Are you Intellectually Honest?
If you spent 20 years in the congregation of Rev. Wright, would you disavow the man and his ideals when politically convenient? If you stood with a man who claims to be an honest and Godly man, yet you discover he is a liar, would you still stand with him? More: You discover that he is a liar for self-aggrandizement and egotistical reasons.
Honesty is one of those core values that is not negotiable in my world. Of course there are a few caveats. Lying to protect an operation or an ally is justifiable. Fibbing to your wife about the skirt with the horizontal stripes and her butt is not only justifiable, but probably prudent. I'll lie in a hot second if it advances the survivability goals of my Tribe, especially if no injury is caused by the lie. But lying for selfish purposes is not acceptable.
I could stand with a man who is genuinely patriotic and a selfish liar, but I will not.
Lying for selfish reasons reveals a very ugly fact about the liar. Standing with such a man reveals much about you.
Intellectual Honesty demands that when you learn of a failing in a person that you find offensive, you live up to your own standards, even if it hurts. Step away. Or, at the very least, challenge the lie in the same venue it was offered. If the lie was public, challenge it publicly. If you denounce liars, and choose to stand with a liar, you are not being Intellectually Honest, and you assume the same taint as the liar and you are lying to every man who chooses to stand with you. When you fail to call out a lie, you are as guilty as the liar and equally responsible for the damages and injury inflicted.
Too many people are willing to "overlook" the failures of others when it suits their goals.
When you advocate 1A rights, when you pound upon the altar of patriotism that 1A is not only a Constitutional Right, but a Right of Natural Law, and then you call for a website that is critical of you to be shut down for obscenity (or any other reason), you demonstrate that you are a hypocrite of the highest order. Every 1A advocate who remains at your shoulder who knows the truth about you is being intellectually dishonest, and is equally guilty.
There are core values that should be used to measure the people with whom you will stand, and when deciding who you will permit to cover your back. When you trust a man to cover your back, you are also trusting that man with the fate of your family. If you get knifed in the back, is not your entire family placed in dire straits?
Could I be accused of living in a glass house and throwing stones? I have been accused of many things, but not lying for self-gain.
Choose your allies carefully, Patriots.
What is coming our way will be merciless and unforgiving. If you choose your allies imprudently, you will die.
Kerodin
III
This seems more focused and less general-minded than what I've read of your postings my friend.
ReplyDeleteIs there something or someone that is specifically being referenced here?
Did someone wrong ye?
The acts described are specific, fresh and recurring in "the Liberty Movement".
DeleteThe lesson is offered generally for others who may find themselves in similar circumstances.
Names deliberately left out, as there is no point raising a ruckus, but there is value in the broader lesson for others.
K
Excellent piece. By standing by my convictions, I mostly stand alone - with the exception of my husband, of course -- as I am surrounded by so many that are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cheryl.
DeleteI know the feeling. There is not one person in my AO who is III that I have met. I have to come online to find even a few.
Stay safe.
K
Read a few other things today after I first read this.....not many to trust is there?
ReplyDeleteToo few, maybe.
DeleteJanos mentioned the 3% of the 3%, and I don't think he's wrong.
K
"When you advocate 1A rights, when you pound upon the altar of patriotism that 1A is not only a Constitutional Right, but a Right of Natural Law, and then you call for a website that is critical of you to be shut down for obscenity (or any other reason), you demonstrate that you are a hypocrite of the highest order. Every 1A advocate who remains at your shoulder who knows the truth about you is being intellectually dishonest, and is equally guilty."
ReplyDeleteBased on the post as written, and having no further knowledge of the subject being written about, I have to call this flawed reasoning (with a liberal salting of irony).
A call to shut down or censure a web site for obscenity (or for any other reason) is, in fact, protected speech under the First Amendment just as that speech considered 'obscene' or otherwise offensive is protected, most likely to the annoyance of the complaining party. It is not hypocritical to 'call' for something such as censure, we do it every time we argue our own points against those of others.
A "call" is not an order or decree and has no legal or moral authority over the web site or anyone else in question. All the 'call' is comprised of is the opinion of the author, which may or may not be shared by others. So it follows that after such a 'call' others may not visit the offending web-site in the future, or may visit it more, looking for whatever.
That is not hypocrisy.
Further, a to conflate a 'call' for censure with the 'act' of censuring or 'shutting down' one site or another is, at best, mistaken, and at worst, disingenous.
That's how I see it.
Sorry Trainer, you reach your conclusion based on insufficient information, which I did not include in the post.
DeleteIt most assuredlt *is* hypocrisy to call for 1A as an absolute, and then try to shut down another person's 1A through the power of a 3rd party. Note I did not say it is a violation of 1A to call for the shut down, but it is hypocisy, no matter how one cuts it.
K
"Based on the post as written, and having no further knowledge of the subject being written about..."
ReplyDeleteAcknowledged at the beginning of my comment.
As to hypocrisy, as an example, let's use the word, "obscenity" to describe two web sites: Mine (imaginary) and yours. Let's say we both post things that are generally defined as 'obscene'. When I not only call for your site to be shut down, but I campaign, while at the same time defend my own 'obscenity' and persuade others to contiue to visit my site, I am guilty of he charge of 'hypocrisy'.
However, if my site is not generally considered obscene, and if I only 'call' for the shut down of your site, which is, in this example, 'obscene' and don't do anything else other than say "His site needs to be shut down because it's obscene!," I'm not being hypocritical, so long as my site is significantly different than yours, and I have no legal or moral authority to have the action taken by a third party.
People would still be free to take both opinions (mine and yours) of the validity of the 'call' to shut down your site, form their own opinions on the merit of my charge and act accordingly.
Here's the thing about the First Amendment that's not absolute: License to say/display virtually anything one wishes without any consequence whatever. We may say, do, or display something blatently offensive, but we should know that depending on the venue, there will most likely be a consequence for our speech if it offends to a certain degree.
To support my position, I offer the power of blog owners to ban commenters from their sites as evidence.
If one were to say that the First Amendment was 'absolute', one could not, in good conscience, ban commenters from their site and not be hypocritical, could they? The moment a blog owner banned someone's comment after speaking on the First Amendment in any absolute manner, they'd be hypocritical.
Trainer: I affirmed that you had incomplete information. As to hypocrisy, I do understand the definition, clearly.
DeleteAs I have said many times on this site and elsewhere, 1A is not an absolute. Just as the Constitution and BoR is not a suicide pact, actions and words have consequences.
K
Well, were gonna die anyway. Make sure the bastards feel your passing.
ReplyDeleteMake em earn their pay that day.
Usually, "censure" implies an opinion, a reproach. "Censor" more commonly implies an action, the prevention (prohibition) of something being expressed.
ReplyDeleteLots of people in the so-called "freedom movement" believe in specifically their sort of freedom and their beliefs and opinions. That's why it's basically a microcosm of the larger society---everyone wants everyone else to believe and act as he (or she) would. And the only way to do that, of course, is to physically coerce the other person, and so we see the same sort of threats and gangish behavior that we see society-wide.
Now if more folk were as boring as me, then this wouldn't be a problem, since who would want everyone to be like that! The whole error anyway is seeing what's wrong with everyone else, instead of what's right. It's akin to our current social ethics being about destruction rather than creation. Our society is focused on what we won't let the next guy do, instead of benefiting from what he can do.
A "call" for others to actually take action such as hitting the "report abuse" button on the blog site of another, because of a disagreement, is most certainly an attempt at censorship. Any attempt to completely silence another by having their blog shut down; is a childish and very liberal attempt to shut out opposing views. Very Alinskyish and speaks very poorly of such a person who would use these tactics. Knowing enough about what this post is about, I also know the one who made the "suggestion" for others to take such action is absolutely a hypocrite for doing so. Kind of sad, because I used to admire this person for their shameless honesty in speaking truths others dared not speak of or mention.
ReplyDelete