Quote of the Day
Progressive movements frequently reject liberal norms of debate and tolerance. Once politics is understood as an endless series of contradictions that must be resolved through struggle, the goal is no longer peaceful coexistence or mutual accommodation, but the permanent transformation of society through continuous agitation. The dialectic has proven remarkably effective precisely because it offers both a method of analysis and a justification for never-ending conflict.
Creative Deduction @CreativeDeduct
Posted on X June 27, 2026
There probably is some truth to this. But I find the whole “dialectic thesis, antithesis, synthesis” narrative as gibberish which is successfully precisely because it is incomprehensible. No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.
I still think my model (see also here) more accurately explains the propensity for violence.
Mao said the same thing, only more succinctly:
“Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”
The most profound abuse of political power is to force people to repeat lies.
The gibberish meets this purpose perfectly. It is without form, and void; it can change with no notice; it requires nothing until it requires everything. There’s no better way to hammer home that they own you than to make you mouth that the gibberish is true, even when the gibberish isn’t the same as it was half an hour ago.
Which dialectic? There are several. The Socratic method, for example, is a dialectic, and doesn’t strike me as particularly incomprehensible. And both Socrates and Aristotle viewed dialectic reasoning as a path towards resolution, not “never ending conflict.”
The Hegelian dialectic is also designed to move towards resolution of conflict within the context of logical argument. The OP seems to be mostly asserting the Hegelian version, albeit not explicitly.
The Marxist dialectic is a historical assertion, which I was originally taught with the river metaphor (you’re in the river of history. You have the freedom to take action within that context, but you’re still in a river, and your ability to alter its course is limited by the reality of past events). Less a method for resolving conflict than a way of explaining the nature of history and limitations on current action.
So when “Creative deduction” says (condensing the assertion in the OP) “Progressives use the dialectic to justify never ending conflict” I think “Um…no?” It’s not a supportable generalization because a) there’s no single dialectic, b) the originators of the dialectic idea intended the opposite wrt its use for conflict resolution, and c) “progressives” aren’t a homogeneous group about which you can make such a simple assertion that applies to all of them.
One of leftist’s usual tactics is trying to muddy the waters by purposefully pretending not to understand things.
The dialectic the majority of “progressives” use is a Joe stated; the Hegelian “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” with the synthesis becoming the new thesis then repeating the process until they can internally justify to themselves getting to where they wanted to be. Or, as Rolf put it “buying time looking for the right knife to stab you with.”
And even if there are some who – honestly – have some other definition of what the dialectic is, there doesn’t appear to be a significant enough percentage of them to make a difference.
“One of leftist’s usual tactics is trying to muddy the waters by purposefully pretending not to understand things. ”
That is just **incredibly** frustrating. “I am SO much smarter than you, everyone should listen to me! Also, I am too stupid to remember to breathe.”
“The dialectic the majority of “progressives” use is a Joe stated”
Please cite evidence. Because a) most folks don’t have the faintest idea what a dialectic is, and b) progressives are by definition a profoundly heterogeneous group, so broad generalizations about “them” are generally false.
“even if there are some who – honestly – have some other definition of what the dialectic is”
Do I have to post web links for the Socratic, Aristotelian, and Marxist dialectics to contrast with the Hegelian one? There is no single dialectic, and to claim otherwise is demonstrably false.
“purposefully pretending not to understand things.” You mean like by denying the existence of multiple dialectical philosophies that can be easily found via Google?
” “purposefully pretending not to understand things.” You mean like by denying the existence of multiple dialectical philosophies that can be easily found via Google?”
Nope, just what I see as a purposeful attempt at a diversionary gambit to get us engaged in a time waster.
I see. So you’re here just as a keyboard warrior, not as a genuine participant in dialogue. Got it.
(Cue the “I know you are but what am I response” in 3…2…1…)
No John, that’s pretty much what you just did.
“progressives are by definition a profoundly heterogeneous group”
As opposed to all the groups they lump together by skin, sex, etc., who are just all entirely the same.
Disingenious time wasting, example right here.
“They.” I wish I could post pictures, and include the one of Inigo Montoya talking about “You keep using that word…”
Just ignore the whole point I just made, it’s all fine.
Or shall I complain about every single usage of the word “they” from you ever again?
It’s BS, John. Just because “they” aren’t perfect clones of each other doesn’t mean that a grouping can’t VERY VERY easily be honestly and reasonably done when the behaviour, rhetoric, and causes championed have huge amounts of overlap.
I think you’ll find I rarely use “they” without a clearly defined antecedent and context, and I try to use it not at all. It’s the word of the hour, “they.” Them, those other people, that group, the enemy. You and I in particular have lots in common politically, yet we argue vociferously as though we’re mortal enemies. And that word is a big part of the reason why.
I can apply the exact same logic you used to “conservatives” or any other such group you try to use that’s larger than 5 people.
You are making a generic complaint of grouping. You also group people, and in very large groups in some cases. You are *AT LEAST* as vulnerable to the criticism you gave as your targets.
Yep. I too sometimes make generalizations that I shouldn’t. And when I do, you are fully justified in calling me out on it. As you like to say, “one standard.”
“I too sometimes make generalizations that I shouldn’t.”
MOST such generalizations (if they aren’t just made up BS) are fine. You use, I use them, everyone uses them.
In fact, you did it in this very thread, with the very group you are claiming shouldn’t be grouped:
“progressives are by definition a profoundly heterogeneous group”
So YOU can use a “they” on the same exact group, but no one else can.
The funny thing is that you description is incredibly shallow. Different skin colors, different hair colors, different clothes… but their *behaviour* is SHOCKINGLY similar… because they cast out those who won’t conform.
Toe the line on THESE important things, and you can have whatever policy position you like on all this other, unimportant stuff. So magnanimous – just like that guy you pointed us at a week or two ago.
Examples? See what happens to anyone on the left who won’t toe the line on the insane claims about Gaza, who isn’t actively, energetically pro-trans enough, who objects that calling Trump Hitler is too far. There are significant examples almost every day, because throwing other people “under the bus” to prove your purity is a common tactic in authoritarian ideologies.
Just today, Dwayne Johnson is getting called out by lefties for not being actively political, when he just wants to make movies. Not that he holds the wrong positions, only that he isn’t actively using his fame for THEIR benefit.
A couple of days ago, it was Scott Weiner getting kicked out of a big trans event for not being sufficiently anti-Israel.
I’d be very surprised if I haven’t missed some in between.
Yep, such a “heterogeneous group”. Uh huh.
Got a bunch of work to get done this evening so can’t give you the full monty, but one quick note on one part of your reply:
“but their *behaviour* is SHOCKINGLY similar… because they cast out those who won’t conform.”
But “their” behavior is all over the place. The subset of progressives you’re referring to, who I would refer to as “leftists,” are indeed intolerant assholes who demand obedience. But they are only one of many subsets of progressives, and get the most press because they’re the loudest, as assholes usually are. Think Kshama Sawant and her ilk. There are plenty of other progressives who think leftists are emotionally stunted losers who can’t handle the real world and as a result lash out at everyone and everything that doesn’t conform to their narrow views. There are progressives who are what you might think of as old school democrats (and view themselves now as Democrats), who want a liberal society, but think conservatives have a lot of good things to say and should be negotiated with. There are people who are issue-specific progressives, where they’re fully pro choice pro trans pro social movement x, but at the same time are fiscally conservative and think government should be smaller and the debt should be dealt with and immigration shouldn’t just be open borders, and so on and so on. And there are progressives who hate the Democratic party not because they want it to be more socialist, but just because it’s so corrupt and they think it’s betrayed the promise of the enlightenment liberalism it claims to espouse.
And all of what I just said applies in large part to conservatives as well, just with different labels on the issues.
