Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[LeafByNiggle]

And one who is less sympathetic to the Democratic party would say this shows that Democrats today are better at keeping people living in deplorable conditions, whereas Republicans are better at allowing people to live more comfortably.

It’s never as simple as either case, but you have to admit but the cities with the most chaos and poverty and largely dominated by Democratic legislatures and leadership.

Yes, and I think my explanation for that fact is the most reasonable one.

 

[Inisfallen]

I did watch that video. I found that he was attempting to define words so as to suit his argument. Anyone can win a debate if they get to define all the terms.

I’m not interested in re-hashing that debate, but I did watch the video with an open mind.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

You should, since it’s your opinion. Wouldn’t make sense for you to claim your opinion is the least reasonable, now would it?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Honestly, I have no idea what you are going on about.

Apparently not. Sad.

You made an broad statement.

universities have become predominantly leftist and socialist to the point that they ban anyone with a different perspective from speaking on their campuses

That statement is indefensible. So now you bring in a website that make far less sweeping judgements, however flimsily supported by their actual observations. But they do not support your original contention. Neither do they provide enough smoke to conceal it. It doesn’t.

Readers can decide for themselves.

 

[HarryStotle]

I did watch that video. I found that he was attempting to define words so as to suit his argument. Anyone can win a debate if they get to define all the terms.

Kind of like the debate on same sex marriage. Let’s just redefine marriage as… then anyone can get “married.”

Do some research on modernism and post-modernism. These are both about RE-defining terms because, they claim, there is no truth, and as a consequence, there are no definable ideas. Therefore, the definition that “we” can convince most people to purchase, we can use to push forward ideas which guarantee political success.

This has been the progressive MO over the last several decades, aided and abetted by social media companies and the mainstream press.

Go back and read about what the Church has condemned as the modernist heresy and why it is so pernicious. Moral relativism is another spawn of the modernist heresy and modernism as a philosophy.

Here YOU are basically hiding behind a claim that terms OUGHT NOT be defined by someone making an argument (which is bunkum), and yet when you are asked to define the terms clearly yourself, you decline on some pretext or other.

Yeah, nice work.

Why not just promote ignorance on the pretext that arguments and definitions and knowledge, proper, are all just the fabrications of those who want to push a point of view, and knowledge (founded upon proper definitions of terms) is merely a chimera?

At least, that would demonstrate a consistency with your objections to whatever anyone posts on CAF with whom you disagree.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m not interested in re-hashing that debate, but I did watch the video with an open mind.

I am interested in rehashing the debate, and precisely because the video provides a good starting point FOR debate is the reason I will provide a summary.

It also provides a lens through which to see why the issue of this current thread has taken on a life of its own.

Prager makes the claim that liberalism and leftism are often confused and people mistake them for the same political position when, in fact, they are the opposite. He cites six areas as examples of where the two differ.

1. Racism
Liberals have always viewed the color of a person’s skin as insignificant and held that those who think skin colour is significant are the real racists. Liberals have been passionately committed to racial integration.
Leftists take the position that anyone who has the attitude that race is insignificant are racists. UofC, for example, claims that the statement, “There is only one race, the human race,” is a racist statement. The left supports racial segregation in all black dormitories and graduation ceremonies, for example.

2. Capitalism
Liberals have believed in free enterprise and have always been pro-capitalism because it best lifts people out of poverty by relying upon entrepreneurial activity. Although liberals have supported bigger government than conservatives or libertarians, they have never endorsed socialism.
Leftists are opposed to capitalism, and advocate for socialism, and for government control over all aspects of life.

3. Nationalism
Liberals believe in nation states and that every nation, including America, has a sovereign right to protect its borders and its own people.
Leftists divide people by class rather than by national identity, which they claim (falsely) is the road to fascism. They oppose nationalist sentiments and advocate for open borders and globalism

4. View of America
Liberals have been overtly patriotic and venerated America in virtually every movie and TV show produced between the 1930s and 1950s by producers, directors and actors, most of whom were liberals. They saw America as the last, best, hope for the world.
Leftists see themselves and their ideology as the last best hope of earth. America, they claim, is racist, homophobic, xenophobic, violent, and imperialistic.

