September 2, 2020

Conservatives don't look right. They aren't supposed to be doing and saying things in the way they do. They make absurd claims and accusations with no explanations. They whine about their sensitivities which are not relevant to anyone else.

Why do kids learn what proper is according to rules in school, and then the persons running the world turn proper into decadence? Social ruin is the result.

The most visible social problem is the improper communication standards of conservatives. The concern isn't a technicality; the concern is fraud upon the public and resulting social decadence.

When conservatives make claims and accusations, they do no explaining. They subjectivize their statements pretending that their sensitivities require us to turn our lives over to them as the fix for their personal and subjective problems. Imposing values is one of the primary methods of reducing communication to subjectivity.

Subjectivity is not appropriate in normal social interactions, because there are no definable realities for subjectivity. No criticism or correction is possible without objective realities. In fact, no rational result is possible without objective realities including explanations for claims.

There are no excuses for the simplest elements of social standards being defied in communication. Every question raised is supposed to be addressed with an answer. Every claim made is supposed to be explained. Every concern promoted is supposed to give the public enough information to decide for themselves. A total mockery of such communication standards runs rampant in conservative claims. Why aren't the heads of conservatives used for bowling balls?

Isn't the complaint of bigots that the lower classes, immigrants and minorities are not up to their required standards? The purpose of cutting food stamps was to supposedly force low class persons to get off the couch and go looking for work, while there was nothing for jobs available. Creating Eagle Scouts was the purpose. That's an attempt to change social standards in an underhanded way.

Conservatives believe in their corruptions and tolerate nothing else. They assume that promoting one's own values and sensitivities is the purpose of life, and rationality applied to objective reality is the ruination of man, because it separates from subjectivity, values and sensitivities. Where they err is in expecting to have a social order with modern conveniences and technology created in the absence of objective reality with nothing but subjective whining as a method of getting there.

The conservative war against opponents is an attempt to establish subjective purposes which are ignored and left behind in rational constructivity, because conservatives have nothing if they can't impose themselves subjectively upon society.

Critics touch upon some elements of the problem such as the necessary social standards of openness and accountability, but the effort gets bowled over without batting an eyelash.

Nothing constructive can come out of the dark. Corruption always rules the dark, because rationality cannot be produced without a lot of contact with objective reality. Contact means openness and accountability. In other words, corrupters do as they please in the dark including shoving rational persons aside.

Rationality is complex; corruption is beyond simple minded. So it takes a public concern to promote rationality, which in turn requires openness and accountability.

Of course, there are endless excuses for doing everything in the dark. But to allow excuses to prevail is another element of the breakdown of social standards.

As conservatives took over the social order in 1981, concepts changed on what a social order should look like. The result is social ruin.
 
Accusations Are The Proof

Accusing is not a proper social standard. Conservatives are accusers. The difference between accusing and criticizing is vast. Accusing is subjective emotionalism, where criticism is objective. There is no explanation or clarification with an accusation, because it is nothing but emotionalism. How do you argue emotionalism?

For example, it is said that the decisive blow that won Reagan the election against Carter in 1980 was during a debate, when Carter was describing his position on Afghanistan, Reagan said, "There you go again." It was a knock out punch, because there is no counter-argument to emotionalism. So that example shows the elements of the problem, which serve as proof of concept.

First, an accusation is about the accuser, not the person (victim) being attacked. Rational persons see the corruption in the accuser, while corrupters see the accuser as a winner, which means proper to them. The accuser must always be the winner, since there is no counter-argument to emotionalism. The problem is corrupters using winning as the measuring tool instead of objective reality that can be actually discussed or criticized.

One element of the example is that Carter is the epitome of banality. To say he is "going again" means there was no one in front of Reagan, he could have said that about a rock. Accusers use that tactic for their own enhancement independent of who they direct it towards, which is true of all of their emotionalism. It is about themselves, not someone else.

In other words, Reagan was pretending that he was emotionally offended by Carters statements. To be emotionally offended is infantile. It's not an adult concept. But it is a conservative concept. Perhaps their number one ploy in breaking down rationality is to feign being emotionally offended.

Accusing is an attack. As such, it implies that the accuser is the reference for normalcy and the attacked person is doing something wrong. It takes rationality and moral standards to correct the flow which is directed from accuser to victim, as if it were flowing from normal to abnormal. That flow is the implication of all accusations. An accusation says the flow is from normalcy to unacceptability.

Accusing is always a corruption, which is why satan is characterized in the Bible as "the accuser." There is never an exception to accusing being a corruption, because the mechanism of accusing is always inherently corrupt in putting the accuser in the position of representing what proper should be and the victim in the position of what improper is and doing so through emotionalism which has no objective analysis. That arrangement is always a corruption. Satan relies upon it, because corruption is all he has for an attack weapon.

Real criticism doesn't put either person in any position, because it is not about the person but about the material being discussed. Adding emotionalism to a discussion is always a corruption. It's no different than an infant throwing a tantrum. Adults are not supposed to drop to that level, yet all accusations do.

Superficially, it might appear that there is such a thing as objective accusation, such as a defendant being "the accused." But that situation is a diversification of language, not a representation of a mechanism. Accusation as a mechanism is the point.

Corruptions play to other corrupters, not to rational persons. Yet corrupters get elected by playing to corrupters in terms of making themselves winners. Since there is no defense against emotional attack, a corrupter is always a winner using emotional attack. To be a winner through corrupt emotional attack got Reagan elected and then Trump. In fact, there is no other method of campaigning or discussion that conservatives use. They make themselves winners through improper methods of attack based on emotions, values and subjectivity.

There is no way to lose when the method of attack is improper. It's a morality shift. It works for demagogues getting elected. To create a constructive social order requires a methodology which is not based on winning but rationality. Rationality is a method of evaluating realities which does not directly have anything to do with winning. So persons who are obsessed with winning see rationality as a tool for losers and emotional attack as a tool of brilliance for winners.

After the fact, rationality can result in winners and losers, which obsesses corrupters. They don't see the rationality, because they can't add and subtract. They only see the result after the fact. So if rationality makes rational persons winners, after the fact, then corrupters are going to make themselves winners through means which they can use, which is emotional attack—the adult method of throwing a tantrum.

Playing upon the need to win puts demagogues in power, when rationality has deteriorated to a level that the majority of society does not see it as the solution to their problems. That situation exists when there is social turmoil. Demagogues create fascism when there is social turmoil and society cannot find a solution through rationality. Corrupters create social turmoil as their path to power for that reason.

This is why conservatives are forever pretending that the enemy is at the gate and society is doomed without their magical solutions. A threat must exist which cannot be fixed through rationality, so the emotionalism of corrupters is the answer.