Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[saden1]

Has anyone written an article titled "Why Are Conservatives So Stupid?" yet?

Seriously, when you say/write things I consider stupid/nonsensical I'm going to let you know. Now if what I have to say comes off as condescending so be it. I am not obligated to "to put aside [my] dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior." As for the author's jab at Krugman, how is what Krugman said condescending?


WSJ:

This is now the second time Republicans have been beaten in this kind of legal street fight. In 2004, Dino Rossi was ahead in the election-night count for Washington Governor against Democrat Christine Gregoire. Ms. Gregoire's team demanded the right to rifle through a list of provisional votes that hadn't been counted, setting off a hunt for "new" Gregoire votes. By the third recount, she'd discovered enough to win. This was the model for the Franken team.

Mr. Franken now goes to the Senate having effectively stolen an election. If the GOP hopes to avoid repeats, it should learn from Minnesota that modern elections don't end when voters cast their ballots. They only end after the lawyers count them.

Krugman:

...[A]ll of this follows on yesterday’s editorial asserting that the Minnesota senatorial election was stolen.

All of this is par for the course; the WSJ editorial page has been like this for 35 years. Nonetheless, it got me wondering: what do these people really believe?

I mean, they’re not stupid — life would be a lot easier if they were. So they know they’re not telling the truth. But they obviously believe that their dishonesty serves a higher truth — one that is, in effect, told only to Inner Party members, while the Outer Party makes do with prolefeed.

The question is, what is that higher truth? What do these people really believe in?

I really can't figure out what's wrong with what Krugman said...is the expectation that WSJ's opinions should be treated with respect even when they claim the election was stolen?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I really can't figure out what's wrong with what Krugman said...is the expectation that WSJ's opinions should be treated with respect even when they claim the election was stolen?

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.

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

I probably shouldn't assume you're on drugs. My bad. We're rain and electricity rich in Seattle so we have no use for snow....thanks for the offer though. I may call on you if this global warming thing takes off and we have droughts.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

lol good stuff

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

Getting Semite religion now?

[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.