Incredible Analysis of the modern liberal mind

The death of God, and the rudderless amorality of post modernism is what has the liberals in thrall. Without a moral system to ascribe to, life has no meaning or value, and so the post modern liberal must construct one and demand a puritanical adherence to it. Of course, they're new at this whole construction of a moral code thing, and so it's quite imperfect, contradictory, and irrational. And since they are humanist, its enforcement is necessarily violent and authoritarian.

 

I think the main reason liberals are so apoplectic right now is that Trump is the proverbial anti-Christ to their authoritarianism. He embodies to them everything that can go wrong when you place ultimate power in the hands of a central authority. Faced with the paradox that their moral system requires centralized enforcement they clearly have a problem that is impossible to resolve systemically. So instead they attempt to resolve it locally with anger and violence.

 

I can only judge with the data I am presented with. But I am open to suggestions on more representative venues.

Perhaps. I am careful not to debate any subject I have not prepared. I am actually happy in those rare instances when someone shows me up. I am just more prepared the next time.

What I can't understand are those posters who insist that Galileo was the first to announce that the world is round. No matter how many times you correct them they won't change their minds.

 

People and discussion in real life. I have yet to find anywhere online that provides reasonable discussion, or isn't a total echochamber. Often both occur. And of course, reading - as an example, reading things by people like Roger Scruton caused me to soften on conservatism and even understand that I had conservative principles with things like environmental issues.

The problem is people though. We are all very easily sucked into confirmation bias, it is difficult to get out of.

This is a good attitude and one that I hope I share.

Morons are difficult to deal with. They are generally best to ignore. Many people will often not want to admit they are wrong, seeing it as a deep affront to their being, so will persist with a wrong belief but one that remains consistent and within their identity.

I speak as someone on the 'left' who despises much of what is most vocal around it at the moment, particularly many who seem to want to limit freedom of speech in particular - I think it is important to recognise that there are always a vocal minority of idiots for almost every group. There are also those who espouse a type of moral relativism, but once probed with a few questions can realise their logic does not really hold. It is often merely a reaction against the other side, they see the worst of the 'right' attacking some minority or outside group and then jump through hoops to defend them at whatever cost, merely to act against the 'right'. This then becomes a loop, where the 'right' then sees the left acting in this stupid way and ends up hating them and so on, whereas the 90% in the middle could probably have a reasonable conversation and find a lot of commonality, as long as they weren't aware of the inane idiocy at the extremes of the 'other side'.

A few years ago I may well have agreed with the vociferous far left types, but through reading broadly and talking with people in reality I realise that many on the right are reasonable and have understandable bases for their beliefs, I just often profoundly disagree with many of them. To bring it round a little, I don't think I would have mellowed like this if I had simply based my opinion of the right on things I see on online forums. It is best to look for the best of the 'other side' and try to understand why they may think differently, whether certain beliefs are irreconcilable for you or even if you can understand why someone can ever hold them. I think the best thing people can do is understand that their own beliefs are far from infallible, and also can be separated out a little from their identity, or are at least one changeable facet of it.

Of course, arguing with idiots can also be fun. I'm sure many who've argued with me over the years would agree.