Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[Trample the Elderly]

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

[The Goat]

[QUOTE

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.[/QUOTE]

Not to nitpick but calling Krugman an opinion guy, especially in the context of the WSJ jackasses, doesn't hold water. Krugman won the John Bates Clark when he was about 40 and now has a Nobel. His "opinions" are more informed than those of the actual news staff at the Journal, not to mention the goofballs working down the hall.

Krugman reminds me a lot of Stiglitz in that his practical intelligence, combined w/ the academic brilliance, makes for an extremely rare combination.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Not to nitpick but calling Krugman an opinion guy, especially in the context of the WSJ jackasses, doesn't hold water. Krugman won the John Bates Clark when he was about 40 and now has a Nobel. His "opinions" are more informed than those of the actual news staff at the Journal, not to mention the goofballs working down the hall.

Krugman reminds me a lot of Stiglitz in that his practical intelligence, combined w/ the academic brilliance, makes for an extremely rare combination.

Given Krugman's credentials his opinions should certainly have more weight but that doesn't excuse his audience from having to do their own fact check of what he has to say. Trust be verify, always.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. .

And who is saying they are synonymous? There are two plausible reason why someone doesn't have their facts straight...they're ignorant (my word) of the facts or they are of limited intelligence (your words). As i have stated before Krugman doesn't think the people at WSJ are of limited intelligence.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

Why would we assume WSJ people are ignorant? They have an army of fact-checkers at their disposal. If they are ignorant of facts WSJ has serious problem. Reading Krugman writing one should get the impression that he thinks they are a bunch of liars not idiots. Feel free to read the links in Kurgman's post, one of which refutes WSJ's claims with facts.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

At this point I'm inclined to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. You certainly haven't enlightened me and even worse, you've just gone in crazy loopy paths that leads to intellectual death. Anyone want to take a shot at explaining what GTripp0012 is trying to say?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

There are people who, to this day, declare that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida based on the simple fact that consistent procedure wasn't uniformly followed during the recount. This, of course, is true, but the assertion that the outcome of the election was ever truly in doubt, or that the recount was anything more than a formality that the democratic nominee was entitled to by law is no less ridiculous than anything published with regards to the Minnesota senate race. According to Krugman, anyone who believes that the 2000 election was stolen is either stupid or a liar. There is no middle ground.

Krugman is more than welcome to blow holes in any poorly supported argument that concludes with an assertion that the election was "stolen". If he's going to concern himself with the underlying motive (as opposed to the argument itself, which he is clearly unconcerned with) of those who are writing for the WSJ opinion page, he should definitely be less concerned with trying to prove them lying, lest he wish the same standard be applied to him by some random dude on the internet.

If you want to know what I personally think, it's that with a state that has now elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to high public office within the last twelve years...voting fraud would be of the last things I'd write an editorial about regarding Minnesota.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There are people who, to this day, declare that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida based on the simple fact that consistent procedure wasn't uniformly followed during the recount. This, of course, is true, but the assertion that the outcome of the election was ever truly in doubt, or that the recount was anything more than a formality that the democratic nominee was entitled to by law is no less ridiculous than anything published with regards to the Minnesota senate race. According to Krugman, anyone who believes that the 2000 election was stolen is either stupid or a liar. There is no middle ground.

The people that believe the 2000 election was stolen are indeed either stupid or liars. Either the election was stolen or it wasn't! There is no middle ground. The case went up all the way to the Supreme Court and a decision was made that what Gore wanted was unconstitutional. We're a nation of laws and if you can't win in court, well, you lose.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Krugman is more than welcome to blow holes in any poorly supported argument that concludes with an assertion that the election was "stolen". If he's going to concern himself with the underlying motive (as opposed to the argument itself, which he is clearly unconcerned with) of those who are writing for the WSJ opinion page, he should definitely be less concerned with trying to prove them lying, lest he wish the same standard be applied to him by some random dude on the internet.

If you want to know what I personally think, it's that with a state that has now elected both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken to high public office within the last twelve years...voting fraud would be of the last things I'd write an editorial about regarding Minnesota.

I think WSJ journal itself did a pretty good job putting a hole in its argument. Krugman did pen an article in which he disputes another WSJ claim and linked to it in the post...I'm not sure if it's worth his time to dispute every thing WSJ writes.

[The Goat]

Anybody who takes the WSJ editorial page seriously shouldn't be taken seriously. Bob Bartley made the editorial page into a joke over 30 (?) yrs ago.

[MTK]

Condescending Liberals - The Atlantic Politics Channel

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Condescending Liberals - The Atlantic Politics Channel

Good read there, Matty.

[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.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed.. and it's absurd for anyone to pretend it doesn't come from both sides.

[tryfuhl]

I actually ended up reading this in the newspaper. There were some good points, but all it did was point out how the liberals had said the Republicans (not conservatives) were wrong at times. It did little to argue anything positive for the Republicans, not sure that was the point of the piece, but those who live in glass houses, etc.

The points made in the paragraphs around the one mentioning that Republican voters are usually seen as clinging to "guns, God, etc" is very true at times, not all-encompassing but I've seen people use those as their main points for who they're voting for. If you have guns as a main reason to vote one way or another I think that you're a nut personally; I understand protecting your rights (which many of these people didn't mind giving up with the Patriot Act and others) and wanting the right to defend yourself and your family, but those aren't really the guns being targeted, and there should be much more pressing issues in your mind as far as your country goes. The religion thing, I don't want my leaders putting in borderline moral laws past the obvious ones such as murder, theft, etc. For example, I'm personally against abortion however I don't think that my belief should govern everyone else. I'm neutral to pro on homosexual marriage, it does not bother me one bit and I don't think that we need government defining "love" for us. To not give the option in states is one thing, to actually pass laws to ban it without even having it currently present is preposterous.

It seems nearly impossible to listen to a Republican answer a question without changing the subject drastically or saying "Well the Democrats blah blah" and a great example of this would be Palin pre-election. The neo-con movement putting such a strong emphasis on these things (guns, abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc) it honestly does make them look like second rate citizens in my opinion. I don't want to hear "OMG THE DEMS PLAN WON'T WORK" I want to hear "If this is going to work, this is what we believe needs to happen" and that's not what I'm hearing. I'd love for a great conservative candidate come out, but honestly, there isn't one on the big screen right now, maybe come next pres election time, but the Republican party needs to wash themselves of some of these wackjobs and put their focus on more important issues. America is clearly concerned with healthcare, the economy, etc. I'm not saying that the Democrats are doing it correctly (that could be a whole different rant for me) but they're the ones talking about it more. I don't see the Democrats making their main campaign points getting rid of guns, abolishing religion.. really the only mainstream thing has been the gay marriage/rights issue. The Republicans make it seem like they're there to protect things that really aren't at great jeopardy. Your handguns aren't going anywhere, gay marriage isn't going to make heterosexual marriage less important or valid (unless you have a horrible marriage to begin with.. and a ton of insecurities to boot), and whatnot, those are backburner issues to most people with their priorities in order.

The biggest issue is just the voting to shut down the other party's proposals out of principle, regardless of what it is. Such as recently when the Republicans who supported a bill had several members end up "changing their minds" and voting against it, all because it would appear to be a success under the current administration.

I'm just going off in all directions now so I'll pass it off to the big boys.