or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs) - Page 3

post #81 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Anders made a good point in that each party has a different goal with regard to how they are eliminationist.

How we've established that neither the democratic party nor the general tone of leftists writers is "eliminationist" regarding people?


Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If you don't think that the rhetoric of the left here in America attempts to exclude you for being a white male or being religious, then you are just blind. There is a reason Catholics, white males, and married women (often married to those white males) are all groups that the Democrats cannot manage to win. It is because their language does not seek policy solutions or compromise there. It instead informs that these people are the enemy. This is why Kerry, for example is a Catholic but couldn't even win Catholics. Religion and people who practice it are the enemy.

You're wrong, of course. But despite thousands of conversations to the contrary, I believe someday we can penetrate such reactionary outlooks to understand just what leftists write about that many conservatives misperceive as threatening to the white male identity. (Since a great number of liberals and leftists are also white males, a *significant* disconnect must be at play here, despite sometimes excellent articulation of ideas from many brilliant writers [no, not al franken]).

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Now when you look at Catholics, do they really seem to be part of what many would call the religious right? I would say no. Many Catholics are non-whites. Additionally there are aspects of the church that are progressive with regard to advocating for government help and societal change on matters of class. But none of this matters since leftist eliminationist rhetoric makes them the enemy.

Nick

Well, I have first-hand experience in this area. I'm a guest editor for the newsletter published by the very progressive National Association of Women in Catholic Higher Education. Those women, often criticizing *certain* Catholic church teachings, papal mandates and otherwise, identify themselves as both Catholic and educators in a Catholic institution. Do you think they write about how the church's leftist stance on some social problems "doesn't matter?" The answer, of course, is no, since Catholicism is a central part of their liberal identities.
post #82 of 204
Nick, so far you've tried to change the subject by getting into some silly side conversation about the changing historical roles of the parties, by trying to pretend that the issue at hand is whether Franken outsells Coulter (it's not, the issue is that Coulter and Franken are entirely different kinds of polemicists), and by some frankly bizarre notion that noticing that minorities and women have less earning power than white men, and seeing if there aren't structural remedies to lessen that disparity, somehow amounts to a genocidal campaign against white men, or working against the evangelical campaign to remake the country into a Christian paradise amounts to a genocidal campaign against "religion".

The confusion seems to be that while we're talking about the actual utterances of actual people in actual books, you seem to be working out some kind of "that bitch dissed me at work, they're all alike" personal problem.

Whatever anecdotal evidence you may have amassed in your travels that "liberals hate white men" or "liberals want to give blacks and women all the good jobs", or that "liberal professors are smirky bastards that wouldn't know a well reasoned paper if it bit them in the ass" or whatever the hell is bugging you, it has nothing to do with this conversation.

So: either produce a list of reasonably mainstream books (no vainity screeds off of obscure web sites, please) that more or less explicitly (explicitly as opposed to your mysterious power to divine the latent violence in such things as funding head start or adjusting the taxation rates or prosecuting corporate criminals) call for the elimination of conservatism in the sense that you would excise a cancer (and no, lessening the power of evangelicals is not calling for the elimination of conservatism) or give it up.

OK? Just respond to the topic. List of books. Or stop.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #83 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Conservatives deal with the ideals of liberalism because them bad. Liberals do not deal with the ideals of conservatism because they consider them an ideal. They consider them simply the result of what religious white men happen to be or what insane people do in voting against their own economic interests.

But Nick, you must admit that the bolded part above is simply your reading (after the fact, I might add) of the situation, and in that sense, has no bearing on whether or not the left engages in eliminationist rhetoric.

Quote:
To be eliminatinist in the tone you suggest they would basically have to call for the elimination of white men and religion. There are indeed books that have called for such things but the reality is that this viewpoint is not something you can broadly broadcast. This is why the left has such a hard time coming up with a legislative agenda.

This all follows from your post hoc "spin" (or explanation, or interpretation, or whatever) of a situation that is really quite recent and is certainly associated with the Right's rise to political dominance since the 1980s, and really serves more as rationalization for the absence than explanation. And, again, doesn't really address the issue. Note, for instance, that the Coulters and Malkins and Savages and whoever else paint "liberalism" with a broad brushit is evil, it is anti-American, it is a cancer, etc. When the left responds, it is either an expose on the punditocracy (a la Franken) or a more or less academic analysis of some political situation. When the left goes on the nasty attack, however much some random guy might write "Why I hate Ann Coulter" books, it doesn't address the entire ideology as a cancer; it address individuals.

