That’s not the original post.
I did. In the post that spawned all this, you said:
Then, in your first post in Scylla’s “Conservatism” thread, you say, in part (bolding mine):
The fact that you’re unable to understand how someone might have a political mindset different than yours, and therefore concluding the person does not honestly hold it (is lying to themselves) is, in fact, the essence of intolerance.
The original post was in response to this question:
In writing my answer, the grain of sand at the center of this rumbling tumbling snowball, I had only pundits and columnists in mind.
As Scylla, in his wonted Chicken Little mode, grabbed it and ran, I expanded upon that original post, in the post you’ve excerpted above, casting a wider net than in my original post, I described only my own impressions and my own observations and my own conclusions, explaining–admitting–that I was unable to understand the reasoning that led conservatives to draw utterly different conclusions from what have been, presumably, the same observations.
It remains my conclusion that the only way someone can reach conclusions which seem so patently false to me is either to be ignorant of the facts, or to ignore them. Leaving aside ignorance, since that has not been the focus of this debate, it seems to me that there is an entire spectrum of reasons to ignore what seem to me to obvious facts: all the way from sadistic fascism, to craven self interest, to apathy/fear of altering the status quo, to blind optimism. Though there is, as I said, a spectrum of motivations, I see each step along that spectrum–whether from malignant or benign motivations–as a form of self deception.
I have no respect for the people in the original question: conservative talking heads. I have a great deal of respect for people at the other end of the spectrum, such as your grandfather and my friend.
In my experience, it is often useful, in observaing these sorts of debates, to back away from the nitty details and examine broader elements. In this case, the question I have to ask myself is; who in this discussion is acting with an open mind, and who isn’t? Who seems prepared to admit they could be wrong, and who doesn’t? Who expresses a willigness to consider other viewpoints and who does not?
lissener is about as closed-minded a regular poster as we have on the board, at least since december got the boot. Few people here, even the really stupidly partisan ones, would be willing to state that “all conservatives/liberals are self-deceptive/liars/scoundrels.” The sheer broadness and inaccuracy of using the liberal/conservative polar scale, as if it is a realistic or even politically serious way of categorizing people, suggests a closed and ignorant mind. I am not personally acquainted with anyone who is actually informed, intelligent, and reasonable who would do that.
To be honest, the similarities between lissener and december are substantial. Maybe the soap operas are right, and everyone has an evil twin.
THis is regarding a single issue, Rick; just because I haven’t been convinced to admit I’m wrong about this one particular thing doesn’t mean, as you’ve inferred, that I’m generally unable to admit I’m wrong about anything.
You’re proposing a litmus test in which the only way you’ve offered me to prove that I am, in a general sense, open minded, admit that I’m “wrong” about a single, pre-selected topic. That’s an unreasonable test, and I decline to take it.
lissener,
I decline to discuss the issue which led to this thread as there is simply no middle ground from which to start. Having made that disclaimer I don’t think the objections in this thread stem from you refusing to admit that you’re wrong about conservatives. As I read it posters of varying political backgrounds are taking issue with you because you won’t admit that theres a possibility that you’re wrong.
There is a clear difference between saying “I’m correct” and “I think I’m right yet I admit there is a chance I could be wrong”. Making blanket statements about the motives of conservatives while not allowing for the possibility that you could be incorrect is the key here. It’s not the specific claim that’s causing the responses in this thread. It’s the claim of infallibility on this point.
Convincing you that you are wrong is not the litmus test either. You need to show that you are right and rational.
In the aforementioned thread you have done an excellent job of avoiding anything like explaining the reasons behind your opinions.
The one time you have shows pretty clearly why hiding your reasons was a smart move.
You offered 3 reasons as support of your thesis of the evil little conservatives
- Wealth is finite
- Conservatives require poverty
- Conservatism is designed to leave people behind.
Then you offered an illustration suggesting a growing wealth disparity between the top 2% and workers as 100% employment was reached.
You have been shown in no uncertain terms that these things are wrong. Not just wrong, ridiculously wrong.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
You are remarkably ignorant of your subject matter.
Instead of having the courage to defend or recant, you just sit there and weasel like a little worm.
