0 comment Saturday, December 6, 2014 | admin
In a recent post, I discussed the fact that the psychological worldview, as presented by the popular culture and the old media, has become a widely accepted, very influential belief system. It's also insidious in that most people have absorbed many of the core beliefs of this worldview without even being aware of it. Anybody who watches shows like Oprah, or reads any of the best-selling 'self-help' books, or who undergoes therapy or counseling for life problems, has taken in a good deal of the beliefs of the psychological worldview. Anybody who has taken social science courses in the last several decades has also imbibed some of these beliefs.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Many of those who have unconsciously adopted these beliefs also call themselves 'Christians', and may in fact be regular worshippers at a church. The pastor at their church may also preach messages full of the humanistic ideas with which the psychological belief system is saturated. This is particularly true these days, because so many churches are caught up in this 'seeker-sensitive' movement, with its idea that people (nonbelievers, casual 'seekers', spiritual shoppers) must not be made to feel 'bad about themselves.'
Most of the mainline churches today have embraced the messages of 'diversity', egalitarianism, race-denial, and ''social justice''.
Most of these established religious groups promote open borders and one-worldism -- although most people with even a rudimentary education should be familiar with the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the idea that a one-world system is not in God's plan.
Those who have not even examined the facts are quick to condemn Christianity for the Babelizing of the Western world, yet how can anyone, with a straight face, presume that the church, any church, exercises that much influence over people, much less over the world's political system? No, all the commonsense evidence points to the fact that the world system is instead setting the tone, leading the way, while the churches follow along. Granted, the churches are wrong in this. They are derelict, having lost their way. They are quite literally the 'salt which has lost its savor', of which Jesus warned, worthy only to be discarded.
And if the churches are guilty of going along with the world political system, they are wrong because they are not being true to themselves, and to the message they are supposed to be preaching.
However, if the political establishment and the ovine followers who make up most of the citizenry are not being misled by the church, who is leading them towards the multicultist Babel?
I've said that most people in our society owe more to the pop psychology cult, and humanism generally, than to Christian teaching. I can just hear someone say: what does psychology have to do with politics or world affairs? It's just about people's individual lives and problems, not about politics or society. Well, think again.
Clearly, societies both help and hinder human growth. Because nourishing environments can make an important contribution to the development of healthy personalities, human needs should be given priority when fashioning social policies. This becomes increasingly critical in a rapidly changing world threatened by such dangers as nuclear war, overpopulation and the breakdown of traditional social structures.
Many humanistic psychologists stress the importance of social change, the challenge of modifying old institutions and inventing new ones able to sustain both human development and organizational efficacy. Thus the humanistic emphasis on individual freedom should be matched by a recognition of our interdependence and our responsibilities to one another, to society and culture, and to the future.''
[...]
"As the world's people demand freedom and self-determination, it is urgent that we learn how diverse communities of empowered individuals, with freedom to construct their own stories and identities, might live together in mutual peace. Perhaps it is not a vain hope that is life in such communities might lead to the advance in human consciousness beyond anything we have yet experienced."
[Emphasis mine]
Notice the emphasis on 'social change' ''modifying old institutions and inventing new ones...' -- all the leftist concerns. It could have been written by some leftist politico as well as by a social scientist. They are hand-in-glove.
In my personal experience (and yes, it's anecdotal) most leftists are immersed in psychological jargon and thinking. Very few ''progressives'' are Christians, even liberal Christians. Most, in my experience, are secular and nonbelieving, or else involved in New Age practices. That latter topic in itself is worthy of a whole post, with New Age thinking very focused on the idea of a 'one world' government and a blending of all races into some 'highly evolved' hybrid race. I say this as someone who was once very involved in this kind of thing. I know it from the inside, and I have friends who are still part of that subculture.
Marilyn Ferguson who wrote the bestselling Aquarian Conspiracy, said
There are legions of [Aquarian] conspirators. They are in corporations, universities, and hospitals, on the faculties of public schools, in factories and doctors' offices, in state and federal agencies, on city councils, and in the White House staff, in state legislatures, in volunteer organizations, in virtually all arenas of policy making in the country."
That is probably more true now than it was when she wrote it, 20-odd years ago.
What has this got to do with the psychological worldview? It intersects with the New Age philosophy. The latter is a blend of a hodgepodge of various Eastern religions (Hinduism, Taoism, ''Native American'' spirituality/shamanism, etc.) and the Western humanistic tradition of which psychology is a part.
What these systems have in common is the focus on the self, on self-actualization (whatever that means), and they both tend to promote the notion that Western morality, which emphasizes individual responsibility and a defined system of right and wrong, is ''negative'' and backward, un-evolved.
New Age beliefs (although those involved often shun that label) blend seamlessly with the beliefs promoted in psychology, particularlly 'transpersonal psychology'.
There is an emphasis on 'not judging' or not excluding anybody -- except Christians of course, because they are too 'separative' in the words of Alice Bailey, who wrote a number of New Age/occult books which are considered authoritative by many. Anything that separates, as Christianity does, is bad, according to this worldview.
