It's quite sad that August Landmesser's story didn't have a happier ending, but it's certainly admirable. If more people stood up against Nazism at the time, perhaps Landmesser and his family could have lived happily ever after.
Likewise, if more people stand up to insane notions like the idea of children being born in the wrong body and an inherent "Gender Identity" that requires healthy body parts to be cut off, fake body parts to be fashioned from otherwise healthy skin and tissue and attached as faux genitalia, and chemicals to be flooded into otherwise healthy bodies, disrupting normal hormonal balances, perhaps we will soon see an end to mutilation and psychological harms to vulnerable young people. One can only hope!
In America healthcare is run on a profit basis, which may be the reason that keeping people healthy has such low priority. It's certainly the reason that America lags so far behind Europe in ending the "Dutch protocol" of hormones and surgery for a fad that most outgrow; that "affirmation" is big business.
I'm going to pick a nit, though, about the Electoral College, the abolition of which would not betray liberal values but reinforce them. It's pretty hard to argue that the EC serves the public will, because if so then the last two Republican presidents would not have entered office. It's also difficult to argue that the EC restrains the wild impulses of the mob, because, well, 2016. So why exactly do we have this weird method of electing presidents?
I also note that when the United States nation-builds, it doesn't set up electoral colleges. It's pretty daming when you don't recommend others use your own software. :-)
Thanks for commenting! To clarify, I'm not here to defend the EC (though I do like it!). What I am here to say is that when someone wants to change the rules of the game explicitly because those rules led to their opponents winning...that is no longer liberal.
I can see that...and yet, "packing" the Supreme really isn't changing the rules, is it? I mean, the rules allow for the size of the court to be changed, just as those rules allowed for Mitch McConnell to strip Obama of his power to appoint Antonin Scalia's successor. In fact, I'd argue that the former is a more legitimate use of power than the latter.
It is probably necessary to engage in pointing out the problems on "both" sides. It is probably more necessary to point out the flaws on the conservative side in order to lower the barriers on the part of the people who are understood to have the most social clout.
But you said something about truth.
Let's be honest, the conservative side does not have control over the academy, the FBI, the CIA, Hollywood, Wall Street, or the media. Honesty would start with the observation that it is the other side that has the power in those areas. Further, honesty would reflect on the fact that conservative reaction is, well, reactionary to something.
As long as liberals had the ascending heights, things were tolerable, but something has changed in the last twenty years.
That something has something to do with the fact that liberals have been replaced by Leftists. I distinguish between the two on the grounds that the former had a commitment to due process and free speech. Whatever the replacement is for liberals, that replacement does not have much of a use for free speech or due process.
We can do all of the "both sides are wrong" analysis we want, but none of that is going to get us any closer to a solution if we can't admit that while conservatives have remained the same, liberals have mutated into something that is not liberal and so can hardly be expected to uphold the liberal order.
While I agree with some of this article, I find the writing style poor.
“Epistemic liberalism is on the ropes too.”
The phrase “epistemic liberalism” is better stated as “critical thinking”, but I will vent for a moment.
This is junk writing, apologies to the author, but there is no need to contort a simple well-understood phrase to fit in the “liberalism” pattern. It adds zero to the entire article and makes it seem puerile.
Further, mixing it with the metaphor “on the ropes” adds insult to injury. The earthy boxing reference linked with the aetherial “epistemic” is almost a “block that metaphor” moment. It makes it sound phony.
It’s hard to write well in plain English, especially so if there is a compulsion to sound intellectual, as I did when I was student over 40 years ago.
Get feedback from someone who doesn’t live to impress people verbally - avoid “epistemic closure” in left/right culture, have an open mind, and you will avoid the recirculating bullshit system which crops up here too frequently.
Sorry to vent on you, but I felt the need to make a point.
“… multiple presidential campaigns in which he either stole the election (2016, see hush money trial) or spread lies hoping to steal power (2020, 2024) …”
I don’t think we should be afraid of regulating speech that’s too extreme to be of any redeeming value—especially if it’s a lie that is being told specifically to hurt another group. One should, without question, not be allowed to gaslight the feeble minded as a means of stealing power. A pattern of 30,000 lies in four years, when considered along with previous conduct including thousands of lawsuits related to fraud; tax theft, sexual misconduct (rape) and financial incompetence (seven bankruptcies), and future conduct including inciting insurrection against the US government, multiple presidential campaigns in which he either stole the election (2016, see hush money trial), theft of classified government documents, and a pledge to do all the cruel things he openly does (along with all the expected stupidity from one as intellectually weak as him).