If you seem to be saying "Yes, the right does engage in eliminationist rhetoric and the left doesn't," then we're done, I suppose.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #84 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
How we've established that neither the democratic party nor the general tone of leftists writers is "eliminationist" regarding people?

No, we've established that they are eliminationist regarding certain people. You know when Donna Brazile states that she isn't going to let the "white boys" it is clear who she cares to deal with.

Quote:
You're wrong, of course. But despite thousands of conversations to the contrary, I believe someday we can penetrate such reactionary outlooks to understand just what leftists write about that many conservatives misperceive as threatening to the white male identity. (Since a great number of liberals and leftists are also white males, a *significant* disconnect must be at play here, despite sometimes excellent articulation of ideas from many brilliant writers [no, not al franken]).

Perhaps you will realize that attempting to actually push policies of equality instead of policies of "now they'll get their comeuppance" is not reactionary nor dealing with a perceived threat. Until then keep pushing the same policies and keep watching them lose.

Quote:
Well, I have first-hand experience in this area. I'm a guest editor for the newsletter published by the very progressive National Association of Women in Catholic Higher Education. Those women, often criticizing *certain* Catholic church teachings, papal mandates and otherwise, identify themselves as both Catholic and educators in a Catholic institution. Do you think they write about how the church's leftist stance on some social problems "doesn't matter?" The answer, of course, is no, since Catholicism is a central part of their liberal identities.

Exactly. Hey we might even have a connection of thought here Shawn. Catholicism is indeed a part of many liberal identities. Yet Catholics went for Bush over Kerry, a Catholic in the exact same school of thinking you just mentioned. Why did this happen?

It is happening because of the religious intolerance within the Democratic party. Even if you can't see it, don't care to endorse my thought or reasoning regarding it, or don't feel I have "proven it" to you. The fact is that people who have a natural affinity for the Democratic party are leaving it. This is "what is the matter with Kansas" or why Dean thinks the South is only about "god, gays and guns." People do not want to hang together with a bunch of folks who claim to fight for equality but in reality are promoting a sexist, racist agenda.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #85 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Nick, so far you've tried to change the subject by getting into some silly side conversation about the changing historical roles of the parties, by trying to pretend that the issue at hand is whether Franken outsells Coulter (it's not, the issue is that Coulter and Franken are entirely different kinds of polemicists), and by some frankly bizarre notion that noticing that minorities and women have less earning power than white men, and seeing if there aren't structural remedies to lessen that disparity, somehow amounts to a genocidal campaign against white men, or working against the evangelical campaign to remake the country into a Christian paradise amounts to a genocidal campaign against "religion".

The confusion seems to be that while we're talking about the actual utterances of actual people in actual books, you seem to be working out some kind of "that bitch dissed me at work, they're all alike" personal problem.

Whatever anecdotal evidence you may have amassed in your travels that "liberals hate white men" or "liberals want to give blacks and women all the good jobs", or that "liberal professors are smirky bastards that wouldn't know a well reasoned paper if it bit them in the ass" or whatever the hell is bugging you, it has nothing to do with this conversation.

So: either produce a list of reasonably mainstream books (no vainity screeds off of obscure web sites, please) that more or less explicitly (explicitly as opposed to your mysterious power to divine the latent violence in such things as funding head start or adjusting the taxation rates or prosecuting corporate criminals) call for the elimination of conservatism in the sense that you would excise a cancer (and no, lessening the power of evangelicals is not calling for the elimination of conservatism) or give it up.

OK? Just respond to the topic. List of books. Or stop.

I could respond to this, but the rant you have speaks for itself.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #86 of 204
Thread Starter 
There's one basic fact about American politics that needs to be said in this thread: Conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1. Currently, self-identified conservatives beat self-identified liberals 33% to 18%. Over the past several decades, conservatives have remained between 30 and 40%, and liberals at 15-20%. And of course, moderates are the largest ideological group in the US, holding pretty steady at around 40%.

Two things follow from this, IMO:
1. Conservatives feel more comfortable in dismissing liberalism than vice-versa.

2. Liberals, more than conservatives, are in line with moderates. For example, despite losing by 3%, Kerry won moderates by 10% over Bush.

The fact is, in order to win, liberals need to appeal to moderates, but conservatives do not. That basic fact plays a large role in influencing the rhetoric of the two sides.
post #87 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I could respond to this, but the rant you have speaks for itself.

Nick

(sigh) OK, fine, spittle flecked keyboard and throbbing vein, etc. Whatever.

Still, you haven't even tried to make your case. Random sound bites of "stuff liberals said that struck my ear as against white men" doesn't do it.

Reaching for the ever disingenuous "opposing the political machinations of a newly orchestrated evangelical/Republican alliance equals being against religion" doesn't do it (or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you could link to the liberal position paper/talking point/book that is "against religion". You know, religion is stupid, close the churches God is dead the faithful are suckers. Hint: opposing putting up the ten commandments in courthouses and teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools is not being "against religion").

Mentioning "What's the Matter With Kansas" doesn't do it. The book is an analysis of why people might be induced to vote against their own economic interests. The worse you could say about it is that it might be "patronizing".

It appears to me that in your zeal to "prove" that the left is no better, and probably worse, than the right in this matter of eliminationist rhetoric, you're reduced to arguing that "patronizing" is much like "genocidal".

So, still waiting for some links to some books.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #88 of 204
Show us the books, Nick.
post #89 of 204
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #90 of 204
I really didn't read this whole thread, but want to comment on the original post. I don't endorse books like that and I think insulting a group of people isn't a way to make friends.

I do think one point needs to be made, however. I think it would be prudent for liberals to ask themselves *why* there are so many people who have a problem with them. When liberals hear that some think they're destroying values and eliminating right and wrong, I don't see them asking, "why do people think that of us?"

Granted, conservatives have this idea of moral superiority that they need to deal with. I'm certain that there are people in this country who feel segregation should be reinstated and women shouldn't be able to vote.

But since this thread is specifically about those who slam liberals, I thought I'd point out that liberals need to take a look in the mirror and figure out why they can't get a Democrat elected president and why lots of people disagree with them on a lot of issues.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #91 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I think it would be prudent for liberals to ask themselves *why* there are so many people who have a problem with them.

Great point! When are the liberals, blacks, immigrants, gays and jews going to realize that they only have themselves to blame for all the hate and intolerance that's spewed at them?!

post #92 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Great point! When are the liberals, blacks, immigrants, gays and jews going to realize that they only have themselves to blame for all the hate and intolerance that's spewed at them?!


I think you've missed the point. If only Jesus had stopped to ask himself why so many people wanted to kill him, he might have changed his ways...and he could still be alive today!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #93 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
But since this thread is specifically about those who slam liberals, I thought I'd point out that liberals need to take a look in the mirror and figure out why they can't get a Democrat elected president and why lots of people disagree with them on a lot of issues.

This is a subject for another thread, but as I've argued again and again and again on these boards, the collapse of the Democratic party (not that it's ever really been a dominant party) began post-1972 when they move to the center. And now to the right.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #94 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Great point! When are the liberals, blacks, immigrants, gays and jews going to realize that they only have themselves to blame for all the hate and intolerance that's spewed at them?!


Wow. Way to make a REALLY poor extrapolation of what I wrote.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #95 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Wow. Way to make a REALLY poor extrapolation of what I wrote.

Actually, it's a REALLY good "extrapolation.". You just apparently haven't thought enough about your argument to realize how stupid it is.
post #96 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
But Nick, you must admit that the bolded part above is simply your reading (after the fact, I might add) of the situation, and in that sense, has no bearing on whether or not the left engages in eliminationist rhetoric.

It isn't after the fact. When lists of books are presented, you have parties on here unable to comprehend how they are eliminationist. The explanation is after the fact I suppose, but then you can't go around explaining things preemptively without people feeling as if you are calling them stupid.

Quote:
This all follows from your post hoc "spin" (or explanation, or interpretation, or whatever) of a situation that is really quite recent and is certainly associated with the Right's rise to political dominance since the 1980s, and really serves more as rationalization for the absence than explanation. And, again, doesn't really address the issue. Note, for instance, that the Coulters and Malkins and Savages and whoever else paint "liberalism" with a broad brushit is evil, it is anti-American, it is a cancer, etc. When the left responds, it is either an expose on the punditocracy (a la Franken) or a more or less academic analysis of some political situation. When the left goes on the nasty attack, however much some random guy might write "Why I hate Ann Coulter" books, it doesn't address the entire ideology as a cancer; it address individuals.

