Draginol Draginol

Things that bother me about liberals

▼

Things that bother me about liberals

Not in theory but actual experiences

from JoeUser Forums

Whether it be talking with friends, relatives, or just casual acquaintences, if the subject of politics comes up, I have noticed very specific behavior patterns between those who tend to be left of center politically versus those who are right of center. 

There are plenty of things that annoy me about political conservatives too but not as consistently as "regular" people who are politically left. The list below is not a list of annoyances of politicans or public figures but rather traits of left of center people I have met in real life that seems to come up over and over.

So here's my list of things that bother me about dealing with political leftists:

  1. Choose their positions based on emotion and passion rather than through research or investigation
  2. Rarely look up for themselves the underlying facts on a given issue but rather rely on "trusted" advisors or editorials
  3. Are very intolerant of views that do not match theirs. I don't think I've ever seen a conservative say "I don't want to hear anymore, let's talk about something else".  by contrast, over and over, liberals will (at best) ask you to change the subject because they don't want to hear other points of view or (at worst) try to bully you from giving an opposing point of view.
  4. Act as if their positions have some sort of moral high ground simply because their positions are based on "good intentions".
  5. Similar to #4 -- take the view that their position is the "civilized" or "moderate" point of view. And that other points of view are simply barbaric "Of course guns should be outlawed" or "You didn't vote for Kerry? You seem like such a smart guy."
  6. Have no knowledge of the tax system even as they loudly advocate higher taxes on "the rich". There's nothing quite like seeing a 3rd grade teacher espousing how the rich pay hardly anything in taxes even as they are talking to someone they know pays immense amounts of taxes (because I usually make sure to correct this falacy).  And I usually get "Then you need to get a better accountant" as if they have any concept of the tax structure.  Oh yes, I'll just use the magic loopholes that liberals are so certain exist and avoid taxes...
  7. Think that feeling strongly about something counts more than actually doing something.  My $1k contribution to the Cancer Society isn't as significant as someone who did a "Cancer walk" and got $315 in donations apparently.  And btw, it's nice to do a cancer walk, it's even nicer to donate money yourself. Walking, chanting, whatever may make you feel but but it does nothing. It's the people donating to the cause materially that are actually making a material difference.
  8. Think that witty sarcasm is a substitute for a coherent argument for their position.  How many times have you made a point only to have a left winger try to dismiss it with a one-line sarcasm "Of course we armed Osama, I guess we got what we paid for.."  That's a non sequitor and stupid to foot.  But knowing little irrelevant pseudo-factoids is not a substitute for knowledge on the actual issue.  It really comes to a head if Iraq comes up. Most anti-Iraq "war" advocates can't put together a coherent argument against it.
  9. Massively inconsistent, simple minded positions. There's nothing quite like having a friend in Southern California say "Wars never solved anything".  Really?  You plan to argue that southern California should go back to Mexico?  Because there was one war (US/Mexican) that most definitively and materially solved a particular question. Not to mention the Civil War and slavery, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Gulf War I.  Or some middle class person living in a house in Florida that they inherited from their father arguing for higher estate taxes (why wait? why not hand your house to the government right now?). Or my favorite "There's no excuse for anyone to go hungry in this country." as an argument for more welfare.  I agree there's no excuse, only a total dumbass could go hungry in this country. Welfare ain't gonna fix that. 
  10. Problems are always to be solved by someone else.  To left wingers, being compassionate seems to mean being intellectually concerned about people but not wanting to actually do anything.  My uncle, a conservative, drove down to Louisiana as part of his church group to repair people's houses.  Meanwhile, not a single liberal I know has volunteered for anything but they sure have argued for more government spending on Katrina relief -- which is easy for them, I end up paying for it.
  11. Believe in equality unless equality is inconvenient.  I try not to flaunt my material success but at the same time,  I am proud of what my family has achieved.  My wife and I started with nothing (and btw, yes you can live on minium wage -- I did).  But if I object to paying more in taxes, I am called greedy by some of my liberal friends.  If I ask if they want to compare how much they donated to charity last year (not taxes, charity) they always come back with the "well you have more to give" argument.  So what?  And I've even tried to do the "Okay, then as a percentage of our income comparison" I still get the "we don't have as much excess money to give as you do" argument.  And on taxes, even though I use the same roads, schools, police, etc. and pay literally over 50X more in taxes than most people and support progressive taxation, I still get implied arguments that I don't want to pay my fair share if I object to paying even more in taxes.
  12. Obsess on diversity of skin color instead of diversity of ideas.  What is it with the left and their obession with skin color? Yet, as I mentioned earlier, liberals are incredibly intolerant of other ideas. They want to live in an echo chamber. Most conservatives I know enjoy a good intelligent discussion.  Most liberals get angry and frustrated with people who dare to have different (or incorrect) opinions.  I have one friend named Chris who is liberal who is the exception to this (so if he's reading, kudos to him) who will intelligently and thoughtfully discuss issues without getting angry.  I can't think of any liberal friend or relative who doesn't get angry and frustrated if confronted with opinons that don't match theirs.

