5 votes

I'm tired of the cynicism that is pervading this site.

"The filibusters are just political theater." "Glen Beck is only interested in liberty for personal gain." "Matt Drudge is only a news aggregator.""Rand Paul supported Romney." Etc.

Are we so beaten down that the only pleasure we find is in sticking it to the folks that are late in proclaiming the message of liberty? Sure Cruz's record isn't spotless. Sure Glen Beck was a dick to Ron Paul. Sure Drudge aggregates other sites content. Sure Rand Paul supported Romney. Sure there not perfect.

If we can't get over ourselves enough to invite new people from all strata of society into the fold then we are done.

Ron Paul worked hard to always point to the fact that it was about the message, not the messenger. Liberty has more messengers today than it has had in a long time. Lets not shoot them for not having a perfect track record or for the fact that their message wont change things overnight. Even if they have ulterior motives, lets take the momentum and grow the message.

This does not mean that we have to trust them, vote for them, send them money, etc. All need to be vetted. Let's just stop undermining the message because we don't particularly like the messenger. If the message they preach is bad then let's point that out.

Cynic's never change the world for the better. They always have an excuse as to why it won't work.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

By your standard, the following post is "cynical"...

Yours is a poor standard because you lump in clear data and fact driven conclusions with emotional appeals.

I agree that "cynical" emotional appeals are not productive.

I completely DISAGREE that fact and data driven conclusions are "cynical" as it is logically impossible for facts and data to be "cynical".

Here's the example
http://www.dailypaul.com/284022/opensecrets-blog-who-is-fund...

It's excellent and data driven. By your standard, you consider it to be "cynical" which is silly.

Ron Paul was cynical about Ronald Reagan

Ron Paul initially supported Ronald Reagan, but he became less supportive when Reagan's actions didn't match his rhetoric.

I think it is wise to focus on actions and not on rhetoric. It is foolish to start cheerleading a politician because they are saying something you want to hear.

What concerns me more than cynicism are the people who follow a politician without questioning, or those who buy into the partisan infighting. Those are the people who excuse bad actions because people are playing the game, or justify bad actions because the ends justify the means. They are also the ones who can't see that they are being manipulated and played.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Ha ha this is rich

You are telling a forum full of Libertarians and limited government proponents to stop the cynicism in today's day and age?

yikes.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

Paul 3V0L's picture

ANNNNNNNND Glenn Beck was bashing on Rand THIS MORNING 9/25/13

ANNNNNNNND Glenn Beck was bashing on Rand THIS MORNING 9/25/13 and praising Marco Rubio saying he would be an excellent GOP candidate. WTF!?!?!

I forgave Beck when he gave his big crybaby spill, claiming to have seen the light, joining us in our Revolution. It happened just a few months ago. He apologized to libertarians asking that we give him another chance because he "believes Rand is Americas last chance," but then I hear the crap I heard today and it infuriates me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GLENN BECK CAN SHOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Twitter: @MyRealThought_s
Instagram: Libertarian_Thoughts

-1

The reason I gave this a -1 is because the precise examples you cited, along with your post, is that you are advising people who make DATA DRIVEN decisions based on multiple confirmed empirical data points to IGNORE facts and ignore data and to adopt what "feels" warm and fuzzy, regardless of what the data shows.

I cannot accept this. It is anti-reason.

FACTS and TRUTH are never cynical. For example, stating that the earth is round and not flat is not cynical. It may have SEEMED cynical to flat earthers of the time, but facts are just facts, they are neither positive nor negative. You can't get mad at a rock in your garden. It's just a rock. It's just data in front of your eyes.

One might go further to cite that not only are facts and truth not cynical, but ones you see them and embrace them for what they are, facts and truth will set you free. So says the savior. And so says the scientific method.

I agree that there are cynics here who are NOT driven by hard data, but it is completely inappropriate to lump people who have confirmed experience based on confirmed data in with those who do not.

That is not reasonable to do and not a reasonable request to make.

Ron Paul isn't cynical

Does it follow that he is anti-reason?

Nice red herring.

Your strawman is that he doesn't recognize facts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ron Paul simply chooses different ways to repackage and communicate data he is aware of to accomplish specific goals.

That doesn't CHANGE facts. That doesn't mean he isn't aware of the facts.

Notwithstanding how one chooses to package and communicate data, it doesn't change the actual data.

And again, both according to the savior Jesus Christ AND scientific method, data and the truth set you free, once you embrace them.

It is logically impossible for data or facts to be "cynical".

If data is not in itself

cynical, and Ron Paul simply repackages and communicates differently, then he has a choice.

I don't think cynicism is wrong or incorrect, but a person has choice about what to do with it. It can be humour, like Louis Black.

Or, one could be resigned to hopelessness. To me, that is the ultimate passivity. If you argue that anything other than hopelessness is delusional, that's arrogant passivity, and it begs introspection. I don't think people here are like that, or they wouldn't be here, but the arguments go that way.

I'm not a huge Ayn Rand fan, but her protagonists are accomplished innovators, and they fight. Is Galt's Gulch a cynical response to an intractable political situation, or a reasonable defensive (or even offensive?) response?

I don't think I endorse an enlightened cynicism. There's a touch of poison in it. And I don't think the dictionary definitions people are telling the OP to eff off with are enough.

Forgive us if we've been

Forgive us if we've been bamboozled by the promises of politicians in the past. All of us were probably at one time or another a standard party line republican or democrat, and we eventually got frustrated enough where we decided we needed to find something new, and we found it through the good doctor. The track record of politicians who don't sell out once they get elected isn't exactly a good one.

You don't have to believe in

politicians. Believe in Liberty.

Sounds like you're catching on to Paid Trolls

rampant on any politically significant sites such as the DP. Many Trolls use multiple accounts to create fake dialogue to steer the conversations or opinions off-course. Let the Trolls expose themselves. It's becoming more and more evident who they are just by the way they form their arguments and attempt to discredit posts without providing any alternate material to support their views. Providing information is not a part of their job. Dis-information IS.

Best thing to do is keep doing what you feel is right and don't pay any mind to anyone that doesn't resonate with your own views.

[update] Actually, I take that last part back. DO pay attention to opposing views as they may provide some clarity or even a new perspective that may reinforce your own beliefs. What I really meant to say was do not give time to those who oppose you just for the sake of opposition. If they are just spewing hatred and not contributing to the conversation in a positive way, THEN feel free to dismiss them.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

"Cynic: a person who believes

"Cynic: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons."

No doubt about it. I am a Cynic. So was Ayn Rand.

What I take issue with is the delusional thinking among some here, that there is a political solution to our problems. That time has gone. We are under attack. This gov. is at war with its own people.

" Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. "

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

The DP is dedicated

to peaceful r3volution. This is delusional? Why are you here?

I'm all for a peaceful

I'm all for a peaceful revolution while it is still possible. I am not for one that is passive.
By all means, continue to plead with the thieves and murderers in D.C., for all the good it will do you. Power concedes nothing without a demand.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

But you wrote:

"What I take issue with is the delusional thinking among some here, that there is a political solution to our problems."

That usually means violence. How should we have read that?

"That usually means violence."

---The statistical analysis is irrelevant.

"How should we have read that?"

I live in a place where it usually rains. That naturally implies that it is sometimes sunny. Whether or not you guess correctly, or even guess at all is irrelevant to whether or not it is rainy or sunny today where I live.

they're intentionally collapsing America

and false flagging all over the place and have been doing so for decades. There is such a thing as blowback and I doubt DPers will have the kind of influence to stop that from happening. I think violence is inevitable. People wouldn't be stacking, creating food storages and buying ammo and weaponary if that wasn't in the cards.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

You may read it however you

You may read it however you like -- upside down for all I care.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Got it

.

As a cynic myself, I am cynical reading your comment.

cynical
cyn·i·cal
[sin-i-kuhl]
adjective
1. distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristic of a cynic.
2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.
3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

How would we feel being ripped apart when we first 'saw light'

Sure Drudge aggregates other sites content. It's site's or sites'

And; Sure there not perfect. It's they're (contraction for 'they are' )

Thanks for the English lesson.

Am I to assume that you've never made a typo?

"Am I to assume that you've never made a typo?"

That would be correct to assume. So Yes.
Even when I text!

I check my spelling for the rare and in some cases disputed** misspelling.

A typo woudl be more like htis. I would never do that... unless of course I was demonstrating an example of a typo.

