Are we talking about demonizing the politicians, or the voters?
You have a case if you mean demonizing the politicians on the “other” side, but I cannot believe that people came out in droves to vote on the side of the people who had told them that they were evil, stupid and bigoted.
And that’s what I’ve been talking about. That’s ONLY what I’ve been talking about—that the technique of telling people that they shouldn’t vote a certain way, and that anyone who votes that way is stupid, inferior, and evil—well, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t get more votes for your side. And isn’t what this is all about? To persuade people (voters) of the rightness of your side so that you’ll get their votes? You don’t do that by telling them that they are evil dumbshits who don’t know what’s good for them.
I agree with you that it is a horrible practice. But I just think you are jumping to conclusions because of how much you dislike it.
It is possible that the name-calling and everything ended up hurting the chances of success. But, not having seen the results if it didn’t take places, we don’t know. It is all speculation.
It is also possible that, horrible though it may be, all the name calling got the base excited and resulted in greater turnout, which may have outweighed the potential benefits of being nice.
Further, it may be that being nice would have failed miserably against an opposing side which utilized demonizing and name-calling to rile up their base. Again, we don’t know, but your conclusion is not the only possible conclusion, nor necessarily even the most logical.
That’s possible. It may have helped in the short run. So basically, “preaching to the choir” got more people to vote this time. Yes, possible. But still—the demonizing practice didn’t change any new minds—didn’t sway any new hearts—it only got those who already shared those views riled up.
That sounds awful. And it seems like a short-term solution. There’s only so much “preaching to the choir” that will help. It won’t make the percentages change all that much because nobody is budging from their initial position—they’re just digging in their heels deeper. It won’t take a 50-50 (or close to) split and change it to, for instance, 60-40. And that’s what is needed, really, to make substantial and positive change.
Bricker, here’s my response to your post in the other thread.
I was very much wrong about the election.
I was not wrong about you. You are a cunt. You see this as a game to wager on. I saw this as a chance to save our country from devastatingly poor decision making when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy.
Your prognostication was not based on anything other than sheer hope. How could it be, since you proudly proclaimed that you had been predicting the outcome for two years. Bush won by scaring evangelicals in battleground states about gay people. Maybe you knew he was going to do this. Maybe you are proud of that.
My prognostication was based on historical trends about undecideds breaking for the challenger, analyses about polling models of likely voters that was arguably inconsistent with past performance, and an observation of the large numbers of people claiming to have been Bush supporters who could no longer support him.
I was confident and I was wrong. Me and Bush have a lot in common. But you are a classless little weasel. So you share something in common with him as well.
My gosh, you lefties are the whiniest batch of sore losers in captivity.
Then I assume you can account for the fact that a far higher percentage voted against gay marriage than voted for Bush? There seem to have been a hell of a lot of Kerry supporters voting against gay issues as well.
No, it was based on wishful thinking, and the self-centered assurance that your way was the only possible Truth.
Yup, just as you are here.
Your side lost. Bush won. Kerry was defeated. The Republicans control the White House, Senate, the House of Representatives, and more governorships than before the election.
You and yours are losers, big time. And whining, childish, self-centered sore losers at that.
So which was it? Hope, or analysis and evil disposition?
But as confident as you were, you didn’t see any reason to make some money for yourself by buying Kerry options at great odds at Tradesports or a simialr site. You were confident enough to yap your big mouth about how Bush would lose, but not one penny of Hentor-money was going to get risked on your sure thing. Meanwhile, me, the blind guesser, the guy who picked from sheer hope, not only talked the talk, but put something of value up against the outcome. You risked only your reputation here – a VERY tiny risk, I might add.
Yes, let’s mention this. Bush was confident about WMD, and he ultimately was wrong. For this, he’s a liar, a fraud, a murderer. You were confident and wrong too, but you were nobly try to save our country from devastatingly poor decision making when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy. You are a downtrodden hero.
You pathetic fuck. One set of standards for you, and another for the rest of the world. You know nothing, you see nothing, you understand nothing, you are nothing - but a classless loser.
