See? Liberalism IS a mental disorder.... (2 Viewers)

[Squeezebox]

Before this turns ugly, please keep it civil and post with thought, not with silly one liners and quips attacking one side or the other...

Well said, bro

 

[Richard]

Can we merge this with the "I am an idiot" thread? Kthxbai

OnePeat probably appreciates your providing an example of what he asked that we not do.

I haven't read this guy's book and know nothing of his credentials. It appears that he started with a premise and built around that foundation with what he believes to be supporting statements. Someone could write a similar book about conservatives if one wanted to take the extreme position and the most negative view of that philosophy, then build around those things.

 

[mister pc]

its always a debacle when somebody who hates "liberals" attempts to define the political philosophy of "liberalism". There is no attempt at accurately depicting the thoughts and reasoning behind liberal positions, the agenda is 100% to portray the other side as irrationally as possible and intentionally overlook the real reasoning for liberal beliefs. Aside from this disingenuousness, I think its quite arrogant to assume that when someone arrives at a different viewpoint than your own, its because that person has a mental defect of some kind.

 

[Squeezebox]

Until the voices in my head tell me to believe otherwise, I'll be as liberal as they come.

Thinking it's the result of a mental disorder is just stupid.

 

[KardiacKat]

It's true though. Some people from the left marginalize conservatives and their ideas by attempting to link them to Hitler, racists or other such nonsense. Then righties try to slam any kind of liberal idea as a mental disorder or a way to get the government to control every facet of someone's life.

It's just silly. Debate ideas and policies from a logical POV. I recently watched a great debate on YouTube between Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley. What's striking about the debate, filmed during the 60's, is how civil, and respectful, these men were even though they're completely different ideologically. They didn't sit there and call each other names for an hour, which is what happens nowadays.

The problem is that we have two countries now. There is the Republican USA and the Democrat USA. We like the fight more than we like either of these countries, and we damn sure like it more than abandoning either side and remembering that we are one country. We enjoy hating the other side. We relish it. It is the new national passtime.

How is it that around here I would likely be labeled a liberal, but my old college friends sometimes refer to me as the "token fascist?" It's because we have reached the point in our so-called debating in which you aren't allowed to have a moderate view or have some more liberal views and some more conservative views. You have to be one or the other because it's time to duke it out. The fact of the matter is, we like being polarized. We like it that our neighbor across the street with the Obama sign or our coworker with the McCain bumper sticker can be our enemy. It's fun! And we can never expect better of our politicians as long as we think this is fun. After all, this is a representative republic. Our officials are truly the face of the electorate.

 

[wamland]

con⋅serv⋅a⋅tive

&#8194;<script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script src="http://cache.lexico.com/js/AC_RunActiveContent.js" language="javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FC07%2FC0770500.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FC07%2FC0770500.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"><noscript></noscript>&#8194;/k&#601;n&#712;s&#604;r

v&#601;

t&#618;v/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh

n-sur-vuh-tiv]
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
Related Words for : conservativeconservativist, cautious, button-down, buttoned-down, bourgeois

lib&#8901;er&#8901;al

&#8194;<script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script src="http://cache.lexico.com/js/AC_RunActiveContent.js" language="javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL02%2FL0226200.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL02%2FL0226200.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"><noscript></noscript>&#8194;/&#712;l&#618;b

&#601;r

&#601;l, &#712;l&#618;b

r&#601;l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uh

l
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35">4.</td> <td>favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">5.</td> <td>favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">6.</td> <td>of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex" width="35">7.</td> <td>free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex" width="35">8.</td> <td>open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Related Words for : liberalbroad, large-minded, tolerant, progressive, big


bor&#8901;ing

2&#8194;<script language="javascript">AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</script><script src="http://cache.lexico.com/js/AC_RunActiveContent.js" language="javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript">var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" />", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FB05%2FB0513900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();</script><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf" id="speaker" quality="high" loop="false" menu="false" salign="t" flashvars="soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FB05%2FB0513900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=47b3fa79&u=audio" wmode="transparent" width="17" align="texttop" height="15"><noscript></noscript>&#8194;/&#712;b&#596;r

&#618;&#331;, &#712;bo&#650;r-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bawr-ing

Synonyms:
dull, tiresome, tedious.