Yet you assume the rise of the right occurs in a vacuum when we all know that is not the reality. If the right were attempting to come to power and competing against better ideals that worked, then how could have truly risen to power?

Additionally do you honestly think that ONLY rhetoric could sustain a movement such as this for so many years?

Finally you talk about addressing individuals versus groups. You might be correct that the more popular authors from each side of the political spectrum deal with the "whole" or even group ideals a bit differently. Democrats practice a lot of "gotcha" politics in part because they already assume that others have the same notions about a person's suspected motivations that they have. Thus Franken doesn't have to prove that Coulter has terrible ideals. He already assumes her a bad person and thus when he can point to some sort of citation as proof of bad intent.

As for attacking an ideology, that wasn't some spin on my part, the left doesn't do it because they don't think what you believe is nearly as important as what you were born. An ideal like affirmative action can sound like a good ideal to all. Yet when they demand it be race based instead of economically based it is clear again, that it isn't about what you thing, but what you were born.

Quote:
If you seem to be saying "Yes, the right does engage in eliminationist rhetoric and the left doesn't," then we're done, I suppose.

Except for I didn't say that. I said that it does exist and even have pointed to book titles. For example I pointed to "Fascists in Christian Clothing : The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy." It wasn't disproven as not being eliminationist rhetoric. It was dismissed because Shawn didn't think it had a high enough Amazon ranking.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #97 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter

Hey. Some of us do that whole eating, sleeping and bathing thing. It's been what, a whole 18 hours or something like that since I posted?!?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #98 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Hey. Some of us do that whole eating, sleeping and bathing thing. It's been what, a whole 18 hours or something like that since I posted?!?

Nick

Actually, it's been 3 days that we've been waiting for you to stop playing games.
post #99 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
(sigh) OK, fine, spittle flecked keyboard and throbbing vein, etc. Whatever.

Still, you haven't even tried to make your case. Random sound bites of "stuff liberals said that struck my ear as against white men" doesn't do it.

Reaching for the ever disingenuous "opposing the political machinations of a newly orchestrated evangelical/Republican alliance equals being against religion" doesn't do it (or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you could link to the liberal position paper/talking point/book that is "against religion". You know, religion is stupid, close the churches God is dead the faithful are suckers. Hint: opposing putting up the ten commandments in courthouses and teaching "Intelligent Design" in public schools is not being "against religion").

Mentioning "What's the Matter With Kansas" doesn't do it. The book is an analysis of why people might be induced to vote against their own economic interests. The worse you could say about it is that it might be "patronizing".

Actually the whole premise of the book, that people are either "tricked" or too stupid to realize they are voting against their economic self-interest is insulting. Any limo liberal who advocates a progressive tax structure is voting against their economic self-interest and for their social views over that interest. Yet no one is claiming there is something wrong with them. The book conveniently does not actually address how to deal with all these people who are so easily deluded, but I would bet that the answer falls along the lines of letting someone else make the decisions for them.

Quote:
It appears to me that in your zeal to "prove" that the left is no better, and probably worse, than the right in this matter of eliminationist rhetoric, you're reduced to arguing that "patronizing" is much like "genocidal".

Really I think you give yourself too much credit. The list of books at the beginning of this thread relies makes no stronger inferences than I have made. You are among the parties here claiming that calling someone a "useful idiot" is akin to practicing eliminationism.

Quote:
So, still waiting for some links to some books.

I linked to several books and also mentioned Stupid White Men and Backlash within this thread. Why should I do more work for you to simply dismiss? You've not shown the books didn't have the claimed rhetoric. You simply declared they weren't popular enough.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Actually, it's been 3 days that we've been waiting for you to stop playing games.

Since your definition of game is "Nick doesn't admit I am the dungeonmaster and yield to my will" you will be waiting a long time.

I didn't see you address this yet.

I'm glad you "compiled" a list of what you consider to be the best selling liberal books. You didn't state your methodology for compiling them nor did you state that the conservative list at the beginning of this thread would have met the same criteria when you performed your search. What search terms did you use, where did you search and for what historical timeframe for example?

You posted a list of books that you consider the best selling liberal books. I asked for the methodology. I have no doubt that if you also applied a similar metholodology during the Clinton second term, that many of the most popular conservative books would have been about how evil Clinton was as well. Care to take my bet? Care to follow through and support your claims instead of just declaring yourself the dungeonmaster?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #101 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You simply declared they weren't popular enough.