Continued…

 

[HarryStotle]

5. Free Speech
Liberals have always stood for the principle that each person has the right to their own ideas and they will defend to the death the right of each to speak their thoughts. Liberals have always been passionately committed to free speech. Protecting what you and I consider hate speech is the entire point of free speech, for a liberal.
Leftists have undertaken a campaign to restrict the speech of anyone they claim to be spouting “hate speech.” Universities, large social media companies, various left-leaning organizations, leftist politicians, and public sector unions have pushed for the suppression of speech. “Hate” speech, in the final analysis, is anything that differs from the leftist’s position.

6. Western Civilization
Liberals champion and seek to protect western civilization and its unique contributions to morality, philosophy, the arts, music and the literary fields. These were taught and promoted at every major liberal university and college in the United States.
Leftists are seeking to destroy the legacy of western civilization, claiming that it is no better than any other civilization. They also claim western civilization is just a euphemism for white supremacy and/or the patriarchy.

So if liberalism and leftism are so opposed to each other, why don’t liberals oppose the left?

Prager suggests that it is because liberals have been taught from very young to fear the right, which is why that bogeyman is brought up – far right, aka “fascism” – to paralyze any liberal who so much as hints at disagreements with current leftist ideology.

 

[HarryStotle]

What is devastating about Prager’s breakdown, is that he doesn’t really attempt to define liberalism and leftism, so much as give examples of how the two positions view the world and the current political reality.

He makes a compelling case.

He also sheds some interesting light on the Florida gubernatorial race, without addressing it specifically nor intentionally.

 

[HarryStotle]

Anyone can win a debate if they get to define all the terms.

It could be argued that you have just described the terms by which a good and fruitful debate or conversation MUST be structured – define all the terms and then discuss.

First, the terms are defined as clearly and compellingly as possible, and then the logical consequences are laid down succinctly, exhaustively and carefully, and then objections raised and countered.

It isn’t a proper response merely to retort, “Those are your definitions of the terms and not mine,” and then walk away.

What you need to do is offer better definitions that everyone will accept. You can’t just walk away from the debate claiming you don’t like the definitions. How is that even trying to debate a topic?

 

[HarryStotle]

Here are three commentaries on events that are leftist in origin by someone who is liberal in temperament.

Perhaps they will be instructive, precisely because they highlight the divide that currently characterizes the political scene in many modern western nations – the division between leftism, liberalism and conservatism – and characterizes the controversy and ideological presumptions that are the subject of the current thread, i.e., DeSantis v Gillum.

The reason things have gotten so nasty of late is not because it is a debate between liberalism and conservatism – that had been so for generations and the relevant issues have been largely sorted out in a kind of friendly compromise – but rather because leftism has invaded the political scene and many liberals haven’t quite sorted out where they belong, and many conservative types have reacted reflexively.

What is needed is, in fact, a calm sorting out of ideas by seeing where they lead and grasping that the bad ideas often to self-contradiction or, at least, absurdities.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Inisfallen:

Anyone can win a debate if they get to define all the terms.

It could be argued that you have just described the terms by which a good and fruitful debate or conversation MUST be structured – define all the terms and then discuss.

Words mean whatever the writer or speaker wants them to mean. But definitions are only good and fruitful when the reader/listener share the same definitions. That certainly was not done in this case because Prager simply states definitions that make his subsequent claims tautologies. I really don’t care if Prager-liberal is very different from Prager-left. For one thing, who cares what Prager wants to define as liberal and left? For another, the possible distinction between liberal and left is not even a relevant issue in the discussion of the topic of this thread. I think it is just a platform for non-educational Prager to prattle on in what he thinks makes him look professorial. Come to think of it, redefining terms is old hat to Prager. He redefines the word “university” every time he uses “Prager-U”.