 

[KardiacKat]

It's interesting that the dictionary definitions paint a very rosy picture of liberals and a very negative picture of conservatives, and I think Brophy indicated earlier that this was a problem. The definitions. I know conservative people who would protest that definition by saying, "I'm not opposed to change, I just don't want to jump off the cliff without a parachute," or, in terms of so-called traditional values, "I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater." And there are those also who would add to the definitions of liberal something along the lines of "having a disdain for traditional practices."

Liberals need to understand that just because an approach is old fashioned doesn't mean it is bad. Conservatives need to understand that just because something is new doesn't mean it is dangerous.

 

[BIG E]

I'm sure there's an argument against this guys writing, but how do you argue against this.

 

[City Champ]

I'm sure there's an argument against this guys writing, but how do you argue against this.

oh look thoughtless one liner (pic) attacking a side.
I could very well post a pic of several nut jobs on the right, but I hope that this thread can fly above such drivel and turn into a well thought out and intelligent debate.

Please refrain from taking pot shots, at least in this ONE DAMN THREAD!!!

 

[brophy]

Y'know, there may be no better (short) example for 'debate' than the one pointed to earlier regarding Chomsky and Buckley. The only time you get to hear a true 'debate' in this country is if you attend an academic convention or something of the like.

What passes for 'debate' in our culture is nothing more than sensationalist kabuki, and its sad.

We lower our standards to simply embrace feel-good, codified, with-us-or-against-us positions that typically never even provide a true solution.

Is it our quest to dominate (and drown out any second-thought) or simply the ego-need to be on a "winning" team? Or is it something more?

Does having the ONE way idea give us a (false) security blanket that we can cling to?

 

[KardiacKat]

OK, I'll take it. I saw her on Olberman a while back and the entire segment was about how someone had criticized her. She made mockery of the mockery, and that was it. One of the chief problems with the celebritards on the left and the so-called commentators on the right (O'Reilly and whoever that is who cries for America every afternoon) is that the fact they express their opinion has become the primary thing. Not even the opinion itself and certainly not the actual issue. Just the fact they said it and somebody liked it and somebody didn't. It's like 9th grade.

 

[City Champ]

Y'know, there may be no better (short) example for 'debate' than the one pointed to earlier regarding Chomsky and Buckley. The only time you get to hear a true 'debate' in this country is if you attend an academic convention or something of the like.

What passes for 'debate' in our culture is nothing more than sensationalist kabuki, and its sad.

We lower our standards to simply embrace feel-good, codified, with-us-or-against-us positions that typically never even provide a true solution.

Is it our quest to dominate (and drown out any second-thought) or simply the ego-need to be on a "winning" team? Or is it something more?

Does having the ONE way idea give us a (false) security blanket that we can cling to?

I am reading "The Audacity of Hope" and in his chapter named "Republicans and Democrats" Obama states the exact same thing. He does a very eloquent job of describing the break down of the gentile congress to what we unfortunately have today. I suggest anyone, liberal, conservative, or indifferent to read his books. He is a very intelligent and impressive writer.

 

[MackeyM]

I could very well post a pic of several nut jobs on the right, but I hope that this thread can fly above such drivel and turn into a well thought out and intelligent debate.

Please refrain from taking pot shots, at least in this ONE DAMN THREAD!!!

The problem is that the title of the thread and literature offered up in the original post denigrate the opposition and marginalize it to a mental disorder.

This does two things:

First, it trivializes actual mental disorders and those people with them, which is insulting and immature.

Second, it puts one side of the discussion on the defensive through slander before any debate has taken place, thus reducing the chances for a real discussion of political, ideological, and philosophical differences.

Both of these reduce the level of intellectual discourse needed for a civil discussion. Taking this thesis serious is disgraceful and disingenuous, and supports the criticisms of the current polarized political climate.

You don't begin a civil debate by deriding the opposing participants as "crazy".

 

[IntenseSaint]

oh look thoughtless one liner (pic) attacking a side.
I could very well post a pic of several nut jobs on the right, but I hope that this thread can fly above such drivel and turn into a well thought out and intelligent debate.

Please refrain from taking pot shots, at least in this ONE DAMN THREAD!!!

How come you admonished Big E for his post about being a one liner but you didn't say anything to chatawaclan who posted a one liner immediately after you called for civil discourse.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I'm sure there's an argument against this guys writing, but how do you argue against this.

what's your point? just because i don't find Garafolo attractive doesn't mean i would immediately discount what she has to say... just as i wouldn't discount anything Rush Limbaugh has to say just because he is a fat white guy.