Why are liberals so condescending?

[shagdrum]

Until recent decades it was (and I would argue that it still is) virtually impossible to avoid liberal thought but you had to make an effort to seek out right of center thought. This was due, chiefly to the virtual monopoly of liberalism in the media and entertainment, but also having to do with the liberal dominance in academia. While that monopoly in the media is broken, it is, at best, empirically unclear weather or not that is happening in academia. However there are two facts to consider on this regard:

• With the media there are strong market forces hastening that "balancing" of viewpoints. These market forces, for a number of reasons, are largely not at play in academia. Hence, there is very little to circumvent the entrenched resistance in academic circles against the "balancing" of viewpoints.
• In the hard sciences, where truth is much more easily verified (then the soft sciences), a shift from one scientific paradigm to a newer, more accurate scientific paradigm tends to ultimately happen very slowly as the older generation of academics give way to a newer generation. The fact that social sciences have a much harder time empirically verify truths only slows (if not stalls) that change further.

Considering these two fact, it seems highly unlikely that the situation in academia has changed to such an extend as to be less then conductive to these narratives.

I think you don't give enough weight to the notion of living in a leftist ideological bubble. Almost all of my liberal friends live in an ideological bubble. Their politics for the most part, start with The Daily Show and end with Bill Mahr (with some MSNBC and NPR thrown in for good measure). I am, in most cases, their "token conservative" friend. And this is in KANSAS; one of the brightest red states in the union.

In fact, Lawrence, Kansas is a college town and most any Kansan at all familiar with Lawrence politics will tell you that Lawrence is in it's own political bubble in Kansas. Colleges are notorious for being in their own intellectual and social bubble. Even today, you can go through college and avoid genuine conservative thought but you can not go through college and avoid liberal thought.

While there certainly is a greater diversity of news sources, that doesn't mean that everyone is exposed to all those news sources let alone that everyone considers true conservative thought (as opposed to simple policy positions and/or straw man misrepresentations of conservative thought). Only by consistently considering conservative thought can the narratives Alexander talks about be dispelled.

Regardless, weather or not modern academia is conductive to the formation of the narratives Alexander talks about is irrelevant. These narrative have been developed over decades if not generations. The "Southern Strategy" idea can be traced back at least as far as the 1970's, and the other narratives can be traced back even earlier.

All that matters is weather or not academia and the MSM is conductive to maintaining those narratives. One of the insidious things about these narratives is that after they are propagated enough, they are almost self maintaining. A few simply cherry picked facts are all that is occasionally needed to reinforce these narratives.

The narratives Alexander speaks of have been around longer then I have been alive and have become ubiquitous in American political discourse.

I think the biggest point of contention between us on this is in the area of whether or not the sensationalist narratives draw by polemics tend to rise to the same level as the narratives Alexander is talking about. Alexander spells out the reasoning why he thinks those 4 narratives rise beyond the level of typical political narratives and even more sensationalist narratives stemming from polemics.

Why, specifically, do you disagree with that? What premises of that argument do you not accept?

 

[shagdrum]

As to the issue of knowledge, I would agree that "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution'" can, after a point, go hand in hand with attempts to direct infinitely complex social interactions and/or social institutions, I would not agree that those are, in and of themselves, self-evident results. At best, a correlation, but there is no direct causation.

How do you see "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution" arising?. How does this attempt at controlling the uncontrollable play into or facilitate those ultimate results?

 

[FIND]

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

I find this statement funny and ironic.

Especially since you spend the rest of the thread arguing that Foxy's article is not just wrong, but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

I mean honestly, step back for a minute and consider the irony of the article. The article is devoted to saying liberals are much worse than conservatives, because all they do is say coservatives are much worse than liberals. You could take that whole article, and replace every instance of liberal with conservative, and every instance of conservative with liberal, and it would pretty much make the same amount of sense. (aside from obvious references, but let's not nit-pick)

 

[FIND]

It's been covered ad nauseum already - it's common knowledge. Do a search.

Or, wait...

That is a lot of links of people playing the blame game. Most of Washington for the past 12 years deserves the credit for all that.

 

[fossten]

That is a lot of links of people playing the blame game. Most of Washington for the past 12 years deserves the credit for all that.

There were very specific people in charge of these programs and regulations. They are still in charge of them, and are re-instituting the laws that caused the collapse in the first place. If you don't learn from history, you repeat it. These people should be in jail for the destruction they've caused.

 

[shagdrum]

Find, you demanded scholarly work in an earlier thread, you have it. If you have nothing constructive to offer; if you are going to simply be defensive and dismissive, feel free to leave.

 

[FIND]

Find, you demanded scholarly work in an earlier thread, you have it. If you have nothing constructive to offer; if you are going to simply be defensive and dismissive, feel free to leave.

You are taking that stuff too far. There are negative stereotypes to both "sides" Besides, I was pointing out just a little bit of the humor and irony I found in that. I could really care less about propaganda, and if you cannot tell the difference between biased sources and scholarly sources, or propaganda and fact, then you really need to re-evaluate the way you analyze things.

That does not make them true for all cases however, that would be a hasty generalization. I don't care how much propaganda you can offer, the people on one side are not better or brighter than the other, both sides have their failings, and both sides have their brilliance. There are ideas on both sides of the fence that are correct, and ideas on both sides that are wrong. The fact that you insist on extreme affiliation to one school of thought is far more of a commentary on your lack of credibility than any cheap joke I have ever made when you begin your ranting, wailing, dismissive, mis-representative or misdirectional posts.


If you are simply going to be defensive and dismissive every time I post, feel free to leave.

See how stupid it sounds when someone tells you to leave a forum just because they are annoyed? Of course, in your case, it is obviously intellectual immaturity and the fact that you cannot handle confrontation by people who can logically analyze something and relies on fact instead of rhetoric.

 

[fossten]

If you are simply going to be defensive and dismissive every time I post, feel free to leave.

See how stupid it sounds when someone tells you to leave a forum just because they are annoyed? Of course, in your case, it is obviously intellectual immaturity and the fact that you cannot handle confrontation by people who can logically analyze something and relies on fact instead of rhetoric.

Well that wouldn't be you. Quit projecting.

You demand a scholarly source, and then move the goalposts. Obviously your only goal here is to harass and insult.

Seriously, it's about every third post that you lose it and start hurling insults. Have you no self control? Seek help.

 

[FIND]

Well that wouldn't be you. Quit projecting.

You demand a scholarly source, and then move the goalposts. Obviously your only goal here is to harass and insult.

Seriously, it's about every third post that you lose it and start hurling insults. Have you no self control? Seek help.

Moving the goalposts?

WTF?

When I say scholarly, I want academic review that cites factual information. I don't want opinion. I will grant shag, that in this case the opinion is far more justified and credible than in many previous cases, as they have a great deal of justification for their statements, however the use of rhetoric and association to justify some of their other statements still is not enough. Scholarly implies lack of bias.

Hurling insults? Well, perhaps you could consider that last line rather insulting, but then again, the truth hurts sometimes. At least I still haven't sunk to the levels of your temper tantrums and accusations.

 

[fossten]

Moving the goalposts?

WTF?

When I say scholarly, I want academic review that cites factual information. I don't want opinion. I will grant shag, that in this case the opinion is far more justified and credible than in many previous cases, as they have a great deal of justification for their statements, however the use of rhetoric and association to justify some of their other statements still is not enough. Scholarly implies lack of bias.

Your response is a non sequitur.

How do you know the seminar doesn't cite factual information? That's an illogical assumption on your part - and anyway, this seminar looks to be rebutting assumptions, which would require a lot of factual information. Lack of bias is impossible to determine, as you know - and impossible to satisfy someone of your level of bias. Can you say moving the goalposts still further? Furthermore, Shag's source appears to be combating bias. What do you have against hearing both sides of a story? I see you bleating about 'both sides' a lot - yet when the 'other side' is represented, you spew straw men and move the goalposts and generally gnash your teeth and thrash about.

