Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

Is there a graph that suggests white uneducated voters are disproportionately Democratic?

The photo in the quote shows that the myth of whites abandoning liberalism is exactly that. That's one thing that continues to get passed around as a known fact, when it simply isn't. The graph shows it hasn't been a historical trend in any timeframe that is relevant to the modern political landscape.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The photo in the quote shows that the myth of whites abandoning liberalism is exactly that. That's one thing that continues to get passed around as a known fact, when it simply isn't. The graph shows it hasn't been a historical trend in any timeframe that is relevant to the modern political landscape.

The photo in the quote shows that every group identified as "white" (rather than cutting across racial boundaries) is Republican leaning, with the exception of "Jews", which is not what I think people are talking about when they talk about "white votes". It is also a snapshot in time, so we have no idea if they're more or less Democratic.

The linked website has some time series data (over the last 20 years, which I'm not sure is the time horizon the argument you're trying to refute is making--I would think they mean at least 35 years [Reagan welfare cadillacs], probably more like 50 years [post-Civil Rights Southern Realignment]) but doesn't isolate by class the way you were asserting. It does show a 5 point decline--which is not big but is probably nonzero--over the time period among High School and Less respondents. As I mentioned, I don't think you can read into the continued Democratic advantage among that group given that it cuts across racial groups and is disproportionately black or brown. It also shows that older voters have abandoned the Democratic party (a 9 point decline over the time period). Although the overall white support for the Democrats is stable in this poll across the 20 year period, support amongst white evangelicals declined by a third.

So I think if one wanted to use nothing but the data you've provided to analyze the claim that the white working class are sticking with Democrats, there's moderate evidence against that claim and little evidence for that claim based on the disaggregations chosen to present the data.

Note that I have relatively little knowledge of racial patterns in voting so I don't really have any commitment to the theory you're arguing against, I just don't understand how your inline or your link support the claim you've made and I don't think you're characterizing the argument you're responded to quite right.

 

[bishoptl]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

I knew this had to be a Young Turks video before I even clicked, haha.

 

[not psycho]

Research is beginning to show opinions can change. Preliminary data indicates it matters in how you communicate with people (speak in their language without coming across as pandering) and how much you are seen as a trusted source (family and friends are more trusted than professionals).

This article would be stronger if it cited such research, especially for larger scale discourse.

For example, is John Oliver more or less effective at changing minds now than he would be without the jokes? Is the entertainment value a net gain because of increased views, even if it potentially turns someone off (which can only happen because they heard it in the first place)? This isn't obvious as far as I can see, so writing the entire article without addressing such a fundamental question doesn't make a lot of sense.

Additionally, can reality have a smug bias? The article says:

You're better off watching nothing than watching Fox. He likes that even more.

Seems like the author is the one being smug here. If it is true that Fox News is misleading its viewers, then that is reality. The author is trying to attribute smugness to liberals because they correctly recognized that Fox was misleading, but ignoring the actual issue: that Fox is misleading. It's a ridiculous complaint.

It's like citing a study on global warming, and then meaningfully whispering "oooh, I bet you like that, don't you" instead of dealing with the content of the study. The hell? The author is the one making it weird.

Furthermore, are politicians really that smug? Does Obama come across as super smug? I haven't noticed that.

So where is the substance in this article? There is no cited research on, for example, the relative effectiveness of John Oliver vs no-joke John Oliver. There is no cited evidence of Obama smugness.

----

Personally I try to be respectful and empathetic. I don't assume anyone is stupid. But I also don't assume that my preference is the most effective in all contexts.

I speak out against the phenomenon of recreational shaming, so I agree with the article on that. But I don't think it is the same thing as smugness.

And because I don't write anyone off as stupid, I expect people to be empathetic enough to realize that what they might see as smugness is sometimes venting frustration.

 

[KevinCow]

I have difficulty seeing Republicans as anything but either rich people who value their money above the rights and well-being of others, or ignorant poor people who vote against things that would benefit them because Fox News says Democrats are evil and un-American and want to destroy our country, and possibly also because Republicans are more accepting of stuff like racism and homophobia.

If that makes me smug, so be it.

 

[BocoDragon]

But I thought liberalism would be immune to the tribalism and virtue-signalling inherent to all human ideologies

 

[s10satsu]

So how do you tell them they are voting against their own interests, then?

Find out why they made the vote they did, then form an argument using that as a basis that argues your point instead of telling them they are racist pricks at the outset. It's much like being a salesman. You identify what their particular concerns are and then show them how your product (liberal ideology) solves or helps those concerns.

Edit: And yes I know this puts basically everything on the party who is trying to sell their idea, but such is life unfortunately. If you want change you have to figure out how to make it happen rather than waiting for everyone else to decide you were right after all, because instead of somebody accepting they were wrong, they are much more likely to simply find something else to blame and I'd be willing to bet that something else will push them even farther away from your ideas.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I have difficulty seeing Republicans as anything but either rich people who value their money above the rights and well-being of others, or ignorant poor people who vote against things that would benefit them because Fox News says Democrats are evil and un-American and want to destroy our country, and possibly also because Republicans are more accepting of stuff like racism and homophobia.

If that makes me smug, so be it.

Not always poor, but not rich enough to have much of a shield against fallout. It's very much cultural. Much more uniform that one would expect. But a common trait is the lack of education.

 

[Miletius]

While there are certain segments of liberalism that are certainly smug and self righteous I'd also argue that a lot of that -- from the outside, is actually insecurity and projection.

 

[WanderingWind]

The photo in the quote shows that every group identified as "white" (rather than cutting across racial boundaries) is Republican leaning, with the exception of "Jews", which is not what I think people are talking about when they talk about "white votes". It is also a snapshot in time, so we have no idea if they're more or less Democratic.

The linked website has some time series data (over the last 20 years, which I'm not sure is the time horizon the argument you're trying to refute is making--I would think they mean at least 35 years [Reagan welfare cadillacs], probably more like 50 years [post-Civil Rights Southern Realignment]) but doesn't isolate by class the way you were asserting. It does show a 5 point decline--which is not big but is probably nonzero--over the time period among High School and Less respondents. As I mentioned, I don't think you can read into the continued Democratic advantage among that group given that it cuts across racial groups and is disproportionately black or brown. It also shows that older voters have abandoned the Democratic party (a 9 point decline over the time period). Although the overall white support for the Democrats is stable in this poll across the 20 year period, support amongst white evangelicals declined by a third.

So I think if one wanted to use nothing but the data you've provided to analyze the claim that the white working class are sticking with Democrats, there's moderate evidence against that claim and little evidence for that claim based on the disaggregations chosen to present the data.

Note that I have relatively little knowledge of racial patterns in voting so I don't really have any commitment to the theory you're arguing against, I just don't understand how your inline or your link support the claim you've made and I don't think you're characterizing the argument you're responded to quite right.

No, the photo and the correlating graph shows that white people have not abandoned liberalism. A five point decline, that at times over the past two decades has increased and decreased, is not even close to an "abandoning." No matter how you parse the data, that remains a constant. Religious white? Yes. Deep South white? Yes, but not to the degree that seems be bandied about.

If you have something that shows a mass exodus by whites from liberalism, by all means, provide the data. I'm willing to look at it. But even when viewing major election voting patterns, they seem to hold steady. 40 percent of white people voted for Dukakis and 39.4 percent voted for Obama.

As with most things, the popular narrative is close to the truth, but ends up missing it. It's not that white people have abandoned liberalism. It's that the country has become much more diverse so that the 40 percent of 250,000,000 people becomes less and less able to impact an election on their own. This is obviously great and a sign of progression, but it doesn't strip away the fact the amount of white, left-leaning people has not dropped to any huge degree, at least in the past few decades.

Yeah, on a long enough timeline we have to start talking about Reagan democrats and log cabin Republicans, but when we dig that far back, now we're muddying the waters with how party divides change with age.

 

[pa22word]

This is something anyone who's not a super obnoxious ass or just gets every ounce of political news from just neogaf pretty much already knows.

I would encourage most of gaf to give road to wigan pier by George Orwell a read sometime, it'd be instructive for a ton of you.

 

[Aske]

The points about a general lack of empathy and pervasive smugness are well made. Atheism has suffered a massive blow to its public image because people like Dawkins just got fed up and stopped arguing with the superstitious on their terms. Condescention is an attempt to shame others into compliance, not an argument designed to help people view the world in a different way that is hopefully more beneficial for everybody.

The same goes for liberalism and conservativism. It doesn't matter how right you are, except that arguments based in truth are generally easier to support because they're backed by evidence. What matters is trying to understand why people who disagree with you hold the views they do, and working from a place of mutual respect with the goal of helping them empthize with your perspective ostensibly for their benefit, not yours.

 

[Monocle]

"The trouble is that stupid hicks don't know what's good for them. They're getting conned by right-wingers and tent revivalists until they believe all the lies that've made them so wrong. They don't know any better. That's why they're voting against their own self-interest."

Yeah well, if the shoe fits. Though I wouldn't call them stupid so much as embedded in a culture where shitty beliefs persist.

Yep, pretty much.

Pretty hard to empathize with a group that hates me for being born. I'll try, maybe they'll treat me better if I change my tone.

Have you tried not sinning so flamboyantly?

 

[Nuu]

This is why the Clinton vs Sanders debates are so fucking horrendous. Two extremely smug holier-than-thou sides competing for ideological purity in different ways. The former will typically bring up how pro-minority they are certainly wasn't that way in 2008) such calling out Sanders for not being 100% for full on reparations (despite Clinton and Obama being against them), while the latter supporters are obsessed with any interaction a politician has with the financial sector (God forbid a politician tries to actually raise money).

For an article whose entire premise is to criticize the "smugness" of the left, it reeks of smugness itself. Smugness and elitism are decidedly not an exclusively left-wing problem, a fact best demonstrated by how quick many of the old GOP guard have been to throw their own base under the bus as "ignorant white trash" after the rise of Trump.

The article does make some fair points. The left eats itself alive with in-fighting on a regular basis (see: Bernie vs. Hillary), and there's a certain amount of performative liberalism going on that often happens that gets undermined by the reality of people's actions. But any fair points it makes gets buried under the public jerk-off session that comprises most of the article, which basically amounts to an old man yelling at a cloud. It rants about "Daily Show viewers" and shit in the same way Baby Boomers yell about millennials on their cell phones, all whining and no substance.



