Reasons why liberals can't understand the real world

[FascismNOW]

Or we could start calling these people what they really are - progressive authoritarians.

With "progressive" in quotes, of course, as they seek to limit freedoms and liberties to only those that they see fit, in the manner they approve.

True, and for that matter their policies never lead to any sort of "progress", unless you believe gulags, forced famines, secret police, bread lines, consumer goods shortages and despotic totalitarian governments are "progress".

That is indeed how any truly rational observer would define progress. Well, instruments to progress, at least.

If we could imagine a more rational base of posters, they would see the fruitlessness of these interminable arguments, the eternal "lib vs con" battle that will never naturally end as long as humanity continues to exist in this manner. Humanity as a whole is equally conflicted, angry, and stupid. This is yet another sin of mankind, if you'll allow the religious phrasing (all organized religion, of course, would be strictly banned by punishment of public torture-to-death in an optimal society).

 

[PratchettFan]

Can you read? I gave you the definition of liberalism. It means what is in that definition.However, modern so called "liberals" do not fit that description.

You said it does not define the concept people are attempting to get across, so I was asking just what it was they meant when they used the word. Giving me a definition and saying it doesn't apply is giving me nothing at all.

When you use the word "liberal" to describe a particular position, what is it you mean by the word?

 

[Moonglow]

Man! These USMB nutters sure do know a lot about liberals! They just know.

What I've shown is that modern day "liberals" aren't liberals at all. We have things like dictionaries and such in order to make these types of distinctions. I know, really complex shit for Progressive Authoritarians who've spent much time changing definitions around to suit their authoritarian agenda.

You are misusing the term progressive also...You do know there are progressive Christian organizations and it's not about the so called authoritarian agenda, But if we play your game, even Reagan and Lincoln were progressive authoritarians.

 

[PratchettFan]

Liberalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


As you can see, modern day "liberals" aren't liberals at all. That's a term these authoritarians have hijacked in their pursuit to power. Up is down, left is right, right is wrong, war is peace, slavery is freedom, etc..etc..

Nothing about the proper definition of liberalism correlates to modern day "liberals". Because these people are not liberal at all.

So you are telling what it is not. What exactly is a liberal?

Either a complete blithering imbecile, or a criminally insane authoritarian sociopath.

Another non-answer.

 

[Moonglow]

Liberal/socialists (Progressives?) are not the brightest bulbs in the string. Otherwise, they would easily recognize the absense of common sense in their concepts of human existance. A great example is the ACA (Obamacare), and the stress it is about to put on our society.

The United States of America has had a pronounced shortage of doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals, that has continually become worse over several decades. Trained professionals have come from around the globe to fill this vacuum. They come because they could prosper in the open market system that existed here. Still, we have a pronounced shortage.

Our governments, at the state and federal level, have done little to relieve this shortage. Consequently, even in the open market system, people have difficulty finding a good family doctor, and most of these are already overloaded with patients. In addition, the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid have driven up prices in this once open market.

So, what is the progressive solution to this problem? Another government program that adds millions more patients to an already overloaded system, and That passes these huge costs on to individuals in the middle class. No plan to construct and fund new teaching hospitals or establish free clinics to provide for those that do not have insurance. Actually, no plan to fix anything about our health care system. However, they do have a plan for the bureaucracy to take over control of a huge sector of our economy. Was that their goal all along?

There is still an open market for doc's..How many clinics around your town are owned and operated by private for profit enterprises? Zero, I bet not....

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

This is the exact problem that I've encountered in REAL LIFE. They won't even allow to present evidence against them --- and it's not because they don't want to examine your evidence or be factually dishonest --- it's because the very moment you even begin to rebuke their argument, they immediately assume it's because you're evil, because they believe the facts are on their side --- after all, how could something with good intentions produce bad results??? Thus they make the assumption that WHATEVER you're about to say has nothing to do with facts, but is in fact an attack on their saintly intentions which, by default, must have produced a good outcome.

