Quirks and Fallacies of Liberals

[RickBeall]

Here are some crazy thoughts I had while during a recent discussion on DetroitYes..

DetroitYes is largely a nest of liberals. That is my impression from the main forum. Because of that I was a little surprised when the the conservative topic of " Obama Self-Inflicted Mortal Wound " came up that all the liberal arguing was mostly left to ghettopalmetto. ghettopalmetto made a valiant effort and I salute her for engaging in the interesting conversation. And I don't mean to pick on her. But the thing that most struck me by her arguments, was the tone and the constant attack on her opponents intelligence, not on her opponents arguements, on their basic intelligence. .She had plenty of arguments, but she could not state the argument without attacking the arguer The interesting observation is that ghettopalmetto, is the prefect example of liberals in general.

She does it in every post at which I looked. I included excerpts from her first five posts in " Obama Self-Inflicted Mortal Wound " down below. Again, I am not picking on her, I am generalizing from her.

The other examples I am thinking of are the newspeople on MSNBC who always sneer when they talk about mega-churches or tea-baggers. And I'm thinking of ordinary people I have met who did stuff like rub pictures of George Bush's face in dog poop.

Of course there are always exceptions, so I should say most liberals do this. Nevertheless if you think about it, I think you will see it is very pervasive.

In logic, this is called the "argument against the man". You attack her person instead of the argument.

I have developed a theory as to why liberals do this.

[[1) Liberals think they have science on their side.
[[2) Liberals think they are deducing morality from scientific knowledge, so there is really no point in arguing against them.
[[3) Liberals think they understand conservative points of view.
[[4) Liberals think they are more evolved, they've simply moved beyond the conservative points of view..

I think that explains the nastyness.

And while I'm in the contemplative mood, here are a couple other observations:

[[5) Liberals have good intentions
[[6) Liberals think they are unprejudiced
[[7) Liberals try to remove the bad consequnces when people make mistakes.
[[8) Liberals try to over-protect people, save them from themselves, and this has the bad effect of eroding the rights of those over-protected. The best way to make someone a slave is to give them stuff.

Concerning observation [[1), conservatives are always going to have their hands full when justifying literal belief in Creationism, Noah's ark, and lack of belief in evolution, but I think that liberals lean too heavily on science and attempt to deduce things from it that don't follow from it, hence observation [[2).

Concerning the rest of it, I'm just wondering if it is enough to spark a conversation.


=============================================

1st post
>>Funny enough, the people who say things like this are precisely the type of people who don't think for themselves.

2nd post
>>When the vast majority of the nation is uneducated, and a segment of that portion is frankly, dumber than toast, you can't just assume that everyone grasps Keynesian economics

3rd post
The members of the Republican party don't know what it's like to actually work for a living, and most of the people who elect them aren't educated or skilled enough to create their own jobs

4th post
The administration has a responsibility to defend their policies in the face of ignorance ... Obama's fault is that he acts as if Joe the Plumber is as intelligent and well-versed as he is, when this is clearly not the case.

5th post
Something like 25% of adults over age 24 in the United States have a bachelor's degree or higher. While a degree in itself is not indicative of any special level of genius or intelligence, college and university is, without a doubt the arena in which critical analysis and synthesis skills are learned--especially when we've reduced our primary and secondary educational systems to a series of multiple-guess tests.

In other words, 75% of adults in this country simply do not have the skills necessary to dissect and formulate arguments. Never mind comprehension of the intricacies of government, economics, and policy.

Furthermore, according to the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the high school graduation rate in the United States was 69.2% as of 2006 [[http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/20...4exec.h28.html). In Nevada, this percentage was an appalling 47.2%. This means that 30% of adults in this country lack even a basic functionality. And wanna guess who comprises the vast majority of our current unemployed?

6th post
'm saying that a significant percentage of the electorate is undereducated, and has not a fucking clue what they're talking about when it comes to politics, economics, or policy. A person who barely passed Algebra I has no right to be crying about the federal budget.

[gnome]

Well Rick, Ghettopalmetto is a guy and has been around the forum for a long time, he had a different name on the old forum. Also, I've avoided even looking at the "Mortal Wound" thread if for no other reason than the premise is ridiculous. Mr. Obama is our President now and is doing at least as good a job as George did.

And that is from a Republican.

See Rick, GWB and Dick Cheney did such a shitty job on so many things, it is difficult to lend them any support at all. The thing that bugs me is that the Dems act like they weren't in the room when most of the funkiness happened. They were all out having a smoke break when the war funding bills [[read plural...bills) came around, or when x or y transpired. They point to some defined point in the past when Republicans controlled both houses of congress saying they had nothing to do with x or y, that they were steamrolled by those Republican bullies, yet those same Dems will again point to Republicans as obstructionists even though the Democrats have held a SUPER majority for the last year.

They couldn't get things done because they were in the minority but can't get things done when they hold a Super Majority either. That is just plain goofy.

But back to your main theme, Quirks and Fallacies, I'm always surprised by how closed-minded many liberals are in their world view. I never ceases to surprise me how narrow they can be, how locked inplace and for the most part I've seen this in youth. Now don't think this iss a view I obtaine since losing my hair, oh no, I observed in my salad days how irrationally judgemental my fellow youths were. Anything from hair length to attire to politics each was viewed within a rigid code of narrowly accepted behaviors. It is almost BizzarroLand Logic that the more Liberal one is the more rigid they are in their views.

I don't know whay that is, but it certainly seems to be proven time and again on various threads we see here.

[Bearinabox]

Here are some crazy thoughts I had while during [[) my perusal of this thread..

This thread is largely a nest of conservatives. That is my impression from the post contained therein. Because of that I was a little surprised to see that the conservative topic of "Quirks and Fallacies of Liberals" came up that all the conservative arguing was mostly left to RickBeall. RickBeall made a valiant effort and I salute her for engaging in the interesting conversation. And I don't mean to pick on her. But the things that most struck me by her arguments, was 1) the way she confuses people's genders; 2) the way she divides the whole world into "liberal" and "conservative" and tries to define posts, thread topics and contributors by shunting them into one of these two narrowly-defined categories; 3) that she feels compelled to make broad generalizations about all members of one of these categories; 4) that her entire argument in favor of these generalizations is based on one guy's posts in one thread, plus some other vague and extremely subjective anecdotes that could apply to members of any group; 5) that she never considered the possibility that even people who generally agree with the content of ghettopalmetto's posts might find his writing style somewhat abrasive and condescending, and that this might extend to topics that have nothing to do with national left/right politics.

Instead of making reasoned arguments in favor of her worldview, RickBeall chose to single out one DetroitYes poster as "the prefect [sic] example of liberals in general" as defined by her, and then proceed to formulate her specific resentments against said poster's rhetorical style as "Liberals do this" and "Liberals do that." Well, lots of people do this and lots of people do that, and as far as I'm concerned, RickBeall has failed to make a convincing argument that ghettopalmetto's style is the result of his political persuasion.

Liberals, much like conservatives [[to the extent that it is even useful or meaningful to lump the entire country into one of two categories) are an extremely diverse group with widely varying levels of kindness, intelligence, subtlety, tact, and rhetorical skill. The fact that you've run across a few obnoxious, condescending people who also happen to have left-of-center political views does not mean that obnoxiousness and condescension are innately liberal qualities, or that conservatives are immune from them. All of this is so obvious to me I have trouble even putting it into words; I'm surprised these are things that need to be explained. People are pretty much people.

[gnome]

oh Rick, I should have said that the whole generalzation thing is generally a non-starter as it invokes folks to draw lines in the sand and snort them; but then again when such a tiny sellection of posters are labeled a nest, one can reasonably conclude, in this unreasonable world, that broadly speaking the rule of thumb lends itself to the considered opinion outlined above as true.

Generally speaking, of course.