** 20 Words with More Than One Spelling
In printed dictionaries, the preferred form will have the full definition, while the runner-up will be cross-referenced to the winner. Online, the spelling in the Web page’s heading indicates the preference, though the other choice will likely also be listed. Here are some common entries with more than one orthography:

1. Acknowledgment/acknowledgement: Acknowledgment, though it looks awkward because the spelling implies that the g is pronounced hard, rather than (correctly) soft, is the preferred spelling, at least in American English.

2. Adviser/advisor: Adviser is the preferred spelling, though it is inconsistent with the spelling of the adjectival form advisory.

3. Aesthetic/esthetic: Aesthetic is the preferred spelling, a rare case of the digraph retained in American English in favor of a single-vowel spelling. (See also amoeba/ameba and archaeology/archeology.)

4. Ameba/amoeba: Amoeba is the preferred spelling. It also has variant plural forms: Amoebas is acceptable in all but the most strictly scientific contexts, where amoebae is preferred.

5. Amok/amuck: Amok is the traditional spelling, preferred to amuck.

6. Among/amongst: The -st extension is, in both American English and British English, widely considered an unnecessary appendage. (The same preference applies for amid/amidst and while/whilst; whilst is, at any rate, rare in American English.)

7. Analog/analogue: Analog is one of fourteen words in which the original -ue ending is clipped. Whether one form or the other is preferred varies depending on not only the word but also, occasionally, on which part of speech it represents. Most one- and two-syllable words ending in -ue have no truncated variant; prologue is the exception.

8. Archaeology/archeology: The version with the ae digraph is preferred over the single-vowel form.

9. Ax/axe: Ax is the preferred spelling, alone and in compounds (axman, battle-ax).

10. Collectable/collectible: Collectible is the preferred variant.

11. Barbecue/Barbeque: Barbeque is a variant of barbecue influenced by the truncation BBQ.

12. Disc/disk: Disc is a variant of disk, though it has valid status in the “phrase compact disc” and references to similar media.

13. Donut/doughnut: Donut is an informal variant of doughnut.

14. Enquire/inquire: Inquire is the preferred American English spelling, but in British English, enquire prevails.

15. Flier/flyer: Spelling depends on meaning. See this post, in which I conclude that pilots and passengers are fliers, and posted papers are flyers.

16. Gray/grey: Gray is the preferred spelling in American English; British English favors grey.

17. Nite/night: Nite is an informal variant of night.

18. Theater/theatre: The former spelling is preferred in American English, though the latter form sometimes appears in proper names.

19. Toward/towards: In American English, towards and other similar words are considered informal variants of the forms in which the s is omitted.

20. Whiskey/whisky: The former spelling is more common in the United States (as well as in Ireland), though usage in labeling varies.

I hope that helps.

Right ...

... at some point, we have to accept that former neocons and commies might say, "You know, maybe those liberty folks over there have a point."

Of course, we watch what they do, not just what they say. But when they say the right things, it also turns OTHER people on to the liberty message.

We gotta watch 'em like a hawk because we know some of them are just gonna try to use co-opting tactics. But, let the message get out to enough people, and maybe things will start to change.

Think about it: people like US probably stopped a WAR ... for the first time in history! The US is not (for now) bombing Syria. And it was not the neocons who did that. It was not the commies who did that. And it was not the 100% libertarians who did it, either, but it included MANY people who are starting to question what they have always been told by gubmit types. Pretty amazing.

Who cares if Glenn Beck turns out to be a wolf in sheep's clothing? He is getting a message out to a lot of people who do not hear any other message. That is worth it's weight in fractional reserve notes (err ... I mean gold).

I thought that's what this site was all about.

That's why I come here, to join in with all my fellow cynics.

It functions more like a strength...sometimes

One of our historic and primary means of advancement is debate. And we argue about everything. EVERYTHING. And I've seen this shoot down some ideas but improve others. Take this latest "trucker strike" thing. Something didn't smell right, we went to work and found the whole thing to be fluff.

That saved us a few steps eh?

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

are you calling us "isolationists"

...because we are cautious? It isn't like the long time members and Paul supporters here haven't watched their movement co opted before. Even then as Ron Paul's Tea Party was being hijacked there were statements just like this urging people to let down their guard and allow the establishment to redirect the movement.

A little cynicism in this upside down world is healthy.