Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmmm...I am a registered independent. I honestly have seen much more liberal left passionate threads and posts here on CD than from the conservative right.
Some are just extremists, you will find them in ANY group and in about any discussion that has at least two sides.
Again, from what I see, the actions pretty much fit the parties here: Democrat=liberal, adamant about their cause. Republican= Conservative, more reserved and willing to have a discussion.
While I do see passion on both sides, I don't share your view. I see plenty of really vicious attacks and a refusal from conservatives to reasonably debate anything. Not always, mind you. But it seems more so from my POV. I do see conservatives say over and over what they see as fact and base their arguments from it like socialism = evil, when lots of the world would beg to differ. I realize there is (probably) no way to systematically measure such a thing, but do you have an example? A look at many of the thread titles does not make the conservatives look terribly reserved and open to discussion.
It would probably be interesting if some right-winger somewhere would actually attempt to explain what motivates right-wingers instead of simply adopting the duck-and-run tactic of disparaging left-wingers and then abandoning the premises.
So far, I think the best, though perhaps not neatest, explanation is <GregW>'s...
Who's ducking? I don't live on the computer. There are other aspects to my life.
The OP isn't asking for the right wing's motivations but is only seeking reaffirmation of his/her belief system. It's like conducting a poll on the opinion of "the people" on their thoughts on air pollution at a Greenpeace rally. It's bound to be a bit one-sided. This isn't to say that I personally disagree with Greenpeace but use it only to illustrate a point. The same would be true of a poll about the 2nd amendment at a NRA meeting. Again it would be one-sided. It's something like asking a man if he's quit beating his wife. How can he answer?
Had the OP truly wanted an answer to the question, he/she would have directed it to the right wing as a question rather than an insult. It's a troll. I do feed trolls from time to time for my own amusement.
Since left wingers are not right wingers, they can't possibly understand the motivations of a right winger but by inviting them to answer the question it loads it considerably.
Since this is clearly a loaded question, I'm simply pointing out the fact that the OP will no doubt get the hoped for responses.
The "right wingers" are nearly always presented as loons; uneducated, thoughtless fools who cannot think for ourselves, and simply follow the "party" line.
The "left wing" is nearly always presented as being intelligent; more highly educated, free thinkers who never follow the "party" line.
The name calling works both ways, folks.
The simple fact is that the right and the left believe in diametrically opposed ways of looking at things, "and never the twain shall meet." At least until the pendulum swings back around.
When the left finds insignificant things to grab and run with, i.e. Obama is being called a community organizer and that this is code for black - which of course means that if the right refers to Obama as having worked as a community organizer, they are racist. Did he hold a job as a community organizer and use that as a basis for his qualification to run the country? Obama has pointed out in his own speeches that the right is "afraid" of him b/c of his skin color, which is a complete and total crock of ****. The left raises questions about whether McCain is eligible to run for president b/c he was born in Panama, but there is plenty of evidence to prove that McCain is still a US citizen; but never seem to mention that there seems to be evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii.
When the right finds insiginifiact things to grab and run with, i.e. any of Biden's legion mistakes and slips while speaking - they are labeled as whiners and cry babies and it is pointed out that they are grasping at straws and panicking.
I cannot remember a time when a conservative candidate was labeled as anything but just barely above the legal definition of a moron, but I also can't remember a time that any liberal candidate was referred to as anything less than brilliant. I am less concerned with were the person went to school, and what grades they got; rather, I am more concerned with whether they are capable of rational thought, and being a Rhodes scholar doesn't mean anything except that they are capable of regurgitating the professors ideas while in class.
Who's ducking? I don't live on the computer. There are other aspects to my life.
The OP isn't asking for the right wing's motivations but is only seeking reaffirmation of his/her belief system. It's like conducting a poll on the opinion of "the people" on their thoughts on air pollution at a Greenpeace rally. It's bound to be a bit one-sided. This isn't to say that I personally disagree with Greenpeace but use it only to illustrate a point. The same would be true of a poll about the 2nd amendment at a NRA meeting. Again it would be one-sided. It's something like asking a man if he's quit beating his wife. How can he answer?
Had the OP truly wanted an answer to the question, he/she would have directed it to the right wing as a question rather than an insult. It's a troll. I do feed trolls from time to time for my own amusement.
Since left wingers are not right wingers, they can't possibly understand the motivations of a right winger but by inviting them to answer the question it loads it considerably.
Since this is clearly a loaded question, I'm simply pointing out the fact that the OP will no doubt get the hoped for responses.
Well, I'm asking you honestly. Read my earlier post where I present a theory of what assumptions conservatives and liberals bring to message boards. I'd like to hear any theories you have about why there is such miscommunication.
The "right wingers" are nearly always presented as loons; uneducated, thoughtless fools who cannot think for ourselves, and simply follow the "party" line.
The "left wing" is nearly always presented as being intelligent; more highly educated, free thinkers who never follow the "party" line.
The name calling works both ways, folks.
The simple fact is that the right and the left believe in diametrically opposed ways of looking at things, "and never the twain shall meet." At least until the pendulum swings back around.
When the left finds insignificant things to grab and run with, i.e. Obama is being called a community organizer and that this is code for black - which of course means that if the right refers to Obama as having worked as a community organizer, they are racist. Did he hold a job as a community organizer and use that as a basis for his qualification to run the country? Obama has pointed out in his own speeches that the right is "afraid" of him b/c of his skin color, which is a complete and total crock of ****. The left raises questions about whether McCain is eligible to run for president b/c he was born in Panama, but there is plenty of evidence to prove that McCain is still a US citizen; but never seem to mention that there seems to be evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii.
When the right finds insiginifiact things to grab and run with, i.e. any of Biden's legion mistakes and slips while speaking - they are labeled as whiners and cry babies and it is pointed out that they are grasping at straws and panicking.
I cannot remember a time when a conservative candidate was labeled as anything but just barely above the legal definition of a moron, but I also can't remember a time that any liberal candidate was referred to as anything less than brilliant. I am less concerned with were the person went to school, and what grades they got; rather, I am more concerned with whether they are capable of rational thought, and being a Rhodes scholar doesn't mean anything except that they are capable of regurgitating the professors ideas while in class.
The same challenge to you that I sent Joe_Rider's way. If you have honest theories about why conservatives and liberals can't seem to ask for directions without someone thinking the question is a loaded one, lets hear it.
I'm glaaaaad you asked 'cause I have theories. Lots of them. I believe that very passionate conservative thinkers/posters want desperately for all issues in the world to fall neatly into right/wrong, yes/no, up/down boxes. Liberal thinkers believe that almost nothing like this exists and in lies the friction on board like this. Liberals get frustrated over and over from not realizing this when they post a comment like "People want X." Because conservative thinkers want the world to be clear black and white, they post a single counterexample and call it a done deal of 'proving the liberal wrong' when all they have done is point out that nothing is absolute. The liberal is then forced to spoon feed the conservative and make what appears to the conservative as backpeddling statements like "Of course I didn't mean every single person wants X..." Liberals do not run into this talking to other liberals because it is understood that such a statement is not absolute. The liberal goes away thinking the conservative is a simpleton and the conservative grins because he 'blew a hole in the argument.'
Wow, I love your example but not the conclusion you get from it. It will allow debate without getting into a specific issue -which inevitably ends up degrading to talking points from both sides.
When you know that not all people do not agree with a statement, why pose it as a universal. you obviously know that people on the right will attack it in that manner. Since the main stream media is left dominated, people on the right spend lots of time listening to both sides so are more careful about how they phrase things. So if your premise is not true, you have not proved the conclusion. This actually is a logical flaw. I can see how it frustrates liberals, but there is nothing wrong with forcing them to think logically in a forum like this. Otherwise we just repeat talking points as if the loudest one or the one with the most rep wins. You can point out the gray of any issue logically but to post it as if it were black and white then get upset when it is correctly pointed out that the issue is not black and white begs the question: which side sees the world in right/wrong yes/no up/down terms? Going back to your example, the right winger is waiting for you to rephrase your argument in a logical manner, but frequently gets the same argument with a caveat that the poster admits the premise is not true, but the conclusion still holds. The left winger might consider the right winger a simpleton, but the right winger surely assumes that the left winger can't understand simple logic and wishes she could get through to their adversary. Rarely "I blew a hole in that one" because that would require that the left winger change it to a new more logical argument, which I have yet to see.
Faith in government versus faith in free individuals. I make up the latter. I suppose I'm a "right wing extremist" because I believe in the constitution, state's rights, hate taxes, and Samuel Adams is my favorite founding father. Liberty goes beyond party lines. Dems and Repubs seem to hate it.
Wow, I love your example but not the conclusion you get from it. It will allow debate without getting into a specific issue -which inevitably ends up degrading to talking points from both sides.
When you know that not all people do not agree with a statement, why pose it as a universal. you obviously know that people on the right will attack it in that manner. Since the main stream media is left dominated, people on the right spend lots of time listening to both sides so are more careful about how they phrase things. So if your premise is not true, you have not proved the conclusion. This actually is a logical flaw. I can see how it frustrates liberals, but there is nothing wrong with forcing them to think logically in a forum like this. Otherwise we just repeat talking points as if the loudest one or the one with the most rep wins. You can point out the gray of any issue logically but to post it as if it were black and white then get upset when it is correctly pointed out that the issue is not black and white begs the question: which side sees the world in right/wrong yes/no up/down terms? Going back to your example, the right winger is waiting for you to rephrase your argument in a logical manner, but frequently gets the same argument with a caveat that the poster admits the premise is not true, but the conclusion still holds. The left winger might consider the right winger a simpleton, but the right winger surely assumes that the left winger can't understand simple logic and wishes she could get through to their adversary. Rarely "I blew a hole in that one" because that would require that the left winger change it to a new more logical argument, which I have yet to see.