This is why it's best to start an "argument" with an honest liberal by initiating the conversation with a fact contrary to their position. "Hey, I just read that Hitler disarmed the Jews, and Stalin and Mao also disarmed their opposition before exterminating them. It seems that all of the great dictators of the 20th and 21st Century have always disarmed their opposition before exterminating them or reducing them to subsistence."

Since most ordinary people, liberal or conservative, are generally honest, you can initiate this conversation on its merits, and now the liberal will be wiling to have a discussion about Gun CONTROL. In this argument, you will either win, lose or call it a draw, and probably without getting angry at each other.

Now, if the liberal initiated the conversation, instead of you, with something like "XXX dead children at Sandy Hook..." now the very moment you open your mouth to rebuke them, you will be met with "YOU HATE CHILDREN" or some other garbage.

So the key to educating a liberal is to initiate the conversation before they do, and with a FACT that they can readily accept as true without having to research it. Now you can invoke and compare Tienanmen Square vs Sandy Hook. You can observe that Sandy Hook was a gun free zone, as is the location of every other mass shooting, and even point out that the Aurora shooter purposely skipped nearer movie theaters that allowed firearms.

The difference, although fine, has a huge impact. When you initiate with a FACT, the liberal is now aware that you're basing your arguments on FACT, and not "racism, sexism...bullshitPCism"

When they initiate, they immediately assume, by default, that your arguments will be derived from racism or sexism or some other bullshitPCism. Thus, they will not even allow you to open your mouth. They'l just shout you down until you drown in sound and feel very embarrassed with everyone staring at you as if you're some villain. And the Liberal is not doing this with the intent of abusing/intimidating you, they are doing this because they sincerely believe that they are right and you deserved to be punished for the wicked and vile person you are. To them, there is no argument to be had, so they are not even aware that they are preventing an argument from occurring.

It takes a couple of years of "psychological" experience in order to get a Liberal to argue on facts. The key to remember is that they actually WANT to argue on facts, especially since they believe they are right, and thus cannot wait to "enlighten" you and bring you into their "saintly" cast. However, if they assume you're not going to argue on facts, then they don't want to argue at all, after all, how wants to argue on alleged falsehoods?

 

[LoneLaugher]

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

This is the exact problem that I've encountered in REAL LIFE. They won't even allow to present evidence against them --- and it's not because they don't want to examine your evidence or be factually dishonest --- it's because the very moment you even begin to rebuke their argument, they immediately assume it's because you're evil, because they believe the facts are on their side --- after all, how could something with good intentions produce bad results??? Thus they make the assumption that WHATEVER you're about to say has nothing to do with facts, but is in fact an attack on their saintly intentions which, by default, must have produced a good outcome.

This is why it's best to start an "argument" with an honest liberal by initiating the conversation with a fact contrary to their position. "Hey, I just read that Hitler disarmed the Jews, and Stalin and Mao also disarmed their opposition before exterminating them. It seems that all of the great dictators of the 20th and 21st Century have always disarmed their opposition before exterminating them or reducing them to subsistence."

Since most ordinary people, liberal or conservative, are generally honest, you can initiate this conversation on its merits, and now the liberal will be wiling to have a discussion about Gun CONTROL. In this argument, you will either win, lose or call it a draw, and probably without getting angry at each other.

Now, if the liberal initiated the conversation, instead of you, with something like "XXX dead children at Sandy Hook..." now the very moment you open your mouth to rebuke them, you will be met with "YOU HATE CHILDREN" or some other garbage.

So the key to educating a liberal is to initiate the conversation before they do, and with a FACT that they can readily accept as true without having to research it. Now you can invoke and compare Tienanmen Square vs Sandy Hook. You can observe that Sandy Hook was a gun free zone, as is the location of every other mass shooting, and even point out that the Aurora shooter purposely skipped nearer movie theaters that allowed firearms.

Eventually you can go so far as to ask them: "How does one stop a bad guy with a gun?"