I call it “Ayn Rand Syndrome”, or for people on the SDMB, “Justhink Syndrome”. Both of these individuals believed that the root of human thinking was all the same. Rand seemed to have a more eloquent position than Justhink in that she believed in “Reason” as an epistemology and conceeded that not everyone did so. Justhink asserted that humans were inherently similar in mental processes and it was not a matter of choice, it was a matter of biology and physics. Ayn Rand famously said “There are no contradictions. If you encounter a contradiction, check your premises. You will find one of them is wrong.” Justhink believed humans were like calculating machines and all processed the same input the same way and thus would inevitably come to the same conclusion. c.f. his claim of having a “killing logic” which could cause human brains to shut down attempting to process it. This is similar to the way computers crash if you do something they’re not programmed to handle.
Both of these individuals seemed to believe “Right-thinking minds agree” was objectively true. This is the key to understanding the syndrome and those individuals who exhibit it. Some are generous enough to belive that anyone who does not agree is not right-thinking because they are ignorant(generally Rand’s default position, hence the gentle reminder to re-check your premises/logic). And some are assholish eough to believe that anyone who does not agree is not right-thinking because they are dishonest, biased, etc. This was Rand’s fallback position and she called it “Evasion” which was basically equivalent to intellectual dishonesty. A flat out refusal to acknowledge the natural conclusion from the correct premises. The arrogance of the idea that there is a “natural conclusion” or universally “correct premises” is typical of Rand. “Evasion” in the Randsphere is an extremely evil act.
Ayn Rand Syndrome is characterized by arrogance. She made no attempts to hide this and in fact glorified the ego. Justhink had a simlar confidence in his objective “rightness”. His certainty in his mental calculus was supreme. Other viewpoints could be dismissed because they clearly didn’t take the correct factors into account or were faulty. Revelation was his and he was very offended/frustrated at not being received
I tend to be guilty of a minor form of Ayn Rand Syndrome, which is the reason I’ve thought so much about the topic. I tend to assume disagreements are caused by miscommunications. I generally think that if one or the other of a disagreeing party could just express themselves more clearly, then the disagreement would probably be resolved. I try not to take it to the extreme and believe people are evil/intellectualy dishonest if they continue to think differently about a topic than I do, but I am afflicted by a minor form of the syndrom. I generally think “Open and honest communication combined with shared data sets leads to consensus in most cases.” There is a bit of ivory-tower idealism in there, but in general I feel it works more often than not. I strive to ask more questions than I offer judgements.
You can’t really think that the consequences are immaterial, can you? Let’s go over this:
Bush was wrong, and largely because he didn’t care about the facts. People have died and more will die because of Bush’s lack of concern.
Hentor was wrong, about a prediction that was based on facts he made a great effort to learn (at least as great an effort as you did). He was wrong. People will die because the facts turned out to be otherwise, despite his efforts to find them out, but he’s still not the one ordering that to be done. See above.
Not everyone in this world cares only about their own money, and it would help you a great deal to try to understand why instead of simply ridiculing it. You meant the quoted paragraph sarcastically, but it’s essentially true.
Oh my God Mtgman, that describes my thinking to a ‘T’! I always assume that I’m just not presenting myself clearly (adequately/succinctly/whatever) enough and that if I try harder, surely a consensus can be reached. Is this than truly an issue of arrogance on my behalf?? If so, how do I fix it? I always thought it just meant that I was incredibly naive, with a tendency towards too much idealism. However, if it’s the former rather than the latter, I gotta change.
Your (anyone’s) input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
I am going to try to explain this once more, since you haven’t gotten it yet. Confidence does not inevitably lead most people to wagering. Wagering seems to be your default mode. Sad and possibly pathological, but there’s nothing I can do about it.
I am hopeful that this will help you to understand better, or will give everyone else a clear picture of what you are. Would you wager on the outcome of a child’s surgery? What if you were entirely confident that it would be successful? Would you wager then? Why not, since you could make a little money off of it? “Hey doc, I got a c note that the kid pulls through.”
“I’ll bet you $250 that we get hit by a dirty bomb before June, 2005?”
“What’s the over/under on families sliding into poverty next year?”
Some things are not a fucking game, shithead.
And if I have a VERY TINY reputation here, well, I am mildly and momentarily disheartened by that, but only just. I’ll still say my peace. I don’t expect to be picking out china patterns with you at any point in the future.
And since I’ve got girlie parts and assuming you do too, I don’t think we’d line up very well on the “bear[ing] children” thing. If we ever figure out how, I might take you up on it. But I’m honored by the offer. As to who I am, only The Shadow and my therapist knows.
