Thank you for answering, Bullitt. I am astounded that anyone could listen to such a vicious foul-mouthed crackpot, seemingly filled with hate and certainly very partisan, and, irrespective of any other issues or questions, imagine such a man to be qualified to serve as a judge. But maybe that’s just me.
Because we have had umpteen million gun control threads that all went nowhere and this doesn’t need to be another. As long as we’re talking about people backing up their shit, I’m not the one who made the assertion, so I don’t have to prove anything. Get Flik to back his shit up if it important to you. Or take it to the concierge.
The question in the OP, and the article he linked to, is a brilliant example of Jonathan Haidts Moral Foundations theory in action. If you want to dig into it go buy ‘The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion’. Short answer, liberals don’t understand conservatives and therefore make up reasons why conservatives might believe something. The made up justifications always portray conservatives as evil.
For those who don’t want to buy the book, I will do a short summary.
Haidt and Jesse Graham built a theory called Moral Foundations theory that proposes five, later expanded to six, moral foundations used when making moral judgments. The original five are Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity. Later, Liberty was added as the sixth. Note, there is a lot of research behind this which is easy to look up if you want more info on how it came to be.
Anyway, after doing a bunch of research Haidt and some other folks found that, in general, liberals use two moral foundations when making moral judgments. Those are care and fairness. Conservatives, on the other hand, rely on all six foundations equally when making moral judgments. And this is where it gets interesting. Haidt did a study where conservatives were asked to answer a moral questionnaire as a liberal, and liberals were asked to do the same as conservatives. The conservatives could generally answer the questions fairly accurately as a liberal. Liberals, on the other hand, couldn’t answer like conservatives. Why? Because the liberals do not understand 4 of the 6 moral foundations that conservatives rely on when making moral choices. In fact, it goes beyond that in that many liberals actively reject the moral reasoning of conservatives:
From the same link:
and
So, liberals don’t think conservatives care. And liberals make up justifications for conservative positions. It must be hate, or ignorance, or racism. When in fact, the likely explanation is that the conservative is using a different moral base when making the judgement. Note, this gets a pretty vicious circle going. When conservative explain themselves but liberals don’t get it, conservatives then stretch to find a reason that makes sense. Like liberals hate the country, liberals are soft on crime, etc. So both sides end up creating narratives explaining why the other side sucks while not really understanding.
Each person is going to have a different set of bases they use more than others. Mine are fairness and liberty. You can test yours here. http://www.yourmorals.org/
Trump hits some of the moral foundations pretty hard. He hits loyalty, authority and sanctity pretty often. About now, I am sure, some of the liberals reading this are gonna say something like ‘But loyalty isn’t really a moral foundation!’. The answer to that is a) yes, it is for some people and b) it likely matters in your life more than you think. Suppose your significant other has an affair. For most people, regardless of political persuasion, that is bad. Why? It breaks loyalty and sanctity.
At the same time, while Trump was hitting those moral foundations pretty hard, Clinton and the Ds were calling potential voters deplorable for holding to those moral foundations. Same thing people are doing in this thread. Guess what, if one person says "I get it. I understand your concerns and speak your language’ while the other says ‘Your concerns are stooopid and you are ignorant/racist/sexist for holding those views’, which one do you think wins? The political arguments liberals use, for the most part, when talking to conservatives/moderates is the latter. My proof? This thread and about a kajillion like it on the 'Dope.
Trump does break some of the moral concerns. The affairs, nasty language etc. However, if the choice is someone who says they understands your values and tells you those values matter but they themselves aren’t particularly moral vs. someone who tells you your values make you evil, which one you gonna choose? That, in a nutshell, is why Trump won and has supporters.
If you really want to understand conservatives and Trump voters (who aren’t all the same, by the way) go read Haidts book. Start asking ‘What moral foundation is this position representing?’ when you see something you don’t understand instead of assuming other people are evil.
On the Blasey Ford/Kavanaugh thing, it is another good example of the different moral reasoning. (Note, I don’t know what the hell to think about the whole thing other than these type situation suck as the truth is impossible to determine. So the following doesn’t match my actual beliefs as I don’t know what the hell to believe) The liberal side is pure harm/care. Fords statement was powerful about the harm she was subjected to and what possible harm Kavanaugh will do on the court. The conservative side is pure fairness and authority. For those whose brains just exploded on the fairness/authority piece, this is a he said/she said situation with no corroborating witnesses (fairness) which also happened to be handled in about the worst possible way by Feinstein. The process (authority) was handled in such a way that is can easily be looked at as a hit job and a last minute attempt to derail Kavanaugh with Blasey Ford being used by the Ds. On top of that, the accusation lacked lots of important details like when and where. Add no witnesses and the crime being reported 30 some odd years after the fact. So, on the care/harm side Ford wins. On the fairness side, Kavanaugh wins. On the authority side, Kavanaugh wins. Your moral foundations will lead to either ‘This is a travesty!’ or ‘This was a political hit and Kavanaugh made it through’.