You ought to charge tuition for these lessons. Lots of dummies would pay you for your lucid lectures on how to deal with liberals. I mean...you are certainly one of the conservatives at USMB who is most respected by the forum liberals. You've figured us out and we fear you.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You ought to charge tuition for these lessons. Lots of dummies would pay you for your lucid lectures on how to deal with liberals. I mean...you are certainly one of the conservatives at USMB who is most respected by the forum liberals. You've figured us out and we fear you.

I wasn't aware that any USMB conservatives commanded any respect from any USMB liberals --- because we're all evil.

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer

Also, this is a message board that's populated by politically astute posters (regardless of political affiliation and allegiances), so what I typed above doesn't apply to the general population, which often lacks political savvy (also regardless of political affiliation and allegiances).

 

[LoneLaugher]

You ought to charge tuition for these lessons. Lots of dummies would pay you for your lucid lectures on how to deal with liberals. I mean...you are certainly one of the conservatives at USMB who is most respected by the forum liberals. You've figured us out and we fear you.

I wasn't aware that any USMB conservatives commanded any respect from any USMB liberals --- because we're all evil.

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer

You aren't evil. You are fucking stupid. The people who give you your marching orders are a bit evil.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You ought to charge tuition for these lessons. Lots of dummies would pay you for your lucid lectures on how to deal with liberals. I mean...you are certainly one of the conservatives at USMB who is most respected by the forum liberals. You've figured us out and we fear you.

I wasn't aware that any USMB conservatives commanded any respect from any USMB liberals --- because we're all evil.

To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. — Charles Krauthammer

You aren't evil. You are fucking stupid. The people who give you your marching orders are a bit evil.

In other words, any viewpoint that I espouse is rooted in evil, regardless of whether or nt I am aware of it being so --- which proves Krauthammer's statement. We represent Great Evil and you represent the Light.

If you go to 2:33 you'll see a song I wrote and played on Organ that represents how Liberals feel about themselves.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wasn't aware that any USMB conservatives commanded any respect from any USMB liberals --- because we're all evil.

You aren't evil. You are fucking stupid. The people who give you your marching orders are a bit evil.

In other words, any viewpoint that I espouse is rooted in evil, regardless of whether or nt I am aware of it being so --- which proves Krauthammer's statement. We represent Great Evil and you represent the Light.

If you go to 2:33 you'll see a song I wrote and played on Organ that represents how Liberals feel about themselves.

Any viewpoint? I can't speak to that. The viewpoint you usually "espouse" here? Absolutely.

How's the catering job going, by the way?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

How's the catering job going, by the way?

Quite well, it still generates $20k per year (used to be a lot more before Obamacare). Home Depot contracting should also net another $40k by the end of this year. So I'd say it's all right.


How you doing by the way?

 

[LeftofLeft]

A program like Voter ID, which sounds good because it's designed to prevent voter fraud, makes faux conservatives feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't prevent voter fraud and wastes taxpayer money.

This is why I have often said defenders of Voter ID sound just like liberals!

This, coming from the side of 'hanging chads' concentrated in the largest concentrated areas of Democrats. Don't forget the voter oppression happening in the same areas. Surely you forget this because your side was too busy disqualifying the vote of the troops in the same election.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A program like Voter ID, which sounds good because it's designed to prevent voter fraud, makes faux conservatives feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't prevent voter fraud and wastes taxpayer money.

This is why I have often said defenders of Voter ID sound just like liberals!

Um, defenders of Voter ID are dishonest and mostly brainwashed. Provide evidence that all liberals are dishonest and mostly brainwashed, and you might have made a valiant point.

 

[Pheonixops]

I've always said liberalism is a war against the obvious.

This article nails it right down to the ground.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it's designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn't work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they're "protecting the environment" even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it's not what a program does in the real world; it's about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

7 Reasons Why Liberals Are Incapable of Understanding The World - John Hawkins - Page full

That's why when you argue with liberals about the failure of the War on Poverty, the Failure of Headstart, the Failure of Obamacare (for pity sake), liberals won't address the actual FACTS about the failure.