Right from the start it completely misses that what actually changed here was not the lower class's tendency toward liberalism, but that the parties themselves underwent massive changes. The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party! Hell, Lincoln was a Republican and the slave-owning south was deeply Democratic. It wasn't really until FDR that the DNC pivoted more toward liberalism and the GOP swung conservative, and that's why people started switching parties in droves over the next few decades. This entire narrative that lower-class whites abandoned liberalism and the Rich Liberal Elite (lmfao) felt somehow cuckolded by the whole thing and turned against them is pure fantasy. Lower-class white folks in the US have been conservative practically since the Puritans came ashore.

And the article's use of Kim Davis as some kind of martyr, a poor innocent woman whose reputation was torn apart by the Smug Liberals, is downright comical. Sure, some people took it too far - mocking her appearance or personal life is over-the-line, but when the Republican frontrunner is mocking disabled reporters and making dick size metaphors during debates you don't get to act like this is only a Smug Liberal problem.

And then come the ludicrous claims, like that Kim Davis's homophobia - justified by her Christian beliefs - is a valid and fair ideology, that bigotry by way of religion is totally cool and Smug Liberals Who Are Probably Atheists Who Don't Know The Bible Anyway don't get to judge her for it. Fuck off.

Or this shit:



No, not only Republicans cover up gaps in their knowledge by responding to what they assume is a good-faith question by guessing from their general principles. The problem is that, for apparently 30% of them, their general principles involve bombing a country they've never heard of just because it has a vaguely Arab-y sounding name. But oh, those poor old Republicans, getting pranked by their trusted phone surveys!

I'm not going to go through all the garbage here line by line, but its ultimate premise boils down to: the left lacks empathy for the kind of people who vote Republican, and by demonizing them and ridiculing them they only drive them further away. And you know what? Sure. I'm a Smug Liberal Atheist that also happens to hail from a Christian family in southern Texas, where even the water and sky burn GOP red, and I know better than most that you need to treat those with whom you disagree with respect if you ever want to convince them to join your side.

But the article doesn't just state that the left's attitude is the problem. Instead it makes completely nebulous, non-specific implications that the left's policy is at fault, that the GOP - with its hatred of welfare programs and affordable healthcare, with its lust for flat taxes that disproportionately hurt the lower classes, its Voter ID suppression tactics, its never-ending war with worker's rights, its (how ironic) incredibly smug core belief that those who are poor deserve to be poor and just aren't working hard enough - is actually the party that best represents the interests of poor and middle-class whites. And nowhere does it support this.

Your problem is in the assumption that the fact that they think differently about those issues means that they think those people are "lesser beings" - when, for the most part, they simply don't. Sometimes they do, certainly, but mostly, they're just myopic and want the political system to cater to what they perceive as their needs, and have many layers of built-in rationalizations as to why the things the other people want are wrong, or less worthy of being enacted. Myopia is the de facto stance of virtually all political actors, and it's historical happenstance, not innate moral inferiority, that has put white myopia in the way of improvement on certain contemporary issues, and while that's not an excuse to cater to these people's BS, it's certainly reasonable to understand that who they are runs quite a bit deeper than what side of the sociopolitical library they have ended up on, and to expect people to be able to compartmentalize accordingly.

These are great posts.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

There are many types of conservatives, just like there are many types of liberals. One of largest problems is trying to conflate people into two parties who can't possible represent the values of over 300 million people.
My disappointment is on the liberal camp because they are going against what I think it means to be progressive, inclusive and understanding the bigger picture. My disappointment is on the liberal camp because they look more and more (in the radical fringes) like their right-wing counterparts. And they tend to mock and insult people who have anecdotal and personal reasons not to align with their own accord.
That is snoobery. Snobbery is when you make sweeping generalizations about a group of people. Sort of like their portrayal of reddit. 99% of reddit is not engaged in toxic right-wing conservatism and ignorant fringe politics, despite the claims in this thread. And 99% of tumblr is not deranged overweight fat ugly feminists despite what toxic redditors claim.
But the way we use the words "almost all of them"; "many of them", "a lot"; i"most", "nearly everyone" to overexaggerate our anecdotal armchair reactions is dangerous because it warps discussion and tries to make evidence over something that can not be called an accurate sample of a group of people.
Right-wingers are perhaps way way more guilty of this, but the heat and disappointment is on the democrats for having lost their way. The ideal was always that they would lead by example, and not going into belly territory.
In Denmark we have a saying; "Hvis ikke du vil høre efter, så må du lære". (If you don't wanna listen, you'll learn"). Essentially, for states like Louisana and North Caroline, their stances and regressive laws will be felt economically and socially. The circumstances just haven't enveloped themselves to levels that will make regular citizens in those states, plead for social progress.
If I believed that mocking or shaming people led to people changing their views, I would have been more inclined to fight fire with fire.
But I think that is severely misunderstanding the way the human ego works. I think there are some individuals who will fall in life through a sense of shame, being ridiculed and so on, but I think a more humane response is to latch out with anger. It's not even about the politics or the argument, but just the sender- the awful liberals who made you feel terrible. Poisons the well, further clouds the judgments and stifles cohesive self reflection. We all know that making decisions when we are angry is the worst state to make decisions. We say things we don't mean, we are aggressive and spiteful, and we don't have control over our emotions to make the best choice for ourselves.
´This is why I think some of the liberal labels who are designed around shaming, labeling and reducing peoples complex ideologies and life experiences into buzz words and buzz statements. It's an impractical method that devalues people.

