You know what I hate about liberals and conservatives?
invite response
2014 Feb 16, 11:37am 2,766 views 15 comments
Comments 1 - 15 of 15 Search these comments
As the great thinker G Edward Griffin points out, there are two sides:
Collectivism or Individualism. Regardless of whoever is in office, whether it be "ultra-conservative" Reagan or "left-winger" Barack Obama, the country ALWAYS moves in the same direction.....TOWARDS COLLECTIVISM (bigger government and less freedom you and me). The "right/left" paradigm is nothing but an illusion to make you think there is a choice, while in reality you have no choice (until things get bad enough and people revolt, as they are starting to do in other countries). The government has been overthrown and this collectivism, where you have less and less choice, less and less liberty, and no future has been slowly foisted upon us (by design). All of the great thinkers of the past 2,500 years warned us, but since every aspect of our society (media, schools, higher education) has been infiltrated, most everyone seems to be oblivious to what is happening.
Anyways, this "libturd"/"teabagger" argument does seem silly to me, too. You do see differences between the two parties when it comes to things that have no bearing on the power that the government wields, such as gays and other non-sense, but when it comes to the Federal Reserve, banker bailouts, wars, more debt, stolen civil liberties, you'll see that both parties march in lock-step. Of course there will always be some dissent, but that will be from a minority, and just for window dressing (Ron Paul, Larry McDonald and maybe one or two others excluded).
rant over
That said, if you get angry at ...
So are you suggesting nobody should ever say anything in response to anyone who makes a clearly outlandish and baseless claim? Yes- its probably utterly pointless to respond to those who make those comments because they're probably so heavily indoctrinated that the blinders are on 24/7. Its not for their sake, but perhaps for others listening in. If someone or a group of people makes a claim that is wrong, then its partially the responsibility of everyday people to call them out on it. Otherwise that line of thinking goes by without any corrections. As time goes on, comments that used to be made that were seen as "ok" a few decades ago becomes increasingly at odds with accepted societal expectations and they do so because enough people spoke out against those comments and those who might have made them in the past will increasingly keep those thoughts to themselves. Again-because enough people came up and said :" Hey, that is not ok to say". Not to suggest that people can't be entitled to their opinions, as thats what free speech is about, but likewise we also have the rights to call people out who are making inappropriate comments.
As far as the comments about TV channels and news, People need to turn it off. I was watching documentary that took a even-keeled, non-partisan view of the state of affairs when it comes to right and left leaning ideology in the US. Both right and left leaning outlets are basically passing off canned entertainment and non-objective editorial content as "news" when its simply purposely titled to please the viewers: If a viewer wants to watch conservative biased news... they can. Liberals have the same opportunities. And so as a result Americans have gotten further and further away from reality when it comes to politics and in some cases will staunchly defend these sources as the gospel truth without realizing they are simply targeted demographics in which to sell targeted products to under the guise of "news".
marcus
2014 Feb 17, 4:51am
Your underlying point is somewhat obvious and I think many of us who do engage in arguments fall in to the trap you describe, and yet we understand and agree with your point. I know I do.
The thing is, many or most, even if they do focus just on very specific issues, are still often illogical and their opinions are driven too much by their party identification, even on these specific issues. So if I call someone out for being too programmed by Fox news, it's because I can not even see see the slightest reasoning to their position other than the emotion that comes from defending their team.
It's true. We are sort of tribal in our natures, and it's true that as this applies to our two party system, we fuck ourselves over and are too easily manipulated by the the plutocracy/corporatocracy.
IT wasn't until about the year 2000 that I realized just how totally corrupt our system is. And that's one thing that most of us regardless of tribal party affiliation understand very well at this point. Even if we see the risks of how the corruption plays out very VERY differently.
Paralithodes
2014 Feb 21, 6:37am
The thing is, many or most, even if they do focus just on very specific issues, are still often illogical and their opinions are driven too much by their party identification, even on these specific issues. So if I call someone out for being too programmed by Fox news, it's because I can not even see see the slightest reasoning to their position other than the emotion that comes from defending their team.
The problem is that unless you know that a specific person got specific information from Fox News about a specific topic (i.e., they admitted it or you could directly source it there and no where else), your accusation makes you still fall into the same trap, regardless of how illogical you think your opponent is. And to be able to even do the above requires that you personally watch Fox News a lot. If you don't, you are simply parroting a talking point or throwing out what is considered on the left to be an insult - the same as name calling. In any case, by doing so you are simply engaging in ad hominem and avoiding addressing the issues brought up.
Likewise, what if you accuse someone who watches no TV, who doesn't even have cable, of getting all of their views from Fox News? You may think you've scored some type of point, but you will have contributed nothing towards finding any common ground - you will have in fact made it less likely because the person you accuse (for which you have no proof) will think you are a fucking idiot parrot (Not saying you are... just saying what the other person would think... Not saying you should care either, but if you don't, you're not part of any solution...)
