Page 13 of 29 [ 455 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 29  Next

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Nov 2010, 1:09 am

Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
To those who disrespect "average folks" and deem them unintelligent I say beware: These people vote the the legislators they put into office write the laws which govern you life.

ruveyn

Does my personal opinion of the average person have any significant impact on people's voting patterns?


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt144255.html

^Probably.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Nov 2010, 1:16 am

skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
To those who disrespect "average folks" and deem them unintelligent I say beware: These people vote the the legislators they put into office write the laws which govern you life.

ruveyn

Does my personal opinion of the average person have any significant impact on people's voting patterns?


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt144255.html

^Probably.


Because certain prominent left-liberal thinkers and activists are perceived of as arrogant or portayed as arrogant does not mean that Orwell's particular views effect larger voting patterns. You're committing the fallacy of composition.

Most people who think of left-liberals as arrogant haven't even heard of Orwell or even spoken to someone whose impression of left-liberalism has been influenced by Orwell. And Orwell isn't even an archetypical left-liberal.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:16 am

Dox47 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Reality is condescending and elitist? The bolded portions are factual claims. Generally speaking, people are idiots.

Not to say I agree with 5's proposed solution at all. But his claims are accurate enough. People have a miserable track record at assessing the validity and objectivity of sources, and are too easily swayed by emotional appeals.


You're really going to argue that calling the vast majority of the populace idiots and morons isn't just a touch condescending? By definition most people are going to be of average intelligence; to proclaim those people who are not above average are all stupid doesn't strike you as at all elitist?


Dox, that is one of the problem with people on the left, they don't even realize they are being condescending and elitist. They think it is everyone else's problem and not theirs.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Nov 2010, 1:20 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Dox, that is one of the problem with people on the left, they don't even realize they are being condescending and elitist. They think it is everyone else's problem and not theirs.


Given that Orwell thinks democratic government isn't really a great idea and doubts that a substantial degree of egalitarianism is a worthwhile goal, I'd hardly classify him as a "person on the left".


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Nov 2010, 1:22 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
To those who disrespect "average folks" and deem them unintelligent I say beware: These people vote the the legislators they put into office write the laws which govern you life.

ruveyn

Does my personal opinion of the average person have any significant impact on people's voting patterns?


http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt144255.html

^Probably.


Because certain prominent left-liberal thinkers and activists are perceived of as arrogant or portayed as arrogant does not mean that Orwell's particular views effect larger voting patterns. You're committing the fallacy of composition.


I'm alluding to that others take the same stance and therefore create a collective that influences people in such a way. Orwell by himself doesn't have much impact but his attitude is shared by others and that creates a much larger push.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:26 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Dox, that is one of the problem with people on the left, they don't even realize they are being condescending and elitist. They think it is everyone else's problem and not theirs.


Given that Orwell thinks democratic government isn't really a great idea and doubts that a substantial degree of egalitarianism is a worthwhile goal, I'd hardly classify him as a "person on the left".


I would considering people on the left tend to worship Chavez as some kind of hero, never mind the fact he is a Dictator. People on the left tend to be pro-tyranny as long as it goes after only people they don't agree with.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Nov 2010, 1:28 am

skafather84 wrote:
I'm alluding to that others take the same stance and therefore create a collective that influences people in such a way. Orwell by himself doesn't have much impact but his attitude is shared by others and that creates a much larger push.


I think a much larger problem among the left than being "intellectually arrogant" by insulting religious rightists or other hard conservatives who'd never vote for anyone left of the GOP in a trillion years is the stupid, Kumbaya attitude many on the progressive movement have adopted. Namely, if we all hold hands with the apologists of the corporate welfare Kings and "compromise" then matters will all work out. Or, even dumber, not vote but show "love" to everyone.

If the left were winning on other fronts, the charge of "arrogance" would be ignored as all political factions are almost by definition arrogant. Indeed, in many countries where reform-liberals formed the government for a long time (like Canada) it's the Right that's viewed as full of smug people who hate the less well off (I don't actually consider reform-liberalism "leftist", though, and regard myself as more of a social democrat than a reform-liberal. But "left" and "right" are value judgements.).


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Last edited by Master_Pedant on 28 Nov 2010, 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:34 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
I'm alluding to that others take the same stance and therefore create a collective that influences people in such a way. Orwell by himself doesn't have much impact but his attitude is shared by others and that creates a much larger push.


I think a much larger problem among the left than being "intellectually arrogant" by insulting religious rightists or other hard conservatives who'd never vote for anyone left of the GOP in a trillion years is the stupid, Kumbaya attitude many on the progressive movement have adopted. Namely, if we all hold hands with the apologists of the corporate welfare Kings and "compromise" then matters will all work out. Or, even dumber, not vote but show "love" to everyone.


Seriously, I normally don't vote for Democrats because they have a crediblitiy issue and voting for a Democrat for the House of Representatives would be a vote for Pelosi, and for the senate it would be for Reid. Furthermore, when you actually get someone whom isn't three fries short of a happy meal running I might consider it, but thus far you haven't.

Furthermore, I've found the left to be just plain arrogant, and usually not as informed as people on the right.


Master_Pedant wrote:
If the left were winning on other fronts, the charge of "arrogance" would be ignored as all political factions are almost by definition arrogant. Indeed, in many countries were reform-liberals formed the government for a long time (like Canada) it's the Right that's viewed as full of smug people who hate the less well off.


Only reason it's being brought up is to come up with an idea how to trick the general public into voting Democrat again. Well I don't think Dems are going to be winning much in the next few years without committing widespread voter fraud. People have had it with the inmates running the asylum.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Nov 2010, 1:36 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
I'm alluding to that others take the same stance and therefore create a collective that influences people in such a way. Orwell by himself doesn't have much impact but his attitude is shared by others and that creates a much larger push.


