Personal Opinion: The Denigration of Others
To Steve Estes / Facebook / November 12, 2015
Except for things criminal, I'm generally fine with personal opinions. What I take exception to is when people have to denigrate others in order to validate those opinions.
It’s one thing to single out an individual’s attitude and remarks, like Donald Trump’s incessant bashing, or Ben Carson’s saying that the science that proves evolution is the devil’s work. But to say that all Republicans are that way is ignorant, and is aligned with the Nazi’s attitude about Jews, or the KKK about blacks.
Conversely, those who bash Bernie Sanders “Socialist” views, and say that all Democrats are that way are equally guilty. Specifically about Sanders, what they don’t understand is that just like any other religion or belief system, since its inception, socialism has evolved into different forms (sects).
Because of the decades long struggle against Communism, the most intolerant form of Socialism, we tend to be prejudice against all forms thereof.
One of the most prolific critics of socialism, George Orwell, was a socialist.
His point was that Karl Marx would not be able to recognize what was going on in Russia as being socialist, so far had it been corrupted from its original intent. He goes into detail about this intellectual dishonesty and intolerance in a number essays.
American socialist James Burnham was also a critic. A contemporary of Orwell, he outlived him by about 35 years. He was awarded America’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because it was his policies that eventually lead to Communism’s undoing.
To be precise, Orwell was a democratic socialist – “a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production.”
Progressive philosophy promotes tolerance, recognizes that all parties must be included in the decision making process, and understand that real progress takes time.
The trouble here is the liberals who go around claiming to be “progressives.” They are actually the opposite of genuine Progressive philosophy, and are instead filled with sanctimonious intolerance.
That’s why I highly recommend Orwell’s Notes On Nationalism. It explains the psychology behind intolerance, and why it observes no ideological boundaries –
“By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.”
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Except for things criminal, I'm generally fine with personal opinions. What I take exception to is when people have to denigrate others in order to validate those opinions.
It’s one thing to single out an individual’s attitude and remarks, like Donald Trump’s incessant bashing, or Ben Carson’s saying that the science that proves evolution is the devil’s work. But to say that all Republicans are that way is ignorant, and is aligned with the Nazi’s attitude about Jews, or the KKK about blacks.
Conversely, those who bash Bernie Sanders “Socialist” views, and say that all Democrats are that way are equally guilty. Specifically about Sanders, what they don’t understand is that just like any other religion or belief system, since its inception, socialism has evolved into different forms (sects).
Because of the decades long struggle against Communism, the most intolerant form of Socialism, we tend to be prejudice against all forms thereof.
One of the most prolific critics of socialism, George Orwell, was a socialist.
His point was that Karl Marx would not be able to recognize what was going on in Russia as being socialist, so far had it been corrupted from its original intent. He goes into detail about this intellectual dishonesty and intolerance in a number essays.
American socialist James Burnham was also a critic. A contemporary of Orwell, he outlived him by about 35 years. He was awarded America’s highest civilian honor, the Congressional Medal of Freedom, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because it was his policies that eventually lead to Communism’s undoing.
To be precise, Orwell was a democratic socialist – “a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy (usually multi-party democracy) with social ownership of the means of production.”
Progressive philosophy promotes tolerance, recognizes that all parties must be included in the decision making process, and understand that real progress takes time.
The trouble here is the liberals who go around claiming to be “progressives.” They are actually the opposite of genuine Progressive philosophy, and are instead filled with sanctimonious intolerance.
That’s why I highly recommend Orwell’s Notes On Nationalism. It explains the psychology behind intolerance, and why it observes no ideological boundaries –
“By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism.”
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat