Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Spiffor]

Bigotry of all kinds generally comes from emotional prejudice that is not backed by reason. Only a few real zealots are backing their bigotry with reasoned arguments.

To change the perceptions of the people, to help them get rid of their bigotry, you have to make the discussion open. I had very little trouble convincing many people here (where the mindset is more progressive than in the US, but far less than in Netherlands) that gay marriage was a good idea, and that there was no rational reason to oppose it. Simply because I respectfully listened where their original opposition came from, and because they were open to listen to me in return.

OTOH, my strong feelings about the EU constitution mean that I'm a poor debater on that issue: I am too eager to treat those people who support it as idiots (this is bad, I know). I have lost the possibility to discuss with people, and thus to convince them to change their minds, because my temper took over too quickly.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't think you can do that. They aren't that dumb. And why would they vote for homophobe lite, when they can get the real thing?

Because they're actually homophobe-lites?

[Agathon]

Because they're actually homophobe-lites?

Nope. Canada has homophobe lites. About half of Canadians are uneasy about the idea of gay marriage, but most would never think of having the government deliberately legislated against it.

That's the difference.

Bigotry of all kinds generally comes from emotional prejudice that is not backed by reason.

This I agree with. Liberals do have reason on their side. Which is not surprising given the roots of Liberalism in the Enlightenment.

To change the perceptions of the people, to help them get rid of their bigotry, you have to make the discussion open.

This is where I disagree. I don't think conservatism of this kind can be "cured" by reason. I don't think political conservatism is motivated by reason anyway (especially in lower socio economic strata), it is psychological, motivated by a deep seated fear of change and desire for a strong hierarchy to anchor one's role in society. The only study I've ever seen says as much.

The Milgram experiments tell you all you need to know about the results of this sort of thing.

If it takes restructuring the system to minimize the influence of conservatives, then that is a worthy goal. Why let their pathology destroy the lives of others?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Bigotry of all kinds generally comes from emotional prejudice that is not backed by reason. Only a few real zealots are backing their bigotry with reasoned arguments.

To change the perceptions of the people, to help them get rid of their bigotry, you have to make the discussion open. I had very little trouble convincing many people here (where the mindset is more progressive than in the US, but far less than in Netherlands) that gay marriage was a good idea, and that there was no rational reason to oppose it. Simply because I respectfully listened where their original opposition came from, and because they were open to listen to me in return.

OTOH, my strong feelings about the EU constitution mean that I'm a poor debater on that issue: I am too eager to treat those people who support it as idiots (this is bad, I know). I have lost the possibility to discuss with people, and thus to convince them to change their minds, because my temper took over too quickly.

You're a very rational, and self aware human, Spiff.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Oh, the irony.

I hope you like losing.

Well, they are getting pretty experienced at it.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You go first.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
It seems to be a world turned upside down when you look at the facts and see that the majority of americans still voted for Bush.
Ned,
I find a lot of comments you and others make about the left to be insulting. I believe that I am a pretty civil person. I don't believe that you are.
Democrats are not trying to turn the rest of the country gay or make people stop going to church or submit to the will of terrorists or force your daughter to have an abortion. This is the way the Right has painted us. As a group that would take away Americans freedom. This is a dirty lie. So you can't blame us(the left) for being angry about being slandered.

Now you know how it feels. I dish it out here as best I can because the left constantly denigrates the right for being "stupid." When I call the left names, I am usually angry about some denigrating insult receieved from the left either toward me, towards Bush or towards people of faith in general.

PAX, you personally have always been a gentleman in any conversation with me. If I have ever offended you by any post directed to you, I apologize. I do not apologize for posts directed to the left in general because of their arrogance and insults.

Alexander's Horse has recognized this to be a character flaw of the left. This is good as it may reflect an overall recognition that the left is losing the battle of ideas due to its arrogance.

But with this statement, I feel I must point to the Bill Maher show that aired on HBO Friday night. He was more than insulting of Bush voters and anyone of faith. He was gross.

So much for the armistice.

[Last Conformist]

Aggie:

This is where I disagree. I don't think conservatism of this kind can be "cured" by reason. I don't think political conservatism is motivated by reason anyway (especially in lower socio economic strata), it is psychological, motivated by a deep seated fear of change and desire for a strong hierarchy to anchor one's role in society. The only study I've ever seen says as much.

The Milgram experiments tell you all you need to know about the results of this sort of thing.

If it takes restructuring the system to minimize the influence of conservatives, then that is a worthy goal. Why let their pathology destroy the lives of others?

How do you intend go about restructuring the system if you never gain political power?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax
I disagree. Ned, please stop stating what democrats believe. Part of our problem is allowing people like yourself to define our position. Democratic position is that the founding fathers got it right when they decided to seperate church and state.
Ned, your model for a religous government would be Saudi Arabia or Iran. Democrats also believe that God gave man a brain to use. That means that when faced with insurmountable evidence, man should use the brains god gave him instead of praying to god for answers. God, is clearly sarcastic, so he would most likely say things like "What are you asking me for?", "Did'nt I give you a brain?", "Duh" , "There is such thing as a stupid question" or give you the wrong answer with a sarcastic sneer. This appears to be what happened to the other 51% of americans. God forgive them for they know not what they're doing.

PAX, agree in part. The left does not uniformly hate people of faith. But they do seem to think that anyone who believes in God is stupid. I simply refer you to the Bill Maher show of this Friday. Look for re-runs. He was really on the warpath about how stupid people who believed in God were.

As to me personally, I have repeatedly said that I am an agnostic. Belief in God requires faith, and I admit that I do not have it. Belief in God cannot be arrived at rationally. Coversely, categorical statements that there is no God are also irrational to the extent that rationality must be based on evidence, not assumptions.

My position on religion is that on the whole it is good to the extent it gets people to live virtuous lives. I would hope you would agree with at least this.

As to religion and government, it is clear that men of faith can be good leaders and presidents. Lincoln was such a man. The left seems to think that separation of church and state requires exclusion of men of faith from the reigns of power. They also seem to think that separation of church and state requires the state to suppress public displays of religion, perverting freedom "of" religion into freedom "from" religion.

[Ned]

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.

[Patroklos]

But it makes him feel better about himself.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

You can't change a closed mind.

[Ned]

General Ludd, do we need any more proof of liberal arrogance?

[General Ludd]

Arrogance would be trying to change a closed mind.

Like, you know, preaching... or evangelism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Arrogance would be trying to change a closed mind.

Like, you know, preaching... or evangelism.

Arrogance implies condescension. It means the assumption that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid or close minded.