 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So what does one call think one who does not agree with your traitorous, criminal, and evil?
Is that "superior" to thinking them stupid?
JUst look at the right-wing radio host versus a few liberal ones- one side resorts to condecensing humor, satire, and rolling of eyes. The toher resosrts to verbal abuse, righteous anger, and calling the other side criminal. |
GePap, I had a hard time understanding your post. However, I said that an American military officer who, during the time of war, waves the flag of the enemy, publicly slanders the men and women of the armed forces as war criminals, and who meets with the enemy, is a traitor in the mold of Benedict Arnold. People who are old enough to remember Vietnam, people who served valiantly in that conflict or their surviving families, have very strong feelings about Kerry. He is lucky that a great deal of the electorate are too young to remember that war and its agony and the betrayals of the likes of John (may he fry in hell) Kerry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
I am too lazy to mention every exaggeration, BAM and lies in the Limbaugh piece. I'm sure some people here will enjoy doing it.
However, Rush has one point: you don't get away with calling people stupid. I think the questions he ask at the end of his rant are the good ones.
quote:
Imagine if somebody did the same kind of piece, imagine if a Krauthammer or me or anybody on the right, wrote a piece about how absolutely stupid some of the people who vote for Democrats are, and we could name some names. How stupid must you labor union people be? How stupid must you African Americans be? How stupid, how literally stupid must some of you women be? |
There was a time when the right had such a pompous elitism. And I'm sure the right-wing elites still keep it. However, they have managed to be silent about it, and many people feel more respected by the right than by the 'liberal elites'.
While I strongly disagree that all liberals and lefties are the educated elite (it couldn't be further from the truth), the leaders of these movements tend to show they are above the stupid common man.
Actually, this strikes me especially stongly with our British posters: many of our British posters here think the people are too stupid to decide for themselves... Too many for such a phenomenon to be a random occurence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I had a hard time understanding your post. However, I said that an American military officer who, during the time of war, waves the flag of the enemy, publicly slanders the men and women of the armed forces as war criminals, and who meets with the enemy, is a traitor in the mold of Benedict Arnold. People who are old enough to remember Vietnam, people who served valiantly in that conflict or their surviving families, have very strong feelings about Kerry. He is lucky that a great deal of the electorate are too young to remember that war and its agony and the betrayals of the likes of John (may he fry in hell) Kerry. |
See, this is exactly the sort of bull I am talking about. Case in point and proof positive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The people who listen to him are not the people the left needs to care about-in a fragmented media market, LImbaugh's audience is far smaller than even the 51% of voters that went for Bush, who in turn are about 27% or so of the actual population. |
Even if his direct audience isn't an absolute immensity, Rush (and other right-wing ringleaders such as Hannity or Coulter) have been extremely efficient at determining the terms of the debate. They were the ones who barked that any opposition against the commander-in-chief was basically treason and anti-americanism. They were the ones who slandered the liberals horribly, and they're partly responsible to the elitist, far-from-reality reputation the liberals enjoy today.
This, despite most liberals being actually much closer to the reality than Hannity or Coulter will ever be. And you, with your job, with your actual experience of people suffering very real consequences of conservative policies, you are among those people close to reality.
Unfortunately, a stigma is on you, and you don't seem really willing to get rid of it. No matter that you see very real Americans daily, who have significant problems, you'll be seen as an ivory-tower intellectual if you keep showing your intellectual contempt for Bush voters.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
Even if his direct audience isn't an absolute immensity, Rush (and other right-wing ringleaders such as Hannity or Coulter) have been extremely efficient at determining the terms of the debate. They were the ones who barked that any opposition against the commander-in-chief was basically treason and anti-americanism. They were the ones who slandered the liberals horribly, and they're partly responsible to the elitist, far-from-reality reputation the liberals enjoy today.
This, despite most liberals being actually much closer to the reality than Hannity or Coulter will ever be. And you, with your job, with your actual experience of people suffering very real consequences of conservative policies, you are among those people close to reality.
Unfortunately, a stigma is on you, and you don't seem really willing to get rid of it. No matter that you see very real Americans daily, who have significant problems, you'll be seen as an ivory-tower intellectual if you keep showing your intellectual contempt for Bush voters. |
I have no problem showimg my intellectual conctempt for Bush voters- American politics has always been rought- for all the whinning form the right about "being talked down to", everyone does it, including the right.