So saying “progressives are a heterogeneous group” isn’t a generalization, it’s a description of the meta category “progressive.” You can disagree if you like and claim all progressives are the same, but that becomes a definitional argument, and you can’t dismiss it per se as a generalization.
” There are progressives who are what you might think of as old school democrats (and view themselves now as Democrats), who want a liberal society, but think conservatives have a lot of good things to say and should be negotiated with.”
If there are such people, they are almost universally hiding in the metaphorical bunker to avoid being thrown out – look what is happening to the Democratic Party and the left in general. Outright communists and pro-genocide (of Jews, so it doesn’t count, somehow?) are taking over.
It’s more than just “loud” it’s that they are WINNING – the people you are talking about are still siding with them, even as those things are happening.
It’s like I said to whoever it was talking about Portland or maybe Seattle (I think it was you) – it’s not there are crazies and non crazies, it’s just that the crazies are loud, they are ALL crazy, just some of them are quiet about it, because they support ***EXACTLY*** the same stuff as the crazies. To NOT do so gets you thrown out.
And if there are those who don’t actually support it, they apparently view “not being thrown out” as more important than… opposing explicit and open support of genocide, for only the most extreme example.
They’re really not hiding. My wife works for one of them who’s on the Seattle city council, whose husband, as a sidenote, is Jewish and is raising Jewish kids. We recently hosted a fundraiser for two of them who are running as independents because the Dem party around here is too far left. (“More fish, less BS!” is one of my more favorite campaign slogans ever https://billhillforalaskans.com/).
The problem isn’t that reasonable liberals don’t exist and/or are hiding, they just don’t get the same press because being reasonable isn’t provocative.
And as a sidenote to your comment about people being “pro-genocide,” but then claiming it’s pro-Jewish genocide, let’s have a look at today’s latest headline from Gaza where the Israelis are further refining their concentration camp design:
https://novaramedia.com/2026/07/02/palestinians-to-be-herded-into-humanitarian-shelters-in-gaza/
I don’t hear anyone calling for the genocide of Jews, but I do hear lots of folks calling for Israel to be forced to stop committing genocide on the Palestinians.
Calling what is going on in Gaza genocide is either sheer dishonesty or dangerous levels of disconnection from reality. If you actually believe that, you are an unreasonable person, to put it very, very politely.
The population of Gaza goes up every year. The children of Gaza are commonly treated in Israeli hospitals. The Israelis risk their soldiers in close urban combat when other countries would just line up the artillery and reduce the area to rubble and kill everyone in it.
The conflict in Gaza will end the moment the Gazans give up their *literally religious* commitment to the genocide of the Jews. They have been publicly advocating for it for GENERATIONS now. They hide the worst of it by saying those things in other languages, but “from the river to the sea” is an explicit call for genocide, right there in English – drive the Jews into the ocean where the drown. That is the goal, and the people who started that particular slogan are not shy about saying so. And it’s not a new idea, even – there are posters from the earliest wars calling for driving the Jews into the sea, showing them drowning rather graphically.
They have been offered everything they claim to want… TWICE! And in both cases, they left the negotiations to start “intifada” again. At the leadership level at the very least, the goal is not land, freedom, none of that – it’s killing Jews.
To call what the Israelis are doing to the Gazans “genocide” is to water down the term to meaninglessness. It is to mock the actual victims of every other genocide in human history (of which there are plenty for comparison).
If Israel wanted to commit genocide against Gaza, *it would have been done decades ago*. They have and HAVE had the capability since before I was born.
Yet the population in Gaza goes up every year.
I have been annoyed at or frustrated by you many times, John, but this one takes the cake. I had to delete some things that were completely accurate but very rude, so I’m going to stop here.
“The population of Gaza goes up every year. The children of Gaza are commonly treated in Israeli hospitals.”
So “They haven’t wiped everybody out, therefore it’s not genocide.” Ok, sure. You’re right, it’s an “attempted genocide.” And if think I’m unreasonable to think that, I will point you (when I get back from the holiday) to the dozens and dozens of videos in my feed of street interviews with Israelis (not even the orthodox ones, just the “standard issue” ones) saying every Palestinian needs to be killed because that’s the only way the fighting will end. Up to and including Ben Gvir who most recently talked about how all of Lebanon must burn.
“The Israelis risk their soldiers in close urban combat when other countries would just line up the artillery and reduce the area to rubble and kill everyone in it.”
Have you seen the before and after pictures of Gaza? Israel has leveled it. Literally. They did exactly that what you said “other” countries would do, albeit from the air rather than using artillery. And now they’re doing the same to Lebanon. And they even have watch parties where they put up big screens in town squares so folks can watch the bombings. Google it, YouTube it, pick your media of choice, there’s lots of coverage.
“If Israel wanted to commit genocide against Gaza, *it would have been done decades ago*.
You’ve left out political viability. Sure, militarily they could have, and shortly thereafter all funding from the U.S. would stop. Only with the Trump administration do they finally have someone in the U.S. government willing to let them flatten the entirety of Gaza and southern Lebanon (eventually more, viz “The Greater Israel Project”). Politics matters too.
“but this one takes the cake”
It’s not like I’m an outlier in this perspective. Pretty much every humanitarian organization on the planet now refers to it as a genocide, as does the U.N. So, sorry if I’m frustrating, but I’m pretty sure I’m in good company, and not among the tin foil hat crowd.
“So “They haven’t wiped everybody out, therefore it’s not genocide.””
Willingly obtuse is still obtuse.
The claims that it is genocide are perennial. They’ve been going on for my entire adult life.
The Israelis are so bad at it that the population of their genocide target in land they own by clear international law goes up every year for 30ish years? Or more? That’s “attempted genocide”?
Oh, oh, but THIS time it’s true! REALLY! We’re not lying THIS time!
And that’s after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and committed the horrible, unspeakable crime of “leaving them alone” for nearly 20 years… which ended with October 7th. Yeah, that worked out well.
Stop and use the brain that I know you have in your skull. That’s entirely and intensely stupid. Stop falling for obvious propaganda.
“And if think I’m unreasonable to think that, I will point you (when I get back from the holiday) to the dozens and dozens of videos in my feed of street interviews with Israelis (not even the orthodox ones, just the “standard issue” ones) saying every Palestinian needs to be killed because that’s the only way the fighting will end.”
After 60+ years of open endorsement of genocide BY THE PALESTINIANS and the ongoing murder of Jews on any scale they can manage that whole time in service of that goal, I’d be UTTERLY SHOCKED if you couldn’t find such things. No need to link them, OF COURSE people are saying that. I think the same in my darker moments.
Which again, IS NOT GENOCIDE. Saying that’s the only way you think it will end (which, after 3+ generations of this, a LOT of people openly wonder about that) does not mean they are actually taking action on it.
I would really hate to have you on a jury. I would not expect justice to be done. You are swayed by pure appeals to emotion, not facts.
“Have you seen the before and after pictures of Gaza? Israel has leveled it. Literally. ”
Congratulations on slurping the propaganda and asking for more.
Here – actual video posted by a Palestinian. **Note the date**:
https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1978435180151878095
Why do we never get any wide shots of Gaza from the media? Where are the overhead shots panning across the widespread devastation? Where are the before-and-after shots of a vibrant, modern city that is now literally all rubble? Think of the PR win! Think of the eyeballs that would attract!
Such shots don’t exist. Attempting to make them would expose the lie. Oh, sure, you can make small-scale, human-misery shots with some rubble in them, but the claims about how it’s all rubble never have any of those kinds of shots attached.
For all the jokes about how it SHOULD be rubble (because that’s what we would have done to it by now, if it was, say, a territory attached to New York or something and kept lobbing rockets at us and trying to blow up our schools and hospitals, which they target regularly and nobody outside of Israel cares), it isn’t. Because Israel doesn’t do that.
They do things like “send in their soldiers to minimize civilian casualties”, at the cost of some of their own soldiers’ lives. Go look at the body count in Gaza – it’s half or more military age men. 50% civilian casualties? Or less? NOBODY gets results like that in urban combat! Because it costs your side too many soldiers!
“It’s not like I’m an outlier in this perspective.”
Sadly, that is completely true. There are a lot of people who willingly swallow the propaganda and demand more like you do.
This whole thing is like slavery. White Europeans (and Americans of European descent) ended slavery after the whole world had participated in it for… well, forever. All of human history. And the world will never forgive them for it.
You don’t hear about stuff like this anywhere else than Gaza. Do you know why? Everyone else *just gets it over with* and the world moves on.
(Hmm, maybe England and Ireland? And “The Troubles”? That’s smaller scale, but the only place I can think of that didn’t just “work it out” one way or another fairly quickly, on the historical scale. There are likely some others that I am either ignorant of or not thinking of, though of course none get the ongoing and absurdly one-sided coverage. Russia and Chechnya ended with massive bombardment that *actually* turned whole cities to rubble… and the world yawned.)
If Israel had committed genocide against the Palestinians 40 yeas ago, essentially, nobody would care today. Heck, judging by the results of the Holocaust, noticeable chunks of the world might blame the remnant of the Palestinians for it (well, if you could find any – they would just fold back into the general Arab population, which is what they were before a PR campaign to make up a bunch of stuff from whole cloth).
But because they *WON’T*, it keeps going. Generation after generation steeped in genocidal Jew hatred from the cradle (ever seen any of the coverage of the school textbooks in Gaza’s schools? It doesn’t get any mainstream coverage, but it’s there if you want to find it… the parades with school-age kids dressed in mock suicide vests and holding toy AKs does occasionally, though).
You want surveys and “man on the street” stuff? Go see what Palestinians (and Arabs in general) say about Israel and get back to me. If that’s all it takes to be guilty of “genocide”, then every country in the ME is guilty.
But you don’t care about stupid stuff likes “facts”. Propaganda say “Jew BAD”, you lap it up.
And conveniently ignore the facts you won’t even bother to contest, like the ***LITERALLY RELIGIOUS*** commitment of the Palestinians to genocide of the Jews. As I said, the moment they give that up, the violence ends. It might take awhile for things to get actually nice (how could they convince people after 3+ generations of very consistent commitment to it?), but the violence in Gaza would end almost instantly because there would be no one to instigate it.
The left demands free speech when they are in the minority, and a straightjacket of hate-speech codes (i.e., secular/Satanic blasphemy laws) when they have power.
That has been one of the big weaknesses of the Enlightenment, is opening the door to debate with people who are chronic liars and parasites. It stems from Kant, who has recently been shown to be wrong. (Veriphysics: The Refutation of Kant: The Failure of the Modern Foundation and the Key to the Closed Door.)
The idea of thesis / antithesis / synthesis only works when all sides are debating honestly, not just arguing to buying time looking for the right knife to stab you with.
“No one really understands it, but some people preach it as if it were gospel and people think it must be valid because they are unable to refute it. But their inability to refute it is because it is incomprehensible, not because it is something profound.”
This is a form of “Cargo Cultism”. Magic words that seem to affect the material world somehow, and then they are repeated and repeated. It becomes less understood as it passes along, other than it having the needed effect when it was used. “Racist! Sexist! Fascist!” They made people back down, stop speaking, silence themselves or be destroyed. And those “that persisted” WERE destroyed, like Charlie Kirk.
But a cult it is As the play went, “a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It was reasoned into at a primal level – “A” happened, “B” was the result. Shouted “Racist”, got $$$. It becomes an axiom, one they hold onto even as the world is now changing. The magic words aren’t having as much of an effect anymore, but they still cling to it. It’s bascially all they have.
Translation from liberal gibberish:
“We need to keep throwing tantrums like spoiled children, all over decent society, until they give us what we want!”