Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

"This has been researched, it’s called the Dunning Kreuger effect. Basically when someone is completely ignorant of a field they are also ignorant of any measuring stick to measure themselves by in that field and so they assume they are much better at it then they actually are. People who know about a field generally assume themselves LESS knowledgeable than people who know nothing about it because they realize how much more there is to know than they actually know."

The problem is people don't seem interested in finding a way to solve problems with balance and a sense of common humanity. Instead they just want to point fingers in rage and blame. The left exclusively blame the wealthy, the right scapegoat government and the poor, and to a lesser degree illegal immigrants. Both sides proclaim to hate politicians, yet don't have any new ideas themselves. I also see a culture we have that seems to promote being a proud self-consumed as*hole as a virtue. As much as people who's views I'm sympathetic to politically like to rail against religion (and I'm agnostic myself) I'm already seeing a lot of downfalls of this where suddenly rugged individualism is the new religion. I almost prefer old-school conservatives even with their irritating social views to the new "I got mine FU" tea-party breed. Now it seems like it's come to the point where both sides are just driven by fear that "the other" is going to turn everything to s**t. There's no humanity to it at all. It's just everyone running around scared shit-less screaming about how the sky is falling and pointing to who they think is responsible. And now we have all kinds of political interests cynically playing off these these fears in order to get who they want elected. We have ridiculous advertizements with horror movie soundtracks showing the national debt as a ticking time bomb, elderly people being wheeled off a cliff. This really can't end well.

I take it, even with your Boy Scout training, that you don't have to patch the roads you use regularly, or set your own bones if you break your arm, or put out your own house if it catches fire. Since you're posting messages, I have to assume you've been taking advantage of some sort of electrical power. Did you lay those power lines yourself? Even the Amish have no illusions about trying to live completely divorced from any sense of community. Truthfully, unless you go off the grid and become a hermit somewhere in Appalachia, you're not truly as self-sufficient as you think you are. And anyway, what about the idea of total self-sufficiency drives people to fetishize it? If you want to be an island unto yourself, perhaps trying to do it in the midst of a civilized Western nation isn't the best option.

The point is that, with the exception of Appalachian mountain hermits, we all exist within a society and, to an extent, what is good for that society is good for the individuals in that society-- even if the only effects they may see are indirect. If you haven't got a child or a penchant for reading, you may complain about having your tax dollars go to public school teachers and libraries-- but even as you do, you're reaping the rewards of technical innovations devised by people who had the opportunity to become educated because the government mandated that it should be a priority. Modern liberalism is, in part, the acknowledgment that even those we see as the least among us play integral roles in maintaining the health of our society. They are the workforce that drives our industry and the consumer base that drives our economy. They do jobs for you and everyone else, so you don't have to, and as a result, you can focus on other priorities. If they are suffering, then the whole system will suffer. It's not just that you have responsibilities or obligations toward your fellow citizens-- in the long term, even if you consider karma or any such similar concept to be hokum, it's still actually in your best interest to help them.



I notice you had to qualify that statement by the usage of the word "extreme". But so far as I can tell, the OP wasn't talking about the extreme leftwing fringe-- actual Communists, and ecoterrorists, and 9/11 truthers and Zeitgeisters. There is as much a distinction between those people and sensible progressives as there is between Westboro Baptists and moderate Republicans. There is no reason to conflate an entire wing of the political spectrum with its most polarized members save for the purpose of furthering this rhetorical narrative of irreconcilable divisiveness and irrationality.

As someone who takes pride in calling himself a "liberal" and a "progressive", what I say about you is-- you and I disagree on some issues. C'est la vie. But of course, that's less inflammatory and less memorable than someone to the left of me flinging some name at you, so I can understand if what I said is likely to be forgotten rather quickly.

At least we can agree about that.

Ive got plenty of badges from being a boy scout.

There are plenty of bat sh*t crazy leftist extremists who are not communists. For example, that creature, Michael Moore.

ruveyn

Given that you could make your own food and clothes, you don't build roads by yourself; without government subsidies that provide others the ability to build and maintain roads, most roads would not exist. That is a form of government aid, that you are dependent on to live, unless you don't drive on roads that take you to work.

There are thousands of other local, state, and federal government subsidized benefits, that among those benefits, you as well as all other individuals whom work and live in mainstream society depend on to some degree.

And if at some point in time, if you can afford a place to live, food, through your employment, if you lose your job due to no fault of your own, and have no family support or savings to depend on, you will likely depend on at least some subsidized benefits from the government to survive, as is the case for many others that find themselves in that circumstance at some point in their life, through no fault of their own.

