About Politics Sun, Aug 12. 2007
As I said in my introduction, I consider myself somewhat a Progressive.
There are people out there that think that's just another way to say 'Liberal', but in reality progressive political
thought and liberal political thought are often at loggerheads, which I will probably write about at some point in the
future. The 'New Left' is, at this point in time in this country, comprised of both traditions. I also hold a few
liberal views, including some that the left doesn't!
I'm probably not going to write much about current politics here, because there are quite a lot of very good bloggers
out there that already do that. I'll probably put some links to those I read. I am, instead, going to write my thoughts
about general ideas in politics and why I agree or disagree with them. Don't make the mistake of assuming I'm talking
about any current political issue, even if I'm posting on a topic that's currently in the news...just because it gave me
the idea doesn't mean I've looked into the specific circumstances enough.
Of course, if I allow comments on a post, you feel free to talk about current issues all you want.
Often times, I'm not going to tell you how I think at the start of a post, because people would disagree with me and
tune me out. I'm just going to start talking about something, hopefully starting with things that everyone agrees with,
and leading somewhere that people can follow. If you want, you can play a little game and see exactly where in a post
you started to disagree with me.
And, frankly, I expect that level of self-awareness in any discussion here. A lot of people begin an argument by taking issue with a conclusion and then trying to find some fact to nit-pick. No. That is not the proper way to discuss things. Or, rather, it is, if done correctly, but it never is. People need to show rigorous thought by tracking down the actual 'sub-conclusion' they disagree with, and explain why they were wrong, not find some random fact that's off by 10% that isn't even part of the sub-conclusion. For example: A lot of people feel we should not provide help to poor people. They will come up with all sorts of reason why this help is counterproductive, or how other ways can do it better, and nitpick arguments that that is not true, when their actual disagreement is with the premise 'we should provide help to poor people'. But they, quite rightly, feel this would be an unpopular view, so have to invent some other reason. Something like 50% of the political positions people take are taken on false premises, either deliberately or self-delusionally, and I absolutely cannot stand that. Oh, and the iron for category 'politics'? It's a ballot, or at least that's what I intend it to be. Just FYI.
And, frankly, I expect that level of self-awareness in any discussion here. A lot of people begin an argument by taking issue with a conclusion and then trying to find some fact to nit-pick. No. That is not the proper way to discuss things. Or, rather, it is, if done correctly, but it never is. People need to show rigorous thought by tracking down the actual 'sub-conclusion' they disagree with, and explain why they were wrong, not find some random fact that's off by 10% that isn't even part of the sub-conclusion. For example: A lot of people feel we should not provide help to poor people. They will come up with all sorts of reason why this help is counterproductive, or how other ways can do it better, and nitpick arguments that that is not true, when their actual disagreement is with the premise 'we should provide help to poor people'. But they, quite rightly, feel this would be an unpopular view, so have to invent some other reason. Something like 50% of the political positions people take are taken on false premises, either deliberately or self-delusionally, and I absolutely cannot stand that. Oh, and the iron for category 'politics'? It's a ballot, or at least that's what I intend it to be. Just FYI.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks