To my Friends on the Right: We are not and should not be at "War"

[InternetHero]

"The first casualty when war comes is truth," - A quote attributed to many, but indeed often true.

A certain poster, who is a mainstay of the right on Sherdog, responded to one of my posts criticizing Mr. Trump a while back by saying, "In the war for our culture we have to be willing to do anything."

What does that mean? Does criticizing Trumpism mean we have to always fight for Trump or we lose everything?

That logic may be dangerous to say the least, and there are some difficult questions about that below:

- Should we sacrifice personal or religious convictions to defend or else be silent for Trump's possible immoral actions?

- Should we ignore Trump when he does something false, and praise him when he does something true? Worse should we defend Trump when he does something right for the good of Trumpism?

- Should we take this "fight" literally and be willing to do violence if "necessary?' Who is wise enough to decide that? Sean Hannity?

Do any of those policies seem right?

How can anyone take someone who is willing to do "anything" for the political cause seriously?

The right was front in center in pointing out Obama's problems with rhetoric like "bring a gun to a knife fight" or talking about "Clingers," and twisting the truth about many, many issues with Strawmen and False Choice's galore.

Who can take those problems credibly though if we are willing to defend Donald Trump when he has an even greater deficit with reality, and uses Red Herrings and personal attacks on a regular basis?

Yes the left has played "unfairly" for a long time, yes many on the left do not "believe" in objective truth and will try to change the rules of the game, and yes the left is interested in transforming traditional American culture. Do you want to sacrifice what makes the right objective to begin with?

Does winning mean splitting into two groups of thought, of an in group and out group of a different name, of having to adhere to the line of Trump or else be against him and for "losing" our culture?

The point of a republic is that we vote more or less for a choice in government and avoid making politics part of everything in our society and the same old human tug-of-war between stupid teams doing stupid things.

The solution seems simple: Be honest. If a voice tells you "I have to fight for the Donald or we lose!" that is almost always false. Fight for what's right, but fighting for what is right means fighting for what matters.

As Mr. Goldberg put it in an excellent column:

But it goes deeper than that. Ericsson says that “ideas and persuasion” are almost comically insufficient in this war. What is required is a Colonel Kurtz–like will to do what is necessary. Maybe that’s true. But what, specifically, does he think I should be doing? Does he want me to lie? Sign up as an assistant to Sarah Huckabee Sanders so she can more artfully spin and prevaricate? Should David French radically reinterpret his Christian faith and defend shtupping porn stars while you have a wife and newborn at home? Must I rush to defend this deranged carbuncle in his bid to send “Cocaine Mitch” packing?

Full column on this issue, and highly recommended:

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-fi...dent-trump-moral-equivalent-of-war-arguments/

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you like quotes, one might consider when looking at moral and ethical corruption, from "Now Country at Old Men' when considering warped ideology, and avoiding corrupting thoughts. "A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world." - Cormac McCarthy

It is better for most of us who are not politicians or lobbyists to become intellectually corrupt, or it is more likely you will join that corrupt world rather than change our world for the better.

One can not say they have principles, and then say and do what is unprincipled. That's all.

 

[Last Samurai]

I'm willing to concede that the Trump presidency can do a great deal of good for the country by highlighting all the things that are wrong with it.

unlike his supporters, I don't think it's part of any plan. instead of him being a savvy politician that is able to hide the truth, Trump is so bad at lying that the truth becomes painfully obvious. and that creates opportunity.

since I'm able to see how a terrible president can do good things, I think it's only fair that we meet halfway - by acknowledging that what you may consider a good president can also be capable of doing terrible things.

at the end of the day I don't think there's too much difference in what people on both sides want. they wanna get rid of the old stuff that isn't working and try something new.

well, the only way to do that is to work together

 

[Trotsky]

In terms of "principled" or really just ideologically coherent right-of-center posters on Sherdog in the era of Trump, there is InternetHero, TheGreatA, JudoThrowFiasco, anndd......

Spoiler

And frankly all of you now de facto members of the right by way of your basic level of intellectual honesty. There are a few others that are cordial and agreeable, but their positions are no less transient and reactionary.

While you rightfully point out their silly "this is war" concept of partisan loyalty, you're wrong in assuming there are any tangible aims: the means of illogical hyperpartisanship are as well the ends. The vapid division for division's sake taken by the 2009 Republican Congress, and was at that time wholly foreign to right-wing American thought, has now blossomed into a "conservative" American that is completely without conviction or regard for basic political norms or for the integrity of American political institutions. It's just hobbyism for people who don't give a shit about actual policy making.

Also, "the left has played "unfairly" for a long time, yes many on the left do not "believe" in objective truth and will try to change the rules of the game" is just bullshit, and anyone who has paid the slightest attention to 1994-on American politics could say as much. The last six years of the Obama presidency was a Groundhog's Day nightmare of Lucy pulling up the football: from immigration to spending, the Obama administration would yield more and more ground in good faith compromise only to have the GOP renege on their word time and time again.

Hell, just about all of world history during the 20th and 21st centuries has been the political right undercutting the left by being willing to go dirtier, take shortcuts, appeal to racism, xenophobia, and the fears of foreign powers like Russia, Japan, and China. Even in Russia, the last "other" world power to the "left" of American, the political right of the Bolsheviks bested the left communists because they were willing to be opportunistic and dirty.

 

[InternetHero]

I'm willing to concede that the Trump presidency can do a great deal of good for the country by highlighting all the things that are wrong with it.

unlike his supporters, I don't think it's part of any plan. instead of him being a savvy politician that is able to hide the truth, Trump is so bad at lying that the truth becomes painfully obvious. and that creates opportunity.

since I'm able to see how a terrible president can do good things, I think it's only fair that we meet halfway - by acknowledging that what you may consider a good president can also be capable of doing terrible things.

at the end of the day I don't think there's too much difference in what people on both sides want. they wanna get rid of the old stuff that isn't working and try something new.

well, the only way to do that is to work together

Sure, sure. I think it is fair to "root" for Trump, while not cheer leading for Trump.

There is no need to change longstanding political ideology and views due to a troubled mascot or brand.

However, there are a lot of posters who pretend to be "neutral" while donning pompoms and bright orange uniforms, coordinating their dance moves to whatever is new on Donald's Twitter feed.

 

[WTF2008]

Ok. We'll see how well that goes lol

 

[7437]

Given that Trump is more popular than other conservatives, and proved it in an election, id say it is dishonest to say that people support him because thry oppose libs.

Trump supporters support trump. Not conservatism.

 

[Son of Jamin]

What it often boils down to:

Vote for the least evil president/party or stand by your principles and ideology and risk the chance of being ruled by an even worse candidate/party.

 

[InternetHero]

In terms of "principled" or really just ideologically coherent right-of-center posters on Sherdog in the era of Trump, there is InternetHero, TheGreatA, JudoThrowFiasco, anndd......

Spoiler

And frankly all of you now de facto members of the right by way of your basic level of intellectual honesty. There are a few others that are cordial and agreeable, but their positions are no less transient and reactionary.

While you rightfully point out their silly "this is war" concept of partisan loyalty, you're wrong in assuming there are any tangible aims: the means of illogical hyperpartisanship are as well the ends. The vapid division for division's sake taken by the 2009 Republican Congress, and was at that time wholly foreign to right-wing American thought, has now blossomed into a "conservative" American that is completely without conviction or regard for basic political norms or for the integrity of American political institutions. It's just hobbyism for people who don't give a shit about actual policy making. (1)

Also, "the left has played "unfairly" for a long time, yes many on the left do not "believe" in objective truth and will try to change the rules of the game" is just bullshit, and anyone who has paid the slightest attention to 1994-on American politics could say as much. The last six years of the Obama presidency was a Groundhog's Day nightmare of Lucy pulling up the football: from immigration to spending, the Obama administration would yield more and more ground in good faith compromise only to have the GOP renege on their word time and time again.

Hell, just about all of world history during the 20th and 21st centuries has been the political right undercutting the left by being willing to go dirtier, take shortcuts, appeal to racism, xenophobia, and the fears of foreign powers like Russia, Japan, and China. Even in Russia, the last "other" world power to the "left" of American, the political right of the Bolsheviks bested the left communists because they were willing to be opportunistic and dirty. (2)

1. There are a lot of coherent intellectuals on the right who would disagree about the Obama Administration. (I might take up that argument in a separate thread, and here I am speaking to the right who would largely agree whether or true or not.)

Their disagreements though, for what they are worth, are seriously undercut by what modern big-C American Conservatism looks like today.

As well, their is certainly a political and cultural aim to defend what is traditional and national, however, these two ideals do not make a happy medium.

National has taken center stage, while traditional compromises everything in what will probably be a short term pyre.

2. Further, I think a separate thread or three would be needed to sort out our differeing views on Consequentialism, how to read Consequentialism in history, politics, and general views on modern thought.

