Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Conservatives most likely to pwn Twitter?

See this chart for yourself and decide. Apparently (and surprisingly), Angry Birds are for centrists and Wikipedia cannot betray its left-wing bias. Pay Pal and Amazon? Hey, you know: conservatives are pro-business. It's only logical. Tumblr and Reddit, in spite of my efforts, looks like Liberal Turfville to me. It is no surprise that Google leans left.And Pinterest, albeit a newcomer, is starting to look conservative!
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 5, 2012

MSNBC Panel Determines Republican Brains Inferior To Liberal (The old bag of electoral tricks)

Image from "The People's Cube"
Image from "The People's Cube"
MSNBC Panel Determines Republican Brains Inferior To Liberal It's the eternal electoral cycle liberal bag of tricks. Figuring out that science is their "natural ally" (see Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva), the left has a classic combination of smears used to demean and belittle the opposition, making them resemble "the cavemen" and the leftists play the enlightened, condescending ones. This is taken right from the "School of Frankfurt" and T.A. Adorno playbooks.

1. Homophobes (read Conservatives) are secretly gay. Homophobia is a mental disease. Conservatives are mentally ill (See Homophobia as a mental disease in an election year: How convenient! By Paul Maršić). Check.

2. Liberal brains are rational, i.e., superior to conservative ones. (See What Makes People Vote Republican? By Jonathan Haidt) Check.

But as Angelo M. Codevilla said before in America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution:


Believing itself "scientific," this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in "scientific" terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno's widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the "F scale" (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey's Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers's Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved "scientifically" that conservatives were maladjusted ne'er-do-well ignoramuses. (My class project, titled "Liberalism and Personality," following the same methodology, proved just as scientifically that liberals suffered from the very same social diseases, and even more amusing ones.)
In other words, this is a game that conservatives can play, too.

In a nutshell - Those attempts are transparent and lame for those that recognize their periodicity and blatant bias. But Wait, there's more!

3. In some point of this electoral cycle, the alarms will be on, because the "extreme right, fundamentalist" websites will be "on the rise, breaking historical records."

Wanna bet?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Chameleonic, ideological mix: Orwell would have smiled


How do we define liberalism? It depends on the landscape. Without going further in analyzing tenets, here’s a small trip around the world and around political definitions/labels: American-style liberalism is called socialdemocratism in Europe. Of course, in America the term liberal has acquired such pejorative connotations that now the preferred word used by liberals to define themselves is "progressive." Just like The Finch and Hillary Clinton like to call themselves.

Politics are dynamic, say politicians that like to change denominations just like they change shirts. Nineteenth century liberalism corresponds to actual libertarianism, of course, and that libertarianism pales in comparison to what was experimented in the late decades of the 19th century. Modern libertarianism equals modern liberalism in Europe, i.e., the old laissez faire. Meanwhile, classical liberalism would be now (via Hayek and Mises) the backbone of what is now considered conservatism in America.

Radical in Europe and Argentina is not even half of what a radical in America is. For European socialdemocrats and amid the current crisis specially, anyone who claims to believe in the free market and small government is labeled a neoliberal (a pejorative word strong in Europe and Latin America), and if he/she is not in favor of the European Union, becomes an ultra-nationalist, and if he/she is not defending secularism at all costs, then he/she is an ultraconservative.

Keep in mind that nowadays by definition any conservative in is an ultraconservative. A neoconservative or neocon is a recovering liberal. A paleoconservative is what people in South America call a “godo.” For the socialdemocrats and progressives alike, all conservatives all the same: extremists. But not ironically for conservatives, the liberals, progressives and socialdemocrats are all leftists, and if we have to use the word, commies. And as long anybody is not showing pictures of Hitler and swastikas, or is brandishing a weapon to establish a communist revolution (note that the extremes are asymmetrical), all are considered "center-left" or "center-right," although more than an knowledgeable experts gets in the same bag both the Nazis and the Communists as Nazi is an abbreviation for national - socialism.


The political struggle is easier when we are the reasonable ones are and the others are the extremists.
Enhanced by Zemanta