2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

Fair enough, but I'm pretty sure he's wrong about all liberals having larger penises than conservatives, about liberals being smarter than conservatives, about liberals smelling better and having less offensive stool...

The reason Blatham and yourself think the right attacks more or some such is simply because you agree with the attacks from the left and therefore deem them a "scathing factual rebuttal" instead of a "basless rhetorical attack".

So by your estimation the right is forever frothing at the mouth and shrill, while the attacks coming from the left are "spot on", reasonable and of course "right".

It's easy to overlook fallacies and falsehood when you agree with the general sentiment they are employed to defend, and that is what I accuse blatham of doing. He ignores attacks that emanate from his camp because he generally agrees with them.

For example, if a rightie was going around telling everyone to take a break from Able2Know like you are doing these days, he'd probably take issue, but since he agrees with your politics he is willing to focus on the faults of your political opponents instead and ignore that you have, in the past few weeks, told just about everyone with whom you disagree to leave the site. If someone else was telling you to leave like you are doing to others he'd stand up to them. But you won't find him standing up to you.

Passionate bias being right.

I would submit that it is merely conjecture, levelled at one another fairly equally by the less-informed and less-principled of both camps, promoted annecdotally, but unsupported by verifiable, academically published, peer-reviewed studies, sworn testimony, or other court record; in short, that it is an allegation for which there is no forensically valid evidence; at kindest it is an error, at worst an outright lie.

I beg to differ! Mine is bigger, I'm smarter, and and I smell of clover and jasmine!

Gotta link to data, or is that just your opinion? :wink:

I don't think the TOS allow me to post those pictures!

Mine is peer-reviewed, clinically tested, and all witnesses are willing to be sworn as to its efficacy.

Good enough for me ... I'd say both of you have provided more info than I really needed.

No, Craven. The binary-think and smear tactics of the Right have been with us for years, starting in Congress and the media and spreading to their disciples out here while the Left has been standing watching all this with its jaw dropping, unable to believe the bad manners, flatlander certainty, and scorn for decency. I don't think it's at all a bad thing -- in fact, it's probably a very good thing -- that the Left is now rarin' to go, ready to tell the idjits where to get off. Blatham does it deliciously, carefully and with humor. I prefer to leave the Right unable to procreate.

Craven - Whoa! Slow down, big feller! I offered an off-the-cuff perception and qualified it as PROBABLY flawed and simply wondered whether anyone might be able to offer some examples of self-deprecating Democrat humor since I was at a loss to come up with any. I wasn't saying such didn't exist, I was just sharing a thought that occurred to me and wondered what others thought of it.

I do like that Rogers quote, though my perception wasn't that it's never happened, but that looking at the two parties today (my experience), the Dems seem to me to always be poking fun at Republicans (often childishly, for my tastes) while I see Republicans willing to poke fun at themselves in a way that I don't recall from Democrats. And again, I'm probably wrong about this, but that's my impression. Far from challenging people to prove the existence of such humor, I'm simply assuming I'm ignorant on the subject and suggested that maybe some people here can educate me about the wealth of self-deprecating liberal/Democrat humor out there.

Apparently, Tart, those whose viewpoint counters your own are mendacious, scurrilous, thoroughly reprehensible minions of mamon, while you and those with whom you agree are the epitome of veracity, insight, social responsibility and decorous behavior. While perhaps not a very democratic stance, it does cohere with the Democrat stance.

In the past I have entertained that notion, that conservatives were more agressive and more prone to simplistic and forcefull arguments while liberal to more complex ones. Both sides would, of course, spin it different ways.

One could say that conservatives do not appreciate the multifaceted nature of life and prefer to simplify. On the other hand the conservatives could say that liberals nuance themselves into oblivion and can't come up with a solid and forceful position.

There might be elements of truth to either accusation but I've long concluded that the more forcefull the generalization you forward the more difficulty you will have supporting it.

I accused blatham of allowing bias to cloud his perception after seeing a very significant amount of evidence to support this. In the particular case mentioned I tried my best not to even reply to it and he has started saying the left = nice while right = mean and nasty thing as an axiom now.

What he himself will have to admit is that this is based upon his take and his perception and that he has yet to attempt to substantiate this, even to himself while mulling it over.

When he tried to assert this to me, repeatedly, he did so in a very ironic way.

He repeatedly lambasted the right for playing dirty but specifically mentioned rhetorical attacks, saying that the left substantiates their claims.

His charge was, of course, rhetorical in nature. It sounded damn good. Over time he evolved it to a truly powerdul rhetorical tool.