I think a much larger problem among the left than being "intellectually arrogant" by insulting religious rightists or other hard conservatives who'd never vote for anyone left of the GOP in a trillion years is the stupid, Kumbaya attitude many on the progressive movement have adopted. Namely, if we all hold hands with the apologists of the corporate welfare Kings and "compromise" then matters will all work out. Or, even dumber, not vote but show "love" to everyone.


Seriously, I normally don't vote for Democrats because they have a crediblitiy issue and voting for a Democrat for the House of Representatives would be a vote for Pelosi, and for the senate it would be for Reid. Furthermore, when you actually get someone whom isn't three fries short of a happy meal running I might consider it, but thus far you haven't.

Furthermore, I've found the left to be just plain arrogant, and usually not as informed as people on the right.


Master_Pedant wrote:
If the left were winning on other fronts, the charge of "arrogance" would be ignored as all political factions are almost by definition arrogant. Indeed, in many countries were reform-liberals formed the government for a long time (like Canada) it's the Right that's viewed as full of smug people who hate the less well off.


Only reason it's being brought up is to come up with an idea how to trick the general public into voting Democrat again. Well I don't think Dems are going to be winning much in the next few years without committing widespread voter fraud. People have had it with the inmates running the asylum.


The following example displays pure ideological arrogance and indicates why anyone whose a member of any group with well-defined ideological viewpoints will be arrogant almost out of neccessity.

I should note that the view that New England wasn't part of "real America" (a view widespread among the conservative movement in America until the Scott Brown victory) and the view that your political opponents are effete, tatoo wearing, sushi eating un-Americans is pretty damn arrogant (as it indicates you're the only "REAL American").


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:45 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
I should note that the view that New England wasn't part of "real America" (a view widespread among the conservative movement in America until the Scott Brown victory) and the view that your political opponents are effete, tatoo wearing, sushi eating un-Americans is pretty damn arrogant (as it indicates you're the only "REAL American").


I should note that people from the midwest don't appreciate being called "fly-over country."

Btw, you want to know why people in the midwest consider the northeast not to be a part of the US, well that's one of the reasons, being treated like we don't exist.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Nov 2010, 2:13 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
I should note that the view that New England wasn't part of "real America" (a view widespread among the conservative movement in America until the Scott Brown victory) and the view that your political opponents are effete, tatoo wearing, sushi eating un-Americans is pretty damn arrogant (as it indicates you're the only "REAL American").


I should note that people from the midwest don't appreciate being called "fly-over country."

Btw, you want to know why people in the midwest consider the northeast not to be a part of the US, well that's one of the reasons, being treated like we don't exist.


Despite the fact that politicans of all stripes give out huge subsidies to midwest Agriculture and that many prominent liberal activists come from the midwest (albeit, more Upper Midwest than Lower Midwest)?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 9:04 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
I should note that the view that New England wasn't part of "real America" (a view widespread among the conservative movement in America until the Scott Brown victory) and the view that your political opponents are effete, tatoo wearing, sushi eating un-Americans is pretty damn arrogant (as it indicates you're the only "REAL American").


I should note that people from the midwest don't appreciate being called "fly-over country."

Btw, you want to know why people in the midwest consider the northeast not to be a part of the US, well that's one of the reasons, being treated like we don't exist.


This has to do with population density and representation in the House. Elections are mostly decided on the coasts, East and West.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 12:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
I should note that the view that New England wasn't part of "real America" (a view widespread among the conservative movement in America until the Scott Brown victory) and the view that your political opponents are effete, tatoo wearing, sushi eating un-Americans is pretty damn arrogant (as it indicates you're the only "REAL American").


I should note that people from the midwest don't appreciate being called "fly-over country."

Btw, you want to know why people in the midwest consider the northeast not to be a part of the US, well that's one of the reasons, being treated like we don't exist.


This has to do with population density and representation in the House. Elections are mostly decided on the coasts, East and West.

ruveyn


Yeah, when there are a ton of tornados in the midwest a weatherman from out east just says that it looks stormy in fly-over country really has to do with population density. :roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Nov 2010, 12:06 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

Yeah, when there are a ton of tornados in the midwest a weatherman from out east just says that it looks stormy in fly-over country really has to do with population density.


The coastal weathermen love to point out that tornadoes make straight for the trailer parks.

ruveyn



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

28 Nov 2010, 1:17 pm

Just to stick up for my fellow weathermen, trailer parks and tornadoes only seem to go hand in hand because the structures themselves are highly susceptible to damage. The often do get hit the hardest, only because they can't withstand the damage as easily as structures with solid foundations. If an F2 rips through a town with both traditional stick-built homes and trailers, the emergency response will go straight to the trailers, along with the story.

Also, meteorology and aviation are closely linked, as aviators depend on forecasts and observations. Aviators often call the big chunk of land between the coasts "fly-over country" because that's where a lot of farms and open plains exist. If you've ever been on a flight from one coast to the other, you'd probably agree. There's just not a lot to see. The populations and major cities are focused near the coasts and that's all there is to it. Of course there are exceptions, but I can assure that there is more than likely no ill-will by the meteorologist. If you'd contact a weatherman and tell him how you are offended by the comment, I'm sure s/he'd apologize and refrain from using it in the future.

Inuyasha and ruveyn, you are both reading way too much into it.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Nov 2010, 1:20 pm

I would buy into that if I didn't have a teacher from New Jersey whom couldn't even find the state I lived in on a map until she actually had to move there. Reason being none of the states west of Pennsylvania was labeled on maps where she went to school, until you got to California.