Kathy Griffin reveals how the radical left thinks

During all the flap over Kathy Griffin's severed head stunt, she let something slip while she was trying to turn her vile actions around into injury at the hands of others.  "So many people have expressed to me personally at my shows across the country that they're scared[.]"  Why should her friends be fearful?  Kathy was the only one who lost anything.  And the loss was a direct result of her actions, not a "beat-down" at President Trump's hand.

This apparent existential fear is a mystery to those of us on the political right.  Certainly, we were concerned while Barack Obama occupied the White House.  But we didn't riot, destroy property, and injure people as the political far left is now doing.  We tried to figure out how to cope and possibly reverse the political tides.  Our history gives no indication of any actions that Kathy's friends should be afraid of.  So where does it come from?

Jonathan Haidt notes that when one compares the left and right, their worldviews are radically different.  The left's view can be roughly described as focusing on care versus harm, then fairness versus cheating, and liberty versus oppression. O n the right, life involves all six axes of moral concern: sanctity versus degradation, authority versus subversion, and loyalty versus betrayal, plus the other three where the left lives.

Put simply, the left's primary concern is "needs," another way of saying "care versus harm."  Fairness and liberty are secondary and in practice are often used as tools to serve "needs."  The right is continually aware of all these moral axes and generally tries to actively balance them.

Unfortunately, while the right appreciates human need, experience shows that the left is ordinarily unable to understand that alleviating need is far better done by acts of virtue, honor, industry, and duty.  Those create the rising tide that lifts all boats.  Talking about this with left-wing persons commonly degenerates into emotional outbursts by the left-wingers, and little actual discussion of issues ever takes place.

The radical left demands instantaneous virtue-signaling toward perceived "need."  Any act not in accordance with their "need for need" becomes an existential attack.  It is seen not as an attack on ideas, since ideas do not have needs.  Rather, it is seen as a direct threat to persons expressing the needs.  Those persons "obviously" have a self-defense right to respond to this "deadly" force with equally deadly force.  "Micro-aggressions" create mega-responses.  Since proportionality is an abstract concept in the world of ideas, the left does not see any problem with attacking a peaceful person with a bicycle lock.  Emotional responses cannot be measured logically.

But why would a left-winger find a cry of "shame on you!" to be a threat that should be perceived with fear?  Certainly, the right isn't threatening Kathy Griffin.  We just want to recognize that what she did was worse than awful.  It was deliberately hurtful.  She should make a sincere apology, ask for forgiveness, and try to correct the error of her ways.  That's it.  It doesn't mean we'll like her humor, but at worst, we won't buy tickets to her show.

But Kathy Griffin and the radical left can't hear that message.  They personify the comment by film critic Pauline Kael: "I can't believe Nixon won.  I don't know anyone who voted for him."  They have created a bubble that those who consider all six moral axes cannot penetrate.  They also regard any pushback from the right as not at all different from their own reaction to right-wing positions.

Kathy Griffin cries, "You don't have to like me, but you shouldn't silence a comic."  Is that why the left has silenced Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  Oh, I forgot: those voices are lethal threats to the radical left.  But Bill Maher, who is one of you, is given a pass when his comment is interpreted as racist, because he is one of you and is therefore "safe."

A psychosis is defined as "a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality."  The radical left has clearly lost touch with reality when it thinks we will act the way it does.  Leftists are psychotic.

Michael Savage was right.  "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

During all the flap over Kathy Griffin's severed head stunt, she let something slip while she was trying to turn her vile actions around into injury at the hands of others.  "So many people have expressed to me personally at my shows across the country that they're scared[.]"  Why should her friends be fearful?  Kathy was the only one who lost anything.  And the loss was a direct result of her actions, not a "beat-down" at President Trump's hand.

This apparent existential fear is a mystery to those of us on the political right.  Certainly, we were concerned while Barack Obama occupied the White House.  But we didn't riot, destroy property, and injure people as the political far left is now doing.  We tried to figure out how to cope and possibly reverse the political tides.  Our history gives no indication of any actions that Kathy's friends should be afraid of.  So where does it come from?

Jonathan Haidt notes that when one compares the left and right, their worldviews are radically different.  The left's view can be roughly described as focusing on care versus harm, then fairness versus cheating, and liberty versus oppression. O n the right, life involves all six axes of moral concern: sanctity versus degradation, authority versus subversion, and loyalty versus betrayal, plus the other three where the left lives.

Put simply, the left's primary concern is "needs," another way of saying "care versus harm."  Fairness and liberty are secondary and in practice are often used as tools to serve "needs."  The right is continually aware of all these moral axes and generally tries to actively balance them.

Unfortunately, while the right appreciates human need, experience shows that the left is ordinarily unable to understand that alleviating need is far better done by acts of virtue, honor, industry, and duty.  Those create the rising tide that lifts all boats.  Talking about this with left-wing persons commonly degenerates into emotional outbursts by the left-wingers, and little actual discussion of issues ever takes place.

The radical left demands instantaneous virtue-signaling toward perceived "need."  Any act not in accordance with their "need for need" becomes an existential attack.  It is seen not as an attack on ideas, since ideas do not have needs.  Rather, it is seen as a direct threat to persons expressing the needs.  Those persons "obviously" have a self-defense right to respond to this "deadly" force with equally deadly force.  "Micro-aggressions" create mega-responses.  Since proportionality is an abstract concept in the world of ideas, the left does not see any problem with attacking a peaceful person with a bicycle lock.  Emotional responses cannot be measured logically.

But why would a left-winger find a cry of "shame on you!" to be a threat that should be perceived with fear?  Certainly, the right isn't threatening Kathy Griffin.  We just want to recognize that what she did was worse than awful.  It was deliberately hurtful.  She should make a sincere apology, ask for forgiveness, and try to correct the error of her ways.  That's it.  It doesn't mean we'll like her humor, but at worst, we won't buy tickets to her show.

But Kathy Griffin and the radical left can't hear that message.  They personify the comment by film critic Pauline Kael: "I can't believe Nixon won.  I don't know anyone who voted for him."  They have created a bubble that those who consider all six moral axes cannot penetrate.  They also regard any pushback from the right as not at all different from their own reaction to right-wing positions.

Kathy Griffin cries, "You don't have to like me, but you shouldn't silence a comic."  Is that why the left has silenced Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  Oh, I forgot: those voices are lethal threats to the radical left.  But Bill Maher, who is one of you, is given a pass when his comment is interpreted as racist, because he is one of you and is therefore "safe."

A psychosis is defined as "a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality."  The radical left has clearly lost touch with reality when it thinks we will act the way it does.  Leftists are psychotic.

Michael Savage was right.  "Liberalism is a mental disorder."