Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[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.

[Longtimefan]

If liberals actually consider themselves to be better, then I guess I'm missing the real meaning of a liberal. The conservatives speak of liberals like they're a disease or the plague of some kind. I've often asked myself what's wrong with being a liberal?

[dmek25]

i guess the same reasons that Republicans are so radical....

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i guess the same reasons that Republicans are so radical....

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

Maybe he was to busy being condescending and argumentative?

[Trample the Elderly]

Just for you Goat . . . . since you can't tell the difference between a leftist and a right winger.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Just for you Goat . . . . since you can't tell the difference between a leftist and a right winger.

Excellent video Trample.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Did you read the article? The thread title is the title of the article. It's actually a really solid read.

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".

[firstdown]

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".

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.

[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.

[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]

hahahaha

someone from UVA talking about condescending? that's absolutely great

it goes both ways.. repubs try to bully and dems try to make others look stupid.. it generally works decently each way

[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.