You would do better to quit whining and making demands of people if you are trying to generate a persona of having good faith discussions. As it stands right now, you're nothing but a troll and Shag is clearly the last remaining person who still attempts to have a calm conversation with you. That won't last much longer if you keep acting like a petulant interwebz warrior child.

Hurling insults? Well, perhaps you could consider that last line rather insulting, but then again, the truth hurts sometimes. At least I still haven't sunk to the levels of your temper tantrums and accusations.

Short memory, have we? I guess you forget anything that you say, but nothing that I say. How narcissistic. But I don't sink to the levels of your flawed arguments and faulty premises, so maybe we're even.

I also like your lame ad hominem attempt to dodge the FACT that you are still spewing insults at people despite having no provocation to do so. You appear to like confrontation. Rest assured, if your purpose here is to harass, stalk, and attack, you'll get a lot of it in kind or else you'll be ignored.

 

[FIND]

Your response is a non sequitur.

Oh, how so? Or do you know what that word means?

How do you know the seminar doesn't cite factual information? That's an illogical assumption on your part - and anyway, this seminar looks to be rebutting assumptions, which would require a lot of factual information. Lack of bias is impossible to determine, as you know - and impossible to satisfy someone of your level of bias. Can you say moving the goalposts still further? Furthermore, Shag's source appears to be combating bias. What do you have against hearing both sides of a story? I see you bleating about 'both sides' a lot - yet when the 'other side' is represented, you spew straw men and move the goalposts and generally gnash your teeth and thrash about.

If his source was citing both sides of the story, it would be unbiased.... I have nothing against hearing both sides of the story. As I said before, there are morons on both sides. Trying to prove through rhetoric that your side is better than the other is propaganda, not combating bias. Where have I called one side worse than the other?

You would do better to quit whining and making demands of people if you are trying to generate a persona of having good faith discussions. As it stands right now, you're nothing but a troll and Shag is clearly the last remaining person who still attempts to have a calm conversation with you. That won't last much longer if you keep acting like a petulant interwebz warrior child.

See, all you do is throw out these accusations, and then hide behind Cal's skirt and hope that if you repeat these accusations enough, people will believe them. It appears I can cite an equal number of people who disagree with your statement that I am a troll, a petulant man child, or whatever you feel like calling me at the moment. So why don't you for once, try having discussion instead of insult contests. You have not once, since you started posting in opposition of me, backed up anything you have said, aside from a couple bible verses. Everything else you have posted was just you calling me dumb, or whatever. When you have something to contribute, feel free to talk, but otherwise, you are just thrashing about throwing temper tantrums because there are people on this forum who are not biased in the same way you are.

Short memory, have we? I guess you forget anything that you say, but nothing that I say. How narcissistic. But I don't sink to the levels of your flawed arguments and faulty premises, so maybe we're even.

I also like your lame ad hominem attempt to dodge the FACT that you are still spewing insults at people despite having no provocation to do so. You appear to like confrontation. Rest assured, if your purpose here is to harass, stalk, and attack, you'll get a lot of it in kind or else you'll be ignored.

I remember everything I say. Once you can justify any of your accusations, let me know. I am waiting as usual.

Ad hominem? No. An ad hominem argument is where you call to question a person's credibility to dispute the credibility of that person's statements, instead of confronting the statement. I said I have thrown out a couple of insults, I only added that I have not sunk to your level of personal attack.

 

[fossten]

If his source was citing both sides of the story, it would be unbiased

:bowrofl: Oh really? Do you even know what that word means?

 

[fossten]

You have not once, since you started posting in opposition of me, backed up anything you have said, aside from a couple bible verses. Everything else you have posted was just you calling me dumb, or whatever.

I would love to see you back that up with every post I've ever posted in response to you. You can't do it.

Hyperbole much?

 

[FIND]

I would love to see you back that up with every post I've ever posted in response to you. You can't do it.

Hyperbole much?

Well, we could start a thread where I can quote every post you have ever made, but it might make the moderators angry. You know it is the truth, why argue it.

 

[FIND]

:bowrofl: Oh really? Do you even know what that word means?

Apparently better than you do....

 

[fossten]

Well, we could start a thread where I can quote every post you have ever made, but it might make the moderators angry. You know it is the truth, why argue it.

Proof by assertion - your lame excuses won't wash - now you're just running away rather than meet your burden of proof - prove it or STFU.

 

[shagdrum]

If his source was citing both sides of the story, it would be unbiased

You clearly haven't even given the source in question any consideration. This line alone demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity with the source and the arguments it is and is not making.

As I said, if you actually want to engage in an honest discussion that is one thing, but if you are simply looking to dismiss and get defensive when others call you on it, you only inhibit any productive dialog.

FYI; the "appeal to the middle" argument which is implicit in all your posts shows you to be just as dogmatic as you are inferring that we are. It is absurdly unreasonable and dogmatic to assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two opposing views; especially when one is as ignorant of the rationale behind the different views and the root of the differences between the different views as you consistently demonstrate yourself to be.

It seems as if you assume all conservative thought to be wrong unless proven otherwise and then you reject all conservative thought. In the process, you are confirming Mr. Alexander's argument. Especially in this thread, the more you try to rationalize your dismissal of the argument raised, the more you confirm it.

 

[FIND]

You clearly haven't even given the source in question any consideration. This line alone demonstrates a profound lack of familiarity with the source and the arguments it is and is not making.

As I said, if you actually want to engage in an honest discussion that is one thing, but if you are simply looking to dismiss and get defensive when others call you on it, you only inhibit any productive dialog.

FYI; the "appeal to the middle" argument which is implicit in all your posts shows you to be just as dogmatic as you are inferring that we are. It is absurdly unreasonable and dogmatic to assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of two opposing views; especially when one is as ignorant of the rationale behind the different views and the root of the differences between the different views as you consistently demonstrate yourself to be.

It seems as if you assume all conservative thought to be wrong unless proven otherwise and then you reject all conservative thought. In the process, you are confirming Mr. Alexander's argument. Especially in this thread, the more you try to rationalize your dismissal of the argument raised, the more you confirm it.

I did give the source plenty of consideration, read through your articles, did my research on Gerald Alexander, all that stuff. I am not considering his thought to be wrong until proven otherwise, I am saying that you cannot consider something right until proven otherwise. It is an opinion. It is a biased opinion, with some factual basis. No, the stereotype that all conservatives lack the basics of knowledge and intellectual thought lacks merit. Even you prove that, since regardless of how obtuse you can be at times, you are quite eloquent and write very well. I am NOT arguing that conservatives are dumb.... well, except I did make those types of references towards foss, but then again.... yeah.

Now, I am going to dismiss your other accusations, since you apparently are only interested in getting into an ad hominem argument with anyone who doesn't just jump on your bandwagon and agree conservatives are obviously superior to liberals.... The fact that you cannot accept that there is any possibility of a middle ground speaks volumes about you. You seem to have a need to marginalize everything so that you can label the other side evil. Open your eyes to the real world. It isn't anywhere near that black and white.

Honestly, can you not see the irony in many of the statements made in that article you posted? It is exceedingly condescending, and basically devoted to saying conservatives are better than liberals because liberals are always putting down conservatives by saying the liberals are better than conservatives.

 

[FIND]

Proof by assertion - your lame excuses won't wash - now you're just running away rather than meet your burden of proof - prove it or STFU.

Ok, ask a mod if it is cool to start a thread on it. While we are at it, why don't you finally get around to justifying some of the accusations you have made with something other than bare assertion.

 

[fossten]

Ok, ask a mod if it is cool to start a thread on it. While we are at it, why don't you finally get around to justifying some of the accusations you have made with something other than bare assertion.

