The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[MacroGuru]

I am the farthest thing from being a political person...I don't lean left, I don't lean right...I attempt to make an informed decision...

I have to ask though...how does one take this article? Is it slanted left, right or covering all bases?

Age of Ignorance by Charles Simic | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

(I also know it is 2 yrs old, it was just recently shared with me today and I made a comment on it)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I am the farthest thing from being a political person...I don't lean left, I don't lean right...I attempt to make an informed decision...

I have to ask though...how does one take this article? Is it slanted left, right or covering all bases?

Age of Ignorance by Charles Simic | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

That's just elitist tripe by a liberal professor. His list at the bottom is all left wing talking points and he's persecuting the right wing, especially Christians, with his gross mischaracterizations.

(so? how'd I do?)

SI

[NobodyHere]

Personally I take it as a leftist slant. There is a meme in the piece that corporations want most Americans to remain dumb so they can better manipulate them. Usually the right-wing thinkers think that it's the government that want people to remain dumb so they'll rely more on the government and thus democrats.

But what seals the deal for me is this list of lies on the American people that he points out:

Christians are persecuted in this country.
The government is coming to get your guns.
Obama is a Muslim.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.
Schools push a left-wing agenda.
Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.
Obama hates white people.
The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.
The safety net contributes to poverty.
The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

Pretty much all them are what the left views as right wing lies.

[MacroGuru]

I took it as an attack on the right..it was blatant. I support the theory of the article, but the slant he took was just blatant. I had to ask, because when I commented on it, no one took it the way I saw it. I was like...What? That list on the bottom doesn't give it away?

[larrymcg421]

Of course it's slanted, but so what? It's an editorial on a blog, not a news article.

[molson]

I think that kind of rhetoric is a way to try to sell his liberal opinions to young minds. If you adopt liberal opinions, and you're a good, educated, compassionate person. It doesn't even matter if you actually do anything good for anyone, or if you've never graduated high school, you're smart and you're good and better than the other side if you vote for the correct side. But if you have any conservative opinions on anything, well then you just might be ignorant and racist.

I think we all have those family or friends on acquaintances on either side who are constantly yelping about their superior politics on facebook or whatever, and are constantly trashing the intelligence of their other side - even if they can't hold a job and live with their parents.

So if you flesh that out, there's one correct opinion to have on anything, and if you deviate from that you're an uneducated ignorant wacko that "votes against self-interest". That last part just comes across as so dismissive and arrogant and ignorant of all the different perspectives people can have that can be based on all kinds of different things. He tries to express his point by using extreme examples of things those "backwards" conservatives believe, but I bet he'd apply that "voting against self-interest" thing to a lot more broad viewpoints.

Let's say every person in the United States got some objectively-measured great education. I'd still hope that we'd have disagreements on things. That's the only way society can evolve and keep that intellectual vigor, for our ideas and practices to constantly be tested and re-evaluated, etc.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That's just elitist tripe by a liberal professor. His list at the bottom is all left wing talking points and he's persecuting the right wing, especially Christians, with his gross mischaracterizations.

(so? how'd I do?)

SI

Listen to these 'persecuted christians'!

"Many [LGBT rights advocates] really do console themselves with fantasies of their own Kristallnacht, in which Christians are euphemistically 'taken out of the way' as part of the 'gay'-stapo’s 'final solution' to the 'Christian problem,'"Allen wrote in an Op-Ed for Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber's website Barbwire.

And then there's this jewel

"It's not an exaggeration to say 'homofascist' because the German Nazi Party was homosexual," Wiles said. "Hitler was a homosexual, the top Nazi leadership, all of them were homosexuals...they were creating a homosexual special race."


Wiles went on to note, "It wasn’t this thing about an Aryan race of white people, blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white people, Hitler was trying to create a race of super gay male soldiers ... It will end up in America just like it was in Germany, but it won’t be the Jews that will be slaughtered. It will be the Christians."

Gay Rights Advocates Are Nazi 'Homofascists' Who Will Kill Christians, Rick Wiles Claims

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

So if you flesh that out, there's one correct opinion to have on anything, and if you deviate from that you're an uneducated ignorant wacko that "votes against self-interest".

