The Herd of Independent Minds

I do not subscribe to a "shaming code" as the impetus for many to be Obama sycophants. In my opinion, diverse groups might just believe their respective agenda has more chance to be maintained, or implemented, with the Democrats. Obama is just this decade's poster child for "Democratic beliefs."

A woman, for example, that is concerned about her, and her daughter's, right to have an abortion may just vote Democratic, based on that concern. And, on other concerns, she could be considered conservative (i.e., paying for welfare without a work requirement, undocumented aliens, etc.).

It is possible that a "shaming code" has been in place, as a sort of taboo in some young and educated in society? Sort of like not wanting to "litter" by throwing one's candy wrapper on the pavement, since one doesn't want to think of oneself as a litterer. (Sort of like not wanting to vote for a white candidate, since one doesn't want to think of oneself as a whites-only voter.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps the crowd here simply can't properly respond to such a ridiculous piece in the fashion you like, because it's not possible to take such tripe seriously.

For example:

Quote:
Conservatives are usually reluctant ideological warriors. For the most part, they want only to be left alone, to live and let live. Having won a battle, they sigh with relief and waste no time beating their swords into ploughshares.

Does this writer have any awareness of the reality of politics whatsoever? The above statement is about as far from the truth as one could possibly get.

Cycloptichorn

I don't expect anyone to reply in any particular way. The author uses harsh language to get his point across. It's a good point worthy of discussion.

There is no denying that liberals do many of the things mentioned. Shaming code, tribal mindedness, tribal code, etc.

First, duck the argument. Second, nitpick. Third, vilify.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

There is no denying that liberals do many of the things mentioned. Shaming code, tribal mindedness, tribal code, etc.

But, so do Conservatives. Explicitly. So, what's the point of only ascribing these features to one side of the fence?

You keep claiming people are 'ducking the argument,' but nobody is actually doing that. Instead, we are engaging the argument and questioning the premises it is founded on. This is a standard method of engaging an argument and, actually, the exact opposite of what you are quoting Ferguson as saying happened to him. BTW, as I said earlier, your choice of using him as an example is particularly hilarious, as he presented a painfully poorly-researched article and then got his panties in a wad when Democrats had the temerity to point his factual (not opinion, fact) errors.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

There are so many fallacies wrapped up in that, I'm not sure I can detangle them.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Let me ask you this, McG: Do you believe in evolution?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

But the article isn't about conservatives Cyc. Isn't there a latin term for that or some kind of false equivalency?

Drewdad is ducking the argument so far he is digging a tunnel to get beneath it.

Ferguson wrote the truth, was answered by the liberal blogosphere and he responded. If you want to argue the finer points of his argument, send him an email. I only posted it as an example of the opening articles point. He was hit from several "independent" liberals all using the same tactics. That was my point. The finer points of his article are mere distractions of the grander point. His rebuttal was sound to his detractors though. You can't hide behind facts with opinions and he had the facts to back him up. As I said though, I am not going to argue his points.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Ferguson wrote the truth, was answered by the liberal blogosphere and he responded.

Um, the entire point is that he didn't. He made several factual errors and apparently badly misinterpreted several charts and graphs that he used to build his argument. I haven't seen him respond to these criticisms at all.

Quote:

The finer points of his article are mere distractions of the grander point.

Did you even read his article? The 'fine points' were the FOUNDATION of his grander argument. When the proof you use to build a case for an assertion you are making is false, the assertion itself is false. You can't simply claim that what he said is true, even if the evidence backing it up is shown to be untrue.

Quote:

You can't hide behind facts with opinions and he had the facts to back him up.

I'm shocked you would even write this. I at this point don't believe you actually read his original article, any of the criticisms against the article, or his rebuttal. Did you? If so, how do you reconcile the errors he made with what you wrote here?

If you think several independent liberals (and a few Conservatives) all pointing out that Ferguson made the same errors - and actually providing links to the backup documentation, something he has never done, ever - is an example of 'herding,' you're out in deep space, man. Many different people can look at a factually incorrect piece and point out the errors it relies on without them copying one another.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Ok cyc, go here then: http://able2know.org/topic/196671-1

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When the proof you use to build a case for an assertion you are making is false, the assertion itself is false.

Er... An assertion can be true, even if the evidence provided is faulty.

However, in this case it is pretty definitive that he deliberately mislead people.

For example, he made a statement that something was not deficit-neutral, because the costs would rise. He made no mention that the revenues are also expected to rise, which would, in fact, make it deficit-neutral.

I could forgive this in a casual conversation, but this guy is an economist, and certainly knows what "deficit," "cost," and "revenue" mean.

Given that he's being deliberately deceptive, I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject the rest of what he has to say. If his position were reasonable, he wouldn't have to lie to support it.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, about judging whether a source is trustworthy or not.

0 Replies

Gotta say, I read large chunks of the article, and kept thinking, yeah, that exactly describes conservatives: groupthink, imperviousness to evidence (particularly science-based evidence), shaming of those who disagree, and on and on. Talk about selective blindness on the author's part.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Let me ask you this, McG: Do you believe in evolution?

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

That would be an example of conservative making outlandish arguments, then when getting called out on his arguments getting in a snit and acting like a 3 year old.

0 Replies

Unbelievable. There is some truth in huxley's theories. What's interesting is that a few words could be changed for exactly the same argument about conservatives. It only says we humans need to be in a group for security and will turn off our critical thinking to belong. Hardly a tendency only for liberals. Reading this and laughing that 'hey that's true for the libs' only shows the exact behavior it describes.

Am I to believe that conservatives are the only free thinkers? Right.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Everyone else has adequately addressed this particular horseshit, so i don't need to go over that again. You keep saying that this is the truth, this is the truth, there are stereotypes for a reason. But you don't have a shred of evidence for any of that hateful bullshit. Maybe that's why you like your boy Ferguson so much--he doesn't bother with messy details like evidence, either.

0 Replies

Here would be a similar argument from the other side of the aisle -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/todd-akin-republicans_b_1826617.html

At least Maher makes it humorous.

Quote:

Next week in Tampa the Republicans must admit that the difference between a GOP convention and Comic-Con is that the people at Comic-Con have a much firmer grasp of reality.

1 Reply

Read McGentrix's quote

Quote:

It is this code that makes the members of the group feel as one," writes Lee Harris. "They are disgusted, angered, delighted and shamed by the same things. The unanimity of their visceral response is what provides the powerful sense of collective identity. It makes them feel and think as a tribal Us, in contrast to those tribes who are not disgusted by what disgusts us, or made angry by what makes us angry, and who feel no shame at what we think of as shameful[.] ... A tribe that shares a powerful visceral code that inhibits the natural tendency of the individual to self-assertion will present a united front against its enemies."

Now try not to think, "Yep, that's the Tea Party right there" or "Yep, he's sure got Republican Members of Congress down".

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Exactly. The article is only interesting as a deliberately biased argument meant to deceive rather than educate. i.e. tripe

0 Replies

@parados,

Isent this the guy they kicked off of tv for telling the truth? Does this mean they will not let him write any more for the same reason. Truth I mean.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Addicted to the Kool aid, huh? Getting rhetoric confused with truth is dangerous.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

I would rather drink koolaid than the bs that the far right conservatives put out.

1 Reply

The Herd of Independent Minds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know