What you need to do is offer better definitions that everyone will accept.

That might be true if this were a semantics forum or if the exact meaning of these words had any previous connection with the top at hand.

 

[Inisfallen]

What you need to do is offer better definitions that everyone will accept

I don’t “need” to do anything. You keep insisting that I engage with you and give you definitions of terms that you can then argue with.

You can’t just walk away from the debate claiming you don’t like the definitions.

Sure I can.

How is that even trying to debate a topic?

It’s not. I don’t want to debate this topic.

 

[HarryStotle]

Words mean whatever the writer or speaker wants them to mean. But definitions are only good and fruitful when the reader/listener share the same definitions.

It’s pretty clear that you didn’t watch the video, nor did you pay much attention to my last three or four posts.

The reason I say that is because Prager never tries to define what the words mean, he merely describes what people who call themselves liberals or leftists do or have done in the past. Now if you have a bone to pick with the way they use those words, take it up with them.

The question is really whether Prager accurately describes what people calling themselves liberals and leftists have done. I think he juxtaposes those positions quite well. I also think Matt Christiansen’s three videos also distinguish between liberal values and leftist values in a way that is informative.

Certainly you can disagree with how some might apply liberal and left to themselves, and merely state that words can be used however people want to use them, but that completely ignores what is occurring in front of our faces as if you make the problem itself go away merely by stating your disagreement with how terms are used. That is unhelpful at best.

It appears to me that you are merely entering the fray as backup for what you have taken up to be your ‘side.’ Yeah, we already knew with whom you would side.

You can call Prager’s two positions whatever you want to call them, but you cannot deny that they are two substantive positions in the current political scene. This is clear from the fact that the Dem position is being pushed towards what Prager calls the leftist perspective every day, whether or not you agree to call it that. We could even go through his six examples and ask you on which side of each aisle you stand. Are you more on what he calls the liberal or the left side of each example? The new and supposedly “exciting” faces of the Dem Party, like Gillum, are clearly on the left side and have themselves claimed to be by their own words and actions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

What you need to do is offer better definitions that everyone will accept

I don’t “need” to do anything. You keep insisting that I engage with you and give you definitions of terms that you can then argue with.

You can’t just walk away from the debate claiming you don’t like the definitions.

Sure I can.

How is that even trying to debate a topic?

It’s not. I don’t want to debate this topic.

Of course you don’t.

And the impression remains that the reason you don’t is because by Prager’s depictions you come across not as a “centrist liberal,” as you claimed but as a flaming leftist, which is why you prefer to #slinkaway without leaving a trail.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Words mean whatever the writer or speaker wants them to mean. But definitions are only good and fruitful when the reader/listener share the same definitions.

Prager never tries to define what the words mean, he merely describes what people who call themselves liberals or leftists do or have done in the past.

As I see it, the difference between “liberal” and “leftist” is that “liberal” is what liberals call themselves when they want to make them look respectable. “Leftists” is a what they are called to make them looks disrespectable. By and large, Democrats do not call themselves “leftists.” That’s what conservatives call them. So any “conclusions” derived from those two definitions are bound to reflect that difference, and have zero to do with real characteristics of real Democrats.

The question is really whether Prager accurately describes what people calling themselves liberals and leftists have done.

It may be accurate according to his definitions, but as I said, those definitions are not derived in an unbiased manner.

It appears to me that you are merely entering the fray as backup for what you have taken up to be your ‘side.’ Yeah, we already knew with whom you would side.

Discuss the issues and not each other.

You can call Prager’s two positions whatever you want to call them, but you cannot deny that they are two substantive positions in the current political scene. This is clear from the fact that the Dem position is being pushed towards what Prager calls the leftist perspective every day, whether or not you agree to call it that.

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

 

[HarryStotle]

As I see it, the difference between “liberal” and “leftist” is that “liberal” is what liberals call themselves when they want to make them look respectable. “Leftists” is a what they are called to make them looks disrespectable.

