I think you are developing a delusion of grandeur, RR. You and I grew up in the same area, and I find it fair to say that you aren't challenged by very many intellectual liberals (I never found intellectual conservatives in upstate SC; but neither of us should brush aside the masses from our specific examples (here are those conservatives again, quick to paint a group from specific individuals)). BTW, I'm not sure how you could even say this w/ a straight face. When a republican politician wants to gain points w/ the masses, he brands his opponent a 'liberal'. They don't say he's "too" liberal. They merely call him a liberal. When have you ever heard a democratic candidate just use the term "conservative" as a curse word? Did you ever watch the 1984 presidential/v. presidential debates? They replayed them on CSPAN last fall. I found it hilarious that Reagan couldn't hold his own against Mondale in an argument, so he resorted to such asinine attacks. In 1988, Bush did the same thing. The political master plan for conservatives was merely: wanna stop a democrat? call him a liberal. It doesn't matter if his/her arguments are better than yours, the public will moo and begin to follow your lead. I lived in SC for the first 23 years of my life. This, IMO, is untrue... boarding on asinine. If a conservative ever wants to stop rational thought that is taking him or her into uncharted or threatening territory, they merely draw the line w/ their GOD or at some other offense. The person that caused the infraction is then an outcast, merely b/c s/he opened up the conversation. GOD is a .38 in the South. S/he makes sure that everything goes to script. Meanwhile, if a liberal wants to get past GOD when discussing real issues, s/he has to tippy toe several hurdles so that the conservative will actually speak before sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating "nana". Liberals, IMO, are more tolerant b/c they have to be (at least in your area of interest: the South). Many kids wake up and realize that their parents lied about a) the easter bunny b) santa and sometimes c) god. Oftentimes those kids go to the furthest extreme during this moment of anger. Sometimes they actually build onto the anger by delving into the body of arguments. Whether or not they remain a liberal depends upon their grips w/ entering into the world of the status quo. When you begin to pay car bills, house bills, etc., you start to think in terms of "getting mine". It's at that point that it's easy to slip back into the world of status quo conservatism. So in that light, I see that there are a ton of young liberals that have no "deep-seeded conviction". However I still don't believe that liberals are more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa. Hell, I don't know which populations we're actually talking about. Out of the South, most republicans consider themselves moderates. Out of the NE, most democrats consider themselves moderates. I think that it's fair to say that the conservatives and liberals have made enough points to give rise to a new middleground. Somewhere, somehow, people were tolerant of one another to change their belief systems.
Unfortunately I have to admit that I didn't read Jeff's post before typing out my response to RR. Jeff, I think you did misunderstand haven's point(s). He wasn't saying that finalsbound post was on the level of racism, merely that it took the same "lumping" perspective. "Observe a few, condemn the lot" logic existed in finalsbound post (god are we still talking about this ) as it does in racism. Great post again haven (as always.. except when you trash Dream ).
Bravo, rimmy! Being liberal on many issues myself, it is my greatest hope that the conservatives on this board (like RichRocket himself) will exercise their great tolerance with me and my ilk, showing us the error of our ways through their collective wisdom and deep-seeded conviction.
Let me say a couple of things and then I'm out... I did fully grasp what haven was saying and the comparison he was drawing. I just don't completely agree. Unlike so many who seem enamored of right and wrong (whether it be racism or abortion, liberal or conservative), I just view things as differences of opinion and honest disagreements. haven's attempt to compare a pretty silly statement (though fully rooted in finalsbound's own beliefs) to something as socially unacceptable in our society as slavery was, IMO, unfair. I choose to not be a Christian and to not be conservative. I recognize that those choices make my decisions unpopular to those who choose differently. I also realize that it sets me up to disagree with people. That's ok. Making choices is never easy and you cannot please everyone. If, because of my decision, there are those that think I am immoral or will end up in hell, that is their choice. I cannot control that. They were MY choices to begin with. No one forced me to be liberal or non-Christian. I chose those for myself. I used to get seriously ****ed with because I had long hair. My family and others who found it objectionable took every opportunity to make jokes, walk around me jokingly (I think!) with scissors or call me names. It sucked and I didn't like being lumped in with others whose reputation AND hair seemed to be subjectively placed on me simply for a style. However, I NEVER considered myself a victim of the same type of discrimination that, for example, black people suffer. My choice of hair style, like my choice of politics and religion, was a conscious decision I made on my own. Being black was a decision no black person made conciously. That is the key difference. I understand the thought processes that underlie finalsbound's thoughts and I agree that they do bear striking similarity to those other intolerable traits that can lead to racism. But, thinking is quite different from the reality. In all honesty, I agree with Rich Rocket's comments about people questioning their own beliefs, but not ONLY about liberals. I think that most people criticize what they DON'T UNDERSTAND because what they don't understand scares them. If a liberal doesn't accept a conservative because of his/her beliefs, how is that different from a conservative not accepting a liberal for his/her beliefs? It is all lack of acceptance. It is all intolerance. While I would never paint it with as broad a stroke as RR by saying that one group is obviously more afraid of another, I will say that the most extreme responses from ANYONE tend to come from a place of fear. Hate is fear. Arrogance is fear. It is the fear of the unkown. The fear that what we are might be marginalized or even changed by someone whose beliefs are different. It is normal for both liberals AND conservatives. It is the struggle we face every day of our lives.
I just won a bet with myself. Rimbaud, Achebe, and SamCassell were on my short list of those who would be the first to respond to my question. Rimbaud, why do you accuse me of "flaming" this thread war? I thought it a reasonable question to ask because the progress of the thread seemed to demonstrate the point I wanted to make. People are free to indicate if they think I'm out of my mind. BTW, liberalism is a "condition" not a species. Achebe, while I live in the South now, I grew up in Texas up to the college years. The southern city I live in is flooded with northerners. My southern college was a very liberal one. I went from being apolitical to being "liberal." I actually wanted to vote for Jesse Jackson for president at one juncture of my life. You can't blame my point of view on the drooling southerners! BTW, I consider myself a moderate. Yes, all of these labels are inadequate and inaccurate but it's all we have. My framework of thinking changed when I worked with a large group of political liberals and found their intentions to be great but their ideas about how to accomplish their goals to be stupid and/or lame. I don't bow down to Republicanism, but I find it the truest reflection of what the relationship between the individual and his/her government should be. SamCassell, was the question too hard to argue? You can try again if you like before I claim victory over you. Don't just climb in Rimbaud's back! Jeff, you have made a very valid point. I can't say that I am rock-solid certain about every one of my political tenets. I am open to change, in spite of Achebe's disqualifying me for that event. In fact, I should say I'm not rock solid about them all. Most of the issues are too complex and too fluid to be narrow-minded about them. My point is that it is my observation that a liberal is more threatened by my holding my position than I am threatened by him/her holding their position. I find liberals to be more emotionally attached to their positions than conservatives. I didn't mean to indicate that the insecuity was exclusively the province of the liberals. I do think that they however have a more tenuous hold on their beliefs which TENDS to make them very aggressive about defending them.
Jeff, I understand that anytime an analogy to racism is made, people become very uncomfortable. People go to inordinate links to self-check themselves or others when it comes to this topic. There is a lot of pain regarding racism. I believe that haven's point is sound though. Regardless of what our personal emotive responses are to racist analogies, whenever one person becomes a "lumper", they're using the same asinine logic used by racists. If you observe individuals in a group, and make sweeping generalizations and aspersions for and across that group, you're being unfair. "Observe a few, condemn the lot" is the structure of argument for racists. finalsbound a) observed an individual and b) made a harmful generalization for the group. Did he say anything as threatening as the comments that racists make? Of course not. But haven wasn't labeling finalsbound a racist, he was just ridiculing the logical structure that built the conclusion that the democratic party was at odds w/ the Christian ideology. That argument's structure is flawed, regardless of it's usage. Insert whatever premises you'd like. You won't find a sound & valid argument that uses that outliine.
Rich, Wow, I hope you won a lot of money! Personally, I think that gambling is a vice of the weak-minded, but that is another issue entirely. You know what you were doing, Rich. Again, I applaud you for your bravery and conviction. You made comments specifically to get heated responses (as you yourself just said). I, personally, was trying to both satisfy your desire for a response, but also do so in a neutral way that would make me laugh. If your bet was contingent on a certain kind of response from me, then you probably shouldn't win for my specific response. The others are OK, though. Liberalism isn't a species? Damn, I thought I was so smart. I was being honest, though, when I said I do not really like them, BTW. If you want a more sincere response to your "reasonable question" I, as a non-liberal, will answer thusly: The answer is that your question speaks more of you than those you are condemning. Combined with your past insistance on very similar points, it is more confirmed. Only one with limited range can use a paint roller to paint a miniature as you do. BrianKagy, one of the most noted liberals on this BBS once posted a thread asking the question if members of one political party really thought members of the other were stupid, in the truest sense. Essentially, he was trying to create an honest discussion, with the implication that it is asinine to judge someone's intelligence, etc based on political affiliation. So, the final response to your question is, liberals are not more threatened by conservatives than vice-versa. People are threatened by other people, by other ideas, by many things. Some pick A, B, C...others pick B, G, P...depends. Parties are not people, religions are not people, ideologies are not people. Baseball is a tool of satan. The key is to keep learning, growing, developing positions, no matter what they be. And love yourself, and others, and animals, and trees, and computers, and ameobas, and bugs, and dinosaurs, and books, and music, and rodents, and grass, and plankton, and shellfish, and maps, and bicycles, and mini blinds, and asphalt, and saliva, and dirt, and tractors, and art, and dishwashers, and socks, and p*rnography, and children, and mirrors, and clarinets, and igloos, and backpacks, and supermercados, and calcium, and trash cans, and sewage, and notebooks, and cd's. Most importantly, avoid cholesteral, it is poison to the body. PSA #47-245875
RichRocket, please feel free to claim victory over me all you want, if that's what makes you happy. My post was intended as sarcasm, not duplication. This is copying someone else (shanna) in a previous thread where you raised the same issue. I agree with him 100%: You're kidding, right? You mean like those religious right people who say the all hell is going to break loose because of Democrats taking religion out of schools and government? Or those militia freaks who think the government is going to invade itself? The far-left is afraid of Conservatives. The far-right is afraid of Liberals. Moderates are just afraid of extremists on both sides. To think only one side is "threatened" by the other is beyond silly. The only thing I'd like to add is that i am surprised that you wear your "deep-seeded convictions about your positions" like a badge, when in fact it is a handicap. If you cannot question your own beliefs, then you are missing out on a great deal that the world has to offer.
Rimbaud: I didn't condemn anyone. I didn't seek heated responses, though I expected some. You are the one who brought the "heat" into it with your accusation of flaming! Can I help it if those of the leftward persuasion are so volatile.... love p*rnography? Do you remeber Professor Irwin? SamCassell: Try reading what I wrote; it may be revealing.
Oh please this doesn't have anything to do with "Liberals being insecure about conservatives", this has to do with someone making a sweeping opinion about an entire group of people. Obviously I don't want anyone run off, but I just thought it was ridiculous. This is why I stay away from political threads because they just veer off into slap fights and name calling. I'm a "liberal" and I have a "deep-seeded conviction about my position", it's pretty arrogant for someone to assume otherwise without really knowing someone, especially when I rarely post in political threads, but that is neither here not there. This is about accusing and entire group of something. I try to be open-minded without classifying an entire group of something, that's why finalsbound's post caught me by surprise and shocked me. And these things happen from both sides. I'm tempted to become an Independent!
<b>My framework of thinking changed when I worked with a large group of political liberals and found their intentions to be great but their ideas about how to accomplish their goals to be stupid and/or lame. </b> <b>My point is that it is my observation that a liberal is more threatened by my holding my position than I am threatened by him/her holding their position. I find liberals to be more emotionally attached to their positions than conservatives. I didn't mean to indicate that the insecuity was exclusively the province of the liberals. I do think that they however have a more tenuous hold on their beliefs which TENDS to make them very aggressive about defending them.</b> I find all of those condemning, especially this <i>This thread once again begs the question, why are liberals more threatened by conservative thinking than conservatives by liberal thinking? <b>Liberals are more intolerant of conservatives than vice versa.</b> Lots of slandering of the messenger (finalsbound) here just for expressing his opinion. Jackson is a public figure and so is fair game for his kind of criticism and observation. I don't know about you, but I've been on both sides of the political fence and, while I expect this idea could generate a hailstorm of protest, <b>25 years of adult living have proven that liberals are more indignantly intolerant than conservatives. </b> </i> I still don't see how someone can say that people disagreeing with finalsbound were slandering him, and don't consider statement like "Democrats and Christianity are oxymorons" and posting things like many democratic beliefs are against the bible as slanderous.
