TheOTHERmaninblack Wrote:But... but... but... Can we talk about liberalism/leftism at all, then? Because, make no mistake, liberalism is its own religion, complete with dogma, blind faith, and religious pogroms. The author of the article is a prime example of this-- a zealot, if you will. Her beliefs transcend rational thought or provenance. They ignore any proselytizing by any but other true believers. Only accepted canon can penetrate the veil of her belief.

Can we accept that liberalism/leftism is a meta-religion that transcends and usurps common or traditional religions or philosophies? Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, none of those things matter to liberals. They're just masks from behind which they proffer rationalizations justifying liberalism in whatever form the believer has immersed themselves. Everything-- every belief, every tradition, every theory-- is malleable to a true believer.

Nothing means anything beyond what it can be made to mean in order to prove whatever point is currently being made, nor is any given point of any substance beyond that moment or purpose. A minute or a day later, the true believer might well offer contradictory, or even mutually exclusive "proof" or belief in order to justify some other tenet of liberalism.

Atheist? Nope. A liberal will embrace God (in any form) whenever and wherever it seems beneficial or advantageous. At the same time, a liberal will embrace a lack of God if that's what it takes. I don't believe you could even call a liberal a secularist. Even secularism requires a certain consistency that liberalism doesn't seem capable of.

This woman seems like a "true-believer", and you cannot deal with those folks without recognizing the battlefield for what it is.

To us, this woman is Karazzy! Her blind "stupidity" seems obvious on its face. Since many of us cannot conceive of that sort of thinking being natural, we flip over to "she's deliberately skewing the thought process". What if she isn't either? What if she honestly believes what she'd writing? What if her personal worldview tells her that every fact of life must have concrete rules set forth in writing and enforced by some sort of authority?

Guys, there's a reason that freedom of the sort America used to enjoy is the faintest blip on history's radar. Freedom of the sort we speak of every day as though it were as natural as taking a crap after a big meal is a statistical anomaly in the grand scheme of things. By far the largest portion of history is the tiering of classes-- those who make rules and those who obey rules. Accompanied by that much smaller subset of guys who enforce or break rules.

The average person-- the ones we here call sheep-- are more than just people who don't look out for themselves. The majority of them cannot conceive of taking care of themselves. The very idea gives many of them stomach troubles. To these folks, there is no such thing as original thought-- no such thing as free will. Every idea, concept, or desire expressed by anybody must come from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere, has to be running things.

this is why the Tea Party scares them so much. The Tea Party doesn't really have any leaders. Not that there aren't legions of sociopaths trying to seize control. Try this as an experiment. (I have done this, by the way) Find a liberal you can stomach, sit them down, and try to explain the concept of a whole bunch of different groups of people spontaneously gathering together because there is a single point of intersection to their beliefs, and that this gathering will disburse after this single point is resolved. Watch their eyes while you're explaining that there is no central control-- no leader manipulating things from somewhere on high. Watch the struggle to understand that such a thing is even possible. Watch them fail to grasp the concept. Watch the fear flash through their eyes as they try.

We-- most of us-- here, we can grasp the concept of mutual aid without coercion. Your typical wage slave/peon/peasant cannot. they only feel safe inside a solid web of codified rules that keep all of the bad mans at bay.

LR1955, Bwaits, if this post has transgressed somehow, feel free to delete it. (as if you needed my permission:p) I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, and I'm not trying to start/proliferate any arguments. I'm just trying to establish a baseline for dealing with the sort of nonsense this article involves. And without a fundamental understanding of the religious nature of liberalism, that cannot be done.

LR1955 Wrote:The solution for her is simple. Tell her where she can go to get trained on how to use the pistol she just bought.

LR1955

TheOTHERmaninblack Wrote:Thanks, and I wish I could believe that. But, in reading her own words, she says flat out that the cop suggested she get training. A suggestion she turned into some weird accusation that she'd committed a crime.

These guys are like the Moro warriors who led to the adaption of the .45acp. They just wrapped themselves in telegraph wire, juiced up, and came roaring at you screaming. They didn't let up until either they were dead or you were. You couldn't talk to them, you couldn't reason with them.

You're right that I haven't come up with an answer. Not for lack of trying. How do you reason with somebody who won't be reasoned with? How do you speak rationally with someone whose idea of what rational is lies so far out of your scope that it mimics madness?

On the surface, we can use education to save those not yet infected with the virus, and even save some of the lesser infectees. Both of those are noble pursuits. But in dealing with the true believer, there isn't a cure, and we can't put them down. Their brains are broken. They no longer function in a manner that allows reason in the traditional sense to enter or gain foothold.

It wouldn't be a problem if so many of them hadn't achieved stations of high power. At this point, the deck is stacked heavily against us, and has been converted to some weird surreal pattern in which up is sideways and down is wherever they decide it is at any given moment. We're playing societal Calvinball and our leaders haven't figured out the lack of rules yet.