A Liberal's Worry--The End of Nuance, Why We're Not Trusted with Details
The new liberalism is a prejudiced (defined as a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience) worldview characterized by a systemic fear of nuance and detail that is capitalized upon by politicians who use this prejudiced overgeneralization to create policies that rely on withholding details rather than trusting the population's ability to discern.
Take terrorism, 9/11 and the Connecticut Crash: Prejudice is opinion that IGNORES actual experience. The actual experience of 9/11, for those who forget, began with training of the 9/11 pilots in US flight schools for the al-Qaeda operatives. As US citizens willingly submitted to eavesdropping and sometimes extensive screenings in the years following, thinking people might wonder: "Why didn't the US restrict the availability of STUDENT VISAS FOR TRAINING IN US FLIGHT SCHOOLS?"
Such a policy would not discriminate against visitors, who in every other country have different rights and obligations from a country's citizens. Further, it would not make our submission to nationalized policies of invasive passenger screening and NSA eavesdropping ridiculous in the face of ignoring the factual threat of the availability of such a visa. And so we had the deliberate Connecticut airplane crash by a Jordanian national who had a student visa to attend US flight school in October, 2016. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-in-crash-was-in-the-u-s-on-student-visa-1476401797).
This highlights the new risks to our nation that stem from overgeneralization, defined as oversimplified or distorted. It's a remnant of the hubris promoted by today's liberals that they are "morally superior" for their tolerance which nonsensically hamstrings our population into accepting overly simplistic "solutions" that support prejudicial notions (not based on actual experience).
Take free speech. Famous liberal professor and lawyer Alan Dershowitz has warned that "The last thing many of these students want is real diversity, diversity of ideas,” Dershowitz said on air, arguing that the students only want “superficial” diversity of color and gender — but that this compromises the 'real' diversity of ideas," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alan-dershowitz-free-speech_us_56462b80e4b045bf3deeecaf.
Dershowitz further identifies the problem: "There’s clearly a double standard. Minority students, gay students, transgender students, Arab students generally have a greater leverage and a greater voice, and their grievances are taken far more seriously than the legitimate grievances of Jewish students, Zionist students, Christian students, conservative students," http://www.newsweek.com/dershowitz-its-time-stand-these-tyrannical-students-397353.
Take Climate--Where the US fascination and commitment to preventing "climate change," ignoring gradual changes and instead cheering the President's climate "deal" which FAILS to include any enforcement provisions and could very well mean our citizens thinking we're part of some "global" understanding merely unwisely choosing to abruptly try to change our energy needs and face the risk of unaffordable appliances, unaffordable housing and transportation requirements that might work in smaller countries but will hinder US travel for decades to come EVEN AS other countries can freely accommodate their own interests without the fear of enforcement actions.
Take Obamacare, sold to liberals using selective promises that turned out not to be true. Hillary Clinton's ideas to offer Obamacare to individuals regardless of immigration status is beyond anything offered by other countries, yet liberals, afraid of making a distinction between citizen and noncitizen for fear of being labeled "bigots" buy into the idea that even such an obvious distinction is unacceptable.
Yet, right before our eyes is the Affordable Care Act, a grossly discriminatory piece of legislation that singles out groups of people for uneven treatment, specifically men who are not entitled to free annual checkups, who are not entitled to free domestic violence counseling, who are not entitled to free sterilization yet are required to pay more for their health insurance in order to provide the same for women.
This hatred of men is not only evident in Obamacare, but has become a systemic assault on males in our country. It allows Hillary Clinton to exploit the prejudices created by commenting that Donald Trump has six men named Steve in his campaign, not only http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-six-steves-2016-8 which got a guffaw out of a population that snickered with its own hatred, fully understanding that "Steve," meant white males though that name obviously is not limited to white males. This is no less offensive than calling an Irish person PADDY, or a Jew HYMIE, yet, this has liberals guffawing.
And then there's the AGEISM in Obamacare, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/intolerable-discrimination-ageism-and.html, choosing to use selected facts to support charging older Americans more in premiums while IGNORING the statistics that were used to charge women of child-bearing age or those with preexisting conditions more in premiums.
Liberals afraid of the term of radical Islamic terrorism blindly accept Black Lives Matter that call Israel a state with the terms "genocide" and "apartheid," http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/.premium-1.735865, embracing the language of a policy that is part of an international call for the destruction of that country.
Hillary Clinton is mouthing the populist liberal agenda that penalizes individuals who consider details, who consider nuance and who consider common sense reality by demonizing the language of discernment, the ability to judge well. Certainly, without such discouragement, most Americans would be able to distinguish between the opinion of a citizen (Trump) and the opinion of a practiced politician (Clinton) when it came to the information they had and the power they had to influence our country's policies when it came to the war on Iraq, yet today, such discernment is not evident.
Certainly when it came to Trump's call for building a wall, instead of making fun of him, liberals should have noticed that Hillary Clinton advocated for "physical barriers," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI.
Certainly Clinton using the word super-predators to describe a portion of the US population is as offensive as other prejudicial and overgeneralized terms used by others.
We are made ridiculous by this year's election, missing the point that today's liberals rely on our inability to sift through details or be trusted with description and nuance in order to make their case instead substituting and indulging their smug and illogical contempt, hatred and discrimination rather than trying to promote meaningful progress to address this country's problems.