When I'm talking about Liberals, I'm talking about the group. Of course there are individual differences between RocksMillenium, Achebe, SamCassell, and Rimbaud (oops NOT rimbaud). It doesn't make the generalizations untrue. Of course you know that the same would hold true of the horrific generalizations that certain people here make about Conservatives. Don't forget those.... If we can't talk about Liberals or Conservatives, why do the words to describe the groups even exist? Look for yourself, they are all over the news. When I read some of the claptrap that people here post about Conservatives, I DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY. I laugh and hit the reply button to challenge the assertion. I know myself and so I know that the gross generalizations that Liberals make about Conseratives is NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME. Doesn't it seem that the Liberals who, so often, take an intellectual stance (versus my simple-minded pragmatism!!) on these matters can't seem to keep their emotions OUT OF THE WAY? They see it as a PERSONAL AFFRONT. Look at this little exchange. My honestly earned observation about Liberals earned over 25 years of living is assaulted for being insulting and thus helps to prove my point it would seem.
Oh Freak! You cut me to the quick! But I must say, a hypocrite is one of the nicer things I've been called. Interesting reading all the way around though.
Which liberals, exactly, found your words insulting? Try reading what we've written; it may be revealing.
As a youth I was an ideologue with a conservative bent (voted for Ron Paul). However as I learned more about the world I became more liberal because I came to see that MOST people are where they are in life in no small part to the influences around them (positive or negative). That said, I don’t think my personal testament is worth a hand of beans in the context of this thread, the arguments should be judged on their merits. In my opinion, I think RR view that liberals are more intolerant of conservatives than visa versa is the opposite of reality. It is true that both sides have disagreeable and close-minded ideologues. However, it is also my observation that conservatives are less open to alternative views. It is conservatives more apt to listen to reactionary talk radio that does not seek out multiple points of view and merely to slap the backs of fellow tunnel visionaries. It is conservatives all over the world that resort to reactionary rhetorical appeals to attempt to squelch public debate. For instance, in Britain it is "we must save the pound", in Iran it is essentially "we must preserve the culture/religion", in the United States it is such things like we must "protect the flag" or say an opponents view is just down right “un-American”. Not invariably, but in general I do find more conservatives who debase intellectual debates. This is not to discount all of them. I happen to learn a lot from guys like William F. Buckley, William Raspberry, George Will and William Safire, even if I often disagree with some basic premises they hinge their points on. Sometimes, though I admit not too often, I even agree with their premise and point in whole. Further, I find fewer ideologues who I don't think contribute to intellectual debate on the left that equal the intellectual sloppiness (this is a <b/> generous </b> label for them) of a Tony Snow, Rush, or Micheal Reagan. I will say Bill Press seems to me one of them, but can't think of many more from the left. Guys like Matlin or Carville and other ex-politicians don’t count because you know where they are coming from, it the one’s that pretend they are objective but then try to engage in indoctrination that really inhibits us having a more thoughtful, open minded, civil, and intellectual society. As for PC, it is interesting that often conservatives call out PC (in fact the hijacked the term very effectively), when it is conservatives IMO that invented it. Except the difference was PC from the right (folks like Nixon, Thurman, and McCarthy) often was aimed to get you silenced, jailed or killed, where as PC from the left at its worse tried to squelch opponents voices. Though I do have problems with PC from either side and do not support anyone squelching legitimate
Desert, In general, it is not good to respond to generalities with more generalities, it only makes matters worse. I realize that you, at least, tried harder to emphasize what you have "experienced" only, but it is still not very conducive to productivity. For every example you gave, counter-examples can be given to show the horrors of the other side. Even though Rich did not pull out specifics, I am sure he could now... My response to him goes the same to you. Party rhetoric, catch-phrases, and sound-byte politics are used by all political parties in every country. Adhering to one and railing on the other only further promotes confusion and limits range.
RocksMillenium: Of course it works both ways; that is part of my point. I'm just saying that individuals shouldn't be offended by the generalizatiions that anyone makes be it about Liberals OR Conservatives. Need I say it: generalizations are general! SamCassell: Well, RM for sure. I figured that with all the heat I was getting I must have offended someone, which is not what I intended to do and is, in my estimation, UNREASONABLE. Don't make the mistake of identifying yourself with one of the labels. My targeted remark to you was because you seemed to have skipped over what I noted to Jeff, which was an admission that I don't have rock-solidarity about all of my positions. Some yes, but not all. I never meant to say (as Shanna implied) that is was a strictly unilateral phenomena; I was simply making an observation that was certainly true in my own life; it was just a comment not a treatise about politics in America. DesertScar: I may be playing into your hand, but I'll take the stand because IT IS THE TRUTH: there are things that are unAmerican. Ours is not a place where just anything goes. We have a Republic founded on ideals not mobocracy.
