Note how frequently "progressives" from Obama on down (to, say, a Toronto Star writer I argued with recently) now use the word "divisive" as a prejorative.
Why is divisiveness a bad thing? Why is "unity" always a good? Aren't the "issues that divide us" precisely where our principles and passions lie?
Obama's right: Jerry Falwell was a divisive figure. So was Abe Lincoln (and NO, I'm not equating the two...)
Are progressives trying to smuggle a more insidious concept into public discourse by using the word "divisive" as an insult?
I've yet to hear a conservative employ the word. Why not?
What can I say? I feel it's helpful to keep watch on leftists' words de jour, even though I probably give their "deeper meaning" more thought than they do themselves. Your mileage may vary.
I would have thought that Jefferson Davis was the divisive one.
Euclid was divisive.
"Divisive" is the new shibboleth of the left.
Has a war been fought which was not divisive?
...-
Brown vows to learn from 'divisive' Iraq war
The Age -
The argument is over...
All people who care ...
The science is done ...
There is a consensus...
The majority support...
Only the paid deniers ...
Any opposition or disagreement is DIVISIVE, naturally. You are crorect Kate, this is a ste4p further down teh road of Political Correctness. Another way to stamp down all opposition; just as "racist" and many other name-callings are used to shut down debate.
It’s hard to take seriously bloggers who still feel the need to bolster their criticisms of Senator Obama by referring to him by his middle name (Hussein). The innuendo is obvious and cheap, and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture.
As I noted in the previous post, "Diversity" is not considered "Divisive" :-)
So there must be some other meaning to these two words.
and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture.
Wait...that's a *bad* thing?
Who threw the apple of "divisiveness" onto the table? Discord did it. It's divisive.
Love that word "sociable". Socialism requires unity, oneness, sameness, levelling; those who say no to the socialist sociableness are conservatives, the discorders, the divisers. How can the socialists move on to the great Utopia when there is discord, divisiveness in the congregation?
Does Globe say how discord threatens? Threatens what? Who is threatened?
...-
Globe | Discord threatens meeting of Eastern premiers
BRUDENELL, P.E.I. — The federal-provincial disputes over the Atlantic Accord and equalization could trigger some discord at the usually sociable gathering of Eastern Canadian premiers and New England governors.
"values"
"morality"
"freedom"
"evil"
"support the troops"
I think part of the problem is that life - everything from biological organisms to human societies - require both stability and instability. Not one or the other. But both.
A system requires stability for continuity both of the individual and the collective. Imagine a situation where newborn geese no longer had the stable morphology that enabled them to fly. Or that newborn puppies could no longer digest milk. Imagine a society whose rules of behaviour changed randomly every few weeks. Stability, both physical and mental, is a basic requirement of life.
However, instability or dissent or divisions from a normative habit, are equally vital. They become absolutely necessary in more complex organisms which must have the ability to change their lifestyle and adapt to new environmental realities. In birds, for example, there are the famous examples of changes in beak nature and size to adapt to new seeds.
In human societies - If the grasslands are reduced because of years of drought, the society must adapt to growing crops. If the cod disappear the society must change its economic base from fishing. If a new disease emerges, the society must dissent from its old norms and develop competely new tactics.
So, it's a conflict between two completely opposite yet necessary types of behaviour - that promoting continuity and that promoting change -
Some people think that If Only We Could Become Totally Stable - then, 'all would be right'.
That's fascism (Islamic/Nazi) - which posits a time 'back then' when everything was Pure and Stable, and insists that if we behave in such and such a way - it will be like that again.
And communism - which pins its hopes on an inevitable Time In The Future which will be equally pure and stable.
The progressives, or leftists, are utopians like the fascists/communists. They want relief from doubt, from fears of change. They want to be in complete control and stability of belief and behaviour, they think, will give them that.
Heh. Nature isn't stable. Never. The society that moves itself into No Change is dead on its feet.
We have to have the ability for both types of belief and behaviour - the unchanging and the changing. Very difficult to walk the line between them - but - that's reality for all of life.
"Divisiveness" is neo-Com code for: "you're breaking the code of socialist conformity by questioning my ideology...my ideology is above question or debate".....and it is a bad thing because dissenting opinion, or reasonded argument are things that the doctrinaire socialist-statist cannot have.
