The Mistake In Morality

Signs labelled "Right Doing" and "Wrong Doing" pointing in opposite directions

Many on the right are making a mistake in morality.

And like the mistake in logic of the Left, it’s not a monumental error or colossal blunder, but a teeny tiny mistake, though it also has significant repercussions.

Because while the mistake in logic of the Left is a major problem that could bring about the demise of Western civilisation, the mistake in morality of the Right prevents us from stopping it.

Now, it’s totally understandable that the mistake of the Left is rooted in logic. After all, they are the ones who, as explained in The Insanity Of The Left, in only slightly more detail than the overly repetitious summary you’re about to read, have collectively decided to turn their brains off when there is a clash between rational thinking and their more fundamental ideology consisting of a twisted and warped version of equality.

Having thrown their brains away they will therefore denounce in the strongest possible terms anything that merely looks like something else that can also be confused as racist or bigoted without analysing whether what they are saying is … what’s that word … ah yes .. true. Any logical, rational and factual defence by the accused can be ignored because they are not interested in logic for these matters, hence their usual response of shouting and screaming. If the logic is somehow too powerful to ignore then their last line of defence is to say either that the logic doesn’t matter and it’s still racist and bigoted or that it’s okay to consider non racism and bigotry as racism and bigotry because somewhere there is racism and bigotry and this is part of fighting that (I can hear the spontaneous applause such people get).

Three insane responses. Shouting, ignoring logic or condemning someone because it’s fighting a third person’s racism and bigotry. It’s difficult to know which of these responses are worse, but the common denominator between them is that they now all have a moral justification for ruining the life of somebody they don’t like simply because they have a different opinion. Actually, on second thoughts, the third response is the worst. There they will agree the accused is innocent, it’s just that he (white) has to be sacrificed for an imagined greater good.

Absurd. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Either way, it’s no surprise at all that people who are not interested in critical analysis when it comes to morality would make a mistake in logic.

What is less understandable is why the right, who do not usually feel a specific need to be super moral paragons of virtue, make the mistake in morality which we have yet to discuss, so making the understanding of this point that much more difficult.

I can also understand why the Right are not so eager to fight the Left with same level of enthusiasm and passion the Left use to put forward their points of view. Sorry that sentence is not quite right. Let me rephrase. I can also understand why the Right are afraid to fight the Left with same level of zeal and fanaticism the Left use to try to impose their will on everybody else. That’s much better. More realistic.

They’re afraid to stick their necks out and be labelled … well you should know those labels by now. Who would want to be in the storm of abuse the Left will hurl at you for voicing an opinion that is not the same as theirs? Who would want all the attacks and attempts by Leftist activist groups to ruin your life and good name, get you fired and harass you when you go out for dinner?

Especially considering the fact that if you’re on the Right, you’ve probably actually got a life, and something more interesting and achievement orientated to do than sit and participate in a futile debate with someone who regularly throws logic and reason out the window. A debate about something so ridiculously stupid that it should have been sorted out in five minutes decades ago, but that they have managed to blow completely out of proportion due to their desire to ruin normal people’s enjoyable and successful lives, just because they don’t have anything better to do with their own. In other words jealousy.

This is an important difference between the Left and the Right. For the Left the ideological battle is the meaning in their lives. For the Right it’s just a method of keeping the idiots at bay so that they can get back to enjoying their lives.

This leads directly to another reason why the Right are not so eager to fight the Left and that is because of a lack of support. If someone on the Left says or does something, that will be automatically receive a huge groundswell of approval, endorsement and any assistance required from hordes of other people on that side. Those on the Right receive some support, but nowhere near the level of support you would enjoy if you were on the Left, because as we’ve said, most people on the Right just don’t want to get involved.

All this is easy to understand. The question is why the Right are making a mistake in morality, though perhaps we should start by explaining what that is, first.

The mistake is their refusal to use stronger techniques against the Left because they don’t want to, as they put it, “stoop to their level”.

The Left scream and shout and behave in a way that makes it laughable that they consider themselves morally superior, and the Right refuse to do anything apart from civil discourse because they don’t want to “stoop to their level” and do the immoral things that the Left do.

We have to be polite so that we don’t “stoop to their level”.

We can’t label people as evil so that we don’t “stoop to their level”.

We can’t shut people down so that we don’t “stoop to their level”.

We can’t make too much of a fuss over other people’s bad behaviour so that we don’t “stoop to their level”.

We can’t harass and beat people who have different opinions so that we don’t … well okay they can have that one. We don’t have to copy everything.

But this not stooping to their level excuse, have you ever heard anything so stupid in your entire life? Well yes everything a Leftist says.

I’m not saying that we should stoop to their level. I’m not saying the mistake in morality is the Right’s refusal to stoop to the level of the Left when they should. That would just be plain wrong. The Left are evil, we’re not. Stooping to their level would make us as evil as them, as everyone on the Right knows.

No, I’m saying the mistake in morality is that the Right think that by fighting back in any way other than civil discourse we would be stooping to their level. And that’s not correct. Other responses, stronger responses, fighting fire with fire are absolutely not stooping to their level.

Let me give you one or two (colloquially, three actually) examples of the kind of thing I mean.

During the question and answer session of a popular conservative speaker a questioner introduced himself by saying he was a socialist. A murmur spread though the crowd consisting of one whoop and minimal scattered laughter and immediately the questioner made the sarcastic comment, “so much for the tolerant Right”.

What do you think happened next?

  1. He was rebuked for outright lying about the lack of tolerance in the crowd.
  2. He was thrown out the auditorium for accusing the entire audience of being intolerant.
  3. He was called out for disingenuously exaggerating the intolerance of the Right to disguise the real problem of the intolerant behaviour of Left.
  4. He suffered no consequence at all and the session continued on as normal with everyone pretending he hadn’t said anything inappropriate.

That’s right. Not only did no one do or say anything, not the speaker, not the organisers and no one in the audience, but you believe that was the appropriate response.

That’s a mistake in morality.

Another example. The host of a late night show makes fun of the First Lady’s accent and a Fox news host defends her saying he’ll not stop insulting the late night show host until he issues an apology. I have to admit, that got me excited. Finally, someone who seemed to understand that fighting back properly was not stooping to their level. Eventually a weak apology was issued.

What do you think the response was?

  1. The Fox news host did not accept the pathetic excuse for an apology and continued fighting him until the late night show host apologised properly and became an example of what happens when you behave badly.
  2. More people began rebuking the late night show host for his original behaviour and his insincere apology.
  3. There were numerous calls for the late night show to be boycotted.
  4. The apology was accepted by the Fox news host despite his claim that it was forced, and the matter was dropped.

Again D and again you probably think that was the appropriate response.

That’s a mistake in morality. The correct response was A, B and C.

One last example.

Someone is accused of rape and after being publically shamed, almost being sent to prison for about a decade, being fired from his job and having to spend all his savings on legal fees, it is discovered that his accuser lied about the whole thing.

What happened next?

  1. The accuser was charged by the police and sent to prison for ten years. She was also forced to pay some sort of restitution and damages to the accused.
  2. The accuser was punished severely though she didn’t receive anywhere near the type of sentence the accused would have received had she been successful.
  3. Numerous activist groups use the case as an example of how there is a problem of accusation-of-rape culture.
  4. She cried, gave a minimal apology, blamed everyone else for her behaviour and was set free. She received no punishment at all, not even a lawsuit from the person she accused and whose life she almost ruined because he feels sorry for her.

Yes, that’s right, D again. Though I think by now less of you think it was the right response.

The point: Thinking that responses A, B and C are immoral is a mistake in morality. Thinking the only moral response is a type D response, is a mistake in morality. The feeble response of the Right because it thinks that is the only morally appropriate response, is its epic (though teeny tiny without going through all that again) mistake in morality.

Hours and hours of lectures, hours and hours of debating, hours and hours of educating the next generation.

We mustn’t respond in any other way. We’re not going to stoop to their level.

We’ll keep our morality

We’re not going to scream and shout. We’re not going to name call. We’re only going to have civilized discussions. After all, that’s what we want from the Left, so we have to treat them with the respect with which we want them to treat us.

What a steaming pile of garbage.

Firstly, because where has all this debating and being civilized while doing so gotten us?

You’ll answer: More people on our side, more people becoming conservative. I can hear you cheering.

And yet:

The Republicans lost the House despite the despicable behaviour of the Left towards Brett Kavanaugh during his appointment and confirmation process to the Supreme Court. Some of the new Democrats that have been elected are the most radical yet. Conventional media are still reporting lies and distortions about everything from the Russian collusion witch-hunt to the hysteria over climate change. Democracy is being undermined at every turn. Most young people think America is the most racist nation on Earth. Gun control is getting stricter and Abortion Laws weaker. And Donald Trump’s re-election is no sure thing.

All that the hours of discussion and education have achieved is to get more people to understand the danger Democrats are to America and by extension the rest of the world, but there hasn’t been enough increase in people actually doing something to stop it. When the Democrats do regain power, which they will because everyone is too busy debating or writing silly articles about how we should actually be doing something not just writing about it, and pass their insane legislation that will make the majority of people’s lives more miserable by making them poorer and subject to legal action if they offend the wrong person, at least there will be more people to commiserate with.

This just stands to reason. If you have one side that’s spending all its time screaming and shouting and rampaging through the streets while the other refuses to do anything else but talk, which side wins? In war, if one side is charging all guns blazing and the other is still asking to negotiate, which side wins?

Wait a minute. Let me think now.

Secondly, some non-discussion-based responses are not immoral.

So why do many conservatives think they are?

Because they could be.

And this is why it’s so easy to make this mistake in morality.

Because certain behaviours have a default position of being immoral, but under many circumstances they would be completely acceptable, if not a moral obligation even if you still feel uncomfortable behaving that way.

Returning to the above three examples, of course it’s not moral to be rude or offensive to someone, but if they have just accused innocent people of intolerance then being rude in response is the best way to ensure random accusations of intolerance with who-knows-what repercussions don’t happen again.

We’re not interested in demanding apologies from people, but if that’s what the Left are doing whenever someone says something they don’t agree with in order to bully them into silence, then it’s not immoral to maintain a demand for a sincere apology from them under normal circumstances. In fact, it’s moral to demand such an apology as it may well make the Left think twice before applying a tactic that may now be turned on them.

If a person is so evil that they fabricate a life-destroying accusation, then it’s not immoral to want to give them a severe sentence. It’s actually immoral to go easy on them because that will encourage that bad behaviour as people see that they can get away with it.

This is the same reasoning that allows the police and soldiers to kill people and courts to send people to prison. The default position is that of course it’s wrong to do violence to people or kill them, or lock them up for years, but there are circumstances where that is appropriate if not a moral obligation. You don’t tell soldiers to just stand there and let the enemy fire at them because if they returned fire they would be just as bad as their enemy for stooping to their moral level and engage in killing too.

That’s retarded.

But that’s the mistake many people on the Right are making. They think a Leftist should be treated the same as a normal person and we should respond with our default morality of being respectful to all. That’s wrong. They have already started the fight. That makes them the ones who are wrong and immoral. Fighting back, within certain parameters, is not immoral.

Morality is all in the intention. You don’t measure the goodies and baddies in a war by who killed more people, but by the reason for the killing. Bad people kill because they like it or because they want something you have, or both. Good people kill to stop bad people from doing bad things. There is no moral equivalency at all between good and bad people even though they may both kill, and there is no moral equivalency between good and bad people even though they may both be rude and mean. It all depends on the intention. Here, the Left started a fight with us because they are useless and unpleasant people who have nothing better to do with their lives other than berate other people and examine their behaviour under a microscope to find some minor flaw that they can blow out of all proportion so they can accuse the examined of being immoral and make themselves feel morally superior. They are envious of the enjoyable, achievement-orientated lives that we have made for ourselves because we’ve taken responsibility and gotten on with it (granted we have had the help of our inherent talents and abilities but you still need something I like to call effort) rather than sat around doing nothing except complaining about being the victim of some nonexistent bigotry invented by people who can’t achieve anything in any other way. They just want to make our lives as miserable as theirs and take our hard earned money. They started the fight for no sensible reason at all and therefore our defensive behaviour makes certain otherwise immoral behaviours acceptable.

In fact, if we don’t fight back and defend ourselves properly then we will be guilty of being immoral. A soldier who is defending others and who doesn’t fire back when attacked is immoral, because the enemy will overrun his position and harm the people he is supposed to be protecting. The same applies to us. If we don’t fight back properly against the Leftists, using all the As, Bs and Cs above then we will be immoral and guilty of the crime of not defending ourselves and those we need to protect, adequately.

We need to use more powerful techniques than our present civil discussion approach, which so far has failed to solve the problem that the Left have taken over everything and are ruining our society. We don’t need to scream at the moon, riot or do any of the other stupid, dangerous or illegal things that the Left do. The brains are on our side so we should be able to think of effective techniques that don’t fall into any of the above three categories, but a certain amount of vigorous defence that may, oh no, include an unflattering description of a Leftist or being mean or rude to them, or throwing them out of a lecture, is not stooping to their level. Calling for resignations and boycotts is also fine. We can borrow all the sane, safe and legal tricks of the Left. That’s not stooping to their level. We’re doing it to defend ourselves and prevent the West from descending into (further) insanity.

In fact, the only way to stoop to the level of a Leftist is to become one.

I appreciate you want to be moral.

Not being a Leftist is a very good start.

This is the mistake in morality of the Right. Not fighting back hard enough because we think it will make us immoral, and believing we should treat them with the respect we want them to treat us. But that only works for normal people, sane people, people who haven’t attacked us for no reason at all, not for people who will never see us as anything but their moral inferiors however politely we treat them.

Now I can understand how this mistake could occur and be so all-pervasive on the Right. The behaviour alone is immoral, and even when it is allowed it’s still not a way we would want to behave, it’s just that circumstances force us to do so if we are to defend ourselves adequately. A soldier does not jump for joy that he’s obligated to kill hundreds of people in defence of his country. It is hard to move from the default position when necessary, and hard to be sure that there is enough justification to do so. But it’s very easy to make the mistake of not realising that defending from a Leftist is justification enough to move somewhat from that default position.

Now I can’t guarantee that fighting back a little harder will work, (although it probably will, after all, it has allowed the Left to almost take control of the world, and we all know that a show of strength against bullies is generally effective) but I am certain that the present course of treating the person howling obscenities at you with respect in the hope that a civil dialogue will occur, is a course of action that has been repeatedly tried and has repeatedly failed to bring about the desired results.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

And no, I’m not implying that someone who does this is insane.

I’m, saying it explicitly.

Sam Taylor

I'm Sam Taylor. I don't really like pointing out stupidity when I see it, but I'm going to. It's my way of reaching out to those who can actually think.

Recent Posts