They F*cking Love Science

Don’t ever not remember to forget that.  (Ace of Spades link).  The headline says it all:

Monsters, men and magic: why feminists turned to witchcraft to oppose Trump.

I’ve said before that I was something of a hippie in college.  I’ve also said that I did it mostly to get laid, and for one beautiful summer just after graduation, it all meshed together.  Her name wasn’t Sky Moonbeam Ravenhawke, but it might as well have been.  She was only a few years older than me, but already getting cougar-y (living the “all natural” lifestyle seems to really put the miles on a woman; have you noticed?), so she was ready willing and able to help me get in touch with my, ummm, “spirit essence” in all kinds of inventive ways.  I’ve never had it so good, before or since….

…. fun as that was, though, I couldn’t help but notice something weird about her and her friends.  Well, ok, pretty much everything about her and her friends was weird, but this seemed weird even by the standards of a gal who called herself Sky Moonbeam Ravenhawke: When they weren’t channeling crystals or chanting in drum circles to save the rainforest, they all were patting themselves on the back about how much they loved science.

For the benefit of younger readers: If you think Lefties Fucking Love Science(TM) now, you have no idea of the torrid affair they carried on with it back when the USSR was still a going concern.  Karl Marx, of course, pretended that his sub-Hegelian flatulence was the only truly scientific world view, and his disciples have been playing along ever since.  “The facts have a liberal bias,” you’d routinely be informed, by people who spent $200 to have their chakras cleansed by a Navajo shaman once every two months.

I can’t think of a better illustration of what I call (for lack of a better term) the Left’s grammar problem.  Lefties tend to get nouns and verbs mixed up.  “Science,” for instance.  I’m not going to go all Vox Day here and start making up words, but when normal people say “science,” we generally mean it as a verb:

  • “Science” is what scientists do; it’s shorthand for “applying the scientific method.”

This is why, when we’re presented with a startling new find from the white coat guys — that the polar ice caps have all melted, say — we ask to see the lab work.  If it’s really science, then we should be able to replicate the experiment ourselves.  Or, at the very least, you should be able to show us the satellite photos….

Which nicely highlights the Left’s notion of “science.”  To them, it’s a noun:

  • “Science” is a fixed body of knowledge; upon which “scientists” operate the way theologians work on the Bible.

What “scientists” do in the Left’s world, then, is what normal people call “hermeneutics.” This is why the bizarre phrase “the science is settled!” makes sense to Leftists.  You don’t get to see God’s lab work, after all, and you’re not allowed to make up new Scriptures.  To them, an ordinary person challenging a “scientist” on a point of “science” is like a layman challenging the Pope on a point of theology.

Right and Left really do communicate in different “frames,” as the very very leftwing George Lakoff would have it.

According to him people view the world through the lens of their metaphors, which he thinks provide them with the framework of their thought. Since the 1980s, liberals have allowed conservative metaphors to take over their own metaphoric framework, so that all discussions or arguments about social policy are carried out on conservative terms. Liberals waste their time and effort in arguing from the evidence (conservatives, of course, can have no evidence); they should instead be working to get conservatives to accept a different metaphoric framework.

That’s Theodore Dalrymple giving Lakoff both barrels, and you should definitely read the whole thing, but later.  For now, focus on the word “evidence.”  I love Dalrymple, but he’s actually missing a trick here.  If you accept Lakoff’s ideas, then yes, of course “conservatives…can have no evidence,” because conservatives operate in an entirely different mental world.  “Social policy,” for instance, often means “poverty,” and we use “poverty” like a verb: Poverty is what poor people do.  There are certain decisions and behaviors that land you in poverty.  Change your ways of thinking and acting, and you will no longer be poor.  

For the Left, “poverty” is a noun.  Poor people simply are poor, now and forever.  That’s why the “poverty” statistics never change, even though American “poor” people keel over from heart disease while fiddling around with smartphones.  The “poor” can only be made not-poor through divine fiat — raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, for instance, and “the poor” will become not-poor, because the only difference between “poor” and “not poor” is a buck fifty an hour.  (See also “the rich,” who don’t pay their “fair share.”  President Obama, peace be upon Him, did us a great service there:  “The rich” make $200,000 per year.  $199,999 per year = “middle class,” because…. well, because of that noun/verb problem.  Take a McDonald’s fry guy, raise his salary to $200K, and all of a sudden he’s part of the problem, even though he’s still slinging grease at Mickey D’s).

Of course, “social policy” can also mean “race,” and this is where Our Thing fails to understand normal people almost as badly as the Left does.  To normals, “race” is a verb, too.  Normals think their attitude towards Blacks is: “Pull up your pants, turn your hat around, and stop blasting rap music at 120 decibels every time you drive, and you’d be welcome in our neighborhoods.”  In other words, “Black” means “acting like a thugged-out ghetto banger.”  It’s not racist to want Black people to stop doing that, because we don’t anyone doing that…

Getting the grammar right won’t solve all our problems, but at least we could talk about them productively.

Loading Likes...

4 thoughts on “They F*cking Love Science

  1. Frip

    Severian Dec ’18: “The one ray of hope is: They’re not willing to die for it. Totalitarian regimes always collapse eventually, because the increase of power after power is, as Nietzsche recognized, ultimately futile. Only mastery over the self is real power; it’s the only thing that gives life meaning, even to atheistic power-worshipers like Nietzsche. Mistaking cruelty for courage, our Leftists will eventually rip themselves apart… or someone with nothing left to lose will do it for them.”

    Exceptional post.

    But why should increase in power be ultimately futile?

    1. WOPR

      In my non-philosophical understanding, no one really controls anyone else. The more you try to assert control, the more people resist. At some point, people just ignore you or worse.

  2. Publius

    Puts me in mind of what CS Lewis wrote about witches…
    We don’t refrain from burning witches because witchcraft became all right, Jack said, but because we decided there are no such things.

    If they insist otherwise…

  3. MBlanc46

    Perhaps a better title would have been “Politics as Grammar”. That said, the principal point was politics as religion, which seems to be the only way to understand contemporary Leftism.

Comments are closed.