Here're the definitions, by the way - note that these definitions have nothing to do with any overarching political ideology, they merely have to do with who wants change in a particular context. Republicans who want new laws to prevent gay marriage are Liberal because right now there is no federal law preventing states from legalizing gay marriage. Democrats who do not want a new federal law prohibiting gay marriage are conservative in this regard!
Liberal: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Conservative: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism
Liberal != Democrat
Conservative != Republican
Yes, that's correct. People who use "liberal" to mean Democrat and "conservative" to mean Republican are using the idiotic Nixonian definitions as if they're in a debate on a college campus in 1969.
The OP is correct that using labels doesn't really help make your arguments better. If you focus on the issues and focus on marshaling facts and using critical thinking, you'll more likely convince someone of your viewpoint, regardless of what part of the political spectrum they might ally with.
Talking points and op-eds are not facts and don't use critical thinking. They are slanted non-analytical propaganda.
We're talking about the cable news networks, but in regards to cliche' political commentary, the Internet changed a lot of things in how others interact. Now we can sling mud, call names, complain, and do whatever because we're all anonymous. Hardly anyone is innocent in this regard.
A perfect example is how I interact with my neighbors. Actually we are really good friends with them. They are as conservative as they come. Yet we have the most interesting, thoughtful conversations. There are things I really disagree with them over, and the same I am sure with my opinions to them. And so we simply don't bring up those issues. Actually we agree on about 90% of all political matters. They are pretty level headed and reasonable, and I'd like to think we are too. That's how most Americans are.
But get them on a forum.... hoo boy. All bets are off and out come the nasties.
Automan Empire
2014 Feb 21, 7:17am
Likewise, what if you accuse someone who watches no TV, who doesn't even have
cable, of getting all of their views from Fox News?
There ARE actual right wing talking points memos circulated. My own mother is a perfect example. She claims to "never" listen to Rush or Fox, but every day, she is saying exactly what Rush and/or Fox commentators were just saying. In her case, she has NO coherent political or social philosophy that befits the 21st century; her talking points are easily refuted and she has nothing- NOTHING beyond the few sentences she heard elsewhere. The Keystone Pipeline was one example. She seriously thought it was to bring cheap oil flooding to American gas pumps and was owned by Americans and would enrich all Americans. ~sigh~
Paralithodes
2014 Feb 21, 7:55am
There ARE actual right wing talking points memos circulated.
There ARE actual left wing talking points memos circulated as well.
There are very likely some people who get their news only from Fox News. There are also very likely some people who only get their news from MSNBC who are easily described in the same way you describe your own mother.
I also know some people who claim they will never watch Fox News but who accuse others of getting their views from Fox News. How do they know? They don't... They're simply parroting a talking point as an insult.
None of this refutes or changes a single thing regarding my point above. Go ahead and accuse someone you disagree with of having received all of their views from Rush or Fox News, even if you really have no idea whether it's true, if you really think it is constructive. It won't change the fact that if the person you're accusing gets their info from other sources and not from Fox News, they will think you are a fucking idiot and be right about that.
Automan Empire
2014 Feb 21, 8:04am
It won't change the fact that if the person you're accusing gets their info from
other sources and not from Fox News, they will think you are a fucking idiot and
be right about that.
By the same token when they vehemently deny ever listening to Rush, but I heard the exact same words coming out of Rush's mouth on a customer's radio that same morning, I *know* that they are freaking uninformed. These ideas make the rounds of coffee klatches and canasta games around the retirement village; boy what a ripe venue to stoke the I'VE GOT MINE AND SCREW EVERYONE ELSE fires and spread them to everyone there quickly. This is the manner in which people who "never" listen to these sources parrot them all the same.
I'd have a lot more respect for opinions that are grounded in some worldly knowlege. A coherent, internally consistent political and social philosophy would be a wonderful thing to engage EVEN if I disagree. Most people only have a few talking points at hand; once those play out, they default to angry ad hominem. You can never approach the boundaries of political beliefs and ideas that have mostly been received from demagogues; the people sense they are verbally trapped and jump topics and raise voices, never to evolve a viewpoint or explore alternative explanations.
Paralithodes
2014 Feb 21, 8:12am
By the same token when they vehemently deny ever listening to Rush, but I heard the exact same words coming out of Rush's mouth on a customer's radio that same morning, I *know* that they are freaking uninformed.
So what's your point: that you heard someone say something similar to Rush, therefore they are repeating Rush? And your follow-on point is that because they heard it from Rush, the information is therefore wrong, because everything Rush says is wrong? Is everything on Fox News wrong? On MSNBC?