Start your own thread or ask the mods yourself. Good Lord, how lazy can you be. All you do is run around here demanding that others do things for you. Like I said, prove it or STFU.

 

[shagdrum]

I did give the source plenty of consideration, read through your articles

If that were true then you wouldn't so grossly misrepresent and over simplify Alexander's points, drawing equivalences that are entirely inappropriate to his argument (and that I have already corrected in this thread).

Either you are lying and didn't give his article (and what has been said earlier in this thread) honest, objective consideration, or you are incapable of grasping what Alexander was saying.

It is abundantly clear that you didn't do some very simple research that the article pointed you in the direction of at the very end of it and which I left at the end of the article in my initial post...

Gerard Alexander is an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia. He will be online to chat with readers on Monday, February 8, at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion. On Monday, he will also deliver the American Enterprise Institute's Bradley Lecture, "Do Liberals Know Best? Intellectual Self-Confidence and the Claim to a Monopoly on Knowledge."

You could look up that lecture on AEI's website; which I did and linked to in post #31 of this thread in my initial response to you. Either you did not listen to that speech or did not comprehend what was said in it, given your simplistic misrepresentation of Alexander and inappropriate equivalence.

In fact, even the "abstract" of the lecture gives a little more depth to the argument being made...

For decades, intellectual politics and policy debates in the United States have been distorted by a strange residue of liberalism, reminding us of the movement's long dominance over U.S. politics. Many liberal and progressive thinkers assume, usually implicitly, that they alone have a monopoly on knowledge about cause-and-effect relationships in U.S. society, government, and the economy. This assumption supports conventional claims that conservative politics are fundamentally irrational rather than guided by reason and evidence--most famously, that something is "the matter" with Kansas or that despair leads people to "cling to guns or religion." This assumption also justifies the left-of-center "ownership" of American universities and the often cavalier dismissal of conservative policy recommendations coming from think tanks and other research or educational organizations. It may explain as well why liberal commentators often assume that conservatives and libertarians who disagree with liberal policy recommendations must therefore disagree with liberal goals such as helping the poor, for example. At the rescheduled February 2010 Bradley Lecture, AEI visiting scholar Gerard Alexander will examine why liberal intellectual self-assurance has yet to be undermined by numerous policy failures since the 1960s, why today's society is short on mechanisms that might convey those lessons--even from a few decades ago--and why pervasive dismissal of conservative social knowledge remains a powerful obstacle to more sophisticated policy debates.​

The 4 interlinking narratives that Alexander talks about have been around for generations and inhibit any honest dialog. Unfortunately, in many ways we are seeing a microcosm of that in this thread.

 

[FIND]

If that were true then you wouldn't so grossly misrepresent and over simplify Alexander's points, drawing equivalences that are entirely inappropriate to his argument (and that I have already corrected in this thread).

Such as?

Either you are lying and didn't give his article (and what has been said earlier in this thread) honest, objective consideration, or you are incapable of grasping what Alexander was saying.

Now once again, why do you say that?

It is abundantly clear that you didn't do some very simple research that the article pointed you in the direction of at the very end of it and which I left at the end of the article in my initial post...

No, I assure you, I read and understood the article, and looked a little more into his politics and background. I understand the facts he is citing, and can even see cause for some of the hyperbole and generalization he makes. This does not diminish the irony of some of his statements.

You could look up that lecture on AEI's website; which I did and linked to in post #31 of this thread in my initial response to you. Either you did not listen to that speech or did not comprehend what was said in it, given your simplistic misrepresentation of Alexander and inappropriate equivalence.

I am thinking that you probably have the conservative blinders on too tightly to fully consider some of his statements. Honestly, to me, it sounds a lot the same as the rhetoric passed around in many liberal circles decrying conservative thought. I do promise you, I did listen to it, even watched it again at work today because I was really bored of looking at statistics.... though I assumed the audio was the same as the video, so I can go back and listen to the audio if they are different, but, having already spent nearly a couple hours on it..... not really motivated to do so.