You are kind of proving it. A liberal assumes that reasonable people know when a person makes a statement like "People like X" that it obviously does not apply to every single being alive and dead. If I mean "every single person" which applies in so very few circumstances, I say "every single person..." If we all had to put full undeniable disclaimers on every statement, nothing would ever get done. We would spend days and days going over nuances.
So, are you admitting that conservative thinkers do this? That they latch onto a phrase such as "People like X" and do nothing with X, just exploit the literal interpretation of "People?" Isn't there a shorthand we can rely on to get around the full programming language conservatives apparently need?
The "right wingers" are nearly always presented as loons; uneducated, thoughtless fools who cannot think for ourselves, and simply follow the "party" line.
The "left wing" is nearly always presented as being intelligent; more highly educated, free thinkers who never follow the "party" line.
The name calling works both ways, folks.
The simple fact is that the right and the left believe in diametrically opposed ways of looking at things, "and never the twain shall meet." At least until the pendulum swings back around.
When the left finds insignificant things to grab and run with, i.e. Obama is being called a community organizer and that this is code for black - which of course means that if the right refers to Obama as having worked as a community organizer, they are racist. Did he hold a job as a community organizer and use that as a basis for his qualification to run the country? Obama has pointed out in his own speeches that the right is "afraid" of him b/c of his skin color, which is a complete and total crock of ****. The left raises questions about whether McCain is eligible to run for president b/c he was born in Panama, but there is plenty of evidence to prove that McCain is still a US citizen; but never seem to mention that there seems to be evidence that Obama may have been born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii.
When the right finds insiginifiact things to grab and run with, i.e. any of Biden's legion mistakes and slips while speaking - they are labeled as whiners and cry babies and it is pointed out that they are grasping at straws and panicking.
I cannot remember a time when a conservative candidate was labeled as anything but just barely above the legal definition of a moron, but I also can't remember a time that any liberal candidate was referred to as anything less than brilliant. I am less concerned with were the person went to school, and what grades they got; rather, I am more concerned with whether they are capable of rational thought, and being a Rhodes scholar doesn't mean anything except that they are capable of regurgitating the professors ideas while in class.
Well I supose it depends if you are talking about lunatic "right wingers", or rational, thoughtful conservatives. I have always had great respect for Colin Powell, ditto John McCain, until really recently, and a few others, as well (the first George Bush, for instance). However. . . . . I don't see much rational conservative dialogue these days.
OK, everyone has different opinions re: politics, the role of government, taxes, and so forth. But sometimes we all come across a certain type of individual who is extremely "passionate" about their opinions and beliefs. We often see them in the letters to the editor, or online in the "blogosphere", or in forums like this. And they're usually pretty easy to identify, often "shouting" with lot's of ALL CAPS, or BOLD LETTERING, along with plenty of exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!
I guess I am one of them, especially when I ask a question and they dont answer it.
Quote:
In addition, there's often a certain "chip on the shoulder" combativeness, oversensitivity to critcism, and the use of rhetorical weapons, like broad labels and ad hominem attacks (Liberals = Communists), 'over-the-top' accusations ("Obama is a Terrorist!"), or straw man arguments ("Why do Democrats hate America?", etc.).
I dont think liberals= communist.
And I dont think Democrats hate america.
Quote:
Now there may be some folks of the "liberal" persuasion who meet that description. But seems to me that this is largely a Conservative, Right Wing phenomenon. They're also referred to as "the Base", or disparagingly as the "Wingnuts", the folks who don't just vote for the Party or the Candidate, they're ideologically driven and act as soldiers in the front line of politics.
You see, now in my opinion liberals are worst, usually liberal are more radical. Like Code Pink, like the riot outside the RNC, or blocking Sarah Palin motorcade
So if you agree with that so far, what do you think motivates all this extreme passion and intensity? There are some opinions that these are basically Narcissists who obtain Narcissistic Supply (ego validation) from their writings and the reactions. Others have suggested that it's basically an Authoritarian personality type. Or like the Taliban, and certain other fundamentalist groups, are they simply rebelling against the modern world?
I really dont know ask the liberals why they are so radicals.
Quote:
And also, are the days of the Right Wing as influential "King-makers" finally ending....?
No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
