Episode 1020 Scott Adams: I Solve Institutional Racism . . . [tr - title should be “left vs. right”]

https://www.scottadamssays.com ^ | June 7, 2020 | Scott Adams

[poconopundit]

Scott lives in the Bay Area and he may be rightly concerned that Antifa has targeted his neighborhood.

[goo goo g'joob]

Free Republic, Free Opinion, worth every penny...

IMHO

Mr. Adams logically builds to his final box that he then bails on and “goes on strike” as to a conclusion or answer. He deflects comments coming in real time suggesting the issue of fatherlessness in the black community. He dismisses it offhand.

I would suggest that if you could draw a line from his last box to the front side of his presentation with the word FATHER along that line it would tie this presentation in a nice pretty bow.

Let me posit...
Today’s urban yutes influencers are - mamma, mammas boy friend, “well intentioned” “uncles”, cousins, brothers, etc. These influencers are teaching and modeling “Empathy”. Fathers, however will teach and model “Respect”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I’m all for empathy, but Adams is right. It’s a bad thing on which to base a system.

Empathy is the role of society.

It is a role for which government is inherently defective.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;

the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.

The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.

The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one . . .
For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest . . . — Thomas Paine,Common Sense (1776)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Today’s urban yutes influencers are - mamma, mammas boy friend, “well intentioned” “uncles”, cousins, brothers, etc. These influencers are teaching and modeling “Empathy”. Fathers, however will teach and model “Respect”

A strong argument . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A secular humanist is likely to say, "No. There is nothing more. The material world is all there is. My narrow view is the only correct view. Your wider view is incorrect."

So the problem isn't that religion denies science - the problem is that the Left denies the spiritual side of life. They are narrow minded bigots.

Atheists Steal Rights From God
Charisma News | 2/6/2015 | Frank Turek

Atheists in Praise of Christianity?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

He ought to read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

Agreed.

Haidt's point is basically, “I am am atheist who wants to explain the world via evolution. And although I am a liberal, I perceive that liberalism leaves too much off the moral landscape. It is too simple, and I find that conservatism has far more explanatory power than I was taught to believe." Haidt lists the moral foundations of conservatism (and their opposites) as

Care	Liberty	Fairness	Loyalty	Authority	Sanctity
(harm)	(oppression)	(cheating)	(betrayal)	(subversion)	(degradation)

Haidt suggests that Liberalism has two strains - now called “liberalism” and “libertarianism” - which split about a century ago. The commonality between them, he says, is that both liberals and libertarians drop “Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity” pretty much off the list. The difference between them being, in Haidt’s telling, that while Liberals emphasize care first and do not emphasize fairness, Libertarians emphasize Liberty uber alles, fairness second, and caring is no more on their radar screen than Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity are. My opinion is that Haidt’s characterization of the difference between conservatives and liberals is (never mind his reasons) spot on.

However - and note that this is my personal hobby horse - I have been calling attention to the fact that commercially successful journalism heavily emphasizes negativity. Call it “If it bleeds, it leads,” or call it “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” (and note that while the standard of living has been on an exponentially rising curve since the Industrial Revolution noteworthy short term changes in welfare overwhelmingly are negative. In journalist's terms, good news isn’t news - ordinarily, it’s advertising). And, I note, journalists and also others who also know that journalism is negative claim that journalism is objective. But I put it to you that “the conceit that negativity is objective” is very serviceable as a definition of cynicism.

Now look again at Haidt's description of the difference between “conservatism” and “liberalism.” A liberal is a conservative minus loyalty, authority, and sanctity. IOW, Any conservative has to consider any liberal a cynic. And if you take my analysis of journalism seriously, you do not wonder that journalism and “liberalism” are simpatico.

Liberal Cynicism