He started saying that the left too must play dirty, just like the right. This is a damn clever way to phrase it. By seeking to emulate them you take the edge off calling them all dirty rotten scoundrels and one could even say this is a "loaded compliment".

By stating that they must be emulated he has preloaded the statement with the supposed axiom that the right is dirtier than the left.

Anywho, what was particularly ironic, and what I eventually couldn't help but comment on, was that he proceeded to laud the left's ability to contruct "factual" arguments in the face of this onslaught of rhetorical nastiness by conservatives.

Now he's said this on the boards many times (albiet a bit more segmented) but to me he repeated this several times before I called him on it.

He was saying the left is factual and the right is rhetorical in a rhetorical argument devoid of any facts.

The irony was a bit too much. What I've realized is that he has a decidedly one-sided way of viewing things.

And so it goes, bias is a poweful filter, and since we all have biases we will have to live with this to some degree. But I think it important to challenge bias from all sides. And not be content to live with the blindness bias can cause.

Herein I have given a very clear example of how a bias can make one nearly completely blind to something.

Blatham has gotten angry at me on these boards and mocked the notion that Tartrain actively attempt to drive away anyone with whom she does not agree.



Well he obviously feels strongly about it, he also seems to have very little doubt about being right.

Thing is, Tartarin flat out suggests that people leave and take a break from Able2Know. It's not an inference on my part. Blatham must have missed it but off the top of my head I can recall Tartarin telling people to leave discussions or Able2Know altogether (or phrasing it as a suggestion that they leave) several times within the last 3 days alone.

Blatham's bias made him ignore the clear words from Tartarin's own mouth telling people to leave and when this is brought up he attacks them angrily and has the gall to both ignore the simple and clearly stated evidence originating from Tartarin herself and call the complaint unfounded but he has no qualm with making up an accusation of his own.

He reverses the charge and says that it's "surely" my intent to do what I accused Tartarin of doing.

So to recap, Tartarin tells people to leave the board, not once or twice but consistently. With almost every person with whom she has disagreed on the politics forums she has told them to leave, take a breather or a break.

When this tendency is brought up it's "ludicrous", and such to Blatham, who apparently does not read the clear call for people to leave or has a selective memory of them.

He goes on to accuse others of "surely" having the same intent. And this is what I call binary bias. He ignores Tartarin's own posts saying that she suggests those with whom she disagrees leave the thread or forum, when teh thrend is brought up he angrily attacks the person who brings it up and levels the binary accusation that "surely" the accused is innocent and the accuser is the real one who did it.

Nice rhetorical attack but not the least bit founded in fact. My comment about Tartarin suggesting people leave is sourced directly in Tartarin's own comments. Just today she suggested perception leave a discussion. Blatham got angry that this trend was noticed and chose to level the same accusation against those noting this trend in a simple binary and rhetorical attack.

The same goes for attacks and insults. If one is conveniently blind to the attacks emanating from oneself and one's peers it's no damn surprise that one will level the accusation of the other side being more prone to attack.

Doesn't make it right. Even if one's peers wholeheartedly agree. I wish that peers would challenge each other more often, instead of being carried away by the generalizations through which they can assert their perceived superiority or by simply applauding the bias.

The alternative is to watch a two groups who are, in effect, sitting around topping one extreme remark with another with slaps on the back and "damn good bias there Fred" being heard all around.

Anywho, this is such a meta-rant now that it's off topic, my point is that I do not abide these types of generalizations and fallacies well and that I challenge either side to improve on them whenever I see them. I certainly hope that when I make a sweeping generalization that is unfounded (some are, some aren't) that nobody lets me get away with it either.

Have you considered the possibility that you might just find it hard to appreciate substance that comes from people you disagree with? Let me explain the substance to you: The mainstream press would like to be objective. But objective is hard. It requires the guts to stick your head out. And it causes you a lot of heat from powerful people and their hired guns. Most of the time, the heat involves accusations of bias, so the mainstream press tends to settle for even-handedness. By doing so, they provide the appearance of objectiveness at a much smaller risk. But they don't provide the substance of it, and the substance is what matters, as you yourself so aptly observe.

Moral: In a conflict between blatant lies on the one hand and professional expert opinions on the other hand, evenhandedness is not a virtue, and a pro-expert bias not a vice. You apply this moral yourself when you argue against environmentalists. So why are you having such a hard time accepting it when it works against you?

<grins>

Yep - eye of the beholder.

