4 ms·

great read. one other thing that is apparent is despite this "we know better" mindset, liberals tend to operate on the emotional level (hence the name calling

great read. one other thing that is apparent is despite this "we know better" mindset, liberals tend to operate on the emotional level (hence the name calling they resort to immediately as soon as they begin to lose an argument), whereas the republican camp typically appeals to logic.

deadringerr 10y ago
Interesting - This is opposite my experience. The conservative party on social issues has been almost synonymous with Christian beliefs as long as I've been alive. Many discussions around modern social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) have boiled down to being called a "sinner", which I consider name calling, and a fundamentally impossible to argue with and actually entirely based on emotion (faith). This is not a situation I have faced with all or even most Republicans, but when I have faced the situation, it was with a Republican.
- ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
  An argument can be made that abortion is a form of murder without resorting to religious arguments. Things having to do with sexual behavior are in the realm of irrational "out of the box" so to speak, trying to bring logic into the discussion doesn't bode well for either side and can lead down a long and treacherous path deep into the ontology of human psyche. Things I'm talking about are "simpler" things like: - gun control. most discussions with liberal anti-gun opponents end up in 2 basic scenarios: "guns are bad mmmk" or "you must be some kind of a gun-toting redneck" - illegal immigration. this is a huge can of [il]logical blunders from the liberal side. but essentially boils down to "dis rasist". - global warming or rather it's anthropological component. normally starts and ends by labeling the opponent "a climate change denier" no matter how adamant one is about trying to convey that this is specifically an anthro component of it that is being discussed. - then there's the ever present "dis rasist" and "h8r" labels used every time there is a racial component to the issue. these are applied at will. don't like Obamacare (or anything Obama)? - "rasist h8r"; think the dude had a gun and not a book when a [black] cop shot him? - "major league racist"... etc ad nauseum. there are other liberal sacred cows but these are just some of the ones talked about more often esp lately with the election and all.
  - deadringerr 10y ago
    I see your point, but, based on your portrayal of your opponents, you appear to be arguing primarily on the internet. Or are you seeing similar short-sighted arguments in person with friends, strangers, family?
    - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
      To be honest lately its to the point where liberals (or rather their media hate machine) painted themselves a picture of a "big bad republican" which takes any discussion down that path pretty quickly in any setting.
      - deadringerr 10y ago
        I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - You've had in person arguments with self-proclaimed liberals (strangers, friends, or otherwise) that all resulted in calling you names rather than continuing a civil discussion? And you have additionally not seen self-proclaimed republicans do similar? I'm making the distinction of in-person discussions only because I do think sweeping negative statements have been made on both sides incessantly for years, but nowhere nearly as toxic or shameless as from the safety of anonymity. If that's the major source of "seeing both sides" for the public majority, seeing venomous Tweets and dismissive Facebook posts, it's no wonder that we're dealing with such a schism of understanding and fundamental respect.
        ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        In person arguments tend to be more civil, no doubt, although that also depends on the settings. Liberal crowds tend to be passive-aggressive in general ("give us our safe space you fn bigots or we'll burn something" :) ) so these in person discussions also only work in "private" settings. Observing this as we speak - "stupid rural whites ("hicks" from the article we're discussing) are to blame for trump's victory" type vibe in the lib news + street protests.
        10y ago

deadringerr 10y ago

Interesting - This is opposite my experience. The conservative party on social issues has been almost synonymous with Christian beliefs as long as I've been alive. Many discussions around modern social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) have boiled down to being called a "sinner", which I consider name calling, and a fundamentally impossible to argue with and actually entirely based on emotion (faith). This is not a situation I have faced with all or even most Republicans, but when I have faced the situation, it was with a Republican.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
An argument can be made that abortion is a form of murder without resorting to religious arguments. Things having to do with sexual behavior are in the realm of irrational "out of the box" so to speak, trying to bring logic into the discussion doesn't bode well for either side and can lead down a long and treacherous path deep into the ontology of human psyche. Things I'm talking about are "simpler" things like: - gun control. most discussions with liberal anti-gun opponents end up in 2 basic scenarios: "guns are bad mmmk" or "you must be some kind of a gun-toting redneck" - illegal immigration. this is a huge can of [il]logical blunders from the liberal side. but essentially boils down to "dis rasist". - global warming or rather it's anthropological component. normally starts and ends by labeling the opponent "a climate change denier" no matter how adamant one is about trying to convey that this is specifically an anthro component of it that is being discussed. - then there's the ever present "dis rasist" and "h8r" labels used every time there is a racial component to the issue. these are applied at will. don't like Obamacare (or anything Obama)? - "rasist h8r"; think the dude had a gun and not a book when a [black] cop shot him? - "major league racist"... etc ad nauseum. there are other liberal sacred cows but these are just some of the ones talked about more often esp lately with the election and all.
- deadringerr 10y ago
  I see your point, but, based on your portrayal of your opponents, you appear to be arguing primarily on the internet. Or are you seeing similar short-sighted arguments in person with friends, strangers, family?
  - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
    To be honest lately its to the point where liberals (or rather their media hate machine) painted themselves a picture of a "big bad republican" which takes any discussion down that path pretty quickly in any setting.
    - deadringerr 10y ago
      I'm sorry, I wasn't clear - You've had in person arguments with self-proclaimed liberals (strangers, friends, or otherwise) that all resulted in calling you names rather than continuing a civil discussion? And you have additionally not seen self-proclaimed republicans do similar? I'm making the distinction of in-person discussions only because I do think sweeping negative statements have been made on both sides incessantly for years, but nowhere nearly as toxic or shameless as from the safety of anonymity. If that's the major source of "seeing both sides" for the public majority, seeing venomous Tweets and dismissive Facebook posts, it's no wonder that we're dealing with such a schism of understanding and fundamental respect.
      - ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
        In person arguments tend to be more civil, no doubt, although that also depends on the settings. Liberal crowds tend to be passive-aggressive in general ("give us our safe space you fn bigots or we'll burn something" :) ) so these in person discussions also only work in "private" settings. Observing this as we speak - "stupid rural whites ("hicks" from the article we're discussing) are to blame for trump's victory" type vibe in the lib news + street protests.
        10y ago