Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
February 25
Image Size
149 KB
Resolution
542×1078
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
418
Favourites
7 (who?)
Comments
316
Downloads
1
×
(In)Tolerant Liberals by joeisbadass (In)Tolerant Liberals by joeisbadass
Tolerance is intolerant as liberty is enslaved and happiness is miserable. Yup. That makes sense.
Add a Comment:
 
:icondaisukida:
daisukida Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014

Here's the thing though. Part of me wonders when we'll ever end this discussion. We've been talking on this pic topic, to topic to topic and I kind of would like to move on. I asked you once before and you seemed like you were ok with it but three days later you came back wanting to continue the fox news discussion, which I obliged with, but enough is enough. Do you have a skype? I think it would be much, much better if we would have a discussion this long on skype or something. If we do this online, I don't think it'll ever end.”

Well see things from my point of view for a moment. A while back I brought up the idea that American conservatives had a tendency to be much more unified than the left. For those of us who've watched US politics for the last 10 years it's kind of a basic fact that forms the foundation for understanding US politics. You disagreed vehemently, so I wanted to clarify the matter for you.  This is really what I've been wanting to do this whole time:  provide a thorough historical analysis of the US conservative movement.


In that time I was hoping to discuss the development of American conservatism from the 1960s to the present day. That's why I laid out the definitions of “conservative” and “liberal” and what traits they express in my large comment last week. Honestly, I was hoping to elaborate on that subject even further today by talking about conservative political theories in the 1960s. However, I saw your posting and saw that you were curious about why liberals do X and Y regarding Cold War politics, so I obliged and took my time to answer those questions instead.


If you're asking the questions and I'm answering them instead of elaborating on the topic I wanted to discuss, who do you think is directing the conversation the way it's been going?




That being said, I understand your point but again, is there enough good about Kim Jong-Il to balance the bad he's done? Can you just answer me that? You said yourself he's a selfish totalitarian and you said it yourself that you are in no way trying to defend him? If it doesn't affect the overall performance of Kim Jong-Il's leadership which you seemed to confirm, it's just trivial. It's about as trivial as what Richard Nixon's preferred hair style was.”

Understanding Kim Jong-Il isn't about trying to clean up his legacy. It's to help us provide diplomatic and tactical insight into who he is and how he operates. Treating a guy like Kim Jong-Il as a human being rather than some comic book supervillain isn't trivial: it's 1) central to any sort of diplomatic contact, and 2) meaningful in providing historical insight into who we are as people.


For 1: Imagine a gun-toting terrorist (we'll call him Jack) who holds a bunch of people hostage and makes a bunch of wild demands. A hostage negotiator comes in (we'll call her Jane)... what do you think the hostage negotiator would do? Seriously, play the scenario out in your mind for a moment.


Now here's what really happens in these scenarios: Jane will be briefed on the the terrorist's background, at least what's known of the terrorist. She'll establish a line of contact, act friendly and treat the terrorist like a human being. They'll exchange names, and the Jane will try to defuse the situation by actively listening to the terrorist's demands and tease out the underlying needs that Jack wants to fulfill. Once the Jane knows what's going on he'll start to figure out a strategy to get Jack to stand down, but this is only possible if the Jane doesn't think of Jack as a terrorist. She needs to know him as a human being and treat him like one.


In fact, this is what made Jimmy Carter such an effective negotiator. For all the flaws of his Presidency, Carter was exceptionally skilled at negotiation tactics like this, and it was what made things like the Camp David Accords possible.


For 2: Having a nuanced understanding of another nation, even a hostile one, can also provide insight into our own. For example, we tend to imagine Nazis as uniquely and irredeemably evil, and that the Allies were total good guys. There's something about Nazis that makes us treat them as if they were an entirely different species of man: cold, unfeeling, immoral creatures that treat human lives like chaff.


Then in 1961 this all changed. The psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted his famous experiment where he had a volunteer sit down with a button, which Milgram said would deliver electric shocks to a subject sitting in another room. What Milgram didn't tell the volunteer was that the button wasn't wired to anything, and that the subject was an actor who would fake being electrocuted.


So Milgram would tell the volunteer to push the button, and the volunteer would comply. And Milgram would keep “turning up the voltage” and continue to ask the volunteer to push the button. The subject would scream, fake seizures, act like he was really suffering and begging for it to stop, but Milgram would tell the volunteer “Oh no, he's fine, just keep pushing the button.”