Take terrorism, 9/11 and the Connecticut Crash: Prejudice is opinion that IGNORES actual experience. The actual experience of 9/11, for those who forget, began with training of the 9/11 pilots in US flight schools for the al-Qaeda operatives. As US citizens willingly submitted to eavesdropping and sometimes extensive screenings in the years following, thinking people might wonder: "Why didn't the US restrict the availability of STUDENT VISAS FOR TRAINING IN US FLIGHT SCHOOLS?"
Such a policy would not discriminate against visitors, who in every other country have different rights and obligations from a country's citizens. Further, it would not make our submission to nationalized policies of invasive passenger screening and NSA eavesdropping ridiculous in the face of ignoring the factual threat of the availability of such a visa. And so we had the deliberate Connecticut airplane crash by a Jordanian national who had a student visa to attend US flight school in October, 2016. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-in-crash-was-in-the-u-s-on-student-visa-1476401797).
This highlights the new risks to our nation that stem from overgeneralization, defined as oversimplified or distorted. It's a remnant of the hubris promoted by today's liberals that they are "morally superior" for their tolerance which nonsensically hamstrings our population into accepting overly simplistic "solutions" that support prejudicial notions (not based on actual experience).
Take free speech. Famous liberal professor and lawyer Alan Dershowitz has warned that "The last thing many of these students want is real diversity, diversity of ideas,” Dershowitz said on air, arguing that the students only want “superficial” diversity of color and gender — but that this compromises the 'real' diversity of ideas," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alan-dershowitz-free-speech_us_56462b80e4b045bf3deeecaf.
Dershowitz further identifies the problem: "There’s clearly a double standard. Minority students, gay students, transgender students, Arab students generally have a greater leverage and a greater voice, and their grievances are taken far more seriously than the legitimate grievances of Jewish students, Zionist students, Christian students, conservative students," http://www.newsweek.com/dershowitz-its-time-stand-these-tyrannical-students-397353.
Take Climate--Where the US fascination and commitment to preventing "climate change," ignoring gradual changes and instead cheering the President's climate "deal" which FAILS to include any enforcement provisions and could very well mean our citizens thinking we're part of some "global" understanding merely unwisely choosing to abruptly try to change our energy needs and face the risk of unaffordable appliances, unaffordable housing and transportation requirements that might work in smaller countries but will hinder US travel for decades to come EVEN AS other countries can freely accommodate their own interests without the fear of enforcement actions.
Take Obamacare, sold to liberals using selective promises that turned out not to be true. Hillary Clinton's ideas to offer Obamacare to individuals regardless of immigration status is beyond anything offered by other countries, yet liberals, afraid of making a distinction between citizen and noncitizen for fear of being labeled "bigots" buy into the idea that even such an obvious distinction is unacceptable.
Yet, right before our eyes is the Affordable Care Act, a grossly discriminatory piece of legislation that singles out groups of people for uneven treatment, specifically men who are not entitled to free annual checkups, who are not entitled to free domestic violence counseling, who are not entitled to free sterilization yet are required to pay more for their health insurance in order to provide the same for women.
This hatred of men is not only evident in Obamacare, but has become a systemic assault on males in our country. It allows Hillary Clinton to exploit the prejudices created by commenting that Donald Trump has six men named Steve in his campaign, not only http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-six-steves-2016-8 which got a guffaw out of a population that snickered with its own hatred, fully understanding that "Steve," meant white males though that name obviously is not limited to white males. This is no less offensive than calling an Irish person PADDY, or a Jew HYMIE, yet, this has liberals guffawing.
And then there's the AGEISM in Obamacare, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2016/09/intolerable-discrimination-ageism-and.html, choosing to use selected facts to support charging older Americans more in premiums while IGNORING the statistics that were used to charge women of child-bearing age or those with preexisting conditions more in premiums.
Liberals afraid of the term of radical Islamic terrorism blindly accept Black Lives Matter that call Israel a state with the terms "genocide" and "apartheid," http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/americas/.premium-1.735865, embracing the language of a policy that is part of an international call for the destruction of that country.
Hillary Clinton is mouthing the populist liberal agenda that penalizes individuals who consider details, who consider nuance and who consider common sense reality by demonizing the language of discernment, the ability to judge well. Certainly, without such discouragement, most Americans would be able to distinguish between the opinion of a citizen (Trump) and the opinion of a practiced politician (Clinton) when it came to the information they had and the power they had to influence our country's policies when it came to the war on Iraq, yet today, such discernment is not evident.
Certainly when it came to Trump's call for building a wall, instead of making fun of him, liberals should have noticed that Hillary Clinton advocated for "physical barriers," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezaw-g6TIQI.
Certainly Clinton using the word super-predators to describe a portion of the US population is as offensive as other prejudicial and overgeneralized terms used by others.
We are made ridiculous by this year's election, missing the point that today's liberals rely on our inability to sift through details or be trusted with description and nuance in order to make their case instead substituting and indulging their smug and illogical contempt, hatred and discrimination rather than trying to promote meaningful progress to address this country's problems.
0 Response to "A Liberal's Worry--The End of Nuance, Why We're Not Trusted with Details"
Posting Komentar