Nah, the person themselves comes first, those things listed on that post earlier are secondary unless you have such a black and white point of view. I've met and talked to great and terrible under all of those labels.
@Rebellious Treecko 's point is devastating because it points out the ridiculousness of a principle. It's certainly might be the principle that Cultural Marxists take, though that they have principles at all is questionable.
He points out that, quite often, they go too far. The authoritarian left may over play their hand and reveal their end goal of complete state control utopia (like I think they did with Hillary).
Rather than being on the side of the black, the hispanic, the atheist, the religious, and so on, they are only using their label to fool people into believing they are for liberty.
Or, worse, they convince people that the principle of egalitarianism is correct, and that that legitimizes authoritarian regimes "forcing equality" and "forcing liberty." Well the second is an oxymoron, but the first reveals a massive disparity between those in control of force and those not, so
Intentionally skewing the purpose of a message . . .but why?
I don't think he's so much skewing it as making a separate point about something loosely connected while using the same format.
Jesus hung out with all of the most despised scum in the land and had compassion for them. Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a country where children of all races could play together. But I get the feeling people on both sides of the fence wouldn't know how to extend an olive branch if it hit them in the face.
On the other hand, Jesus reprimanded the Sadducees. He reprimanded sinners who might not turn to Him. He appeals to a standard of morality which is
above the social bad and good guys of the time, one that is objective and universal. He did not come to bring peace, after all:
"49 I am come to cast fire on the earth; and what will I, but that it be kindled?
50 And I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized: and how am I straitened until it be accomplished?
51 Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.
52 For there shall be from henceforth five in one house divided: three against two, and two against three.
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against his father, the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother, the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." - Luke 12:49-53
Now, what is important to note, and what some people cannot fathom, is how one ought go about loving their neighbor. Love is not constituted in accepting everything they do. It is an act of the will to wish what is best for another, unconditionally. Often times, people don't want what is best for them. Yet, would we be justified in forcing them to accept our message? Certainly not, because that itself is evil and
must result in more evil inevitably. Turn the other cheek: do not resist evil with violence. He was a great warrior for social justice, advancing the liberties of women in Roman society, freeing the slave, setting prisoners free, and on, and how did he do it? Non-violent resistance. That is the best path to making the world a better place. Unfortunately, it is a path sometimes not available but note the prohibition against violence is only lifted when all other options are exhausted, not just when we
think they're exhausted, and that only happens when one must defend (never in aggression) their liberties and God-given rights. The government cannot force people to be virtuous, it cannot force people to be healthy: that is the role of civil society and the individual. Funnily enough, it turns out that the best strategy for converting hearts and minds is to extend that olive branch.
Pretty much. At least some people out there are capable of change if they're actually talked to instead of yelled at. It's not just red and blue, there's lots of purple in-between. You need to separate the issue from the human being and do things in an attempt to be constructive instead of in an attempt to lash out.
Aye. I'm even more at risk because I view the game as far above right and left. It's about statism vs liberty, the rule of law vs the laws of rulers. Yet, that never justifies hating statists. Humans have an essential, inalienable dignity that obligates all humans to honor and observe it. Ideas (which have no inherent dignity), though, like statism. Oh, that I can hate as much as I want!
