Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Spiffor]

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.

[Ned]

I posted Limbaugh's analysis of the left's arrogance in another thread.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=3413949#post3413949

[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.

[Ned]

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]

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.

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.

[Spiffor]

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?

If anything, Rush is not stupid. He is a manipulative liar and a *******, without a doubt, but he is definitely not stupid when he and his conservative elite friends define the debate as between "the traitor" and "our boy".

IIRC, it's Rush who first made the word "unAmerican" fashionable. And by looking down those who appreciate his infotainment show, you are sure to lose them definitely.

[GePap]

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.

[Ned]

Spiffor, you should subscribe to Limbaugh's website so that you can listen to his program. He is on live and also posts the audio of his program every day.

He has a larger audience than anybody else either on TV or radio in the US. Limbaugh may be the most influence "man" in the US outside of the president. Oprah is a woman, of course.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


See, this is exactly the sort of bull I am talking about. Case in point and proof positive.

All I can say, GePap, is that you either were not there during Vietnam or were among those who opposed the US if you were. Otherwise, you would fully understand my feelings in this.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
See, this is exactly the sort of bull I am talking about. Case in point and proof positive.

And this is exactly in what you're wrong, IMHO. Ned is among the most open-minded Apolytoners, in that he is able to change his mind. He is willing to reason using the new data and new analyses he reads here.

His basic premises and information are extremistic IMO (and I'm not the only one to think that way), but that doesn't hinder him from being one of the Apolytoners the most eager to use his reason.

I don't remember having seen Ned basically say "this can't be true" when a Bush scandal appeared. Unlike many partisan people who put all their hopes on a tiny piece of information that may somehow prove that "Bush isn't really the guy to blame, and that it isn't that much of a problem anyway, you see? Is Bush whitewashed? "

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


See, this is exactly the sort of bull I am talking about. Case in point and proof positive.

Not quite. Ned simply calls Kerry a traitor. Those that buy into Kerry as being just etc. merely uninformed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
IIRC, it's Rush who first made the word "unAmerican" fashionable. And by looking down those who appreciate his infotainment show, you are sure to lose them definitely.

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.

The left calls people stupid, because in general we think that people, if given the right info and training can make the right decision- and when we don't think they have made thr gith call, even with those too preconditions, what is left?

Maybe we should adopt the rightwing stance that it is not ignorance, but malice and moral inferiority that makes our opponents who they are.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

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.

The left calls people stupid, because in general we think that people, if given the right info and training can make the right decision- and when we don't think they have made thr gith call, even with those too preconditions, what is left?

Maybe we should adopt the rightwing stance that it is not ignorance, but malice and moral inferiority that makes our opponents who they are.

A) That implies you will spoon feed them the 'correct" info. "Correct" as being defined by who? Certainly not the MSM who seem to get the info wrong and then slant according to their own internal moral guide posts.

A0) I assume by "training" you refer to even more indoctrination as if college and daily netwrok and print media wasn't enough.


B) You naturally assume moral high ground on all stances liberal. A falacy in most cases.

c) You could assume for once to take some introspection and ask yourself the hard question, Why is my agenda not catching traction? And rather than making excuses as to the evils of the opposition understand the realities of the sneered upon masses.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And this is exactly in what you're wrong, IMHO. Ned is among the most open-minded Apolytoners, in that he is able to change his mind. He is willing to reason using the new data and new analyses he reads here.

Only on issues were he has not made an emotional decision.

His basic premises and information are extremistic IMO (and I'm not the only one to think that way), but that doesn't hinder him from being one of the Apolytoners the most eager to use his reason.

none of that has anything to do with "being stupid"

I don't remember having seen Ned basically say "this can't be true" when a Bush scandal appeared. Unlike many partisan people who put all their hopes on a tiny piece of information that may somehow prove that "Bush isn't really the guy to blame, and that it isn't that much of a problem anyway, you see? Is Bush whitewashed? "

re above

[Spiffor]

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.