Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Well, glatt, do you need me to talk to you in baby talk, or would you all things considered prefer adult speech?

Quitcherbitchin; come up to my level. Nice view here.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Well, glatt, do you need me to talk to you in baby talk, or would you all things considered prefer adult speech?

Either one would be an improvement.

[Griff]

This is not outside of what democratic groups do, UG. Use big boy words from here on out. If they are being anti-freedom say so, but don't continue to re-define democracy per ancient talking points used for selling invasions. When we leave Iraq, you'll probably get to see democracy at its jackbooted best.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Either one would be an improvement.

spot on, HM!

Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass. Say it in English. Or Spanish, or German, or any other language actually in common usage today.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

spot on, HM!

Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass. Say it in English. Or Spanish, or German, or any other language actually in common usage today.

Zen: no. And I have Spanish, French, and Russian and hey, I can say it in any of these. If I choose to use my admittedly scant store of Latin, look upon it as a chance to enjoy the same broad horizons I do, rather than an excuse to complain at me. I'd say that's beneath your dignity. I'll make this plain: I do not listen to such requests, deeming them both beneath me -- a request to dumb down, which is the request I forever deny -- and beneath the asker also: is he not asking to be dumber? (What???) If you don't feel like rejecting that whole I-wannabe-a-dullard frame of mind yet, I'm not doing my job of making you a better man.

In that vein, I've not often found Happy Monkey to be all that well advised anyway. I did catch him at some good thinking over in Philosophy once, and I'd like to see him at it again, but his ideology does cause him to say absurd things. He's not the only one; this is the usual fate of the posters who wrangle with me on ideological grounds. Leftism keeps you childish and in a condition of dependency -- that's the only way the left retains influence -- and you say things that sound like they're from six-year-olds, not adult humans of free estate. No thank you; I enjoy a better road.

What makes it better? Boy, that would take a long essay. A lot of that work has already been done by writers through history. Orwell inoculated me against leftism in the beginning; Heinlein was a booster shot, and then there is the kind of writing free adults can do when they're conservative: almost every month of the year in National Review. To remain left of center, you have to carefully avoid the wit and wisdom on display there.

So, reading this thread over, it looks like the usual debate-club mess-up: can't dispute the validity of the argument? See if you can piss on the guy's style. Tsk tsk. That's going to carry the day for the opposition? That's known as a losing battle, people. Make a fight when you have a case. Don't try covering that lack up with a lot of noise over peripherals or personalities. That may have fooled some... has it fooled me, do you think?

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Orwell inoculated me against leftism in the beginning;

What the hell?

The man was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist. He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain! The only way you could possibly use Orwell as an argument against 'leftism' is if either A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey now, that's not fair.... he could be both.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Ibram

What the hell?

A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.

The rule of thumb for Truth is very simple...whoever has the most Money, Power and Force, bears Truth.

Therefore, America espouses Truth in all cases. To say otherwise is to be un-American, and therefore a threat to national security. Once we get rid of that nasty little Free Speech thing, it will be much easier for all of us to realize this.

But we'll be safe.

And yes, what Berkeley did was wrong. Equal parking for all, with special consideration given to the handicapped. Anti war protesters are not handicapped as a group.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

What the hell?

The man was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist.

For a few years, yes he was. Experience of these converted him away; hence, Orwell's work amounts to an inoculation against socialist totalitarianism and to some degree against socialist niceguyism too.

He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain!

That being a reflection of the above. Young men volunteer for war, Orwell no less than any other.

The only way you could possibly use Orwell as an argument against 'leftism' is if either A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.

A. Some part of him always rather did; there are online essays on Orwell's life and work noting a "well-concealed totalitarian streak" in his makeup. Animal Farm and 1984 open a couple of windows on hell, hence again the inoculation. Read them and see if I'm not right; I know I've linked you to a 1984 e-book, and I hope you profited by it. Fascism and leftism's totalitarian phase are the same thing; a bird couldn't live on the difference between the two. The Nazis and the Soviets fought as hard as they did not because they were antitheses; far from it: they were competitors. Each one even tried setting up as a sort of atheist religion, with their respective Parties being the objects of worship. This worship can be seen at several points in 1984 -- the cinema scene, the later parts of Smith's time in the Ministry of Love, and the last paragraph in the book.

B. This proposition is illogical. I doubt I could both disagree and think it good -- not about an overall social order, which seems to be the context you intend. I'm sure on consideration you'll agree.

So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.

I know you'd like to be as unfair to me as possible for as long as possible, but I urge you not to pursue such a mug's game. My choice is actually "smarter than you, and antifascist in ways you likely are not." Figure out what those ways are. It's very difficult for a leftist to really be an antifascist. And remember I still have thirty-three more years in the world than you do. Experience tells. So do apostrophes, btw.

***

DanaC, what you want me to stop doing is precisely what I must keep on doing. Humanity is served by democracy. Humanity is trammeled by anything lesser -- have you noticed our opposition being about anything but trammeling? You should be downright rabid against them for that sin. I certainly am. You know humanity is very well served by democracy, from your own experience living in a constitutional monarchy and within a tradition of limited government beginning at Runnymede with the Magna Carta -- and the Charter of Liberties, ref'd and linked here.

Too little government is dangerous, and too much is destructive and impoverishing. These extremes are not bipolar conditions, binary states, but a continuum. In a fluid political order, the balance first tilts one way, then the other.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Zen: no.

...

Originally Posted by UG

I am here in part because I can offer you fresh insight. And why would there be refusal to accept it?

Originally Posted by UG

I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.

So... your advice is golden but when people try to advise you, you tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't accept it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?

And there wasn't.

There's an important point you're whiffing on here. It goes so far over your head you may need a trampoline to reach it. Ready to leap?

If the people don't like you, they won't listen to you. In fact they often come to a conclusion the opposite of your argument... merely because they take you as a horse's ass.

That's not exactly critical thinking on their behalf. The argument should be separate from the speaker. But it's true. You do your arguments a terrible disservice by serving them up on a plate with dog shit garnish. You might as well take the opposite opinion of your own, because it would lead more people to seek the alternative.

And actually, though it's not critical thinking, there may be a gem of truth in not listening to pomposity. Who is more likely to be right: the person who believes he has never been wrong, or the person who knows he has been wrong, who has been thoroughly humbled in his wrongness...?

The people find no humility in you and so they find you suspect. I think the people know what they are doing, here.

If the people here are so far beneath you that you must lecture them and not listen to them -- if that's really the case -- if you really believe that --

Then you are playing tennis in a league beneath your skill, and you should find a game that matches your skill... otherwise you are just playing to make yourself feel good, do you see that? Who would stay in a game where they are so far superior? It does your game no good.