It seemed to me that that was more an opening for a discussion: “You’ve heard this from an authority, here’s an authority that says different, let’s talk about why!” Whereas the conservative friend, as described, was unable or unwilling to engage in that kind of debate, and kept repeating their thesis as though repetition were defense.
Also, it’s kinda a conservatve position, isnt it, to refuse to accept that they’re speaking to an authority, though only if it’s one that disagrees with them. My point is that liberals tend to “Question Authority” while conservatives’ motto is more like “Question Authority Very Selectively. See if the authority supports your argument. If not, question them, their motives, their intelligence and their lineage.”
Short: If liberals could think …
they wouldn’t post such a dumb OP as the above.
As the old adage has it, conservatives think with their head, liberals with their heart (and sometimes, as in the OP, with their ass.)
Oh, for fuck’s sake…I have no dog in the political fight, but this whole fiddle business is really annoying me. First, the verb fiddling refers to the style of music, which can be played on any member of the violin family. It in no way is restricted to playing a single instrument that could be seen as a modified violin.
Violins may, colloquially, be referred to as fiddles. Any violin. There are modified violins which are known as fiddles, but since any violin may be referred to as a fiddle and used for fiddling, this doesn’t really mean much.
Violas and cellos can also be used for fiddling, but if one refers to “a fiddle” it is understood that one is talking about a violin.
Very, very few in the folk music scene would ever say a modified violin is a different instrument. I can’t get the Fiddle Forum up now for some reason, but the question is discussed here and you’ll note only one person allows that “possibly” an instrument made specifically for fiddling could be a fiddle but not a violin, but ultimately all violins are fiddles and all fiddles are violins. Unless the participants in the discussion have studied music* it’s a pointless argument.
- And it’s clear the one making the original claim of fiddles being unique instruments had not, since s/he was simply referring to something s/he had been told rather than his/her own theory on violins and fiddles ultimately evolving away from one another
No it wasn’t. Although I didn’t include it in my quote, he was quite clear that the comment was made under his breath to himself. He wasn’t interested in pursuing a hypothetical.
Is it possible he just likes to push your buttons?
“Scientists are evil, and all work for giant corporations who want to hide the truth from you.”
QED.
I’ve actually heard that from both liberals and conservatives, although I will admit that in my experience I’ve probably heard it from more liberals since most of my friends and spiritual community are liberal.
I know several people who have admitted to me that they are some sort of real-life version of the Internet troll, taking positions and making statements that they don’t really believe in just to elicit a reaction. All of them call it “stirring the pudding.” And every single one of them that I know personally is a conservative.
Things I Have Seen Liberals Insist Were True - [ul][li]The poverty rate went up under Reagan[]The CIA invented AIDS []Bush planned 9/11[]Clinton staffers did not trash the White House during the transition of 2001[]The Soviet Union never invaded any countries without being invited first[*]Bush was planning to cancel the elections of 2004 and rule as a dictator[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I disagree. Let’s talk about it!
I’m confused. Or someone is. I was talking about Hilarity N. Suze’s original post, not your ensuing one. I meant that the conversation could have been the jumping-off point for a discussion about musical instruments and styles, but that Conservative Friend was unable to think critically and instead kept repeating their supposedly authoritative information.
When you use a definition of “conservative” that only includes idiots, then it’s no wonder that you think all conservatives are idiots.
And I could post three examples of idiot liberals on this very message board for every one of your examples if I had the time or the inclination (GD is right over there, go look for yourself).
My very Republican dad used to say the same thing about Bill Clinton in 2000.
Of course I can. Borrowing the format of the OP:
Exhibit A (quasi-political):
GUEST: I don’t eat meat.
ME: Is that right? Is it a decision motivated by health? Or an animal cruelty issue?
GUEST: I think it’s wrong to kill animals just so we can have meat to eat.
ME: But you wear a leather jacket.
GUEST: Yeah, but they get all the leather for jackets from cows that die of old age.
ME: Um… actually, I had not ever heard that. How did you learn it?
GUEST: I don’t know, but it’s true.
ME: Well, I have a laptop in the living room. We could look it up. (Several moments of typing) I don’t really see any evidence of that claim. I see some specific outlets advertising alternatives to leather, and some advertising “cruelty-free” leather - is that where you got that jacket?
GUEST: No, I got it from Macy’s.
ME: I’m going to say that no, the cow that donated your jacket was not a victim of old age.
GUEST: Yes, they all are. Leather jackets are made from cows that die of old age!
ME: But there’s no evidence…
GUEST: Do you always have to be right? Can’t you just let things go?
Committed ideologues of all stripes do this, not just liberal ones. Listen to Rush or Dr. Laura for examples of prominent conservatives doing it.
Many conservatives of my acquaintance were/are fond of calling Clinton ‘evil’.
And regarding Nixon, the best-known instance of someone calling Nixon evil was his fellow Republican Bob Dole.
If you had the time and inclination to write that, you have the time and inclination to do it. Remember to include examples.
Exhibit B (political):
ME: …and my son’s going to do his next book report on a book about Ronald Reagan.
OTHER PARENT: Really? Reagan was such a liar!
ME: How so?
OP: He just made things up! And the press loved him so he never got called on it.
ME: Like what, specifically?
OP: Like that whole welfare queen thing.
ME: Well, as I understand it, Reagan was using an example of an actual case …
OP: No, he just made it up! There was no welfare queen.
ME: Actually, I had a message-board exchange about this topic pretty recently, and I had occasion to look it up. Reagan’s example was based on a story that ran in the Times about an actual Chicago woman using multiple aliases to collect welfare payments.
OP: That’s not true. He just made it up.
ME: Well, if you want, I could e-mail you the links…
OP: Whatever.
But in that case, it was true!
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, I’d like to see 'em. I’ve been spreading the story that Reagan spread unsubstantiated rumors about a specific, documented welfare queen in Chicago for years. Or are you saying that some poorly researched story was printed, and that Reagan gets a pass because he read it somewhere and so got to keep repeating it after the story was labeled as lacking in substantiation?
Anyway, you cherrypicked your material. How about Reagan’s claim of the unsubstantiable pilot who (flying solo, mind you) went down heroically with the plane? This came from some movie, but Reagan persisted in telling it as historically true, even though no one could possibly know what he was thinking and doing in a aircraft that contained no witnesses other than the pilot who died. Is this a better example of Reagan not knowing the difference between the truth and lies?
Exhibit A:
If you’ve heard liberals call Powell ‘evil’, your experiences differ GREATLY from mine (not to mention your definition of what constitutes a social conservative).
The only liberal criticism I recall of Powell was voiced in the wake of his going along with the administration’s claims of Iraqi WMD.
More recently, Rush tartly played the race card against Powell when he endorsed Obama.