Instead they will attack you for being against the "good intentions" of those laws and initiatives. Nor will they address the damage that's been done to the family. Nope they won't talk about any of that. Instead they will banter about the good intentions and try to change the subject to why YOU are against those good intentions.

It's never about the actual results. Nope it's about them feeling "morally" superior to you regardless of whether it helps a single solitary person.

I've always said that people who just want to stick other people into little labeled boxes are either not interested in or incapable of actually discussing the merits of given issues.

Excellent points, the OP and the article cited is a prime example of this.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Man! These USMB nutters sure do know a lot about liberals! They just know.

What I've shown is that modern day "liberals" aren't liberals at all. We have things like dictionaries and such in order to make these types of distinctions. I know, really complex shit for Progressive Authoritarians who've spent much time changing definitions around to suit their authoritarian agenda.

You have shown something?

I know you have said something. Several times, in fact. But have you shown it to be true? No. You haven't.

I have an open offer to anyone. You may ask any unloaded, honest question and I will give you an honest answer. You might then begin to grasp what a liberal thinks and believes.

Oddly enough.....I've never had one of you nutters take me up on the offer.

You want to try?

You can answer the philosophical questions associated with the dictionary definition of liberalism.

I already posted it for you. Do believe in and advocate for those things? I highly doubt it. From you personally, all I've ever seen is Obamacare type cheer-leading or the typical condescending remarks from modern Progressive Authoritarians.

But I'll wait and see how you measure up as a liberal by its definition.

 

[Pete7469]

Left is right, war is peace, slavery is freedom, etc...that's how progressives think. Everything is upside down, backwards and inside out with these types.

I'm sure you read Orwell's 1984. Did that sound like a warning to you also?

Seems do me that these bed wetters took it as a directive.

 

[Pete7469]

With "progressive" in quotes, of course, as they seek to limit freedoms and liberties to only those that they see fit, in the manner they approve.

True, and for that matter their policies never lead to any sort of "progress", unless you believe gulags, forced famines, secret police, bread lines, consumer goods shortages and despotic totalitarian governments are "progress".

That is indeed how any truly rational observer would define progress. Well, instruments to progress, at least.

If we could imagine a more rational base of posters, they would see the fruitlessness of these interminable arguments, the eternal "lib vs con" battle that will never naturally end as long as humanity continues to exist in this manner. Humanity as a whole is equally conflicted, angry, and stupid. This is yet another sin of mankind, if you'll allow the religious phrasing (all organized religion, of course, would be strictly banned by punishment of public torture-to-death in an optimal society).

So you would prefer something more like an any colony where there is no emotion, individualism or critical thinking?

Oh wait...

You're another parody right?

This should be fun.

Are you "liberal media" too?


https://www.facebook.com/WomynForOmnipotentGovernment?fref=photo

 

[ScienceRocks]

This thread makes me laugh! I'd say the tea party understands the real world even less.

They want to cut the science budget
They want to cut the safety net
They want to cut infrastructure
They want education to be privatized. Which would screw over the poor.

Understanding of the real world my ass.

 

[ScienceRocks]

True, and for that matter their policies never lead to any sort of "progress", unless you believe gulags, forced famines, secret police, bread lines, consumer goods shortages and despotic totalitarian governments are "progress".

That is indeed how any truly rational observer would define progress. Well, instruments to progress, at least.

If we could imagine a more rational base of posters, they would see the fruitlessness of these interminable arguments, the eternal "lib vs con" battle that will never naturally end as long as humanity continues to exist in this manner. Humanity as a whole is equally conflicted, angry, and stupid. This is yet another sin of mankind, if you'll allow the religious phrasing (all organized religion, of course, would be strictly banned by punishment of public torture-to-death in an optimal society).

So you would prefer something more like an any colony where there is no emotion, individualism or critical thinking?

Oh wait...

You're another parody right?

This should be fun.

Are you "liberal media" too?


https://www.facebook.com/WomynForOmnipotentGovernment?fref=photo

Of course not. I like critical thinking and I think the democrats are wrong on many issues.