For Conservatives... an Advantage? (Part 1)

I started writing this back before the election. I was thinking the whole time, "Wow, this is so important for people to read. Wow. Wow, wow, wow. Gotta blog on this baby!" Then I started thinking of insights I wanted to share about the way Catholic Conservatives versus Catholic Liberals are dealt with by the Church. So I put off posting it, and I kept putting it off until now. [Note: I wrote this paragraph on Tuesday, 2/12/19]

Yes; I put this off several more days because I kept thinking of more things to say. Finally I decided to break this up into smaller pieces, this being the main one. So hopefully next week I'll post more thoughts—I have to travel again.

This is a very insightful Quillette article by Matthew Blackwell written about a year ago. Blackwell It examines temperamental differences between conservatives and liberals (Blackwell uses the term progressives). Excerpt:

Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the ‘conservative advantage,’ and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

Haidt’s research echoes arguments made by Thomas Sowell in A Conflict of Visions and Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate. Both Sowell and Pinker contend that conservatives see an unfortunate world of moral trade-offs in which every moral judgment comes with costs that must be properly balanced. Progressives, on the other hand, seem to be blind to, or in denial about, these trade-offs, whether economic and social; theirs is a utopian or unconstrained vision, in which every moral grievance must be immediately extinguished until we have perfected society. This is why conservatives don’t tend to express the same emotional hostility as the Left; a deeper grasp of the world’s complexity has the effect of encouraging intellectual humility. The conservative hears the progressive’s latest demands and says, “I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I think you’ve overlooked the following...” In contrast, the progressive hears the conservative and thinks, “I have no idea why you would believe that. You’re probably a racist.”

Does this ring true to me? Certainly, and I am glad we now have scientific evidence to prove what we have experienced as outspoken conservatives for years. I can vividly recall the fierce accusations of a hardline leftist in a heated interaction; most of the heat was coming from his side. When trying to reason with him about why conservatives dislike the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), he told me "You just want people to die!" Had I responded, "Well, you just want to have everything for free, bite the hand that feeds you, and..." then that would be a response in kind, and this "argument" would fall flat. But I rarely hear this sort of rhetoric on the right, and when I have, there is an immediate distancing by other conservatives in the vicinity. Thinking conservatives do not want to be lumped in with unconstructive accusation.

[Side note: In fact, most conservatives do not want to be "lumped in" at all with anything. That is why MAGA hats are such a new phenomenon.]

My friend Nate noticed the same tendency in a very good recent post on his blog, Rotten Chestnuts:

Both sides often make relevant points about important data, and both sides seem to avoid what the other one is addressing leading to a frustration of everybody talking past each other. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that the [Trump] fans seemed to make an effort to confront the counter arguments a bit more often – the [Trump] skeptics rarely so. In fact the skeptics seemed to go out of their way to [avoid] even acknowledg[ing] competing evidence.

(I hope Nate doesn't mind my slight correction – it is what I think he is trying to say. We all could use an editor.)

My theory is that there are really two possible reasons we conservatives don't respond in kind as I described. One is that we don't presume to know motives. I don't really know that someone pushing for Obamacare is trying to stick it to the man and get handouts. The other one is that even if I suspect that this might be his motivation, there is no rhetorical value in throwing this at him. He reduces his chance of winning the argument by accusing me of murderous intent, but I'm not about to give ground by assertions of larcenous intent. Even if I was right I would lose in the mind of onlookers who thought my opponent's motives were pure.

Two conclusions from the leftist's behavior are easy for me to imagine. The first conclusion: the liberal has no desire to convince me I'm wrong or a bit "off" in my thinking. He just means to assert his opinion, usually loudly and in a derisive way which is difficult to rebut. He wants to silence my voice. Whether I shut up out of shame or out of frustration, this is his best hope of "winning" — a forfeit from his opponent. I believe this is why we were all so gratified to hear Brett Kavanaugh swinging back at the "coordinated effort to destroy [his] good name" by false accusations in his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. He wasn't having any of it; he wasn't going to give up. We're use to people on our side sitting by and "taking their lumps".

The second possible conclusion: he really does want to convince me he is right and thinks this is the best way to go about it. This is less likely in my opinion, but I admit it is possible. It would mean that I have to "change my mind" in a sort of nominal way to be able to go with the flow — his flow. There is still no logic involved, and probably no real willful change of heart or mind. Maybe the liberal imagines he can pull off the ol' Jedi Mind Trick?

Going back to Blackwell's beginning paragraph:

When I disagree with a conservative friend or colleague on some political issue, I have no fear of speaking my mind. I talk, they listen, they respond, I talk some more, and at the end of it we get along just as we always have. But I’ve discovered that when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion. I am not, as it turns out, the only one who has noticed this.

I remarked to my wife last night that reading this made me want to be even more empathetic in by use of rhetoric and conciliatory in my tone when I debate with anyone, especially liberals. I never ever want to respond in kind. It is obvious that Trump is not so worried about this, but I don't think we have to imitate him by any means just because he is the de facto head of the more conservative political party. But typically the people in the Trump Resistance camp are even worse at seeing the other side because they respond in kind almost reflexively and with barely any self-awareness. It's like Cleveland talker Mike Trivisonno famously stated two years ago, "The people who hate Trump the most don't realize how much they're like him."

[In my next installment, I'll talk about the effect this phenomenon has had on the Catholic Church.]

Effete Elite conservatism vs. "Happy crazy hair smiles"

Sistah Raccoon is at it again. I think I'll just post her entire communiqué to the good people of St. Francisville, Louisiana. I will even include her signature remark to Baby Raccoon with which she always closes these missives.

Well I understan now why you peoples have all them famly conflicts down there in you deep dark woods. Lil Ray he be talking about you all a time. All a time. He even lead off he whole big new magazine article wif a rehash a Lil Ruthie an all her faults. Lil Ray say he say

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articl...

"Years ago, when my wife and I first committed to homeschooling our kids, we caught hell from my sister, a public schoolteacher. Most of her objections were familiar to us, and we had answers for them. One we didn’t see coming, though: her utter lack of sympathy for our interest in a pedagogy that focused on the classics of the Western tradition.

This surprised me because my sister was a conservative, like most people in my hometown. My conservatism is primarily cultural, social, and intellectual. Hers was also cultural and social, but it was more temperamental than intellectual. In fact, though my sister was a math instructor, and a good one, she had a reflexive disdain for intellectualism. She saw it as an effete indulgence at best, at worst a rationale for exploiting the common man. For her, the culture war was really class warfare—and her brother was on the other side of the trenches.

It didn’t matter that I had forgotten more political theory than she ever knew. What mattered was that I was a city dweller who shopped at Whole Foods and didn’t care for Sarah Palin’s style of politics. That marked me out as a traitor to the tribe."

Now I dunno if Lil Ruthie ever did any such thing at all mind you. Jus what Lil Ray say. Poor Lil Ruthie dead now. Can't say for herself no more.

So the conflict mus be Lil Ray he be a "elite conservative" save by he Dante sav and he internet life style who be "forgotten more political theory than she ever knew" while a res a you folks watch that Duck Dynasty and smile you happy crazy hair smiles. An even wif you WFHS an all. No wonder you need you Lil Ray Dante Sav Benedict Option Healing Center. Heal you right up.

Peoples an they airs. You ain't nothin but a Raccoon Baby an don't you ever forget it. Thats right Baby. Good enough

There is a lot here for all you wild creatures of the forest to feast on.

Cops save black lives

Lee Habeeb argues that cops have a right to be angry at the false witness being born toward them, and I agree. Excerpt:

New York cops are mad at Mayor de Blasio in particular because he failed to mention that 2013 ended with the lowest number of fatal shootings by the police in 40 years in their city. Only eight people died from police gunfire, with a police force of over 30,000. And all of the victims were armed with either a gun or a cutting instrument. But none of those leaders bothered to report these narrative-busting facts — nor did the media.

