I’d go a step further: they’re attacking you because they know you’re correct and the knowledge of their moral failings grips them with fear, but not enough fear to accept the morally superior path, but to denigrate it because it’s staring them in the face. There is a reason I refer to them as the damned.
I value your clarity and your truth. I find myself exposed, because I also talk straight. In the daze of sleepwalking, not everyone wants to be woken up.
I always thought certain people talked this way because they lack decency—they simply don’t have the same psychological response to unjust, immoral, indecent behavior. They don’t feel compassion or shame. So when someone reacts, they believe it is false. They don’t have the capacity or maybe the willingness to think impartially.
It’s simply surprising to me that anyone would speak the way you describe—without even comprehending your reactions. I don’t know anyone who isn’t completely horrified by everything that is happening. They aren’t all liberal or leftists. They simply believed int he constitution, and are concerned about the harmful effects on other people.
What you’re saying sounds to me like people are disgusted or suspicious that you are moved by values. You have to be pretty far gone to imagine that other people aren’t moved by their values. In the past, rightwing people understood this —they didn’t assume leftwing people who were troubled by Vietnam or Iraq or S. Africa were *lying* about their concerns, they simply didn’t agree with them about the facts.
This is how far gone we are that we don’t even share values. In the past there were overlapping values—but what was claimed to be disputed was much more facts. The implication was more ‘if you are correct about, e.g., the Bush administration is lying, then I would also object. But they are telling the truth, and the USA is in danger.’ It was not ‘it’s fine to overthrow another government and kill people for any reason whatsoever.’
We are very far gone now. The right is purely nihilistic. Maybe people were lying before but it was the compliment vice pays to virtue. Now vice is celebrated.
The people who are more cynical say things like ‘oh, it’s always been this way’ but even they are astute enough to understand that other people are more moved by their values.
"It's disorienting to encounter conviction in an age of performance."
Spot on! Perhaps some of your critics have not read your posts that show how to engage thoughtfully with thinkers you disagree with? Thank you for these "Notes."
I agree with you and the other comments. People don’t want to listen. One young women said she didn’t want to hear it. She just wanted “to have a good day”. Her days will not be good living on the border with Mexico and being Latina. Life is going to get worse for her if we don’t intervene in these things. She has no idea.
Does she even deserve intervention? At what point do we allow people to learn the hard way? At what point do we realize that things will only change if people learn the hard way and that therefore the only solution is not intervening?
I no longer intervene. In fact, I've reached the point where I no longer allow such people to waste my time...
There are a few definitions of "insufferable". I like this: "having or showing unbearable arrogance or conceit","an insufferable bully". This last phrase brings one person to mind and he holds the highest office in the land. He is insufferable not because of moral clarity, but because he suffers no pain while those around him do suffer. He has no empathy, no moral principles which guide him toward "presiding" over a country's better interests. He is insufferable because he is guided only by his own self interests; he is a boor, a self-serving, arrogant bullshitter (as named by Fareed Zakaria). These are qualities that reflect a mafioso type mind and heart and soul, or lack thereof. I am reminded of the commonality that analysts saw in the "evil" of top Nazi officials. It was the relative inability to feel empathy while they were fulfilling their orders. And the saddest part now is that a large minority of Americans support he who should not be named (in deference to Lord Voldemort). And 41% of the eligible voting population couldn't be bothered to show up at the election to even voice an opinion. I welcome your moral clarity, Mike, and your ability to call out the bullshit.
"I simply claim that some principles are better than others, that some ideas are closer to truth, that some positions are more coherent than their alternatives."
Wasn’t it you Mike, who said you don’t give a fuck? I’d go with that. If they don’t like the message you deliver, the problem is with them, not the message or the messenger. As far as I’ve seen, you speak the truth.
I greatly appreciate moral clarity, honesty AND clear logic when explaining the details for arriving at conclusions. Those who would define clarity as 'insufferable' are likely delusional themselves, or they have a different opinion, which should lead them to wherever they find comfort. Logic is my first requirement when determining whether a writer is on point. Mr. Brock has always appealed to me as satisfying my need for logic with his honesty, clarity, and what I perceive to be truth. Notes from the Circus checks all the boxes for me.
I may be wrong and am willing to be corrected, but I believe the charge of insufferable would be better cast as intensity. Intensity born of conviction to a truthful narrative. When I feel something deeply I know I get intense. My intensity is generally sparked when I know the narratives being utilized do not match the facts on the ground. That being said, I can see why people who do not agree with my position would consider me to be insufferable because they do not like what I have said.
The term “moral flexibility” is an interesting linguistic reworking of what used to be called spineless (you can’t get more flexible than having no spine) or two faced behavior. I wonder if George Carlin would have used that term in one of his blistering takes on word usage? Anyway,… fuck ’em if they don’t like you.
"Here's what I've come to understand: people mistake moral clarity for arrogance because they've forgotten what it feels like to stand next to someone who actually means what they say."
This is so true! People do not like those who tell them the truth, especially about the difference between right and wrong. I think it's also at least partly because it makes them aware of the fact that they were willing to ignore the wrong; that they weren't courageous enough to stand up to it.
I’d go a step further: they’re attacking you because they know you’re correct and the knowledge of their moral failings grips them with fear, but not enough fear to accept the morally superior path, but to denigrate it because it’s staring them in the face. There is a reason I refer to them as the damned.