That's absolutely right. They aren't. You can't take a handful obscure books that we "liberals" have never heard of and compare them against fleet of bestselling books and claim the views in them are anywhere close to as widespread. Stop playing stupid games.
post #102 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's absolutely right. They aren't. You can't take a handful obscure books that we "liberals" have never heard of and compare them against fleet of bestselling books and claim the views in them are anywhere close to as widespread. Stop playing stupid games.

Thank you dungeonmaster. I'll give you back your twelve-sided die and let you go play with yourself then. The question was does the rhetoric exist on the left. The answer was yes. You want to move the goalposts on some question of popularity that only you declare you get to determine the methodology for and won't explain or share. On that matter you can go play with yourself.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #103 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Actually, it's a REALLY good "extrapolation.". You just apparently haven't thought enough about your argument to realize how stupid it is.

On the contrary, I've spent my entire life thinking about that argument, and not just where liberals are concerned. To me, this is the same situation as when someone keeps getting told by friends, family, and co-workers that they have an attitude problem. Usually this applies to "rebellious" teenagers, goths, your stereotypical egotistical male, etc. etc.

Most people just get defensive and throw insults and anger back at the other person. Some actually stop and think, "Gee whiz, people keep telling me I have an attitude problem. What is it about me that is making them think that? Could they actually have a point?"

Maybe it's high time that liberals, on the whole, ask themselves, "Gee whiz, people keep saying we're immoral and are going to bring down society. Why might they be saying that?"

Self-evaluation in order to bring about self-improvement. It's a good thing. If liberals did that, Democrats might actually have a shot at winning back Congress and the presidency.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #104 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Can't pay attention to the mainstream media. Too biased.

I agree. They've been giving Bush a free pass for too long. Today's news thinks "balance" is having two hard-right Republicans and one centrist Democrat on their show.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #105 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
The question was does the rhetoric exist on the left.

No. If that's all it was then we could ask "Are there people on the right who are racist?" or "Are there people on the right who want to form militias to overthrow the government?" or "Are there people on the right who don't tolerate anyone who isn't a christian?" The question isn't "Does ___ exist at all." The question is whether mainstream liberals spew hate and eliminationist rhetoric at conservatives anywhere near the degree that mainstream conservatives do to liberals. And looking at the bestsellers for each group shows clearly that they don't.

Unless you can provide a comparable list of bestselling, mainstream books that spew hate at conservatives like the bestselling, mainstream conservative books spew hate a liberals, your point is dead ... as it was from the beginning.
post #106 of 204
Thread Starter 
Cosmonut, the issue of conservative rhetoric and whether Democrats or Republicans win elections are two very distinct issues.

Republicans have the government now, but: More Americans voted for Democratic Senators than Republican in 2004, even though Republicans have more seats. The Republicans won the House with less than 1% of the vote over Democrats. Bush won by a couple % in 2004, and Gore got more votes in 2000. Currently, Bush is at Nixon levels in popularity, and a solid majority want Democrats to control Congress rather than Republicans. Whether that hold through the next election is another question, of course, but my point is that electoral success comes and goes, and recent Republican successes have been very narrow.

This conservative rhetoric is wrong, in an absolute sense. Democrats don't deserve it, as you imply, just because they've narrowly lost some elections recently. Most Democrats will be the first to criticize the Democratic party - that's probably one of the reasons we haven't been as successful as Republicans, because we have less party loyalty, and we get more votes from independents and moderates, whereas Republicans are mostly conservatives.

And there's another issue here, in my view. It's the narrative of recent Republican electoral successes that goes like this: Democrats are too mean and hateful and extreme in their rhetoric, which turns off old-fashioned people in the heartland, who therefore vote Republican. I think this is nonsense, because I think conservative books and pundits and rhetoric are at least as extreme, and IMO, more extreme. IMO, it's exactly the opposite - conservatives have been effective, through their books and media figures, at characterizing liberals as evil. My guess is that if liberals made a concerted effort at marketing the kind of rhetoric that conservatives use, they'd be more successful.
post #107 of 204
Edit: what BRussell said.
post #108 of 204
Also what BRussel said.

And, again, the distinction lies in the specifics of the rhetoric.

People keep repeating variations of the fallacy that "being critical of", "disagreeing with the policies of", possibly "taking to task for being arrogant" or "finding to be meddlesome busy bodies" are more or less of a piece with "regards as a cancer on the noble body of country, an alien and pernicious influence that needs to be excised, root and branch".