I've heard some Gaffers say to this that, it is not their problems if bigots get their feelings hurt. If they stifle abortion, gay marriage and other laws that makes life significantly worse for parts of the populace, that is an acceptable trade off. I don't disagree with the line of thinking, but I think the actual practice of this is counter productive.
I believe conservatism is born out of not having experienced things personally on their person or in their peripheral field of view. It seems to me, that die hard anti-public health care conservatives who become very ill, and who desperately need things like ObamaCare, have changed their view. The beliefs have to be personally felt so empathy can be applied. A conservative who has been very sick and have his life ruined by being sick, while everyone in his lifesystem prays to jesus while talking about bootstraps, might feel differently.
Isn't it possible that some of the progressive states in America have to keep what they are doing, and lead by example, and hopefully, the correlation and causation link between lower crime, more prosperous and happy populations will make other less progressive states change their tune.
Gay Marriage, legalization of medical weed. There have been cases where there has been a ripple effect.
The problem with the approach is that many innocent (and poor people) who are stuck in regressive states, are stuck. And will have to live under the weight of the worst states regressing into their own ruin.

If we look at history, in the short term and the long term, people have a tendency to migrate towards where there are better circumstances for quality of life. America already has cities like Seattle, San Francisco and San Diego which are getting notoriously expensive because people want a piece of the pie. Isn't what is likely to happen, that they become so expensive that people who hold the same values will find other cities and apply the same principles, and new "San Diegos" will pop up, and that is the correct way to exercise influence.
If the fight cannot be won in congress, it has to be circumvented from beneath their feet, by a state-by-state level. Being a liberal has to speak for itself. Not bullying others through intimidation or shaming.
I wish there was a better. Not from the likes of the daily show (or last week tonight) as humor is a great way to transcend; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0 < Carlin explaining political correctness a smug form of intolerance.

It all boils back to conflating someone with a label. Some people are republicans only in name and because their family have historically been republicans. For others, being a republican is strictly about being afraid and being misinformed about the dangers of the geopolitical landscape. For others, it is mainly due to disagreement of financial policies. I know personally a couple of people who are fairly liberal on everything but financial issues.
Then you also have the token religious conservatives, and the bigots who hate/dislike gay marriage and abortion out of their religious beliefs.
And you also have people who are conservatives who are just angry. And many other types. The point being, that being conservative is not one way. Just like being a democrat is not being one way.
I see posts in this thread saying that the problem with the democratic party is that it is not united. Said in a way, that makes it sound like that the right way is for 150 million people to share the same political spectrum of causes. That belief, to me is the quintessential definition of dumbing down the cultural diverse vast breath of political ideologies that are bound to exist within the worlds most multi cultural nation.
To me, it is really a pet peeve when we have a discussion, and someone is unhappy with Hillary Clinton being endorsed by big energy companies or Saudi Arabia, and the response to this is that they are being accused of conspiracy theories or being against the establishment.

To think I'd see people who call themselves liberals who will excuse politicians from having financial affiliations to some of the most despicable people on earth and act complete ignorant to the concept of conflict of interests, under the guise that their chosen politicians must not be called to task for the terrible things she has done.
You can acknowledge that Hillary Clinton has and is doing some incredible fucked up things. Things that are not more okay, or should less be talked about due to a "... but bernie!!", "the others did it too" or "she has evolved on all those issues". You own your past. Even if you're sorry or you have changed, you own your past. You just do. It reeks of historical revisionism and fanboyism when I see articles like this where they are excusing Hillarys 2002 Iraqi War vote as a positive; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...hs-about-hillary-iraq-war-vote_b_9177420.html

I'd rather have Bernie Sanders win, because he egotistically and historically represents a way of life I believe in. But I am not about that he is wrong on guns, and that he also doesn't deserve to be called out on repeatedly on his endorsement for the arming of Israeli, which indirectly has caused severe human rights violations on Palestinians through an excessive use of force.
Our candidates can be flawed, and discussions get heated based on what rings the truest of us. What we should never do, is to excuse. That is what is being done on the other side.
And we can do it without the labels. We can disagree without resorting to shit posting or memes that belittle individuals interests. We all vote selfishly. All of us. We only have a tiny bit of understanding of the world from our own perspective. If you're with Hillary because she is more likely to get the things through that matters to you, then that is a disagreement of priorities. That is not being a tool of the establishment, as toxic bernie supporters would say. And if you cannot forgive Hillary Clintons past in domestic or foreign policy, you're not ignorant hippie who doesn't understand politics.
Based on many world leaders now, from Ergodan, to Key, to Cameron to Rousseff and many others, it does not seem that the public majority has the interests for the country they have won the elections in. It's for that reason primarily it is so important to not shut down discussion by "lol unelectable".
When David Duke wanted to endorse Trump, the entire world was fixed on Trump and on what he would do. If Trump did not denounce David Dukes endorsement, Trump is guilty by association. Not taking an action is in many cases taking an action. You own what you do, and you own what you don't do. That is the case for Trump, as it is the case for Hillary having received many millions from oil corps who engage in fracking. Let us have a discussion about if those endorsement really truly are no strings attached, or if we might see severely dangerous and compromised environmental policies after the election.

 

[Mumei]

Piecake, I don't have time to respond to you before work; I'll try responding later. The short version of my post is probably going to be "I don't know," though, so don't expect much. :x

This is not correct. White people haven't abandoned liberalism. There hasn't been a significant downtrend of white liberals in the past two decades, either. Nor did the working class white people, as best shown by the graph that shows that people with less high school still lean heavily toward the left. This is one of those myths that has become popular for some reason this year.