“And yours”? Some of us have been trying to build bridges and take a more mature approach to this defeat. The constant triumphalism from your side is becoming wearing. Much of the idiocy that you rightly decry from the lefties (Statement X is correct, not because I have better arguments but because of my innate superiority) I see being echoed by the Right.
And I think that my patience and peacemaking efforts ought to be considered in the light that your side believes I am unworthy of basic civil equality.
I’d like to see the Democrats chill the fuck out and act like grownups, but I’d also like to see some graciousness from the victors. I’d at least like to see you consider the fact that the policies that will benefit you are going to be very bad for me.
And something that’s also upsetting is that I’m a gay conservative with no home. I can’t join the GOP because I oppose ballooning deficits, I’m pro-SOCAS, and against big government. I can’t really swing with the lefties because I’m pro-military and anti-nanny government (and I like to shower daily.) And I can’t join the Libertarians because they’re bonkers.
Hey! Us neo-hippie freaks take a shower at least once a week, whether we need it or not. Water conservation and all that.
On a more serious note though, despite us basically fighting for the same thing, I do appreciate your tireless efforts to remain calm and rational, to bridge this huge gap we’ve got and to do so in as polite a manner as possible. Especially considering that it’s such an intregal part of your life. That takes courage.
Two points. Firstly, most disagreements ARE the results of miscommunication. Often stupid, tiny little communication breakdowns. This is true in marriage especially.
Secondly, the big thing for me was the realization that I need to shut up sometimes and let THEM try the “clarifying comments” bit for a while. Maybe the misunderstanding wasn’t them having trouble understanding ME, but ME having trouble understanding them. I’ve learned to back off on the verbosity I generate trying to clarify what I’ve said(although I still love my parentheticals!) and just stop for a bit and start to ask questions. Starting at the least common denominator(What color is the sky? Ok, we’re both in agreement there, lets move forward) and progressively getting closer to the actual topic. Most times we run across something way down the list which is the root cause. They care more about some underlying thing than I do or vice-versa and that colors the reasoning process from the point that thing comes into the picture and going forward. We started out on the same path and then they saw a rosebush along the way and stopped to sniff it while I passed it by. A few minutes later we’re yelling at each other because we got seperated.
Basically I’ve decided that investigation of their views and their reasons is every bit as important to the consensus-reaching process as expounding on my views and my reasons. Of course there are people whose priorities are so divergent from my own that we will likely never reach consensus and then the question is, can I respect/get along with someone with those priorities? The answer generally depends on how often I’ll need to interact with them and on what topics. I sincerely doubt Bricker and I would be compatible in a marriage situation, but I’m fine interacting with him occasionally on a message board even though our priorites are strikingly different.
The “arrogance” part comes in because it was me assuming I was right and that they would come around to my viewpoint if I explained it well enough. That’s the arrogance. In taking the time to ask them their reasons for their views and the facts underlying it I find that sometimes it is me changing my viewpoint and thereby achieving consensus. Not asking the questions, not trying to understand why they felt the way they did, just trying to get them to see MY point. That was the arrogance. My point and my views are no more important than theirs and the onus is on BOTH of us to try to understand each other and once that is done, to work towards consensus(if possible). In examining their reasons I also get to re-think my own positon. Odds are they have seen or thought of something I have not, or weighed some factor differently(still a bit of that “humans as calculators” factor here ). In being open to their input I acknowledge them as having equal right to their views as I do. In not being open to their input and continuing to expound on how great my view is and why they should hold it I demonstrate arrogance.
Sometimes, however, there are views I understand just fine and I understand the reasoning and the underlying data, and they understand me and mine, but we still disagree. It is important to realize this is fine. It happens. Different people have different priorities and one size does not fit all. Move on, maybe revisit it later(people and situations change), but don’t stress over it either way.
Thank you Mtgman. I learn so much here and that was very sound advice. I don’t ever believe my way is better, but I always think that I’ve muddled up whatever I’ve tried to express as to become less clear than the darkest fabric. So, I try and try and over-explain myself to the point of idiocy. Sigh. From now on though, I’ll make a concerted effort to simply listen more often and wait. To see where there is a break down before I automatically assume I’m too ignorant for the conversation.
That’s odd, I don’t remember checking a little box when I paid my money to register on the SDMB stating that, if I was a liberal, I authorized Hentor the Barbarian to speak for me…
This was one of the most classless posts I've ever seen on the SDMB. I've lost a lot of respect for you in the past few weeks reading your election-related screeds.
