Left-wing Probity-ringer

Probity-Ringer

Probity-Ringer

(Person or persons who use or express moral sounding values or principles to project themselves as righteous and virtuous, but in reality the individual holds no personal belief in these values, only insofar as to use them to claim the moral high ground in order to win debate)

Students at universities throughout the UK are now beginning to make a stand and confront the scourge of far left-wing probity-ringer liberal elite Marxist militant anti-democratic student unions who have been accused of alleged anti-Semitism, totalitarian Communist Political Correctness and tyrannical left-wing fascism.

Protracted conflict sometimes results from a clash between differing world-views.

One group’s most fundamental and cherished assumptions about the best way to live may differ radically from the values held by another group.

In the case of the people that could be termed by description as a (probity-ringer) these individuals are either incapable or unwilling in any way whatsoever to grasp the middle ground within a common sense approach to issues that have been proven time and time again to be completely unsolvable and in many instances made even worse by their own particular form of so called moral codes.

We are of course referring here to the left-wing point of view.

The overall majority of people holding left-wing views have either been told or had instilled within them over time, leftist (world view points) by continuous media propaganda and/or educational drilling by left-wing leaning tutors.

This in turn leaves them open to falling prey to the various far left-wing organisations that are active within college and university campuses who vigorously push the leftist agenda, and thus they feel compelled to follow the so called perceived moral status quo in order to not be singled out by left-wing politically correct targeting and shaming of non-conformists.

The sadness transpires when the (victims) of leftist brainwashing then go out into the big wide (real) world with the belief that this is how everybody thinks, or should think, and if they do not think this way, then they are to be labelled or thought of as ‘fascists’ or ‘racists’ and condemned as such.

This warped world view in turn isolates and severely restricts the individual holding invalid false leftist beliefs further from reality and causes them to be viewed as anti-social by the rest of society, as being individuals that are unrealistically idealistic, revolutionary and problematic – in other words, not quite the full ticket.

As the individual becomes ever more distant from the rest of society and mainstream relevant political common sense, they become more angry, bitter and very resentful, as time goes by they feel continuously rejected and ridiculed by all, apart from their own far left-wing ilk.

The left-wing leaning individual unfortunate enough to reach this level of moral confusion will usually and very easily fall within the descriptive term (probity-ringer) or somebody willing to go to whichever lengths or sink to any depths in the face of reason and logic to try and ‘prove’ that their own point of view is in fact right, and that you are wrong.

This is all they have left concerning their own moral identity and they will lie, divert, ignore and even appease one obvious social outrage within society in order to justify another outrage just to try and win the debate.

This sort of hypocritical aggressive dishonest immoral behaviour very quickly falls into the very dark area we term as left-wing politically correct fascism.

Katie Hopkins

We find it absolutely amazing the sheer level of intellectual dishonesty, self-righteousness, snobbery, and hypocrisy emanating from the elitist leftist probity-ringers the world over.

Wherever you come into contact with the left-wing probity-ringers you will experience some kind of denial, dishonesty and self justification in the form of ‘probity-ringing’ or (self righteous supercilious arrogant ignorant narcissistic superior so called politically correct morality, over and above any other person’s point of view, irrelevant of facts or circumstances).

They try to point score with moral (sounding) arguments, devoid of fact, and rounded off with name calling and attempted labelling and shaming of opponents in order to close down the debate and thus try to claim the moral high ground by silencing any questioning around the leftist agenda.

They have reached the highest levels of immorality to push their radical and evermore regressive ideology upon us.

The recent decision by the British people, who democratically decided to take back their sovereignty from un-elected bureaucrats in Brussels, has sent the left into a rambling fury.

The leave campaign succeeded despite all the hate, fear mongering, and lies the leftist media and academia spread in regards to this referendum.

The amount of snobby and snarky remarks we have heard in the aftermath of the Brexit decision has been sickening.

“How dare they! Such fools!” is the general leftist response, but this in itself only goes on to prove that the term (probity-ringer) is very real in everyday reality and very much alive within the left-wing immoral code of behaviour and mentality.

Parties may have different standards of rightness and goodness and give fundamentally different answers to serious moral questions.

When groups have different ideas about the good life, they often stress the importance of different things, and may develop radically different or incompatible goals.

This can lead to conflict.

Because values and morals tend to be quite stable, people are often unwilling to negotiate or compromise with respect to these topics.

Indeed, if the basic substantive issues of the conflict are deeply embedded in the participants’ moral orders, these issues are likely to be quite intractable.

A group’s moral order is related to its practices, its patterns of thinking, and its patterns of language.

As they are socialized, group members learn to center their judgments on values and procedures fundamental to their own common culture.

Their moral order provides the set of meanings through which they understand their experience and make judgments about what is valuable and important.

These patterns of meaning shape the way that individuals understand facts and issues and help them to develop a sense of identity.

Social reality also dictates what counts as appropriate action and sets boundaries on what people are able to do.

It even affects the way in which emotions are labeled, understood, and acted upon.

Thus, an individual’s beliefs, sayings, and actions must be understood within the context of a particular social world.

People from the same culture have more or less equivalent realities and mindsets.

Their values, assumptions, and procedures become part of “common sense” for them.

However, when two parties that do not share norms of communication [customary patterns and rules of communication] and expectations about behavior must interact, they often clash.

Each party may believe that its ways of doing things and thinking about things is the best way and come to regard other ways of thinking and acting as inferior, strange, or morally wrong.

Moral conflict occurs when disputants are acting within different social worlds, according to different meanings.

Indeed, one of the reasons groups in conflict have trouble breaking the pattern of interaction between them is that each is caught in its own moral order.

When two groups have radically different ways of making sense of human life, it is likely that actions regarded by one side as good and prudent will be perceived by the other as evil or foolish.

This is because an action that one moral order deems perfectly acceptable may be regarded as an abomination by a different moral order.

For example, sometimes people distinguish between moral orders built on rights and those built on virtues.

Each one is associated with particular forms of society and ways of being human.

While a rights-based approach is associated with the Enlightenment and modernity, a virtues-based approach emerges from traditional society.

When modernists carry out acts regarded as obligatory or good within their own moral order, “these very acts offend traditionalists.”

Inter-racial or inter-religious marriages, for example, are seen by many as one outgrowth of inclusivity and tolerance.

The freedom to marry anyone is a “right.”

Traditionalists, however, would see it as evil — harming their race or religion.

Likewise, some traditional religious and political activities, for instance, limiting women’s dress, their education, and/or their public involvement is seen as abhorrent to modern, Western societies.

The freedom to wear what one wants, and do what one wants, with no limitations, is seen as a woman’s right.

Yet the freedom that women exhibit in Western societies is abhorrent to some very traditional Muslim cultures, in which women’s modesty is seen as a virtue.

In short, the two groups have clashing conceptions of moral value.

In many cases, culture has a powerful influence on the moral order.

Because systems of meaning and ways of thinking differ from one culture to another, people from different cultures typically develop different ideas about morality and the best way to live.

They often have different conceptions of moral authority, truth, and the nature of community.

For example, some cultures place great moral emphasis on the family, while others stress the importance of individual autonomy.

These cultural differences become even more problematic when groups have radically different expectations about what is virtuous, what is right, and how to deal with moral conflicts.

Thus, culture wars are often driven by moral conflict.

In some cases, one group may come to view the beliefs and actions of another group as fundamentally evil and morally intolerable.

This often results in hostility and severely damages the relationship between the two groups.

For this reason, moral conflicts tend to be quite harmful and intractable.