The issue is framing the debate: more important than sucking up to right-wingers out there in nowhere states is creating the sort of intellectual monolith that the right has, with all its think tanks and so forth- again, its an issue of framing the debate.
The fact is liberals will be back- we are not yet even as low as Repugs were in the 40's or 60's, when they seemed trully irrelevant- yet thet came back. We will come back as well, but we have to lay the foundations to ensure the period of conservative rule is short, and shallow.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Agathon, just as an example, the best way to address the "bigotry" of the religious against gays is to address why they believe gay sex is a sin and demonstrate, in religious terms, why this is wrong. Simply calling them names, saying they are homophobic or stupid or whatever is not a way to change minds. |
With all due respect, I think that this attitude is naive. You cannot "demonstrate" anything to a person who does not hold their beliefs for rational reasons. As I said before, I think that most conservatism is pathological: a psychological response of people who cannot deal with the freedom granted them by modern society. It is quite similar to religion, which explains why most advocates of fundamentalism are politically conservative.
quote:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = tem instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat. |
From Political Conservatism as Motivated Cognition.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
Horse is channeling Clinton.
From FT...
quote:
Democrats failed to engage on values, says Clinton
By Jim Pickard in New York
Published: November 5 2004 20:43 | Last updated: November 5 2004 20:43
Bill ClintonJohn Kerry lost the election because Democrats were seen in middle America as “two-dimensional aliens”, Bill Clinton said on Friday.
The party had been “crazy” not to engage voters in the American heartland in a conversation about religion and morality, the former president and party favourite said.
His comments came as demoralised Democrats have begun to search for lessons from an election in which President George W.Bush not only won re-election with a majority of the popular vote, but in which the Republicans also made gains in both houses of Congress.
Mr Clinton, still an influential voice in the party, suggested that too many voters believed Democrats were against family and morality but in favour of abortion and gay marriage.
“If you let people believe that your party doesn't believe in faith or family, doesn't believe in work and freedom that's our fault.”
Mr Kerry had failed to make clear during the campaign that he did not support legalised gay marriage. “He said it once or twice but not a thousand times in small towns,” Mr Clinton said.
During his presidency, Mr Clinton said, he had worked with faith-based organisations and set up an office of religious affairs to reach out to Muslims, Jews and evangelical Christians. In that period, the number of abortions fell by more than 20 per cent and had since risen under the Bush government.
“It would shock people who think we are anti-life to know that,” Mr Clinton told the annual confence of the Urban Land Institute, a non-profit research group, in New York. “But if we don't make that argument, it is not surprising that we are demonised and turned into two-dimensional aliens. It is crazy for one party to not really engage people in this conversation.”
“Most Americans don't live by rationality and don't judge their lives by economic standing...but that is the cartoon that they know well in all those little towns that buried us in this election,” he said.
Mr Clinton urged the re-elected George W. Bush to make the Middle East his key priority during his second term. Solving the Palestinian crisis was the key to preventing more terrorism around the world, including Iraq, he said.
“They would have to think of a new excuse to murder people, it would take them a little time during which time we could get better organised.”
If Yassir Arafat, currently receiving medical treatment in France, was replaced by a new Palestinian leader it could provide the basis for a new peace agreement possible in the next five years, he predicted. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
In other news Saskatchewan has just legalized gay marriage.
It's sort of funny that Liberals are being accused of looking down on people, since that is merely a contingent feature of Liberalism. Liberalism is founded upon equality and holds in low regard (i.e. treats as unequal) views that promote inequality. This is a contingent matter, if there was nobody holding such views, the attitude would vanish.
On the other hand, inequality is essential to conservatism. Conservatives, whether they like to admit it or not, always have to have some group to hold in contempt due to their love of status hierarchies. It really doesn't matter who they are, yesterday it was blacks, now it's gays, tomorrow who knows?
Last edited by Agathon on 07-11-2004 at 01:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). A meta-analysis (88 samples, 12 countries, 22,818 cases) confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety (weighted mean r = tem instability (.47); dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity (.34); openness to experience (–.32); uncertainty tolerance (–.27); needs for order, structure, and closure (.26); integrative complexity (–.20); fear of threat and loss (.18); and self-esteem (–.09). The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat. |
This actually explains very well why Rove pounded so hard on the terrorism horse. This guy knows what he does.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2004 19:03
" 
|