A sane country would have locked this joker up long ago and nixed the traditional honorary post-presidential perks. He doesn’t deserve secret service protection and his relatives damn sure don’t.
But it all starts with the spoken word. Time to hit mute
The article is loaded with dubious presumptions. Disqualifyingly so.
Let's start with the presumption that all people hold equal value. If you believe this, you should go to a mall.
The only "settlers" the authors could be referring to are those murderous rabble in the West Bank. A few minutes of listening to them, or reading about how they acquire land, should end any notion that they are "civilians." They murder more Palestinians every few weeks than Hamas did in a solitary attack last October.
Diminishing respect for capitalism isn't based on any loss of reverence for "economic freedom," a phrase that should always raise suspicions, but for the outcomes of capitalism anyone can see: a few dozen people with more wealth than three quarters of the population, the resistance to slowing down the killing of our world. What does capitalism have to recommend it?
There are a number of statements in this otherwise very good edition of RLS. I think it’s wrong to conflate socialism with communism. The UK was governed as a socialist market economy with a world class welfare state, for 3 decades, until it was begun to be dismantled in the 1980s. It was done very slowly because the “safety-net” was very popular, especially the NHS. There are still elements working today, but under great stress, due to privatisation and under-funding. Secondly to state that the laws of England now control speech is an overstatement, due to the writer not understanding local government and policing in the UK. The case from 2022 that you cited gained a lot of publicity and other cases have been challenged in court. Our ex-LGB charity, Stonewall, turned into a transgender charity after gay marriage was legalised in 2010 (?) and it became very successful at training organisations, including the police, in trans ideology. This is where the 2022 story came from.
As far as socialism: it's a good point, and I think that different folks probably have different definitions of socialism. Probably a lot of young folks support Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialism. But is that compatible with economic liberalism? I'm not sure. It's definitely a continuum with a fuzzy line.
What do you think--would the economic system of the UK pre-1980s be described as economic liberalism?
As far as the free speech stuff: you're right, I'm not that familiar with UK local politics. My apologies if I put my foot in my mouth there. My only point was that there's nothing magical about Western countries (including the US!) that means they always support free speech; and as such, we cannot take our own free speech for granted. We have to defend it.
It's quite sad that August Landmesser's story didn't have a happier ending, but it's certainly admirable. If more people stood up against Nazism at the time, perhaps Landmesser and his family could have lived happily ever after.
Likewise, if more people stand up to insane notions like the idea of children being born in the wrong body and an inherent "Gender Identity" that requires healthy body parts to be cut off, fake body parts to be fashioned from otherwise healthy skin and tissue and attached as faux genitalia, and chemicals to be flooded into otherwise healthy bodies, disrupting normal hormonal balances, perhaps we will soon see an end to mutilation and psychological harms to vulnerable young people. One can only hope!
In America healthcare is run on a profit basis, which may be the reason that keeping people healthy has such low priority. It's certainly the reason that America lags so far behind Europe in ending the "Dutch protocol" of hormones and surgery for a fad that most outgrow; that "affirmation" is big business.
Thanks for this.
I'm going to pick a nit, though, about the Electoral College, the abolition of which would not betray liberal values but reinforce them. It's pretty hard to argue that the EC serves the public will, because if so then the last two Republican presidents would not have entered office. It's also difficult to argue that the EC restrains the wild impulses of the mob, because, well, 2016. So why exactly do we have this weird method of electing presidents?
I also note that when the United States nation-builds, it doesn't set up electoral colleges. It's pretty daming when you don't recommend others use your own software. :-)
Thanks for commenting! To clarify, I'm not here to defend the EC (though I do like it!). What I am here to say is that when someone wants to change the rules of the game explicitly because those rules led to their opponents winning...that is no longer liberal.
I can see that...and yet, "packing" the Supreme really isn't changing the rules, is it? I mean, the rules allow for the size of the court to be changed, just as those rules allowed for Mitch McConnell to strip Obama of his power to appoint Antonin Scalia's successor. In fact, I'd argue that the former is a more legitimate use of power than the latter.
It is probably necessary to engage in pointing out the problems on "both" sides. It is probably more necessary to point out the flaws on the conservative side in order to lower the barriers on the part of the people who are understood to have the most social clout.
But you said something about truth.
Let's be honest, the conservative side does not have control over the academy, the FBI, the CIA, Hollywood, Wall Street, or the media. Honesty would start with the observation that it is the other side that has the power in those areas. Further, honesty would reflect on the fact that conservative reaction is, well, reactionary to something.
As long as liberals had the ascending heights, things were tolerable, but something has changed in the last twenty years.
