Thursday, June 19, 2014

Helping a person is a distant second to being thought of as helping

Interactions like these always make me suspect that, for many progressives, the sole point of any offer of assistance or mercy to a group of interest is the act and perception of offering assistance itself, and more importantly, establishing that no one else is actually offering any assistance at all.

Helping rape victims isn't the concern - it's being thought of as the one who is helping rape victims, and making sure that no one else is thought of as helping rape victims.

Repeat for minorities, women, the poor and everyone else under the sun.


The Deuce said...

I think it's far less than a distant second. I think they realize on an intuitive level that if people are actually helped and prevented from becoming victims, they can no longer play the victim card to attack norms and advance their narrative, so they actively sabotage any actual efforts to help people by coming up with twisted rationalizations to accuse those who are helping them of attacking them.

Anonymous said...

Crude I agree that many self-proclaimed progressives are hypocrites.

I call them pseudo-progressives or SPC (Slaves of Political Correctness) because they don't strive for a more moral and just world but for defending a set of liberal dogma while ignoring other injustices not fitting their popular concerns (such as anti-white racism or the numerous people struggling due to mental health issues).

SPC don't seem to be driven by love, but by the will to be admired in their own in-group while self-righteously feeling superior to the out-group.

But PLEASE, stop speaking of Progressives in general , there is a huge diversity among us, as my last response to your comment hopefully illustrates:
Link text

It would be great if you were to abandon this black-and-white thinking and realize the world is multi-dimensional.

I also recognize there are many Conservatives out there, some of them being against wars.

In love, sincerely yours, Marc.

Crude said...


The problem is, you say this - but then I go over to your blog and see 'Pro-lifers aren't REALLY pro-life, they're pro-gun (which means pro-death), pro-death-penalty (ditto), pro-war (as if progressive history isn't rife with this) and anti-health-care (because they oppose state centralized health care)'. Or you link, approvingly, to John Shore going on what I sincerely believe is a hate fueled rant.

And you are one of the better examples of progressives out there.

You even talk about these Slaves of Political Correctness, but the problem isn't merely their adherence to liberal dogma. It is, in large part, their visceral hatred of all things 'conservative'. You make it sound as if their big sin is caring too much or wanting not to offend people - as their problem is, darn it, they're just too obsessed with being nice. It's not the case, and it's not the big problem. It's the hate. It's the dishonesty. It's the strawmanning and the misrepresentation, and the ferocity with which it's done. It's the political bloodlust where anyone who ever steps out of line is seen as someone who should be fired from their jobs, forced out of business, kicked out of their school, and pretty well left to rot unless they prostrate themselves before their superiors.

When I blast progressives without qualifying it, you show up and chastize me for supposed 'black and white thinking', but when you blast conservatives as a group, or conservative Christians as a group... what, I'm supposed to do the legwork of reading in the nuance you meant and give you a pass? It's okay for you to paint with a broad brush, but this is forbidden to me because it's rude or too binary?

The fact is, I've tried damn hard to defend the idea that someone can be well-motivated in their support for universal health care, or this or that or whatever. I've talked about the blind spots among conservatives, the need for conservatives to make charity a fundamental part of conservatism. I've talked about the positive motivations that could be behind liberal policies, particularly welfare and economic ones. Meanwhile, I see progressive Christians compare people who don't want to bake cakes for gay weddings with nazis and klansmen. I see them calling for a holy war to wipe out conservative Christians and to make them pariahs for opposing gay marriage.

And I see practically no progressives standing up to them, and throngs cheering them on or excusing it all as 'hyperbole'.

The Fez said...

Fun anecdote. I Went to lunch with a liberal/militant atheist coworker who also happened to be one of my classmates from school, so there was some kind of assumed camaraderie there (on his part). We hadn't been seated for five seconds before he was commenting on how he would like to motor-boat the girl at the register, and that she was endowed in the right ways. Not inclined to turn this into an actual topic of conversation, I tried to change the subject, but he was already changing it to how much he dislikes conservative people.

When I revealed that I was, indeed, of a more conservative persuasion, we got into it (regrettably). At some point or another, the issue of abortion came up, at which point I noted that women had a responsibility to abstain from sexual relations if they, knowingly, couldn't support a child. I argued that men, likewise, share this responsibility.

"Sexist", He proclaimed. "That's sexist." Women, he informed me, should be able to have sex whenever they want with whoever they want, and to put any sort of limitation (even if that limitation applies equally for men), is backwards and sexist.

It was a beautiful disconnect. He was sitting there sputtering something about how "it's hard for women", and all I could think about was him, moments before, talking about how we wanted to bury his face in some titties.

Can we really say that my coworker cares about women? He certainly cares about them in the abstract sense, in the way in which one can enshrine the feminine ego.