I don't think we are talking about the same things; identification versus voting patterns. I would also argue that Pew's data doesn't break down white with high school or less versus non-white with high school or less - unless I missed it. This is relevant to your argument; if you look at CNN's 2014 numbers, "No high school" is won by Democrats 54-44%, and "High school graduation" is won by Republicans 45-53%", but if you look at "White/no college degree" then you see that Republicans won that demographic by 30 points (34-64%) and if you look at "Non-white/no coll. degree" then you see that Democrats won that by 49 points (74-25%). The "working class" or "high school or less" doesn't necessarily just refer to white voters of that educational attainment. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw the same patterns in the Pew data - a slight advantage for Democrats among the broader demographic, but broken down a much larger racial split with white voters of that demographic breaking largely Republican and non-white voters breaking even more overwhelmingly Democratic.

I would also argue that to say that this is a myth that has become popular this year is an ... odd response to my post, given that the article I quoted was about how the Democratic Party gleaned this over thirty years ago, and that it was a driver of policy.

 

[WanderingWind]

I wouldn't be surprised if you saw the same patterns in the Pew data - a slight advantage for Democrats among the broader demographic, but broken down a much larger racial split with white voters of that demographic breaking largely Republican and non-white voters breaking even more overwhelmingly Democratic.

I would also argue that to say that this is a myth that has become popular this year is an ... odd response to my post, given that the article I quoted was about how the Democratic Party gleaned this over thirty years ago, and that it was a driver of policy.

You would be surprised, because that is exactly the myth I'm continuing to point out. Not education. Not anything else besides the supposed white flight from liberal ideology. The Pew research link I provided distinguishes between voting and ideological identification. It does not matter how else we want to try to manipulate the data, the constant fact remains that according to every bit of research, there has been nothing approaching this supposed enormous exodus from liberal ideals over the past couple of decades, at the least. Again, if somebody has something that contradicts Pew, then feel free to provide a source. I'm only going off the data present. This isn't an ingrained religious belief.

And of course you'll find that non-white voters break overwhelmingly democratic. Literally nobody is challenging that fact, near as I can tell.

 

[teruterubozu]

We used to be the passionate "Bleeding Heart Liberals" but now we're just dicks.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

A party that loses is more likely to actually chase the winning party. We literally see this in the aftermath of the Reagan years and how much time its taken us to make up for the ground the Democrats ceded

And yet for the last 8 years the GoP has done nothing but double down on the same policies that cost them both presidential elections.

 

[Kimawolf]

Its something I talked about before in the past. This new brand of liberal that believes they are always right and its not up for debate or discussion. And if you dont agree with them you're demonized and bullied and shouted down.

Hell they even use this tactic against other liberals (ask Bernie supporters), they have this whole smarmy im better than you idiots mentality and begin name calling to frame a discussion to make you the bad guy.

And lord dont disaggree on social issues. Even if you have fairly leftist views if its not in lockstep with the mob you're a white cis male loving mysognist monster who should rot in hell because I dont know,what's best for me. Yeah i was told that once before because I dared say black males have it worse than any group, including women, so that's where i focus my energy.

 

[creatchee]

Liberalism, to me, is like Avenged Sevenfold and Professional Wrestling:

I love a lot of what is going on, but I absolutely can't fucking stand a good portion of its fans.

 

[TheLastCandle]

As a liberal atheist, I can't fucking stand the all consuming smugness that is a part of both of those groups.

 

[DragonSworne]

All I have to say is that conservatives were super smug during the Bush era.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I'm trying to find a real problem with this and I can't? Basically liberals would rather speak facts than shitty opinions and that's a bad thing? Liberals should also feel sorry for those who don't want to take the time to educate themselves or listen to the education that given to them and that's a bad thing?

I understand that this election has shown the true colors of all candidates and voters a like so I understand where the smug makes sense...

... But I really don't see an issue with mocking the terrible shit the other party does because.... well, the actual democratic party hasn't been strong enough to point that shit out on their own and call it out as the bullshit it is.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the people who actually are doing great the work that their own party isn't strong enough to do is bad. I think the lack of empathy is a symptom of the level of ridiculousness that the people of the next party support, instead of question, engage and discuss logically.

 

[mcarlie]

Great article. As an outsider looking at american political discourse, this is what I've been seeing as well.

 

[adampa1006]

Now of course there are arrogant smug people on both sides.

But I find it really ironic that liberals pride themselves as "treating all people equally, with dignity, compassion" compared to conservatives, etc...


But if you are a religious conservative, then liberals make fun of you, degrade you, call you every name in the book! Where is the compassion and dignity for all there? Its really only compassion and dignity for people they agree with!

 

[Maledict]

Smuggest liberals I've ever seen. Takes about 5 seconds for you to get the entire idea of the full video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmaXB-NprOM

I'm not sure what's worse - either the bit where someone says they dislike their friends because they support Hillary, or the bit where the main presenter interrupts to say that it's just because they are stupid.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Now of course there are arrogant smug people on both sides.

But I find it really ironic that liberals pride themselves as "treating all people equally, with dignity, compassion" compared to conservatives, etc...