Psychology as it is understood by most people has done more than any other philosophy to popularize the idea of nonjudgmentalism as the greatest virtue. The idea is that we are not to put moral judgments on people, or anything people do -- unless it can be considered racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or species-ist. Then we are free to judge and condemn at will.
Otherwise, moral relativism prevails.
The idea that it's bad to be 'negative' about anything is also a very popular idea which is attributable to psychology and the social sciences. It's also an idea that is part of New Age thinking, which emphasizes 'positive thoughts'. (This system does not account for actual evil, or consider that being negative about some things is the only appropriate response.)
These ideas have wide exposure, especially among women who watch Oprah and other such shows. I allude to Oprah often as being a promoter of this kind of thing. She is a perfect example as she claims to be a Christian, yet publicly says she believes other 'paths' and religions are equally valid and true. She also promotes many New Age authors and their books, one recent example being Eckhart Tolle, a European New Age guru who has apparently taken in some gullible Christians.
I see evidence of the influence of such ideas all around us, especially when I converse with women, or when I read popular magazines or newspapers, or watch TV. It is part of the air we breathe these days. It baffles me to think that some people believe Christianity is so influential as to take the blame (or credit) for anything in our society, good or bad. Christianity is very much marginalized these days, and the thinking I've outlined briefly here is what dominates the 'purpose-driven' churches and the 'seeker-sensitive' churches, which are everywhere.
Christians who read their Bibles know that Jesus Christ is 'the same yesterday, today, and forever.' So riddle me this: how is it that old-time Christians did not believe in open borders, miscegenation, one-world government, and 'nonjudgmentalism', while today's ''Christians'' are perfectly comfortable, in too many instances, with all of the above? Christianity has not changed; today's Christians are thoroughly confused and lost, in many cases.
The fault is not in the Bible or in Christianity. The fault is in the insidious worldview, based on humanism, based on the false notion that 'man is the measure of all things', which has captured the Church as well as the rest of our society. And the fault, insofar as it lies with Christians, is that they do not read their Bibles or develop and exercise discernment. They simply take in the world's poisons and don't even realize it.
Some are being led astray by popular authors and 'teachers' who are in turn peddling the trendy ideas of the world, not the truth. These false shepherds are to blame, but so are the gullible 'sheep' who follow them.
We can see the havoc that the influence of psychology has played in our judicial system, where every criminal is portrayed as either ''mentally ill'' or as a victim of society, or a victim of bad parenting. Everybody is a 'victim' these days, especially the worst among us. Many people have lost all concepts of evil these days; the obsession we have with trying to 'understand' and 'reach out' to everybody, even heinous criminals, is a very detrimental trend to our societal well-being.
We see this carry over to our attitudes about things like illegal immigration; the people who consider themselves 'enlightened' are oh-so-careful to try to understand and empathize with illegals, saying things like ''well, I would do the same if I were in their shoes. I don't blame them.'' The drive to 'understand' and explain away all illegal behavior, or just plain bad behavior, has no limits. We have to re-learn to judge and discern, and not simply understand and empathize and tolerate anything.
As Alexander Pope wrote in his Essay on Man:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
If it was true in Pope's time, it is even more rife now, this 'pitying and embracing' of bad behavior. We can't be judgmental; who are we to judge? We have to understand and reach out.
If we truly care about rescuing our society, and averting its impending demise, we need to look at the real dangers which beset us and which have rendered us a weak and morally slothful people, a 'nonjudgmental' people who are scared stiff of offending anyone.
And while it's easier to zero in on easy targets, and hard to deal with an amorphous target like a hazy belief system with no visible insitutions to blame, it's also less honest.
Labels: Christianity, Death Of The West, Globalism, Liberalism, Moral Agnosticism, Moral Relativism, One World, Politics, Pop Psychology, Societal Decay, Therapeutic Society, Transnationalism
0 comment Friday, December 5, 2014 | admin
A while back, I read something about this new law, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which was passed quietly (as most laws are) last year and which came into effect last week or so. I paid scant attention to it, but I've just read about one curious feature of this new law, after Laurel Loflund posted about it at the Kinism forum. The article to which she linked was in the City Journal:
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
Labels: Big Government, Books, Censorship, Congress, Freedom Of Thought, Libraries, Orwellian, Political Correctness
0 comment | admin
Many of you read AmRen. I read it, though I don't post there. But I am finding the quality of comments over there of late to be deteriorating.
First, I have heard that comments there are heavily moderated, and apparently many posts never make it, being culled out for whatever reason.
That's fine: I would actually prefer to read a moderated discussion from which the profane and illiterate posts are excluded, along with the obviously trollish and disruptive.
However I wonder what the policy is there, as regards which comments make it past moderation and actually get posted. I have noticed that the mod or mods are tolerating a lot of comments which are openly hostile to Christianity, from one poster in particular. He manages to work in some kind of dig at Christianity on just about every thread he posts on, regardless of the topic being discussed. For example, on a thread about the financial crisis and the 'subprime mortgage' situation, he gets in a shot at Christians.
