Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:34 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Orwellian liberalism 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?
The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)



Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:53 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
Harry Marks wrote:
ant wrote:
You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?
The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)



It's not a "feeling" when someone claims you have written something that is in fact nowhere to be found in the post.

It's called dishonest characterization. It was very clearly done.

And you are patronizing me for insinuating it is just a "feeling" that I have when it happens.

Bullshit.

The more cheeky you are with me the more I call you out for it.



Fri Jun 19, 2020 11:06 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card

Silver Contributor

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 235
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Thanks: 105
Thanked: 175 times in 137 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:


Harry Marks wrote:


ant wrote:
You are apologetically civil in this thread but talk about how family members of mine should be "sick" of something I've said in another?


The point was meant to be a pattern of how you discuss things, not a particular thing you said. My suggestion would be that when you feel someone has misunderstood or mischaracterized your point, that you simply clarify without any blame or belligerence involved.

But where would be the fun in that, right?

,.-)




Harry wrote:
"If I was in a family with ant, I would get pretty fed up with the "I never said that" line. It has become clear by now that ant likes to dance up to the line of saying offensive things and then dance away from them when somebody takes the bait. I'm trying to just enjoy watching the dance - it has a certain artistry."


What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."



The following user would like to thank LevV for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:05 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
LevV wrote:
What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant. Your family may be the most patient and tolerant people in the world. As I read the comment, Harry simply stated that if HE were part of a family that included you, HE would "...get pretty fed up with ...."

Thanks for trying to clarify, Lev, and I certainly agree with your characterization. I only brought up "family" as an illustration of "people who have to live with you," which was a way of underlining "this is not just a fluke or coincidence, we are seeing a pattern." But if one is feeling belligerent (I have been there, as everyone here knows), all kinds of things can be hot buttons, setting off confrontational behavior.

When I notice patterns of my own problematic behavior, whether it be pontificating or virtue signalling or writing off the top of my head without considering how it sounds to others, I think it is a good idea to consider where these patterns come from. If someone points it out and I disagree, I let it go, (or try to), but it is a good idea to give it some thought first. Because I know that human beings often respond primarily based on their emotions, and even avoid the real subject in order to minimize emotional upset, and the result can be fairly irrational. And I am a human being, so I probably do that too.

Ant seems to be focused on the "echo chamber" of liberal discourse. And that's fair enough - it is good for any of us to hear a different perspective. My comment about his pattern (like his comments in the past about my conformism to an echo chamber, I presume) are not meant to be weapons in a battle over the difference in perspective. They are just observations that might be useful to think about. That doesn't mean the difference in perspective doesn't feed into the commenting, but it does mean the comments can be taken at face value.



Last edited by Harry Marks on Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:37 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched


https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history


Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree


This is the twisted mind of the left



Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:54 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
Quote:
What a perfect example of how easy it can be to jump to conclusions or misunderstand a simple comment. Harry's comment was in no way disparaging to your family, ant.


Why don't you let me decide that?

I don't need you telling me what and what I shouldn't be offended by.

By so doing you are acting like a racist white person telling a minority what should offend them. That's a democratic tactic in the US

Harry can handle himself

Stop it.. I won't have it. I'll put you on ignore if you continue

Thanks



Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:58 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
It's not a "feeling" when someone claims you have written something that is in fact nowhere to be found in the post.

It's called dishonest characterization. It was very clearly done.


Sometimes that is true, and sometimes that is disingenuous. If a person misunderstands what you are saying, it may be willful because they want to put you in the wrong, or it may be because the context leads them to think you are saying something that you are not actually saying, or it may be because they recently read something that leads them to assume certain types of comments signal certain types of intent, or any number of other sources of error.

If you choose to characterize it as intentional distortion you may be correct or you may be mischaracterizing somebody else, in either a deliberate or an accidental way.

I am not just observing that you do that a lot, although you do. I did a little counting about some of your recent posts and it is a little scary. That is likely to be partly due to feeling "ganged up on" because you perceive an echo chamber here, so it is easy to see distortion by people trying to put you in a bad light. But honestly I don't think that is mainly what's going on. I also saw, when my attention was drawn to it, a pattern of provoking negative responses on purpose, but in such a way that you maintain plausible deniability.

It seems to me that you often push a particular line of thinking about something but carefully guard your innocence in your own mind by building in an interpretation about why you are pushing it, even though you are probably aware how other people will see your choice of topic. The "pandering" by wearing kente cloth was a particularly obvious example, (just a random fact-check, because we all post random things here, having nothing to do with anything) but the use of "thugs" about liberals is more subtle but much uglier.

ant wrote:
And you are patronizing me for insinuating it is just a "feeling" that I have when it happens.

