Why are liberals so condescending?

[foxpaws]

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

post 26
So - do you want to know if there is an equal correlation on the conservative side to 'liberal' academia? That appears to be the only contention between you/Alexander and myself - the other 3 points seem to have both conservative and liberal sections - correct? That since there is this 'liberal bubble' around academia it is 'coloring' something.

shag - remember, your experience is most recently immersed in undergraduate academia. Go to Harvard Law, go to Yale MBA, enter the hallowed halls of Princeton's graduate programs and you might find a different atmosphere. Sit for a day at the Petroleum Club in Denver, spend the afternoon at Delmonico’s on Wall Street, once again - there isn't a lack of conservative thought at those locations - in fact, voice a liberal opinion and you might be drawn and quartered - or at least your honorary martini glass might be taken away.

post 27
You don't think that there isn't a direct line between the economic policies of the Soviet union and my "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution'". What are those 3 items if not part of a cause/effect relationship?

 

[shagdrum]

That since there is this 'liberal bubble' around academia it is 'coloring' something.

More that there has historically been a bubble in academia as well as news media and entertainment that has lead to the rise of these narratives.

What, exactly, are you contesting? Are you contesting that there has been such a bubble, are you contesting that these narratives have in fact arisen, are you contesting the emphasis Alexander is placing on them? Are you contesting something else? All of the above?

Your argument seems a little vague.

You don't think that there isn't a direct line between the economic policies of the Soviet union and my "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution'". What are those 3 items if not part of a cause/effect relationship?

Draw the link. If there is a direct line draw it.

Going from bad economic policies rooted in an overinflated perception of a capacity for knowledge to "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution'" is going from point A to point Q. Which do you see as causing which? What steps from one lead to the other?

 

[foxpaws]

More that there has historically been a bubble in academia as well as news media and entertainment that has lead to the rise of these narratives.

What, exactly, are you contesting? Are you contesting that there has been such a bubble, are you contesting that these narratives have in fact arisen, are you contesting the emphasis Alexander is placing on them? Are you contesting something else? All of the above?

Your argument seems a little vague.

No - I am contesting that you/Alexander are placing too much emphasis on the academia bubble. You grow up - however, you grow apart from your parents - you are surrounded by different influences. Now, you might want to take the psychobabble road and blame it all on Mom. Do you shag? That is the emphasis you are placing on academia. I am not claiming that it isn't a left leaning institution (I think that it is on the left as a whole) - I am saying that it is rather insignificant in the overall mix of life.

Once again, I think you are too close to the 'bubble'. Remove yourself 10 years and things change a lot. Spend 5 years in corporate America. Will that alter your thinking, should we consider that a 5th element - should have Alexander included that?

Actually media up until the 50s was pretty biased - you had your 'Republican' newspaper in town and the 'Democrat' newspaper too. Heck - before TV and radio many cities had 1/2 dozen papers or more - all devoted to a different political bent. Then, for some reason the public thought the media should travel some straight and narrow path, which happened around the rise of TV as a news source. This hurt the right more than the left, because at that time - the early to mid 60s, the populace was more left leaning. TV started to gain a left leaning in the 60s and it never really got back to center.

I do think now though there is a much clearer mix, and that right media is just as accessible and is becoming as prevalent as left media. I think we are actually going back to perhaps Civil War times when the newspapers were all very vocal on where they stood on issues - a time where 'fair and balanced' would have been scoffed at.

Going from bad economic policies rooted in an overinflated perception of a capacity for knowledge to "corruption at the top, oppression at the bottom, eventual 're-revolution'" is going from point A to point Q. Which do you see as causing which? What steps from one lead to the other?

I am not sure what you want - what causes what? I am just using a soviet communist type model here - it is really the only model we have that has the types of economic control that you are talking about. Are you looking for other models?

 

[shagdrum]

No - I am contesting that you/Alexander are placing too much emphasis on the academia bubble. You grow up - however, you grow apart from your parents - you are surrounded by different influences.

No one is saying that these narratives are solely created and propagated by academia. They stem from academia, and in many cases the seed is planted by professors in the minds of students, but it is propagated by many different outlets. Hollywood and entertainment venues for one. But, more significantly, you have a mainstream media that has been highly biased for decades, and perpetuating these narratives. In fact, this quote is especially damning when it comes to the idea that the mainstream media is extremely biased:

“This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”
​

The journo-list findings show a concerted effort to mislead the public. Combine that with the empirically proven bias of academia (especially in the area of social sciences) and the fact that academia also propagates these ideas, and then realize that this has been the situation for decades. It would be hard for these narratives to not become ubiquitous. There narratives, after a point, are simple to propagate with only a few cherry picked facts or a subtle spin on a story.

Even after someone has left academia, for decades, the news coverage they received has been almost exclusively liberal and promoting these narratives. Yes, you have the rise of the new media, but the market is still dominated by leftist sources who are promoting these narratives.

There is no way that any narratives from the right could even approach being as ubiquitous as the narratives Alexander's article is talking about. They are not generally promoted in academia, or the entertainment industry, and only even taken at all seriously in a minor part of media outlets.

Also, the nature of the narratives is different. Outside of polemics, the narrative on the right is chiefly a disagreement of means to common ends. However, the narrative on the left is that the left has a monopoly on knowledge and any non-leftist ideas are inherently foolish, illegitimate and not worth taking the time to understand, let alone consider and learn from.

While it is anecdotal, most leftists I know are embarrassingly ignorant of conservative thought. However, most right leaning people understand liberal thought at least as well as the liberals I know, if not better. I imagine this is true of most people's experience.

I am not sure what you want - what causes what? I am just using a soviet communist type model here - it is really the only model we have that has the types of economic control that you are talking about. Are you looking for other models?

the USSR is not the only model, but it is the biggest.

Economic foolishness does not, in and of itself, lead to corruption and corruption does not, in and of itself lead to economic foolishness.

How does one lead to the other? What factors are involved? What steps, in action or in thought process lead from one to the other? Explain how these social phenomenon are intertwined in your view. How do you view social causation happening?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag- you didn’t address the fact that after academia – most people head into corporate America – which mostly promotes at least centrist, if not right leaning ideals – and really, you spend a lot more time there than at college. Why wouldn’t that have a huge influence?

And your little paragraph from the Daily Caller – you could have just substituted Kerry and his campaign from 2004 in there and ended up with the same sort of dialog – it isn’t ‘unique’ to one side or the other. Rove was a media genius, look how he ran both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. What you are ‘complaining’ about is campaign driven – fed to the media. The media was skewed pretty heavily to ‘like’ Bush in 2004. Rove’s excellent campaign work saw to that. Are you bemoaning the fact that the media takes sides – or are you bemoaning the fact that the left often is much better at manipulating the media – which traditionally it has been. However, Reagan was pretty good – Rove was a god. That sort of indicates that although the media does have a slight left bias – mostly they are able to be manipulated by any skilled manipulator – perhaps that is how the scales are often tipped.

As I stated – I believe academia is biased – that isn’t my problem with your argument – my problem is that because you have been so immersed in it in the last few years – you too, are biased. I believe that you are placing far too much emphasis on this. Life doesn’t begin and end in college.

So, is the media market dominated by left sources? Less and less shag – and that alone should indicate to you that this ‘brain washing’ that Alexander is espousing isn’t really going on. Cheap, easy access to new media makes it easy for all voices to be heard – and some of the loudest are on the right. Right dominates radio, internet ‘news’, commentary TV ‘news’, and social ‘news’. The left is ‘left’ with dying media – broadcast TV and print. Your idea that the right isn’t taken seriously is very mistaken – when the white house targets a specific media outlet, believe me it is being taken very seriously. As I said – we are seeing a shift back to ‘opinionated news’ like newspapers had for 100+ years before radio and TV. And the right dominates the platforms that specialize in that format.

As far as entertainment – how much do you read into this shag? Do you think that Avatar had a huge political impact? It didn’t. Do you think that children watching it have become little ‘green’ warriors? Doubtful.

Once again – you are assuming a really large amount of things – along with Alexander. You discount very viable influences such as the workplace – which probably trumps almost everything else here. It seems that important factors such as urban vs rural living are just forgotten about.

You seem anxious to place the problems of left bias on the fact that many things in our life seem to be polarized, without taking into account all the parts of the picture. I really think that with shifting media, massive urbanization and work place influences, your/Alexander’s 4 points are becoming rather archaic in nature. With time we are quickly moving away from his models, heck – school will too – online classes – internet campuses – that ‘influence’ of the left wing campus is quickly becoming a dinosaur in Alexander’s arsenal.

My anecdotal thought – I know many conservatives – and while they ‘understand’ liberal thought in a broad context, as you stated shag, they are more likely to label and demonize an entirety, and not bother to look at the components. Most liberals I know are more open to looking at solutions that solve a problem, rather than viewing them as polarizing events. They are less likely to see red and blue, but rather solution/problem. Conservatives often see only the upper surface red and blue, and judge at the top level only. Is that a lack of understanding of the right/left position on the part of the liberal – or is it more a deeper understanding of the issue at hand, while removing the blinders of politics and labels.

I am off for a few days – sorry – I’ll get back to economic foolishness soon – I promise… however – you might have to remind me again.

 

[fossten]

The media was skewed pretty heavily to ‘like’ Bush in 2004.

:bowrofl:

I stopped reading right there.

I'd love to see numbers backing that up.

My anecdotal thought – I know many conservatives – and while they ‘understand’ liberal thought in a broad context, as you stated shag, they are more likely to label and demonize an entirety, and not bother to look at the components. Most liberals I know are more open to looking at GOVERNMENT solutions that APPEAR TO solve a problem, rather than viewing them as polarizing events. They are less likely to see red and blue, but rather GOVERNMENT solution/problem.

And then I had to read further.

As you can see, I fixed it for you.

:bowrofl:

 

[shagdrum]

Shag- you didn’t address the fact that after academia – most people head into corporate America – which mostly promotes at least centrist, if not right leaning ideals

Those are two big assumptions.

How do you know most people head into corporate America after school? What do you define as "corporate America"?

How do you know that corporate America promotes "centrist, if not right leaning ideals"? Considering recent history, this assumption is highly questionable. All you can say is that corporations promotes their own interests, not that they promote any particular political interests.

But even if that is true, are most people in a position in corporate America that the political ideals it supposedly espouses would override what they were taught in school and what is reinforced daily in news coverage and entertainment?

Considering the unique nature of what the various narratives focus on (politics, society and social causation), individual experience is only anecdotal and not a good indicator of reality. Therefore all information necessary to draw any logical conclusions as to the nature of reality in these areas has to come through filters like academia, news and entertainment. If those areas, together, promote a particular view of reality as self-evidently true, it is rather easy for individuals to accept that view, leading to that view becoming ubiquitous.

And your little paragraph from the Daily Caller – you could have just substituted Kerry and his campaign from 2004 in there and ended up with the same sort of dialog – it isn’t ‘unique’ to one side or the other. Rove was a media genius, look how he ran both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns. What you are ‘complaining’ about is campaign driven – fed to the media.

These were comments on Journolist from the day it was announced that Palin was McCain's running mate. These were not simply echo's of Obama campaign talking points because the campaign had not yet developed any talking points, let alone had time to get them out to media sources. This was the media developing their own partisan talking points.

Even if that quote was from a later date, it is still not an example of what you are talking about. Parties and/or government institutions giving out talking points is nothing new. Their pundits can echo those messages and the news media knows what the basic viewpoint is coming from the various sides in the discussion. This was "journalists" creating talking points to distort the story in a way favorable to their agenda.

What the Journolist quote showed was something different. Far from simply knowing the various sides, these "journalists" were acting as campaign strategists in developing their own talking points to, shape the terms of the conversations" in ways favorable to Obama.

The media was skewed pretty heavily to ‘like’ Bush in 2004.

Not really.

or are you bemoaning the fact that the left often is much better at manipulating the media

The Journolist evidence alone disproves this notion.

The media is not "being manipulated" by the left; they are the left.

As I stated – I believe academia is biased – that isn’t my problem with your argument – my problem is that because you have been so immersed in it in the last few years – you too, are biased. I believe that you are placing far too much emphasis on this. Life doesn’t begin and end in college.

The argument does not place undue emphasis on academia. But it does acknowledge that fact and that it is unique to the left.

Basically, on the left you have academia, entertainment and the mainstream media promoting Alexander's narratives. This has been the situation for decades.

On the right, you only have a minority of media outlets that even take right leaning views seriously, let alone promote right leaning narratives.

Also, the narratives have historically been very different in both their scope and logical implications, including their effect on discourse.

 

[shagdrum]

Most liberals I know are more open to looking at solutions that solve a problem, rather than viewing them as polarizing events.

I would agree with that, but not for the reasons you infer.

They are less likely to see red and blue, but rather solution/problem.

This is a false dichotomy that demonstrates a lack of understanding of conservative thought. It simply infers that conservatives are generally simple-minded and not able to look beyond partisanship (in line with Alexander's narratives, BTW).

The correct dichotomy is with looking for solutions to problems on one end and recognizing trade-offs and the limits of human ability/knowledge on the other end.

This point, ironically, ties back to the point raised about the limits of knowledge. If you only look for "solutions" to problems, you downplay if not ignore complicating factors (like limits to human knowledge) and trade-offs.

Seeing things through the lens of "solutions" instead of "trade-offs" is very telling and a direct logical consequence of the different understandings of human nature and it's limits (or lack thereof); a fundamental difference of worldviews.