I Don’t Care About Your Feelings

 

I’m writing this post for anyone on the Left who might be curious about the political Right. Not for your leaders or political elites, but for you: the everyday person who believes the stories and the rhetoric of the Left, and feels that those on the political Right are to be feared and condemned.

But before I tell you why I don’t care about your feelings, let me tell you about myself and how I suspect you might feel about me.

I’m a Conservative. I live in a quiet community with friendly neighbors who join together to decorate our street for the Christmas holidays.

I like to read the news. I read books mostly about current events. I love dogs and watching TV shows about Alaska and veterinarians. My friends are people who raised good kids, and now in their later years, indulge their grandchildren. They often visit them because they have the time to do so.

Some of us love to cook; others dine out. We get together at Thanksgiving and have a neighborhood Christmas party. Some of us are couch potatoes; others fight off the challenges of aging by getting exercise at the gym.

Some of the guys play golf. Some of the women do, too. We bring meals over when people are unwell. Some of us go to church, others don’t. Some of us take vacation trips; others are homebodies.

In other words, we are ordinary people. In many respects, we are just like you.

We are not white supremacists.

We are not domestic terrorists.

We are not racists.

We want to live our lives in peace; isn’t it your deepest wish to do the same?

But I have come to believe that goal doesn’t ring true for you, at least not at a conscious level.

You trust in your feelings to make judgments and decisions.

You think those of us on the Right are cruel because we rely on not only feelings but on reason.

You hate this country, not for what it has become, but because you think we must bear the guilt of our country’s history, forever.

You want those of us on the Right to take the responsibility for every disappointment, poor decision, and crisis simply because you have become convinced that we are the best people to blame.

Your blame is not connected to evidence, facts, or truth but upon fear and hatred. It is also convenient and easy to blame us, and your feelings confirm your dissatisfaction with our country for not being a perfect place. You feel the country, and those of us who love this country, are guilty. Of horrendous crimes.

*    *     *     *

By relying on your feelings, however, you are living a life of delusion and unhappiness. Feelings can be wonderfully satisfying in certain contexts. But when you rely on your feelings, you create a narrow and limited pathway for comprehending your life. Data outside of your feelings is deemed hateful, non-compassionate, and destructive.

When are feelings a satisfying and appropriate indulgence? When we embrace our friends and families. When we cook our favorite meal. When we make homemade chocolate chip cookies and eat them when they are still warm. When we are overwhelmed with joy at a child’s first birthday party. Even when we grieve the loss of a friend’s passing, our feelings allow us to appreciate what life offered him, and has offered us.

That experience of feelings is a personal investment that allows us to fully engage with our lives in an intimate way.

But it is not sufficient for making important decisions, to explore the pluses and minuses of the world around us; it ought not to be the sole way for choosing our friends and our aims in life.

If we limit ourselves only to our feelings, without expanding our life’s experience with information, or with resources that challenge our own ideas, preferences, and biases, we are locked into a mindset that will isolate us, making our lives ugly and dark.

I’m not suggesting that you use only reason to make your life’s choices. Nor am I saying that relying on your feelings is a poor approach.

I am saying that if you rely solely on your feelings without expanding the way you see the world, the way you see the political Right, the way you see me, I am compelled to make a choice.

I can’t make you change your mindset.

I won’t change my own view of the world.

As long as you indulge your feelings to justify your hatred, your attacks on America, and on our citizens, I will condemn who you are and what you stand for. I’ve made a heart-wrenching choice.

I choose not to care about you and your ideas.

And I couldn’t care less about your feelings.

Published in Culture
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 92 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s a lot less valid for workers to be openly critical of failures of management.

    I misunderstood. Yes, in general you’re right.

    • #61
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):
    If so, then what’s (partially) changed is the consensus rather than freedom of expression without fear per se.

    I think it’s both. The consensus of what is acceptable has changed, and has become more radical. And the consequences for speaking out are more severe, including losing one’s job.

    • #62
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    If so, then what’s (partially) changed is the consensus rather than freedom of expression without fear per se.

    I think it’s both. The consensus of what is acceptable has changed, and has become more radical. And the consequences for speaking out are more severe, including losing one’s job.

    It’s always been that way for people who spoke up on some “forbidden subjects”: Norman Finkelstein, Salaita, arguably Helen Thomas.

    There was no principled Conservative defence of these because “free speech”.

    All that’s changed is the list of “forbidden subjects”.

    And when the pendulum swings, it’ll be the Left being cancelled again.

    jmho.

    • #63
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    If so, then what’s (partially) changed is the consensus rather than freedom of expression without fear per se.

    I think it’s both. The consensus of what is acceptable has changed, and has become more radical. And the consequences for speaking out are more severe, including losing one’s job.

    It’s always been that way for people who spoke up on some “forbidden subjects”: Norman Finkelstein, Salaita, arguably Helen Thomas.

    There was no principled Conservative defence of these because “free speech”.

    All that’s changed is the list of “forbidden subjects”.

    And when the pendulum swings, it’ll be the Left being cancelled again.

    jmho.

    Now people on the left or right can be/are cancelled, because someone raged that they said something horrible. I hope the pendulum swings soon.

    • #64
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):
    It’s always been that way for people who spoke up on some “forbidden subjects”: Norman Finkelstein, Salaita, arguably Helen Thomas.

    Ah, yes — Auntie Semite.  

    • #65
  6. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Is it cancel culture itself which is corrupting to the body politic, whether practiced by the Left or Right [misleading terms, it’s always only been able to be practiced by the majority in the middle], or is the problem only a matter of who gets cancelled so sometimes it’s okay?

    With my Indian experience hat on, I’d suggest it’s the practice itself.  The US has free speech enshrined and de facto in a way that few other countries do.  It’s something precious, I’d suggest too precious to allow it to be undermined to pursue a partisan agenda.

    • #66
  7. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    We are now in compulsory 2+2=5 territory.

    • #67
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    We are now in compulsory 2+2=5 territory.

    Well if that’s how you feel….

    • #68
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Is it cancel culture itself which is corrupting to the body politic, whether practiced by the Left or Right [misleading terms, it’s always only been able to be practiced by the majority in the middle], or is the problem only a matter of who gets cancelled so sometimes it’s okay?

    With my Indian experience hat on, I’d suggest it’s the practice itself. The US has free speech enshrined and de facto in a way that few other countries do. It’s something precious, I’d suggest too precious to allow it to be undermined to pursue a partisan agenda.

    Cancel Culture is how the kids refer to denunciations and show trials because they lack the frame of reference to understand that this has all happened before.  That too is by design.  

    • #69
  10. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    The US also has the essential right of armament enshrined, in stronger terms than even speech, for increasingly obvious reasons.  

    And it’s all teetering.  “Constitution?”  Piffle.  Scribbles on scraps.  Forward!

    • #70
  11. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I think it is useful – where we are talking about firing a person for their communicated views – to differentiate between a public face, such as a reporter or a company spokesperson, and some shmoe in accounting. 

    • #71
  12. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Excellent viewpoint on where half of us find ourselves now.

    When we think about our lives, we certainly feel normal. SNIP

    But just as we have given up on caring about their feelings, they have no interest in utilizing logic. If Biden, or Hillary or Nancy Pelosi continue to ramp up hatred against Republican extremists, SNIP  they will entertain two simultaneous feelings: one being that their leaders deserve their loyalty and obedience, especially as following these leaders will keep Donald Trump from running for office in 2024.

    They also will comfort themselves that in entertaining the idea that it might be no holds barred against Trump and those who are most extreme in their loyalty to him, that any thing that happens to “those people” is what they surely deserve, even if corners are cut to bring them to “justice.” They also are convincing themselves that only a few people will be dealt with in this overwhelming and most unusual manner.

    This is how a purge starts: a political entity convinces its loyalists that “only a few” need to be taken care of. As long as no one pays attention to any reports of increasing numbers of people being deprived of their lives by spurious accusations of being domestic terrorists, slowly slowly, the political entity can purge 5% to 15% of their opposition and then as necessary expand the operation outward.

    SNIP We only have to look at what went on in The Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930’s. This is how during “the Great Terror,” Stalin’s goons were able to kill off between 750,000 political opponents to twice that number, with another 1 million being sent off to labor camps.

    At the beginning of this huge purge of human life, show trials were common. The outcome of the show trial is predetermined, with only the Plaintiff, in this case the State, allowed to have any witnesses. Only after sentencing is the accused allow to speak.

    What frightens me about this initial use of having “show trials” is that from what I have read about the Jan 6th defendants’ trials, their situation as far as witnesses and statements outlining any type of rebuttal to the State’s case is eerily similar to that of the prisoners that Stalin had indicted.

    I can think of some historic examples of great purges.

    Gideon tearing down his father’s altar to Baal and cutting down the Asherah pole. Jehu exterminating the house of Ahab. Elijah slaughtering the prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel.

    What about the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria? Was that bad? The purge of former Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe? Do you oppose that?

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

     

    • #72
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    What about the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria? Was that bad? The purge of former Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe? Do you oppose that?

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

    You know, I remember reading a biography of that time by a woman from Austria.  Her father was purged after the war because he was a member of the Nazi party.  But he worked for the postal system.  A bunch of them were signed up to the Nazi party as an administrative thing.  So – some of the broad brush approach can give you results like that, which actually diminishes the moral aspect of the purge. 

    Ditto with purging all members of the Baathist party in Iraq.  Or the Communist Party in Eastern Europe. (I’m pretty sure they weren’t purged in Russia.)

    Holding individuals responsible for individual acts is a clear thing.  Holding members of a very big, administrative, non-democratic organisation responsible for all the actions of that organisation makes less sense.

    • #73
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    TBA (View Comment):

    I think it is useful – where we are talking about firing a person for their communicated views – to differentiate between a public face, such as a reporter or a company spokesperson, and some shmoe in accounting.

    Why? And how, without violating a whole class of people’s freedom of speech?

    • #74
  15. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

     

    Yes!   A thousand times, Yes!

    • #75
  16. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    What about the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria? Was that bad? The purge of former Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe? Do you oppose that?

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

    You know, I remember reading a biography of that time by a woman from Austria. Her father was purged after the war because he was a member of the Nazi party. But he worked for the postal system. A bunch of them were signed up to the Nazi party as an administrative thing. So – some of the broad brush approach can give you results like that, which actually diminishes the moral aspect of the purge.

    Ditto with purging all members of the Baathist party in Iraq. Or the Communist Party in Eastern Europe. (I’m pretty sure they weren’t purged in Russia.)

    Holding individuals responsible for individual acts is a clear thing. Holding members of a very big, administrative, non-democratic organisation responsible for all the actions of that organisation makes less sense.

    What difference, at this point, does it make?  I was only following orders.  I was young and I needed the money.  He promised he wouldn’t [~].  I can always have another.  

    • #76
  17. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Zafar (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    I think it is useful – where we are talking about firing a person for their communicated views – to differentiate between a public face, such as a reporter or a company spokesperson, and some shmoe in accounting.

    Why? And how, without violating a whole class of people’s freedom of speech?

    By allowing people to sue for wrongful termination unless the comments significantly affect the company. 

    • #77
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    What about the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria? Was that bad? The purge of former Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe? Do you oppose that?

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

    You know, I remember reading a biography of that time by a woman from Austria. Her father was purged after the war because he was a member of the Nazi party. But he worked for the postal system. A bunch of them were signed up to the Nazi party as an administrative thing. So – some of the broad brush approach can give you results like that, which actually diminishes the moral aspect of the purge.

    Ditto with purging all members of the Baathist party in Iraq. Or the Communist Party in Eastern Europe. (I’m pretty sure they weren’t purged in Russia.)

    Holding individuals responsible for individual acts is a clear thing. Holding members of a very big, administrative, non-democratic organisation responsible for all the actions of that organisation makes less sense.

    What difference, at this point, does it make? I was only following orders. I was young and I needed the money. He promised he wouldn’t [~]. I can always have another.

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    • #78
  19. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    What about the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria? Was that bad? The purge of former Communists in Russia and Eastern Europe? Do you oppose that?

    You seem to be missing the notion that the purge of former Nazis in Germany and Austria came about after the atrocities those individuals had inflicted on millions of others. Not before.

    You know, I remember reading a biography of that time by a woman from Austria. Her father was purged after the war because he was a member of the Nazi party. But he worked for the postal system. A bunch of them were signed up to the Nazi party as an administrative thing. So – some of the broad brush approach can give you results like that, which actually diminishes the moral aspect of the purge.

    Ditto with purging all members of the Baathist party in Iraq. Or the Communist Party in Eastern Europe. (I’m pretty sure they weren’t purged in Russia.)

    Holding individuals responsible for individual acts is a clear thing. Holding members of a very big, administrative, non-democratic organisation responsible for all the actions of that organisation makes less sense.

    What difference, at this point, does it make? I was only following orders. I was young and I needed the money. He promised he wouldn’t [~]. I can always have another.

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel.  Do you feel that is a good parallel?  If so, I have some follow-on questions.  

    • #79
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel.  Do you feel that is a good parallel?  If so, I have some follow-on questions.  

    Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives?  It’s a straightforward question.

    • #80
  21. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel. Do you feel that is a good parallel? If so, I have some follow-on questions.

    Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives? It’s a straightforward question.

    That’s not an answer, but probably as close as we shall get.  Look how far you had to abstract in order to cover both.  Oh well.

    • #81
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel. Do you feel that is a good parallel? If so, I have some follow-on questions.

    Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives? It’s a straightforward question.

    That’s not an answer

    Is your response an answer?

    but probably as close as we shall get. Look how far you had to abstract in order to cover both. Oh well.

    Yes, because you’re trying to move the question from:

    “Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives?”

    To:

    “The US Military is like the Nazis”

    Why would you try to strawman like this?

     

    • #82
  23. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel. Do you feel that is a good parallel? If so, I have some follow-on questions.

    Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives? It’s a straightforward question.

    That’s not an answer

    Is your response an answer?

    but probably as close as we shall get. Look how far you had to abstract in order to cover both. Oh well.

    Yes, because you’re trying to move the question from:

    “Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives?”

    To:

    “The US Military is like the Nazis”

    Why would you try to strawman like this?

     

    No problem.  Just go ahead and make your case for the equivalence of US in Iraq and Nazis, and I’ll be happy to deflate it.  You brought it up.  You defend it.  

    • #83
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    So all members of the US Military are responsible for Abu Ghraib? I don’t think so.

    That’s not a very good parallel. Do you feel that is a good parallel? If so, I have some follow-on questions.

    Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives? It’s a straightforward question.

    That’s not an answer

    Is your response an answer?

    but probably as close as we shall get. Look how far you had to abstract in order to cover both. Oh well.

    Yes, because you’re trying to move the question from:

    “Is everybody in an organisation responsible for the actions of anybody in the organisation, carried out to implement that organisation’s objectives?”

    To:

    “The US Military is like the Nazis”

    Why would you try to strawman like this?

    No problem. Just go ahead and make your case for the equivalence of US in Iraq and Nazis, and I’ll be happy to deflate it. You brought it up. You defend it.

    Well thank you for your answer.

    Edited to add:

    This has gone strangely on point for the OP.

    • #84
  25. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):
    What is it that makes it that your feelings are more important than my own feelings? Arguments that attempt elevate some feelings over others amount to supremacy thinking. They are better than you, more valid, morally righteous.

    In an office setting anger is a ‘prestige’ emotion – meaning some people (management) can express anger while for other people it’s unacceptable. Some people’s feelings are more socially valid than others’.

    That said, hasn’t this been going on for a long time in terms of politics and culture? On a heap of subjects (not just Left/Right, but also things like Pro-choice/Pro-Life, Israel/Palestine, I’m sure you can think of others). The only thing that seems to be changing is whose feelings are socially valid and whose are not.

    Maybe what you perceive as people’s feelings taking higher precedent than others was actually a determined moral reason that was solidly embedded in a culture so that feelings of disgust was simply a byproduct of the foundational rationale for why the other feelings break with moral reality.

    Currently, the topsy turvy  that is inverting the feelings supremacy matrix is built on very flimsy, very recent, and unsuccessful (in terms of civilizational survival) moral reasoning, unlike what it has replaced.

     

    *Case in point:incest*

    • #85
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Stina (View Comment):

    Maybe what you perceive as people’s feelings taking higher precedent than others was actually a determined moral reason that was solidly embedded in a culture so that feelings of disgust was simply a byproduct of the foundational rationale for why the other feelings break with moral reality.

    It could be.  But I’m sure everybody would feel that – no offence.  If you asked people who believed miscegenation was a bad thing, they might give you similar reasoning as justification.

    Currently, the topsy turvy  that is inverting the feelings supremacy matrix is built on very flimsy, very recent, and unsuccessful (in terms of civilizational survival) moral reasoning, unlike what it has replaced.

    I guess we’ll see, or not see, as the case may be.  But it seems to me that if what came before was so solid, and based in reality, it would be less vulnerable to challenge.

    • #86
  27. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I guess we’ll see, or not see, as the case may be.  But it seems to me that if what came before was so solid, and based in reality, it would be less vulnerable to challenge.

    I don’t think the reality is the issue. Morality and Truth transcend what we think is reality, or what is real. Just because people try to change norms doesn’t mean they are entitled to change reality.

    • #87
  28. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Maybe what you perceive as people’s feelings taking higher precedent than others was actually a determined moral reason that was solidly embedded in a culture so that feelings of disgust was simply a byproduct of the foundational rationale for why the other feelings break with moral reality.

    It could be. But I’m sure everybody would feel that – no offence. If you asked people who believed miscegenation was a bad thing, they might give you similar reasoning as justification.

    Currently, the topsy turvy that is inverting the feelings supremacy matrix is built on very flimsy, very recent, and unsuccessful (in terms of civilizational survival) moral reasoning, unlike what it has replaced.

    I guess we’ll see, or not see, as the case may be. But it seems to me that if what came before was so solid, and based in reality, it would be less vulnerable to challenge.

    Ha. Truth is always vulnerable in the hearts of men because it is uncomfortable. But it lasts longer and always wins because reality doesn’t conform to what we want.

    There’s always negative consequences to bad ideas.

    • #88
  29. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I guess we’ll see, or not see, as the case may be.  But it seems to me that if what came before was so solid, and based in reality, it would be less vulnerable to challenge.

    In fairness humans have been undermining reality for probably the entirety of history.   This isn’t some new phenomena that is unique to our time and place.  Relativism is a new word but the concept isn’t.  Ancient sophists were relativists.  Pilate summed nicely when he asked “What is truth?”  Now we have the woke believing they can change the universe based on their feelings.  It isn’t such a stretch.  It has been done and thought before.  It just doesn’t work that is all.   Truth is.  It doesn’t really matter if someone, or even a majority prefer otherwise.

    • #89
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    In fairness humans have been undermining reality for probably the entirety of history. 

    And we’ve all been convinced that we’re the ones upholding truth while it’s those “other people” who are ignoring reality.  Sounds about right.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.