Bullshit.

The more cheeky you are with me the more I call you out for it.
Ant, we all have this feeling sometimes. Anyone who has ever had a relationship with anyone, including with a parent, knows that feeling one has been misunderstood and mischaracterized is part of communication. I did not mean to diminish the accuracy - as Kahnemann observes over and over in "Thinking, Fast and Slow" our perceptions are there precisely because they are generally on target. But you should consider whether there might be more going on with your defensive reactions than just the fault in the other person.

Inaccuracy is a convenient peg to hand our anger on. But the question is not just whether something is inaccurate - we all correct misunderstandings all the time. Your choice to get angry about it is motivated by much more than the inaccuracy. That may be entirely healthy, but I think I see a pattern which is not healthy. A subtle form of self-sabotage, in fact. Of course I could be wrong.



Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:00 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched

https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history

Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree

This is the twisted mind of the left


The left is not a political party. The Democratic Party is eager to put away statues of Confederate leaders, and yesterday paintings of Speakers of the House who were also, at different points in their life, rebels against the Constitution. The Democratic Party is not calling for removing honors given to Washington, Jefferson, and other heroes who were also part of a despicable system of slavery. Some members are, yes, but until the party is, it is unfair of you to lump them together and accuse the party of thinking Lenin is morally superior to Jefferson Davis.



Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:06 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
Harry can handle himself

**Blush** Why thank you, ant.



Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:16 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
Harry Marks wrote:
ant wrote:
The Lenin statue in Seattle is has not been touched

https://seattle.curbed.com/2019/8/27/20 ... ue-history

Imagine a political party in the US thinking Lenin is morally superior.... to any degree

This is the twisted mind of the left


The left is not a political party. The Democratic Party is eager to put away statues of Confederate leaders, and yesterday paintings of Speakers of the House who were also, at different points in their life, rebels against the Constitution. The Democratic Party is not calling for removing honors given to Washington, Jefferson, and other heroes who were also part of a despicable system of slavery. Some members are, yes, but until the party is, it is unfair of you to lump them together and accuse the party of thinking Lenin is morally superior to Jefferson Davis.


The democrats are the left..

The democrats are also hypocritical thugs

No they aren't "eager" to put away any statues because democratic run cities are allowing the destruction of ANY statue.
They are allowing mob rule.

You can lie to me but don't get into the habit of lying to yourself, Harry.



Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:28 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
Junipero Serra
Francis Scott Key
Ulysses S Grant

All torn down:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/20/ ... gate-park/


While people like Harry argue the Democrats want to preserve them via relocation, more continue to be destroyed in democratic lead cities

At some point people need to reject impotent leadership that engages in discussions but effects no action.


edit

Cervantes statue in Golden Gate Park was also defaced.

Cervantes himself was a slave




Democrats need to be held accountable.



Last edited by ant on Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:52 am, edited 2 times in total.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Harry Marks
Sat Jun 20, 2020 10:39 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
Roosevelt statue to be removed


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/arts ... story.html



Weak democrats kowtowing to liberalism turned to fascism.

Reagan:

Quote:
If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism’



somewhere on the list of demands are paintings depicting Jesus as a white man.
this will eventually lead to all religious paintings and symbols being removed
which in turn will be the suppression of religious freedom for Christians (which would make many old atheist liberals happy because of their disdain for religion)

but the slave owner and pedophile Mohammed will not be included in the above.


This has been years in the making.. liberal indoctrination which encompasses many things



Sun Jun 21, 2020 6:11 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4577
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2081 times in 1551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
Cervantes statue in Golden Gate Park was also defaced.

Democrats need to be held accountable.


Trump's latest tweet:

"RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!"

This has been thoroughly debunked and so, like many of Trump's statements over the years, is a downright lie.

Our democratic norms and institutions are daily under assault by this president, while Republicans do nothing.

Republicans need to be held accountable.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill, Harry Marks
Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:02 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
ant wrote:
Roosevelt statue to be removed

I guess this has been said, but the statue is not a problem because it portrays Teddy Roosevelt but because it places a Native American and an African-American in positions that are clearly inferior (TR is on horseback between them), so that the overall message of the statue (which may have been meant to be inclusive to start with, I don't know) is now a problem.

