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.
I did a simple search on Palin in P&OC, and looked at the top few results. Almost every post had no substance, just someone calling her 'moron,' 'stupid,' 'idiot' etc. No quotes from her, no criticism of one of her statements, whether spoken or written. No discussion of where she was wrong. Just simple name calling.
One exception was a thread where a poster 'MB1547' links to a piece by Palin in the WSJ, and miracle of miracles, a bunch of lefties find themselves agreeing with what she wrote. Nice post by MB, who says that he/she "can't stand" Palin, but nonetheless is willing to listen thoughtfully. //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...ying-wall.html
What I find interesting about this is that Palin has been on this theme for a long time now. But obviously, almost none of these lefty posters, with all the time they spend on Palin, knew that this was one of her themes.
And again, that thread was an exception. Nearly every other post was just name-calling. I wonder if people ever stop to realize how name-calling tends to make the name-caller look dumb? It exposes that he/she doesn't have any ideas, facts, nor logic in their brain. All they seem to have is a simple, lizard-like animus towards their political opponents.
I'm not saying that they are inherently dumb; I'm sure many of the name-callers are quite intelligent. But I am saying that they've bought into a mentality that, at best, leaves them coming off as dumb.
Same can be said about those who participate in the name calling of our President and democrat leaders.
Sure, there is plenty of name-calling against Obama. But try this little exercise: Search for 'Palin' in PO&C, and take the first 10 anti-Palin posts. You'll probably find that 9 of 10 anti-Palin posts have no substance, just name calling.
Then search for 'Obama' and take the first 10 anti-Obama posts that you find. I think you'll find that most of them have some semblance of substance beyond just name-calling. The rate of pure name-calling post is under 50%, probably closer to 30. By contrast, with Palin the rate is 90%, probably higher over the long haul.
Bottom line, the 'moral equivalence' argument does not work here.
Bottom line, the 'moral equivalence' argument does not work here.
Sure it does. The premise of the thread is not "Palin et al are called stupid the most" it is "name-calling makes you look stupid". How frequently it happens is not at issue. The point is that empty name-calling reflects badly on whomever is doing it.
That said... Palin and Bachman's words have been parsed a thousand and one times in order to make the case for both ladies not being, at the very least, the best off the cuff speakers God ever made. And that's being generous. At some point, people just use shorthand. LOL
I'm only half joking BTW. I'm sure each of them has their strong points and/or a good idea or two, but I think both have supplied plenty of ammunition to their detractors. I'm willing to listen to anyone but I stopped trying with those 2 a long time ago. They may not be drooling morons but "the media" can only be blamed for so much.
Sure it does. The premise of the thread is not "Palin et al are called stupid the most" it is "name-calling makes you look stupid". How frequently it happens is not at issue. The point is that empty name-calling reflects badly on whomever is doing it.
That said... Palin and Bachman's words have been parsed a thousand and one times in order to make the case for both ladies not being, at the very least, the best off the cuff speakers God ever made. And that's being generous. At some point, people just use shorthand. LOL
I'm only half joking BTW. I'm sure each of them has their strong points and/or a good idea or two, but I think both have supplied plenty of ammunition to their detractors. I'm willing to listen to anyone but I stopped trying with those 2 a long time ago. They may not be drooling morons but "the media" can only be blamed for so much
I would argue that a 90%+ rate vs. a 20-40 pct rate does suggest a qualitatively different mentality. But granted, that is just my take.
Suppose, as you claim, 'Palin and Bachmann's words have been parsed a thousand and one times." In the first place, I doubt that. It's rare to see either Palin or Bachmann even quoted. But even if that's true, what then is the point in continuing to talk about them? Bachmann is polling at around 5%, and Palin's not even running. Could it be that you just proved my point? There's a thread about one or the other at least once every three days? Why?
If Palin had once - just ONCE - said anything of substance or consequence then she would be deserving of constructive criticism. As it was she chose to consistently take the low road of cheap shots and thus ended up in the battlefield where the most flattering criticism she can expect is to be called a moron.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap!
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.
