very interesting book review

[Aesop]

Rock on then.

Do liberals pursue their fantasies with a fervor suggestive of religious belief?
Certainly. So do communists.
What does that tell me that contributes anything to solving the problem of their existence?
And what predictive powers does such a thesis convey that would have been otherwise unavailable based on other or prior observations without it?

Should we therefore crucify their founders?
Set them loose in contests with lions and tigers for public sport?
Send them to cult de-programming?
Inculcate them with a better understanding of science to undermine their pseudo-faith?
Burn their churches?
Or simply treat them like Shinto Buddhists and jihadis, and nuke their cities until they capitulate?

I'm open to any suggestions, but even assuming the author of the book in question is providing anything insightful, what good is it?

Men studied birds for hundreds of years trying to unlock the secrets of flight, to minimal avail.
Turns out the secret to flying was to view it like riding a bicycle through the air.

I deal with delusional people daily. I urge you to take it as truth when I tell you that striving to understand the basis and mechanics of their delusions forms no basis of the treatment of their condition, any day since forever. You may briefly humor them, but only until you get them medicated, or you can get the straps on them and tie them down so they aren't a threat to themselves or anyone else.

And liberals are nothing if not delusional.

If like Bishop in Aliens, you wish to study their physiology, have fun.
Like Ripley and Hicks, I simply want to fall back, and nuke them from orbit.
Metaphorically by preference, but if it comes to it, I can live with doing it the literal way if necessary.
All observation points to them not getting "Stay off my lawn" by any lesser method of communication.

[Aglifter]

The Socratic method has been polished to a high degree, by people who, professionally, convince others to come to the correct conclusion, firmly convinced, it was their own idea.

Hippies aren't nec. bad people, they're mostly just "soft-headed." - and, direct confrontation with facts doesn't work - they simply shy away.

But, if you simply ask questions, ask for support, etc they can get shaky - or at least, feel less confident expressing those views.

The key is not to come off as "That A**Hole who can't see the truth," but rather to instill the seed of doubt.

I admit, I have seen an, intelligent, physics professor mention some rather conservative views, as the logical conclusion, then say, "I cannot let myself think that."

They are trapped in a delusion, but they are not devoid of the capacity to reason - it is merely not being exercised.

[Aesop]

At that point it's being actively and willfully suppressed.



The Socratic method only works with people who possess intellectual honesty, a desire to seek knowledge of the truth, and the ability to regard reality unflinchingly.

Call me when Hillary Clinton is writing for American Spectator or National Review, or when the NYTimes puts P.J. O'Rourke in charge of the editorial page.

[HTRN]

Hippies aren't nec. bad people, they're mostly just "soft-headed." - and, direct confrontation with facts doesn't work - they simply shy away.

To paraphrase an eminent 20th century philosopher..

You've got to remember that these are just simple hippies. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new wave of thought. You know... morons.