There is a massive difference between having an opinion and a demonstrable fact. An opinion can be right or wrong, a fact cannot also be fiction. What he is pointing out is that when opinions based on questionable or outright false data is taken as fact and repeated as such is when being an uneducated ignorant comes into play.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

What he is pointing out is that when opinions based on questionable or outright false data is taken as fact and repeated as such is when being an uneducated ignorant comes into play.

And this is something that stupid conservatives do. As opposed to enlightened liberals.

Edit: He's selling the concept of being enlightened and educated as a liberal trait, and the concept of being uneducated and ignorant as a conservative trait. That's what he's selling on behalf of his "correct" way of thinking. There's people on the right that attempt to do the same kind of thing, maybe with just a different flavor (and not so much in academia). But those people pitch the same thing, have the correct opinions, and you're better and smarter and more moral than Obama. Even though he went to Harvard law school and accomplished things in his life, whereas the target maybe works as at gas station and can barely read. This kind of rhetoric gives people unbelievable confidence about the infallibility about their opinions on things.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

And this is something that stupid conservatives do. As opposed to enlightened liberals.

As has been said before, reality has a liberal bias.

[cartman]

You can have differences of opinion. It is impossible to have differences of fact. That is why people want to paint their opinions as fact. When people hold on tightly to their opinions in the face of facts that show the opinion is false, then there is a breakdown in logic and reason. To celebrate and encourage that breakdown is toxic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

You can have differences of opinion. It is impossible to have differences of fact. That is why people want to paint their opinions as fact. When people hold on tightly to their opinions in the face of facts that show the opinion is false, then there is a breakdown in logic and reason. To celebrate and encourage that breakdown is toxic.

This.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

That is why people want to paint their opinions as fact.

You're doing exactly that here when you stay stuff like -

Originally Posted by cartman

As has been said before, reality has a liberal bias.

It's intoxicating to feel that you're intellectually and morally superior, and all you have to do get that feeling is have the correct political opinions. That's the product being sold. The expressed logic of how ignorance can lead to belief in objectively incorrect facts is sound, and its a thing that obviously happens. That product is so powerful once politics is involved that people can for example, "not believe" in global warming despite an overwhelming scientific consensus. They wouldn't doubt any other overwhelming scientific consensus, but throw in just a dash of politics, and suddenly, they think it's all bullshit or that they're smarter than the scientists.

I just get annoyed when I see that kind of phenomenon explained and expressed in one-side political terms like this, because people like this blogger, and you with that quote about "reality having a liberal bias", are using that very same power to portray liberals as just being more intelligent than conservatives. This is why you can have college dropouts who watch the Daily Show who believe they're intellectually and morally superior to anyone with different political opinions on anything, not just global warming, but anything - things where there's actually room for reasonable disagreement. It's the same phenomenon that causes people to "not believe in" global warming. It's just a shitty backdrop for any conversation about anything. He, and you, are using a real phenomenon to frame your political opinions as fact, just like you accuse those backwards conservatives of doing.

[cartman]

I guess when you are trying to castigate others for being morally superior, your snark meter gets disabled. Which it was if you took the "reality has a liberal bias" line as a statement of fact. You haven't heard that joke before?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

I guess when you are trying to castigate others for being morally superior, your snark meter gets disabled.

If you were being snarky about the "reality having a liberal bias" thing, it's easy to miss, because that's an idea that IS thrown around, in a sincere matter, in political threads here all the time. This blogger is throwing a similar idea in the very article we're talking about.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

If you were being snarky about the "reality having a liberal bias" thing, it's easy to miss, because that's an idea that IS thrown around, in a sincere matter, in political threads here all the time. This blogger is throwing a similar idea in the very article we're talking about.

It is usually used when people try to paint opinions that can be easily disproven as facts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

It is usually used when people try to paint opinions that can be easily disproven as facts.