[RickBeall]

Well, I could be wrong about DetroitYes being a "nest of liberals". That was just an impression, and it is not even central to my argument. Obviously DetroitYes has some very thoughtful conservatives.

Hi gnome,
concering George Bush I agree with you totally. I thought he was a very poor choice, and his decisions in office were really poor. I think the last two presidentail choices were really poor. If Obama was not so partisan, he would admit the housing bubble was partially caused by the Democrates under the Republic administration. There were two times when the Republicans tried to regulate housing and get it under control, but instance, Barney Frank said, "Housing is the only thing in the economy which is working, why fix something that is not broke?", waved the banner of populism and the Democrates blocked blocked regulating it. The Republicans are responsible for not having enough political will to stop the Democrates under a Republican president. [[I simplified this argument to make it short) When people paint an entire block of 4 years as Republican or Democrate, then they are being partisan.

I suppose what this thread is really about is the "partisan liberal politics in the media." NBC, MSNBC, and others.

The point I was trying to make was that a lot of liberals have a particular DNA, and I was trying to nail that down. ghettopalmetto's abrasive and condescending writing style is an extreme example of something I have seen a lot of.

In fairness, some conservatives in the media make their own brand of mistakes and are so closed minded they are predictable and don't shed much light on any issue, for instance Laura Ingraham, Shawn Hannity, and others They have a different "underlying DNA", that leads them to their particular errors. But I was focusing on the other brand of error.

I apologise for getting ghettopalmetto gender wrong. I thought I saw someone else referring to them as a "her".

As I mentioned, I probably should have called this thread something like "the underlying DNA of the far right media". It was just that ghettopalmetto abusive writing style is what got me thinking about it.
The general tone of DetroitYes when people are talking about buildings and what not is very healthy. But I have to admit I was making the assumption that if politics came up, it anything but a liberal political statement was made, I assumed the liberal DNA would manifest itself, of which ghettopalmetto is in the vanguard.. I was also struck by the good manners of the folks giving the conservative arguments in " Obama Self-Inflicted Mortal Wound " thread.

Like a lot of thoughtful people, I don't really consider myself conservative, liberal, republican or democrat. Due to bad republicans and bad democrats in public office, we need people with conscience that will use their common sense who might be of either party.

Like racial subjects, this is a tough subject to talk about without sounding negative or divisive.

[Bearinabox]

Huh?......

[gnome]

oh yeah, and reading comprehension, that's another thing they have trouble with, kinda too bad too, cuz they seem so cuddly.

[ghettopalmetto]

DetroitYes is largely a nest of liberals. That is my impression from the main forum. Because of that I was a little surprised when the the conservative topic of " Obama Self-Inflicted Mortal Wound " came up that all the liberal arguing was mostly left to ghettopalmetto. ghettopalmetto made a valiant effort and I salute her for engaging in the interesting conversation. And I don't mean to pick on her. But the thing that most struck me by her arguments, was the tone and the constant attack on her opponents intelligence, not on her opponents arguements, on their basic intelligence. .She had plenty of arguments, but she could not state the argument without attacking the arguer The interesting observation is that ghettopalmetto, is the prefect example of liberals in general.

Yes, it is a question of intelligence on the right. When the health care legislation is derided as a "government takeover" and Sarah Palin--who couldn't even tell you why there are two Koreas--gets everyone to buy her "death panel" bullshit, you can see the politics of fear at work. Let's not even get into Glenn Beck's sudden reversal of position on health care once he joined Fox News. The GOP has tried to scare everyone by referring to the health care bill as "a 1,990 page bill", as if we should all just get scared of REALLY BIG BOOKS. I know another REALLY BIG BOOK that conservatives tend to hide behind [[selectively), so why is this any different. Why is the length of the bill--considering the complexity of this one issue--relevant to its effectiveness? I suppose the GOP just doesn't believe in being thorough. In my opinion, both parties have done their constituents a disservice by not explaining the objective and salient points of the legislation.

