Failure to Communicate
It’s true, there are some men (women too) that you just can’t reach.
One problem I have with the current political climate is the failure for any opposing viewpoint to be heard. Ironically, I see this more of a “liberal” problem than a conservative problem. Liberals commonly claim the mantle of tolerance. They are usually the ones singing the praises of diversity, in the workplace, at schools, in government; diversity everywhere except in thought. My recent escapade in liberal tolerance was over on a Global Warming thread on Liberal Rapture. Read the comment section, the biggest self-described “Liberal” there had these tolerant words to say.
Ad hominem attacks and false characterization of one’s opponents is the desperate recourse of a person bankrupt of real ideas.
Sounds good so far, pretty sage advice if you ask me…
Come back when you have something of substance to say, capertreee.
That PJ gives serious consideration to such new age mumbo-jumbo as the Gaia Theory indicates that he and I cannot have a serious discussion on this matter. Perhaps PJ could use reiki to heal the environment.
No, I was asking for you to provide a legit scientific org, douchebag. All you can do is link to S. Fred Singer, the glorified satellite repairman who was fired from every academic position he ever held, and had to whore himself for ExxonMobil and the tobacco lobby.
But JSOM is a very liberal blogger. If you disagree with the philosophy and content at LR (and the acceptance of AGW is part of it), then what, exactly, are you doing here?
That doesn’t sound very tolerant to you does it? Now the purpose of this post is not to attack the person who said those things. I want to understand how someone who describes themselves as “liberal” can be so closed minded? Personally, I think the idea of “liberal tolerance” to be a wild misnomer. Anyone that has had the unfortunate happenstance to cross paths with a tolerant liberal know what I’m talking about. Being a former Hillary Democrat, I was called on numerous times a “racist” for not supporting Obama. The Newsweek comment section in particular had two commentators that would always try to use race to shut me up. Anyone that knows me, knows that tactic doesn’t work on me. The sad thing is, it does work on a lot of people, which is why it’s used so often.
Why does it have to go down that path? Can’t we just have a rational discussion and maybe just agree to disagree? Often time with the self-described “liberals” that is impossible. If you disagree with them on one principle or another, you get a label. That label has the magical power of rendering anything you say automatically wrong. How many times have we heard a “tolerant” liberal go off on that “Right Wing Noise machine (FOX News, the most trusted new organization)?” Ask most liberals and they will tell you that they can’t watch FOX because they are apart of the Right Wing and therefore assumed to be all lies. Label are a form of ad hominum to them. By labeling anyone they don’t agree with a racist, bigot, right winger, etc; they think that gives them the excuse to disregard anything that person says. That is not tolerance, that is closed mindedness.
This from a group that says no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. That’s relativism. Now I think that’s true. I don’t think there is really such a thing as complete objectivity. I think everything is subjective. Your religion isn’t right for me, but hey if it works for you great. Just please don’t preach to me. Of course, which side is doing the most preaching?
My view is really simple. No one is right, yet no one is completely wrong. That sounds like some fence sitting mumbo jumbo, but I think it stands to reason. Now that doesn’t mean that I don’t have an opinion, I do and a very vocal one at times, but I don’t think in black and white terms. I admit I don’t have all the information. No one can, one of the many valuable insights of Hayek. Logically, if I don’t have all the information, then there is a possibility that I’m completely wrong.
Think about that for a minute. How many times have you heard anyone admit that they can/are wrong? Much less a liberal?
…actually, all of science says it’s so. Just like all of science says Evolution is so. And if you came here and said you still had doubts whether the Earth was 6 billion or only 6,000 years old, and that it might be possible that cavemen hunted dinosaurs, I’d condescend on your ignorant ass just as bad.
Is there any indication that the speaker even acknowledges the possibility that he/she might be wrong?
Hell no, they are so sure they are right, they have no compuncture to denounce anyone that doesn’t think like them, the “right” way. Is that tolerant?
The essence of debate is a free flow of ideas and information and a discussion of the pro/cons of those ideas. When you have one or both sides unwilling to listen to the other side, there is no debate. It’s merely seen as talking down to the ignorant. Maybe trying to save them from themselves.
[On Megan Fox]“I’d barter with him,” she muses to the July issue Total Film UK, “and say instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”
Now Ms Fox, isn’t exactly an intellectual in politics, but I think her comment speaks volumes of the so called “tolerant” liberals that subscribe to their world view. Take the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” The whole premise of the book is to ask, why do those ignorant Kansans keep electing Republicans that (supposedly) hurt their economic self interests?
Can there be any more intolerance that what is coming from “liberal” circles?
There is so much more I want to talk about on this subject, save some for another time.