This permits claiming both that the left is just as guilty of excessive rhetoric as the right (by wildly expanding the definition of what we are calling "excessive") and that the rhetoric of the right is just an extension of legitimate "critique" (by normalizing virulent hatred as an appropriate response to the hated, or making it a reasonable structural element of "politics").

If a lot of people think of you as a meddlesome busybody, that is perhaps an occasion to think about your tactics.

If a lot of people think you're a witch and there is a lot of fulminating about how it's about time for a bonfire, it's time to call the village norms into question.

And if you know that the accusation of "Witch!" has more to do with the mechanics of consolidating power by identifying an internal enemy (and is backed up by a constant propaganda drumbeat reminding the populace that if the crops fail or the kid gets sick You Know Who is likely to blame), to suggest that certain ladies in town might just want to consider how they go around shooting their mouths off so if things get a bit hot who really is to blame? is an ugly lie.

But then again, "Bitch had it coming" seems to be, more and more, a foundational principle the New Right.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #109 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No. If that's all it was then we could ask "Are there people on the right who are racist?" or "Are there people on the right who want to form militias to overthrow the government?" or "Are there people on the right who don't tolerate anyone who isn't a christian?"

But actually this is pretty much the liberal reasoning with regard to the right. I've already stated that they play "gotcha" all the time and believe that the exception proves the rule.

Quote:
The question isn't "Does ___ exist at all."

Actually that question was indeed pondered about half way down page one it was clarified by BRussell.

Quote:
The question is whether mainstream liberals spew hate and eliminationist rhetoric at conservatives anywhere near the degree that mainstream conservatives do to liberals.

Well to truly do that why would we just look at one form of information for one small period of time? I've hit on the methodology question several times here but of course you've ignored it.

Also who defines what is mainstream and extreme? What number constitutes a measurement of each? What period of time? How can you show a movement with a snapshot of one type of media?

Quote:
Unless you can provide a comparable list of bestselling, mainstream books that spew hate at conservatives like the bestselling, mainstream conservative books spew hate a liberals, your point is dead ... as it was from the beginning.

Have we even proven that that list of conservative books is bestselling and mainstream? When did we do that? Because you or someone else has stated it as such while not being willing to provide your source? I've asked for it several times now. I would love to see what your source says about both the conservative and liberal side.

You keep harping on what I WON'T provide. Yet I am simply asking to use the mechanism you used to generate the data that told you these conservative books were both bestselling and mainstream. Provide me with that and I will be happy to attempt to do the same for the liberal side. I've made an attempt at doing this but you dismiss it using criteria you won't expose or provide. I'm not going to piss in the wind and have you tell me it isn't hitting the target. Put up or shut up.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #110 of 204
Don't play stupid. Stop playing games and give us a list of bestselling liberal books spewing the kind of hate that conservative bestsellers do.
post #111 of 204
Thread Starter 
This would be a good task for some media-communication types to study. Come up with an objective measure of popularity (e.g., weeks on NY Times best seller list), and then do a content analysis of the books, or even just the titles, for nasty rhetoric. I have some friends in polisci and communications, maybe I'll commission a study, if they'll do it for $20. Hell, maybe I'll even do it. Publish or perish!
post #112 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Don't play stupid. Stop playing games and give us a list of bestselling liberal books spewing the kind of hate that conservative bestsellers do.

You are the one playing stupid. Give the criteria that you want met or stop making the demands.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #113 of 204
It would be an interesting study, but we don't need to go to those lengths. Everyone has heard of Coulter, Hannity and Savage and their books, which are bestsellers no matter how you cut it, seen them on TV and heard them on the radio. There is no liberal analogue. Pretending that we need a study to find out if the most high-profile, bestselling conservative commentators are actually popular is a joke.
post #114 of 204
I'm glad we're back on books here. It actually looks like researching book sales data is somewhat difficult, as:
Quote:
Most book publishing
companies are privately held and keep [industrywide sales] information
secret; even when the companies are publicly traded, it is nearly
impossible to find out the unit sales of individual books"

\
post #115 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It would be an interesting study, but we don't need to go to those lengths. Everyone has heard of Coulter, Hannity and Savage and their books, which are bestsellers no matter how you cut it, seen them on TV and heard them on the radio. There is no liberal analogue. Pretending that we need a study to find out if the most high-profile, bestselling conservative commentators are actually popular is a joke.

Yes, but what does "popular" really mean?