Sometimes, but it's also used in conversations where moderate actual opinions are expressed about the economy, or taxes, or national defense, or the criminal justice system. I think that's the goal, to take those opinions that can easily be disproven as fact, and try to use them to make broader points about the correctness of liberal opinions generally, and the level of enlightenment of the people that have the correct political opinions.

Nobody's going to go after pilotman, for example, about his expertise involving planes. Because there's no or minimal politics involved with that. But a climate scientists, shit, those guys are all corrupt and/or incompetent. The difference is politics touches more on the concept of global warming than it does how an airplane works. I think I see the same thing to a lesser extent with my knowledge of law, and the criminal justice system. Since those are areas that touch upon politics, you're challenged a lot more. That's not to say my opinions are any more valid than anyone else's on things that come up in those areas, but I think I do know more of the proveable facts about the way things actually work. But that won't stop someone in a politically charged issue to think that they're the real expert, or that all the experts are corrupt and on the take. That's the product being sold. If you have the correct political opinion, it's such a powerful force that you're smarter than climate scientists or lawyers or whoever in whatever field. Because "truth has a liberal bias", or in other words, the more liberal opinion is "the truth". That's a pretty broad idea that goes way beyond extreme conservative objectively wrong facts like those listed in the article. "People vote against their self-interest" is another one. That's not talking about Obama hating white people. That's talking about poor people being stupid for not always voting for Democrats and not having the correct political opinions.

[larrymcg421]

The "reality has a well known liberal bias" quote is a Stephen Colbert line. He's actually making fun of conservatives who dismiss facts in the name of what they believe. And yes, liberals do it, too. And it's fair to point out when either side does it.

But it's kind of weird how this blog post stirred up so much ire. Yes, this guy thinks his liberal opinions are correct and conservative ones are wrong. I think my liberal opinions are correct, too. If I didn't, then I wouldn't be a liberal. I wouldn't make liberal arguments. And I didn't realize that I shouldn't be making many of those arguments if I was a college dropout watching the Daily Show. I guess all my political posts before May 2012 should be deleted, since that would describe me before then.

And your rant here is really odd, because you seem to be arguing that liberals are prone to dismiss scientists or other experts when they would love to defer to scientists on almost any political issue that involves science. The legal argument is just so bizarre, because there are experts on both sides. I don't have to dismiss experts there, because I can turn to other experts that support what I believe.

What I get from your post is that liberals shouldn't be certain in their arguments. As I said before, I do think (for the most part) that the more liberal opinion is "the truth", which is why I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean I think all people who believe the opposite are stupid.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

Sometimes, but it's also used in conversations where moderate actual opinions are expressed about the economy, or taxes, or national defense, or the criminal justice system. I think that's the goal, to take those opinions that can easily be disproven as fact, and try to use them to make broader points about the correctness of liberal opinions generally, and the level of enlightenment of the people that have the correct political opinions.

Nobody's going to go after pilotman, for example, about his expertise involving planes. Because there's no or minimal politics involved with that. But a climate scientists, shit, those guys are all corrupt and/or incompetent. The difference is politics touches more on the concept of global warming than it does how an airplane works. I think I see the same thing to a lesser extent with my knowledge of law, and the criminal justice system. Since those are areas that touch upon politics, you're challenged a lot more. That's not to say my opinions are any more valid than anyone else's on things that come up in those areas, but I think I do know more of the proveable facts about the way things actually work. But that won't stop someone in a politically charged issue to think that they're the real expert, or that all the experts are corrupt and on the take. That's the product being sold. If you have the correct political opinion, it's such a powerful force that you're smarter than climate scientists or lawyers or whoever in whatever field. Because "truth has a liberal bias", or in other words, the more liberal opinion is "the truth". That's a pretty broad idea that goes way beyond extreme conservative objectively wrong facts like those listed in the article. "People vote against their self-interest" is another one. That's not talking about Obama hating white people. That's talking about poor people being stupid for not always voting for Democrats and not having the correct political opinions.

Huh? Maybe I missed something (sarcasm?) but all climate scientists are corrupt and/or incompetent?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Huh? Maybe I missed something (sarcasm?) but all climate scientists are corrupt and/or incompetent?

