Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Condescending Liberals - The Atlantic Politics Channel

Good read there, Matty.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Lotus

The post to which I originally replied essentially flatly did say, "Don't listen to academics," and to that both you and I disagree. That was the context of my remarks.

I was not arguing that academics are better than others. While academia does attract generally intelligent and well-educated people, so do some other professions. Even more, as Gandhi did, I believe that there is no such thing as a better or worse job. All jobs are valuable. Put more personally, I have professor friends who become frustrated with me because I do not hang out with them enough, because instead I often prefer to hang out with what you called "feet on the ground" people precisely because of their opinions. Maybe growing up on a farm leads me to be this way. An example of my behavior in this regard is the Warpath, where few people are academics. What I said clumsily was not meant to elevate academics or demean non-academics.

So I apologize for how I put things. Let me rephrase:

When I go to see a medical doctor, I listen and follow. When it comes to medicine, his perspective is more educated than mine. He might not always be right but he will always have a more educated perspective than I have. And if the doctor is conservative, then a perspective which is more educated than mine is also a conservative one. In this scenario, I have to give a conservative credit for being on to something.

If I then try to translate this scenario, what I would see is that an academic economist has a more educated perspective than I do. He may not always be correct but he will always be more educated about economic issues than I am. Further, if he fits the stereotype of academics, he will be liberal. Therefore, in this scenario, an economic perspective which is more educated than mine will also be liberal. In this scenario, I have to give a liberal credit for being on to something.

And academia produces more than just economists. There are also political scientists, historians, sociologists, etc., for whom similar argument may be made.

So, if we refuse to listen to academic opinions simply because they are liberal, we are throwing away collective wisdom. Not all of our collective wisdom by far, but wisdom from an important source. Not wisdom which should always be followed, because there are other important voices, but wisdom still.

The poster who provided context for my previous remarks came from a position of refusing to listen at all in this way. The poster's position was that academics are liberals and therefore their perspectives are always invalid. Such a position diminishes our store of collective wisdom. This seems to me like having a diamond and just throwing it away. I don't get it.

nice answer sir!

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only people I know that call Bush Jr. a conservative is the left and he was far from a conservative.

Anyone who thinks GWB was a conservative has no idea what conservatism stands for.

[724Skinsfan]

A better question would be "Why are partisans so condescending?"

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

nice answer sir!

Yours was a good and apt challenge, buddy.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They also say they are prochoice so why are they upset about someone talking about their choice. The truth is they are really just pro abortion but that does not sound very good.

CORRECT.


There is no such thing as Pro-Choice. The choice to have sex or put yourself in a position to be in trouble has already been made. A child is alive because of your actions and CHOICES...the child now has a right to live.

You're either for abortion or against it. With a literal life-or-death situation, you can't be inconsistent and try to add variables to the situation, either you're for murdering the child or letting him/her live.

"Pro-choice" is a misnomer if there ever was one. I'm against abortion 100%, but I'm pro-choice in that I won't stop you from making the choices you do, just be responsible and deal with the consequences. Murdering a child because of your irresponsibility or because a baby would be an inconvenience is a heartless act. The emotional effects of an abortion on many could-have-been-mothers is enough proof that they made the wrong choice. There are countless families who would love to have that unwanted child for their own, but can't have their own and the waiting list for an American baby is years long...why? Because we're killing too many babies our of selfishness, immaturity and lack of morals.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Buster

CORRECT.


There is no such thing as Pro-Choice. The choice to have sex or put yourself in a position to be in trouble has already been made. A child is alive because of your actions and CHOICES...the child now has a right to live.

You're either for abortion or against it. With a literal life-or-death situation, you can't be inconsistent and try to add variables to the situation, either you're for murdering the child or letting him/her live.

"Pro-choice" is a misnomer if there ever was one. I'm against abortion 100%, but I'm pro-choice in that I won't stop you from making the choices you do, just be responsible and deal with the consequences. Murdering a child because of your irresponsibility or because a baby would be an inconvenience is a heartless act. The emotional effects of an abortion on many could-have-been-mothers is enough proof that they made the wrong choice. There are countless families who would love to have that unwanted child for their own, but can't have their own and the waiting list for an American baby is years long...why? Because we're killing too many babies our of selfishness, immaturity and lack of morals.

This is an argument against abortion. It does not fare very well, however, in persuasively identifying why the "pro-choice" label is a misnomer, seeing as how you actually label the decision to have an abortion a "choice." A "wrong" choice is still a choice.

