Found two very thought-provoking quotes this mornin while blogdiving. Shifted my brain into overdrive about liberalism, group-think, hate speech, and a buncha other irritating phenomena flapping around pointlessly in the media.
Here’s the first one:
University intellectuals play an important role in perpetuating the “system”’s status quo. They smugly identify themselves as independent critical thinkers, but they are in truth just propagandized,conformist, and brainwashed parrots . . . tame, servile, indulged, dependent, and totally without ethics or gumption.
Wow! Just wow! Somebody tellin the truth on the ivory-tower elites for a change, and although I won’t identify the source (‘cuz if I did, you’d get all skeptical about what he’s sayin), he’s ONE OF ‘EM!!
The quote continues:
They-have a strong desire to rebel, but ironically their complete lack of independent thought makes rebellion impossible for them. They fall in line and kneel at the “system”’s altar, accomplishing little more than corrupting a new generation of young people and irritating true independent thinkers, all the while lost in their illusion of being rebels but never doing anything to challenge or change the system’s traditional mindset.
A lotta words, but good ones. Nailed it, in my opinion. Made myself a sandwich for breakfast and thought about that for a few minutes. Then I came back in here to look around and almost immediately came up with the second quote:
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
Somnamagun, does THAT ever fit the morons who genuinely believe that the NRA is responsible for school shootings, or that the Soetoro administration was transparent and scandal free, or that all of the problems of the world would go away if there were no white men and everybody drove a Prius and ate tofu instead of meat.
The truth is, of course, that it’s virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion, much less a debate, with people who make decisions based on feelings and political correctness instead of logic and reality and then believe that their take on things puts them in the position of moral superiority.
That’s the left. That’s SFranNan and her strong support of sanctuary cities and her knee-jerk defense of MS-13 simply because Trump dislikes it. People basing their decisions on the self-delusion that they have the moral high ground because their beliefs are politically correct. And to dispute them, to challenge them, to argue with them becomes an ad hominem attack on them in their minds, reinforcing their perception of themselves as the “good guys” and anyone who disagrees as “bad.”
I can remember a quote . . . well, I can remember enough of it to paraphrase it . . . from my first year of college back in 1959: One of the defining traits of an educated mind is the willingness to consider a thought without taking it as a personal attack or accepting it as gospel.
But the leftistes are very much like Muslims, or like insects in a hive, swarming to their core beliefs, moving together in unison like the mob after Frankenstein’s monster. They reject thoughts that do not match or dovetail with the collective group think. They delude themselves with the mantra, repeating to each other “I don’t know ANYbody who voted for Trump . . . do you?”
Well, of COURSE they don’t know anyone who voted for Trump. They don’t WANT to know anyone who would, so by their logic, such persons don’t actually exist, ipso facto. They’ll go to meetings on Planned Parenthood and chant in unison, “I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that abortion is a woman’s right.”
What they do is constantly armor themselves against any ideas which could threaten their party-approved preconceived notions on issues that might be controversial during election campaigns. They become like teflon-coated non-stick pots, enameled cast-iron skillets, ceramic hidden-burner stove tops which resist penetration, prevent sticking, and inhibit tell-tale residue from improperly prepared or strangely seasoned thoughts.
And not only that, but they encourage others to resist listening to anything not approved by the hive master. They convince and reassure themselves that FoxNews is fake news and would never get ANY news if CNN and Comedy Central went off the air. They’d unplug their TVs before tuning to FoxNews to see what’s going on in the world.
As for me, I check out CNN fairly regularly, and usually watch HLN in the mornings because I can’t stand the fluff of the early-morning Fox And Friends, and Robin Meade on HLN is enough fox for me. News is news, and generally HLN covers what’s going on. They just don’t go into such great detail on particular items as does FoxNews. And sometimes if something doesn’t fit the narrative, that’s what gets cut because of “time constraints.”
It all makes me wonder how much farther along civilization could be today if universities and news organizations actually used the available brainpower to solve issues instead of promotional. Prob’ly be on Mars and beyond the orbit of Pluto already . . . especially if we could get rid of so damned many meetings . . . . . AND Islam.