Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The New Puritanism, complete with witch burnings. This is the Progressive legacy. As hypocritical, judgmental, and unforgiving as the Pharisees of Jesus day, this new cult of Neo-Puritans is on the march against the sins of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia, with new sins being added almost daily.
"Celebrity chef Paula Deen did not commit the sin of racism; she is a “racist.” She must forever wear the Scarlet R, just as Mozilla’s Brendan Eich must wear the Scarlet H for “homophobe,” and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali wears the Scarlet I for “Islamophobe.” From the Neo-Puritan perspective, nothing else counts; that letter is their identity."
The latest sinner to be burned at the stake is Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
"Sterling must have had some sense of how the Neo-Puritans rolled. To keep them at bay, he had been buying their indulgences for years. Leon Jenkins, the Los Angeles branch NAACP president, observed that Sterling’s organization “brought in numerous minorities and inner city kids to games” and also “contributed to a lot of minority charities, including the NAACP.” Sterling’s largesse netted him an NAACP Lifetime Achievement award in 2009 and another one -- almost -- in 2014"
However,"[d]espite donations exclusively to liberal causes and candidates, the media were quick to redefine Sterling as a “registered Republican”
These are the new Puritans, practitioners of nonjudgmental-ism, who also love to quote Matthew 7, "Judge not lest you also be judged."
The New Puritanism, complete with witch burnings. This is the Progressive legacy. As hypocritical, judgmental, and unforgiving as the Pharisees of Jesus day, this new cult of Neo-Puritans is on the march against the sins of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia, with new sins being added almost daily.
"Celebrity chef Paula Deen did not commit the sin of racism; she is a “racist.” She must forever wear the Scarlet R, just as Mozilla’s Brendan Eich must wear the Scarlet H for “homophobe,” and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali wears the Scarlet I for “Islamophobe.” From the Neo-Puritan perspective, nothing else counts; that letter is their identity."
The latest sinner to be burned at the stake is Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
"Sterling must have had some sense of how the Neo-Puritans rolled. To keep them at bay, he had been buying their indulgences for years. Leon Jenkins, the Los Angeles branch NAACP president, observed that Sterling’s organization “brought in numerous minorities and inner city kids to games” and also “contributed to a lot of minority charities, including the NAACP.” Sterling’s largesse netted him an NAACP Lifetime Achievement award in 2009 and another one -- almost -- in 2014"
However,"[d]espite donations exclusively to liberal causes and candidates, the media were quick to redefine Sterling as a “registered Republican”
These are the new Puritans, practitioners of nonjudgmental-ism, who also love to quote Matthew 7, "Judge not lest you also be judged."
What a completely stupid and irrelevant rant this piece of garbage is. Both Dean and Sterling were owners and leaders of "COMMERCIAL" ENTERPRISES. Their being rode out of town on a rail is directly related to the almighty $$$$$$$$$ and the viability of the "Brand".
The New Puritanism, complete with witch burnings. This is the Progressive legacy. As hypocritical, judgmental, and unforgiving as the Pharisees of Jesus day, this new cult of Neo-Puritans is on the march against the sins of racism, sexism, homophobia, and Islamophobia, with new sins being added almost daily.
"Celebrity chef Paula Deen did not commit the sin of racism; she is a “racist.” She must forever wear the Scarlet R, just as Mozilla’s Brendan Eich must wear the Scarlet H for “homophobe,” and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali wears the Scarlet I for “Islamophobe.” From the Neo-Puritan perspective, nothing else counts; that letter is their identity."
The latest sinner to be burned at the stake is Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
"Sterling must have had some sense of how the Neo-Puritans rolled. To keep them at bay, he had been buying their indulgences for years. Leon Jenkins, the Los Angeles branch NAACP president, observed that Sterling’s organization “brought in numerous minorities and inner city kids to games” and also “contributed to a lot of minority charities, including the NAACP.” Sterling’s largesse netted him an NAACP Lifetime Achievement award in 2009 and another one -- almost -- in 2014"
However,"[d]espite donations exclusively to liberal causes and candidates, the media were quick to redefine Sterling as a “registered Republican”
These are the new Puritans, practitioners of nonjudgmental-ism, who also love to quote Matthew 7, "Judge not lest you also be judged."
