Comments on: The “Extremist” Smear http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/ Our mission is to combat the unreason and selflessness that are sweeping our culture from the nihilist left to the religious right, and to sound a new ideal of capitalism and individual rights in American politics. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:04:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Chuck http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1778 Chuck Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:59:48 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1778 Jim, I agree the use of "ideologue," and of "extremist" as well, is widespread on both sides of the aisle. Both of my examples are from Little Green Footballs, a right wing blog, although it is becoming unpopular with conservatives since it started denouncing creationism. I don't even visit leftist blogs or websites, so I couldn't point to any examples from them. Jim, I agree the use of “ideologue,” and of “extremist” as well, is widespread on both sides of the aisle. Both of my examples are from Little Green Footballs, a right wing blog, although it is becoming unpopular with conservatives since it started denouncing creationism. I don’t even visit leftist blogs or websites, so I couldn’t point to any examples from them.

]]> By: Jim May http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1776 Jim May Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:17:33 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1776 I like Barry Goldwater on this topic: "“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Chuck: the use of "ideologue", while definitely connected to militant pragmatism, tends to come more often from conservatives than Leftists, as the former have a fundamental hostility to any sort of rational "system-building"; they insist that their conservatism is not an ideology, but an "anti-ideology". Apart from the fact that this claim is flat wrong, that they make it at all is extremely telling about their fundamental irrationality -- and their <i>pride</i> thereof. I like Barry Goldwater on this topic:

““I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Chuck: the use of “ideologue”, while definitely connected to militant pragmatism, tends to come more often from conservatives than Leftists, as the former have a fundamental hostility to any sort of rational “system-building”; they insist that their conservatism is not an ideology, but an “anti-ideology”.

Apart from the fact that this claim is flat wrong, that they make it at all is extremely telling about their fundamental irrationality — and their pride thereof.

]]> By: L-C http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1775 L-C Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:07:22 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1775 It is a way of shutting down ideas as such, because only consistent advocates of ideas can counter altruism and pragmatism. Why saw off a branch when you can snap the trunk while the tree is still young? Pragmatism replaces - and blocks out - so much more than any particular ideology. It is a way of shutting down ideas as such, because only consistent advocates of ideas can counter altruism and pragmatism.

Why saw off a branch when you can snap the trunk while the tree is still young?

Pragmatism replaces – and blocks out – so much more than any particular ideology.

]]> By: Michael Labeit http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1769 Michael Labeit Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:07:51 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1769 I've found that pragmatism and moderation can also be "extreme." Consistent inconsistency is metaphysically possible. I’ve found that pragmatism and moderation can also be “extreme.” Consistent inconsistency is metaphysically possible.

]]> By: Stephen Macklin http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1768 Stephen Macklin Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:28:45 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1768 I like this guy's take on the idea. He explains the whole of the Left's political argument as "Shut Up." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s I like this guy’s take on the idea. He explains the whole of the Left’s political argument as “Shut Up.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWHgUE9AD4s

]]> By: Chuck http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1763 Chuck Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:26:38 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1763 Thanks for those links to the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Burgess. Another word being used today to smear principled thought is "ideologue." It condemns anyone who has an ideology, i.e., a political philosophy, in favor of the preferred alternative, which, as usual, is pragmatism. Thanks for those links to the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Burgess. Another word being used today to smear principled thought is “ideologue.” It condemns anyone who has an ideology, i.e., a political philosophy, in favor of the preferred alternative, which, as usual, is pragmatism.

]]> By: Burgess Laughlin http://www.newclarion.com/2009/04/the-extremist-smear/#comment-1757 Burgess Laughlin Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:24:22 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=900#comment-1757 In conversation with pragmatists -- either online or face-to-face -- I have found the best counter to a charge of "extremism" is to simply, politely ask for a definition. That is the first step. The second step depends on the answer: evasion, denial of the need for definitions, outright mysticism (claims of "common sense," for example), or an invalid definition. Of course, one needs to be prepared to provide an objective definition of <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-concepts.html" rel="nofollow">anti-concept</a>. One also needs to know what makes a <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html" rel="nofollow">definition</a> objective. In conversation with pragmatists — either online or face-to-face — I have found the best counter to a charge of “extremism” is to simply, politely ask for a definition.

That is the first step. The second step depends on the answer: evasion, denial of the need for definitions, outright mysticism (claims of “common sense,” for example), or an invalid definition.

Of course, one needs to be prepared to provide an objective definition of anti-concept. One also needs to know what makes a definition objective.

]]>