The results were that the volunteers overwhelmingly followed orders to push the button, even to the point that the actor would fake his death. What Milgram found then was that human beings were exceptionally prone to doing horribly evil things if other people were okay with it. This meant that Nazis during the holocaust weren't all that different from Americans... both us and them had just as much potential to do evil things if someone ordered it, or if our comrades did it themselves.


In fact, this very thing happened in the American occupation of Iraq. One of my friends was very Pro-War, and I distinctly remember that soon after the US invaded we had an argument when there were reports of Americans raping and killing civilians. My friend said “Those reports must be fake. Americans would never do that!”


And then news broke about the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, where US soldiers raped, sodomized, tortured, and killed prisoners. There were the Maywand District Murders, where US soldiers lured away innocent civilians and murdered them for fun, cutting off body parts to keep as trophies. And there were the Mahmudiyah killings, where US soldiers gangraped a 14 year old girl, murdered her family, and set their home on fire to cover it up.


This isn't to say that America is evil (though thanks to these scandals the Middle East now has this impression). The point is that treating other countries as unique in their evil and incapable of good misses the fact that Americans are just as prone to the same faults and leaves us blind to correcting them. I'm sure you know Matthew 7:3, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own?”


That is why it's important to call attention to the good things that evil regimes do: it reminds us that they are human beings, same as we are. We are just as capable of doing the evil things they do if we aren't self-aware. At the same time, they are just as capable of doing the good things we do, if we can better encourage that aspect of their political system.

Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"Understanding Kim Jong-Il isn't about trying to clean up his legacy. It's to help us provide diplomatic and tactical insight into who he is and how he operates. Treating a guy like Kim Jong-Il as a human being rather than some comic book supervillain isn't trivial: it's 1) central to any sort of diplomatic contact, and 2) meaningful in providing historical insight into who we are as people.


For 1: Imagine a gun-toting terrorist (we'll call him Jack) who holds a bunch of people hostage and makes a bunch of wild demands. A hostage negotiator comes in (we'll call her Jane)... what do you think the hostage negotiator would do? Seriously, play the scenario out in your mind for a moment."

Ok you make a good point here, but are we diplomats? Are we negotiators? In that same scenario, the negotiator would be the one to reason with the terrorist, not the people who are being held hostage. Not the people who are watching from afar. They'd see the gun toting terrorist as a gun toting terrorist. The liberals I often see who defend dictators in the way they have are not negotiators, so, again, what purpose do they have in spitting out such trivial information. It's important to know all the facts about these things, don't get me wrong, but it's only important to those who are in a position where they need to be diplomatic to these people. It's NOT important to all the liberals that can't help but mention the information anyway.


"This meant that Nazis during the holocaust weren't all that different from Americans... both us and them had just as much potential to do evil things if someone ordered it, or if our comrades did it themselves."
Very true but this isn't relevant to my point. I never hear liberals raise their point to anti-nazi propaganda. In fact, often times it's left-wingers like :iconpoasterchild: and :iconcomradesch: that make said propaganda in the first place.

That is why it's important to call attention to the good things that evil regimes do: it reminds us that they are human beings, same as we are. We are just as capable of doing the evil things they do if we aren't self-aware. At the same time, they are just as capable of doing the good things we do, if we can better encourage that aspect of their political system.

Again yes! But look to the point I made above about the anti-nazi propaganda. I never hear any liberals defend countries like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or current corporate China the way I hear them defending modern communist and islamist dictatorships. There's obviously a bias. You're very smart. I don't understand how you don't even see the bias.
Reply
:icondaisukida:
daisukida Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014

It is true the hippies were a counterculture movement, but that includes countering the anti-communist sentiment that existed during the Cold War, so they defended communists instead of attacking them.”


I don't know much about how far hippies took the idea of being pro-Communist. On the one hand, they certainly did have their own version of communal living. However, it was practiced on a small scale... I don't think they were particularly engaged in being pro-Stalin or pro-Lenin. They were against US intervention in Vietnam of course, but I think that was less about being pro-Communist and more about being pacifistic.



“And it is true a lot of the hippies ripped off eastern philosophies, as well as native americans and pagans, while at the same time holding an anti-religious, atheistic sentiment, again due to it being countercultural. Doesn't mean they had a legitimate interest in spirituality.”


I'm not sure how you can adopt Eastern, Native American, and Pagan religious elements and be “anti-religious” or “atheistic.” They were exploring different spiritual attitudes because the organized religion of Christianity in America was unsatisfying to them.



“What about other dictatorships America has supported and exchanged with more recently, like Saudi Arabia modern China, and initially Brunei. I hear them attacking these dictatorships all the time, yet at the same time I receive silence or defense, for the most part from them, regarding the communist and islamist dictatorships that are just as oppressive.”


Saudi Arabia and China are major economic partners with the United States, and our economies are highly dependent on one another. While their national governments have issues with corruption and human rights violations, they aren't the horrific despotic regimes that many people fear them to be. I actually studied abroad in China for a month in one of the cities. In some ways it's actually got way better infrastructure than the United States, and it's certainly a far cry from other corrupt regimes we've been talking about.


Some Republicans do make waves about how they're terrified of China, but honestly they're exceptionally ignorant of how China functions culturally, politically, and economically. I'm afraid I don't know much about how the Saudi government operates, but I do hear from some Saudis who also lament that Americans know nothing about their country and assume it's some den of scary Muslim extremists.



“Additionally, why weren't there any protests against World War II by liberals, a war which was much, much bloodier than any other in history by liberals, yet there were all kinds of protests for the Korean and Vietnam Wars?”


Because at the time America had adopted an extreme isolationist policy towards World War II and thought it was just Europe's problem. Before WWII, World War I was the worst bloodbath in history, and the general public of America didn't want to revisit that crap.


It's also important to remember that this was a wholly different era both culturally and politically: communications and travel aren't as convenient as they are now, so with a huge ocean separating the two continents there was also a major ideological gap between the “New World” of America and the “Old World” of Europe.


As for Vietnam, there were several reasons for the protests. For one, America only entered World War II directly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This was unlike Vietnam or Korea: Americans saw these as foreign conflicts that had nothing to do with American security, so we had no right to be there.


A comparison can be drawn between the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Americans were highly unified in attacking Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda after 9/11, because as with Pearl Harbor we wanted to strike back after suffering what we saw to be an unprovoked attack.


Then Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Those who had some basic knowledge of foreign affairs stepped back and said “Whoa, what the hell? Why are we suddenly talking about invading Iraq? They didn't do anything to us!” and there were huge anti-Iraq War protests that followed. Many Americans did support the Iraq war of course, but this was only because they were ignorant of foreign affairs and believed falsely that Iraq was involved in 9/11, or that Iraq was building WMDs.


Another big factor in Vietnam & Korean war protests was that photography was much more widespread in the 60s than in the 40s, so there was much more widespread dissemination of photos of the war. In particular, images of wounded American soldiers and soldier's coffins produced a huge backlash against Vietnam. This is why Bush Jr. banned journalists from taking photos of soldiers' coffins during the Iraq war.

Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"I'm not sure how you can adopt Eastern, Native American, and Pagan religious elements and be “anti-religious” or “atheistic.” They were exploring different spiritual attitudes because the organized religion of Christianity in America was unsatisfying to them."
You may have something there, if they didn't just get their "spiritual insight" from smoking bongs and joints

"
Saudi Arabia and China are major economic partners with the United States, and our economies are highly dependent on one another. While their national governments have issues with corruption and human rights violations, they aren't the horrific despotic regimes that many people fear them to be. I actually studied abroad in China for a month in one of the cities. In some ways it's actually got way better infrastructure than the United States, and it's certainly a far cry from other corrupt regimes we've been talking about."

Here's my point: Such nations have been subject of great liberal criticism, or at least void of any defense by them, yet communist and islamist factions have not




"
This was unlike Vietnam or Korea: Americans saw these as foreign conflicts that had nothing to do with American security, so we had no right to be there."
Not really no. South Korea was our ally and they asked for our help. Same thing with the Vietnam War and South Korea.


"
Before WWII, World War I was the worst bloodbath in history, and the general public of America didn't want to revisit that crap."

And yet when they did, no one protested at all from 1939-1945
Reply
:icondaisukida:
daisukida Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014
"What do you think the hippie movement was about, I mean, besides drugs?"

The hippies were a counterculture movement.  In the 1960s, the older generation of Americans had grown up through the Great Depression of the 30s and lived in relative squalor.  After World War II however, the economy improved drastically, and those Americans now celebrated the fact that they had jobs, good access to food, home appliances, etc.  After the Depression of the 30s and the war era of the 40s, the older generation in their adult lives craved stability, security, and prosperity.  This meant a need to enforce a particularly ordered lifestyle centered around one's career and the nuclear family.