If there were similar criticisms and slams of other religions, it might not be so noticeable, but on the many threads about, say, Somalis or Moslems per se, I recall seeing few criticisms of the Islamic religion. Christianity alone is fair game, it appears. Yet I don't recall this being the situation when I first began reading AmRen.
In addition to the anti-Christian comments, there is the commenter who repeatedly urges people to return to Europe. I mentioned him before; actually, it appears that there is more than one such poster, though they may be the same person under different names. The commenter always mentions that all his friends, or "many" of his friends, are relocating to Europe and blending right in there. The whole story seems implausible to me; what are the odds that an individual would know 'many' people emigrating to Europe? The rare person might know one such friend, but 'many'? I suppose it could be that he is living in an ethnic enclave and has many friends whose ties to the 'old country' have never been broken, and hence they've decided to return to their ancestral country. Still, the man seems to be on a mission to convince as many as possible to follow their example and go 'back to Europe.' Now, if he were making the argument that a certain country needs immigrants and welcomes them, it would make more sense, but he isn't making a pitch for a particular country or locality, just 'go back to Europe' where you will fit right in. It all seems odd to me, and the comments are repeated almost word-for-word on many threads over there, as if he is cutting and pasting.
And last, I've noticed that a certain leftist commenter has been dominating certain threads with digs at Protestantism, as well as slurs against the realists who make up most of the commentariat there. Why he is allowed to post repeatedly on certain threads and spew his nonsense is more than I can understand. I know that AmRen states that they 'reserve the right to hold critics to a lower standard' when it comes to comments, but there should be some limits to that policy.
I suppose I am just saying that I don't understand the moderators' standards for approving comments there. If the idea is to drive away people who are sympathetic to AmRen's cause, it might just work. Or if the idea is to provide a platform for obnoxious leftists and anti-Christians to spout their poisonous ideas, then they are certainly accomplishing that.
I think AmRen serves a useful purpose especially for people who are finding themselves opposed to political correctness and multiculturalism, and looking for answers, but I am disappointed with the direction they seem to be taking over there. It does seem as though the commenting standards have lowered, or changed. Does anyone else perceive it that way?
First, I have heard that comments there are heavily moderated, and apparently many posts never make it, being culled out for whatever reason.
That's fine: I would actually prefer to read a moderated discussion from which the profane and illiterate posts are excluded, along with the obviously trollish and disruptive.
However I wonder what the policy is there, as regards which comments make it past moderation and actually get posted. I have noticed that the mod or mods are tolerating a lot of comments which are openly hostile to Christianity, from one poster in particular. He manages to work in some kind of dig at Christianity on just about every thread he posts on, regardless of the topic being discussed. For example, on a thread about the financial crisis and the 'subprime mortgage' situation, he gets in a shot at Christians.
If there were similar criticisms and slams of other religions, it might not be so noticeable, but on the many threads about, say, Somalis or Moslems per se, I recall seeing few criticisms of the Islamic religion. Christianity alone is fair game, it appears. Yet I don't recall this being the situation when I first began reading AmRen.
In addition to the anti-Christian comments, there is the commenter who repeatedly urges people to return to Europe. I mentioned him before; actually, it appears that there is more than one such poster, though they may be the same person under different names. The commenter always mentions that all his friends, or "many" of his friends, are relocating to Europe and blending right in there. The whole story seems implausible to me; what are the odds that an individual would know 'many' people emigrating to Europe? The rare person might know one such friend, but 'many'? I suppose it could be that he is living in an ethnic enclave and has many friends whose ties to the 'old country' have never been broken, and hence they've decided to return to their ancestral country. Still, the man seems to be on a mission to convince as many as possible to follow their example and go 'back to Europe.' Now, if he were making the argument that a certain country needs immigrants and welcomes them, it would make more sense, but he isn't making a pitch for a particular country or locality, just 'go back to Europe' where you will fit right in. It all seems odd to me, and the comments are repeated almost word-for-word on many threads over there, as if he is cutting and pasting.
And last, I've noticed that a certain leftist commenter has been dominating certain threads with digs at Protestantism, as well as slurs against the realists who make up most of the commentariat there. Why he is allowed to post repeatedly on certain threads and spew his nonsense is more than I can understand. I know that AmRen states that they 'reserve the right to hold critics to a lower standard' when it comes to comments, but there should be some limits to that policy.
I suppose I am just saying that I don't understand the moderators' standards for approving comments there. If the idea is to drive away people who are sympathetic to AmRen's cause, it might just work. Or if the idea is to provide a platform for obnoxious leftists and anti-Christians to spout their poisonous ideas, then they are certainly accomplishing that.
I think AmRen serves a useful purpose especially for people who are finding themselves opposed to political correctness and multiculturalism, and looking for answers, but I am disappointed with the direction they seem to be taking over there. It does seem as though the commenting standards have lowered, or changed. Does anyone else perceive it that way?
Labels: Blogosphere, Free Speech, Political Correctness
0 comment | admin
Another aspect of this pestilential 'niceness' is the moral agnosticism that usually goes along with it.
