T Nation

How Modern Liberals Think

this is a pretty good video, in case you guys haven’t seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Along the same lines, here’s Camille Paglia, a liberal:

[i]
Yes, something very ugly has surfaced in contemporary American liberalism, as evidenced by the irrational and sometimes infantile abuse directed toward anyone who strays from a strict party line. Liberalism, like second-wave feminism, seems to have become a new religion for those who profess contempt for religion. It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak. (A superb 1990 documentary, “Berkeley in the Sixties,” chronicles the arguments and misjudgments about tactics that alienated the national electorate and led to the election of Richard Nixon.) For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent. The nut cases on the right are on the uneducated fringe, but on the left they sport Ivy League degrees. I’m not kidding – there are some real fruitcakes out there, and some of them are writing for major magazines. It’s a comfortable, urban, messianic liberalism befogged by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Conservatives these days are more geared to facts than emotions, and as individuals they seem to have a more ethical, perhaps sports-based sense of fair play.

Probably the main reason for my unorthodox view of politics (as in my instant approval of Sarah Palin) is that I had much more childhood contact with working-class life than appears to be the norm among current American columnists. One of my grandfathers was a barber, and the other was a leather worker at the Endicott-Johnson shoe factory in upstate New York. Thanks to the G.I. Bill, my father was able to attend college, the only one in his large family to do so. I was born while he was still in college and mopping floors in the cafeteria. Years later, he became a high-school teacher and then a professor at a Jesuit college, but we never left our immigrant family roots in industrial Endicott. To this day, I have more rapport with campus infrastructure staffers (maintenance, security) than I do with other professors or, for that matter, writers. Don’t get me started on the hermetic bourgeois arrogance of American literati! [/i]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/04/08/bow/print.html

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
this is a pretty good video, in case you guys haven’t seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c[/quote]

This man’s view on the thought process of Liberals is no more accurate than Iran’s view on how the modern American thinks. He is light years away from a real understanding, but has done himself the disservice of convincing himself that he has is spot on.

This reminds me of research that I used to do for the Air Force. I measured alloys for chemical content, and there was a fundamental criteria that the alloy had to meet for measurements to be valid. The criteria was that the alloy’s chemical content had to be homogeneous on a certain scale (specifically a 5 micron cube). Daily, people would ask me to measure alloys that did not meet this criteria, and in spite of people being told that the measurement would not be valid, it was deemed “close enough” and published.

This guy’s fundamental assumption is that liberals are homogeneous on a large scale, which allows him to make sweeping generalizations. If he can vilify “Liberal A”, who has made an outlandish claim, then he can vilify all Liberals. For the next issue, he just needs to find a silly point by “Liberal B”. Wash, rinse, repeat, profit.

[quote]borrek wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
this is a pretty good video, in case you guys haven’t seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

This man’s view on the thought process of Liberals is no more accurate than Iran’s view on how the modern American thinks. He is light years away from a real understanding, but has done himself the disservice of convincing himself that he has is spot on.

This reminds me of research that I used to do for the Air Force. I measured alloys for chemical content, and there was a fundamental criteria that the alloy had to meet for measurements to be valid. The criteria was that the alloy’s chemical content had to be homogeneous on a certain scale (specifically a 5 micron cube). Daily, people would ask me to measure alloys that did not meet this criteria, and in spite of people being told that the measurement would not be valid, it was deemed “close enough” and published.

This guy’s fundamental assumption is that liberals are homogeneous on a large scale, which allows him to make sweeping generalizations. If he can vilify “Liberal A”, who has made an outlandish claim, then he can vilify all Liberals. For the next issue, he just needs to find a silly point by “Liberal B”. Wash, rinse, repeat, profit.[/quote]

Nice straw man you assembled there! Moreover, just for shits and giggles: exactly how can we say anything about anything unless we “generalize”? The hilarious thing is, it’s almost as if you’re purposely satirizing the LIBERAL thought that guy describes! VERY funny stuff. LOL!

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[i]
It has been reduced to an elitist set of rhetorical formulas, which posit the working class as passive, mindless victims in desperate need of salvation by the state. Individual rights and free expression, which used to be liberal values, are being gradually subsumed to worship of government power.

The problems on the American left were already manifest by the late 1960s, as college-educated liberals began to lose contact with the working class for whom they claimed to speak. (A superb 1990 documentary, “Berkeley in the Sixties,” chronicles the arguments and misjudgments about tactics that alienated the national electorate and led to the election of Richard Nixon.) For the past 25 years, liberalism has gradually sunk into a soft, soggy, white upper-middle-class style that I often find preposterous and repellent.[/quote][/i]

I don’t think this description can be improved.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Nice straw man you assembled there!
[/quote]

“Straw man” has become quite the hackneyed lazy response in this forum. It does not apply here at all. If anything, a “straw man” is this guy attacking Liberals because “they” loved Saddam Hussein more than the US. Classic straw man.

By making specific, intelligent, observations.

[quote]
The hilarious thing is, it’s almost as if you’re purposely satirizing the LIBERAL thought that guy describes! VERY funny stuff. LOL! [/quote]

You’re going to have to explain how I’m satirizing the liberal thought. There are viewpoints on the fringes of the political landscape that are certainly outlandish. I’m sure there were some Liberals who feel the US is an imperialistic victimizer of the world. Newsflash, we all don’t. This guy wants to assume that Liberalism is homogeneous and that we’re all Sean Penn types.

