The Price of Rationality is Eternal Timidity

from JoeUser Forums
As always, there is clamor about JU for the rational liberals to come out and denounce the radical wing of the party. If only it was as simple as many wish it was. Because, like my title states, the price of rationality is eternal timidity.

What do I mean, you ask? Well, it's quite simple, really. In order to maintain a rational mindset, one must always remain timid. If one was not timid while rational, they would lash out against those who are radical. It seems like a good thing, no? Sadly, that is only the short-term effect. You see, the mindset of lashing out would continue. Eventually, they would seek to destroy all who disagree, and become just as bad as those they once sought to rein in.

Of course, there are exceptions that prove the rule. Some people are able to tear apart the radicals yet remain in a rational mindset. I'm sure there are a few around here, and it is quite a good thing. But demanding an attack from everyone will, in the long-term, create a dominant radical wing on JU. And I don't believe that is in the best interest of anyone.

Perhaps a smack or 2 may be administered without serious long-term effects. But it is a bad idea to make a point to smack them down at every turn. Because, like I have said, the price of rationality is eternal timidity.
politics
13,497 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I would just like to say that I hate this. I hate every square inch of it. But a friend convinced me to let you decide how it is. So, I hate it, but here it is.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who is that friend? No matter, I don't think I am timid. It is difficult to doubt my rationality and clear logic, though. "The price of rationality is eternal timidity" does apply to the silent majority in many cases.
Galactic Civilizations IV
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Because, like I have said, the price of rationality is eternal timidity.

I disagree.  If you were to be correct, then the radical right would control the Republicans instead of being used by them.  You dont have to get rabid.  You have to distance yourself from them, and show others that while they hold some similar views or goals, they are not in control and do not call the dance steps.

It is easy to throw up your hands and wash them of the situation.  But that does not solve the problem.  Yuo agenda is being hijacked and if you do nothing, then nothing will get done.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree. If you were to be correct, then the radical right would control the Republicans instead of being used by them. You dont have to get rabid. You have to distance yourself from them, and show others that while they hold some similar views or goals, they are not in control and do not call the dance steps.


I apply this maxim only to those who have kept quiet for a while. Distancing, I'm all for, my point is attacking them constantly can easily lead to using what you once despised.

It is easy to throw up your hands and wash them of the situation. But that does not solve the problem. Yuo agenda is being hijacked and if you do nothing, then nothing will get done.


Again, that is not what I am saying. We need to put up a fight every once in a while, and we must also let it be known they don't speak for us. But we can't doggedly go after them. Sometimes it is just best to ignore.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your agenda is being highjacked...come...move closer to this position...

It's like hypnosis. We didn't move furthur left, they just moved what they called "center" over to the right.

It's a rigged game at this point.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again, that is not what I am saying. We need to put up a fight every once in a while, and we must also let it be known they don't speak for us. But we can't doggedly go after them. Sometimes it is just best to ignore.

You cannot fight a war half way.  You must win, and then do a holding action.  If you just 'pick your fights' then you have not won.  Once you gain control, then you can pick your fights.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's like hypnosis. We didn't move furthur left, they just moved what they called "center" over to the right.

You see NJ, this is what I am talking about.  Grima tries to turn the argument around and make it so that any fight against them is a fight for the right.  But when the platforms and candidates are such carictures and so out of step even with members of the democrat party, they have to lie and spread lies in order to cower those that do not totally agree with them.

They care not for anything but their extreme agenda, and if someone of a rational mind questions them, they immediately turn it into a 'right corrupting left' argument.  Falwell was very good at that, and almost hijacked the party.  It was just the actions of strong men that prevented it and brought them back to a more moderating side.  yet the Grimas tell you constantly that he has control and has hijacked it.  yet do we see his agenda enacted?

No because the Grimas know taht once their veil is removed, they will lose the party to the rational part.  SO they have to keep up the veil.  It is all or nothing for them.

