Crusader War College

Link: https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31990330&postID=1332270850091294119

Zionist Youngster has an excellent post on postmodernist tricks to avoid, deflect, or put down criticism of their narratives. ZY correctly points out that one can LISTEN to the narratives of others: they are, at base, arguments for looking (or not looking) at a certain set of facts in a certain way. However, Listening does not constitute acceptance. He then points out how Postmodernists react to critical non-acceptance of their narratives.

This put me in the right frame of mind to comment on a certain aspect of liberal argumentation: that they are not really arguing, but merely stating a narrative and are expecting acceptance of the narrative on grounds that it agrees with certain beliefs of theirs. The treatment is not as much as a framing and laying out of the facts to support an argument as much as it is the expectation that the narrative be accepted IN THE PLACE OF FACTS.

It was while making a comment at ZY's blog that I realized that what passes for 'arguments' on the left are merely narratives that are structurally similar to college class reports and homework essays graded by leftist college professors (LCPs). These are not expected to examine the facts, but intended to be catechisms: a recital of statements and beliefs intended to check items off of a unspoken checklist that is not transmitted verbally by the professors, but is transmitted non-verbally, via good and bad grades awarded by the LCPs. A fact can be cited, but only if it helps check an item off that checklist. If it does not, or even leads to the implication that the item cannot or should not be checked off, it's left out. Facts are not central, but supportive: useful only if they help to reach a goal, but not to be considered in a way that would require one to change one's goal. To change one's goal is to say that the demanded narrative is incorrect.

This is not education, but pavlovian training for behaviour that produces narratives that support preconceived leftist conclusions, with good grades being the positive reinforcing stimulus, and bad grades being the negative reinforcing stimulus. There is, in a sense, a Liberal Narrative that is held as a Platonic ideal for every situation, with goodness or badness being judged by how close or far one's concrete and materially real narrative reflects that Ideal Liberal Narrative. Noam Chomsky's arguments are greatly flawed, but that's merely from the point of view of an argument based on looking at and reacting to the mere facts: his essays are hailed because they come close to manifesting that Liberal Narrative Ideal.

Contrast this with the dry and factual lab reports and homework demanded by professors in the hard sciences and mathematics. Such products more nearly match that which real-life employers demand. Thus, such professors help their students prepare for a life of labor that produces that which is truly useful.

Having been conditioned, not educated, the liberal students graduate with the expectation that continued spouting of narratives that strive to support and reflect the Ideal Liberal Narrative should produce the "real world" equivalent of good grades. When such is not forthcoming, they see that as support for the Ideal Liberal Narrative about the cruelties and injustice of capitalism, rather than as evidence of the abject failure of Liberal College Professors to educate them to do anything remotely useful.

The former probably don't have the sense to fear the day when someone sees through this and remark, "Y'know? Nobody EVER made anything useful thinking the way YOU DO!"