This seems to be an increasingly common problem in our society, and I think it is certainly a part of what ails us.
We've really taken to heart the idea that making a moral judgment or even a 'value judgment', in the namby-pamby social scientists' phrase, is to be avoided at all costs. We have to see everything in shades of grey, with ambiguities aplenty.
For example: two people of your acquaintance, both of them presumed 'friends' or at least people you purport to 'admire', are in a dispute. The moral agnostic 'nice' person makes sympathetic noises to both parties, and shrinks from making a judgment about which party is the wronged party, or which has right on his side. It may be that in rare instances, neither side is wrong, and neither is fully right, and it may be that the dispute is a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication which can be clarified by some detached third party stepping in and correcting the wrong signals.
But in my experience, when judging conflicting ideas or individuals, there is a preponderance of right on one side. Of course, a flawed human being will seldom be completely blameless, but the fact of human frailty does not mean that we can never, ever discern who is right, for the most part, and who is wrong, who was the aggressor or instigator and who was the recipient of the aggression.
I tend to think it's moral laziness to refuse to try to discern, or to seek to walk a tightrope, privately uttering sympathetic words to each side separately, while taking a neutral stance publicly. Or is it cowardice? Or a selfish desire to maintain oneself in the good graces of both sides, while feigning support to each party in secret? If so, that's also duplicitous and insincere, which the Bible condemns.
To refuse to take the right side in every case in which it can be discerned is immoral, and yet somehow these days, this is the default position of many people. Might it also be that so many people are deathly afraid of taking an unpopular position, and being isolated or ostracized for it? We certainly see many examples of this attitude.
The Bible also speaks against double-mindedness and having a 'double heart', or 'speaking guile.'
Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
I find that when someone takes the spineless way out and tries to have it both ways, working both sides of the street, I lose all respect for that person.
This is especially so when the wishy-washy person turns a blind eye to someone's aggressive or cruel behavior because they 'like' the person. Usually this is the case when one party is socially popular or influential, and many people, being in awe of social influence or prestige, will give the person a pass on reprehensible or uncharitable or immoral behavior because of who they are, or because of their personal charm or social status. This is what the Bible calls 'respecting persons.' We are not to be 'respecters of persons' or to hold the offender's 'person' in regard.
But we are supposed to be respecters of truth.
Suppose one party gossips, maligns, and slanders another party, and perhaps bullies that person in direct or indirect ways. Do we continue to be friendly with the wrongdoer and the wronged party? Why would we do this? The bully or the slanderer is not a person who should inspire our loyalty or regard, yet many people will refuse to call out the bad behavior or shun the wrongdoer, preferring to turn a blind eye, trying to justify their moral agnosticism by saying 'but he's a nice guy, and he hasn't done anything to me.'
Again, I cannot respect the person who behaves this way, even though they may fancy that their behavior amounts to being an impartial or above-the-fray 'peacemaker' between the two estranged parties. Either we believe that certain actions are right, and others are wrong, or we don't. It appears many people don't want to be so 'controversial' as to believe unequivocally in right and wrong, and to support the right side openly. But we are supposed to take a side, the right side, whenever there is a moral conflict. We are not allowed to sit out the battle.
Many of the people I know are very fluid in their principles, being easily moved one way or the other, based on their feelings and emotions. For instance Christians who claim to oppose things like abortion or homosexuality or illegal immigration will, if they meet with a likeable individual who is an advocate of abortion, or a homosexual, or an illegal immigrant, will not be able to separate their liking for these individuals from their opposition to the actions of these individuals -- so what gets lost? The principles. If they meet a personable and charming gay activist, they will begin to say 'well, we mustn't be narrowminded. Times change.' Many people are swayed by the immigrants they meet and sympathize with, and soon say 'we have to make it easier for these people; the laws for immigration are inhumane.'
Most conservatives and Christians of a traditonal sort deplore the moral relativism or facile moral equivalency at which the liberals are so practiced, but it seems they too are falling prey to the tendency.
And in most cases, we are drawn in that direction by our personal feelings, through being charmed by certain individuals, or perhaps we are flattered at being drawn into the circle of a prominent or influential person, so we overlook or justify the bad behaviors this person practices, whether it's sexual immorality or social cruelty and arrogance.
'But this man does so much good! He gives to charity; he supports a lot of good causes.'
Or: 'he's a brilliant man, very intellectually stimulating, a great thinker, a champion of our side,' -- so they tolerate, or worse, justify his petty unkindness towards his 'lessers', and his belittling of those he sees as rivals, intellectually or socially or politically.
Where are the lovers of justice and truth and goodness? We seem to be, too often, respecters of persons, covetous of the social approval of those we admire or like, regardless of their moral worth.
This can apply on a national scale, with the idolizing of morally reprobate celebrities and amoral politicians, or with those we look up to in other, smaller spheres. We have our favorites and our little idols, and we are happy to turn a blind eye to the harm they do -- simply because we 'like' them. They make us feel good in some way, and we are hooked on 'feeling good.' Or they flatter us, and we feel grateful that they include us in their circles, so we happily cluster around and applaud their every pronouncement, regardless of its worth, in gratitude for their deigning to notice us.
In some cases, some rather sad people identify with some high-achieving or notable person, and vicariously partake in their successes, and that this person may be an amoral, self-seeking egotist or an immoral, deceitful manipulator matters not at all to their admirers.
It all seems to boil down to our loss of fixed principles and morality, with a loss of regard for truth and right and justice. It's all about who we 'like', or how we feel about something, rather than about the question of goodness and worthiness.
I've had more people giving me unsolicited statements about who they are voting for, and so often I am struck by the utter incongruity of their choices. People I would least expect to hear these statements from tell me 'I'm voting for Obama', or 'I'll vote for McCain', while giving no sound reason for doing so. Their choices seem utterly illogical, at least based on what they have said over time, or based on what they purport to believe in. When we cut ourselves loose from our moorings in reason, logic, or established principles of any kind, and behave according to our shifting feelings and moods, there can only be more irrational and morally derelict behavior.
I suppose it makes a twisted kind of sense, if we have outlawed judgements, to base our decisions mostly on personal feelings and whims, and on a sense of loyalty only to persons, not to solid beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong.
This seems to be an increasingly common problem in our society, and I think it is certainly a part of what ails us.
We've really taken to heart the idea that making a moral judgment or even a 'value judgment', in the namby-pamby social scientists' phrase, is to be avoided at all costs. We have to see everything in shades of grey, with ambiguities aplenty.
For example: two people of your acquaintance, both of them presumed 'friends' or at least people you purport to 'admire', are in a dispute. The moral agnostic 'nice' person makes sympathetic noises to both parties, and shrinks from making a judgment about which party is the wronged party, or which has right on his side. It may be that in rare instances, neither side is wrong, and neither is fully right, and it may be that the dispute is a mere misunderstanding or miscommunication which can be clarified by some detached third party stepping in and correcting the wrong signals.
But in my experience, when judging conflicting ideas or individuals, there is a preponderance of right on one side. Of course, a flawed human being will seldom be completely blameless, but the fact of human frailty does not mean that we can never, ever discern who is right, for the most part, and who is wrong, who was the aggressor or instigator and who was the recipient of the aggression.
I tend to think it's moral laziness to refuse to try to discern, or to seek to walk a tightrope, privately uttering sympathetic words to each side separately, while taking a neutral stance publicly. Or is it cowardice? Or a selfish desire to maintain oneself in the good graces of both sides, while feigning support to each party in secret? If so, that's also duplicitous and insincere, which the Bible condemns.
To refuse to take the right side in every case in which it can be discerned is immoral, and yet somehow these days, this is the default position of many people. Might it also be that so many people are deathly afraid of taking an unpopular position, and being isolated or ostracized for it? We certainly see many examples of this attitude.
The Bible also speaks against double-mindedness and having a 'double heart', or 'speaking guile.'
Psa 12:2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: [with] flattering lips [and] with a double heart do they speak.
I find that when someone takes the spineless way out and tries to have it both ways, working both sides of the street, I lose all respect for that person.
This is especially so when the wishy-washy person turns a blind eye to someone's aggressive or cruel behavior because they 'like' the person. Usually this is the case when one party is socially popular or influential, and many people, being in awe of social influence or prestige, will give the person a pass on reprehensible or uncharitable or immoral behavior because of who they are, or because of their personal charm or social status. This is what the Bible calls 'respecting persons.' We are not to be 'respecters of persons' or to hold the offender's 'person' in regard.
But we are supposed to be respecters of truth.
Suppose one party gossips, maligns, and slanders another party, and perhaps bullies that person in direct or indirect ways. Do we continue to be friendly with the wrongdoer and the wronged party? Why would we do this? The bully or the slanderer is not a person who should inspire our loyalty or regard, yet many people will refuse to call out the bad behavior or shun the wrongdoer, preferring to turn a blind eye, trying to justify their moral agnosticism by saying 'but he's a nice guy, and he hasn't done anything to me.'
Again, I cannot respect the person who behaves this way, even though they may fancy that their behavior amounts to being an impartial or above-the-fray 'peacemaker' between the two estranged parties. Either we believe that certain actions are right, and others are wrong, or we don't. It appears many people don't want to be so 'controversial' as to believe unequivocally in right and wrong, and to support the right side openly. But we are supposed to take a side, the right side, whenever there is a moral conflict. We are not allowed to sit out the battle.
Many of the people I know are very fluid in their principles, being easily moved one way or the other, based on their feelings and emotions. For instance Christians who claim to oppose things like abortion or homosexuality or illegal immigration will, if they meet with a likeable individual who is an advocate of abortion, or a homosexual, or an illegal immigrant, will not be able to separate their liking for these individuals from their opposition to the actions of these individuals -- so what gets lost? The principles. If they meet a personable and charming gay activist, they will begin to say 'well, we mustn't be narrowminded. Times change.' Many people are swayed by the immigrants they meet and sympathize with, and soon say 'we have to make it easier for these people; the laws for immigration are inhumane.'