[KLHJ2]

I guess that makes me "pro abortion". Since we are killing all of these babies because we are immature and lack morals, we might as well throw the fetus into the freezer and have it for dinner next week. As a matter of fact Jimmy just lost his wife during labor after the doctor told her that she could die due to her endomitritis. She didn't listen though and tried to have the baby anyway; now they are both dead. Because of her immaturity and lack of morals we are going to save money on the funeral by storing her carcass for the winter. She didn't deserve a proper burial anyway. Aren't we just savage?

The above reading expresses how many of the Anti abortion people would depict those of us who are pro choice. If at any time during reading that you took me seriously then you need your effin head examined. There are always "variables" or circumstances that can affect how any course of action is taken...even when it comes to life or death. To say that "this is the way, the only way, and the right way" regardless of the situation is narrow-mindedness at its worst.

[djnemo65]

Great link from Matty: "it is silly to accuse people of arrogance for believing that they are right and that people who disagree with them are wrong." Pretty much settles this issue for me. Accusing someone of condescension is usually a last resort after you've just lost an argument to them (you should have argued your case more politely!). Pretty absurd take.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only people I know that call Bush Jr. a conservative is the left and he was far from a conservative.

Agreed.

...However I still know a ridiculous number of republicans who love the man like he was their own kin. Jeez I've seen people get misty eyed talking about him. I gave up trying to understand humanity during his 2nd term.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Agreed.

...However I still know a ridiculous number of republicans who love the man like he was their own kin. Jeez I've seen people get misty eyed talking about him. I gave up trying to understand humanity during his 2nd term.

I know a lady who kept a life-size cardboard cut-out of him in her room. Unbelievable.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I know a lady who kept a life-size cardboard cut-out of him in her room. Unbelievable.

theres a house in my neighborhood which has a giant cardboard cut out of w ihn their living room window, it's pretty sweet

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

Liberals also do not like to clutter their minds wiih FACTS, it distracts them from their goals.


The whole brouhaha over the Tebow commercial before they even knew its content is another example of their "agree with us or you're trash" attitude. It turned out to be a harmless, non-offensive message that EVERYONE should be able to agree with, but since it was from an organization with a "hateful" name like "Focus on the Family", they automatically went into attack mode to censor anything they think they may not agree with...before they even heard it. This is not a unique liberal response. Support their ideas or you're racist/bigot/homophobe/etc, but try to share an idea they don't like, you must be shut up for "spewing hate speech" and "preaching".

It has to do with who focus on the family is. The same reason Tiger got endorsements taken away, because of the image. It's not like he banged the chicks on the golf course wearing only his Tag Heuer.. it's what's behind it.. aka focus on the family being anti-homosexuality, etc

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Great read.

Ive always hated the “Attack the messenger not the message” type attitude. It just comes across as so wrong and narrow minded to me. I dont understand how Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman can constantly refer to the Tea Party Movement participants as t-baggers. Arnt they susposed to be journalist to some extent? I guess its just easier to discredit people instead of challenging them.

The same way that Fox News spent 2 days on Obama's mustard choice at a burger joint, both parties just nitpick ridiculously. These are the least of our issues; the more the Tea Party goers let Palin seem like their mascot the worse it will be.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Krugman is committing a logical fallacy, but not in a particularly condescending tone. He's basically combining limited intelligence and red-handed lying into a jointly exhaustive explanation for the editorial assertion. This, of course, is discrediting the possibilities that 1) the editorials are right, or (more likely) 2) the editorials are the columnist's attempt at a poorly supported conspiracy theory.

With all due respect Krugman explicitly stated "they’re not stupid" so your claim that he is implying they're stupid is not accurate.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

To suggest that 2) can only be caused only by limited intelligence or a flat lie and nothing in between is poor reasoning.

I am afraid this is a nonsensical statement. With respect making an assertion you either don't have your facts straight (ignorance/limited intelligence) or you're purposefully misleading (lying). The Law of Excluded Middle applies to such assertions and so there is nothing in-between the two. Please enlighten us as to what this in-between could possibly be.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think the author's point is that Krugman is condescending because he's not giving the necessary evaluation to properly discredit 1) ("this is par for the course for WSJ, so of course it's wrong"), although I believe that's a stretch by the author.

WSJ emphatically stated that the election was stole while in the paragraph above stating that there were provisional ballots that weren't counted. The notion that the election was stolen is simply not true and Krugman said as much though not explicitly. Rossi twice lost in court and if he was in the same position he would have done the same exact thing Gregoire did. Ditto for Coleman.

BTW, Krugman is an opinion guy as are WSJ editorial people. They are paid to give their poinions and it's up to the reader to decern opinion from fact.