The Leftists talk incessantly about Trump's manufactured "legal problems", and I think they have to do their utmost to hide their erotic arousal. It's not just that Maya Rupert and Jonathan Capehart find no hypocrisy or even irony in these present comments, no other Leftist does, at least in the evidentiary record.
What I'm trying to point out is not that these people are hypocritical Leftists, it is that these people think fundamentally differently than what is universally assumed. It is, in fact, specifically that differing process of (what would incorrectly be called) "rationality" that makes them both Leftists and appear hypocritical.
See, if you pinned one down about it, asking whether this was a hypocritical position, they would manufacture a rationale for why it was not. Crucially, they would not begin their response with something like, "It would certainly appear hypocritical, but let me offer these additional facts and reasoning...." That's because they have never evaluated whether it might be hypocritical.
They begin with the correct conclusion (ie, "correct" as it manifests in their own consciousness). Obviously (to them) it is well-justified, involves no hypocrisy, and is supported by all the evidence. Everything after that is just waving their hands and making noises at the wrong people who disagree.
That's a pretty wild take, but the way I see it, these news reports are like their marching orders, telling them how to talk to other people despite them really believing something different entirely.
Think about the North Koreans. Their behavior is for their own self-preservation. In America, the things people say that are so far removed from reality are not because they actually believe those things, but are doing their part to advnace their preferred politics. That's one of the reasons they have to amp up the political division every time you turn on the news.
The way I would describe it, really, is a paradigm shift. One way you can characterize a difference in paradigms is that it is flatly impossible to reason your way from one paradigm to the other. In essence, this is a practical definition of how the limits of a paradigm are established.
The classic example is the geocentric paradigm, with the Earth at the center and the planets moving in perfect circles. When they could not properly account for the observed movements of the planets... they just added more perfect circles called "epicycles". Still wrong? Add more epicycles and ask for more funding. See how that will never get you there?
Copernicus comes along with simple and straightforward ideas: the Sun is at the center and the planets--including Earth--move in ellipses. Rather than being evaluated, these ideas are rejected without examination because they lie outside the paradigm. They don't say that, of course, because a consciousness trapped in a paradigm does not recognize that fact. Rather, that brain will always come up with reasons why Copernicus is full of it. And it all makes perfect sense... within the hermetically (haha) sealed paradigm.
Even the very word "believe" loses what we take to be it's meaning and we have to be disciplined as to it's use. Suppose your average Democrat "believes" Kamala to be the correct choice for President. Is it the case that an unbiased and open consciousness has been presented with evidence and reasoning both for and against this position, and now "believes" it to be the most rational?
Of course not. It is akin to an "article of faith" in the religious context. It is accepted without question. To challenge it--even in the sanctity of one's own mind, let alone in public--is a grave sin. It then becomes irrational. Does one question a geometric axiom?
But to confess a blind faith is, in our society at the present time, also considered to be a failure. Thus, they'll make up whatever facts and arguments are necessary to "prove" to all the a-holes how "right" they really are. See how it works?
The Leftists talk incessantly about Trump's manufactured "legal problems", and I think they have to do their utmost to hide their erotic arousal. It's not just that Maya Rupert and Jonathan Capehart find no hypocrisy or even irony in these present comments, no other Leftist does, at least in the evidentiary record.
What I'm trying to point out is not that these people are hypocritical Leftists, it is that these people think fundamentally differently than what is universally assumed. It is, in fact, specifically that differing process of (what would incorrectly be called) "rationality" that makes them both Leftists and appear hypocritical.
See, if you pinned one down about it, asking whether this was a hypocritical position, they would manufacture a rationale for why it was not. Crucially, they would not begin their response with something like, "It would certainly appear hypocritical, but let me offer these additional facts and reasoning...." That's because they have never evaluated whether it might be hypocritical.
They begin with the correct conclusion (ie, "correct" as it manifests in their own consciousness). Obviously (to them) it is well-justified, involves no hypocrisy, and is supported by all the evidence. Everything after that is just waving their hands and making noises at the wrong people who disagree.
That's a pretty wild take, but the way I see it, these news reports are like their marching orders, telling them how to talk to other people despite them really believing something different entirely.
Think about the North Koreans. Their behavior is for their own self-preservation. In America, the things people say that are so far removed from reality are not because they actually believe those things, but are doing their part to advnace their preferred politics. That's one of the reasons they have to amp up the political division every time you turn on the news.
The way I would describe it, really, is a paradigm shift. One way you can characterize a difference in paradigms is that it is flatly impossible to reason your way from one paradigm to the other. In essence, this is a practical definition of how the limits of a paradigm are established.
The classic example is the geocentric paradigm, with the Earth at the center and the planets moving in perfect circles. When they could not properly account for the observed movements of the planets... they just added more perfect circles called "epicycles". Still wrong? Add more epicycles and ask for more funding. See how that will never get you there?
Copernicus comes along with simple and straightforward ideas: the Sun is at the center and the planets--including Earth--move in ellipses. Rather than being evaluated, these ideas are rejected without examination because they lie outside the paradigm. They don't say that, of course, because a consciousness trapped in a paradigm does not recognize that fact. Rather, that brain will always come up with reasons why Copernicus is full of it. And it all makes perfect sense... within the hermetically (haha) sealed paradigm.
Even the very word "believe" loses what we take to be it's meaning and we have to be disciplined as to it's use. Suppose your average Democrat "believes" Kamala to be the correct choice for President. Is it the case that an unbiased and open consciousness has been presented with evidence and reasoning both for and against this position, and now "believes" it to be the most rational?
Of course not. It is akin to an "article of faith" in the religious context. It is accepted without question. To challenge it--even in the sanctity of one's own mind, let alone in public--is a grave sin. It then becomes irrational. Does one question a geometric axiom?
But to confess a blind faith is, in our society at the present time, also considered to be a failure. Thus, they'll make up whatever facts and arguments are necessary to "prove" to all the a-holes how "right" they really are. See how it works?