[PEN-L:32505] RE: Re: Re: re: how things change

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Title: RE: [PEN-L:32499] Re: Re: re: how things change

Doug Henwood writes:
Not that much of a change - despite many other loony positions,
Barr's always been a hardliner on civil liberties (like Ron Paul).

Doyle writes:
You loosely apply an anti-disabled phrasing to the enemy.  For Socialists
what are we to do with the loonies?  Asylums?  Is that the place to put
someone who is a political enemy, an insane asylum?  I mean obviously you
use this lightly.  Your term does not bear weight nor depth nor
understanding. You use many terms lightly.

----------------

Doyle, think it's a mistake to confuse "loony positions" with a reference to actual "loonies."

There are lots of (societally-defined) sane people out there who have "loony" positions (as I see them). John Ashcroft springs to mind, as does the "crackpot realism" of the cold-war liberals. (A "loony" position is illogical, goes against established empirical knowledge, and/or leaves out many of the issues and questions that should be addressed. It also eschews issues of morality. Of course, a lot of this is a matter of opinion (something that can change), suggesting that we should be very careful in labelling a position "loony.")

Similarly, perhaps the vast majority of societally-defined "loonies" have quite "sane" positions on many issues. In fact, some research argues that many with depression are more realistic about themselves than the "normal" people are. Someone on the psychological edge of society often has a clearer view of what's going on than someone who's in the middle of it all.

Jim