Once you understand all dogmatic left orthodoxies are the result of indoctrination and not reasoning...that socilaist dogma relies on unreasoning acceptance and adherence, you can understand why they don't want a free exchange of ideas that may conflict with or expose fallicies in their faith-based belief system.
Debate with the inoctrinated left and you are therefore "divisive"...this denotes you are causing disunity...because ultimately all lefty docrine demands uniformity of ideals and thought...ultimately it demands the single party state and a single national political-social orthodoxy...it's about control...it's about conformity...it's about repressing dissent, and diversity of opinion...it's about building the anthill society.
Don't be "devisive" just report to the state "reeducation center" and show your papers...we are Keeping an eye on you...you have a bad atitude....you are not of the body...you are "divisive"
Sorry not ready to get into "pubic discourse" ;)
BTW: Never confuse Obama's Neo-Com policies as "progressive"....the word "progressive" has been used to sanitize some of the most degenerate and regressive social policies ever to rear their ugly head.
Is it "progressive" to demand unifomity? Is it progressive to shut down debate as "divisive? Is it prigressive to demand diversity in all socilal functions except debate and opinion?
People with such orthodxies are not progressives but statists...and in all likelyhood neo Com statists.
Divisiveness is a bad thing because it creates diversity. No, wait....
Divisive has been used by all sides at various times. It is to try to put a blanket on debate and is generally used by those who have soemthing to lose from "divisiveness".
For example wouldnt the union guys in the 30's have been called divisive.
The temporal politics of it are familiar as well. It is a word sent to those who are tired of the fighting. This was used against Mulroney after free trade....apparently we sought a PM who wasnt "in your face" driving so much change Free Trade, GST, Cinstitutional reform. And please the point is not about evaluating those initiatives jsut saying we want someone who pushes less change.
Ultimately Clinton was about that, thats what Chretien was about "car in the snow" and how Obama is running. Others have pointed out that Obama has a conservative character, not necessarily conservative political goals, meaning cautious, consensus building etc etc.
Americans in particular seek unity of purpose...look at the elevation of bi partisan initiatives. It is a deceptive word for them, particularly on foreign policy.
But yes a divisive one is a sh** disturber and "outside the norm".....the left is portraying itself as the calmer of the seas, nanny state, government as problem solver....the salve the heals the wound, the ice that calms the fever....
I guess we need to learn the lesson again.
The progressives, or leftists, are utopians like the fascists/communists. They want relief from doubt, from fears of change. They want to be in complete control and stability of belief and behaviour, they think, will give them that.
Straw person of the year (and it's only half over).
"Nothing is constant but change." --Marx, by way of Heraclitus.
Just to take up Kathy Shaidle's challenge. Yes a conservative has used words like 'divisive' and 'discord' before. Margaret Thatcher. Of course, in the latter example she is mocking leftists.
1. "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."
2. "Imagine a Labour canvasser talking on the doorstep to those East German families when they settle in, on freedom's side of the wall. "You want to keep more of the money you earn? I'm afraid that's very selfish. We shall want to tax that away. You want to own shares in your firm? We can't have that. The state has to own your firm.
You want to choose where to send your children to school? That's very divisive. You'll send your child where we tell you."
We should all watch the "demoralization" clip again,June 23,sda.Just scroll down.
Great post Kathy. It's a poignant observation. And totally consistent with the left-wing agenda. The useful idiots continue to demoralize the public by squashing dissenting views. Any version other than the truths they hand down from on high is 'divisive.' I.e. Bad.
Tolerance my ass.
WL Mackenzie Redux: Is it "progressive" to demand unifomity[sic]? Is it progressive to shut down debate as "divisive? Is it prigressive[sic] to demand diversity in all socilal[sic] functions except debate and opinion?
"If you support the troops, support the mission. You cannot have it both ways."
Diversity = Divided
Divided we fall ...
Speaking of adjectives that have long been robbed of any useful meaning, how about "progressive"?
I don't know about the rest of you but I only have to hear mention of the "p" word and I switch my attention to "ignore" mode immediately.
Obviously there's divisiveness in diversity. You can't have one without the other.
One more battle in the war against stupidity.
"and it suggests an ignorance or disdain (or both) of Arabic culture."
A bonified culture, at the very least, requires originality in the arts and sciences. Something the Arabs, historically, know nothing about and however pilfering much have contributed not.
Which begs the question - What the hell are you talking about?
wlmr- exactly. The utopian left rejects debate, reason, questions. It reduces debate, dissent and questions to the expression of 'pluralism', ie, to expressing multiple 'opinions' that are each equal to the other and therefore, each, utterly meaningless.
And yes, the 'hubris' of the left in self-defining themselves as 'progressive'. That fraudulent; the correct term is 'regressive'.
You see, a progressive system MUST include the capacity of ongoing dissent and questions within itself; otherwise, it cannot observe its norms of behaviour, reason about them, and conclude that it wants to move from A to B modes of belief and behaviour.
A regressive system, which is what the left is, doesn't observe or think; it just slips back, back, back.
dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism. No more change. You are also ignoring the superficiality of such a remark, which utterly ignores that change cannot take place except within a foundation of stability.
A robust system has to have both, entangled and interactive. The utopians (fascists, communists, leftists) want only stability - a mode of Purity. The postmodernists, who are superificialists, focus only on change - which leaves their 'thoughts' purely random irrelevancies.
Maz2 beat me to the punch, I think that lefties are scared of divisiveness because it threatens their "group-think" mentality. Heaven forbid someone would have an individual thought.
There are two meanings to the word "divisive". One is "forming or expressing division or distribution"; in other words, either creating divisions between groups or just mentioning that they're there. Is the first a problem? Maybe. The second? I doubt it.
The second meaning of the word is "creating dissension or discord". (This is based on the Random House dictionary, by the way.) So to be divisive is to dissent. Ergo, to insult our leaders (dissent) is to be divisive, and the very same people who use this word as a slur are guilty of it every day.
Interesting, that.
I think irwin daisy meant to say "bona fide", which is Latin for "in good faith", but has also come to mean "authentic or genuine".
To say the Arabs have contributed nothing to arts and sciences is completely wrong. The list of their contributions is lengthy (mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc).
Anyway, off to have a coffee. Thanks Arabs!
Jesus came to divide the wheat from the chaff.
Mohammed came to separate your head from your body.
ET: "dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism."
Communism does not mean everyone and everything is The Same. For example, here's a quote from The Communist Manifesto:
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."
Elimination of classes doesn't mean that everyone is the same. It means that no one exploits anyone else.
More generally, the use of political terminology here is incredibly loose and wildly inaccurate. I am astonished therefore that people here would think it reasonable to accuse what (wildly and innacurately) they label "the left" of a similar failing. Take the log our of your own eye!
Belisarius, please enlighten us. Most of the so-called Arabic/Muslim contributions to civilization have turned out to be stuff they stole from other people, such as stealing zero from the Hindus.
You went to university, didn't you?
irwin daisy' "Which begs the question - What the hell are you talking about?"
I assume you mean, "raises the question". To "beg the question" is to assume as true (or false) the very point in dispute. I don't mean to pick on you but widespread misuse of this phrase is depriving us of a descriptor for an important and widespread logical error.
Most of the so-called Arabic/Muslim contributions to civilization have turned out to be stuff they stole from other people, such as stealing zero from the Hindus.
Not true at all. They certainly built on research and discoveries from other cultures, but so has every civilization. That's human progress, isn't it?
They also made plenty of original discoveries and conducted a great deal of scientific research, particularly during the Abbasid Caliphate in the Middle Ages. Notwithstanding the efforts of some authors to demonize and belittle Islamic culture, the evidence of these developments is overwhelming.
Today the opposite is true. Arab countries produce almost no scientific research, few doctors and have extremely high rates of illiteracy. Why this has become so is another topic, I suppose.
More details Belisarius. One's that don't involve quoting Edward Said or any of his revisionist pals.
And thanks to whoever did the great service of explaining 'begs the question.' Jesus I hate it when people misuse that phrase. The best rule of thumb is: just don't use it at all.
The list of their contributions is lengthy (mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc)
No it is not. It's not impressive at all. They didn't contribute anything in the visual arts sans their mosques. They are busy blowing up art now. The whole sum of their literature wouldn't would fill more than a bookshelf. They didn't contribute anything in the realm of democracy, economics, philosophy, logic, ethics as the Greeks did. They weren't the civil engineers that the Romans were. The Mayans were as good at astronomy. The Chinese were as good at medicine if not better.
Arabs borrowed the technical efforts of others, just like they do now. It's interesting that in sharing the Mediterranean as contemporaries with the Greeks, and the Greek influenced Romans, that exposure ignited nothing with them.
The arabs contributed "mathematics, astronomy, medicine, engineering, etc)."
Really? Algebra and zero were Assyrian inventions, Algebra renamed after the muslim who pilfered it. Their so-called philosophy contributions? Discovered to be Greek and once again pilfered. Architecture? Byzantine.
In fact all things Muslims/Arabs have claimed to be their invention have been proven to be false, except for (possibly) the crankshaft.
This load of Muslim invention nonsense ranks right up there with the claim that the Quran is the original, uncreated word of God (although they pilfered the Torah, Talmud and NT to create it); the erroneous "religion of peace." descriptor; and the recent declaration that Islam has been hijacked.
What else would you expect from nomadic brigands, theifs and goat herders who upon cobbling together an imperialistic cult, repressed or pilfered all learning from the peoples they conquered - claiming there was no history before Islam?
In fact, if you believe in the false idea of Arab/Islamic invention, then why can't they even accomplish the most basic tasks to sustain and modernize their own 'civilization' to this day?
Just take a look at their pathetic publishing contributions.
However, thanks for the spelling correction.
Standard tactic of the left is to hang a label on their opponents!
When you oppose the ideology of the left you are:
- an "ist"
- a "Phobe"
- some form of "ant"
- possibly "ive"
- probably "arian" and "ary"
In the nomenclature and lexicon of the modern liberal community it's incomprehensible that you are just an Individual!
Submit or be labeled!
The only reason the left is so absorbed with collectivism and is they are incapable of independent thought. Anything divisive forces them to think and make decisions. This mentality is the Achilles heel of any society, they want to be told only good things, they stand for and stand up for nothing, simple slogans will buy their mind and sole. They are sheeple, if and when the time comes when definitive action is required the usefull/useless idiots will do as they are told, that is the good part.
exile - if the 'free development' of one is the basis for the 'free development of all' - then this can only happen within a domain of sameness.
If one entity 'freely develops', then, it might well encroach on the domain of a different entity. For example, two species of herbivores in the same territory. This will prevent the 'free development' of those other entities (i.e., 'all').
Marx's naive simplistic statement is meaningless. An interacting 'set' cannot permit 'free development' of any or all; that's because the interaction sets up constraints to such expansive freedom. Marx needed a course in physics, chemistry and biology.
Exploitation is a problematic and emotive term; explain. Otherwise - it is irrelevant.
belisaurius - I concur with others. The Islamic world did not invent or develop any science. No 'original research'. None. They copied the solutions of others. Kindly note that the Koran rejects freedom of thought, the use of reason, dissent, questions.
Oh- and coffee is not Arabic; it originated, apparently, in the Kaffa district of Ethopia. Moved from there to Yemen.
Now, belisaurius - provide us with exact details of the non-existent Arab innovations.
I wish I could, but apparently because I didn't pile onto the Muslim-bashing bandwagon my comments are being vetted.
Disappointing!
Belisarius, I have access to the comments and am not vetting yours or anyone else's in this thread. they may be held up automatically if they contain URLs or troublesome code.
Paranoid much? Sheesh.
Sorry Kathy, must have been the link I added. I'm normally not paranoid - really. One of the best things about commenting on Kate's blog is the fact she generally leaves it open. Even with the occasional troll, its nice to read an open discussion.
ET: "Exploitation is a problematic and emotive term; explain. Otherwise - it is irrelevant."
"Exploitation" has a well-defined meaning in marxist theory. If you are not familiar with the meaning of this central concept in marxist theory, you are in no position to criticize marxism. (If you want to go to marxists.org, you can look it up and find some links to relevant literature.)
p.s., I don't think "arguments from analogy" have a lot of force.
ET 9:03am
"That's fascism (Islamic/Nazi) - which posits a time 'back then' when everything was Pure and Stable, and insists that if we behave in such and such a way - it will be like that again."
Do you mean like the group thinkers on SDA who long for a time before feminism and Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, transcendental meditation, yoga and gay rights?
"And communism - which pins its hopes on an inevitable Time In The Future which will be equally pure and stable."
What ideology does that as much as Christianity, that other pillar (along with conservatism) of conformity?
ET:
dawg - you are ignoring Marx's focus on The End Goal of Purity, ie, where everyone and everything is The Same - communism. No more change. You are also ignoring the superficiality of such a remark, which utterly ignores that change cannot take place except within a foundation of stability.
That's plain silly. Nowhere does Marx declare that society will settle into some kind of stasis. Your notion of Marx's notion of communism is a laughable caricature.
The Islamic world did not invent or develop any science. No 'original research'. None. They copied the solutions of others.
More rubbish. Astronomy is a good counter-example. In the realm of philosophy, by the way, Averroes (Ibn Rusd) would be hard to beat at the time--a great defender of Aristotelianism, incidentally. As for the poetry of al_rumi and Omar Khayyam and Hafiz...
Aw, what's the use. Arabs are sub-human, incapable of creativity or reason, and Islam is the anti-Christ. Why don't I just listen and shut up?
Ace" "Just to take up Kathy Shaidle's challenge. Yes a conservative has used words like 'divisive' and 'discord' before. Margaret Thatcher. Of course, in the latter example she is mocking leftists.
1. "Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope."
If so, she was mocking St. Francis of Assisi here.
Old fingers. Ibn Rushd and al-Rumi.
no, exile - that's a cop-out. I'm quite familiar with marxist theory, thank you very much. I asked you to define it because in the perspective of 'diversity' and 'stability', it has no relevance. None. Again - define it in the theme of this thread.
conrad - don't be silly. Are you seriously suggesting that to be anti-feminist; to be against Trudeau's destruction of individual freedoms and his state-authoritarianism; to be against Douglas' hypocrisy and his institution of a disastrously inefficient and costly health system; - is a definition of fascism? Good god, man, go read a book.
As for transcendental meditation, yoga, and gay 'rights' (rights??? - more like authoritarian imposition of special privileges)...I suggest you get out more. What on earth does that have to do with fascism? Do you really know what fascism thinks of all of this?
And you obviously also don't understand Conservativism as a political philosophy - which is NOT the same as the VERB - 'to conserve'. Kindly do some reading.
Conservativism as a political philosophy does not have a clear set of doctrines, but, primarily it is about small and decentralized rather than Big centralized gov't; it puts its faith in individuals rather than the collective (very wise - only individuals think; groups don't think). Smaller and local taxes. And it operates by debate and discussion. Now - if you could explain to me how that is similar to communism - I'd be fascinated! Communism, by the way, is unlike conservativism because it is not really a political theory - ie, there is no 'polity' in a genuine communist ideal state, no gov't - elected or otherwise. Communism is a socioeconomic theory - and in actuality, has never and will never work.
Conservativism operates within an elected gov't.
As for your linking Christianity with communism - that's specious. It's simply that both are faith based rather than scientifically based. Christianity, unlike communism, makes no claims to be scientific.
But scientifically, it can be shown very easily that a communist system is impossible in any group larger than 30 people.
Belisaurius - yoo hoo..where are you and your proofs of Arab scientific innovations?
One more shot:
Ibn Khaldun (history). al Khawarzimi (mathematics). Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi (astronomy). Al Fazari. Al Battani.
Arab astronomy in general:
Understanding the distinction between Arabic astronomy and Greek astronomy is key to appreciating the foundations of modern astronomy. The transition from classical Greek astronomy to the astronomy of the European Renaissance would have been very different had it not been for the intellectual contributions of the medieval Islamic astronomers. The problems inherent to Ptolemy's work were simply too deep, and it took many generations of Arabic scholars to articulate them and then to resolve them.
Source: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/17936/page/5;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0
Poetry and philosophy aren't that hard to cook up Dawg and are totally subjective.
You know we're talking about hard sciences, medical breakthrough, economic theories, advances in everything from archaeology to zoology. You mentioned astronomy. Do you have a "B"?
No one here has said Arabs are "sub human" -- that's something _they_ tend to say about Jews...
It's just a fact that some cultures are more innovative than others. Africans haven't invented much of any lasting import either. Jews, the Scots, the Chinese, the Japanese and even the French, on the other hand.
Must be the desert air or something...
Hey ET,
My "proofs" vanished into the netherworld. Try google. Or a history prof. A place to start - Arabs invented the modern scientific method.