SI

A lot of people think that, check the global warming thread. I've made that point a lot there. Global warming is this hugely debated thing despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. There are no (or almost no) other overwhelming scientific consensuses that are so hotly debated. The difference is politics. Political beliefs create this arrogance in people.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

A lot of people think that, check the global warming thread. I've made that point a lot there. Global warming is this hugely debated thing despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. There are no (or almost no) other overwhelming scientific consensuses that are so hotly debated. The difference is politics. Political beliefs create this arrogance in people.

I'm not sure how this helps your case. The people dismissing climate scientists tend to be those who align with the GOP.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The "reality has a well known liberal bias" quote is a Stephen Colbert line. He's actually making fun of conservatives who dismiss facts in the name of what they believe. And yes, liberals do it, too. And it's fair to point out when either side does it.

But it's kind of weird how this blog post stirred up so much ire. Yes, this guy thinks his liberal opinions are correct and conservative ones are wrong. I think my liberal opinions are correct, too. If I didn't, then I wouldn't be a liberal. I wouldn't make liberal arguments. And I didn't realize that I shouldn't be making many of those arguments if I was a college dropout watching the Daily Show. I guess all my political posts before May 2012 should be deleted, since that would describe me before then.

And your rant here is really odd, because you seem to be arguing that liberals are prone to dismiss scientists or other experts when they would love to defer to scientists on almost any political issue that involves science. The legal argument is just so bizarre, because there are experts on both sides. I don't have to dismiss experts there, because I can turn to other experts that support what I believe.

What I get from your post is that liberals shouldn't be certain in their arguments. As I said before, I do think (for the most part) that the more liberal opinion is "the truth", which is why I'm a liberal. That doesn't mean I think all people who believe the opposite are stupid.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" is a derivative of "truth has a liberal bias", which long pre-dates Colbert.

I think it's possible for two people far more intelligent than me to have different political opinions, and for neither to be inherently correct. I know that's "bizarre" these days. I think people can feel strongly about their opinions while recognizing that they're simply opinions. It just annoys me when people express those opinions from a expressed place of inherent intellectual and moral superiority. Which again, is the product blogs like this sell. Which is why people can think they're experts on climate science, or the law, or whatever.

When you say there "are experts on both sides" in the law that kind of makes my point. You're taking the legal field and putting it into the realm of politics. Since law is then characterized as politics, people have that arrogance that some conservatives do with global warming. And since there's a dash of politics there, people can feel like they know more than the experts. See the Martin/Zimmerman thread here. People got really pissed off at me towards the beginning for explaining the concept of self-defense and what the state had to actually prove. They believed they knew better than I did, or that I was biased or racist or whatever, because of politics. (Edit: As people and the news media educated themselves, I think more people understood the prosecution challenges, and there wasn't nearly as much outrage that it looked like there might be early on.)

And why wouldn't they have that arrogance? The blogger sells the idea to college kids that ignorance is an= conservative problem, and that enlightenment is a trait of liberals. A lot of people really believe in that underlying "truth". Those people can disagree with me and we might both have good points. And me might have totally different values and not even agree on what outcome is the "best". But, for example, the 18-year old dropout working at a gas station doesn't cross-over into inherent objective correctness in all discussions with anyone he disagrees with just because he adopts the correct political opinions.

[flere-imsaho]

You know, molson, we've been over this before.

To quote myself from that thread:

There are plenty of conservatives out there who are good people, just like there are plenty of liberals out there who are good people (JiMGA's opinions notwithstanding). Anecdotally, two of our best friends are born again Christians (not sure how to capitalize that). And there's clearly a lot of common ground between the new progressives in the Democratic party and the intellectual, fiscally conservative, socially moderate wing of the GOP.

That's not the point.

The point is that the anti-intellectual, evangelical, intolerant wing of the GOP that gained ascendancy with Newt Gingrich, culminated in the George W. Bush presidency and has Sarah Palin as one of its standard bearers, is not these people. But it is the modern GOP.