Slee
PS, I haven’t been here in a while and the board won’t let me select which means linking is a pain in the ass. Not gonna bother so you get URLs. I imagine I can dig up the answer but don’t really care to waste the time.
Not very respectful? He was half a step away from being a complete lunatic. He was rude, dismissive of questions (and straight-up didn’t answer a fair number), and displayed all the composure of a raving asshole.
And this was his job interview. Have you ever behaved this way at job interview? Of course not - no one who was this obnoxious at one would get hired to be a shift manager at Burger King, let alone a justice of the highest court of the land.
The entire process was a sham and a travesty - and now we’ve elevated a partisan hack, a frat boy who never grew up, a classless martinent to the SC.
Yay us.
And that makes no difference.
Only if you want to be sued for slander or libel.
Isn’t this a distinction without a difference? As you quoted, liberals view the conservative moral foundation itself as evil. I call homophobia bigotry; so what if a conservative justifies it with “sanctity”? By my moral foundation, both are evil.
That conservatives can emulate liberals better than the opposite doesn’t seem to indicate much. I suspect a flat-earther can emulate a round-earther better than the reverse. The standard story is easy to grasp because it’s internally consistent; it’s when you add strange contortions that it becomes easy to detect counterfeits.
How could your opinion possibly have any merit whatsoever?
As far as we can tell, you know absolutely nothing about the Kavanaugh hearing except what Rupert Murdoch chose to tell you.
You know who called Kavanaugh an attempted rapist?
Ford. Kavanaugh can take a page out of Trump’s book and threaten to sue her, eh?
Bigotry and hatred being under attack, and people who are bigoted and hateful feeling as if they are being treated like vermin, is excellent news.
The Rust Belt, which was key to Trump’s victory and which should be a critical component of the Democrats’ strategy, certainly isn’t WASP. America’s heavy-industry labor base has historically been comprised of Italians, Poles, Irish, Germans, Greeks, and people from Yugoslavia and other regions of Eastern Europe. Blacks have also always been part of it, but my point is that the “white” component is fairly ethnically diverse. You can’t really describe those communities as “homogenous”, but what they did all have in common, was all working the same kind of jobs together. That’s something that holds communities together.
The problem is that the jobs aren’t there anymore, which is why it’s called the Rust Belt in the first place; it should be called the Steel Belt. Hell, that would be a good slogan for someone. “We will turn the Rust Belt back into the Steel Belt” or whatever.
Speaking of moving goalposts: Not “some”, “often”.
The claim was that appending a mention “confirms this thesis”. How is that confirmation of the thesis that ‘the sheer joy of seeing one’s opponents (or those perceived as social rivals) have pain and suffering [is] the “glue” that unites Trump and his supporters"’? I pointed out that, in my case, it is not (the “glue”).
Oh.My.Gosh. First of all, I thought it was rather precious that the cite I found was from you. 
But one cite isn’t enough for you? What do I win if I find three? Just another goalpost-move, I’ll guess: then I’d “need” to find five examples. Are we in kindergarten here?
Did you read the article I linked to? Answer truthfully. My brief summary of the essay is besides-the-point. We’re not here to play “Gotcha! Septimus misplaced a comma!” We’re here to learn. You might be able to learn something from the essay I linked to. Or you might not be able to. But you wouldn’t know — you didn’t read it.
Here’s a hint: Neither I nor the essay writer say that hatred is the only reason your ilk supports Trump and Trumpist policies. It is (in my words) the glue that helps unite you together.
There are many Republicans who advocated tax cuts, who wanted to crack down on immigration, etc. What provoked the Trump phenomenon? Was it his honesty? His moral character? The generous and patriotic spirit with which he conducted his businesses? His race-blind policies as a New York landlord? His respect for women? These are not rhetorical questions — why do you think the GOP picked Trump as their mascot?
Mr. Serwer opines that Trump’s evident hatred resonated with many right-wingers. Your speaking of the “benefit” of “poking [liberals] in the eye” affirms that perspective.
Capische?
Hi septimus, during his presentation was BK foul mouthed? I don’t remember that. I don’t recall him being foul mouthed during the questioning either, but he was like a petulant, bratty, punk kid. Disrespectful to some on the committee. Embarrasingly so at times.
I can see how this would cause some to question if he has the temperament to serve, but I think he was being emotionally charged, as an act possibly, for being incensed for being falsely accused.
Did he do it, assault CBF? It’s possible. He may have been a jock bully type in high school, used to geting his way with things, and girls.
Was CBF assaulted? She most definitely was. Problem is (for this situation) that there’s no corroborating evidence that it was BK who was the assaulter.
His presentation was very partisan, but he was fighting fire with fire and calling a spade a spade. His good name and accomplishments were unfairly demeaned in the court of public opinion.