However, the kids they raised saw this pursuit of wealth and material comforts as spiritually shallow, and craved deeper spiritual and philosophical goals.  Because Western culture had failed them in this regard, they turned to Eastern philosophy and religion thinking that such an exotic culture would have real answers.  Overall, the Hippies were about breaking away from the traditional social roles that the Depression-era generation wanted to enforce.



"And if what you're saying is true, that libeals don't defend communist leaders, just mention some of the good things they may or may not have done, why don't they talk about the good things fascist dictators like Hitler or Mussolini have done nearly as much, you know, like how Hitler passed some animal rights laws? How come I've heard leftists say for communist dictators, the death tolls have been grossly exaggerratted, but for fascist dictators, the deathcounts aren't big enough."

I would say that it's because contemporary politics evolved more directly from the Cold War.  Many people alive today can remember the Cold War era, while not many lived through World War II.  That's why Communist nations merit more discussion and political relevance than Hitler or Mussolini, and this is true in both liberal and conservative circles.  We tend to think of Hitler and Mussolini as historical figures.  Communism is something that's still ongoing, at least as a political theory.  That's why it merits more discussion.  It's not really a preference thing.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It is true the hippies were a counterculture movement, but that includes countering the anti-communist sentiment that existed during the Cold War, so they defended communists instead of attacking them.

And it is true a lot of the hippies ripped off eastern philosophies, as well as native americans and pagans, while at the same time holding an anti-religious, atheistic sentiment, again due to it being countercultural. Doesn't mean they had a legitimate interest in spirituality.

What about other dictatorships America has supported and exchanged with more recently, like Saudi Arabia modern China, and initially Brunei. I hear them attackingthese dictatorships all the time, yet at the same time I receive silence or defense, for the most part from them, regarding the communist and islamist dictatorships that are just as oppressive.

Additionally, why weren't there any protests against World War II by liberals, a war which was much, much bloodier than any other in history by liberals, yet there were all kinds of protests for the Korean and Vietnam Wars?
Reply
:icondaisukida:
daisukida Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014

That is part of what I was talking about. When people discuss the horrible things communist leaders have done I find sometimes liberals talking about the good they've done as well, just as I've seen conservatives do the same with fascist leaders. Now, because the little good they may or may not have done is severely outweighed by the bad, what point are they trying to get out of it? That the dictators were good?”


Actually you said that “During the Cold War, liberals did nothing but defend communism.” I was simply pointing out that this is absolutely not true and historically inacurrate.


As for accounting for the good things hostile states do... the reasons vary. One of the big ones is that for us to be politically informed, we cannot fall prey to oversimplified black-and-white reasoning. People uneducated in politics or diplomacy tend to see only the worst in others (though this is true in everyday life as well) and as a result neither side gets anywhere in diplomacy. This is one of the worst instincts we have as individuals, and it takes a lot of training to let this go. It's only when you're able to see people's actual concerns rather than the caricatured perspective that's so common can we actually get anywhere.

I mean, think back on all your other conversations with liberals. Have they lasted as long or been as thorough as this conversation you're having with me? This is partly because I try my best to understand your actual point of view rather than accuse you of (insert conservative caricature here). I recognize commonalities between us as well as our differences, and if you might recall I did not want to call this a “debate,” and instead wanted to call this a “discussion” (less confrontational that way). That's why I think this conversation is so productive.


An example of this is that in 2000 negotiations between America and North Korea were proceeding smoothly. As usual North Korea was being squirrely as all hell, but the political pressure that we placed on Kim Jong-Il was working, and there were solid plans being made that would have allowed North Korea to build power plants without the danger of him getting material for nuclear weapons. There was very little reliable information on Kim of course: US diplomat Madeline Albright had been told that Kim was some insane recluse who hid away and watched a ton of pornography or something. Yet once she met Kim she had to work with him on a human level.


Truth is, Kim Jong-Il is callous, selfish, and cruel (some thought he was actually crazy too). Yet he could also be forgiving, generous, and, most importantly, rational. By understanding this, Albright was able to craft resolutions with him that were beginning to work out: we would help with things like power and food needs, they would freeze their nuclear operations at Yongbyon. Albright knew that it was still “the most totalitarian regime” she'd ever seen, and we'd have to keep a careful eye on Kim, but she also knew that you can't do anything if you only focus on the worst traits of an enemy.


Unfortunately, Bush came into office.