Most conservatives and Christians of a traditonal sort deplore the moral relativism or facile moral equivalency at which the liberals are so practiced, but it seems they too are falling prey to the tendency.
And in most cases, we are drawn in that direction by our personal feelings, through being charmed by certain individuals, or perhaps we are flattered at being drawn into the circle of a prominent or influential person, so we overlook or justify the bad behaviors this person practices, whether it's sexual immorality or social cruelty and arrogance.
'But this man does so much good! He gives to charity; he supports a lot of good causes.'
Or: 'he's a brilliant man, very intellectually stimulating, a great thinker, a champion of our side,' -- so they tolerate, or worse, justify his petty unkindness towards his 'lessers', and his belittling of those he sees as rivals, intellectually or socially or politically.
Where are the lovers of justice and truth and goodness? We seem to be, too often, respecters of persons, covetous of the social approval of those we admire or like, regardless of their moral worth.
This can apply on a national scale, with the idolizing of morally reprobate celebrities and amoral politicians, or with those we look up to in other, smaller spheres. We have our favorites and our little idols, and we are happy to turn a blind eye to the harm they do -- simply because we 'like' them. They make us feel good in some way, and we are hooked on 'feeling good.' Or they flatter us, and we feel grateful that they include us in their circles, so we happily cluster around and applaud their every pronouncement, regardless of its worth, in gratitude for their deigning to notice us.
In some cases, some rather sad people identify with some high-achieving or notable person, and vicariously partake in their successes, and that this person may be an amoral, self-seeking egotist or an immoral, deceitful manipulator matters not at all to their admirers.
It all seems to boil down to our loss of fixed principles and morality, with a loss of regard for truth and right and justice. It's all about who we 'like', or how we feel about something, rather than about the question of goodness and worthiness.
I've had more people giving me unsolicited statements about who they are voting for, and so often I am struck by the utter incongruity of their choices. People I would least expect to hear these statements from tell me 'I'm voting for Obama', or 'I'll vote for McCain', while giving no sound reason for doing so. Their choices seem utterly illogical, at least based on what they have said over time, or based on what they purport to believe in. When we cut ourselves loose from our moorings in reason, logic, or established principles of any kind, and behave according to our shifting feelings and moods, there can only be more irrational and morally derelict behavior.
I suppose it makes a twisted kind of sense, if we have outlawed judgements, to base our decisions mostly on personal feelings and whims, and on a sense of loyalty only to persons, not to solid beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong.
Labels: Justice, Moral Agnosticism, Moral Relativism, Societal Decay, Traditional Morality
0 comment Thursday, December 4, 2014 | admin
American Pioneers -- or 'Illegals'? an article from the reliably liberal Washington Post, is yet another example of the War on America's history. Eduardo Moises Penalver's article is somewhat stale, having appeared two weeks ago, but no matter; his 'arguments' and ideas were already stale when the article was fresh. It's the same old moral equivalency argument: 'So are you, and so's your old man'. If the illegal aliens of today are illegal, then so were our 'old men', our pioneer ancestors. I like how Penalver puts the word 'illegals' in scare quotes. Nice touch, Eduardo. Illegal means against our laws; there's no gray area there. One either obeys the laws or one does not.
Comparing our pioneer American ancestors to today's illegal invaders is dishonest. The two situations are not analogous.
Squatters, in the circumstances he describes, were breaking the laws, and were subject to the legal penalties of the time. There may have been considerable public sympathy for them, but they were first of all citizens of this country, and rightful heirs of this country. Their very presence in America was not a breach of any law. And if they were lawbreakers, they did not have a huge lobby agitating to let them continue breaking the law. They were not a threat to the country; they were not a hostile, foreign presence flying an alien flag, and claiming the land for some foreign regime. Penalver is an academic, apparently, yet he does not see these distinctions.
Further, he tries to legitimize the illegal invasion by referring to the " legitimate needs that push them to break the law."
Does he even understand the concept of the 'rule of law'? If we legitimize lawbreaking by saying that people may have 'legitimate needs' which 'push' them to illegal acts, we are in effect justifying anything from burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and maybe even rape -- after all, sex is a 'legitimate' human need, is it not? So maybe rapists could be called 'undocumented suitors' or 'undocumented partners'. The idea that anyone purporting to seek a 'better life' or to satisfy a 'legitimate need' can break laws with impunity is absolutely antithetical to civilization. Embracing Penalver's crackbrained 'ideas' would be to embrace anarchy and chaos. Much like Mexico's society, no?.
Penalver and his counterparts who are acting as apologists for their illegal compatriots seem to be simply rationalizing their ethnic solidarity; they have a gut-level loyalty to their own ethnic brethren and they resort to half-baked arguments legitimizing their bias. If they wish any real credibility, some objectivity would be in order.
Meanwhile, I challenge all of the apologists and shills for the illegals to stop attacking our American founders and settlers in order to legitimize yourselves. This is a dishonorable tactic, and it's angering many Americans.
Comparing our pioneer American ancestors to today's illegal invaders is dishonest. The two situations are not analogous.
Squatters, in the circumstances he describes, were breaking the laws, and were subject to the legal penalties of the time. There may have been considerable public sympathy for them, but they were first of all citizens of this country, and rightful heirs of this country. Their very presence in America was not a breach of any law. And if they were lawbreakers, they did not have a huge lobby agitating to let them continue breaking the law. They were not a threat to the country; they were not a hostile, foreign presence flying an alien flag, and claiming the land for some foreign regime. Penalver is an academic, apparently, yet he does not see these distinctions.
Further, he tries to legitimize the illegal invasion by referring to the " legitimate needs that push them to break the law."
Does he even understand the concept of the 'rule of law'? If we legitimize lawbreaking by saying that people may have 'legitimate needs' which 'push' them to illegal acts, we are in effect justifying anything from burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and maybe even rape -- after all, sex is a 'legitimate' human need, is it not? So maybe rapists could be called 'undocumented suitors' or 'undocumented partners'. The idea that anyone purporting to seek a 'better life' or to satisfy a 'legitimate need' can break laws with impunity is absolutely antithetical to civilization. Embracing Penalver's crackbrained 'ideas' would be to embrace anarchy and chaos. Much like Mexico's society, no?.
Penalver and his counterparts who are acting as apologists for their illegal compatriots seem to be simply rationalizing their ethnic solidarity; they have a gut-level loyalty to their own ethnic brethren and they resort to half-baked arguments legitimizing their bias. If they wish any real credibility, some objectivity would be in order.
Meanwhile, I challenge all of the apologists and shills for the illegals to stop attacking our American founders and settlers in order to legitimize yourselves. This is a dishonorable tactic, and it's angering many Americans.
0 comment | admin
At SBPDL, Paul explains his banning of a certain commenter, who tended to dominate (and derail) most discussions on that blog. I've mentioned before that I thought the SBPDL blog would be better without this bothersome commenter and others of that sort, so I think this is a good move.
Predictably, though, a few commenters decry 'censorship' and bemoan what they see as a move towards having an 'echo chamber' or a boring discussion with no opposition to debate. There are always these schools of thought among blog readers.
It's possible to have a free exchange of ideas without tolerating obnoxious commenters or discussion-derailers. We've seen a few passing through the comment section here over the years, and a few of them have been IP-banned, without any appreciable loss to the discussion here.
I think it's more important on a blog to maintain a certain level of civility, and to try to keep things on a higher plane. Abusive or insulting comments degrade the discussion, and when I am visiting a blog that tolerates that kind of thing, I will just remove the blog from my list of daily reads. I am sure there must be others who react similarly to blogs with out-of-control comment sections.
Of course some people are attracted to that kind of rough-and-tumble atmosphere, and to each his own, I suppose, but that's not my cup of tea. It isn't my idea of debate. Maybe the blunt language and rough banter is more of a ''guy'' thing, but it's just not for me. Still, every blogger has his own philosophy of what a blog discussion should be.
I'm all for freedom of speech when it comes to expressing ideas and arguments and points of view, but there is a limit. I will let comments stand even if I disagree with the ideas expressed but I will ban for abusive or aggressive or hostile language, because I believe it's possible to get one's points across in a civil and respectful way. Generally I give people a couple of chances to make their points in a civil way, and if they can't, well, they are gone.
Some of the comments at SBPDL which took exception to the new policy stated the need to 'hear what the opposition is saying.' Personally I find that I can hear what the opposition is saying just about anywhere; read any mainstream news source or blog, and there is nothing else but the 'opposition viewpoint.' So dissident bloggers have no crying need to welcome the opposition; they offer nothing but predictable nonsense and falsehoods, so it's absolutely redundant to have such commenters on our blogs. Such is my opinion, anyway.
Recently on some blog I was reading, a commenter complained about a blogger joining in the discussion on the comment thread; this complainer thought that was very bad form, and should not be done by a blogger. I've noticed over the years that certain bloggers do not join any discussion in the comment section. Personally, when visiting others' blogs, I am put off by that. I remember before I started blogging myself, that some bloggers never came down from Olympus to interact with the readers who commented. I tend to take the opposite approach. I don't know the preferences of my readers, but I recall one reader a couple of years ago, who seemed new to the blog, who left a comment to which I did not, for whatever reason, reply directly to. The commenter took angry offense at my failing to reply, and huffily announced that he would not read my blog anymore and that I was not welcome in his neck of the woods. I was taken aback, because I had meant no offense to that person, but in any case, he took his leave.
I generally like to acknowledge comments and interact because I value comments -- most of them, anyway -- and especially value my regular, faithful readers. I understand, though, that others have a different approach, especially those blogs which have scores of comments on a given post.
There are many approaches to blogging and managing the discussion, so there's no one right way I suppose, although I think we should all be able to agree on rules of basic civility towards one another.
Predictably, though, a few commenters decry 'censorship' and bemoan what they see as a move towards having an 'echo chamber' or a boring discussion with no opposition to debate. There are always these schools of thought among blog readers.