Go ahead, keep making the accusation. Maybe it will even be true in some of the cases despite the denials. But the people who know it isn't true will still think, correctly in those cases, that you're a leftist parrot engaging only in ad hominem. Nothing will change that. Keep doing what you think is constructive and effective...No one here will stop you...
The people in charge don't care if you are Democrat or Republican, just as long as the collective is at least 80% of the voters to control the population (by distraction).
Unfortunate for the people in charge the collective recently dropped below 50%.
If the trend continues to 0%, the people will be back in charge.
100% of the population should understand this.
Paralithodes
2014 Feb 21, 11:18pm
If the trend continues to 0%, the people will be back in charge.
100% of the population should understand this.
What "people" will be "back" in charge?
100% of the population never understands the same thing ever, anywhere in history.
What "people" will be "back" in charge?
Anyone that prefer's to think for themselves. Obviously, there'll be some that prefer someone else do it for them.
They don't exist.
Why is it that so many people on these forums buy (hook, line, sinker!) the claim that XYZ news show represents the beliefs of the [conservative|liberal] population that we believe makes up the majority of the viewership? I see it all the time and frankly it's embarrassing - are we Americans really this stupid? Don't answer, please, that was rhetorical.
It's TV. The job is to make money. Not to represent you or your ideological opposites.
People are diverse in their views and even the most opinionated people will often happily just turn on the TV and watch something entertaining. Like it or not, but the stupid shit on Fox/MSNBC/[insert-show-you-hate-here] is there because it gets people watching commercials, not because it represents the issues that [insert group you claim to hate, but in actually do not understand, ie conservatives/liberals] care most about. It's there for commercials, and to further the interests of the people who have the money and make the decisions.
Yes, there's a lot of stupid shit. Yes, it should boil your blood - at least, that's what they want it to do, and it really is stupidly annoying. That said, if you get angry at ...
Liberals, because all they care about are gays in Russia and raising the taxes on hardworking rich people!
Conservatives, because all they care about are lowering taxes on useless rich people who inherited it all and pumping more oil, environmental costs be damned!
etc
Then you're making a fool of yourself, probably publicly!
The point here is ... if you want to win a debate about politics, you need to narrow your focus.
Talk about abortion. Complain about pro-choice people, or pro-life people (you won't convince ANYONE if you pick a label that is insulting ... anti-choice or pro-baby-killing, for instance, you'll just play the role of the internet troll).
Talk about taxes. Some people believe we need tax reform, others don't.
Talk about whatever, but don't start lobbing around the 'conservative' and 'liberal' terms because the second you do, you alienate someone who may have agreed with you, but who associated with that term.
Here're the definitions, by the way - note that these definitions have nothing to do with any overarching political ideology, they merely have to do with who wants change in a particular context. Republicans who want new laws to prevent gay marriage are Liberal because right now there is no federal law preventing states from legalizing gay marriage. Democrats who do not want a new federal law prohibiting gay marriage are conservative in this regard!
Liberal: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Conservative: believing in the value of established and traditional practices in politics and society : relating to or supporting political conservatism
Liberal != Democrat
Conservative != Republican
Liberal and Conservative are terms that should only be applied to a particular topic - Abortion, taxes, etc. If you apply these terms to people outside of a specific context, you're misusing the terms.
Democrat and Republican are parties and political platforms. People may vote one way or the other, but you must recognize that most people don't make informed voting decisions. Whatever the excuses, good or bad, that's just how it is. There's corruption in both parties - and there are good people in both parties. Add to that the fact that few people would be inclined to agree with every single decision made by those who control the republican OR the democratic platform and you are left with two words that hold meaning only in a very specific context. If you have ever found yourself saying "republicans/democrats are idiots because", perhaps you are the idiot, since there are plenty of people who vote for either party who disagree strongly with said party on some topics.
That means that some of those people who say "hey that's me!" when you say democrats/republicans are idiots" probably agree with you on the topic you're discussing. You know what I call a guy/gal who calls others who agree with his/her opinions idiots? Idiots.
There's no need to reply to this. I'm sure a few trolls will reply anyway, but those of you who at least *think* that you're not trolls, please do me this favor - don't reply. Just consider the definitions of those words. Consider my arguments. If you disagree, don't change your behavior. If you do agree, however, that a change in how we discuss politics could lead to more cooperation and a greater understanding of our differences, then please remember these words when you reply to someone else's post. Be kind and do not say anything bad, EVER, about 'conservatives', 'liberals', 'democrats', or 'republicans' ... instead, explain why you disagree with a particular argument and remember that there will be liberals who agree with you, and conservatives who agree with you, and democrats that agree with you, and republicans that agree with you. Call any of those groups idiots, and ... well ... you know.
#politics