The divergence is so vast the best response I feel is: "I definitely disagree."

 

[kahiljabroni]

You can have your president who is virtuous and righteous. ..one who speaks well, is perfectly PC, etc.


I'll take the guy who has America's continued hegemony as his priority that knows how to get things done.

 

[InternetHero]

Double post.

 

[InternetHero]

You can have your president who is virtuous and righteous. ..one who speaks well, is perfectly PC, etc.


I'll take the guy who has America's continued hegemony as his priority that knows how to get things done.

Thank you for the response.

I have to be honest and say there are a few problems with this line of thought:

- Have strongmen gotten a lot done that was good for the people, or at best are they a 1 and done phenomenon?

- What is the future of American hegemony, or any country's hegemony given questions like AI, global trade, and the dangers of the atomic bomb?

Does it seem palatable long term? I think America should fight more for beliefs globally (in terms of rhetoric, not shooting), as we seem to have all our energies behind economics.

- There is a definitive difference between being politically incorrect and:

A. Lying habitually.

B. Behaving in a loathsome manner. I doubt anyone would want to have President Trump as a role model for their children, and yet, are children are getting an ear and eyeful of some troubling things.

C. Most of the "Un-PC" behavior is just Donald Trump insulting people. That's not an attack on PC, that reinforces the notions for a lot of people that standards are missing.

- Last, what do you see the Donald getting done exactly, and how much of that do you feel will last?

 

[Bloodworth]

"The first casualty when war comes is truth," - A quote attributed to many, but indeed often true.

A certain poster, who is a mainstay of the right on Sherdog, responded to one of my posts criticizing Mr. Trump a while back by saying, "In the war for our culture we have to be willing to do anything."

What does that mean? Does criticizing Trumpism mean we have to always fight for Trump or we lose everything?

That logic may be dangerous to say the least, and there are some difficult questions about that below:

- Should we sacrifice personal or religious convictions to defend or else be silent for Trump's possible immoral actions?

- Should we ignore Trump when he does something false, and praise him when he does something true? Worse should we defend Trump when he does something right for the good of Trumpism?

- Should we take this "fight" literally and be willing to do violence if "necessary?' Who is wise enough to decide that? Sean Hannity?

Do any of those policies seem right?

How can anyone take someone who is willing to do "anything" for the political cause seriously?

The right was front in center in pointing out Obama's problems with rhetoric like "bring a gun to a knife fight" or talking about "Clingers," and twisting the truth about many, many issues with Strawmen and False Choice's galore.

Who can take those problems credibly though if we are willing to defend Donald Trump when he has an even greater deficit with reality, and uses Red Herrings and personal attacks on a regular basis?

Yes the left has played "unfairly" for a long time, yes many on the left do not "believe" in objective truth and will try to change the rules of the game, and yes the left is interested in transforming traditional American culture. Do you want to sacrifice what makes the right objective to begin with?

Does winning mean splitting into two groups of thought, of an in group and out group of a different name, of having to adhere to the line of Trump or else be against him and for "losing" our culture?

The point of a republic is that we vote more or less for a choice in government and avoid making politics part of everything in our society and the same old human tug-of-war between stupid teams doing stupid things.

The solution seems simple: Be honest. If a voice tells you "I have to fight for the Donald or we lose!" that is almost always false. Fight for what's right, but fighting for what is right means fighting for what matters.

As Mr. Goldberg put it in an excellent column:

But it goes deeper than that. Ericsson says that “ideas and persuasion” are almost comically insufficient in this war. What is required is a Colonel Kurtz–like will to do what is necessary. Maybe that’s true. But what, specifically, does he think I should be doing? Does he want me to lie? Sign up as an assistant to Sarah Huckabee Sanders so she can more artfully spin and prevaricate? Should David French radically reinterpret his Christian faith and defend shtupping porn stars while you have a wife and newborn at home? Must I rush to defend this deranged carbuncle in his bid to send “Cocaine Mitch” packing?

Full column on this issue, and highly recommended:

https://www.nationalreview.com/g-fi...dent-trump-moral-equivalent-of-war-arguments/

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you like quotes, one might consider when looking at moral and ethical corruption, from "Now Country at Old Men' when considering warped ideology, and avoiding corrupting thoughts. "A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world." - Cormac McCarthy

It is better for most of us who are not politicians or lobbyists to become intellectually corrupt, or it is more likely you will join that corrupt world rather than change our world for the better.

One can not say they have principles, and then say and do what is unprincipled. That's all.

The election system is the most secure and people need to respect the results.

