How You Know Conservatives are More Open-Minded

At least when it comes to judging works of fiction – and yes, in general, not every single liberal. But that’s besides my main point here.

It’s actually very simple: The majority of writers are very, very liberal. A great many support causes I, personally, find repulsive. Joss Whedon is an ultra-feminist atheist. J.K. Rowling is a major supporter of gay marriage and the welfare state. I believe Daniel Handler/Lemony Snicket is a big gay marriage supporter, though I might have to double check that one. Douglas Adams is famously a very outspoken atheist.

And they are very much the norm, not the exception. So really, conservatives don’t actually have a choice most of the time but to separate the politics of the writers from the quality of the things they write. And guess what? The last time I checked conservatives did not organize a mass protest of “Serenity”. But “Ender’s Game”…

I am a fan of all of the writers I mentioned above. Amazingly, I have the ability to separate their politics from their writing ability.

Now contrast this to the liberal reaction to Orson Scott Card and Vox Day. Mass hysteria in the sci-fi world, people outright admitting that they would never be able to judge those works objectively, vile insults being hurled, and protests being organized. And now tell me that the conservatives are the close-minded ones.

I don’t buy the standard lines for a second.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to How You Know Conservatives are More Open-Minded

  1. Oh, come on, Malcom, everybody *knows* that conservatives are the evil, hate-filled ones! The fact that they don’t show it is neither here nor there. In fact, if anything it makes them worse, because that just means that they’re liars as well as narrow-minded bigots!

    More seriously, I wonder if you’ve come across this article by John C. Wright. I think it’s quite a good explanation of modern leftism:

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/03/the-unified-field-theory-of-madness/

    Personally I think I’d put more emphasis on what one might call the cult of “I’m as good as you are!” than on epistemological issues, but the outcome — downplaying objective truth, denying perfectly obvious facts about human nature, and so forth — is likely to be much the same.

    I’d also say that, insofar as it’s based around trying to be considered morally superior without actually putting any effort in or making any sacrifices, leftism is fundamentally immoral, that is, sinful. And of course one of the effects of sin is that it clouds our understanding of true virtue. (This is why, I suppose, people often think that being virtuous must be boring: they cannot see the pleasures it brings, but instead see only the pleasures they would have to give up.) Hence when your entire worldview is based around envy, pride and sloth, it’s very difficult to understand anybody whose worldview isn’t based on these sins: you’re more likely to assume that they’re actually every bit as envious, proud and slothful as you are, if not more (although of course you wouldn’t think of it in these terms), but are just hiding it for some unknown but probably nefarious reason. (Why else would they put on this show of moral virtue, after all, when we all know that they can’t really believe all this stuff?) Which brings us back to the start of this comment.

    • Ilíon says:

      More seriously, I wonder if you’ve come across this article by John C. Wright. I think it’s quite a good explanation of modern leftism: …

      I would like to like Wright, but the fact is, he’s still a fool (**) — that’s a moral judgment/condemnation, in case you don’t understand.

      Consider this statement in the linked piece — “This explains our first paradox. They are decent and honest people. Their motive for avoiding reason is compassion, because they wish not to be tempted by hate, bigotry, or thought crime. However, once reason is forbidden, facts, common sense, and evidence, likewise are as meaningless to them as to a Buddhist to whom all the world is illusion.

      “Liberals”, and especially open leftists, are *not* “decent and honest people”; they are intellectually dishonest (*), as Wright acknowledges in the very next sentence — they are hypocrites with respect to reason, which ultimately compells then to be hypocrites with respect to morality.

      (*) intellectual dishonesty happens to be worse than mere dishonesty: mere dishonesty is episodic, it is lying about some specific thing; but intellectual dishonesty is systemic, it is lying about the very nature of truth and reason.

      ========
      (**) Years ago, I read Wright’s blog avidly (and commented frequently). One of his regulars — a pet even — was an obnoxious Randian, but I repeat myself, who seemingly couldn’t write more than two paragraphs without expressing his pointless, irrational, and unfounded Randian hatred of “religion”, which is to say, Christianity.

      To make a long story short, Wright’s response was to attack me because I was not willing to pretend that the Randian was open-minded (if one is minded, one can slog through the comments)

      • I get what he’s saying though – as I’ve said in the past when I talked about why so many millenials are for gay marriage, I know a LOT of very liberal people who are utterly convinced they are absolutely 100% in the right and moral and good and conservatives are evil bigots.

        People think that millenials are for gay marriage for a lot of vague reasons that involve liberals being evil, but I can tell you that as a millenial their reasoning is actually a lot more straightforward and logical then people think*.

        It’s stunningly, spectacularly, and dangerously DEAD wrong, but being a millenial with liberal friends and who was once tempted by their sort of thinking, I will tell you that it’s extremely compelling and doesn’t rely as much on moral relativism or atheistic naturalism or even pure liberalism as people would like to think.

        It just starts off with wrong assumptions and completely lacks any understanding of morality – but it looks mighty compelling at first glance.

        My point – I truly believe that, many times, liberals don’t think they’re being intellectually dishonest, at least. They are very sincere in their belief that they’re the moral ones in the room.

        *https://malcolmthecynic.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/the-rationale-of-the-lgbt-rights-supporters/

      • Ilíon says:

        I know a LOT of very liberal people who are utterly convinced they are absolutely 100% in the right and moral and good and conservatives are evil bigots.

