Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
This is the critical distinction between the positions held on both sides of the argument. One side is based on a set of fundamental rules and principles, the other on transitory opinions that seem right for the moment.
|
And that such transitory opinion is the basis for public policy is the hallmark of Progessivism. That's why they focus on "values" instead of "principles". Having "values" allows one to
feel certain things to be true; problem is, a tenet of Liberal / Progressive "values" ideology is that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to anger when one is pressed to defend their positions.
Since the support for their policy positions are held as emotional constructs, any challenge to defend their policy positions as logical or legal constructs is perceived as a personal attack on "feelings" and is responded to with vitriol and derision. One only receives white-hot indignation that you would have the gall to even stand up and question them.
That's what is so amusing, their intelligence and authority on issues really only exists in leftist echo chambers where they can congratulate each other for being so enlightened and now, "woke". Their proposals rarely survive full exposure and open discussion. Such examination and explanation and demands for defense is rejected out of hand, there is no consideration of it -- cause you know, it is just old "talking points" (which
really means they have for years enjoyed evading and avoiding rebutting those points LOL).
This explains why Liberals / Progressives are at their core, such an angry bunch; they just can not handle people who disagree with them. Projection of their anger is a major component of their interaction which is why simple civil debate / discussion (or "conversation" as it has been called here) is utterly impossible.
.
Threaded Mode