Conservatives more fearful than liberals

[Jimmy Higgins]

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

Why even bring it up then?! What relevance can there be to a conversation to compare the ideology mindset between an irrelevant person and a very prominent religious right advocate?

It is false equivalence juxtaposition, much like W and how his Admin put Hussein next to 9/11 all the time, and then had the gaul, among their supporters as well, to say 'We never said Hussein was behind 9/11.'

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When I said it was "very apt" I was referring to the positions they take, which anyone not caught up on semantics would have understood.

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

Why even bring it up then?!

Because it points to a growing segment of the left that is more like the right on these measures than the left in general. Sorry if that offends or outrages you.

It is false equivalence juxtaposition, much like W and how his Admin put Hussein next to 9/11 all the time, and then had the gaul, among their supporters as well, to say 'We never said Hussein was behind 9/11.'

You seem to be saying that it would be apt to put Sarkesian and Falwell together in their manner of thinking and behaving, but not to name Sarkesian as representative of the left in general. I agree. And that is why I want a term for Sarkesian's type of left, to distinguish it. Otherwise, the sort of juxtaposition that you refer to above coming at us from conservatives will stick. I am open to suggestions for what this term should be. "Regressive" left seemed appropriate but seems to be out of favour now. So what term should we use?

I am a lefty. I am far to the left of most leftminded people in the USA. I am for universal basic income, nudism, legal marijuana and prostitution, absolute free speech (including so called "hate speech" and excluding actual calls for physical harm), and yet I get branded as a conservative on this board because I don't agree with the Sarkesian type of thinking and outrage culture that you see from some posters on here. They will brand anybody who doesn't act on purity and in-group cohesion as a conservative and heap strawmen onto them. That's another sort of juxtaposition and you have engaged in it in this thread. It is exactly what many far right evangelical type conservatives do when people disagree with them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

It only makes sense to talk about 2 individuals in a discussion about what is generally true of two groups, if those individuals are highly typical of and/or well-regarded by most members of those groups. Thus, the fact that Falwell has been highly influential among Conservatives and similar to most conservative leaders but Sarkesian is completely unknown to 99% of liberals is relevant to showing that your post had no relevance to the discussion.

And this is why I keep saying we need a new term for the Sarkesian, Buzzfeed, college campus type of liberal.

I have a word, "irrelevant to non-existent". There, taken care of for you.

They are NOT representative of liberals as a whole, as is evident in the chart in the OP, and the rest of us liberals keep getting lumped in with them by conservatives.

The "rest of us liberals"? Seriously, are you going there. You are about as liberal as Sean Hannity.

Liberals in general are NOT about "safe spaces", "trigger warnings", etc, and do not worry about "mansplaining", "manspreading", etc. Liberals in general do not try to shut down legitimate concerns of video gamers regarding paid off reviews with accusations that gamers are sexists (gamergate).

Yet, a lot of right-wingers love to bitch about how liberals only do that.

Liberals in general are for and not against free speech. They don't crybully universities into restricting free speech in classrooms, or seek to compel the use of particular pronouns and put this into law like we recently saw here in Canada.

This passive aggressive stuff if high quality. Look, I'm not saying liberals are in general for this radical behavior, but liberals are... just not in general... but they are.

Liberals in general do not call everyone that disagrees with them a racist, sexist, etc.

Liberals in general do not sweep actual racism, sexism and homophobia under the rug because the person doing it is of a minority race or is Muslim.

What are liberals like us to do Jolly?

Such people described above, like Sarkesian, or like we see with Buzzfeed articles, are a growing force within liberal people, but they are still a minority among liberal people, and I would like to keep it that way.

Back to that fear thing again.

I would be interested in seeing a chart like in the OP that measures the same over time, or better yet, one that measures what people actually value as measured by behaviour instead of what they will say they do on a survey (I suspect these measures will show some disparity, for both conservatives and liberals).

I'd be more interested in how you consider yourself a "liberal".

 

[laughing dog]

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

Why even bring it up then?!

Because it points to a growing segment of the left that is more like the right on these measures than the left in general. Sorry if that offends or outrages you.

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would require that everyone under some ____ism hold exactly the same views. Bringing up someone on "the left" who is irrelevant is really an implicit and rather alarmist slippery slope argument. Add in your obsession with "the left" and the demonstrated lack of concern about "the right" makes one wonder what the real agenda here is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wich made perfect sense since the text you were responding to explicitly referred to their ways of thinking and said nothing of their notoriety or political influence.

Why even bring it up then?!