But the 2/3 of America that dont listen to the Grimas see that you are under their spell, and they are more frightened by that than the thought of Jerry Falwell giving a sermon that most wont listen to anyway.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You cannot fight a war half way. You must win, and then do a holding action. If you just 'pick your fights' then you have not won. Once you gain control, then you can pick your fights.


The problem there is an all-out war would cause my hypothesis to come to pass. I do have a solution, though, that would give a somewhat 'simulated' all-out war while preventing my hypothesis.

Okay, say there are 2 outspoken radicals and rational liberals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 around. So, Liberals 1, 2, and 3 attack radical 1, but not radical 2. Also, liberals 4, 5, and 6 attack radical 2 but not radical 1. It would require a mass cooperative effort, but if it did happen, I think it would be the most viable solution.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fearful are almost always the MOST irrational. The rational can delve difficult situations, see the dangers, and find their safety within them.

Ignorance breeds fear. I don't find much in your point.

"It's like hypnosis. We didn't move furthur left, they just moved what they called "center" over to the right. "


And yet, Liberals looking back on history are the first to brag about "how far we have come" in the last century. Who is activly trying moving the center? Can you not expect resistance when people are trying to shove the center further and further left?

How many times have I had discussions with Liberals that were just SHOCKED that I had a particular opinion? Then, they generally refuse to believe that most everyone I know shares that opinion. I think that the Liberal assumption is that we have "come this far", when in reality they are trying to drag a lot of people who don't want to go "that far".
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rather pointless, I would think, to assume that if you're a liberal thinker, you must therefore be irrational, because only if you move to some perceived "center" and be timid, can you be perceived by those here at ju as being somewhat reasonable. I think the extreme agenda of the right, to which most here at ju ascribe to, is extremist and unreasonable. Completely.

I agree with Myrrander, yet again. The right have hijacked the center and moved it right. When they say they want the left to move center, they're really telling us to move right of center. I refuse. And, it's not because I'm irrational. It's because I have very deeply held convictions that dictate that I can never, ever move to the right. Ever. I guess that makes me not very timid. I refuse to be timid about my liberal leanings.

Gee NJ, what were you saying?..........
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
#10 by dabe


Dabe, I do not want the Democrats to move onto the center, or to the right of it. I want us to move TOWARDS it. I myself am not a centrist, but a moderate liberal. By all means, I'm still a liberal. Also, I'm not calling every liberal irrational. I'm calling extremist (used in this context to mean someone who maliciously attacks the opposition) liberals irrational. Everything I said once and may yet apply to the right.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"As always, there is clamor about JU for the rational liberals to come out and denounce the radical wing of the party."


After ruminating about this some more, the flaw that I find is that government isn't supposed to be "leading us somewhere", it is suppposed to represent our wishes. When Republicans, and even Democrats call for the Democratic party to step back and realize they aren't representitive, they aren't holding back progress because of timidity, they are asking the party to do its job.

If the radical wing of the Democratic party feels that they represent the ordinary American, they most certainly ARE irrational. Thankfully, they are seen for it and people tend NOT to trust irrational people to lead them. When they do, you end up with gulags and concentration camps.

If that is timidity, I'm all for it. Sometimes I actually value the baby more than the bath water.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
The right have hijacked the center and moved it right.


That is an Oxy-Moron. If they hijacked it, it means they moved to the center and the left did not. The center is not a thing, it is the balance between the 2 extremes. No one moved it, the left just moved farther to the left leaving the rational to fill the center.

Proof in this is easy to see. Compare the policies and views of JFK circa 1960 to those of his dipsy brother circa 2004. Then you tell me who hijacked who.

The only thing hijacked is the democrats, by the loony fringe.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you were to be correct, then the radical right would control the Republicans instead of being used by them


be careful with a fool, cuz someday he might get smart...
---bb king
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You won't hear me make any sort of defense for "Democrats." Democrats annoy me. Democrats can have their pro-life Senate leader and ride his obstructionist vision til cows give nothing but cream. Screw them. There are very few believable progressive voices in the party.

