What is it with so called "realists"?

[jsamuel]

They say things like...

"That is just the way the world works."

and

"Shit happens."


However, instead of being part of reality, I think that these ideas are simply lazy.


Slavery was "just the way the world works" in 1800 as well, right?

I have heard some of my best friends defend Bush and the Republicans using talking points, pretending to be "realisic".


I think the truth is that they are just too lazy to try to find alternative solutions.

[politicaholic]

1. Have you ever met someone who doesn't say they're a realist?

Realist is a little broad to be catagorizing and then speaking for I think. I suspect you're speaking more about defeatists.

[jsamuel]

2. no, i am not talking about realists, rather those who call themselves that

as a defense to explain horrible things and wrong policies

like torture

[SoCalDem]

3. I call them "passives"

Bush is one also..

stuff just "happens".. nothing is ever actionable BY them to prevent something, and even when it;s shown to be their fault, they just shrug and walk away..

Often these people are very religious and have no problem thanking God for any good thing, because they can also "accept god's will" for the bad..

They have removed themselves from any active role..

The DO have opinions, and strong ones, about OTHER people's actions, and are ready to criticize at length.

"the war that's "happened"..
"the bombs that fell"
"the economy's weakness"
"the interest rates that "rose"
the attacks on 9-11 that just "happened"


etc

[magellan]

4. I'm married to one

Pragmatic to a fault. But there's nothing inherently good or bad about being a realist; it's all in application.

I often refer to my hubby as my rock. His ability to see the world for what it is helps me keep my feet on the ground. But there are times when his lack of vision and imagination annoy the hell out of me, because it tends to run towards the cynical. "That's the way it's always been..." etc.

I think we need to define the difference between the reality-based community, i.e. those of us who see the truth, and realists, who see the truth but are practical to the exclusion of offering any visionary way towards a more positive world.

[jsamuel]

5. right, I am specifically talking about those who call themselves "realist"

see post #2

[magellan]

6. Yep

"i am not talking about realists, rather those who call themselves that as a defense to explain horrible things and wrong policies"

Hubby says that's just the way things are, you can't do anything about it so why get upset.

[Forrest Greene]

7. In My Experience, I Have Found

...that those who call themselves "Realists" are usually in fact frightened & lazy cynics.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Yep, guilty as charged on all three, to some extent.

But none of "frightened", "lazy" and "cynical" is the same as "wrong".

Optimism is exactly as bad as pessismism; both are systematic mistatements of the facts. Any attempt to change the world that doesn't begin by ackowledging how it is at present is severely handicapped. If you don't support the lesser of two evils you're more likely to end up with the greater of them.

Those are just platitutes, obviously, although I think there's a large element of truth in them. A concrete example of the why the absence of what I mean when I say "realism" (obviously it's a fairly nebulous term) and why I think absence of it is a bad thing is the excorciating of the Democratic Senators for "failing to fight Bush". It's a very common meme on DU; it pushes quite a number of people to vote third party or abstain, and it's purely based on the refusal to face reality; specifically the fact that the Democrats *can't* stop the Republicans doing whatsoever they want, and won't be able to until November at the earliest.

Acknowledging that, and not blaming the elected Democrats for not achieving mathematical impossibilities, it what I mean by realism. Too many people assume that if you fight hard enough you have a chance of winning, and if you don't you're a coward.

I don't give a damn about whether a politician will fight for what I believe it. I care about whether they will achieve it.

[Forrest Greene]

9. Not Necessarily The Same, No

"But none of "frightened", "lazy" and "cynical" is the same as "wrong"."

However, like any other set of adjectives, they do carry with them their own interpretations of alleged reality which will distort what it is the "realists" believe they are perceiving. What counts is not so much what one thinks is happening, but rather what one does in response to it. That often stems less from one's perceptions than it does from one's attitudes, so one should pick one's inevitable illusions carefully.

What seems to bug people about "realists" is the implicit assertion that their inevitable illusions are "real," that is to say "correct," when they are in fact largely subjective interpretations.

Calling oneself a "realist" demonstrates insufficient humility before the facts, to say nothing of the truth.

[Bluerthanblue]

10. more like fatalists, or stoics-

accepting the unacceptable without comment or a desire to even try to change of fight what they see as inevitable is one step away from being the living dead, in my rather twisted opinion.

[treestar]

11. It's just what they say when they want to defend a war and

oppose someone not in favor of it by claiming that to disagree with the need for this particular war is the equivalent of disagreeing with all war and therefore you are not a realist but an idealist who will never attack those who attack you.

If you think there is a better solution to something than killing people, or even just suggest there might be, they immediately shove you into the false box of being an idealist loon who does not accept the fact that war is inevitable sometimes. This is supposed to discredit your opposition to the war under discussion.

[SensibleAmerican]

12. People who say they're realists approve of the way things are

n/t