Like I said, these are observations on public speakers. These are observations on friends, family, acquaintences that I meet and talk to.  I am often almost made to feel like I should be ashamed for having conservative..uncivilized view points. If only I were as enlightened like them and used my heart more I would be ready to be welcomed into their civilized society.

politics
21,196 views 52 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think that is a key distinction here at JU, but not everywhere on the Internet. I doubt that this disclaimer would apply to du.org, moveon.org, The Daily Kos, or Puffington Host.

Perhaps. But I wanted to draw the distinction between people who are casually talking about politics versus people who go on-line specifically to talk about politics.

There's a big difference between Aunt Sally starting talk about how the rich are not taxed enough at a family get together and people who are out on the net seeking debate on the topics.

The casually political liberals are the ones who bring up politics at a social occasion. 

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Before this, she worked as a doctoral student in a University Alzheimer's lab (a disorder I am stricken with).


Bummer. Sorry to hear it, Sodaiho.


LW, No worries. I have something associated with early adult TBI (from Vietnam) called prematurely aging brain syndrome. It mimics AD. I take the same drugs used for it and Parkinson's Disease. Other than being a bit of a drag on my energy level, the results are wonderful. My memory loss has slowed and the loss of motor skills has also slowed, but not quite as much as I would like.

As a Zen Buddhist facing the extinction of self I see this as quite ironic

Oh well, what's a monk to do?

See ya.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good intentions do not give one a moral high ground. Good results do.
Another item I would add is that liberals worry far too much about "fairness". You can almost immediately spot a liberal if their comments or posts or speech are peppered with "fairness". Liberals seem to be much more comfortable with indefinable concepts like "fairness" (who defines what's fair -- them -- very convenient!).


Hello Draginol,

You pose an interesting juxtaposition here. Your line regarding intentions versus consequences puts you squarely on the consequentialist side of ethical inquiry, yet your comments regarding the "indefinable" concept of fairness would suggest you are far more an absolutist. How is this so?

Most moral concepts are very hard to define. Even conservative ethicists like Nozick have a difficult time operationalizing moral terms, relying on the creation of compenstory schemes to deal with his dislike of Rawls' Theory of Justice which bases itself on notions of fairness.

From my POV, intention is everything. There is no bad karma resulting from good intentions gone awry.But there is a ton of it, the other way around. The suggestion you makein the obverse that conservatives may not be comfortable with indefinables points to their most serious weakness. Indefinables are everywhere.

Be well.





Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
which is better everyone is the same.

or everyone has the same chance.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are repeating a common myth and I need to call you on it. Stem cell research is not banned, only federal monies to fund it. If it is so important and offers such incredible breakthroughs, why aren't more private investors/donors stepping up to the plate?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Gid, The NIH is a powerhouse for university-based research. It has been seriously hampered by our President's policy. Laboratories depend on federal dollars to keep their doors open. Private research corporations use the results of early research findings derived from NIH as well as many other publicly funded sources, but they are still private and not above fears of assault on their bottom lines. In truth we will lose our ranking in the scientific world as other countries eclipse us. To me this is part and parcel of the assault on education and science in the United States by anti-intellectuals. I think we look like idiots to the rest of the world. Oh well.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are repeating a common myth and I need to call you on it. Stem cell research is not banned, only federal monies to fund it. If it is so important and offers such incredible breakthroughs, why aren't more private investors/donors stepping up to the plate?

Things that make you go hmmmm.....

Gid, The NIH is a powerhouse for university-based research. It has been seriously hampered by our President's policy. Laboratories depend on federal dollars to keep their doors open. Private research corporations use the results of early research findings derived from NIH as well as many other publicly funded sources, but they are still private and not above fears of assault on their bottom lines. In truth we will lose our ranking in the scientific world as other countries eclipse us. To me this is part and parcel of the assault on education and science in the United States by anti-intellectuals. I think we look like idiots to the rest of the world. Oh well.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

It has been seriously hampered by our President's policy.