Well, no. This completely ignores the fact that human liberty is a crucial part of the moral order, that human autonomy is a preferred reality in society and that an individual human being is and ought to be treated as morally sovereign over their own thoughts, actions and behaviours. A true liberal position would be one that fosters and upholds the moral autonomy of each person within the context of a social order that furthers that end. Liberty isn’t just a concocted illusion.

A good discussion of the way in which liberal as a word has been distorted over the past centuries, partly as a result of JS Mill’s lack of clarity and consistency, can be found here.

John Stuart Mill and the New Liberalism | Mises Institute

Much of the confusion prevailing in the historical study of liberalism can be traced to John Stuart Mill, whose importance is greatly overstated.

mises.org

A quote:

In particular, the state, which earlier liberals had feared as the enemy of individual liberty, was now seen as a potent engine for furthering it in vital ways. The old liberalism gave way to the new.

The first thing to be pointed out is the political purpose behind the semantic change. It was to ease the way for the revolutionary extension of the state’s agenda (ultimately, this has become in principle a limitless agenda). The crying need for such an extension, however, was grounded in a highly questionable theory, which is still operative. It is that the “old” liberalism of laissez-faire had been made obsolete by deep-seated changes in society. The pioneers of the “new liberalism” and their successors based their claims on the supposedly overwhelming power of business enterprise over consumers and workers. But, despite all their propaganda, such a power cannot be shown, empirically or theoretically, to exist (Rothbard 1970: pp. 168–73; Hutt 1954; Armentano 1982; Reynolds 1984: pp. 56–68; DiLorenzo and High, 1988).

Moreover, and decisively, the standard rationale for speaking of a “new liberalism” is analytically flawed. For the end of achieving “the liberated individual” cannot be definitive of liberalism. Other ideologies, among them communist anarchism and many varieties of socialism, share that end.

Now it might be convenient for the so-called “new liberals” to hide their social, political and economic agendas behind a vague concern for the “liberated individual” leaving what both the words “liberated” and “individual” actually mean, or what protection by the state really affords, but it is clear that that lack of clarity is exactly what has permitted all manner of opinion to assemble under the rubric of “liberal.”

It is time for clarity. What does it mean to be an individual human being, what exactly is to be respected and protected, by whom or what, and for what ends?

 

[Inisfallen]

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks.

 

[HarryStotle]

Oh, I quite agree that Democrats today are more liberal than in the past, and that Republicans today are more conservative than in the past. That has been going on since before Trump.

Here you are using the word “liberal” in a rather imprecise way, as in “free to act on any inclination or whim.” That isn’t the classical definition. It isn’t clear what “more conservative” means, either. Presumably conservatives are those individuals who seek to conserve the integral nature of what it means to be human and seek to forge society in a way to sustain what is truly human.

That may, in the end, be no different than what liberals, in the classic sense, strive for.

The confusion comes in when human nature and what that entails becomes distorted or left wide open to all interpretation, as is the case in modern and post-modern western society.

It is the lack of precision and lack of clarity that has gotten us here.

 

[HarryStotle]

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks.

I suppose that determination depends upon what individuals decide is “polite” and are “personal attacks.”

If you are free to determine the meaning of liberal or leftist, then why complain when others assume a bit of leeway regarding what is or is not “polite” or a “personal attack.”

You can’t have it both ways. Either words have determinate meanings or they do not.

Which is it?

Does “polite” have a strict definition or not?

If it does, then so does “liberal,” and “leftist.” So it remains to work out what those words actually mean and what they don’t.

 

[JonNC]

Words mean whatever the writer or speaker wants them to mean. But definitions are only good and fruitful when the reader/listener share the same definitions.

This is true, but it isn’t conservatives who redefine terms.
The word most notably, and I would add egregiously, redefined by the left is “rights”. They want to redefine rights as something the government creates, declares, and provides for. It is a false definition because it turns rights, which are inherent, antecedent to government, and belonging to the individual, into privileges bestowed (and consequently rescindable) by government power.