But if you are a religious conservative, then liberals make fun of you, degrade you, call you every name in the book! Where is the compassion and dignity for all there? Its really only compassion and dignity for people they agree with!

Its difficult to be compassionate with a group who believes that anyone who doesn't adhere to their rigid and draconian definition of Faith and ''Family Values'' is destined to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity.

 

[Maledict]

Now of course there are arrogant smug people on both sides.

But I find it really ironic that liberals pride themselves as "treating all people equally, with dignity, compassion" compared to conservatives, etc...


But if you are a religious conservative, then liberals make fun of you, degrade you, call you every name in the book! Where is the compassion and dignity for all there? Its really only compassion and dignity for people they agree with!

This is objectively dumb. It's the same spacious reasoning that has conservatives wailing when they are called out on their racism.

No-one is looking to ban Christians from going to church, or getting married in church, or not having abortions. It is only the Christian right who seek to impose their beliefs and values onto other people, and thus they are the ones called out on it. They *are* intolerant, they *are* bigoted, and they will be called that because it's simply the truth.

You don't get to spend decades calling for people to be treated as second class citizens, telling people they should have less rights, calling for violence, calling for intolerance - and then complain when people call you out on those very same actions!

 

[ahoyhoy]

I'm trying to find a real problem with this and I can't? Basically liberals would rather speak facts than shitty opinions and that's a bad thing? Liberals should also feel sorry for those who don't want to take the time to educate themselves or listen to the education that given to them and that's a bad thing?

I understand that this election has shown the true colors of all candidates and voters a like so I understand where the smug makes sense...

... But I really don't see an issue with mocking the terrible shit the other party does because.... well, the actual democratic party hasn't been strong enough to point that shit out on their own and call it out as the bullshit it is.

So I don't think it's fair to say that the people who actually are doing great the work that their own party isn't strong enough to do is bad. I think the lack of empathy is a symptom of the level of ridiculousness that the people of the next party support, instead of question, engage and discuss logically.

Agree with all of this. If using facts to debate and possibly mock conservatives are the weapons of choice of the left, then using scripture, personal belief, and threats/use of violence are certainly the weapons of choice of the right. Why does the left need to compromise with irrationality?

 

[jph139]

I mean, I agree to an extent - the idea that other ideologies aren't even worth engaging with is pretty destructive to conversation in general, and I see a lot of that among liberals.

But that's about ends and means, not about facts. I mean, this article is attacking knowledge as a concept. "Damn liberals, going on and on about knowing things!" I mean, there's a place for discussion, but some bullshit (be it denying global warming or finger-pointing at "welfare queens") has been so thoroughly debunked over the past decades that there's really no reason whatsoever to even engage with them. Five minutes of googling ends that conversation.

Neutrality is not the same as objectivity. Some conservative positions are matters of opinion, others are fundamentally incorrect. There's no obligation to engage with the latter.

 

[esms]

Great article. Thanks for sharing, OP. Put words to some thoughts I've been having for quite some time after graduating college and, in part, from observing this site.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Now of course there are arrogant smug people on both sides.

But I find it really ironic that liberals pride themselves as "treating all people equally, with dignity, compassion" compared to conservatives, etc...


But if you are a religious conservative, then liberals make fun of you, degrade you, call you every name in the book! Where is the compassion and dignity for all there? Its really only compassion and dignity for people they agree with!

How can you feel compassion about people who aren't compassionate either tho? See that's the problem here... There's accepting the bullshit or compromising with the bullshit. Religious conservatives aren't doing things for society that should be adopted with open arms. When religious conservatives are creating anti trans bills, or rights to discriminate etc etc.... How can people like agree with this?

I find it weird that the onus is on liberals to be compassionate when most of us aren't tied to a book that preaches this compassion. Treating all people equally is also something that is said in the Bible as well. That's isn't translating well on the other side as well. Just saying...

 

[mattiewheels]

I notice a tendency for young liberals to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like if you agree nearly lockstep with what they say, but have a problem with one point and try to convince them of your perspective, you're in danger of being "one of them" or something.

 

[nynt9]

How can you feel compassion about people who aren't compassionate either tho? See that's the problem here... There's accepting the bullshit or compromising with the bullshit. Religious conservatives aren't doing things for society that should be adopted with open arms. When religious conservatives are creating anti trans bills, or rights to discriminate etc etc.... How can people like agree with this?

I find it weird that the onus is on liberals to be compassionate when most of us aren't tied to a book that preaches this compassion. Treating all people equally is also something that is said in the Bible as well. That's isn't translating well on the other side as well. Just saying...

Someone has to be the bigger person and compromise though. Otherwise It will just further adversity.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

There's no reason to walk this one back. The election for Kentucky Governor was just a few months ago, and a bunch of poor people on Medicaid voted in a guy who wants to cut back Medicaid enrollment.

Now, I have no stake in the Kentucky governorship, nor do I particularly care, but maybe, just MAYBE, those same people voted the guy in for different reasons while still being aware of the dude's position on Medicaid. You've already made the assumption that there's no other measure of worth to this candidate, and thus any in this category who vote for them are inherently ignorant. You've done exactly what this article was talking about. Hell you may even be factually correct, maybe these people were somehow duped/facts twisted in their presentation/reception, but good luck trying to actually win these people over when you predicate yourself on the dismissive attitude you've shown here. It creates an indirect narrow-mindedness deceptively on par with the sort of people you're railing against (and one could argue the inclusion of "poor" instead of just people on medicaid is almost epithetical and furthers a messianic attitude toward a implicitly ignorant mass). The article mocks smug liberals not for using facts but for using facts and then ending the conversation there without seeking to understand the other or coming to self-examine and realizing that maybe they don't have all of them, either on their own side or the other.