Regarding the need for economic stimulus, I too did not understand the New Deal until someone explained Depression Economics to me. Of course, we don't see the effort to self-educate from those on the right. According to Joe Klein in Time Magazine, 75% of Americans think the stimulus has been "wasted", even though most of those people have been receiving a bit of extra change in their paychecks because of it.

It took a decade to get our economy to this point. People who blame Obama for the economy are willfully ignorant of the antecedent steps it took to arrive here. To think that the Obama administration is supposed to pull all of our lazy asses out of the morass on some arbitrary timeline is horseshit. We always hear the GOP talking about personal responsibility--why can't people take their own steps toward economic recovery? Start a business. Stop shopping at Walmart and spend it instead at locally-owned businesses. Get an education. Do anything except wait around for the Big Bad Government to fix your life for you.

For the record, yes, I will describe as "unintelligent" anyone who is not intellectually curious enough to learn and thoroughly consider a point of view before they spew off uneducated opinions. THAT is why I consider those on the Right Wing to be stupid. In fairness, I should more accurately describe them as "intellectually lazy". The GOP Senators and Congressmen are smart enough to know this strategy works with their largely uneducated electorates.

And if you must know, I consider myself a pragmatic centrist. The Republican party has strayed so far to the right, though, that anyone who adopts a centrist position is believe to be a raging bleeding-heart liberal.

[gnome]

GP, I would care not to think of myself as intellectually lazy, but if that's what you say, then by gosh, it's gotz to b ture. Iz jus dangnabbed confuzzled all to heell over that 1990 pag beel. Iz sur b sueprized dangnabbed bigbrain like youz can't tell teatheractical trick iz being played.

Kinda like Kruchief bangin his shoe. Don't get all deestracted by the florish, you miss the point.

But smart guy like yo dun knowz that already, don't cha?

[ghettopalmetto]

GP, I would care not to think of myself as intellectually lazy, but if that's what you say, then by gosh, it's gotz to b ture. Iz jus dangnabbed confuzzled all to heell over that 1990 pag beel. Iz sur b sueprized dangnabbed bigbrain like youz can't tell teatheractical trick iz being played.

Kinda like Kruchief bangin his shoe. Don't get all deestracted by the florish, you miss the point.

But smart guy like yo dun knowz that already, don't cha?

Well now you're getting wrapped up more in labels than the salient points, which is precisely the topic I was addressing. If you don't want to be called "intellectually lazy", then let's discuss the substance. Let's discuss how you reinvigorate an economy when the interest rates of the Fed are essentially Zero. Let's discuss how health care has eaten into our incomes. Let's discuss why our educational system glosses over math and science. Let's discuss how people are supposed to get ahead when college is once again becoming the exclusive domain of the wealthy. Let's discuss cutting taxes isn't always a great idea as the Tea Party would have you believe.

Let's set some goals and find ways to work toward them, rather than sitting on our asses and saying "no" to everything. That, my friend, can't be accomplished through soundbites and playing to the basest fears of people. Let's see some rational discourse and exchange of ideas.

[Mikeg]

If you don't want to be called "intellectually lazy", then let's discuss the substance.

Yeah, so you can respond to me and in your typical fashion also slip in a negative characterization about me and the others you want to lump me with?

No thanks, not with you.

Intelligent people should always be careful of generalizing and underestimating the intelligence of others:

"This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
--Barack Obama, State of the Union.

"There's a lot in the bill that people are going to like. It's just a question of understanding it."
--ABC's Cokie Roberts, Dec. 20.

"What are the immediate plans for recalibrating the message or intensifying the message to explain better to the American people what you're trying to do?"
--Question to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Jan. 20.