And no one bothered to mention that New York City is on track in 2014 to have the fewest murders in 50 years. As of the beginning of December, there had been 290. That’s down from 2,200 in the early 1990s. The majority of lives saved were black, because the overwhelming majority of murder victims in the city are black. Do the math. Tens of thousands of black lives have been saved in the past two decades by cops in New York, but Mayor de Blasio couldn’t manage to share that fact in his heartfelt speech.

Cops save black lives. Sensible people see this truth.

I wonder, though, how eager a policeman will be to rush toward 911 calls in some neighborhoods now, knowing that they may face a decision between having either his life or his career ended. Or, will he even feel like patrolling those neighborhoods? Will there be some time in the future when patrolling the worst neighborhoods will be given to the C-average cops? This already is somewhat the case now, or at least there is anecdotal evidence which seem to confirm this. Nobody disputes that some policemen are better or smarter than others, or that some policemen are downright corrupt.

We shouldn't forget that these men know and are fully aware that they may be killed or hurt badly every time they suit up. But we as a nation need to support the police. Sea of Blue is an attempt to counter the lies and support good men (and women) in the police force. If we didn't have company on Saturday I would have gone downtown to add my support.

The centrality of myth for progressive ideology

Andrew McCarthy is spot on in his analysis of the Ferguson narrative believed by everyone on the hard left. How could they not believe that Michael Brown wouldn't hurt a soul and Officer Darren Wilson is a hateful, racist killer? These are articles of faith. Evidence can't disprove articles of faith. Excerpt:

For the American Left, a bedrock myth is that white cops kill black kids. It derives from the overarching myth that casts racism as our indelible national sin. As Heather MacDonald explains, citing exhaustive criminology studies, it flows seamlessly from the quackery that dismisses the disproportionately high incidence of violent crime in African-American communities as an illusion — as the product of police racism and the consequent hyper-targeting of black boys and men, rather than of racial differences in patterns of offending.

Darren Wilson was a white cop and Michael Brown was a black teenager killed in a violent confrontation with Wilson. Therefore, Brown was the victim of a cold-blooded, racially motivated murder, Q.E.D. That is the myth, and it will be served — don’t bother us with the facts.

Another good point:

....Factually, the chatter about “conflicting testimony” falsely implies that all testimony is created equal. In reality, accounts given by anti-Wilson witnesses, where not patently fabricated, tended to be discredited by forensic evidence. The forensics, instead, corroborated the exculpatory testimony — much of which came from African-American witnesses, a fact that undermines the myth and therefore goes largely unnoticed. The grand-jury rules are more permissive than those that govern criminal trials, but prosecutors are still ethically barred from asking the grand jury to rely on testimony they believe is false, inaccurate, or unconvincing.

Emphasis mine. Blacks who are tired of the idiocy of other blacks get the worst treatment. Their voice is ignored whenever they cannot be intimidated.

Furthering the Police Brutality Narrative

This is a pretty pointless article, and this was the most ridiculous part:

A grand jury, meanwhile, is examining evidence to determine whether Darren Wilson should stand trial for shooting Michael Brown. The grand jury, originally impaneled until this month, has had its term extended to January—a date that not only falls after upcoming elections, but well into the winter, when cold weather might diminish the likelihood of rioting if there is not an indictment. Last week, the Missouri secretary of state’s office announced that more than three thousand people in Ferguson had registered to vote in the aftermath of the shooting. The next day, officials reversed themselves and said that they’d made an error: the actual number was a hundred twenty eight. The revision, in an already tense environment, inspired suspicions that the keepers of the status quo were somehow manipulating the numbers.

Italics mine. A little poking around shows the reason for the initial mistake in the original reported number of 3,287: this number included all name and address changes, marriages plus voters tagged in some kind of recent recount.

The part that cracks me up is the part about the manipulations of the evil "keepers of the status quo". This characterization would make sense if the status quo had under-reported the number and had to correct itself upward. But if their are any suspicions to be taken from the downward correction they would properly be that the agitators are doing the manipulation. And, to my mind, it was probably just a mistake.

