Forums

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Author Topic: Slippery Goldberg
Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 914
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 08:35
Quote

I really don’t wish to instigate a chorus of “boos” at Snidely Whiplash nor engage in a Friday two-minute-hate. By doing so we risk fitting the adage, “There has never been a statue erected to honor a critic.” Snipping at the heals of more successful men, if not actually greater men, is an ignoble pursuit.

One reason StubbornThings was born is that I found myself too often doing just that at the bottom of someone else’s article. The snipping dog may pretend he is in the superior position but he is still nearer the ground. I thus thought to raise up our discourse and be the beast who is walking upright on two legs — write our own stuff, however fallible — instead of being the snipping dog.

Alas, that is easier said than done. The Daily Drama has taken on a life of its own. This is the reason Facebook and Twitter are such giants. We now revel in complaining as a participation sport.

Still, it is amusing to me to see Jonah Goldberg still trying to justify his abrupt move to the left on gay marriage. He prevaricated back then and he’s doubling-down now on his nonsense. According to Goldberg, he didn’t actually change positions. Instead, “the ground underneath me did”:

For instance, in 2002, I came in favor of same-sex domestic partnerships, or "civil unions." This was widely seen as a compromise between advocates of gay marriage and opponents. It would offer all the rights and benefits of marriage while still reserving the institution of marriage itself for heterosexual couples.

It's probably hard for young people to appreciate today, but back then, that was a very left-wing thing for someone to do. And for a conservative like yours truly, it was a kind of apostasy. Various social conservatives attacked me. But within a few years, the zeitgeist moved dramatically on the issue. Denying gays the last benefit of marriage -- the word itself -- was bigotry and "right-wing extremism."

In other words, I didn't move, the ground underneath me did.

I did find that truly amusing.

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 350
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 09:05
Quote

It is called sophistry.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 914
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 09:34
Quote

LOL. It is indeed that.

“Back then” the idea of gay marriage was “a very left-wing thing.” So now it’s not because it been sanitized by being an idea that is widespread in the culture? That’s your standard? No “standing athwart”?

“Back in 1920 the idea of throwing Jews into concentration camps was a very National Socialist thing. But the ground underneath me then moved.”

Listen, I understand changing one’s position because either one didn’t ever truly believe the reverse (which I think is likely with Goldberg) or one hasn’t the capacity or gumption to oppose what is a popular idea. But it does leave one in the position of spaghetti logic, not to mention losing whatever reputation for honesty that one has.

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 350
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 09:58
Quote

“Back in 1920 the idea of throwing Jews into concentration camps was a very National Socialist thing. But the ground underneath me then moved.”

Great minds think alike. I wrote the below over lunch.

For instance, in the early 1930's, I came in favor of "racial-hygene.", or "euthanasia." This was widely seen as a compromise between advocates of genocide and opponents. It would offer all the rights and benefits of racial purity while still reserving the institution of life itself for pure couples.

It's probably hard for young people to appreciate today, but back then, that was a very left-wing thing for someone to do. And for a conservative like yours truly, it was a kind of apostasy. Various social conservatives attacked me. But within a few years, the zeitgeist moved dramatically on the issue. Denying those suffering lives not fit to live the last benefit of euthanasia -- the word itself -- was bigotry and "right-wing extremism."

In other words, I didn't move, the ground underneath me did.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 914
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 10:03
Quote

Very good, Mr. Kung. It all comes back to your concise description: sophistry.

Kung Fu Zu
Moderator
Posts: 350
Permalink
Kung Fu Zu
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 10:46
Quote

And Goldberg's statement about the "Zeitgeist moving" should include the proviso that, like that concerning the Holocaust, the Zeitgeist on queer-marriage moved due to the government forcing it upon the population. Every vote on the subject resulted in a negative for "institution."

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 914
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 11:06
Quote

An honest article by Goldberg would go something like this, Mr. Kung:

“If your friend jumped off a cliff, would you do so too? Yes! I would.”

Goldberg’s rationale is ultimately “My friends are doing it so I will too.” Follow the Zeitgeist...even over the cliff. If the Zeitgeist bangs its head against the wall, that is the reason you should do so as well. "Standing athwart" is not the point.

Ultimately, one cannot be a conservative if there is no more anchorage to your principles than Zeitgeist.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 624
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 14:51
Quote

Some very good points made here about an article I read, too. As it happens, I supported the idea of civil unions as well. But I didn't change my mind just because the courts ultimately decided that such a compromise was unconstitutional.

Brad-
Nelson
Administrator
Posts: 914
Permalink
Brad Nelson
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 15:24
Quote

I’ve been on both sides of this issue, Timothy, if only in rhetorical flourish. (I’m an old debating-school graduate. I can fight on any side.) But other than gravity and the charge of the electron, there probably is no more objectively solid thing than male and female. If, as a conservative, you give those up then all of your ideas are clearly up for sale. All that is left then is “consensus,” opportunism, or ephemeral emotion as your guiding light, as dim a bulb as that may be.

Timothy-
Lane
Moderator
Posts: 624
Permalink
Post Re: Slippery Goldberg
on: February 2, 2018, 18:02
Quote

That's why I never moved from allowing civil unions to government recognition of homosexual marriage. The issue has never been banning them, merely giving them official recognition. This is something the advocates of homosexual marriage have been careful to hide, which may be one reason I never considered joining them. Note, too, that civil unions were proposed by homosexual activists as a compromise -- and then they used its nature as a compromise to get the courts to strike them down in favor of outright marriage.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.185 seconds.