Perhaps liberals meet in secret cabals and devote themselves to the communiqu├ęs of the Council of Vengeful Negro Lesbians and their message of "kill straight male whitey".

How like the devious and feminized liberal. Their hateful message is abroad in the land, but only via secret channels, carefully crafted innuendo and confusingly coded dissertations; whereas your forthright, fully erect conservative isn't afraid to call a spade a fucking shovel and use it to give his detractors a quick one upside the head.

It's clear-- liberals would have more overt titles in print if they weren't such pussies.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #116 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Cosmonut, the issue of conservative rhetoric and whether Democrats or Republicans win elections are two very distinct issues.

Republicans have the government now, but: More Americans voted for Democratic Senators than Republican in 2004, even though Republicans have more seats. The Republicans won the House with less than 1% of the vote over Democrats. Bush won by a couple % in 2004, and Gore got more votes in 2000. Currently, Bush is at Nixon levels in popularity, and a solid majority want Democrats to control Congress rather than Republicans. Whether that hold through the next election is another question, of course, but my point is that electoral success comes and goes, and recent Republican successes have been very narrow.

This conservative rhetoric is wrong, in an absolute sense. Democrats don't deserve it, as you imply, just because they've narrowly lost some elections recently. Most Democrats will be the first to criticize the Democratic party - that's probably one of the reasons we haven't been as successful as Republicans, because we have less party loyalty, and we get more votes from independents and moderates, whereas Republicans are mostly conservatives.

And there's another issue here, in my view. It's the narrative of recent Republican electoral successes that goes like this: Democrats are too mean and hateful and extreme in their rhetoric, which turns off old-fashioned people in the heartland, who therefore vote Republican. I think this is nonsense, because I think conservative books and pundits and rhetoric are at least as extreme, and IMO, more extreme. IMO, it's exactly the opposite - conservatives have been effective, through their books and media figures, at characterizing liberals as evil. My guess is that if liberals made a concerted effort at marketing the kind of rhetoric that conservatives use, they'd be more successful.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Ding.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #117 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It would be an interesting study, but we don't need to go to those lengths. Everyone has heard of Coulter, Hannity and Savage and their books, which are bestsellers no matter how you cut it, seen them on TV and heard them on the radio. There is no liberal analogue. Pretending that we need a study to find out if the most high-profile, bestselling conservative commentators are actually popular is a joke.

Has everyone really? Since I've never heard Coulter, Hannity or Savage on the radio I guess I'm not part of your sample group. I've seen Coulter on television. I've seen a promo for the Hannity show but never watched it. I've never seen Savage on television.

Also I don't own a book by any of the three nor do I own any of the popular books you or BRussell have listed on here.

So how can they be so mainstream if I the supposed intended audience dont' even have any of their books or other materials?

Can we even find someone on there forums that own any of the mentioned popular books?

And the point is we don't need a study and I haven't asked for a study. I have simply asked for your criteria and search perimeters. You generated a list of popular liberal books. BRussell has generated a list of popular conservative books. I generated some books that have been disregarded as "not popular enough." Neither of you will state what the you used as criteria for popular or how you conducted your searches.

I don't even have to dispute your criteria. I just am not going to go piss in the wind and keep throwing books or searches against the wall hoping the happen to meet what you have decided is "popular." Define what is popular. Tell me where you did your searches and I will be happy to go search for popular liberal books that feature the rhetoric you want.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #118 of 204
Whatever the subject and whoever is insulted, I really don't think these books make much of a dent in our society. The people who buy these books are those who already strongly agree or disagree with the author.

If you are a Rush Limbaugh fan, you'll buy his book so that you can continue to agree with everything he says. If you very strongly disagree with everything that is Rush, you'll buy the book to have something new to complain about. I'd be interested in reading a well-written book by a moderate that points out how ridiculous liberals AND conservatives are.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #119 of 204
By the way, apparently I typed that post in a dark cave while being chased by a bear.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #120 of 204
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Neither of you will state what the you used as criteria for popular or how you conducted your searches.

Your three days of dancing around has apparently confused you, so maybe you should read the thread from the beginning and catch up with everyone else.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Has everyone really? Since I've never heard Coulter, Hannity or Savage on the radio I guess I'm not part of your sample group. I've seen Coulter on television. I've seen a promo for the Hannity show but never watched it. I've never seen Savage on television.

Your response here is so strange I'm really hoping you are trolling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberals are... (lotsa jpgs)