Not sure why anyone is going after peripheral problem statues, but I suppose they are trying to catch the tide. I am completely undecided about Andrew Jackson. I detest many of the things he stands for, and stood for, but there is room in my honors category for such a significant figure as long as his racism was not the main thing he represented. Some would say removal of Native Americans was his signature program, but he also represented military success in the War of 1812 and a political revolution of the ordinary citizens against the lawyers and elites.

ant wrote:
somewhere on the list of demands are paintings depicting Jesus as a white man.
This is an interesting subject. There are plenty of artworks depicting Jesus as black or Middle Eastern. The question is whether those are the only ones acceptable. In one sense there is a case to be made, since Jesus was almost certainly not someone who looked Italian or French or other brand of European.

The trouble with that line of thinking is that it makes sense to adapt depictions of Jesus to the local culture. If Jesus is shown as Chinese in China, there is no reason to object to that. When Christians said, "The Lord is Risen" (one of the earliest formulations of "doctrine" in the tradition), they were referring to a Jesus living in our hearts as well as to his bodily appearances, as far back as we have any evidence for. So to "localize" Jesus is to transcend the limitations of his earthly life, in a meaningful way that embraces Christological thinking. In short, the same latitude that allows a Chinese Jesus extends to Europe.

So it's kind of dumb to pull down "white" pictures of Jesus. But it might be a good idea to put up Christs of Color in the same room or wall.

ant wrote:
this will eventually lead to all religious paintings and symbols being removed
While I don't expect anything like this, I do understand why there is resistance to removing religious symbols from public spaces, and to general secularization. But I think the fear is misplaced. I find it more important to protect the minority views on religion than to promote religious symbols (even though I consider them rather healthy). I think it is fine to open Congress with prayer, but it is equally important to rotate in representatives of some of the minority religions present in America and of non-religious groups who stand for common values on an atheistic or agnostic basis.

It gets tricky when people want to promote their cults. Satanism, even Wicca, have something to prove before they take a turn in a role of spiritual leadership or honorable recognition. In fact, such participation should never include an opposition to meaning structures of other people (much as I would like to see some meaning structures criticized from positions of moral authority.) It's too easy, and too corrosive to the self, to demonize even militarism and materialism and some of the other things I think threaten me. There is a time and space for that, but religion is not it. Long experience shows that demonstrating a better way is more effective than criticizing, and more healthy.
ant wrote:
which in turn will be the suppression of religious freedom for Christians (which would make many old atheist liberals happy because of their disdain for religion)
I am also not too concerned about the suppression of religious freedom, especially for Christians. Some people want to define their religion by who they look down on and who they feel superior to, and that is one way to do religion. People will remain free to disdain others. And I have seen some folks, especially fans of Harris and Dawkins and their ilk, who genuinely do want to suppress religion, for example by preventing religious folk from teaching their ways and their beliefs to their children. I have enough faith in the empathy and common sense of most people to believe we will maintain our defenses against such seductively oppressive approaches.

So it behooves me to examine my own disdainfulness. Which groups do I dislike mainly because I want to see myself as better than, rather than wanting to offer them an example they might find appealing? When does my search for moral purity get in the way of connecting with people who see the world differently from me? How much effort have I exerted to find the value in the priorities of those whose conclusions clash with mine? One way of asking this is to ask how much I have made myself a prisoner of the choices I have made, letting them block me from basic human connection. For me, those kinds of questions open the door to Jesus' true religion.

ant wrote:
but the slave owner and pedophile Mohammed will not be included in the above.
Now that is an amazing conclusion. Everybody I know who attacks Christianity per se, rather than particular tenets or particular cultural manifestations, considers Islam to be the prime example of the evils of religion. The idea that Christianity will be forced from the public sphere while Islam is defended there strikes me as nothing less than a paranoid delusion. But then, we have several Fox commentators and a radio agitator named Rush who specialize in promoting exactly that sort of far-fetched scenario. How does "Poor me, my privilege is melting" turn into this "Poor me, the government is after me"? Not sure, but I will be giving it more thought.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
Taylor
Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Orwellian liberalism
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
Cervantes statue in Golden Gate Park was also defaced.

Democrats need to be held accountable.


Trump's latest tweet:

"RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!"

This has been thoroughly debunked and so, like many of Trump's statements over the years, is a downright lie.

Our democratic norms and institutions are daily under assault by this president, while Republicans do nothing.

Republicans need to be held accountable.


Of course the unchecked mayhem and violence in democratic run cities is the fault of the republicans.

This is why no one should take the democratic party seriously from this point forward. it will never take responsibility for its incompetence and failures.
It's a thug party that is using people of color as pawns to reseat itself in power. n intell

The unintelligentsia.
The unprincipled
The immoral
The unethical

All this is on full display.



Last edited by ant on Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:57 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank