chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Confessions of an Ex-LiberalAugust 20, 2012 Carol Brown Bill Whittle has nailed it. He has spoken the truth about how liberals view conservatives (skip to the 1:55 mark for this part): Liberals think that conservatives are: a) Old b) Stupid c) Evil d) Some of the above e) All of the above www.americanthinker.com Indeed. When I was a liberal, this was exactly the way I saw conservatives. Let's start with Evil. I would have a knee jerk reaction to any conservative assuming - knowing - they were rich, greedy, uncaring, selfish, and arrogant. Oh, and they liked to go to war just for the hell of it. In a word: Evil. I would not listen to conservatives talk on any issue because of my rock solid belief that they were horrible human beings who cared not a whit for others. In this way, a feedback loop was created such that when a conservative would speak, I knew they were evil and felt no desire to listen. (Why get aggravated, right?) Or, if for some reason I was compelled to listen for a few minutes, every word that came out of their mouth was tainted with the awful truth that I knew. Yes, they were evil. Next up: Stupid. Like my conviction that conservatives were evil, so too was my firm belief that they were also, for the most part, stupid. (If a conservative somehow managed to squeak past my stupid label, it didn't matter because they were at the very least, evil.) There were all sorts of ways stupid played out. For sure, if they were from the south, they were dumb. If they were from the mid-west, well I just knew they couldn't be that bright. I mean, the great plains? How could anyone from there be smart? Any other geographic pockets of conservatives were also stupid because of the obvious fact that they were stupid. (Yeah, I know. Really pathetic.) In my view, only people from major cities could be smart. And then, only the highly educated. The intelligentsia. As a student, I expected my professors and fellow students to be super liberal. If I got a whiff of anyone who seemed like they may not be toeing the party line to the fullest, I was disgusted. I also looked down on those who viewed college as a place to get job training. College was about study. It had nothing to do with anything concrete related to functioning as an independent adult in the real world. (sigh) And lastly: Old Old was often part of a larger category that was about blandness and sameness. Conservatives were old, but also male, and also white. This fueled my feedback loop because all of these things were, well, you guessed it. Evil. I would scratch my head in wonder about how any black person could be conservative. I thought J. C. Watts was insane. I simply could not fathom how any black person could be a Republican. I felt bad for him. It seemed as if he was bamboozled. Yup. He was an Uncle Tom without a doubt. Needless to say I did not appreciate the hypocrisy of my views. I was liberal. I was about freedom and opportunity for all. Yet here I was holding a view of a black man that dictated he must think a certain way. I also had an incredible sense of entitlement regarding the media. If a conservative was interviewed, I was outraged. How dare they give that person air time! And if a conservative was interviewed on NPR, well that was just way over the line. Seriously. This was my thinking. All the while, I felt an extraordinary sense of self-righteousness. America was about liberalism. There was no room - no room! - for conservative ideas. Needless to say (again), I did not appreciate my own hypocrisy. Here I was walking around, taking full advantage of living in a free and open society, while having a view of our society that was not free and open at all. But of course I didn't see that. I didn't see any of it. I've traveled a long journey since then and I would like to express my gratitude to American Thinker for being such an important place that helped me along the way. Sometimes I wonder, and perhaps some of you do as well: Are we just preaching to the converted on these blogs? Then I remind myself that I was a non-conservative who visited AT, peered in, and stayed a little while, reading articles and comments. And I returned. And bit by bit ideas began to percolate. And questions arose. Perspectives began to shift. I started to seek out information and views contrary to what was familiar to me. And step by step I strayed far away from a lifetime of liberal "thinking." Bill Whittle has it right about how liberals view conservatives. But change can, and does, occur. Don't underestimate the power of your comments on these threads. You never know who may read a comment, follow a train of thought, become curious, and maybe, just maybe, begin a journey. |
||
|
And so, we have stinky's latest thread on notions. dok |
||
|
DOK The more we talk about stuff the more we show there are alternatives to the ideologically driven hate filled dogma coming from the left. No one is perfect in all and no one is an expert in all as we amply demonstrate but we're willing to discuss issues calmly and with a level of respect and civility unseen in liberal dominated forums. How often have our 'token' libs here been called vile names and been viciously and personally attacked by the more moderate or conservative majority? The answer is they haven't. That distinction alone speaks volumes. It's better to talk 'with' someone and not 'at' them... generally. |
||
|
Thumper However, I have to confess to viciously and personally attacking some libs in the 1A club on occasion. In those cases, I wasn't looking for more discussion. But, I would say the percentage was way high in my favor for attempting reasoned discussions in contrast to them (although they probably will not see it that way). |
||
|
When a moderate or conservative goes all medieval on a liberal and gets personally insulting (which is the exception rather than the rule) they generally show contrition afterwards and alter their approach to a more civil tone. Conversely, when the liberal or progressive goes all medieval on a conservative and gets personally insulting (which is the rule rather than the exception) they generally show no contrition afterwards and double down on the approach to an almost shrill tone. |
||
|
An old man who is liberal has no brains. |
||
|
DoK |
||
|
|
||
|
"has it gotten worse or better since the election?". |
||
|
|
||
|
chaz |
||
|
Softy ... I'm not defending Dm here ... I believe, and I've said before, I think his views are extreme left ... in much the same way so many views are extreme right in other discussions ... like your own so often (but others as well). I would observer Dm's passion seems to have grown since the election (if that is your actual point) ... not unlike all the extreme rightists did after the 2010 election. So, do you believe the extreme left posts of Dm are stronger or about the same as the right posts after 2010? |
||
|