In fact, even the "abstract" of the lecture gives a little more depth to the argument being made...

For decades, intellectual politics and policy debates in the United States have been distorted by a strange residue of liberalism, reminding us of the movement's long dominance over U.S. politics. Many liberal and progressive thinkers assume, usually implicitly, that they alone have a monopoly on knowledge about cause-and-effect relationships in U.S. society, government, and the economy. This assumption supports conventional claims that conservative politics are fundamentally irrational rather than guided by reason and evidence--most famously, that something is "the matter" with Kansas or that despair leads people to "cling to guns or religion." This assumption also justifies the left-of-center "ownership" of American universities and the often cavalier dismissal of conservative policy recommendations coming from think tanks and other research or educational organizations. It may explain as well why liberal commentators often assume that conservatives and libertarians who disagree with liberal policy recommendations must therefore disagree with liberal goals such as helping the poor, for example. At the rescheduled February 2010 Bradley Lecture, AEI visiting scholar Gerard Alexander will examine why liberal intellectual self-assurance has yet to be undermined by numerous policy failures since the 1960s, why today's society is short on mechanisms that might convey those lessons--even from a few decades ago--and why pervasive dismissal of conservative social knowledge remains a powerful obstacle to more sophisticated policy debates.​

The 4 interlinking narratives that Alexander talks about have been around for generations and inhibit any honest dialog. Unfortunately, in many ways we are seeing a microcosm of that in this thread.

No, you are just insisting that is the case in an attempt to dismiss my statement and prove what you posted through misrepresentation. Besides, I at no time was arguing the validity of his statements, I was just commenting on the irony of some of it, and the irony I observed in the interactions that followed in this thread. Especially since as soon as I did post in this thread, you started generating a set of narratives that suggest my thinking about how the world works is invalid in essential respects, in an attempt to logically justify the conclusion that you have nothing substantial to learn from me, and that this serves as an important obstacle to fruitful conversation or dialogue. You seem to be in the habit of asserting you are always right, as if you have talent on loan by god. You constantly try and offer an extensive logic which argues your adversaries are systematically incapable of being correct on how the world works.

 

[shagdrum]

Such as?

Your first post in this thread:

Especially since you spend the rest of the thread arguing that Foxy's article is not just wrong, but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

Here we have hyperbole and misrepresentation of my own actions.

The article is devoted to saying liberals are much worse than conservatives, because all they do is say conservatives are much worse than liberals

This is a blatant distortion, exaggeration and simplification of Alexander's article and what it is saying.

You could take that whole article, and replace every instance of liberal with conservative, and every instance of conservative with liberal, and it would pretty much make the same amount of sense. (aside from obvious references, but let's not nit-pick)

This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the context and the specifics of Alexander's article and his argument. In fact, that whole first post is nothing but a collection of excuses to dismiss the article without any respect to the specifics of the actual argument Alexander is making.

On to the second post talking about Alexander's article...

There are negative stereotypes to both "sides"

There again is that false equivalence that dismisses the entire argument without regard to the specifics of the argument. In fact, Foxy already made this point and I pointed out that Alexander acknowledged and agreed with it in both the article and the lecture. If you had actually listened to the lecture or critically read the article (instead of what seems to be a mere skimming of it) you would know that. Alexander's argument goes beyond that and to try and raise that point is a childish and a red herring.

In fact, the first line of Alexander's article acknowledges that both sides draw narratives, "Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots".

Did you simply read the highlighted portions of the article? Because that would be the only way you could miss that.

Just because both sides draw negative narratives doesn't mean that the narratives are identical. Some are much more narrow in scope then other and some have a much broader reach then others. The logical implications of the various narratives on either side are not the same either. To be able to understand the political discourse in this country, understanding these prevailing narratives, including the differences between the narratives is essential. However, specifics clearly do not concern you. All that matters seems to be writing of the article.

And then we get into the overly defensive intellectual condescension typical of your posts...

I could really care less about propaganda, and if you cannot tell the difference between biased sources and scholarly sources, or propaganda and fact, then you really need to re-evaluate the way you analyze things.