And thus there is no room in the modern GOP for old-school conservative intellectuals specifically, and intellectuals in general. Even Christopher Buckley.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not sure how this helps your case. The people dismissing climate scientists tend to be those who align with the GOP.

How does that not help my case? There's obviously conservatives who have that political arrogance that makes them feel superior to science and objective truth. I rant against them in the global warming thread all the time. I did notice one time there you called me out there as being "bitter". I kind of was bitter, but, I was a little confused why you were calling me out, considering we agreed on what I was ranting about. I thought maybe you weren't listening to what I was saying and just assumed that, since I expressed some conservative opinions on the board, I must also believe global warming is a hoax. I just think a lot of liberals, in addition to a lot of conservatives, have that that political arrogance in all kinds of different fields. They're taught to believe that if there's a political component to a discussion, they're just inherently right and inherently more intelligent than the other side. There are 18-year old college freshmen who fall for this rhetoric and do literally believe they are objectively smarter and more enlightened than a professor or lawyer or climate scientist, if those people don't have the correct political opinions. When opinion is characterized as objectively correct fact, that it's easy to see why those experts aren't given any deference on even provable facts.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cartman

You can have differences of opinion. It is impossible to have differences of fact. That is why people want to paint their opinions as fact. When people hold on tightly to their opinions in the face of facts that show the opinion is false, then there is a breakdown in logic and reason. To celebrate and encourage that breakdown is toxic.

This x100000

[flere-imsaho]

37% of voters believe global warming is a hoax, 51% do not. Republicans say global warming is a hoax by a 58-25 margin, Democrats disagree 11-77, and Independents are more split at 41-51. 61% of Romney voters believe global warming is a hoax

21% of voters say a UFO crashed in Roswell, NM in 1947 and the US government covered it up. More Romney voters (27%) than Obama voters (16%) believe in a UFO coverup

28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t

28% of voters believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. 36% of Romney voters believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, 41% do not

13% of voters think Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, including 22% of Romney voters

Source: Conspiracy Theory Poll Results - Public Policy Polling

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I did notice one time there you called me out there as being "bitter". I kind of was bitter, but, I was a little confused why you were calling me out, considering we agreed on what I was ranting about.

Well, mostly I was trying to gently needle you, but are you saying we were in agreement? Because that's not how I took your post. I took your post as implying that we were somehow giving articles that supported the theory of global warming a pass on the suspicion that pay-to-publish articles were of dubious merit.

Here's the post in question: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Source: Conspiracy Theory Poll Results - Public Policy Polling

I don't fall under any of those. The fact that someone else thinks that global warming is a hoax doesn't make your opinion on another issue inherently superior to mine. I know that's not what you're specifically saying, but I do believe that's the idea the blogger is pushing.

And I think the political arrogance that creates some of those poll results can be present in all kinds of people on all sides of the political spectrum, especially impressionable young people. Part of that is youth too, thinking you know everything.

But let's just assume that conservatives as a group really are objectively dumber, on average, than liberals. I know a lot of people think that, even if they often don't come out and say it. Still, that has nothing to do with me, and my opinion, or on my knowledge of a proveable fact. I'm smarter and more educated and more knowledgeable than a lot of liberals (and a lot dumber and less educated and less knowledgeable than others).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't fall under any of those.

I didn't say you did. You need to step away from the persecution complex, my friend.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Well, mostly I was trying to gently needle you, but are you saying we were in agreement? Because that's not how I took your post. I took your post as implying that we were somehow giving articles that supported the theory of global warming a pass on the suspicion that pay-to-publish articles were of dubious merit.

Here's the post in question: Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - Global Warming is Bullsh!t!