[quote]borrek wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

Nice straw man you assembled there!

“Straw man” has become quite the hackneyed lazy response in this forum. It does not apply here at all. If anything, a “straw man” is this guy attacking Liberals because “they” loved Saddam Hussein more than the US. Classic straw man.

Moreover, just for shits and giggles: exactly how can we say anything about anything unless we “generalize”?

By making specific, intelligent, observations.

The hilarious thing is, it’s almost as if you’re purposely satirizing the LIBERAL thought that guy describes! VERY funny stuff. LOL!

You’re going to have to explain how I’m satirizing the liberal thought. There are viewpoints on the fringes of the political landscape that are certainly outlandish. I’m sure there were some Liberals who feel the US is an imperialistic victimizer of the world. Newsflash, we all don’t. This guy wants to assume that Liberalism is homogeneous and that we’re all Sean Penn types.[/quote]

Maybe he is just speaking about the Sean Penn types? I think he even came right out and said that many liberals are becoming disenfranchised with the loons that seem to run the party.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
borrek wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

Nice straw man you assembled there!

“Straw man” has become quite the hackneyed lazy response in this forum. It does not apply here at all. If anything, a “straw man” is this guy attacking Liberals because “they” loved Saddam Hussein more than the US. Classic straw man.

Moreover, just for shits and giggles: exactly how can we say anything about anything unless we “generalize”?

By making specific, intelligent, observations.

The hilarious thing is, it’s almost as if you’re purposely satirizing the LIBERAL thought that guy describes! VERY funny stuff. LOL!

You’re going to have to explain how I’m satirizing the liberal thought. There are viewpoints on the fringes of the political landscape that are certainly outlandish. I’m sure there were some Liberals who feel the US is an imperialistic victimizer of the world. Newsflash, we all don’t. This guy wants to assume that Liberalism is homogeneous and that we’re all Sean Penn types.

Maybe he is just speaking about the Sean Penn types? I think he even came right out and said that many liberals are becoming disenfranchised with the loons that seem to run the party.[/quote]

evidently he cant speak in a manner where he can clearly demonstrate who he is talking about specifically.

dont they teach this in high school english? Dunno, this guy is older, perhaps back then they didnt? Maybe he slept through that part in college if he even went (says hes a humorist/pundit?). Let me guess, Communication 101 is a liberal brainwashing class?

and borreks situation was not a straw man. he refuted your position and then provided a illustration. a straw man infers that we was not refuting your original position, but he was.

the guy in the video not using a correct generalization, a correct generalization requires some sort of concrete evidence to support your argument.

he was using the classic hasty generalization.

a is b

a is also c

there fore all b’s are c’s.

[quote]borrek wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:

Nice straw man you assembled there!

“Straw man” has become quite the hackneyed lazy response in this forum. [/quote]

Way to blame the effect. Pray tell, let’s not dwell on the cause: that so many posters on this forum are creating straw men in the first place. I have no doubt that you are often accused of constructing them.

[quote]
It does not apply here at all.[/quote]

It applies beautifully: you failed to listen to what he was saying, and you dragged out the tired, old, “hackneyed,” “lazy” response: that he was saying that ALL liberals are as he describes. Of course, he specifically said (which you either tuned out or missed) that he was NOT talking about ALL liberals.

[quote]
If anything, a “straw man” is this guy attacking Liberals because “they” loved Saddam Hussein more than the US. Classic straw man.[/quote]

Are you telling me that you don’t know - or have never listened to or read - liberals who in word and deed expresses a subliminated hatred for America, her principles, her history; and, in turn, seems to embrace every one of her enemies as somehow righteous?

If not, your reading and listening are narrow; or you should get out more. Here in Boston at least, I’m surrounded by people like this: and the more educated they are, the worse they are; and yes, they are influential and have a inordinately loud voice in the national “conversation.” If you’re a reasonable liberal, you too should be condemning them.

…which is exactly what he did.

[quote]
The hilarious thing is, it’s almost as if you’re purposely satirizing the LIBERAL thought that guy describes! VERY funny stuff. LOL!

You’re going to have to explain how I’m satirizing the liberal thought. [/quote]

Because your post IS a parody of what the dude in the video is accusing liberals of. Rather than disagreeing with him by offering an argument, you accused him of “generalizing,” which is yet another way of shutting down reasoned dialogue; for without the capacity to generalize, reasoned dialogue is impossible. The undermining of reason (and therefore judgement/discernment) by liberals is the whole point of his lecture.

Bob Hope has got it figured out.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Bob Hope has got it figured out.[/quote]

Classic!!

tuned in for four minutes; realized it was pure garbage.
No surprise, as it turns out to be from heritage foundation.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
tuned in for four minutes; realized it was pure garbage.
No surprise, as it turns out to be from heritage foundation.

[/quote]

Nice way to dispute his argument. Attack the source instead of the points. By doing so, you make him sound correct. lol

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
tuned in for four minutes; realized it was pure garbage.
No surprise, as it turns out to be from heritage foundation.

Nice way to dispute his argument. Attack the source instead of the points. By doing so, you make him sound correct. lol[/quote]

True, is it the truth or not. funny thing, I will talk to an Obama voter and point out what he said and what he did , explain how taxing and spending does not stimulate the economy or create wealth. How rich guys own places where they hire people.

Most people don’t actually have an argument then. Funny.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

Bob Hope has got it figured out.

Classic!![/quote]

Bob Hope is the master of comic timing. God that man could make any joke awesome. I miss him.