If anything, it was a lesson. One ought to be careful about the dissonance between their ideology and their thoughts as such.

Anonymous said...

The Fez: I like your analysis!

The Slaves of Political Correctness (SPC, see my comment above) don't really care about alleviating the suffering of real people more than they care about having the pleasant feeling they belong to the "good side".

While I'm for Gay marriage, I'm (morally) against abortion (except if the health of the woman is endangered), against multiculuralism, I repeatedly point out that anti-white racism (see this link) is as real as the reverse phenomenon, and I'm very critical of modern feminism which is all too often female supremacism in disguise.

Due to the fact I completely reject Biblical inerrancy, I'm viewed as a liberal in America, but I can assure you you'd have a hard time finding folks thinking about me in this way in France.
Actually, I even got described as belonging to the "far right" by SPC.

Anonymous said...

Crude: I think that the problems you describe amount pretty much to human sin and are not SPECIFIC to progressive (or even pseudo-progressive) folks.

Crude said...


Specific? No, at least not in the sense of not being able to find examples among self-described conservatives that are similar.

But I'm not so sure it's comparable in a cultural sense. To put a fine point on it, Westboro Baptist exists on the absolutely fringes among conservatives. John Shore is among the mainstream among progressives.

If you disagree, I'm welcome to hear the counterexamples, your arguments and evidence, and to interact with them. Which, I'll remark with some amount of admitted sarcasm - also seems to put me ahead of the progressive mainstream which regards being open to arguments and evidence to the contrary as indicative of being a traitor.

Anonymous said...

And saying that sex and love ALWAYS belong together demands a lot of political courage in Continental Europe.

Anonymous said...

I think that you can't compare Shore with the Westboro's folks.

Maybe I was wrong to have approvingly quoted the former.

BUT the Westboro folks believe that God hate people for being born the way they are (even worse, they assert He created them that way for that very purpose).

I could not think of a more blasphemous kind of hatred than theirs.

Crude said...


I could not think of a more blasphemous kind of hatred than theirs.

I think that's easy to dispute, but let's say I grant it. It still indicates the divide - WBC is a tremendous minority, a church that in my opinion may well be a sock puppet, and are reviled by conservatives. Shore is celebrated, and his views are mainstream.

I think there's enough room to call Shore's rhetoric blasphemous hatred.

Anonymous said...

Crude: Could you please send me links towards posts where Shore really went too far?

I'm open about having wrongly estimated him.

Otherwise I wrote you an email about an entirely different topic.


Crude said...


I think that speech is a prime example of going too far in every way. And frankly, what we read otherwise about him? Pardon the Godwinning, but his view of Christianity is just the progressive version of Positive Christianity.

Jakeithus said...


Going too far is all a matter of perspective, but for myself as a moderate conservative, Shore has little respect from me in terms of his rhetoric. You'll have to take my word on it, as he subsequently and quickly deleted his blog post on it, but the jist of the entire post was "arguing with social conservatives on issues like homosexuality is like getting in a fist-fight with a spastic".

Now apparently calling a person a "spaz" or "spastic" isn't a big deal in America, but elsewhere it's akin to calling someone a retard. I can't say his intention in using the word, but after someone likely pointed out to him that it wasn't the best choice, rather than apologize if he offended anyone, he simply removes it before too many people can read it. Finding out it was gone without a trace after reading it the first time didn't give me much confidence about his character, and comparing his opponents to persons with disabilities (regardless of if he used an offensive term or not) certainly isn't showing any kind of understanding, respect or love for those he disagrees with.

I agree with Crude and the idea that the progressive mainstream is much angrier at conservatives and people they disagree with than others. On Patheos alone I read Evangelical, Progressive and Catholic blogs regularly, and by far the most angry and hostile blogs and comment boxes are those of mainstream progressives like John Shore and Fred Clark. You don't see Scot McKnight, Roger Olsen or Lizzie Scalia attacking others on a regular basis.

Ed said...

Crude: Seems as good a place as any to say that I have been following your blog (and comments in several other places) for a couple of months now, with interest. You seem singularly suited for the kind of interlocutor I have a hard time pinning down: He who calumniates without understanding, who squirms when asked to produce anything true or beautiful, who falls silent when as much or better is given back to him. You are like a dog at the throat of his opponent.

(I'm not necessarily saying Lothar fits this description - I've only followed the link once, because there are only so many hours in a day. But your tenacious grip on an argument is displayed here, which is why I decided to comment).

Crude said...

Hey Ed,

Thanks for the comment. Always surprised to know I have lurkers, and it's a compliment.

I'm still trying to articulate exactly what my view towards progressives is, or at least give a greater explanation of who I'm targeting and why. Hopefully that will be in the content of an upcoming post.