You probably disagree but I’d like to hear why, and what. Thanks in advance.
I don’t understand how you can say you believe she was assaulted, but don’t believe that Kavanaugh was the one who did it. How is her identifying Kavanaugh as the assailant less credible than her assertion that the assault took place at all? If she’s lying about the second part, why do you think she’s lying about the first part? If you don’t think she’s lying about any of it, how could she be mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity? This wasn’t a case of being assaulted by a stranger and having an imperfect memory of the guys face - she knew Kavanaugh socially before the assault happened.
I didn’t say BK did it. I said it was possible. It’s also possible that he did not do it.
There’s no corroborating evidence that it was BK. She may not be lying, but she may be misremembering. It was a long time ago. Memory is a funny thing, and it’s not rock solid reliable.
To quote Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men,
It doesn’t matter what I believe. It matters what I can prove.
[ul]
[li] Three women charged Kavanaugh, not just one. Of the three, only one was allowed to testify; one wasn’t even interviewed by the FBI.[/li][li] Male friends of Kavanaugh reported that he got extremely drunk. At least one said he pawed girls uninvited when drunk. Most or all of these witnesses were not even interviewed by the FBI, let alone allowed to testify.[/li][li] IIRC, even Mr. Judge, Kavanaugh’s accomplice in the attempted rape, was never interviewed.[/li][li] Kavanaugh’s tirade opposed not just his accuser and the 1 or 2 Senators who may have facilitated the accusation. It was a general rant, reminiscent of Alex Jones, against all Democrats.[/li][li] According to Wikipedia “Kavanaugh was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals … in 2003. His confirmation hearings were contentious; they stalled for three years over charges of partisanship.”[/li][li] Democrats had no reason to suborn perjury or fabricate. The GOP was going to get a right-winger no matter what; the question was whether the new judge, independent of philosophy, would be competent. Does Kavanaugh strike you as a great jurist in the mold of Scalia?[/li][li] Compare Kavanaugh’s whining with that of Clarence Thomas. Thomas addressed the single witness, who he pretended was lying. Thomas did NOT devolve into a general rant against an entire political party.[/li][li] Kavanaugh’s cross-examination of Klobuchar was disgraceful.[/li][li] Dr. Ford and the other accusers had no motive whatsoever for lying. Just the opposite — Ford has overturned her own life, receiving death threats, to perform a public duty.[/li][li] If I were on a jury, I might agree that “reasonable doubt” exists and I must acquit. Not on a jury and as a common sense matter, it is clear to me that the probability of Kavanaugh’s guilt is at least 99%.[/li][li] If someone falsely accused me, I’d lose my temper too. That’s why nobody would ever consider me for a judgeship. The accusations against Kavanaugh weren’t even false, but he went on a tirade that should disqualify him for any judgeship.[/li][/ul]
I didn’t intend to turn this thread about
President Trump and his supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they hate and fear.
into yet another Kavanaugh thread. However Kavanaugh’s own hateful and contemptuous behavior was on stark display in the Senate hearing. With the exception of Mr. Bullitt obviously, it’s hard to imagine anyone watching this asshole’s performance and still supporting him for a judgeship … unless the hateful nature is perceived as a plus, not a minus.
This is bullshit.
If they don’t want an abortion, they don’t have to have one. If they don’t want gay marriage, they don’t have to get married to another dude. You say, “They actually aren’t trying to make abortion illegal for everyone,” and then simultaneously, “They didn’t want it legal where they lived.” That’s a really, really, really, fine hair to split. Saying “they didn’t want X legal where they live” means they MUST be telling someone else what they are and are not allowed to do.
This whole time, I keep hearing people say, “The government / liberals / city folk can’t tell me what to do!” And then they IMMEDIATELY turn around and use the power of the state to tell someone else what to do. This is complete and utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with community or tradition or anything else, and everything to do with power. By which I mean: “We want the power to tell people what they MUST do, and we don’t want anyone else to stop us.”
No one is making them have an abortion. No one is making them have a gay marriage. We’re just telling them they don’t have the right to infringe on someone else’s rights and freedoms… Which is what I thought they wanted??
These people make arguments that are inherently contradictory and then wonder why we think they are liars and hypocrites.
…And then you voted for Trump, so don’t be surprised that we don’t believe you.
You and some 2400 law professors. And the ABA.
And retired (conservative) SC Justice John Paul Stevens.
But of course the large number of people with expertise in jurisprudence opposing Kavanaugh just proves Quartz’s claims, which follow this formula:
-
Person X says or does something so egregious that large numbers of people come out in opposition to it.
-
Person X and/or his/her supporters claim that the fact that such a large amount of people voice strong opposition to something constitutes a “lynch mob”.
-
Person X and/or his her supporters pointedly ignore any consideration of whether that opposition was actually justified.
-
PROFIT!
It’s a reversed argumentam ad populam approach with a side of appeal to spite.