They require that those at the bottom get paid practicaly nothing in order to function properly.

It is not a requirement they work for practically nothing. No one will work if it is not of any benefit to them. They are paid what they will work for. If they are having trouble supporting themselves they have some choices to make to improve their status. A job is not an entitlement nor is it something to do in lieu of nothing to do nor is it a job if it is just something to pass the time.

The thing to do is have a person improve himself not sit there being a victim feeling he is entitled to a better existence, and the operative word is "entitled".

[benny]

They are paid what they will work for.

They are paid what they can negotiate.