We came far in the 20th century, but here at the beginning of the 21st we're wanting to give a lot of it up. That's what I mean by a hijack of center. We're no more liberal than we ever were (read a bit about Emma Goldman if you will).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Fact of the matter, dipsy, is that it was a fuckingly stupid idea. Just because no one else said it so bluntly doesn't make it any less so. As for being "too late", well you're less than any kind of barometer for me to follow. I have about as much respect for you as I do for drmiler and minisuculeman. You don't like my responses, tough shit.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
as well as the dismal failure of the lefties here to even notice, much less mention, an uncecessarily nasty post by one of their own.

Link


i must be losin my mind cuz i actually followed the link knowing what was at the other end.

perhaps dabe could have been a bit more diplomatic but for that matter so could the current administration. even if the article's author had but once--just once during what seems like the past five years though really more likely to have been about 6 months--expressed something other than total approval of his party line, i wouldnt feel any more obliged to criticize the obvious truth of dabe's statement.

it IS an exceedingly dumb, etc, etc idea.

if anything, i'd expect you to appreciate her forthright, no-holds-barred, call a spade a spade brutally frank candor.

and that's how i felt about it even before i came upon his eleoquent rejoinder:

LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME. DABE SHUT UP AND GET OFF MY BLOG. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE OF YOUR STUPIDITY!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
well as the dismal failure of the lefties here to even notice, much less mention, an uncecessarily nasty post by one of their own.

Link


i must be losin my mind cuz i actually followed the link knowing what was at the other end.

perhaps dabe could have been a bit more diplomatic but for that matter so could the current administration. even if the article's author had but once--just once during what seems like the past five years though really more likely to have been about 6 months--expressed something other than total approval of his party line, i wouldnt feel any more obliged to criticize the obvious truth of dabe's statement.

it IS an exceedingly dumb, etc, etc idea.

if anything, i'd expect you to appreciate her forthright, no-holds-barred, call a spade a spade brutally frank candor.

and that's how i felt about it even before i came upon his eleoquent rejoinder:

LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME. DABE SHUT UP AND GET OFF MY BLOG. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE OF YOUR STUPIDITY!


Which was in DIRECT response to her foul language and name calling.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
as well as the dismal failure of the lefties here to even notice, much less mention, an uncecessarily nasty post by one of their own.

Link


i must be losin my mind cuz i actually followed the link knowing what was at the other end.

perhaps dabe could have been a bit more diplomatic but for that matter so could the current administration. even if the article's author had but once--just once during what seems like the past five years though really more likely to have been about 6 months--expressed something other than total approval of his party line, i wouldnt feel any more obliged to criticize the obvious truth of dabe's statement.

it IS an exceedingly dumb, etc, etc idea.

if anything, i'd expect you to appreciate her forthright, no-holds-barred, call a spade a spade brutally frank candor.

and that's how i felt about it even before i came upon his eleoquent rejoinder:

LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME. DABE SHUT UP AND GET OFF MY BLOG. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE OF YOUR STUPIDITY!


I also see that you lack the courage to say this on my blog (say it to my face).
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiller...
To be fair to kingbee, the issue of your post was brought up here by LW to illustrate a point connected to this discussion. He was merely continuing on with the thread here.

On the issue of the original article...
People like Myrrander and Dabe miss the point entirely. They don't recognize that they're part of an extremist portion of the left. That they don't represent even a fraction of that half of the country. They rely on extreme emotion and tantrum tactics to try and sell their point, and when that fails they just toss up their hands and say that anyone who doesn't completely agree with their point of view is just a moron/kool-aid drinker/bush lover.

By comparison to people like those two, the rational among us are extremely timid. We aren't out for a fight, we're not looking to go railing off the handle at everyone who disagrees with us (be they left or right of our position). On the issue of why I might not have gone into that thread calling those two to the mat, well it's because I didn't read the article. I don't chase every political article on the site in hopes of catching those two pulling their stunts. If I encounter them, then I go after them, otherwise their antics merely pass under my radar.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is why I am glad I have had the training and education I have. To be able to think rationally through irrational situations, and be bold in timid times, is all too rare in our society. All too rare and, as you point out, not usually encouraged.