If you’re not a bigot, there ain’t no such thing.
this is exactly the point I attempted to make w/one of the die hard december appologistas. It is arrogant to attibute motives to people (especially on a scale of ‘conservatives’ vs. ‘liberals’) especially when the groups involved aren’t even necessarily coherant and cohesive on their beliefs, let alone their rationales/motives for having said beliefs.
lissener I assure you I have read your post that started this a number of times. I stand by my statements and would submit that your non-response is craven weaseling at its worst.
This is bullshit; I never even implied that there was any such impossibility.
I have said much the same thing many, many times during this brouhaha; I have made it clear from the beginning that I was speaking in the realm of opinion, and never claimed to be speaking fact. I have said more than once that my inability to understand a conservative’s reasoning may very well be due to my own shortcomings.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. So I’m an armchair psychoanalyst; who isn’t? I speculate on another person’s motives for behaving as he/she does. Who doesn’t? I have nothing to apologize for here, simply because despite having read and considered as much political bumpf as the next guy I have drawn a different conclusion, and have shared that conclusion.
Oh, I almost forgot: Scylla, suck my dick.
Are you saying then that it’s certainly possible that you could be wrong about the motives of informed, intelligent conservatives?
I have never believed, let alone implied, let alone said, otherwise; I have never claimed to be doing anything other than armchair psychoanalysis.
Then I simply don’t understand why you are so strident about the motives of conservatives lissener. You think you’re right (obviously) but admit you could be wrong. Yet you specifically have stated numerous times that you simply don’t understand conservative reasoning. If you are fully aware of the fact that you don’t understand conservative reasoning how can you be so sure that you understand the motives of conservatives (even if you allow for a minute possibility that you’re wrong)? In essence you’re saying:
I know that I don’t understand X (conservatives reasoning)
X influences Y (reasoning influences motive)
I’m 99% sure I know about Y (conservative motive)
I don’t know why I’m posting this. You aren’t going to change your mind and you’ve already admitted that your reasoning is circular. I guess I just want you to understand where I’m coming from.
No; I have said that I don’t understand how they can get from A to Z along a route that doesn’t intentionally bypass the poor (e.g.); the only route I am able to imagine that will get them there jumps right over them. Does that need further elucidation?
In any case, I haven’t been strident; the stridency has been coming from the Scyllas. I simply shared an opinion, and have yet to have that opinion altered by the subsequent sqeaking.
Maybe. When you say that you don’t see how conservatives get from A to Z without bypassing the poor I assume that you’re referring to conservative policies on such topics as the minimum wage, welfare programs, and medical services for the poor. Is that correct?
I don’t happen to agree with lissener that conservatives are evil or selfish, as one might expect. But I don’t see why that belief makes him a bigot. He is not merely objecting to people that are not like him. He is offering a direct connection between conservative views and selfishness etc. If you don’t agree with him, disagree. But I don’t see why his judgment is to be considered inherently invalid merely because it happens to reflect negatively on a large group of people.
ISTM, that the real basis for the criticism of lissener is the opinion of many that he is so so wrong that he could only have arrived at the conclusion that he holds out of bigotry. Possibly something in that. But not too much.
Yes, G_B; whenever I hear (so far at least) a conservative’s reasoning about how kneecapping the EPA will reduce pollution, or healthcare for profit is better than universal healthcare (they get more [sub]bullshit cough bullshit[/sub] choices![sub]bullshit cough bullshit[/sub]), there’s always a point at which their predicted outcome relies on a leap of faith that these actions (or inactions) will produce those results, and I think of that old cartoon where a mathemetician is chalking up a huge complicated equation on the blackboard, one of the final steps of which is “a miracle occurs here.”
And I never thought I’d say this, but thanks, Izzy; my sentiments exactly. 
Izzy, he hasn’ offered a direct connection. That’s part of the problem. “I cannot understand how you can believe X without being a selfish evil bastard” shows no connection between believing X and being a selfish evil bastard; it shows instead a limitation of imagination. Maintaining that opinion after it has been explained how you can, in fact, believe X without being a selfish evil bastard shows more than a lack of imagination, it shows willful ignorance.
And attributing immorality to some large group of people on the basis of willful ignorance pretty much defines bigotry.