No, it was a clumsy paragraph, but I was talking about that same political arrogance I'm talking about here. I was just amused by the idea that because science and research needs money to exist, then therefore all of their opinions about global warming are invalid. People say that in that thread all the time. They don't question the handful of for-profit anti-global warming studies. THOSE are beyond reproach for some reason. They don't question any of the other millions of scientific consensuses out there as being corrupted by money. It's just global warming that gets that treatment. Again, because politics. Political beliefs are SO strong, that science and expertise in a field just can't compete.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm just going to quote myself again:

There are plenty of conservatives out there who are good people, just like there are plenty of liberals out there who are good people (JiMGA's opinions notwithstanding). Anecdotally, two of our best friends are born again Christians (not sure how to capitalize that). And there's clearly a lot of common ground between the new progressives in the Democratic party and the intellectual, fiscally conservative, socially moderate wing of the GOP.

That's not the point.

The point is that the anti-intellectual, evangelical, intolerant wing of the GOP that gained ascendancy with Newt Gingrich, culminated in the George W. Bush presidency and has Sarah Palin as one of its standard bearers, is not these people. But it is the modern GOP.

And thus there is no room in the modern GOP for old-school conservative intellectuals specifically, and intellectuals in general. Even Christopher Buckley.

The GOP has driven away its intellectual conservatives (who have not necessarily gone to the Democrats) over the course of the past quarter century and it is that trend that has made the group of people who self-identify as Republicans (and even more so the folks who self-identify as Tea Party) collectively dumber, which results in the kind of statistics I posted, and many more like them - such as global warming "belief" statistics, birther stuff, etc....

That's all this is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I didn't say you did. You need to step away from the persecution complex, my friend.

Like I said in the next sentence, I know you're not saying that. Or at least, I think you're not, but you did appear to assume I thought global warming was a hoax. I think you skimmed the paragraph, saw "molson", and made an assumption.

But I was talking about the blogger specifically. I think he is pushing that idea, that's what that rhetoric is all about. That's why he ties the outlandish stuff (Obama hates white people), in with stuff like people "voting against their interest". He's trying to make that bridge. He's saying if you're ignorant and uneducated, you might think global warming is a hoax, and even worse, you might vote against a Democrat at some point.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

The fact that someone else thinks that global warming is a hoax doesn't make your opinion on another issue inherently superior to mine. I know that's not what you're specifically saying, but I do believe that's the idea the blogger is pushing.

I would argue that the fact that someone believes that global warming is a hoax, or believes in creationism, does not necessarily make their opinion on other issues inherently inferior, but I would say that it often leads to their opinions on other issues being taken less seriously (to put it nicely).

If someone is anti-fact, then I'm sorry, but I think most people have a reduced interest in trying to engage in a conversation with them around other facts.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I would argue that the fact that someone believes that global warming is a hoax, or believes in creationism, does not necessarily make their opinion on other issues inherently inferior, but I would say that it often leads to their opinions on other issues being taken less seriously (to put it nicely).

If someone is anti-fact, then I'm sorry, but I think most people have a reduced interest in trying to engage in a conversation with them around other facts.

It's possible to have conservative views on some things but also "believe in" global warming and evolution. You're lumping them together. I think the blogger is trying to lump them together by identifying ignorance as a conservative trait. I'm saying that those poll results posted by flere-imsaho don't make other liberal-leaning opinions on say the economy, taxes, criminal justice, the role of appellate courts, etc., inherently correct, and they don't make liberals inherently more intelligent or enlightened. But I think a lot of people believe they do. Political opinions create arrogance that make some people think they know better than climate scientists, or lawyers, or whoever. Is that really a controversial statement? Don't we all know know-it-all 18-year old liberals and conservatives that think they have the whole world figured out, and who scoff and dismiss people with actual accomplishments and experience in their lives? I think that mindset exists partly because of the nature of youth, but that it's fueled by professors like that blogger, and family members who may be liberal or conservative, everyone can be influenced.

I'm not responding to you guys as much as I am the blogger, and the mindset he expressed.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

In a similar fashion, I would imagine there are a lot of Truthers who share political views with DT and flere.

[molson]

I'm barely even conservative. It's not about politics for me. I think it's what I perceive as logic errors or dismissive arrogance that I freak out on. I get offended for some reason when conservatives or people from rural places are portrayed as generally backwards, or when the concept of faith and/or prayer and/or religion is attacked as a whole as something ignorant and backward. (I'm not talking about "christian prosecution", so let's not take that leap), or in the world cup and olympics threads when entire countries are just deemed to be unworthy of hosting international events and people seem to just revel in how horrible these backwards countries are. And my best friend's 22-year old loser brother (and people like him) who posts nothing but arrogant and dismissive liberal rants on facebook annoys the shit out of me. Not his opinions, the fact that he thinks, as a drop-out shelf stocker, he's actually smarter and more enlightened than anyone with different political opinions about anything. He really does. I don't feel the same way about the educated liberal posters here. But I'm just reminded of him when I read that blog. And as for politics, I mean, you've seen it it, I'll go on a 4-page rant in an NFL thread about a non-political thing. But I'm a pretty shitty conservative except when it comes to maybe gun rights and the role of the appellate judiciary.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

In a similar fashion, I would imagine there are a lot of Truthers who share political views with DT and flere.

Truthers? 9/11 truthers you mean?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

It's possible to have conservative views on some things but also "believe in" global warming and evolution.

Note: In the following post I use "you" and "me" not to refer to molson and DT but to refer to non-specific general people. I'm just in a rush and don't want to take the time to make my post more non-specific.

Oh, no doubt it is. I'm not saying if you believe in one of those things for example that I automatically put you in the "you're nuts" box and I don't talk to you.

I'm just saying that it disinclines me to engage in an intellectual, logic & fact based conversation with you. We might still get into one and you might show that you're rational about other things sure, but the odds are that I'll steer the conversation in a different direction before we even get there because of my perception (based upon what you've demonstrated so far) of the value that you place on logic/science.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That's sort of the thought process there.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

In a similar fashion, I would imagine there are a lot of Truthers who share political views with DT and flere.

Sure, but the key point, that we've emphasized time and time again, is that there are no Truthers in Congress (where, presumably they would be D, I guess), while there are several Birthers in Congress (where they are R).

And that's just one example of false equivalence.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh, no doubt it is. I'm not saying if you believe in one of those things for example that I automatically put you in the "you're nuts" box and I don't talk to you.

I think that's totally fair. I'd put them in that box with truthers.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

No, that's true, but I thought that what he was saying is that often times the fact the GW Denial exists in the GOP is used to discredit all GOP ideas (and more with respect to internet arguing than legislation). This would be the (lesser in scale, sure) analog.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sure, but the key point, that we've emphasized time and time again, is that there are no Truthers in Congress (where, presumably they would be D, I guess), while there are several Birthers in Congress (where they are R).

And that's just one example of false equivalence.

So let's say there's more batshit crazy Republicans than Democrats. I'm fine with conceding that. What does that prove? What is the relevance of that to people who aren't in either extreme? I think people like that blogger do try to push that idea and use it to promote the general correctness of Democrats and liberals.

[jeff061]

Birthers only exist as a tool towards impeachment. They are hoping more than believing.

Truthers are just illogical wackadoos.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

No, that's true, but I thought that what he was saying is that often times the fact the GW Denial exists in the GOP is used to discredit all GOP ideas (and more with respect to internet arguing than legislation). This would be the (lesser in scale, sure) analog.

If it was GW Denial alone that was used to discredit all GOP ideas, then that would be wrong. But happily for those of us who would like to discredit all GOP ideas, there's a wide range of batshit crazy opinions held by Republicans, often in large numbers, and it is this that leads one to believe most GOP ideas should be discredited.

Let's say you own a baseball team, and you hire a new manager. The first thing he does is to have the speedy right fielder bat cleanup, and this is a guy who manages about 5 HRs a year. OK, a little odd, but not crazy, right? I mean, maybe this guy has a plan. But then his next step is to put the big fat guy who used to bat cleanup as a DH in center field. Kinda worrying. I mean, maybe he has a plan, maybe this is a neat idea, but you're worried, right? Well, your fears are confirmed when he makes the catcher also the closer (catches for 8 innings, pitches for one), and demotes your star shortstop and captain to your affiliate in New South Wales, Australia.