However to people determined to create conspiracies and the perception of victimization from an unfortunate event, everything which happens plays into the grand narrative of police brutality and the attempt to cover it up. If there was any violence on the part of Officer Wilson the public has yet to see evidence of it.

The Book of Matt: Matthew Shepard was not the victim of a hate crime

C-Fam reports that there is now confirmation of what many of us had heard or suspected. Matthew Shepard knew his killers, they were all into dealing and doing drugs (meth) and his murder had nothing to do with his homosexual orientation.

All along there were naysayers to the Shepard narrative. Social critic Camille Paglia wrote in Salon that Shepard had a taste for what is called “rough trade” and that he could have died from that. Detectives at the time suggested that he death was more than likely tied to drugs rather than his homosexuality. An ABC 20/20 segment several years later explored that possibility.

However, a new book out by award winning gay journalist Steven Jiminez goes much further than previous critics of the Shepard narrative. Jiminez went to Laramie many years ago to conduct interviews for a movie script about the life and death of Shepard. Almost immediately he began to hear stories about Shepard that had never been reported and that flatly contradict the notion that he was killed because he was gay.

In The Book of Matt reveals what townsfolk knew all along, that Shepard was very involved in the Laramie drug scene, may have been an occasional drug dealer himself, and even more importantly, he knew his killers. More than that, he and his killers had sex together.

One of the conceits of the dominant narrative was that Shepard did not know his killers, that his killers walked into the Fireside bar that night at 11:45 and somehow got a total stranger, Shepard, to leave with them 15 minutes later. According to the Jiminez book, Shepard knew his killers well. The book speculates that Shepard was killed because he had a new stash of methamphetamine and the killers wanted it. The book also reports that his main killer, Aaron McKinney, was on a five-day meth binge, a state given to maniacal violence.

The new book has been reported in the gay press and also in the conservative press but does not seem to have broken into the mainstream, not yet anyway. Things may change when the book is finally released on October 1. But the question remains, will this new story change in any way the dominant story that has aided the gay movement so well? If Matthew Shepard was killed strictly because of drugs by his sometime gay sex partner, what will that do to his martyr status in the gay community and in the larger world including at the United Nations?

Kudos to the author of this book, Stephen Jimenez, a man who is gay but who is nonetheless committed to the truth of this case. Here's some more info from the Amazon page for the Book of Matt:

Stephen Jimenez’s The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard is a compelling story of a journalist’s determination to ascertain why Matthew Shepard -- a gay University of Wyoming student -- was viciously killed in 1998. The story that had been told in the media, and to some extent in the courtroom, was that Shepard had made a pass at two strangers in a bar, who became outraged, took Shepard to a remote spot, bashed his head in, and left him affixed to a fence, to die. It was the anti-gay hate crime of the century, and while the rationale for including anti-gay attacks under hate crime law was clearly established long before the Shepard murder, his case became a symbol and rallying point for such legislation.

Jimenez, however, uncovered another story, one that was to some extent unappreciated at the time of the crime, but was also intentionally hidden for a variety of motivations. Among those motivations were fear, courtroom strategy, and the desire of media, activists, and others to believe the powerful story of a gay man being brutally killed for no other reason than he made an unwelcome pass at a man he happened to meet in a bar.

Shepard and his killer, Aaron McKinney, were not strangers after all. In fact Aaron McKinney was a bisexual, who had had sex with Shepard. And both were dealers of methamphetamine.

Jimenez makes a strong case that the unappreciated lesson of the Shepard murder is one about the dangers of methamphetamine. This book is a well-constructed narrative of a 13-year investigative quest by a talented author whose passion for uncovering the true story rings clear. Highly recommended.

Yes, hopefully this will get people talking about the strong connection between gay culture and the use of drugs, especially meth. But don't hold your breath for the voices in the mainstream media to spill anything other than the standard line that once gays stop being bullied they'll quit using drugs. Well, at least now there is a story of gays killing each other over drugs. This book will be hard to ignore; at least it will showcase how many lies the gay mafia is willing to tell.

