next »

[claragold]

Except when the conflation is inappropriate and shoddy, or an ignorant stereotype, or a strawman, such as what tangy loves to do with "conservatives" (recent thread on Hollywood comes to mind). And then we look at how this thread is going, and who popped in to comment about labels?

Of all people...

(I think you answered your own question there cg)

I think you just reinforced the silly, self-aggrandizing stereotype you have about liberals never using the label "conservative" in inappropriate ways...

Stereotypes I have? And "popped in?"  Huh?

"Except when the conflation is inappropriate and shoddy, or an ignorant stereotype, or a strawman, such as what ***tangy*** loves to do with "conservatives" (recent thread on Hollywood comes to mind). And then we look at how this thread is going, and who popped in to comment about labels? "

See the monicker stressed above? After posting just one more example of his ridiculously stereotyped and shoddy use of the label "conservative" on another thread, but a couple of days ago, tangy pops in here to make speeches about the label...

It's a joke.

[lincolns_ghost]

Well, it was hard to tell since you directly quoted me after the line "look who pops in..." on that original post above.

Frankly, I guess I don't take this all very seriously, its a good place for some fun conversation about what I do for a living with people who understand that black humor is humor not a suicide threat. And I often get some good perspective on professional interests.

I suppose that if I got as angry as you do about the mob of liberals you feel surrounded by, I'd go to a site with forums that are more conservative. You'll end up with a nervous breakdown at the rate you are going.  I find that "Free Republic.com" has a nice assortment of restful conservatives of all stripes.

[t_r_b]

"Except when the conflation is inappropriate and shoddy, or an ignorant stereotype, or a strawman, such as what ***tangy*** loves to do with "conservatives" (recent thread on Hollywood comes to mind). And then we look at how this thread is going, and who popped in to comment about labels? "

See the monicker stressed above? After posting just one more example of his ridiculously stereotyped and shoddy use of the label "conservative" on another thread, but a couple of days ago, tangy pops in here to make speeches about the label...

It's a joke.

It sure is, though it does become a bit less humorous each time you repeat it. But keep it coming, if you like: tell me all about myself.

[fizmath]

LOL  I assume that you're in the humanities somewhere?  The majority of science, math, and engineering faculty I know are fairly conservative or libertarian.  Lots of us go to graduate school and quite a few get jobs in the academy.  I think that you've forgotten that most higher degree holders do not work at universities, but in the private sector - especially those in the above mentioned fields.  The idea that we're not bothered by current events - I'm not even sure where to begin addressing that nonsense.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I think that many (most?) of us keep our heads down around other faculty members.  I have no data that the leftist faculty members would hold a grudge against me but, given their very outspoken and often rude comments about conservatives, I don't really want to find out, either.  If that's apolitical, so be it.

Actually I am in Physics.  What I mean is that by apolitical is that science and engineering types are less likely to discuss over lunch what was on The Daily Show the previous night.  They are less likely to get politically involved to the point of actually showing up at a campaign event.

[litcrittr82]

And, since we find liberals of various kinds lumping together different conservatives, what is your problem with using the word liberal in my post?

I have no problem with it.  I'm saying if you're going to lump then lump, if you're going to be more precise then be more precise; but don't apply a double standard when naming 'liberals' and 'conservatives.'  The only criterion you've given for referring to liberals in blanket terms but calling for more specific terminology for conservatives is that you're addressing a 'liberal' opposition.  Well, in my view, addressing the opposition calls *even more* for specificity.   

[claragold]

I suppose that if I got as angry as you do about the mob of liberals you feel surrounded by, I'd go to a site with forums that are more conservative. You'll end up with a nervous breakdown at the rate you are going.  I find that "Free Republic.com" has a nice assortment of restful conservatives of all stripes.

I think liberals love to picture conservatives as angry as they are. I was surprised to read the "as angry as you do" above; my guess is that it is a result  of how you stereotype anyone you stick the "conservative" label on.

You must have already constructed me in your mind as someone who seethes instead of laughing at a lot that's on the fora, ah, those nasty subterranean stereotypes. Or perhaps if anyone is ever firm or a little combative and spousing a conservative viewpoint, you immediately interpret it as something extremely horrible, as " extremely virulent, angry, and full of hate." If a liberal acts in the same way, then, well, you know, they are just discussing a point. Liberals love to throw emotionally  extreme labels at conservatives, specially when the conservative is calm and the liberal is angry.
 
One thing that I find quite disturbing, speaking of liberals, is to see that liberals often project onto  other people their own faults, as if it were the other party that was guilty. If they did this as mere hypocrites it wouldn't be so bad. What is disturbing is when this is the result of being so  cognitively and emotionally challenged that their perception of themselves and others is seriously distorted, almost in a reverse mirror sort of way.

I'm not saying, btw, that you do all these things, I'm just listing related comments and observations.

Thanks for the FreeRepublic link, I'll check it out.

[litcrittr82]

In light of your last post, claragold, I'm recapitulating mine:

And, since we find liberals of various kinds lumping together different conservatives, what is your problem with using the word liberal in my post?

I have no problem with it.  I'm saying if you're going to lump then lump, if you're going to be more precise then be more precise; but don't apply a double standard when naming 'liberals' and 'conservatives.'  The only criterion you've given for referring to liberals in blanket terms but calling for more specific terminology for conservatives is that you're addressing a 'liberal' opposition.  Well, in my view, addressing the opposition calls *even more* for specificity.   

You're doing a better job arguing with yourself than I ever could arguing with you.

[t_r_b]

One thing that I find quite disturbing, speaking of liberals, is to see that liberals often project onto  other people their own faults, as if it were the other party that was guilty. If they did this as mere hypocrites it wouldn't be so bad. What is disturbing is when this is the result of being so  cognitively and emotionally challenged that their perception of themselves and others is seriously distorted, almost in a reverse mirror sort of way.

This is really quite beautiful. It raises the standards of unintentional (?) self-parody on these fora to new heights. Nicely done.

[lincolns_ghost]

Well, first you are assuming I'm liberal (by any definition).

Second, and most peculiarly, you don't argue any conservative positions or ideas in any posts I've run across on many active threads but only assert you are "conservative" and talk about emotions, lables, and feelings.  I'm talking about your claims that someone on one thread is "hyperventilating" and that people who ask about logic in relation to use of "umbrella" terms are automatically assumed to be "liberals." 

Whether you intend to or not, you *sound* (in your posts) like your head might explode.  Its an internet forum, its just not worth the risk to your health.

[claragold]

Whether you intend to or not, you *sound* (in your posts) like your head might explode.  Its an internet forum, its just not worth the risk to your health.

That is just my point. My "voice" and the tone and the emotional intensity degree are created largely or completely by you in your head. That is the "sound" that you hear when you read silently what you call my "extremely angry" posts, where I'm supposedly about to explode. The more you project anger in my texts, the angrier "I'll" appear to your own perception.

I say this because I know how often I've gotten a kick of writing things here, how often I've been calm, the times that I've been annoyed at the shoddiness of some responses or attitudes, but saying "that my head is about to explode" is so schizophrenic compared to reality.

Perhaps you can't discern this simple psychological phenomenon when you read and so you think you are correctly building everyone's emotional tone in your head as the writer originally felt them, when, in reality, you're creating nothing but your particular deranged versions.

[invinoveritas]

Wow...someone should have posted a warning earlier to wear knee-highs before wading through all this. 

Here's a question.  Why do those who defend the opposing 'sides' in these kinds of debates always accuse the other of 'lumping' them together with the rest of their side (and then act very offended at this....)?

Don't we all know that not everyone who defends some kind of conservatism is necessarily a gun carrying oil executive anti-abortion fundamental christian wingnut who really doesn't give a damn about anything but their bank account?  And don't we all know that not everyone who defends liberal points is necessarily a tree-hunging naive vegetarian bleeding heart pot-smoking marx-reading hippie?

We need to get beyond this stuff....seriously.