Now I understand peoples’ reactions to myself better. Thank you for your integrity and for these words.
I like knowing exactly where I stand.
I value your clarity and your truth. I find myself exposed, because I also talk straight. In the daze of sleepwalking, not everyone wants to be woken up.
I always thought certain people talked this way because they lack decency—they simply don’t have the same psychological response to unjust, immoral, indecent behavior. They don’t feel compassion or shame. So when someone reacts, they believe it is false. They don’t have the capacity or maybe the willingness to think impartially.
It’s simply surprising to me that anyone would speak the way you describe—without even comprehending your reactions. I don’t know anyone who isn’t completely horrified by everything that is happening. They aren’t all liberal or leftists. They simply believed int he constitution, and are concerned about the harmful effects on other people.
What you’re saying sounds to me like people are disgusted or suspicious that you are moved by values. You have to be pretty far gone to imagine that other people aren’t moved by their values. In the past, rightwing people understood this —they didn’t assume leftwing people who were troubled by Vietnam or Iraq or S. Africa were *lying* about their concerns, they simply didn’t agree with them about the facts.
This is how far gone we are that we don’t even share values. In the past there were overlapping values—but what was claimed to be disputed was much more facts. The implication was more ‘if you are correct about, e.g., the Bush administration is lying, then I would also object. But they are telling the truth, and the USA is in danger.’ It was not ‘it’s fine to overthrow another government and kill people for any reason whatsoever.’
We are very far gone now. The right is purely nihilistic. Maybe people were lying before but it was the compliment vice pays to virtue. Now vice is celebrated.
The people who are more cynical say things like ‘oh, it’s always been this way’ but even they are astute enough to understand that other people are more moved by their values.
"It's disorienting to encounter conviction in an age of performance."
Spot on! Perhaps some of your critics have not read your posts that show how to engage thoughtfully with thinkers you disagree with? Thank you for these "Notes."
I agree with you and the other comments. People don’t want to listen. One young women said she didn’t want to hear it. She just wanted “to have a good day”. Her days will not be good living on the border with Mexico and being Latina. Life is going to get worse for her if we don’t intervene in these things. She has no idea.
Does she even deserve intervention? At what point do we allow people to learn the hard way? At what point do we realize that things will only change if people learn the hard way and that therefore the only solution is not intervening?
I no longer intervene. In fact, I've reached the point where I no longer allow such people to waste my time...
Good food for thought.
There are a few definitions of "insufferable". I like this: "having or showing unbearable arrogance or conceit","an insufferable bully". This last phrase brings one person to mind and he holds the highest office in the land. He is insufferable not because of moral clarity, but because he suffers no pain while those around him do suffer. He has no empathy, no moral principles which guide him toward "presiding" over a country's better interests. He is insufferable because he is guided only by his own self interests; he is a boor, a self-serving, arrogant bullshitter (as named by Fareed Zakaria). These are qualities that reflect a mafioso type mind and heart and soul, or lack thereof. I am reminded of the commonality that analysts saw in the "evil" of top Nazi officials. It was the relative inability to feel empathy while they were fulfilling their orders. And the saddest part now is that a large minority of Americans support he who should not be named (in deference to Lord Voldemort). And 41% of the eligible voting population couldn't be bothered to show up at the election to even voice an opinion. I welcome your moral clarity, Mike, and your ability to call out the bullshit.
"I simply claim that some principles are better than others, that some ideas are closer to truth, that some positions are more coherent than their alternatives."
You have chosen wisely. Keep speaking.
Wasn’t it you Mike, who said you don’t give a fuck? I’d go with that. If they don’t like the message you deliver, the problem is with them, not the message or the messenger. As far as I’ve seen, you speak the truth.
Yeah, but I think I had a good point to make here. So I made it.
I greatly appreciate moral clarity, honesty AND clear logic when explaining the details for arriving at conclusions. Those who would define clarity as 'insufferable' are likely delusional themselves, or they have a different opinion, which should lead them to wherever they find comfort. Logic is my first requirement when determining whether a writer is on point. Mr. Brock has always appealed to me as satisfying my need for logic with his honesty, clarity, and what I perceive to be truth. Notes from the Circus checks all the boxes for me.
I may be wrong and am willing to be corrected, but I believe the charge of insufferable would be better cast as intensity. Intensity born of conviction to a truthful narrative. When I feel something deeply I know I get intense. My intensity is generally sparked when I know the narratives being utilized do not match the facts on the ground. That being said, I can see why people who do not agree with my position would consider me to be insufferable because they do not like what I have said.
With you on this 100%
I find your missives refreshing.
The term “moral flexibility” is an interesting linguistic reworking of what used to be called spineless (you can’t get more flexible than having no spine) or two faced behavior. I wonder if George Carlin would have used that term in one of his blistering takes on word usage? Anyway,… fuck ’em if they don’t like you.
"Here's what I've come to understand: people mistake moral clarity for arrogance because they've forgotten what it feels like to stand next to someone who actually means what they say."
This is so true! People do not like those who tell them the truth, especially about the difference between right and wrong. I think it's also at least partly because it makes them aware of the fact that they were willing to ignore the wrong; that they weren't courageous enough to stand up to it.