The u.s. is not a 3rd world country that riots if they dont like the results of an election.

The opposition to the president today is almost 3rd world like

 

[deltapapha]

I have become nastier over the last few years towards my "friends" on the Left. And it all started for me with the transgender madness. That was the point when I realized that we are on opposite sides of a real war

 

[InternetHero]

The election system is the most secure and people need to respect the results.

The u.s. is not a 3rd world country that riots if they dont like the results of an election.

The opposition to the president today is almost 3rd world like

If you're on the right, the media is going to hold you to a higher standard, right?

Therefore, would electing the ultimate_bomb_thrower be more or less likely to cause Conservatives and the Presidency to be vilified?

The President does not issue real arguments against PC culture, which I agree is a problem, he usually says a lot of cruel, crass, and personal things against "enemies."

A lot of people see "politics as the organization of people's fears."

What is greater though than getting people "scared enough" to vote, even by this calculus?

Persuasion.





How many voices on the right are looking for a fight, and how many have you heard looking to win hearts and minds for the future?

American Conservatism has a lot of ideas that have stood the test of time, and yet, no one is making an argument for these ideas or thoughts, or better yet improving the philosophy for the next generation.

We are all angry, and, do angry philosophies and revolutions tend to better humanity? As someone of the right Bloodworth, it should be easy to look at the left and say "Who will I be if I fight that way? If the whole point is winning?"

That resentment of we/them leads to a lot of problems, and hurting people rather than helping them.

The left and right should both know this danger well:

- The culture and tradition of the right win. New thoughts get oppressed, and the dominant are the oppresses.

- The culture of the left wins. Old thoughts get oppressed, and the new dominant are the oppressors.

A healthy civic culture takes the great new ideas of the left, the great variations of old ideas of the right and makes something for all people.

Left/right ascendancy means, usually, an extreme view wins and those in power oppress those below to keep what they have, or those who take power oppress the powerful for the "past" and take what they have.

Rather a vicious way of doing things, Red/Blue would be a whole lot heaither and kinder as more shades of Purple.

Meaning disarming from this "war" for culture, politics, ECT. and more a search for the best ideas for all people.

 

[kahiljabroni]

Thank you for the response.

I have to be honest and say there are a few problems with this line of thought:

- Have strongmen gotten a lot done that was good for the people, or at best are they a 1 and done phenomenon?

- What is the future of American hegemony, or any country's hegemony given questions like AI, global trade, and the dangers of the atomic bomb?

Does it seem palatable long term? I think America should fight more for beliefs globally (in terms of rhetoric, not shooting), as we seem to have all our energies behind economics.

- There is a definitive difference between being politically incorrect and:

A. Lying habitually.

B. Behaving in a loathsome manner. I doubt anyone would want to have President Trump as a role model for their children, and yet, are children are getting an ear and eyeful of some troubling things.

C. Most of the "Un-PC" behavior is just Donald Trump insulting people. That's not an attack on PC, that reinforces the notions for a lot of people that standards are missing.

- Last, what do you see the Donald getting done exactly, and how much of that do you feel will last?

You say you have some problems but then just ask a series of questions without making any declarative statements.

 

[InternetHero]

You say you have some problems but then just ask a series of questions without making any declarative statements.

I find it more polite to ask questions, and have your detailed response than to insist someone is wrong.

That way, in your answers you might teach me a thing or two as well.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

The truth is Trump won, Hillary lost. It's over. The temper tantrum was cute for the first year, but it's time to grow up. Until the left can accept that, yes, Donald Trump is your president and will be for the next 6 years, this shit will continue.

 

[Last Samurai]

I have become nastier over the last few years towards my "friends" on the Left. And it all started for me with the transgender madness. That was the point when I realized that we are on opposite sides of a real war

transgenderism is the real war?
haha, that is such a non-issue

if that bothers you so much then you haven't realized where we're heading. as the technology develops there will be a growing portion of society that will get micro chips and other machine parts implanted into their bodies. these so-called enhancements will make you beg for the good old days where trannies were considered abnormal.

not that I support any of it, but we have to learn to accept that as long as it can be done there will always be those who make the kind of choices that to most of us are simply unfathomable.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

It's the basic nature of the left to accept and even seek change - liberalism. Even when that change is stupid.

It's the basic nature of the right to prefer the past over any possible future. Even when that preferred past may not have actually existed.

Both prefer their utopias that are stupid.

 

[bobgeese]

Well, if the left would stop praising degeneracy and hating America, I’d have no problem with them.