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I wouldn't defend Sterling, and I'm sorry if this article was over your head. Too bad. You just don't 'get it,' do you.
What's there to get? This article and its followers seem upset that being racist is no longer socially acceptable and can cost people money now......
Somebody at the American Stinker should have bothered to look up what a Puritan actually was before throwing the label around.
I am getting a kick out this idea that tolerance means tolerating someone being a bigot and all around terrible human being, and that calling that person out on their bigotry equals persecution.
I thought it was quite insightful as well, and the source is irrelevant - the author is describing a real phenomenon that for the most part remains unrecognized. Much of what passes for leftism or liberalism is in truth a form of social conservatism - the list of sins differs but the method and basic worldview is the same, i.e. making people more moral by using the state to enforcing a code of moral behavior on them. Hate speech laws, public health laws a la Bloomberg, strict New Urbanist building codes, discouraging driving, and treating inequality* as a defining social problem all fit this pattern. This is what Roderick T. Long (a left-libertarian, not a conservative) called the "aristocratic left", who wish to use the state to force their own moral code and vision onto society; they are cultural liberals but are otherwise just like social conservatives. What he calls the "anti-privilege left" are the social liberals who want government to get out of one's bedroom and social life a la live and let live, but who also see government as a necessary counterweight to corporate power that can also run services that help people.
The two lefts differ in their basic view of government as well; the aristocratic left is very pro-government and tends to see government as inherently good and superior to the public, hence they do not see imperialism abroad, civil liberties and militarized police at home, or basic constitutional protections** as a priority, and even can be be pro-surveillance and pro-war. A boilerplate aristocratic left point of view is neatly contained in this Tom Watson piece, which is more concerned about being corrupted by "anti-government" ideologues than protecting basic civil liberties; this is the left that was extremely hostile to Ron Paul and regularly demonizes people as "anti-government".
On the other hand, the anti-privilege left is not necessarily pro-government, and tends to see government as an institution inferior (or at best equal) to the public which can be good under close supervision but will easily turn evil if civil liberties and constitutional protections are no longer enforced, hence these issues along with foreign policy and police militarization are given top priority or close to it. A boilerplate anti-privilege left point of view is contained in this Jeff Cohen piece and in pretty much any Glenn Greenwald piece. This is the left that is more concerned about protecting basic civil liberties than whether they are allying with anti-government people to do so, and this is the left that was praising Ron Paul.
I have a few rules of thumb for distinguishing the two: if a left-wing man hates Snowden, hates Ron Paul more than most other candidates, supports criminalizing hate speech, supports eminent domain for private development, and uses "anti-government" as a regular epithet, he is almost certainly part of the aristocratic left; if a left-wing man likes Snowden, likes Ron Paul more than most other candidates, opposes criminalizing hate speech, opposes eminent domain for private development, and does not have any qualms about being "anti-government", he is almost certainly part of the anti-privilege left.
Don't overestimate the difference between them, though; on a multitude of issues both factions are united and have the same positions. However, they come from fundamentally different perspectives and sometimes it shows through in the form of divides in the left or contradictions between social control and social liberalism that are otherwise puzzling. We're not dealing with one ideology here but two that are similar in a multitude of ways but in other ways are opposites.
*Not inequality as a symptom of another problem, but just inequality in and of itself as a threat to society's well-being and our morality/empathy. Robert Reich presents an excellent example of this line of thought at Salon, which neatly connects tax rates and inequality to how moral people are, alleging that paying huge tax rates is moral and empathetic and that their own wealth and increasing inequality have corrupted the moral fiber of the rich and led them to support tax cuts. Does that sound like the traditionally liberal "live-and-let-live" vision of social life to you? The basic method of argument is very right-wing.