How can you feel compassion about people who aren't compassionate either tho? See that's the problem here... There's accepting the bullshit or compromising with the bullshit. Religious conservatives aren't doing things for society that should be adopted with open arms. When religious conservatives are creating anti trans bills, or rights to discriminate etc etc.... How can people like agree with this?

I find it weird that the onus is on liberals to be compassionate when most of us aren't tied to a book that preaches this compassion. Treating all people equally is also something that is said in the Bible as well. That's isn't translating well on the other side as well. Just saying...

And here's another in the toolkit, painting groups with broad strokes. Like religious conservatism is this monolithic entity with uniform motivations and actions.

 

[Jebusman]

Agree with all of this. If using facts to debate and possibly mock conservatives are the weapons of choice of the left, then using scripture, personal belief, and threats/use of violence are certainly the weapons of choice of the right. Why does the left need to compromise with irrationality?

If the ultimate goal is to convince those on the right to conform to the opinions of the left, how effective does mockery and insults actually work?

Yes you could argue you are not "factually wrong" about people being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., but if that's all you spend time doing, even with "facts" behind you, that doesn't seem like a real effective weapon to change them. Do you think shame is actually a solid gameplan? You can't shame someone who takes pride in the very thing they're being shamed about.

Rather it just emboldens them further. Trying to argue with an irrational person in a rational way is a fool's errand. And I get that people on the left are sick and tired of trying, and feel they shouldn't have to give these people even the most minimal amount of respect, given the lack of it they've received over the years, but if SOMEONE doesn't do it at some point, what exactly do you hope to achieve.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

How can you feel compassion about people who aren't compassionate either tho? See that's the problem here... There's accepting the bullshit or compromising with the bullshit. Religious conservatives aren't doing things for society that should be adopted with open arms. When religious conservatives are creating anti trans bills, or rights to discriminate etc etc.... How can people like agree with this?

I find it weird that the onus is on liberals to be compassionate when most of us aren't tied to a book that preaches this compassion. Treating all people equally is also something that is said in the Bible as well. That's isn't translating well on the other side as well. Just saying...

Religious conservatives are not a singular hive mind. They are diverse, and while stereotypes can be useful, it is to reductionist to label them with evil. Very few things in life are as simple as good vs evil.
It isn't so that religious conservatives are not compassionate. They simply don't understand. It is important to lead by example. Those are progressive values.
If you want other people to stop being assholes, you're not doing a good job by acting like an asshole towards said assholes. You're becoming the monster you claim is evil and his to be denounced. You have to lead by example, and by being the bigger man.
Compassion can easily be had for the ignorant. Religious conservatives are just people who were brought up in a cultish environment who haven't learned the analytical skills to distance themselves. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. It's what can drive a man to pick up a bomb and blow himself over the words of a book he has never read, because he can't read. You can easily have compassion for those people, even though they do evil things.
You separate their terrible programming and hateful means of coping for the person who has brainwashed by garbage their entire life.
Liberals are generally higher educated from institutions that has a way of trying to look at the problems from multiple angles. Thus liberals have a higher responsibility. They have to be better. There has to be expected more from them than a uninformed opposition which hasn't had the issues they are fighting against, hit that close to home.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Someone has to be the bigger person and compromise though. Otherwise It will just further adversity.

So..... Who has to be the bigger person? The person who lives by the book that preaches compassion and empathy?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Now, I have no stake in the Kentucky governorship, nor do I particularly care, but maybe, just MAYBE, those same people voted the guy in for different reasons while still being aware of the dude's position on Medicaid. You've already made the assumption that there's no other measure of worth to this candidate, and thus any in this category who vote for them are inherently ignorant. You've done exactly what this article was talking about. Hell you may even be factually correct, maybe these people were somehow duped/facts twisted in their presentation/reception, but good luck trying to actually win these people over when you predicate yourself on the dismissive attitude you've shown here. It creates an indirect narrow-mindedness deceptively on par with the sort of people you're railing against (and one could argue the inclusion of "poor" instead of just medicaid is almost epithetical and furthers a messianic attitude toward a implicitly ignorant mass). The article mocks smug liberals not for using facts but for using facts and then ending the conversation there without seeking to understand the other or coming to self-examine and realizing that maybe they don't have all of them, either on their own side or the other.



And here's another in the toolkit, painting groups with broad strokes. Like religious conservatism is this monolithic entity with uniform motivations and actions.

And neither is liberalism.... The same broad brush is dragged amongst liberals as well.

 

[Jebusman]

So..... Who has to be the bigger person? The person who lives by the book that preaches compassion and empathy?

So essentially "They're not doing it so I don't have to do it either".

Whether or not you feel the right is wrong for misappropriating the bible and it's apparent message, do you not see how this is the least bit productive for actually resolving the issues between the two groups?

If the right is never going to willingly come to the table with an open mind, exactly what do you hope to achieve by doing the exact same thing to them.

