Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
In the social landscapes I do travel - forums like this, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the local music scene, forums dedicated to my hobbies of gaming and speculative fiction - I'm far more likely to come across left-wing zeal and dogma than right-wing. And the people who parrot the left-wing talking points seem even less self-reflective than their counterparts on the right. Maybe it's because they're younger, and because the mainstream media has adopted many of the shibboleths of the left, but many on the new left seem to have never had their beliefs challenged, or had to defend them with reason and empiricism. And the prospect of a whole generation that holds very strong opinions that are unchallenged and unexamined is troubling. So I don't hesitate to challenge and poke and question them, even though it often brings down a pack of righteous puritans on my head.
|
To be fair, I think both you and CHL don't acknowledge your own biases when dealing with these topics. You both appear to rest your beliefs in the supremacy of liberal values and don't acknowledge the possibility that perhaps the "new left" are consciously rejecting some of these values or replacing them with what they believe are more considerate, compassionate, and cooperative alternatives.
That's not to say I necessarily agree with the tactics or ideologies of the so-called "new left," just that evaluating them under the liberal framework is inherently biased, and often misses the point of the debate.
I do agree that evidence-based decision making is usually the best approach, and that the anti-science nuts on both sides create their own issues. However, when it comes to values, objective parameters are a lot more difficult to come by. For instance, weighing rights-based doctrine vs. responsibilities-based doctrine.