I would expect you to at least respect his respect for life, even if it is in only this one instance.  For some, the belief is that life begins at conception, and while he cannot outlaw abortion, he is at least trying to stop the harvesting of fetuses for medical research - according to his beliefs.

If it was established that life begins at conception (a hypothetical), would you encourage harvesting the babies for medical research?

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great generalization Draginol. (I could say the same thing about conservatives too, fact is not everyone is the same, which you imply)

I have a major problem with the intolerant views stuff (#3), most religious people are on the conservative side and I'll be damned if they aren't the most intolerant people I know
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Christians are intolerant of sin, and sinners are intolerant of Christians. Of course, a lot of people on both sides are just intolerant of everything.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

Great generalization Draginol. (I could say the same thing about conservatives too, fact is not everyone is the same, which you imply)

I have a major problem with the intolerant views stuff (#3), most religious people are on the conservative side and I'll be damned if they aren't the most intolerant people I know

Yes. It's a generalization.  The world operates on generalizations.

Do you have any examples of actual, real-world intolerance? People getting beat up by Christians for having beliefs they disagree with?  Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause and then speak at a church for an anti-Christian cause and which would you feel more likely to get beaten up at?

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

From my POV, intention is everything. There is no bad karma resulting from good intentions gone awry.But there is a ton of it, the other way around. The suggestion you makein the obverse that conservatives may not be comfortable with indefinables points to their most serious weakness. Indefinables are everywhere.

If you think intention is everything then I suspect you're left of center.

I would say that intention and results both matter.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  Mao had good intentions too.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause


Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just a random insight from across the web....

Speak at a college campus for a conservative cause and then speak at a church for an anti-Christian cause and which would you feel more likely to get beaten up at?


Sadly, that's a horrible example. I've been involved in setting up a lot of college events with conservative and liberal speakers. Both bring out energetic, argumentative students in roughly equal numbers and in neither case is violence imminent. Don't believe it goes both ways? Cheik YouTu be for some videos of fundies haranguing Richard Dawkins whenever he talks at a US campus.

And on the flipside I've known quite a number of Church-related incidents of intolerance, many getting violent. Just an example, I briefly attended a Church filled with incredibly happy and friendly folk -- most Dutch immigrants. Not particularly fundie, basically slightly conservative Lutherans. Outwardly, some of the nicest people you'd ever meet. I found out though that the Church had recently gone through a lot of craziness over the issue of female pasteurs. The issue had become so heated that actual death threats were sent out anonymously to the elders of the church.

I'd be quite a lot more frightened at the Church. Growing up in a small town I knew a lot of highly intolerant, macho, aggressive Church-goers. Going to college I met a lot of furiously indignant but otherwise harmless liberal students (and just as many conservative students of the same nature).

Anyway, I'd say that most of your criticisms apply equally to conservatives. Example, I can't think of any media commentators that get more facts wrong or use more emotional arguments than Limbaugh or O'Reilly. Granted Michael Moore can be pretty bad too but he is in many ways a "new" sort of liberal rabble-rouser. He's often looked at as the Liberal answer to Limbaugh (i.e. liberals playing catch up).
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

more facts wrong or use more emotional arguments than Limbaugh

That has been alleged, but never proven.  I have heard that, yet when you examine what he says (transcripts and audio are available on line) with what people say he says, you find that most every time he is called for an inaccuracy, it is the person paraphrasing what he is saying and getting it wrong.

Moore on the other hand does not try to get it right.  He just tries to prove his opinion through whatever means necessary. Believing that the ends justify the means.

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry. Sometimes I get a mystyping stuck in my head and it won't go away. I've done that one a few times before. Yes, I meant "pastor" and the story is true despite my failings as a typist.

Limbaugh was doing his worst before the blogosphere exploded. Al lthe same, there are lots and lots of sites decrying his inaccuracies. They abound. I'm not sure a comparison to Moore matters -- I'm not trying to defend Moore in any way shape or form. I think he is usually an imbecile, even when I happen to agree with his claim. I actually know a lot of liberal people who agree with that -- that don't like Moore irregardless of whether they agree with his conclusions. I've known few conservatives who, for example, might agree with Limbaugh or O'Reilly yet would admit that their arguments were poor, appealed to emotion not logic, or were based on inaccurate facts.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
That IS crazy! What do they have against female milk sterilizers?


lol
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

From a Washington Post headline: Have a Heart, Democrats

Subhead: Candidates have to learn to go for the voters' gut to win.