Because it points to a growing segment of the left that is more like the right on these measures than the left in general. Sorry if that offends or outrages you.

Offend and outrage? See, this is that 'you have no pulse on liberals' thing I was talking about. Trying to explain what someone's point is wrong isn't a sign of being offended or outraged.

Regardless, somehow comparing a rather non-influential but growing segment (no evidence suggests "it" is "growing") of liberals with a very well established and very high influence religious right advocate isn't false equivalence?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'd be more interested in how you consider yourself a "liberal".

I am a lefty. I am far to the left of most leftminded people in the USA. Clinton and Obama are far far to the right of me. I am for universal health care, universal basic income, nudism, legal marijuana and prostitution, absolute free speech (including so called "hate speech" and excluding actual calls for physical harm), and yet I get branded as a conservative on this board because I don't agree with the Sarkesian type of thinking and outrage culture that you see from some posters on here. They will brand anybody who doesn't act on purity and in-group cohesion as a conservative and heap strawmen onto them. That's another sort of juxtaposition and you have engaged in it in this thread. It is exactly what many far right evangelical type conservatives do when people disagree with them.

(above repeated because you responded to my post before I edited this into it)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Regardless, somehow comparing a rather non-influential but growing segment (no evidence suggests "it" is "growing") of liberals with a very well established and very high influence religious right advocate isn't false equivalence?

Not when talking explicitly about their way of thinking, no it isn't. Their way of thinking is very equivalent.

 

[Angry Floof]

Well, duh. Good to see continuing research on this, though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would require that everyone under some ____ism hold exactly the same views.

Then perhaps you should stop doing so.

Add in your obsession with "the left" and the demonstrated lack of concern about "the right" makes one wonder what the real agenda here is.

Yes of course. There is some nefarious secret agenda at work here. And I can't qualify for you as a liberal because I don't hold exactly the same views under that ____ism. Label me as the other and mischaracterize what I write so you can ignore it or dismiss it without reading or addressing it, like a proper evangelical conservative would do against their outgroup.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it fascinating that any thinking person would require that everyone under some ____ism hold exactly the same views.

Then perhaps you should stop doing so.

I wasn't. So what are you babbling about?

Yes of course. There is some nefarious secret agenda at work here. And I can't qualify for you as a liberal because I don't hold exactly the same views under that ____ism. Label me as the other and mischaracterize what I write so you can ignore it or dismiss it without reading or addressing it, like a proper evangelical conservative would do against their outgroup.

I have not labelled you as anything. So what exactly are you babbling about?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What exactly are you babbling about now?

 

[laughing dog]

What exactly are you babbling about now?

Nothing. Your previous response was literally delusional - you made claims that were obviously false.

Besides, why should anyone be forced to accept that you are "liberal" just because you say you are? There is no proof you are real liberal other than your claims about your beliefs. But we cannot verify those beliefs. And, we have no idea whether you were born as a liberal.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And also, the new SJW left taking over college campuses seems more on the right than left by these measures.

Haw! What was it about fear again and the right wing?

I have been saying for years that the marketing towards conservatives has been based on concentrating on the Id, ie the base instincts.

Reptile brain!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Besides, why should anyone be forced to accept that you are "liberal" just because you say you are? There is no proof you are real liberal other than your claims about your beliefs. But we cannot verify those beliefs. And, we have no idea whether you were born as a liberal.

LOL Maybe I am a trans liberal. ooooooo

 

[Arctish]

Anita Sarkesian and Jerry Falwell are so similar in their ways of thinking and yet we would call one uber liberal and the other uber conservative.

That is quite an apt observation.

What similarities do you see?

ETA: Oh, I see. Jolly thinks Anita Sarkeesian was trying to

shut down legitimate concerns of video gamers regarding paid off reviews with accusations that gamers are sexists (gamergate).

when in fact she was targeted by misogynist trolls two years before Gamergate erupted, and was a main target during the controversy because they already hated her. Why, you might wonder? Because she was working on Tropes vs. Women in Video Games, a series of videos in which she examined how women are portrayed in video games.

All that bullshit about her being unreasonable, uber-radical, as great a threat to liberty as Jerry Falwell, etc. is just a stupid meme the Gamerboys keep alive because they think she's going to take their titty shows away.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As Sarkesian herself pointed out, when you first learn "systems" in these "feminist" university classes, you are programmed to believe that "Everything is sexist, Everything is Racist, Everything is Homophobic, and you've got to point it all out", and become insufferable in doing so. She has admitted to this. But this isn't what I was talking about.