That something has something to do with the fact that liberals have been replaced by Leftists. I distinguish between the two on the grounds that the former had a commitment to due process and free speech. Whatever the replacement is for liberals, that replacement does not have much of a use for free speech or due process.
We can do all of the "both sides are wrong" analysis we want, but none of that is going to get us any closer to a solution if we can't admit that while conservatives have remained the same, liberals have mutated into something that is not liberal and so can hardly be expected to uphold the liberal order.
While I agree with some of this article, I find the writing style poor.
“Epistemic liberalism is on the ropes too.”
The phrase “epistemic liberalism” is better stated as “critical thinking”, but I will vent for a moment.
This is junk writing, apologies to the author, but there is no need to contort a simple well-understood phrase to fit in the “liberalism” pattern. It adds zero to the entire article and makes it seem puerile.
Further, mixing it with the metaphor “on the ropes” adds insult to injury. The earthy boxing reference linked with the aetherial “epistemic” is almost a “block that metaphor” moment. It makes it sound phony.
It’s hard to write well in plain English, especially so if there is a compulsion to sound intellectual, as I did when I was student over 40 years ago.
Get feedback from someone who doesn’t live to impress people verbally - avoid “epistemic closure” in left/right culture, have an open mind, and you will avoid the recirculating bullshit system which crops up here too frequently.
Sorry to vent on you, but I felt the need to make a point.
Joe Rogan is telling his audience of pot heads and alcoholics that the government should be paying them $200,000 per year.
The bolshevik revolution is coming, and most have no idea what that means.
Wow! Source?
Rogan
“… multiple presidential campaigns in which he either stole the election (2016, see hush money trial) or spread lies hoping to steal power (2020, 2024) …”
I don’t think we should be afraid of regulating speech that’s too extreme to be of any redeeming value—especially if it’s a lie that is being told specifically to hurt another group. One should, without question, not be allowed to gaslight the feeble minded as a means of stealing power. A pattern of 30,000 lies in four years, when considered along with previous conduct including thousands of lawsuits related to fraud; tax theft, sexual misconduct (rape) and financial incompetence (seven bankruptcies), and future conduct including inciting insurrection against the US government, multiple presidential campaigns in which he either stole the election (2016, see hush money trial), theft of classified government documents, and a pledge to do all the cruel things he openly does (along with all the expected stupidity from one as intellectually weak as him).
A sane country would have locked this joker up long ago and nixed the traditional honorary post-presidential perks. He doesn’t deserve secret service protection and his relatives damn sure don’t.
But it all starts with the spoken word. Time to hit mute
The article is loaded with dubious presumptions. Disqualifyingly so.
Let's start with the presumption that all people hold equal value. If you believe this, you should go to a mall.
The only "settlers" the authors could be referring to are those murderous rabble in the West Bank. A few minutes of listening to them, or reading about how they acquire land, should end any notion that they are "civilians." They murder more Palestinians every few weeks than Hamas did in a solitary attack last October.
Diminishing respect for capitalism isn't based on any loss of reverence for "economic freedom," a phrase that should always raise suspicions, but for the outcomes of capitalism anyone can see: a few dozen people with more wealth than three quarters of the population, the resistance to slowing down the killing of our world. What does capitalism have to recommend it?
There are a number of statements in this otherwise very good edition of RLS. I think it’s wrong to conflate socialism with communism. The UK was governed as a socialist market economy with a world class welfare state, for 3 decades, until it was begun to be dismantled in the 1980s. It was done very slowly because the “safety-net” was very popular, especially the NHS. There are still elements working today, but under great stress, due to privatisation and under-funding. Secondly to state that the laws of England now control speech is an overstatement, due to the writer not understanding local government and policing in the UK. The case from 2022 that you cited gained a lot of publicity and other cases have been challenged in court. Our ex-LGB charity, Stonewall, turned into a transgender charity after gay marriage was legalised in 2010 (?) and it became very successful at training organisations, including the police, in trans ideology. This is where the 2022 story came from.
Thanks for commenting!
As far as socialism: it's a good point, and I think that different folks probably have different definitions of socialism. Probably a lot of young folks support Bernie Sanders-style democratic socialism. But is that compatible with economic liberalism? I'm not sure. It's definitely a continuum with a fuzzy line.
What do you think--would the economic system of the UK pre-1980s be described as economic liberalism?
As far as the free speech stuff: you're right, I'm not that familiar with UK local politics. My apologies if I put my foot in my mouth there. My only point was that there's nothing magical about Western countries (including the US!) that means they always support free speech; and as such, we cannot take our own free speech for granted. We have to defend it.