Facts, studies, statistics, these mean absolutely nothing when it comes down to a person's personal convictions. Throwing them in their face and yelling "WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND HOW WRONG YOU ARE" doesn't seem to be a winning strategy. Short term? Maybe. But it'll never actually get rid of the issue, which is people having these convictions in the first place.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I have so much trouble with this type of thing.

I find it so difficult to believe that one side (liberals) is almost completely right and the other side is almost completely wrong. That just isn't how the world works.

On the other hand... I look at the things republicans say, and how can I not feel as though their policies are idiotic? They think that fewer gun control laws will make us safer despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they're anti-Obama care for no reason I can actually seem to decern, and—by far most damning for me—they're somehow convinced that Global Warming is a giant hoax.

 

[diaspora]

I stopped watching the daily show until Noah because, it was too preaching to the choir



That is a thing this cycle but I am talking about have been around since the days of MLK at least

I haven't seen much of Noah's show, what's changed?

 

[LosDaddie]

Another issue where both sides are guilty.

No one wants to be the "Bigger Person" when you already believe you're on the right side of the issue. No one wants to listen to the other side when you already believe they're wrong, and evil.

People like echo chambers. People want to have their opinions reinforced and cheered. You see this all the time on place like GAF and news comments sections.

 

[Croatoan]

Wow, I can't believe someone had the guts to write this. The amount of hate mail this person will get from the left is probably going to me massive. As a moderate who loathes both parties I 100% agree but I think there is smugness on both sides.

That said I stopped trying to have any type of discourse with liberals a long time ago. It gets really tiring to constantly have my opinions disregarded because I actually think for myself and don't follow the "Liberal Propaganda Conversation Guide". Not ALL liberals are like that though. My business partner is a Tax and Spend Liberal from California and he isn't smug at all. We can agree to disagree on policy and he never chastises or bombards me with progressive memes.

At the same time its hard to talk to conservatives because they are so damn close minded and bound by a fucking book.

Then again, most of the conservatives I know never talk about politics.

 

[ahoyhoy]

If the ultimate goal is to convince those on the right to conform to the opinions of the left, how effective does mockery and insults actually work?

Yes you could argue you are not "factually wrong" about people being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., but if that's all you spend time doing, even with "facts" behind you, that doesn't seem like a real effective weapon to change them. Do you think shame is actually a solid gameplan? You can't shame someone who takes pride in the very thing they're being shamed about.

Rather it just emboldens them further. Trying to argue with an irrational person in a rational way is a fool's errand. And I get that people on the left are sick and tired of trying, and feel they shouldn't have to give these people even the most minimal amount of respect, given the lack of it they've received over the years, but if SOMEONE doesn't do it at some point, what exactly do you hope to achieve.

Shame can work. Using satire to make people realize how silly they are acting can work. Educating people can work. I think all three of these tactics require at least some modicum of respect for your audience because you're essentially relying on them to see the potential flaws or hypocrisy inherent in their own belief system. You can't shame someone who you think has no shame, you can't educate someone who's uneducatable etc.

I'm honestly not sure what other tools we have at our disposal besides violence, coercion, or simply ignoring rampant conservatism and hoping it goes away on its own. None of these tools require any sort of respect of those you seek to change.

 

[Kinyou]

Shame can work. Using satire to make people realize how silly they are acting can work. Educating people can work. I think all three of these tactics require at least some modicum of respect for your audience because you're essentially relying on them to see the potential flaws or hypocrisy inherent in their own belief system. You can't shame someone who you think has no shame, you can't educate someone who's uneducatable etc.

I'm honestly not sure what other tools we have at our disposal besides violence, coercion, or simply ignoring rampant conservatism and hoping it goes away on its own. None of these tools require any sort of respect of those you seek to change.

What can also work is to listen and asking questions. People will be more willing to change their minds if they reach the conclusions themselves. Telling them right away that they're a bigot etc. usually just causes people to dig in their heels.

 

[dabig2]

Wow, I can't believe someone had the guts to write this. The amount of hate mail this person will get from the left is probably going to me massive. As a moderate who loathes both parties I 100% agree but I think there is smugness on both sides.

That said I stopped trying to have any type of discourse with liberals a long time ago. It gets really tiring to constantly have my opinions disregarded because I actually think for myself and don't follow the "Liberal Propaganda Conversation Guide". Not ALL liberals are like that though. My business partner is a Tax and Spend Liberal from California and he isn't smug at all. We can agree to disagree on policy and he never chastises or bombards me with progressive memes.

At the same time its hard to talk to conservatives because they are so damn close minded and bound by a fucking book.

Then again, most of the conservatives I know never talk about politics.

The whole "a pox on both their houses" and painting yourself as tortured, special flower makes your post the most smug of them all.

 

[WanderingWind]

The whole "a pox on both their houses" and painting yourself as tortured, special flower makes your post the most smug of them all.

Amazing satire. It's a bit strawman-y though. I don't think anybody could be this douchy when somebody says they're a moderate. lol. "PICK A SIDE OR UR A SPECIAL FLOWER." Classic stuff man, lol.

 

[Lesath]

Sure, I'm smug, but I'm also right.

I mean, if you're asociating with a party that is anti-science, anti-woman, and anti-lgbt, how can I not turn my nose down on you? Should I go out of my wat to understand all this, and the efforts people associated with Republicans have made to disenfranchise voters of color? Or maybe engage in the delusion that trickle down works when the truth of the matter is rich people hoard their wealth offshore and the people see practically none of it?