        I don’t doubt or dispute that “a LOT of very liberal people who are utterly convinced they are absolutely 100% in the right and moral and good and conservatives are evil bigots.” But, they’re still wrong, and they are not wrong due to honest mistake, but because they *refuse* to reason correctly and from true principles. Hell, they don’t even reason consistently — from an identical situation, they’ll come to wildly different “conclusions”, depending on the persons involved.

        … but I can tell you that as a millenial their reasoning is actually a lot more straightforward and logical then people think*. … It just starts off with wrong assumptions and completely lacks any understanding of morality – but it looks mighty compelling at first glance.

        All emotive things look compelling to people who wish to emote rather than to reason.

        Yes, “liberals” can generally present some sort of argument for their “conclusions” which look “mighty compelling at first glance” — especially if one has already been indoctrinated sine childhood into the unspoken and/or hidden assumptions behind it. It’s that second glance they have to worry about.

        My point – I truly believe that, many times, liberals don’t think they’re being intellectually dishonest, at least. They are very sincere in their belief that they’re the moral ones in the room.

        Sincerity and $5.00 will get you a cup of over-priced, but moral!, coffee.

        I don’t care in the least that “liberals” think/imagine that they are not being intellectually dishonest; their behavior demonstrates that they are — for instance, as mentioned above, that from an identical situation, they will come to wildly different “conclusions”, depending on the persons involved.

        They’ll *pretend* to reason, if it looks like that will get them what they want; but they will never submit themselves to reason (nor to morality), they will never commit to abiding by the deliverances of correct reason even when it goes against their desires.

      • Ilíon says:

        Consider Mr Wright’s very next paragraph and sentence following what I quoted previously: “It is not that they cannot reason; it is that they follow a moral imperative against reasoning on certain forbidden topics. Anything outside those topics, their rational faculties function normally. Within those topics, their sanctimoniousness and high-mindedness requires them to refuse to listen to reason.

        Exactly: “It is not that they cannot reason; …” Which is to say, it’s not that they are stupid.

        … it is that they follow a moral imperative against reasoning on certain forbidden topics.” Which is to say, it isn’t simple honest error/ignorance that leads them to (ahem) reason to false, and even absurd, “conclusions”.

        … it is that they follow a moral imperative against reasoning on certain forbidden topics. … Within those topics, their sanctimoniousness and high-mindedness requires them to refuse to listen to reason.

        If it’s not stupidity that explains “liberal’s” errors, and if it’s not simple honest error/ignorance that explains “liberal’s” errors, there is only one logical possibility left: dishonest error and/or willful ignorance, which is to say, intellectual dishonesty.

        ===========
        Now, apply Mr Wright’s own words and logic to what he is saying — and refusing to say — about “liberals”: he *knows* that “their sanctimoniousness and high-mindedness requires them to refuse to listen to reason”; that is, he *knows* that they are intellectually dishonest; that is, he *knows* that they are not “decent and honest people”. But *his* “sanctimoniousness and high-mindedness requires [him] to refuse” to acknowledge this simple truth … and, I’d bet, requires him to viciously attack any “hateful” conservative who did speak the truth on the matter.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Personally I think I’d put more emphasis on what one might call the cult of “I’m as good as you are!”

    It seems to me that the mindset of “liberals” — including the rabid God-haters — is “Look at me! I’m more moraa than God”

  3. Sir Blaggard says:

    hahaha, have I stumbled upon a bunch of bible sucking conservatives attempting to discern how exactly liberals are less open minded than church going, Jesus worshipping faith inherent conservatives? Talk about intellectual dishonesty…. The fabric and core of your ideology is faith in a belief that by it’s very definition cannot be moved by reason, thought or logic. Your world view is by it’s precise definition, “close minded”. To be otherwise would surely send you all to hell. Embrace your ignorance guys or it will just look like you’re clutching at straws,

    • Res says:

      Incorrect, a ‘world view’ is by its very definition close-minded, being a CCW doesn’t make it any more or less open-minded or imply uniformity with other CCWs of the same species. Faith is () the ability to observe quality apart from results, and hence is a necessary quality of open-mindedness if one is to take up a viewpoint despite it not being exactly what already exists in the world (eg. Christian conservatism, which is mostly indifferent to economic Thought), although conversely it might close down the ability to believe in certain systems which are a necessary sector of liberalism, but in general faith is hence necessary for reason and the ability to think systematically or draw conclusions through thought rather than positivism, and you are by your tone evidently (all of the decent people reading this are going to take this on faith) a positivist. One doesn’t have faith in something unless one is certain of it, but one doesn’t need the approval of others to be certain of it, because one can think, or in short debates over the necessity of faith in relation to reason are or should be redundant. So, for example, rather than proving oneself to others in bars and other sites of competition and consumption-centricism, one can use illeism (+ 2. …Bg7.)

      But in any case the point is that the New Testament is a relatively asexual text, and you have no authority nor spiritual discernment to say otherwise (Mt. 7:13), now go away.

    • GoldRushApple says:

      >>Embrace your ignorance
      >>bible sucking conservatives

      In other words: My contempt and irritation for ‘bible sucking conservatives’ is mostly misguided and based on “through the grape vine” talk and and, might a take a guess, pure youthful arrogance. If you aren’t youthful and are indeed 40+ yrs old then I’ll admit there’s little hope for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s