It's possible to have a free exchange of ideas without tolerating obnoxious commenters or discussion-derailers. We've seen a few passing through the comment section here over the years, and a few of them have been IP-banned, without any appreciable loss to the discussion here.
I think it's more important on a blog to maintain a certain level of civility, and to try to keep things on a higher plane. Abusive or insulting comments degrade the discussion, and when I am visiting a blog that tolerates that kind of thing, I will just remove the blog from my list of daily reads. I am sure there must be others who react similarly to blogs with out-of-control comment sections.
Of course some people are attracted to that kind of rough-and-tumble atmosphere, and to each his own, I suppose, but that's not my cup of tea. It isn't my idea of debate. Maybe the blunt language and rough banter is more of a ''guy'' thing, but it's just not for me. Still, every blogger has his own philosophy of what a blog discussion should be.
I'm all for freedom of speech when it comes to expressing ideas and arguments and points of view, but there is a limit. I will let comments stand even if I disagree with the ideas expressed but I will ban for abusive or aggressive or hostile language, because I believe it's possible to get one's points across in a civil and respectful way. Generally I give people a couple of chances to make their points in a civil way, and if they can't, well, they are gone.
Some of the comments at SBPDL which took exception to the new policy stated the need to 'hear what the opposition is saying.' Personally I find that I can hear what the opposition is saying just about anywhere; read any mainstream news source or blog, and there is nothing else but the 'opposition viewpoint.' So dissident bloggers have no crying need to welcome the opposition; they offer nothing but predictable nonsense and falsehoods, so it's absolutely redundant to have such commenters on our blogs. Such is my opinion, anyway.
Recently on some blog I was reading, a commenter complained about a blogger joining in the discussion on the comment thread; this complainer thought that was very bad form, and should not be done by a blogger. I've noticed over the years that certain bloggers do not join any discussion in the comment section. Personally, when visiting others' blogs, I am put off by that. I remember before I started blogging myself, that some bloggers never came down from Olympus to interact with the readers who commented. I tend to take the opposite approach. I don't know the preferences of my readers, but I recall one reader a couple of years ago, who seemed new to the blog, who left a comment to which I did not, for whatever reason, reply directly to. The commenter took angry offense at my failing to reply, and huffily announced that he would not read my blog anymore and that I was not welcome in his neck of the woods. I was taken aback, because I had meant no offense to that person, but in any case, he took his leave.
I generally like to acknowledge comments and interact because I value comments -- most of them, anyway -- and especially value my regular, faithful readers. I understand, though, that others have a different approach, especially those blogs which have scores of comments on a given post.
There are many approaches to blogging and managing the discussion, so there's no one right way I suppose, although I think we should all be able to agree on rules of basic civility towards one another.
Labels: Blog Business, Blogging, Civility, Free Speech
0 comment | admin
In this weeks edition...
Americans punished for doing the "jobs Americans won't do?"
Do criminal aliens have a 'right' to commit crimes in America?
Is something from a sci-fi novel the solution to illegal immigration?
And "uncounted beans?"
All this and more in this weeks exciting episode...
You can watch Jake's entire interview with professor Zhang...here.
You can vote for this post at Real Clear Politics...Here.
If this video has inspired you to get more involved here are some things you can do. NumbersUSA puts you in the know with daily updates on legislation and contact info you can use to keep your congresscritter honest.
Heres another site you may find useful. Immigration stance provides you with an easy to read scorecard on every congresscritters record on immigration related votes. Knowledge is power! And a reminder, if your representative is one of the altogether rare 'good guys' make sure to give them a call and offer an 'attaboy!' before you return to lambasting the bad guys.
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs
For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border
security and a sane immigration policy. If you'd like to join go to the
Blogs For Borders Website and send us an email with "sign me up" in the subject line.
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, crime, mexico, mechanizing the harvest, uncounted beans, statistics, blogs for borders video blogburst, amnesty, border security
Americans punished for doing the "jobs Americans won't do?"
Do criminal aliens have a 'right' to commit crimes in America?
Is something from a sci-fi novel the solution to illegal immigration?
And "uncounted beans?"
All this and more in this weeks exciting episode...
You can watch Jake's entire interview with professor Zhang...here.
You can vote for this post at Real Clear Politics...Here.
If this video has inspired you to get more involved here are some things you can do. NumbersUSA puts you in the know with daily updates on legislation and contact info you can use to keep your congresscritter honest.
Heres another site you may find useful. Immigration stance provides you with an easy to read scorecard on every congresscritters record on immigration related votes. Knowledge is power! And a reminder, if your representative is one of the altogether rare 'good guys' make sure to give them a call and offer an 'attaboy!' before you return to lambasting the bad guys.
This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs
For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border
security and a sane immigration policy. If you'd like to join go to the
Blogs For Borders Website and send us an email with "sign me up" in the subject line.
Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, crime, mexico, mechanizing the harvest, uncounted beans, statistics, blogs for borders video blogburst, amnesty, border security
Labels: Blogburst, Borders, Video