Is the left making itself irrelevant by becoming boring?

[Moonbeam]

Its tough to consider something objectively that has the potential to throw the planet into disarray, change our way of life forever. On the one hand, if you dont get involved, if you dont fight hard enough you get eaten by predators, on the other hand if you fight too hard you end up going home from ATPN with a PTSD diagnosis. Balance in life is a tough cookie.

I would suggest trying gratitude that things are not worse.

 

[Indus]

If anything is boring.. it has to be..

Christians Hold Ritual At Trump Hotel To Protect Him From The Deep State

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe9998: I take issue with the focus on "traditional values" when it come to modern American conservatism. While I understand that as a generally correct description of the conservative world view, something is awry of late. That being the sudden tolerance of serial adultery (see Commandment #7) while condemning it only when done by members of another tribe, being a "patriotic" flag waver while supporting a POTUS who consorts with authoritarian dictators who hate democracy, and supporting a POTUS who pisses all over the rule of law (including law enforcement) to name just three flagrant departures from the traditional values conservatives claim to represent.

I agree with at least some of the traditional values that conservatives say they support. The problem is, I'm no longer certain that they agree.

M: I am assuming that for the sake of brevity, you made a short list and cut short how much worse it is than you described.

w: Read your link, or one article in it, for starts.

https://www.culturalevolution.org/docs/ICE-Growing-Out-of-Americas-Divided-Culture.pdf

That link and others affirm my point in my opinion, not refute it.

w: I liked the piece quite a bit. Its description of the three, or, arguably, four prevalent political world views in America strikes me as useful and likely accurate. Traditionalism (i.e. social conservatism), conservative modernism (establishment/libertarian conservatism), liberal modernism (establishment), and postmodern progressivism (far left).

It's useful because it doesn't just describe a right left spectrum but actually explains that each category involves a qualitatively different set of values. I would consider myself to be a liberal modernist, yet that doesn't make me "center-left." I tend to agree with postmodern progressives 85-90% on issues. Yet I recognize that they have a totally different world view than I do.

M: I would be interested sometime to hear the differences you see.

w: The problem in all this is that there is no notion of how to even formulate a single, coherent world view which synthesizes the existing world views, retaining the positive aspects and discarding the negative,

M: This is what I refered to as, I don't remember now, a hypnotic belief? I started this thread to point out that we need to start working on one, not that we know what it is or how it will work.

w: let alone how to make this the dominant view in our culture. When people change their world view - and they don't do it often after about age 20 - it's usually in response to events in their lives or in the world, not to people trying to convince them to do it. That was why I had a skeptical reaction to your post. Not because I don't agree with your theoretical framework, which seems sound. But because I don't see its practical application on a wide scale.

M: I am talking about changing culture. We used to be savages, then we introduced the notion of law, generally God given, and then secular including our clasical liberal founding fathers. Things evolve as human understanding evolves and people are pulled along by the tide. I think that were we need to go is seeing the wisdom on integrating opposites not pushing the different away. That pushing away is exactly where postmodern regressives, if I may say so, are leading us today. Such a project will have to look like the history of ideas. We are not who we used to be.

w: The article does contain an important practical idea, however, but it is issue specific and unfortunately cannot be applied across the board. They give the example of gay marriage, as furthering the values of progressives (caring), liberal modernists (equality/fairness), conservatives modernists (freedom), and, crucially, traditionalists (family values). If traditionists object to the wild promiscuity they see in gay culture, shouldn't they consider that allowing them to marry promotes monogamy?

If only all issues were like that, where one could credibly argue that policies they support also advance the values of those with a seemingly opposing world view. And again, if only they were listening in the first place.

All of the issues I see relating to cultural evolution are like that and they would take place over a long enough time scale that they become the background noise everybody will grow up in.

w: Still, there's a kernel of a good practical idea there. Will read more.

M: There is time. This isn't about daily politics except for those who get the messages of integration early and start practicing them.

w: When I said, I'm all ears, I wasn't being flip. I'll listen to any ideas from anyone who, in good faith, is trying to get us out of this mess we're in.

M: Love you.