In the wake of Trump's electoral victory, the YouTube algorithms have been feeding me clips of "sensible liberals" like Bill Maher supposedly coming around to more common sense views and rejecting the woke excesses of the Left.
Peter! So much good stuff in this blog to unpack! You are Socrates reincarnated 😁👍 A key point is that we Moderns no longer listen to understand, but rather to react. The Left listens to zap with *Gotchas*. Sunny Hostin epitomizes this for me; how can a woman who is so gorgeous on the outside be so much uglier than Whoopi on the inside?🤔
I don’t give Maher any credit, at all, because next week he’ll start spewing all the TDS stuff, once again. They can’t help themselves. I especially love the John Oliver moment from 2016, daring Trump to run, what poetic justice…again, lol. However, I also have noticed some of the more financially savvy talking heads tone down the rhetoric, a little. It’s a matter of financial expediency and the oh so important relevance to their audience. They’re realizing their respective audiences are not so large as previously thought. So they’ll pivot, if they’re smart. For now…
Many of us have become (or are becoming) highly sensitized to logical fallacies through exposure to these shortened discourses. It starts with "Yeah! You got him!" but eventually that's not so satisfying when the observer realizes "Something is missing here, not quite right." Eventually, through repeated exposure, the observer realizes "Hmmm, all he did was call the guy a name, he didn't cite any facts." or "I don't see the connection between this and what he just said." This doesn't change the observer's sympathies necessarily, but it does cast doubt on the credibility of the speaker. Over time the "cast doubt" phase becomes "rejection" - or what we on the right call, "red pilling", where the observer comes to doubt and distrust everything the speaker says. So it serves a purpose, of sorts, albeit one which the speaker certainly doesn't intend!
I have seen that over the past couple of decades we can no longer say Democrat = Liberal, Republican = Conservative. It is more like Democrat, Liberal, Republican, Conservative.
So, with many in the Republican Party now being closer to liberal than conservative, the Democrat Party has no where to go.
This is why I keep referring to the Left, and to Leftists, and draw a distinction between them and liberals, and point out the growing chasm. Society evolves, and the baskets of viewpoints that constitutes "Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative" also evolve, as do priorities.
I can get along with any of those "labels." What I cannot abide are the coercers, and that is at the essence of Leftism.
In a sense, Donahue adopted the podcast formula before it existed - long form interviews that allowed for conversations, time to explain and interrogate ideas, and a non-combative atmosphere. There was no doubt where Phil stood but the guests knew that; they also knew they would get a hearing without the theater or the insufferableness.
I watched a little Donahue back in the day. I was working so his time slot didn't work for me. I remember Bill Maher and Politically Incorrect. I found it interesting and agreed with much of the hypocrisy it exposed but didn't care much for the players. I was also without a TV for almost 10 years and am very thankful for that. I have not seen any of the others you mention. If they weren't available on antenna TV, they didn't make it to my house. Now that I have a smart TV I can ignore them all!
One of the reasons for the smugness is that they believe they also hold the moral high ground. When people are so invested in their political ideology that their identity depends upon it, you will find it near impossible to change their minds.
This is why I sort leftists from liberals. Libertarians can find a lot of common ground with actual liberals. With leftists, though? I'm still looking.
I do the same. People often conflate the concepts of liberal and leftism - I try to refer to those truly on the left as "leftists," because they are not, by definition (classical) "liberals."
Not funny, not intelligent, not interesting, unwatchable.
Baffles me how they have enough viewers to stay on air. Nicely written article.
Peter! So much good stuff in this blog to unpack! You are Socrates reincarnated 😁👍 A key point is that we Moderns no longer listen to understand, but rather to react. The Left listens to zap with *Gotchas*. Sunny Hostin epitomizes this for me; how can a woman who is so gorgeous on the outside be so much uglier than Whoopi on the inside?🤔
I don’t give Maher any credit, at all, because next week he’ll start spewing all the TDS stuff, once again. They can’t help themselves. I especially love the John Oliver moment from 2016, daring Trump to run, what poetic justice…again, lol. However, I also have noticed some of the more financially savvy talking heads tone down the rhetoric, a little. It’s a matter of financial expediency and the oh so important relevance to their audience. They’re realizing their respective audiences are not so large as previously thought. So they’ll pivot, if they’re smart. For now…
Many of us have become (or are becoming) highly sensitized to logical fallacies through exposure to these shortened discourses. It starts with "Yeah! You got him!" but eventually that's not so satisfying when the observer realizes "Something is missing here, not quite right." Eventually, through repeated exposure, the observer realizes "Hmmm, all he did was call the guy a name, he didn't cite any facts." or "I don't see the connection between this and what he just said." This doesn't change the observer's sympathies necessarily, but it does cast doubt on the credibility of the speaker. Over time the "cast doubt" phase becomes "rejection" - or what we on the right call, "red pilling", where the observer comes to doubt and distrust everything the speaker says. So it serves a purpose, of sorts, albeit one which the speaker certainly doesn't intend!
I have seen that over the past couple of decades we can no longer say Democrat = Liberal, Republican = Conservative. It is more like Democrat, Liberal, Republican, Conservative.
So, with many in the Republican Party now being closer to liberal than conservative, the Democrat Party has no where to go.
It is their own doing by pulling so hard left.
This is why I keep referring to the Left, and to Leftists, and draw a distinction between them and liberals, and point out the growing chasm. Society evolves, and the baskets of viewpoints that constitutes "Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative" also evolve, as do priorities.
I can get along with any of those "labels." What I cannot abide are the coercers, and that is at the essence of Leftism.
In a sense, Donahue adopted the podcast formula before it existed - long form interviews that allowed for conversations, time to explain and interrogate ideas, and a non-combative atmosphere. There was no doubt where Phil stood but the guests knew that; they also knew they would get a hearing without the theater or the insufferableness.
I watched a little Donahue back in the day. I was working so his time slot didn't work for me. I remember Bill Maher and Politically Incorrect. I found it interesting and agreed with much of the hypocrisy it exposed but didn't care much for the players. I was also without a TV for almost 10 years and am very thankful for that. I have not seen any of the others you mention. If they weren't available on antenna TV, they didn't make it to my house. Now that I have a smart TV I can ignore them all!
One of the reasons for the smugness is that they believe they also hold the moral high ground. When people are so invested in their political ideology that their identity depends upon it, you will find it near impossible to change their minds.
This is why I sort leftists from liberals. Libertarians can find a lot of common ground with actual liberals. With leftists, though? I'm still looking.
Actually, no I'm not. Coercion doesn't play.
I do the same. People often conflate the concepts of liberal and leftism - I try to refer to those truly on the left as "leftists," because they are not, by definition (classical) "liberals."