Unlike his predecessors, Bush saw things in terms of stark black and white, good and evil. After the 9/11 attacks, Bush labeled North Korea as one of the three members of the Axis of Evil (a term coined by Bush speechwriter David Frum, who has now backed off on it), treating Kim Jong-Il as an enemy once again and refused to negotiate honestly with him. I'm sure you know what happened next: Kim saw there was no way to talk to America on peaceful terms now. Negotiations fell apart, nuclear production efforts resumed, and in 2006 the DPRK conducted its first nuclear weapons test.


To quote Madeline Albright: “I think it was most unfortunate because I think we left (the Bush Administration) a pretty good hand of cards on the table. We were in the middle of some negotiations. We would not have agreed to something if it hadn't been verifiable.”


Another part of seeing the good things in hostile nations isn't a matter of trying to say that these nations are good overall. It's a matter of understanding how a nation functions as a whole. This goes for both sides. For example, Albright had to explain how American democracy works to Kim Jong-Il (Kim did not understand our four-year election cycle and how power changes hands in real democracies, so this made a big impact). If we only emphasize the worst attributes of a nation we're missing out on key cultural and political knowledge that would be crucial for foreign policy. The same is true about only seeing good in a nation (namely, ours): we tend to overlook the very human flaws in how we behave that can lead to disastrous consequences.


The key example of how disastrous this can be is the Iraq War. In 2003, the Bush Administration went in claiming that we'd be deposing a brutal dictator and that we would be greeted as liberators and heroes. For Bush, Saddam was evil, America was good. Simple as that. So he invaded Iraq, forced Saddam into hiding, and Saddam was eventually caught and executed.  A month in, Republicans declared that they had won and one from my college conservative magazine said "We're feeling a little smug about being right."


Yet this oversimplified scenario didn't play out that way at all. What the Bush Administration failed to take into account was that while Saddam's regime was brutal and dictatorial, it was also crucial to keeping a balance of power in Iraq between many different political factions. Saddam, for all the horrible things he's done, kept order in Iraq.


When he was removed, there was a major power vacuum left behind. Suddenly all those rival factions sprung into action to try to seize the country, and the whole nation erupted into sectarian violence and civil war. Bombings, assassinations, etc. Estimates of civilians killed in Iraq are somewhere around 150,000 on the low end, 500,000 on the high. Something like 1.6 million Iraqis had to flee their homes to neighboring countries to get away from the violence. It got so bad that some analysts thought Iraq would be carved up and divided among the neighboring countries, and cease to exist as an independent nation.


At the same time, American soldiers had to act as a peacekeeper force. In several major instances, brutal crackdowns of suspected Iraqi insurgents ended up with civilians being tortured or killed. America actually ended up becoming worse than the previous regime, as there have been many reports from Iraqi civilians claiming they wished that Saddam was back.


www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualti…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_wa…

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…




That the anti-communist propaganda posters don't mean anything?”


Anti-Communist propaganda posters are interesting in that they historical provide insight into how Americans perceived Communists at the time, and how the government wanted Americans to perceive communists. However, these posters offer nothing in terms of comprehensive understanding of the USSR.




I never heard any of your claims about Kim Jong-Il before so I can't help but think they're not true at all.”

That was Kim Il-Sung, not Kim Jong-Il. And it was from an article written by the very woman I mentioned: Monique Macias, who was the daughter of a prominent politician in Equatorial Guinea and grew up in North Korea due to political turmoil in her home country. Source:


www.nknews.org/2014/02/how-i-u…


If you're skeptical, just ask for a source and I'll be happy to provide. I would like to think that we've developed some measure of trust by now.




Or how about Obama putting up a Christmas ornament with Chairman Mao on it? What about college students that wear Che Guevara t shirts? What about this sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2…

I had to look up the whole Christmas Ornament thing, and it's a gross misunderstanding. If you'll look at the Christmas ornament, it's clear that Mao here is wearing rouge and eye makeup (source: www.bibleprophecyupdate.com/wp… ). This is NOT a pro-Mao portrait from China. It's from a painting by Andy Warhol. He was a pop artist of the 60s and 70s whose work was not about politics. It was about pop art and the meaning (or lack thereof) of pop art as it evolves from traditional mediums to become more mass-produced (source: www.artic.edu/aic/collections/… ).


A little cursory research shows the main group that broke the story was Breitbart.com and its affiliates. You really really should not take Breitbart seriously... the place is one of the worst right-wing propaganda sites on the web. The fact that they're trying to rile up right-wingers through an Andy Warhol ornament thinking that it's pro-Communist just proves how absurd and crappy their research is, and how jaundiced their reporting is.


As for that NYT link: Just looking at the URL, it's from their “sinosphere” blog. “Sino” means Chinese, so it's a blog about news events in China. Why would you think it's strange for a news blog about China to report on China celebrating Mao's birthday exactly?




I mean for god's sakes I've seen liberals praise Lenin for crying out loud! How do you not see it?”


I don't see it at all, because I don't see liberals praising Lenin aside from the random isolated Communist, who are pretty rare in the US.

Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
"I recognize commonalities between us as well as our differences, and if you might recall I did not want to call this a “debate,” and instead wanted to call this a “discussion” (less confrontational that way). That's why I think this conversation is so productive."

Here's the thing though. Part of me wonders when we'll ever end this discussion. We've been talking on this pic topic, to topic to topic and I kind of would like to move on. I asked you once before and you seemed like you were ok with it but three days later you came back wanting to continue the fox news discussion, which I obliged with, but enough is enough. Do you have a skype? I think it would be much, much better if we would have a discussion this long on skype or something. If we do this online, I don't think it'll ever end.


That being said, I understand your point but again, is there enough good about Kim Jong-Il to balance the bad he's done? Can you just answer me that? You said yourself he's a selfish totalitarian and you said it yourself that you are in no way trying to defend him?

If it doesn't affect the overall performance of Kim Jong-Il's leadership which you seemed to confirm, it's just trivial. It's about as trivial as what Richard Nixon's preferred hair style was.


So why even bring up this trivial information that does nothing to refute the fact he was a selfish, cruel, and brutal dictator, unless your leftist bias compels you to see the light in those monsters that come from your opposite ideology. Would you do the same for the government spending Bush agreed to partake with the democrats toward the end of his campaign? I've never heard any liberals say that in response quotes and pictures that completely reject Bush.


So what's your purpose? If you're just spewing facts about Kim Jong-Il, then there's no point in what you're saying, but if you're saying it because Kim Jong-Il is a left-wing dictator instead of right-wing, than you proved my point.
Reply
:icondaisukida:
daisukida Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2014
"And given what you said, most dictators, hell most humans have some good traits more or less. That doesn't change the fact that they spend most of their days oppressing and containing the masses. To be objective, doesn't just mean analyzing the good and bad in a trait. It also means collaborating the good and bad together and judging the guy or thing based on which outweighs which, and with dictators like Kim Jong-Il, the bad certainly outweighs the good. So to mention the very few good things in such a man's life is, while educational, pretty trivial because they're so completely outweighed by the bad."

My point there wasn't to argue that dictators have their good side as well as their bad side.  My point was in response to your claim that liberals "often defend bad things that are caused by individuals in third world countries and communist dictatorships."  I have not seen this happen on a broad scale in the liberal community.  The only thing I've seen close to this is the detailing of nuanced and in-depth histories of how these nations developed which includes both their successes and their failures.  If this is what you're referring to, I think you're misinterpreting these claims.

Like, if I say that "The economy of North Korea in its early years was highly modernized, and it was far more prosperous than the South.  The socialist distribution system was functional and agricultural output exceeded expectations," this is a positive and true statement about the history of North Korea, but it is in no way a defense of the North Korean regime.  I've seen similar statements about Maoist China, but it's in no way a defense of the overall system.  It's just taking into account that these regimes do have their successes, and that the causes of these successes merit investigation.
Reply
:iconjoeisbadass:
joeisbadass Featured By Owner Apr 9, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
That is part of what I was talking about. When people discuss the horrible things communist leaders have done I find sometimes liberals talking about the good they've done as well, just as I've seen conservatives do the same with fascist leaders. Now, because the little good they may or may not have done is severely outweighed by the bad, what point are they trying to get out of it? That the dictators were good? That the anti-communist propaganda posters don't mean anything?

Or is it perhaps the fact that, because liberalism and communism are both left-wing ideologies, liberals can't help but mention the little good those leaders in those movements may or may not have done, and I never heard any of your claims about Kim Jong-Il before so I can't help but think they're not true at all.

Or how about Obama putting up a Christmas ornament with Chairman Mao on it? What about college students that wear Che Guevara t shirts? What about this sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2…

I mean for god's sakes I've seen liberals praise Lenin for crying out loud! How do you not see it?
Reply
Add a Comment: