Why are liberals so condescending? - Page 8

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

This is true. SDW is completely wrong about almost everything but he argues from facts, he doesn't play fucking annoying wordgames, he's not provocative for the sake of it and the bargain is he'll be persuaded if you will. Which is why it's kind of enjoyable to argue with him.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

This is a racist cartoon. You should be careful. Racist jokes can get you banned on other forums, trumptman. Like applenova, for example.

http://forums.applenova.com/showthre...833#post648833

They ban people and delete their racist posts there.

Aanyway.

This is racist because race isn't a choice - like political ideology, for example. This cartoon is a disgraceful excuse to take digs at black people, dressed up as a whining call for 'balance' and redress.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

What are you talking about?!? Anyone claiming racist on that pic has a broken racist meter or an agenda. It clearly says the stereotyping of the first is wrong, and then asks if the second is right. Just making a comparison or contrast is racist?

Originally Posted by lundy

I think the best way to handle this is just make everyone aware that this Mumbo Jumbo guy has the same IP address as Hassan i Sabbah, who was banned.

Originally Posted by lundy

I think the best way to handle this is just make everyone aware that this Mumbo Jumbo guy has the same IP address as Hassan i Sabbah, who was banned.

Originally Posted by lundy

I think the best way to handle this is just make everyone aware that this Mumbo Jumbo guy has the same IP address as Hassan i Sabbah, who was banned.

Originally Posted by BR

I'm waiting for lundy to go out the conservatives, lest he should show bias of his own.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Out the conservatives who have been banned and have come back under a different name?

Originally Posted by trumptman

There is this thing called a PM. I'd use it if I were you.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes because when making accusations about people being racist, no one should ever have to prove their point.

Originally Posted by tonton

Maybe we're just so damn condescending because we're simply smarter than you are.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Out the conservatives who have been banned and have come back under a different name?

Originally Posted by tonton

After coming back multiple times, our old friend NaplesX seems to have finally given up.

But ScottPhD is here.

Jonathan Chait and Robert Waldmann, in slightly different ways, highlight a crucial dynamic in American political debate: the extent to which public figures are punished for actually knowing what they’re talking about.

It goes like this: Person A says “Black is white” — perhaps out of ignorance, although more often out of a deliberate effort to obfuscate. Person B says, “No, black isn’t white — here are the facts.”

And Person B is considered to have lost the exchange — you see, he came across as arrogant and condescending.

I had, I have to admit, hoped that the nation’s experience with George W. Bush — who got within hanging-chad distance of the White House precisely because Al Gore was punished for actually knowing stuff — would have cured our discourse of this malady. But no. Why not?

Chait professes himself puzzled by the right’s intellectual insecurity. Me, not so much. Here’s how I see it: in our current political culture, the background noise is overwhelmingly one of conservative platitudes. People who have strong feelings about politics but are intellectually incurious tend to pick up those platitudes, and repeat them in the belief that this makes them sound smart. (Ezra Klein once described Dick Armey thus: “He’s like a stupid person’s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.”)

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

Krugman points out a couple explanations as to why fact-challenged wingnuts find liberals to be "condescending":

Originally Posted by trumptman

Consider the attack reported and as for the other point, simply ask yourself if it would be racist for anyone to stereotype what all the black people would do in Alabama.

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Having facts used in any rebuttal would be refreshing. I've noticed that assertions are offered instead of facts for most instances where folks are being condescending.

Then the assertion is defended as a fact, usually using the logical fallacy "appeal to popularity/emotion".

The quoted portion of your post is a great example of that.

Originally Posted by tonton

If someone were to say that it would be highly unusual for a black person in Illinois to be highly pro-McCain, and that if one were, then he/she would be greeted with disdain from the average black person in Illinois, would that be racist? Or would it be true?

How about if I just stick to the facts, sans conclusions:

Only 10% of white voters in Alabama voted for Obama.

Would that be racist?

Originally Posted by BR

It would hurt Trumpet's argument therefore it would be? That's how these things are determined, right?

Originally Posted by Taskiss

I'm surprised you admit it.

Originally Posted by BR

Surprised that I admit the right wing determination for racism on these boards has to do with how much the point hurts his argument?

Originally Posted by Taskiss

Actually, "admit" is a synonym of "confess", and what you've just written is an admission that you erect strawmen, since you can't confess for another.

Unless you're really "right wing" and then you've admitted that you prevaricate.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Let's not deal with the 'if someone' where you move the goalposts and throw in several quantifiers that attempt to stop stereotyping. That wasn't what YOU said. What you said was very clear, very wrong, and very racist. It isn't even the only example because you went on several times commenting in a very racist manner with regard to people of middle eastern ancestry in this thread as well. Acting like a racist to set up a strawman to react against doesn't make you look better. It doesn't help any discussions nor is it good reasonig. It is just angry, wrong and hateful.

As for your last bit, voting for or against someone is not a racist act.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I am consistent that is true. For example I'll quote you rather than make up a strawman quote involving ragheads, and brown people. I'll discuss your real words instead of hypotheticals.

I understand that those on the left prefer the realm of intent, spin and hypotheticals, but some of us have to live in reality.

I'll discuss your real words instead of hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by trumptman

I am consistent that is true. For example I'll quote you rather than make up a strawman quote involving ragheads, and brown people. I'll discuss your real words instead of hypotheticals.

I understand that those on the left prefer the realm of intent, spin and hypotheticals, but some of us have to live in reality.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Because you can't imagine.

That's not a good thing.

Without imagination there is no progress. You have to imagine a thing before you can invent a thing and then it becomes reality. If you aren't open to new possibilities there can be no change ( of any sort ). That pretty much describes the GOP now days.

Dreamers ( like Steve Jobs ) make the world trumpy. Realists only move in it.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Most Blatant Non-Sequitur. Ever.

'If the Thinker thinks the sun moves around the earth, the prover will obligingly organize all perceptions to fit that thought; if the Thinker changes its mind and decides the earth moves around the sun, the Prover will reorganize the evidence.

If the thinker thinks 'holy water' from Lourdes will cure its lumbago, the Prover will skillfully orchestrate all signals from the glands, muscles, organs etc. until they have organized themselves into good health again.

Originally Posted by segovius

Alfred Korzybski formed an educational discipline of General Semantics ( "the map is not the territory" ) in which he found that the human brain can be viewed as consisting of two disparate parts; the "Thinker" and the "Prover.

A general maxim derived from this: "What the thinker thinks, the Prover proves".

Hence, for example:



The 'Thinker' may be equated to the sub-conscious mind - particularly in the case of wingers as thinking is not really their thing - and the Prover the conscious mind which acts on evidence often not knowing what the basis for their actions is.

Of course there are degrees of consciousness of this process...a left-wing intellectual such as Korzybski or others who built on the framework such as Wilson et al, will be very aware of the possibilities and sources of this functionality... their subconscious may be a small percentage relatively of their consciousness.

A right-winger oth, may be genuinely unaware they are manipulating the evidence and facts and may be totally at the mercy of their subconscious...they may not have to think at all and when they do their 'thought processes' may even be in the single figure percentile in relation to their subconscious.

In such a case there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that, in terms of programmed knee-jerk responses, regurgitated sloganeering and reiterations of the party-line as well as parotting accepted dogma, wingers may essentially be actual robots in a very literal sense.

I think the post above may well be a text-book example of this.

In a way we are privileged to witness it...this sort of thing does not often happen so clearly and unequivocally outside of laboratory conditions or outside the confines of a medical establishment.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Im sorry, that was just absolutely hilarious on so many levels.

Originally Posted by trumptman

You've just labeled your own actions. Fantastic!