Thursday, May 23, 2024

Shapiro states Three Problems of the Left

From a Ben Shapiro podcast:
one of the big problems for the left right now is that its philosophy is a complete mashup 8:42 of a bunch of different ideas that are mutually exclusive and we are seeing it all come to fruition before us in the 8:49 ugliest of possible ways modern leftism has basically become a mashup between 8:55 three principles and the worst aspects of these three principles so principle number one one that the left supposedly 9:01 Embraces is a sort of John Stewart Mill libertarianism this is particularly true on social issues in which I'm free to do 9:07 whatever I want except harm you right I can wave my fist around until it hits you in the face the non-harm principle 9:13 of John Stewart Mill which is really a libert taring in principle and if taken properly means things like property 9:20 rights Free Speech but that is not what the left totally means by it basically what they mean is that you shouldn't 9:25 have any pressure on you to perform anything in the way of Duty that effectively there should be no 9:32 boundaries on your personal Behavior so John Stewart Mill libertarianism in which consent is the central value and 9:38 there is no higher virtue at all okay that is principle number one principle number two is the belief that human 9:45 beings are their feelings and so if human beings are their feelings then it actually is an 9:51 act of harm for me to insult your feelings so it's a perversion of the John Stewart Mill principle it's a 9:58 perversion of that principle right so the John stormill principle again is you can wave your hand around until you hit me in the face you can say 10:04 whatever you want and whether my feelings are hurt or not is relevant but the second principle that the left now believes is that I am my feelings and so 10:11 if you hurt my feelings you have done to me a grave harm you're erasing my identity that is a concept that's drawn 10:18 from 19th century Romanticism which was sort of blowback to the enlightenment 10:23 rationality that was put forth by philosophers like John locke or David Hume Romanticism was the the philosophy 10:30 of rouso the philosophy of Shelly you are your feelings and because you are 10:35 your feelings therefore no one can offend you and then there's the third principle which is that all failures are 10:41 the result not of you individually but of systems surrounding you and again that is a concept that's drawn from 10:47 rouso and from Karl Marx it's those three principles modern leftism a mashup of the worst aspects of this a supposed 10:54 libertarianism in which there's no such thing as virtue there's just moral relativism and I can do or say whatever 10:59 I want so long as it doesn't hurt you which again on its own is at least arguable but that is matched up with a 11:04 second principle which is that it is a form of harm to insult you or make you feel bad and a third form a third 11:11 principle which is that if you fail in life it is not as a result of your activity or as a result of your choices 11:17 it is the systems surrounding you well when you add all of those together then 11:22 politics basically turns into just a power game because after all who defines whose feelings are Paramount right it 11:28 may be that me saying the thing hurts your feelings but me not saying the thing hurts my feelings so whose feelings are Paramount how are those 11:35 feelings protected what systems need to change to bring about this magical personal 11:40 Utopia what the deconstructionists realized is that basically all of this was specious and all of politics is just 11:47 a power game and that's in essence what the left ends up promoting is a power game where they get sit at the top of 11:52 the Heap and boss everybody else around and structure Society in ways that are anathema to a healthy functioning society


MikeAdamson said...

Would benefit from a translation

CFT said...

It is a bit crunchy if you don't know the philosophical periods and the individuals being mentioned. Ben is showing off his expensive education, he actually knows the classics and hisotry. The argument however is sound, modern progressivism isn't terribly coherent and often cuts off its own nose to spite its face...repetitively, and seems to not even notice it.

As with all Marxist derived philosophies, accountability is either entirely hidden or arbitrary with verbal slight of hand in relation to themselves and their goals, and entirely malicious and always intentional in their adversaries. They exonerate their own desires to control individuals and society ruthlessly while pretending nothing in the twentieth century happened indicating entirely otherwise. Over a one hundred million people died due to Karl Marx's precious uninformed musings in the twentieth century, that is not a success story.

Logically, it makes no sense to bemoan the existence of power hierarchies, as there is always going to be one. To say otherwise is to fall into the libertarian delusion that government is mostly unnecessary...until you need one right away because your country is being invaded and you need a military... and when you want a currency...or trade...or a legal court system...or recognized and protected property rights not based on sheer force, etc. The question needs to be if the hierarchy is based on any sort of predictable and recognizable merit.

Being weak and pathetic isn't a merit. Being unusual or a deviant of some kind is not in itself a merit. Being outraged is not a merit. Having the most hurt feelings of anyone in the room is not a merit. Capability is not a feature of any woke list of virtues, just slogan platitudes about how racial diversity is wonderful and more important than talent, skill, or productivity, without actually providing evidence other than 'everyone knows'...or 'agree or I'll cancel you.'