I'm very liberal.  I see nothing but poor arguments on the other side.  I'm tired of seeing both sides in these kind of debates degenerate into a volley of ad hominens though.  Speak your mind and point out the problems with your opponents' positions.  Leave the tiresome fallacies at the door (unless you're making a joke!).

[dolljepopp]

And don't we all know that not everyone who defends liberal points is necessarily a tree-hunging naive vegetarian bleeding heart pot-smoking marx-reading hippie?

Those of us that are tree-hunging naive vegetarian bleeding heart pot-smoking marx-reading hippies would be very offended by your tone if we weren't so high.


<glides away to eat three bags of potato chips>

[litcrittr82]

Briefly, as I've said, I have no issues at all with labels (which are heuristic practically by definition); I just like people to remain consistent in their labeling.  Simply put, don't accuse anyone of labeling too broadly while you're labeling broadly in the same breath.

More importantly, *writing* is the medium here, and writing carries with it a medium-specific set of responsibilities.  Since readers can't get inside your head and read your mind, claragold, just as readers can't get inside of Charles Dickens' head and read his, authorial intent doesn't matter as much as what the text says.  And what the text says isn't wholly arbitrary and open for any interpretation.  When you write, regardless of intent, you create a tone and a voice and all of that.  And anyone with basic reading skills can point to textual examples that support and reflect a given (angry, defensive) tone.  No one has the right to assume that you yourself are angry; but your writing sure is.  This is *not* projecting, nor is it a 'psychological phenomenon.'  It's called reading.  And most people on the fora are quite adept at it, I've learned. 

[lincolns_ghost]

Briefly, as I've said, I have no issues at all with labels (which are heuristic practically by definition); I just like people to remain consistent in their labeling.  Simply put, don't accuse anyone of labeling too broadly while you're labeling broadly in the same breath.

More importantly, *writing* is the medium here, and writing carries with it a medium-specific set of responsibilities.  Since readers can't get inside your head and read your mind, claragold, just as readers can't get inside of Charles Dickens' head and read his, authorial intent doesn't matter as much as what the text says.  And what the text says isn't wholly arbitrary and open for any interpretation.  When you write, regardless of intent, you create a tone and a voice and all of that.  And anyone with basic reading skills can point to textual examples that support and reflect a given (angry, defensive) tone.  No one has the right to assume that you yourself are angry; but your writing sure is.  This is *not* projecting, nor is it a 'psychological phenomenon.'  It's called reading.  And most people on the fora are quite adept at it, I've learned. 

Yeah, and asking about the logic of your own arguments and expressing concern that you (again, as I said) *sound* very upset, doesn't make me a "liberal" or "angry" nor is it "projecting."  It was actually concern. Concern that if *you* are as emotionally invested as you sound then you might want to either find company you find more congenial or invest a little less in what is only a discussion board that most of us just use for fun more than for serious discussion of our real-life core philosophies or feelings.
Nothing more, nothing less.

And, I still stand by my original statement, you don't offer any cogent arguments about any brand of conservative ideology in any threads, you just make repeated "brave stands" against what you insist is a universal "liberalism."  Even when a thread has no active socio-political topic. Again, there are plenty of "conservatives" of all types on this forum and certainly in academia. The only place there are not is in the imaginations of cable talk show hosts and other demogogues.  If you don't know that, I can't believe you are really anywhere close to an academic work/education environment.

[claragold]

And, since we find liberals of various kinds lumping together different conservatives, what is your problem with using the word liberal in my post?

I have no problem with it.  I'm saying if you're going to lump then lump, if you're going to be more precise then be more precise; but don't apply a double standard when naming 'liberals' and 'conservatives.'  The only criterion you've given for referring to liberals in blanket terms but calling for more specific terminology for conservatives is that you're addressing a 'liberal' opposition. Well, in my view, addressing the opposition calls *even more* for specificity.   

It would be nice if you could keep minimal factual standards when posting. There is just so much fallacy above, it's not even worth correcting every thing you say which is made up or distorted.