While you may not currently benefit from that potential support, it is already there for you through laws as they exist, and the limits as they exist, if you need it, and qualify for it, through government subsidized unemployment insurance, and food assistance programs, as well as other programs that vary depending on one's location and family circumstances.

North Carolina is a state often targeted by Hurricanes; if a powerful enough Hurricane comes and destroys the infrastructure of your local area, your entire area will be subject to and require subsidized benefits from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for it's continued existence as a community.

Of course it doesn't have to be a Hurricane it could be a tornado of a flood, or any other type of disaster, nature or man-made related. And if it hasn't happened yet, you are automatically insured by the limits of those government FEMA subsidies if and when it does happen in the future.

You do, as all others living in mainstream society, in fact, at least in part, rely on government subsidies for survival as most every one else in mainstream society does, but through a disaster, or an unexpected permanently disabling condition most anyone can become almost totally reliant on government subsidies for survival. And rarely does anyone in those circumstances complain about it when their time of need comes.

Considering these facts and potentialities that most everyone is subject to, it is simply not fair that any American would want to with-hold benefits from another American, because they don't find themselves currently in a circumstance, beyond their control, requiring some type of Government aid which provides subsidies for survival.

And that is exactly what some politicians in some states are suggesting that they will do, for no other reasoned calculated judgement, other than political partisanship and lack of concern for their fellow human beings, whom are not as advantaged as they are in life through much different circumstances, in turning down medicaid expansion dollars from the federal government.

Governor Scott is a pretty good example. He certainly won't be turning down FEMA funds if a Hurricane hits Florida later in the season. Those dollars come from the same original sources as Medicaid Expansion dollars, reserved to help those in need by the Federal Government, whether it is lack of access to affordable healthcare for an individual, or a category 5 Hurricane threatening the largest city, Miami.

The whole state of Florida is at the Mercy of Hurricanes and Government Aid every Hurricane season. It's not the rest of the country's fault if a Hurricane hits Florida, or if a pregnant woman has a stroke in pregnancy and is not afforded private health insurance, because of that preexisting condition.

However in both cases it could be a potentially life threatening long term scenario if the government does not step in and provide aid, and in both cases if enough government aid is provided, costs may go up for other individuals not directly impacted by the state or personal unfortunate circumstance. That is both the price and benefit of being a citizen in the United States, provided by the laws as they exist.

If Governor Scott refuses federal aid to assist those individuals in his state whom otherwise would not be able to afford health insurance, he belongs in the same general category of a politician whom would refuse FEMA aid after a disaster, because of political intentions.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-757728



But to his credit, Governor Kaisch gave in after a few days after outcry from the citizens of his state. Tornadoes don't select their victims based on economic advantage or political party.

And, Romney has criticized FEMA spending as well, in his words "simply immoral" because the spending raises the federal deficit. Highly unlikely he would have refused that spending as Governor of Massachusetts, but it has been a state which has rarely been the focus of natural disasters, but certainly not exempt.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/14/244973/mitt-romney-federal-disaster-relief-for-tornado-and-flood-victims-is-immoral-makes-no-sense-at-all/?mobile=nc

There are lots of people in Florida whom are Republicans that strongly support the coverage provided by health care reform, some of whom will likely directly benefit from it, moving away from the party line, only polled at about 14% or so of that demographic, but it is no small number of people, in a state like Florida. It amounts to several hundreds of thousands of people.

Never said that.

LOL define 'leftist extremist'. Most hardcore leftists I know would run circles around most right wingers in terms of their understanding of the world, history and economics. Why not think for yourself instead of accepting BS political climate. I'm not a big believer in political ideology because understanding the world is difficult, and hence different people see different things and hence the need to expose oneself to as much as possible.

If you watch the following and come away thinking 'leftists' are stupid, you probably suffer from dunning krueger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

Economist, author, Professor emeritus UMass, Amherst, Richard Wolff,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY

I also like how liberterians oppose intellectual property.

http://mises.org/daily/2632

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.co ... -property/

Last edited by ZakFiend on 03 Jul 2012, 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is a lot of Right Wing hate as well.

The reality is that most political people in general on Wrong planet and the world at large are pretty stupid and only a minority of humanity can discuss politics and the world sensibly because the human mind does not live in reality.

The enlightenment was fatally wrong about how human minds work, hence everyone thinks 'they are smart and the other side is dumb' most people ignorant of the science usually can't have sound political views.

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

I guess it's just me then.

My solution to the healthcare debate would be: Wait until we're no longer $20 trillion down the crapper, then implement whatever the hell you want.

Good idea I like the soud of that.

It was you and your wife's decision to have a child. Before calling someone stupid, look in the mirror.

Good point he is always the first to cast stones not me.