Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapiron
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Because this 'mainstream academic thought' of which you speak couldn't possibly be wrong.
|
It's more authoritative than 1 nut on the internet. I just want you guys to know when I talk about that cycles of power or the reasoning behind why Sweden has universal healthcare and we don't -- its not like I just came up with it myself and decided post it on p99.
A guy named John Gaventa came up with that shit in
Power and Powerlessness 1980 (based on other work before him) and we have considered the studies he did convincing ever since. Meanwhile a half dozen nuts probably wrote some book about how impossible democracy is or how good years for wine cause war -- and we don't take them as seriously.
I'm just saying you should be aware of that before going the ad hominem rout. If I say "I think" or "personally" blah blah then its different. If you leave this about the merit of ideas, I'm happy to keep it in that arena.
It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.
There are advantages to being conservative minded. But they rarely come up in discussions about big complicated systems with lots of nuances -- were new information needs to be taken in constantly. That's basically a conservative nightmare.