**Except where those protections serve their social agenda; the Fourteenth Amendment has been very useful in this regard, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments not so much.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-05-2014 at 12:52 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Survey has found that more Americans see black people as racist than white people or even Hispanics.
Thirty seven percent of American adults spoken to by respected pollsters Rasmussen think that African American citizens hold racist views, as opposed to just 15 percent of white Americans.
Indeed, even the black adults the survey spoke to, 31 percent said they considered people of their own race to be racist while only 24-percent thought that white people were bigoted.
Interesting the way almost nobody responded to the point of the post. Each poster finds some ancillary aspect that skirts the overall point and runs with it like a cheetah, in an attempt to discredit or divert the intended point.
The point is that our society is becoming just as repressive in another sort of way as the society of the Puritans was. The fact that none of you can see that confirms that you are a Puritan (in this modern sense). Do you think the Puritans saw their flaws? Do you think that the Puritans saw themselves as anything other than 100% correct in their philosophies? Do you think the Puritans saw themselves as anything other than 100% correct in the way they dealt with those who did not share their philosophies? That fact and the fact that progressive psychology is similar in it's mechanics--and the fact that nearly none of you can see it--reaffirms the point of OP. If you can't see that the post was NOT trying to justify a racist's despicable comments, you have affirmed that you are a Neo-Puritan (which is a damn good description that I hadn't heard until now).
Now, go ahead and divert your energy to more witch burnings. Don't discuss the fact that your philosophical intolerance is very similar to that of the Puritans.
Note: philosophical intolerance is not dependent on the actual philosophical content. So just in case your cerebral horsepower does not allow for reasoning the distinction through clearly, I'll point it out here. Nobody is saying your beliefs correspond to those of the Puritans. What is being said is that the fanatic enforcement of your beliefs is quite similar... thus "Neo-Puritan." Wonderful term. Thanks OP.
The New Puritanism, complete with witch burnings. This is the Progressive legacy.
What we have in America is plain ol' fascism. Disagreeing publicly with the current liberal groupthink can get you fired, financially ruined, ostracized, or jailed. Very Orwellian these days thanks to liberal fanaticism.
It's not as if some liberals aren't suffering from the same fear of contamination that dominated the Puritans; when the author says Puritan, I believe he's referring to the worldview, not to the specific lifestyle.
Interesting the way almost nobody responded to the point of the post. Each poster finds some ancillary aspect that skirts the overall point and runs with it like a cheetah, in an attempt to discredit or divert the intended point.
The point is that our society is becoming just as repressive in another sort of way as the society of the Puritans was. The fact that none of you can see that confirms that you are a Puritan (in this modern sense). Do you think the Puritans saw their flaws? Do you think that the Puritans saw themselves as anything other than 100% correct in their philosophies? Do you think the Puritans saw themselves as anything other than 100% correct in the way they dealt with those who did not share their philosophies? That fact and the fact that progressive psychology is similar in it's mechanics--and the fact that nearly none of you can see it--reaffirms the point of OP. If you can't see that the post was NOT trying to justify a racist's despicable comments, you have affirmed that you are a Neo-Puritan (which is a damn good description that I hadn't heard until now).
Now, go ahead and divert your energy to more witch burnings. Don't discuss the fact that your philosophical intolerance is very similar to that of the Puritans.
Note: philosophical intolerance is not dependent on the actual philosophical content. So just in case your cerebral horsepower does not allow for reasoning the distinction through clearly, I'll point it out here. Nobody is saying your beliefs correspond to those of the Puritans. What is being said is that the fanatic enforcement of your beliefs is quite similar... thus "Neo-Puritan." Wonderful term. Thanks OP.
No, thank you, and also, Patricius Maximus.
Seeing ones reflection in a mirror often results in denial. In Jesus day, he addressed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (whom maybe we could call the Puritans of His day) in The Sermon on the Mount.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