What I was talking about is clear in what I wrote. She and those like her are like Fallwell in that they value purity and authority and think and speak in terms of groups instead of individuals (Ingroup vs outgroup). And as dog pointed out and demonstrated, if you do not agree with all they say then you are not a liberal (or a feminist in the case of somebody like Christina Hoff-Sommers (sp?)) and you get painted as a misogynist, racist, conservative, as Jimmy Higgins demonstrated. Evangelical conservatives like Fallwell do the same thing, touting purity and authority, virtue signalling "I'm a Christian" as if it means they are morally superior, and branding those who disagree with them as evil, satanic, libruls.

 

[laughing dog]

As Sarkesian herself pointed out, when you first learn "systems" in these "feminist" university classes, you are programmed to believe that "Everything is sexist, Everything is Racist, Everything is Homophobic, and you've got to point it all out", and become insufferable in doing so. She has admitted to this. But this isn't actually what I was talking about.

What I was talking about is clear in what I wrote. She and those like her are like Fallwell in that they value purity and authority and think and speak in terms of groups instead of individuals (Ingroup vs outgroup).

And they are like those who value purity and authority and speak in terms of individuals instead of groups.

And as dog pointed out and demonstrated, if you do not agree with all they say then you are not a liberal (or a feminist in the case of somebody like Christina Hoff-Sommers (sp?)) and you get painted as a misogynist, racist, conservative, as Jimmy Higgins demonstrated.

That is a gross misrepresentation of my point. Whether that is intentional or just a result of sloppy/poor reasoning, only JP knows for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, why should anyone be forced to accept that you are "liberal" just because you say you are? There is no proof you are real liberal other than your claims about your beliefs. But we cannot verify those beliefs. And, we have no idea whether you were born as a liberal.

LOL Maybe I am a trans liberal. ooooooo

As usual, you miss the point. We are under no obligation to believe your claims about your political identity based on your say so. Of course, you are free to continue with your hypocritical double standards.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

LOL Maybe I am a trans liberal. ooooooo

As usual, you miss the point. We are under no obligation to believe your claims about your political identity based on your say so. Of course, you are free to continue with your hypocritical double standards.

My political identity isn't relevant, and was only mentioned because Jimmy demanded it. But your demand to brand me as something despite what I write to the contrary is. It is rare that you see somebody mischaracterize another and then insist that the other has no proof they are not the mischaracterization, and that he is entitled to create strawmen. And then ironically complain that somebody may have mischaracterized himself. This is quite a comedy routine you are doing for us. Bravo! You not only demonstrate my point, but you do it in such a silly hypocritical way.

And also, anyone who has read me without bias will see that I have advocated universal healthcare, universal basic income, Bernie Sanders over Hilly Clinton (the corrupt corporatist who bought the primary), and advocated against identity politics and racial pride (in a thread where Crazy Eddie championed both). Anyone who reads that but then decides I must not be a liberal and must be a conservative has ideological blinders on. Sure, you are entitled to delude yourself and scream at straw men of your own creation, but we don't have to take you seriously when you do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Regardless, somehow comparing a rather non-influential but growing segment (no evidence suggests "it" is "growing") of liberals with a very well established and very high influence religious right advocate isn't false equivalence?

Not when talking explicitly about their way of thinking, no it isn't. Their way of thinking is very equivalent.

Much like when Anita said 9/11 was the fault of gays?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

LOL Maybe I am a trans liberal. ooooooo

As usual, you miss the point. We are under no obligation to believe your claims about your political identity based on your say so. Of course, you are free to continue with your hypocritical double standards.

My political identity isn't relevant...

Neither is this Anita's opinion, but you keep bringing it up.

...and was only mentioned because Jimmy demanded it.

I don't ask, I DEMAND!!! *grrrr*

But your demand to brand me as something despite what I write to the contrary is. It is rare that you see somebody mischaracterize another and then insist that the other has no proof they are not the mischaracterization, and that he is entitled to create strawmen. And then ironically complain that somebody may have mischaracterized himself. This is quite a comedy routine you are doing for us. Bravo! You not only demonstrate my point, but you do it in such a silly hypocritical way.

Demonstrate what point? That Person A and Person B have similar mindsets because you say they do?

And also, anyone who has read me without bias will see that I have advocated universal healthcare, universal basic income, Bernie Sanders over Hilly Clinton (the corrupt corporatist who bought the primary), and advocated against identity politics and racial pride (in a thread where Crazy Eddie championed both).

Yeah, the thing is, you almost never post about that stuff. But congrats on being a liberal icon. Your mindset is just like George Soros.