It has been confounding to witness intelligent people angrily accuse others of doing precisely what they have done. It is hard to believe that they don't recognise it.

I've caught myself before similar gaffes. Hope I caught it every time...

This is interesting (and I don't mean just because I happen to have had the exact opposite impression <grins>. (well, here at A2K in any case. The outside world seems a lot less binary.))

How is it in America with comedians? In Holland, we have a long tradition of "cabaretiers". They go on tour with evening-long long shows, and of course, every New Year's Eve, the most famous of them all gets to do the New Years Eve TV "conference", in which he'll jokingly browse through the events of the year - it's the highest prestige you can get as cabaretier.

They are not quite stand-up comedians - because, though their show features enough one-liners, there is always a story running through the show, too, and it has sentimental moments as well as funny ones, and of course, songs, too. But the primary thing is jokes, so it's not a regular theater show either.

Now the one thing that's always remarked upon, is that there seems to be no such thing as a right-wing cabaterier. You have left-wing ones, which have more sharp humor and more sharply focus on the day's news, and you have neutral ones, who'll tend to stay away from political jokes altogether (or will only make the least risque ones of all). Even the neutral ones are usually known to have had leftist sympathies, though.

For example, up to the 70s THE cabaretier was Wim Kan. He made political jokes, but they were mild and evenly spread about left, right and middle. But his heart was (slightly) on the left. Then came Freek de Jonge, who is a very politically concerned comedian, tends to be a bit preachy. He's definitely left-wing, which'll show - but he'll lash out at leftist politicians just as hard. I remember celebrating New Year's Eve with the whole family (grandparents, cousins), and the "big split" of whom we should watch on TV - the elders wanted Kan, the young 'uns de Jonge, and it is a NYE tradition, after all. I was seven or something.

Nowadays the big man is Youp van 't Hek, who is very "nineties". His jokes are much free-er, "immoral", about the trivial/fun stuff in life - and when he does talk politics, he is more cynical, "against everyone". Still, he too obviously is very committed, his shows have preachy bits as well. And they tend to be about how egoistic people have become, how intolerant, consumeristic - about attitudes to asylum-seekers, etc. Now, Youp will poke fun of leftists too, especially the kind who'll be among his audience - "parlour socialists", say. But basically, he is one himself.

Yeh, thats weird. I dont really believe in the "conservatives have no sense of humor" thing - usually the leftists who'll say so have none at all. But it's true, I cant really think of a single right-wing cabaretier. Well, there's Theo van Gogh, a provocative columnist. That's about it. It's really driven rightists to exasperation, too, that they have none of their own that could prove they had a sense of humour. But hey, they've got Gordon and Gerard Joling (singers of tear-jerker songs).

Ohmigod -- one couldn't accuse the Right (or A2K administration) of having a sense of humor. The pomposity and self-righteousness here could be bottled and sold to fundamentalists for their bunkers. Now that might be a way of supporting A2K, Craven!!

I think the ability to lay it at "sense of humor" requires that it is funny.

Well, Sofia, that's something the Right obviously has to practice -- recognizing humor!! You guys seem to need smiley faces to tell you when to laugh!

That's amusing and enlightening about your comedians, nimh.

I'm thinking of a couple here in the US who would represent the poles of the spectrum: George Carlin and Dennis Miller.

Carlin's been preaching from the far left--he's anti-establishment and has been for nearly 40 years--and gives no quarter to politicians of either stripe.

Miller, the former SNL "Weekend Update" guy who most recently did stand-up for HBO, is a born-again Republican; they are so proud of his conversion that they wanted him to run for Senator in California against Barbara Boxer next year. Instead he'll host some snarky segment on CNBC starting soon. (He was on Fox recently for a few minutes as part of Inannity and Colmes; when he took the other news network's offer, Fox bid him good riddance.)

Jay Leno comes a bit from the right; David Letterman slightly from the left, Jon Stewart from the left, and the rest seem to try not displease anyone from either side.

ok, here goes .. <grins> ... you're not gonna believe that i actually just did this, but -

- yes -

i actually did do a "search" on "lol" in my own posts. To see who made me laugh out loud ('with them', rather than 'at them'), recently.
<giggles>

Here's the list:

Blatham (three times)
Setanta (twice)
BBB (twice)
Patiodog
dlowan
georgeob1
Scrat
Dys
Jespah
Cav
Walter

See any pattern in this, in terms of conservative / liberal?

Cause I don't. <nods>

Now, for a real scientific sample I should code the <grin>s and <giggle>s, too, but hey - I gotta go keep up the semblance of having a life, now.