This goes beyond a simple disagreement to an irrational and unnecessary indictment of my thought process in giving this article any credence whatsoever.

This type of intellectual condescension, from an implicit assumption that you have a monopoly on reason and knowledge is precisely what Alexander is talking about. That arrogance is what those 4 interlinking narratives logically lead to and how those narratives, more so then most other narratives in political discourse, preclude honest, open and productive dialog. When the entire viewpoint of one side of the debate is assumed from the start to be invalid, the thought process flawed and devoid of reason, then entire ontological understanding of nature assume to be absurd and wrong, the result is intellectual isolation and a myopic focus on only one side for the truth and/or answers.

Frankly, I couldn't have asked for a better example then you of how the logical inferences of Alexander's 4 narratives inhibit any honest and productive dialog. Thanks.

Unless and until you can show some epistemological humility and approach unfamiliar viewpoints as worthy of understanding and consideration, there is no reason for anyone to view you as anything other then a troll who takes away from the conversation.

 

[FIND]

Your first post in this thread:

​

Here we have hyperbole and misrepresentation of my own actions.

​

This is a blatant distortion, exaggeration and simplification of Alexander's article and what it is saying.

​

This demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the context and the specifics of Alexander's article and his argument. In fact, that whole first post is nothing but a collection of excuses to dismiss the article without any respect to the specifics of the actual argument Alexander is making.

On to the second post talking about Alexander's article...

​

There again is that false equivalence that dismisses the entire argument without regard to the specifics of the argument. In fact, Foxy already made this point and I pointed out that Alexander acknowledged and agreed with it in both the article and the lecture. If you had actually listened to the lecture or critically read the article (instead of what seems to be a mere skimming of it) you would know that. Alexander's argument goes beyond that and to try and raise that point is a childish and a red herring.

In fact, the first line of Alexander's article acknowledges that both sides draw narratives, "Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots".

Did you simply read the highlighted portions of the article? Because that would be the only way you could miss that.

Just because both sides draw negative narratives doesn't mean that the narratives are identical. Some are much more narrow in scope then other and some have a much broader reach then others. The logical implications of the various narratives on either side are not the same either. To be able to understand the political discourse in this country, understanding these prevailing narratives, including the differences between the narratives is essential. However, specifics clearly do not concern you. All that matters seems to be writing of the article.

And then we get into the overly defensive intellectual condescension typical of your posts...

​

This goes beyond a simple disagreement to an irrational and unnecessary indictment of my thought process in giving this article any credence whatsoever.

This type of intellectual condescension, from an implicit assumption that you have a monopoly on reason and knowledge is precisely what Alexander is talking about. That arrogance is what those 4 interlinking narratives logically lead to and how those narratives, more so then most other narratives in political discourse, preclude honest, open and productive dialog. When the entire viewpoint of one side of the debate is assumed from the start to be invalid, the thought process flawed and devoid of reason, then entire ontological understanding of nature assume to be absurd and wrong, the result is intellectual isolation and a myopic focus on only one side for the truth and/or answers.

Frankly, I couldn't have asked for a better example then you of how the logical inferences of Alexander's 4 narratives inhibit any honest and productive dialog. Thanks.

Unless and until you can show some epistemological humility and approach unfamiliar viewpoints as worthy of understanding and consideration, there is no reason for anyone to view you as anything other then a troll who takes away from the conversation.

And you continue to throw out these (baseless) accusations, just so that you can support this imaginary boundary to discussion that you and Alexander seem dead set on constructing by insisting that their opponents have constructed it.

The irony is delicious. Maybe later I will go into a more in depth response to this crap, but honestly, you are just trying to start a war of attrition and continue with your proof by assertion, so maybe I will let it be, since anyone reading this thread can see how obviously you are misrepresenting my statements. For now, I will sit back and giggle at your condescending dismissal of what I say.

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, since you are back, could you respond to posts 26 and 27 of this thread?