(07-31-2019 07:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (07-31-2019 07:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: I have only met two or three very deep progressives who werent smug asshats in that ingrained way, at the very least, to be honest.
Of all the hundreds if not thousands of deep progressives that you have presumably met ONLY two or three of them weren't smug asshats? This is starting to feel like maybe it is on you. Remember when you said, "I respond to smug asshats in much the same way that they project."?
And you left off the key phrase: in that ingrained way.
I take it that you believe that the progressive (or your) view of 'fairness' is the ultimate ideal? What makes you (or any progressive, or anyone for that fing matter) the god-given arbiter of 'fairness'; or 'equality' for that matter. I would think that is one of the apogees of smug, to be honest, at least in the real world.
On top of that the ultimate ideal of 'enforcing' the 'fairness' or 'equality' is to exert the force of law over others in pursuit of *your* version of fairness. That is one of the other apogees of 'smug', to be honest.
Both are cornerstones of modern progressivism. Kind of smug^2, is it not?
That is the idea I am trying to get across vis a vis liberalism and its inherent relationship to smugness. To be honest, conservatism to an extent employs this; but to a vastly larger extent the conservative doesnt think to the level of the progressive that *their* worldview should be crammed down the throat of everyone else by using the gears of government force to do that. At least not to the level inherent in progressivism.
For some odd reason the progressive community has become the most illiberal one in our society re: the tolerance of opposing viewpoints. Or of differences of opinion. You sure as fk dont see conservatives seeking to get college professors fired and banned via the pitchfork method these days, do you? You sure as fk dont see libertarian or conservative mobs seeking as a goal to shut down progressive speakers on campus, do you? *That* is the illiberalism there, and another example of the ingrained 'smugness' of modern progressivism.
If you want to respond, at least respond to the topic I spoke of (i.e. the inherent and ingrained nature of smugness relating to progressivism), here is an opportunity to engage at that level. Perhaps you didnt understand what I said, so here is the deeper explanation. Your opportunity to engage at that level, join the other leftists that I "presumably" know, or attempt in a civil manner to explain that progressivism doesnt in fact have such an ingrained smugness.
Or go down the super duper Jr Dr Freud path and note that 'gee dont you really think the problem is *yours*', which is the one you actually chose to employ; that is, as opposed to an actual discussion of progressivism and its building blocks. Color me fking astonished..... (/sarcasm off)
Funny, that path that you chose to employ, pretty much indicates your *own* internal level of condescension, because you seemingly actually chose not to address any fking single point on the buidling blocks of modern progressivism, but chose a snide as fk form personal attack as a response. Good for you sparkles.
If you want to characterize that I am smug to leftists, I could very well be. For those reasons explained above inherent to their own belief system.
Maybe that wasnt written well, perhaps you just didnt understand. Maybe both. Maybe you dont care and just want to get in an ad hom to add to your own personal smugness score, I dont know.
So yes, when some douchehat tells me that *obviously* that is the way, I will treat them with the equivalent level of scorn and disrespect that they inherently show my knuckle dragging libertarianism.
When some douchehat thinks that they should invoke the power of government to enforce their view of 'equality' and/or 'fairness' --- same result probably.
So yes, I stand by my original thesis that modern progressivism has a huge amount of built in 'smug' for those reasons. When they employ hit and run tactics, and employ implied commentary that, when pressured, they simply state that the snark comment 'really had no generalized purpose' -- yes -- I find that pretty much at the apogee of condescension.
Given that basis, how do you think your Freudian level analysis of 'that this is on me' appears? (to copy your kind of old and stale version of ending with an empty rhetorical question....)
/
Why do all these racists keep joining the GOP?