It mighty big of man with nice voice to take blame like that. Him not need to. Head honchos not often take blame. Most times after big screw-up, head honchos say they have "full confidence" in someone who work for them -- right before pushing someone off edge of cliff, or letting someone twist "slowly, slowly" in wind, like tricky Nixon guy did with man who ran FBI.
Man with nice voice not like those other head honchos. Him bring change to Washington already, see?
But him right. Him not explain health care good. Use too many big words. Say too many compound-complex sentences. Confuse American people. American people not want that. American people want simple explanation. Simpler the better..... [read the rest of this opinion piece by A. Barton Hinkle, titled "Talking Down to the Public Will Surely Work . . ."]

[ghettopalmetto]

Yeah, so you can respond to me and in your typical fashion also slip in a negative characterization about me and the others you want to lump me with?

No thanks, not with you.

Intelligent people should always be careful of generalizing and underestimating the intelligence of others:

"This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."
--Barack Obama, State of the Union.

"There's a lot in the bill that people are going to like. It's just a question of understanding it."
--ABC's Cokie Roberts, Dec. 20.

"What are the immediate plans for recalibrating the message or intensifying the message to explain better to the American people what you're trying to do?"
--Question to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Jan. 20.


It mighty big of man with nice voice to take blame like that. Him not need to. Head honchos not often take blame. Most times after big screw-up, head honchos say they have "full confidence" in someone who work for them -- right before pushing someone off edge of cliff, or letting someone twist "slowly, slowly" in wind, like tricky Nixon guy did with man who ran FBI.
Man with nice voice not like those other head honchos. Him bring change to Washington already, see?
But him right. Him not explain health care good. Use too many big words. Say too many compound-complex sentences. Confuse American people. American people not want that. American people want simple explanation. Simpler the better..... [read the rest of this opinion piece by A. Barton Hinkle, titled "Talking Down to the Public Will Surely Work . . ."]

Translation:


Excuses for Laziness.

Blame Others.

Self Puffery.


Did I miss anything? It sure would be nice to have a discussion with people who develop their own opinions, and can articulate them, ya know?

[East Detroit]

Dudes, who's gonna win the Superbowl?

The libs or the cons? I can hardly wait to pay my tax money for a seat on the 50 yard line.

[rb336]

[[1) Liberals think they have science on their side.
[[2) Liberals think they are deducing morality from scientific knowledge, so there is really no point in arguing against them.
[[3) Liberals think they understand conservative points of view.
[[4) Liberals think they are more evolved, they've simply moved beyond the conservative points of view..

silly generalizations.
1 - no, it is just that the republicans, especially in the last administration, have attacked science on every level.
2 - wrong again. republicans seem to think morality is their exclusive domain, even as they prove, over and over, just how immoral they are
the last two are so absurd, they merely deserve silly answers:
3 - we do
4 - we have

[[5) Liberals have good intentions
[[6) Liberals think they are unprejudiced
[[7) Liberals try to remove the bad consequnces when people make mistakes.
[[8) Liberals try to over-protect people, save them from themselves, and this has the bad effect of eroding the rights of those over-protected. The best way to make someone a slave is to give them stuff.

5- Everyone has "good intentions"
6 - liberals recognize their prejudices and try to get beyond them, sometimes failing
7 - conservatives try to remove the bad consequences when their multi-national corporate masters fuck everyone else up
8 - goofy right-wing talking point doesn't even merit a goofy answer

[ghettopalmetto]

[[8) Liberals try to over-protect people, save them from themselves, and this has the bad effect of eroding the rights of those over-protected. The best way to make someone a slave is to give them stuff.

I'll remind you of this belief of yours the next time a tax cut for the wealthy, or the issue of the estate tax, arises for debate.

[johnsmith]

The best way to make someone a slave is to give them stuff.

I'll remind you of this belief of yours the next time a tax cut for the wealthy, or the issue of the estate tax, arises for debate.

You mean, in other words, if the spendthrift politicians decide to let us keep more of our own money? Politicians don't give us money when they cut taxes, they take less of what is ours in the first place. This is not giving us handouts, as Rickbeall was talking about.

[mjs]

"This is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people."

--Barack Obama, State of the Union.