Larry David Part 3: Getting ready for another wave of goofballery

Now Last Day Report, a "prophecy" site, has linked to Est Quod Est with the title "Jews laugh at urinating on picture of Jesus". I feel like a kindergarten teacher 'splaining this, but here I go.

Let's take the core of it, subject-verb, "Jews laugh". As far as I know, plenty of people initially laughed about this scene in Curb Your Enthusiasm, and they weren't all Jews. I'm sure they were of many religious backgrounds, some were Catholics without a doubt, some certainly had no faith at all. I think most people watching a show like this experience a "cuing effect" which is predominantly responsible for the laughter. The audience expects to laugh and does so on cue. I say this because honestly, the actual "peeing" part of the scene--which you can see on Youtube now if you want to--is so embarrassingly puerile that most "big dick jokes" seem mature in comparison. If the camcorder kiddies next door filmed it at the mall and showed it to you, you wouldn't laugh.


As a side note, but one which might help me to explain what I mean, a lot of people pointed to this effect being responsible for all the awkward-sounding audience laughter at David Letterman's revelation of sexual misconduct on his show recently. One person laughs and everyone around thinks "This must be funny, I'm supposed to be laughing." This phenomenon was been known for years and many comedians seed audiences with "laughers" to make sure their jokes don't bomb. If you still don't know what I mean, go read the text of what Letterman said and ask yourself if that material is in the least bit funny.

Back to "Jews laugh": with regard to my link and the subsequent comments, I don't think any commenters were Jewish, laughing or not. It might be a bit unfortunate that Donohue mentioned the fact that Larry David is Jewish, but it was still a remark made only in passing, as were mentions of his being Jewish in the comments. No one focused on a Jewish aspect to this until the Rense Front Party members arrived beginning yesterday afternoon.

So to conclude, the "Jews laugh" wording in both links is fundamentally inaccurate and misleading whether it applies to the scene being discussed or our discussion of the scene. The only excuse I can offer is that the originator at Jeff Rense's site mistook my obvious sarcasm in calling the pee scene "funny" as seriousness. This speaks to his own basic unseriousness due to the blurred vision caused by obsession and bigotry. If I thought it was funny, why would I even refernce Bill Donohue's take on the subject?

The "and me" meme should be drowned, slowly

This reminds me of this.

Rod Dreher loves dancing on graves. Watch him do the Watusi....

Fact-challenged Joe Biden

If I hear the word "hard-scrabble" again in reference to Joe Biden I'm going to... well, laugh probably. Read this Steve Chapman piece, excerpts follow:

The facts are there for anyone who wants to look at them. When Joe Biden Sr. died in 2002, his obituary in the News-Journal of Wilmington reported that when he married in 1941, "he was working as a sales representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg."

It went on, "Biden also was an executive in a Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S. merchant marine ships built during World War II. After the war, he co-owned an airport and crop-dusting service on Long Island." Upon moving his family to Delaware, the News-Journal said, Biden "worked in the state first as a sales manager for auto dealerships and later in real-estate condominium sales."

Executive, co-owner and manager? Those titles identify the jobholder as solidly middle class, if not better. They fall in the category of white-collar occupations, not blue-collar.

And it gets better....

Biden notes that he himself could have gone to the best public high school in Delaware. Instead, he enrolled at Archmere Academy, a Catholic prep school that made him think he had "died and gone to Yale." He took a summer job to help pay the steep tuition, which today amounts to $18,450 a year.

OK, so he wasn't rich, but hardly underprivileged in the normal use of the term. So... why so serious, Joe, about the insistence on mythical blue-collar roots?

So where did he get his working-class reputation? Partly it comes from Biden's streetwise demeanor and his preoccupation with the fact that his family wasn't as well-off as some of the people he knew -- which seems to have given him a permanent chip on his shoulder.

Oh, well that more than explains it. Sounds like Joe's ready for a green-collar job, as in green with envy. As I've quoted Mr. Morrisey in regards to that verdantly-colored fault previously, "we hate it when our friends become successful."