That's today's GOP for you. Don't believe me? These are the guys who thought it'd be OK to default on the debt, who think that women can choose not to get pregnant if they get raped (or that their body otherwise protects them from getting pregnant), who continue to believe Obama was born in Kenya and all sorts of other quality stuff.

Originally Posted by molson

So let's say there's more batshit crazy Republicans than Democrats. I'm fine with conceding that. What does that prove? What is the relevance of that to people who aren't in either extreme? I think people like that blogger do try to push that idea and use it to promote the general correctness of Democrats and liberals.

Yes, exactly. While the opinions of Democrats might not be ideal, in relation to the batshit crazy opinions of the GOP they're considerably better, from an objective standpoint. Thus if we assume that the nature of both sides' policy initiatives arise from their opinions, we can also assume that this means that Democrats' policy initiatives are objectively better. All of which is to be taken in the spirit of "broadly-speaking"

Or, to put it in the form of a word problem:

IF Republican opinions = batshit crazy AND Democratic opinions >= batshit crazy (where > means "better than"), then policy initiatives linked to said opinions are of corresponding merit. Discuss.


Anyway, for further reading on this subject: Groupthink - RationalWiki

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

You don't have to convince me of that. I want no part of the current GOP. Was just trying to flesh out molson's point a bit.

[flere-imsaho]

Source: A cage match between birthers and truthers | Jay Bookman

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yes, exactly. While the opinions of Democrats might not be ideal, in relation to the batshit crazy opinions of the GOP they're considerably better, from an objective standpoint. Thus if we assume that the nature of both sides' policy initiatives arise from their opinions, we can also assume that this means that Democrats' policy initiatives are objectively better. All of which is to be taken in the spirit of "broadly-speaking"

With that, could you acknowledge then that I have at least some kind of a point here? It's not a "persecution" or anything, I'm not saying that, but one certainly have an uphill climb in any debate, and in gaining any respect, when you happen to share some non-crazy ideas, or share some non-scary values, with a group of people that have a lot of members that do have objectively crazy ideas. I think the same thing goes with religion and spiritual beliefs. There are some people who are much less quick to accept your opinion as valid unless you really strongly emphasize that you're not one of "those" conservatives, or one of "those" church-goers. So maybe I'm just a little too quick to be defensive in those respects, but it comes form a place of legitimately having to make those distinctions in my real life. A lot. So then when I see that blogger fanning those flames of political arrogance - I do have that reaction.

[flere-imsaho]

Yes, you definitely have a point.

[NobodyHere]

This shocks me:

Kathleen Sebelius is resigning

I mean the administration is claiming the ACA sign-ups to be a massive success. So why leave now?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" is a derivative of "truth has a liberal bias", which long pre-dates Colbert.

I think it's possible for two people far more intelligent than me to have different political opinions, and for neither to be inherently correct. I know that's "bizarre" these days. I think people can feel strongly about their opinions while recognizing that they're simply opinions.

They certainly can, but I don't think there's a problem with someone because they feel their opinion is "correct". There are opinions where I'm not as certain, and I argue those differently than others. But if I didn't think liberal economic policies were correct, then I wouldn't make strong arguments supporting them. If I didn't think equal rights for gays was the correct opinion, then I wouldn't make strong arguments in support of that. If that makes me, in your eyes, someone who acts intellectually or morally superior, then so be it.

When you say there "are experts on both sides" in the law that kind of makes my point. You're taking the legal field and putting it into the realm of politics. Since law is then characterized as politics, people have that arrogance that some conservatives do with global warming.

But I'm not placing it there. It is there. We have brilliant legal minds who disagree strongly about how the Constitution should be read and applied. and that's not a new thing. We've had that throughout history. And just because someone is a lawyer, that doesn't automatically make them more "correct" about a legal issue. The college dropout or gas station employee that you oddly denigrated while arguing against intellectual superiority (?) has every right to make that argument whatever side they're on. I'm not going to stop believing my legal opinion is correct just because you're a lawyer and have the opposite view.

I do acknowledge that my opinions can be wrong. I welcome anyone to try and prove me wrong. But that doesn't mean I don't believe my current opinion is correct.