Home > Conservative, Labels, Liberal > Failure to Communicate

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.

Categories: Conservative, Labels, Liberal
  1. Woodhull
    January 28, 2010 at 00:48

    I couldn’t take a deep breath in the rarified air of this sort of liberal tolerance. And your point about diversity of thought is the crux of the whole idea of diversity. Because without a brain and a mind, the “vehicle” no matter what color, ethnicity, gender or sex, has no other means of rational communication, nor even the means to give us the middle finger.

    I’d like to have that conversation with you.

    • January 28, 2010 at 21:24

      Diversity of thought is central to tolerance. The freedom and liberty to think or speak anything is the crux of being a liberal. So in some sense, I do agree with JSOM that Obama is not a liberal. But then again most Democrats, nearly all Progressives and socialists are not liberal. My Definition of Liberal come from the Classical Thinkers; Hume, Locke, etc, far better men than the Olbermanns, Mathews, Maddows or Obamas we have now.
      There is a reason why the Europeans, whose political ideology closely aligns with the US’s liberals, not call themselves Liberals, rather social Democrats or sometimes socialists.

  2. kenoshamarge
    January 28, 2010 at 13:21

    Having been a Democrat most of my adult life and now an Independent I was astounded at how intolerent the fellow “liberals” were when I refused to drink the Obama Kool-Aid. I had never been attacked or insulted as relentlessly in all the years I had verbally fenced with friends and relatives that were Republican/Conservative as I was by those on the left.

    I was then and always will be a moderate so I was aware that those to the left of me had no respect for my opinions. I should have seen the intolerance coming. I should have expected the vitriole and the insults. But I didn’t and I am still surprised at the intolerance coming from so many on the left. They not only don’t agree with those who don’t subscribe to their opinions, they don’t even want to discuss things with us. I will bear that in mind the next time some liberal tells me about the narrow minded right wingers.

    • January 28, 2010 at 21:27

      That is why I think the TL’s of the liberal world will only do more harm to their cause than good. They will continue to drive out the marginal voter, in favor of the “core.” It won’t take long before there isn’t much core left, you can only peal an onion so many times you know.
      That’s why I despise the tactics used against the Prop 8 supporters, by the Left last year. The Left went to far, and sowed a lot of ill will. How long before they reap what they sowed?

  3. January 28, 2010 at 21:17

    Sorry about the numerous typos and bad grammar. I wrote it in haste and the lack of good grammar was the opportunity cost.

  4. Woodhull
    January 29, 2010 at 08:09

    I think they are already reaping the whirlwind. Nothing will galvanize the middle more quickly and absolutely than to have to listen to those who would rather they “just go away.” I’m not aware of the Repubs doing this to their own supporters (maybe because I’ve never been a card-carrying Repub), they don’t seem to go after center-leaning Repubs by trashing them.

    Note to self: I’m not even sure if there is a true “middle”. Perhaps what I define as middle are those who are secure enough to venture into both ends of the spectrum in order to understand the debate and to come out of that understanding with some sense of where they themselves stand. For example, I fought hard for womens’ right to choose, but now feel somewhat differently about the rights of the unborn — particularly when I factor in the ease with which birth control is obtained. The U.S. is not a third world country without access to information on this, so if someone finds themselves in a spot, it’s not because of ignorance about prevention. Still, at the end of the day, I would support the freedom of women to choose for themselves — it just wouldn’t be my personal choice. That kind of thing. That’s where I think some of the posters (we all know who) are missing the point on Sarah Palin.

    • January 29, 2010 at 14:13

      I don’t know if you’ve read over their lately but they are trying to draw lines in the sand about abortion now. Somehow you can’t be a “good liberal” if you support abortion 100%. It’s not enough to be pro-choice for philosophical reasons, yet still be against abortion. They seem to be confusing a lot of things lately, probably because their nice little world view is crumbling around them. Of course it can’t be because that world view was flawed, it “has” to be because of those evil republicans. =) I don’t get it.

  1. January 26, 2010 at 21:34

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: