WF SMeiow

What happens if I support the unicorn extremely rare 'right wing talking points' that are correct and good or will be proven to be correct and good at some point in the future? (not that I do now just asking). I think this, this, this and this provides a unique insight and expansion of this thought

I am taking this AskALiberal thread as a shield/armor (like the LoZ series Mirror Shield/FFIV Adamant Armor/MJOLNIR from Halo), to prevent me from falling into the Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, Candace Owens, Haz trap . So help decondition me in line with the advice in that thread by commenting me on any views I have that to you are 'right wing talking points'

I am critical of the whole 'right wing talking points' smear but for the sake of what I write below I am using it strategically to make a point.

For me I try not to fall into the right wing talking point trap or even to decondition myself if I did fall in, I have to avoid and or continue to avoid looking for a "one size fits all" way to refute every single conservative notion. Some conservative notions are good - it's only how they are used, or how far they are taken by a few people that become the issue.

"Pick yourself up by the bootstraps" is a good example. We all should be taking that advice to heart. The nuance comes from the fact that we must acknowledge the limitations of such a strategy... and recognize that going from rock bottom broke to billionaires is not a realistic path for most people. Most people need a bit of help to make their way in the world.

It would be easy to fall into the same dogmatic trap on the liberal 2.0 side as I could on the conservative side.

I'd ask questions like this on AskaLiberal and at r/AskConservatives to see a diversity of takes. More than that, I should read a lot of comments in both stops. I have and will continue to listen to what actual people are saying, I will ask questions when I want more context, and I will view it as a process of learning rather than a "cheat sheet" of "correct answers.". I will conitnue to move leftward by protecting myself from right wing talking points by reading and hearing Vaush, Hasan, Destiny, contrapoints, sean, hbomberguy etc

I have to know what led me to believe my weak link 'right wingish' views in the first place. There's likely a weak belief I have that holds it all together.

It can be hard to refute specific claims because they lack merit in the first place.

Like if I believe that Joe Biden and China are why our economy sucks now. For non rightists there's a lot to unpack in that one sentence. If I believed stuff like that I would have to start by asking myself if the economy is even as bad as that right now and what that even means.

There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.

There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.

There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.

So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone."

I and other leftists like me and fence sitters should consider the above argument with regard to those conservative talking points. Escaping conservatism isn’t about tit for tat countering each conservative talking point with counter evidence. It’s about confronting the core idea that actually backs the conservative proposition.

So I will take any right wing friendly talking points I may have if I do or ever do and try to prove them right with facts (or leftists reading this can do this for me by contacting me and proving said facts to me so I can change my blog accordingly). When I cannot, I drop them talking points. Burden of proof.

The believably of Republican talking points among Republicans is based on Republicans' desire to believe them. That's why they never bother to prove them right and they always make Republicans sound like heroes with secret knowledge.

Something that apparently becomes apparent when talking to Republicans, like about climate change, is that they don't actually know anything and only feel entitled to be believed because they said and they want. So they dump dozens of hot air (no pun intended) statements out at once and then tell you to disprove them all to their satisfaction, otherwise they're correct. No. That's not how it works. 

Prove your points or they're not right and why are you wasting everyone's time. And if you do manage to disprove them anyway, which you should never bother taking the time to do with arguments that haven't been attempted to be proven, their capacity for ignoring what they don't want to know is infinite. 

And there's no shortage of balloney for them to dump out, like a petition or the idea that scientists forgot to consider the sun or clouds or something else dumb and not proven in the studies they mention but have never read any part of.

And then there are the exploiter Republicans like Tucker Carlson who will just straight up white fib or tell tall tales. And the lies are what Republicans already believed and wanted to believe, so it doesn't matter to them that he's just emoting without showing that he's right.

Also, I guess sites like politifact do a good job of taking the time to disprove the never-attempted-to-be-proven doo doo that constitutes Republican dogma.