Postmodernist critical theory nonsense
Re: “Cannot be fiscally conservative and socially progressive” (July 16)
The formula is not socially progressive + fiscally irresponsible = True And Honest Progressive. When you vote for left wing parties, you may expect a significant difference between the amount of fiscal responsibility they have, but this is not modus ponens. It is not a method of proof.
Who is Greta Christina, that I should take her words for gospel? (Spoiler alert: I googled her; no specific qualifications in Wikipedia that make her an expert on anything). That quote of hers is utter postmodernist critical theory nonsense, which I reject wholesale on the basis it is neither rational nor logical and contains words redefined by fiat, meaning the words she used mean different things to the general populace than to her. Despite what she or the letter-writer says, people can most certainly hold two opinions that may not “go together” according to people who consider themselves self-appointed to unilaterally dictate what words mean. This is known as cognitive dissonance. Nobody can declare by the fiat of their own self-appointed authority via redefined buzzword salad that something which is clearly possible, isn’t possible. I don’t care who the letter-writer puts forth as an expert for an appeal to authority (fallacy); the musings of a random blogger online do not divine revelation make; they do not get to dictate who can or can’t be “progressive” because they are not the Pope of Progressiveness and lack the authority to do so. This ideological purity mania among the postmodernist left is getting ridiculous.
The letter-writer “believes” the NDP left a surplus. That is not a fact-based argument. If the NDP hadn’t screwed up so badly they wouldn’t have been voted out of office. Yes, I know; both Liberals and NDP raided ICBC. This was not good. I don’t like it when any government misappropriates funds or is fiscally irresponsible.
If the mindset of a person is that “conservatives” are universally evil and malicious entities, then what else would it be called but a “boogeyman”? If a hypothetical person has pro-choice beliefs but doesn’t “care”, are they not progressive? What are they?
I “cast aspersions” on the letter writer’s reading comprehension because they either clearly didn’t understand what I wrote because the responses are littered with non sequiturs that had no connection to anything I said — a phenomenon repeated in the latest reply — or they’re using secret alternate word definitions without telling anyone. It’s great the person doesn’t take offense because this wasn’t about that anyway, but how about reading more carefully now? I never said there were NO psychiatric beds; where did that come from? If you didn’t understand the first two times that I clearly don’t want anyone left behind, which of course means I don’t mind if taxes go up somewhat to pay for it — that should have been implied — what can I say other than, yeah, reading comprehension? Maybe it’s an organic condition, I dunno, should get that looked at. If it’s not that, ditch the Orwellian 1984 newspeak postmodernist dictionary you’re using, it’s not helpful. Using alternate word definitions — that nobody else knows are being used — in a discussion is bait-and-switch fallacy and disingenuous. Speaking of writing in a biased manner, what was it the letter-writer said about glass houses again?
April J. Gibson