What is it with Liberal Progressives Anyways

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe not, but you have to admit that posters like Inuyasha (or Xenon, if we want to be balanced here) do damage their own purported positions more than any opposite side attack ever could. I was hoping that the specter of mocking liberals giving thanks for his presence here might have sparked some self examination on his part; you guys have been thoroughly ripping his posts for some time now to no avail, so I thought I'd try a different tack.

I completely get the stubborn thing too, I spent tens of hours fencing with a guy named Slowmutant over gun control, and his entire argument came down to "guns are bad" repeated ad nauseum... I also had mixed emotions about that whole thing, on the one hand he really was like a living straw man that would conveniently lob softball arguments that I could knock out of the park, but after a while I started to question the point of the whole thing.

Since I've gotten married and went back to work full time I've had to really prioritize what I respond to vs what I'm willing to let go, and if anything I think that's improved the overall quality of my posts here. I also learned a bit during the limbo I was in while briefly operating here under a different name during the moderator lock out, I knew my position here was tenuous so I avoided picking fights and drawing attention to myself, a behavior change that led to me being invited back under my real name. The real lesson there was that a more low key posting style was actually more effective as a debating strategy than the more polemical attack posts that I was prone to before. Witness some of the reactions from some of the more ideologically driven posters; they clearly view me as far more threatening now that I present myself in a less emotional and more balanced way. I like to think of it as soft power vs the hard sell, people don't like feeling like they're being manipulated, even when they may agree with what the manipulator is trying to say. I think I've said it before but it bears repeating; being right doesn't help you much if in proving your point you make other people want to hit you.

You bait people by attributing supposed hidden psychological motives rather than addressing content. It's sure to generate angry responses because it's extremely condescending and annoying to insist that you know what's going on in someone else's head, especially when the other person knows for a fact that you are wrong. I've lost count on how many times you've been called out for this.

You want to know how it feels? Consider this. Why are conservatives so filled with hate? Why are you so bitter and selfish that you believe all poor people are lazy bums? I think you're just afraid of the truth because you weren't shown enough love by your parents. Why can't you think for yourself rather than let Glenn Beck and other Fascists on Fox News fill your head with hatred? I know you're intelligent enough to think for yourself and compassionate enough to let go of the hate and see the light.

Last edited by marshall on 02 Jan 2011, 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are still operating under your inane assumption that anyone who disagrees with you only does so because they are a) evil or b) stupid/delusional.

And you claim liberals are arrogant condescending elitists?

Does it still count as having a functioning theory of mind if you attribute differing views as ignorance or miscalculation?

Look, there's no such thing as literally seeing through someone else's perspective. You can infer and project your own state of mind onto that person, but that's as far as you can go.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it can be a genuinely different opinion where both parties know the facts. However, I pose this question to you, how is a media outlet that is having a slobbering love affair with Obama a credible source?

Human motivations will taint any news outlet to argue that one news outlet by itself is more credible than another is a waste of time, if your using one more than others(without diversifying where you get your news) you've already created a potential problem. Discrimination should be applied to incoming information, favoritism should not.

That works only when you don't have practically every media outlet is having a slobbering love affair with Obama. Fox News was pretty much the only media outlet not having a slobbering love affair.

So the owner of fox kisses someone else's or his own ass it doesn't make his/her network better.

Uh, it seems like the owner of Fox News seems to enjoy ticking off powerful people every chance he gets. If Fox News was as far right as you claim Kirsten Powers, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes wouldn't even be allowed on the network.

Not if the owner considers the credibility opposing views provide as a necessary source of prestige.(aka the owner isn't an idiot) Then its perfectly understandable. Also I feel I should point out I have no cable so I don't usually get the news from television networks.

If you had cable and could watch Fox News you'd note that they keep their news segments and commentaries seperate. Special Report has both, but they clearly seperate the opinions segment from the straight news reporting.

Additionally, there is a style in which Fox News reports that you can pretty much tell when they are giving an opinion on the situation and when they are just reporting.

Their motto: "We report, you decide." Means that they think the viewers are intelligent enough to conduct their own analysis, people may disagree with the Fox News reporting on an issue, but that's all well and good. However, they don't talk down to the American Public.

*shrug* my point stands its human made with an intention and purpose of its makers and maintainers design

You have a point in that regard, however...

49% of Americans say they trust Fox News to 37% who disagree. Predictably there is a
large party split on this with 74% of Republicans but only 30% of Democrats saying they
trust the right leaning network.
CNN does next best because it is the second most trusted of Democrats, Republicans, and
independents. 39% say they trust it compared to 41% who do not, with 59% of
Democrats, 33% of independents and 23% of Republicans saying it carries credibility
with them.

http://www.webcitation.org/5tIIvxhkK

If you read what it says, you can tell there is a left leaning bias in the report, however they still acknowledge Fox News is the most trusted Network.

So they're good at gaining people's trust, what of it?

Then they must be doing something right that the other media outlets are not.