Yeah, that one caught me too. One of the basic ideas of the time that lead to our Founders putting in the First Amendment was that if everyone is allowed to speak their mind, the good ideas will be sorted from the bad. So, following that basic idea, the fact that the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became only says that it was a bad idea to begin with. The bank bailout was barely debated at all and look how well that one turned out.

The failure of the Health Care Bill wasn't his fault at all. He did all he could to rush it through Congress in the hopes of avoiding any debates on it. As far as improving clarity, a little editing of the bill to say only 1000 pages would have been a small start.

But, he's learned his lesson. He's now giving simple statements. For example, he said he was going to reign in deficit spending by freezing a portion of expenditures. Simple. Now, a week later, hopefully nobody will mess that simple message up by debating whether he should be asking for 6% more spending this year followed by another 3% increase next year. I mean, come on, if we're not creating a record deficit in 2011, how will we ever get out of this financial mess in the next few months?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-...90447.html?x=0

[rb336]

One of the basic ideas of the time that lead to our Founders putting in the First Amendment was that if everyone is allowed to speak their mind, the good ideas will be sorted from the bad.

I don't recall reading that in any of the arguments for the 1st ammendment.

the issue of health care died primarily because Obama didn't counter the very dense web of lies the republicans spun around it. that shows, very clearly, when you compare polls merely asking "do you support the healthcare reform bill" where less than 50% say yes, to polls asking about virtually every item in the health care bill, where support is over 60-65%

[Pam]

I have a question. With their legacy of failure, why are conservatives still so smug?

[ghettopalmetto]

You mean, in other words, if the spendthrift politicians decide to let us keep more of our own money? Politicians don't give us money when they cut taxes, they take less of what is ours in the first place. This is not giving us handouts, as Rickbeall was talking about.

So you're in the top tax bracket? You have a net worth greater than $5 million?

Then it wouldn't hurt you to bear the responsibility for all the benefits you've reaped from our nice stable government and regulated capitalist economy.

But I suppose you'd rather just fill the world with Paris Hiltons. It's that whole Republican "hard work" ethic, isn't it? Tell me with a straight face that tax cuts for millionaires isn't a handout.

[johnsmith]

Tell me with a straight face that tax cuts for millionaires isn't a handout.

The only handout is the one the government receives from us, the taxpayers.

By the way, you make a lot of assumptions about me in the rest of your post there.

[ghettopalmetto]

The only handout is the one the government receives from us, the taxpayers.

By the way, you make a lot of assumptions about me in the rest of your post there.

You didn't respond to the statement. Are tax cuts for millionaires not a handout?

[johnsmith]

You didn't respond to the statement. Are tax cuts for millionaires not a handout?

I responded to your statement directly. You seem to be implying that tax cuts are in some way a handout. It's not a "handout" from anybody if you're allowed to keep more of your own money.

A handout is getting something that wasn't yours in the first place, like, as I said, the government is the one getting the handout from us taxpayers.

[littlebuddy]

If a person works hard, comes up with some good ideas, or goes to school and lands a good job and gets rich, why are tax cuts for him a handout? If the average person has dreams, but does not pursue them to any extent and settles for an average job,etc doesn't that person gets what he settled for. And a person who does little to nothing to find work, education,etc, why should they just expect others to give them a handout?

[ghettopalmetto]

I responded to your statement directly. You seem to be implying that tax cuts are in some way a handout. It's not a "handout" from anybody if you're allowed to keep more of your own money.

A handout is getting something that wasn't yours in the first place, like, as I said, the government is the one getting the handout from us taxpayers.

Is it really "your own money" if you have yet to pay your contribution toward maintaining the civilized society that makes such wealth possible? If we didn't have a national defense, a stable government, a transportation infrastructure, a regulated banking system, an educational system, and on and on, then NONE of that money would be "yours" in the first place. Do you think millionaires, who benefit disproportionately from this system, have less of a responsibility than you for maintaining the system?

Now we know how you think--advocating for Wall Street's pocketbook above your own. How's that working out for ya?