Body: Reason is slave to the passions, not the other way around.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought Christians WERE sinners.
Now, now, Texai, don't get testy![heh,heh, or is tee hee?] You know perfectly well that come Armageddon there has to be the bad guys and the good guys the latter of whom are cleansed born-agains.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I thought Christians WERE sinners."

Yep. And while sinning, are often intolerant of Christians.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

1) Pretty much can be said about anyone—particularly the passion shown by the right on abortion and stem-cell research, not to mention Terry Schiavo.

2)“Regular” Joes and Janes on either side don’t bother to go beyond newspapers and talking heads. Of course the “elite” liberals and conservatives do try to act like ivy leaguers.

3)This one is from [pardon the awful pun] right field—as if the left had a monopoly on narrow mindedness. Give me a break.

4) The good intentions of the nuts from both sides, whether Congress or regular Joes and Janes supporting the war in Iraq is the same argument neoconservatives use to justify the war—after all, how were they to know the floral welcome would not materialize. As a buddy in the war used to say to a problem “I don’t have a crystal ball up my ass.”

5)AK47s should be out of private hands. In fact the goddamn[passion!] terrorist sleep with theirs. I recall a smart guy like Dragonol had such ambivalence with Bush that he even, however fleetingly, considered an alternative, if not Kerry none of the above.

6)Touchy, rather personal passion here. The amount in dollars paid in taxes is not the point. It is the leftover gap the rich have after taxes compared to “regular people’s.”

7)Agreed, and very cleverly espouses the influence-goal-orientation of lobbyists.

8)Never heard that one except from conservatives who put down Carter for arming Afghanistan. I trust, by “most” you do allow for the many convincing and logical reasons for not going to war with Iraq.

9)There’s a difference between pacifists and those against the current war. I for one think of Bush as reviving the Manifest Destiny for the Middle East. The Mexican War, after all, affected this continent but his hardly a rationale for Iraq. It was the right that translated estate tax to impassioned “death tax.” The no excuse to go hungry is a conservative argument for more WalMarts, not welfare, the reform of which by the way only partly restricted food stamps.

10)Among your uncle’s church I trust there were liberals doing good things in LA. Just as you didn’t bother to really research the do-nothing liberals you know, I too am privileged to assert that there are indeed liberals in your uncle’s church.

11) Talk about flaunting wealth, and letting your passions take over: And on taxes, even though I use the same roads, schools, police, etc. and pay literally over 50X more in taxes than most people and support progressive taxation, I still get implied arguments that I don't want to pay my fair share if I object to paying even more in taxes. Of course, you pay more; it stands to reason you have more to lose if this country goes bankrupt. And when you reach my age minus 12 you’ll also pay taxes on your social security, which you will also get pissed over. C’est La Vie.

12)I consider myself a New Deal liberal, not the tentative current kind. Diversity is bs; I believe in the melting pot. Diversity today is nothing but flaunting diversions whereby anything goes— from Barry Bond, Rap, polygamy, flamboyant homosexuality, primacy of religion, glamorizing celebrities and bad girls, reality shows, Internet trivialities, and yes the celebration of the rich and famous—in “civilized society.”


Reply #47 from PolMach Forums Top
"As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Wow! I love that saying, it's so true. The United States is being led by wolves in sheep clothing... The people you see on T.V such as president George W Bush is not leading this country believe it or not. What seems to be is not and that is all I have to say about that....

I will be awaiting the typical republican response and lets just see how many apply to the list above...
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our local tin foil hat expert has found another thread to haunt.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
3)This one is from [pardon the awful pun] right field—as if the left had a monopoly on narrow mindedness.


To my dad, steven, one of the most diehard liberals you will ever meet, I am basically a non person. Mainly because of my non liberal views.

That's tolerance for ya.

You're right that the left doesn't have a monopoly on narrowmindedness, but given that the left tends to preach about narrowmindedness, you'd think they could be a little less narrowminded than they are!
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
12)I consider myself a New Deal liberal, not the tentative current kind.


Yeah, I'm a New Deal Libertarian myself. IF we have public assistance programs, they should be geared to serve the public good. And it CAN be done. Because it HAS been done!