chaz Now you are "not sure what my next question meant". I think it quite impossible for a reasonable, thinking person to not understand the meaning. (And, I am not saying this to demean you... it just is that I can not fathom how anyone could not understand its meaning). Then you go to say that DM has not necessarily been " name calling, demagogic, and vilifying" but has been "PASSIONATE". PASSIONATE? Again, I don't believe that anybody who is a reasonable, objective and bipartisan person could possibly read his posts since the election (not all, but most) and conclude he is not name calling, vilifying, and being demagogic. Your refusal to call a rose, a rose is symptomatic of the left culture of avoiding the truth if it is unpleasant or contra your narrative. As to are DM's posts "stronger or the same as in the past?"... You can simply look at the number of posts he has made, the attitude of arrogance and condescension made in those posts, and the outright call for destruction of Republicans and the TEA Party people. He is continuing his Victory Lap and salivating at the slim victory... extending it to unrealistic proportions. |
||
|
Softy ... Tell me, in plain English, how Dm's attitude is different than the far right's (even your own) after the 2010 election? Is it a matter of word choice? ... a matter of vehemence of tone? ... just what? |
||
|
dmaestro 09-Dec-12, 11:20 |
and how they were going to change the country. But they did not notice that it was only WHO voted (old whites) more that changed than the country shifting, and the vote was for compromise NOT tea party rule. Long term we have a clear demographic advantage and given stark choices and consecutive wins the right needs to compromise more in a democratic system where tyranny of the minority is unacceptable. The country remains moderate, not especially leftist. But as thumper put it so well, the failure to accurately in his shock at the results to judge the mood of the country will result in in your face reminders of your error and the consequences. If you get out of your echo chamber you would see that we a just implementing the will of the voters, not socialism. And BTW I am less leftist than I appear but I do support the demographics the tea party does not. It was more than a slim victory and it was not a socialist victory. It was a victory in generational terms and a clear repudiation of the aging white centric tea party agenda. Diversity includes them but not automatically as the most important demographic. Yet the tea party threatens new tea party tsunami and doubles down. If your side doesn't get real how can you complain about my reminding you who won. |
||
|
chaz Yes, you use and accept terms like: "Man caused disasters" for Terrorist Attacks, "Overseas Contingency Operations" for the War on Terror, "Work Place Violence" for the Ft.Hood terrorist attacks, "Indigenous Protesters" for Muslim Terrorists etc. I would try to explain the differences you ask about if it would do any good and we could have a discussion. But since you aren't able to understand my basic questions and my previous explanations, I see little purpose in trying again. |
||
|
"But as thumper put it so well, the failure to accurately in his shock at the results to judge the mood of the country will result in in your face reminders of your error and the consequences. If you get out of your echo chamber you would see that we a just implementing the will of the voters, not socialism." Here is what I actually said: thumper 06-Nov-12, 21:18 Was not expecting that. If those numbers hold up, conservatives can expect to be subjected to lots of gloating and laughing in their face. A lot of retribution and 'payback' has already started. I fear the end of the republic and all that that means. Make sure your house is in order. thumper 06-Nov-12, 21:42 It appears that the radical left is currently prevailing. In my opinion, the road just got a bit shorter. It's not just the presidency being voted on today. There are a lot of other positions and measures that seem to be going left as well. The end of this road is going to be bitter no matter how happy you are at the moment. When we get there, remember who was driving. thumper 07-Nov-12, 11:52 The majority of voters looked at the estimated 23 million people out of work or had stopped looking for work, and whose lives along with their own were even further encumbered by the massive debt; currently $16 trillion and climbing, and thought that was okay? In a nation whose citizens pride themselves on their ability to work to meet the needs of their families, it's disturbing that 47 million must now use food stamps or that millions have fallen below the poverty level. It seems their desire to redistribute wealth from others has become their siren song... |
||
|
dmaestro 09-Dec-12, 15:23 |
What I meant was that complaining about gloating after the tea party antics in 2010 is totally hypocritical. But I do not consider what we are doing to be childish gloating and laughing in your face. It was not just a matter of winning. It is not a matter of taking extra victory laps. There were basic totally distinct choices here between tea party ideas and what proved to be centrist ideas. Our victory gives us a clear mandate to do what it takes to implement what the majority of voters asked for. It could not be clearer that tea party ideas were rejected and there was no covert effort to hide our plans. So when I say in your face, I mean as a clear focus on areas where you lack support and where we intend to endorce the public will of the people. "We the people", not tea party pretenders or the mythical "silent majority" of rightwingers. WE are the majority! We are in your face because we are, not because we pretend to be. |
||
|
dmaestro 09-Dec-12, 15:33 |
I mean all WE who oppose the tea party agenda. |
||
|
dm They did NOT. BO and company won the Presidency by a percent or two. You kept the Senate and you gained a few seats in the House. THAT is NOT a mandate. The country is evenly divided, more or less... more one way in 2010 and more the other way in 2012. To govern effectively, and solve problems, we need leadership that will bring the sides together, discuss, debate and decide on a bipartisan plan to proceed. But, that is dependent on the will of either side to actually solve problems. We have seen NO leadership or compromise or intention to actually solve problems from the Democrats. It has been a "DM" inspired "in-your-face" & "we won, take it" attitude by the administration. In fact, they have said repeatedly that they are willing to go over the cliff unless Republicans cave, get humiliated and humbled and give in to their new demands. It seems to me that you have a direct line to the Democrat talking points and strategies, one way or the other. You are in lockstep with them all the way. You are following them precisely... or vice-versa. I am quite sure that we are going over the cliff, on purpose, as the Dems have no intention of helping the country out of this situation. More likely, you want us to fail catastrophically so that the New America can be born. (Marxism 2012 style) |
||
|
softy |
||
|
Softy ... |
||
|
change |
||
|
|
Log in 
