There are actual and current divides on many issues between conservatives and liberals. Taxes, spending, abortion, social programs etc. etc. If Jas09 has his own opinion on these issues and they fall closer to one side than the other, than that would be the side he should be on. It has nothing to do with whether that side or the other side has a tendency to ignore facts and historical context etc. Let him do his own analysis, including facts and historical context, and decide.
Unless his point is that all conservative positions are currently based on ignorance of facts etc.? But if that’s his position, how could he be proving that from one article about something that’s not even one of the major conservative liberal dividing issues?
Yeah, that sentence came out a mess - I blame the wine. Probably should have just left it out altogether, although then we would have missed out on MWaG’s contributions.
I understand what you’re saying, but don’t think I agree (or at least not fully).
First, “conservative” and “liberal” are not static terms, nor all-encompassing. One can (and almost always does) adopt opinions and beliefs from both camps, and even see beliefs that they have always held move from one to the other.
Second, I believe the quality of the argument matters intensely. No matter the topic, making sure you have the facts right and considering historical context is essential. And, currently at least, I see much more of this from people promoting “liberal” policies (which, in many cases aren’t even really that liberal in a historical sense).
You seem to think that the best way to get to policy solutions is to start with ideological principles and then apply them. I don’t think this is right. I think we should always keep in mind our ideological principles, but start from the facts and historical realities to build our policies. This is perhaps closer to the core of my complaint - too many conservatives today seem so bound to their ideology that they refuse to acknowledge factual and historical realities. This article has that in spades.
And yes, part of it surely comes down to “tribe identification”. I’d rather have Andrew Sullivan and David Frum on “my team” (even though they are both pretty much disavowed as “conservatives” these days) than K-Lo or Charlotte Allen (to choose two that post at one of the “smarter” conservatives outlets).
Meh, I was just pitting a really really dumb-ass, offensive, article. I threw in the (mangled) line about the decline of conservative thought as a (slightly drunken) afterthought.
We can discuss that at length if you’d like, but I’d kind of rather focus on what a piece of moldering tripe this article is.
How about this piece of sage advice:
Fuck cops (and everybody else) - what do they know? Those teachers that actually did try to confront (and possibly tackle) the shooter and got shot dead for it - let’s just ignore them, they’re just women anyways.
I’m not making a distinction here between ideology and facts here. Obviously any ideology has to be based on facts and reason. So when I refer to your own ideology, I mean your own fact-based ideology.
So for example, if you believe, based your own asessment of the current situation, that what’s needed at this time is lower taxes and lower spending, for example. What difference does it make to you if other people have reached that same conclusion based on disregard for facts and historical context?
Not much to talk about there. Yes, it’s moldering tripe. Now what?
Am I the only one who thought A Monkey With a Gun’s posts read like he was drunk?
Also, I must agree about the stupidity and offensiveness of the article. I went and read the other article linked here too. This woman is clearly off her rocker.
I don’t think this is the first time that Monkey has approached meltdown levels in the Pit. Just saying. Anyway, I looked up several articles of Charlotte Allen’s and she truly is batshit insane. So really, not much else to know. We should probably all just move along…
And no, faithfool, I am not having a meltdown. Just… meh. life. It was either punching the wall or taking it out on the BBQ pit. I would much rather be a dick on a message board than in real life. I think that’s actually kinda healthy.
Allen was also wrong that Sandy Hook Elementary didn’t have any male teachers or custodians. And she was wrong about the age of the children. The school is K-4, not K-6, so there wouldn’t have been any 12-year-olds, husky or otherwise. The idea of some large, heroic 12-year-olds saving the day by throwing themselves at the gun with the high-powered rifle - that that would have fixed everything - places the whole thing firmly in the “I don’t know whether to laugh or cry” category. But not only is the core idea of the column patronizing, callous, and stupid, the author got a bunch of basic facts wrong and it outs her as being very lazy.
