# The arrogance of the left-wing **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 15, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037 "2016-11-15T04:00:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/61 "2016-11-17T06:35:11Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > Obama has to act like a President. His attitude should be different from that of a common citizen, which Trump was then. > > Doubt that Trump represents the general attitude of people of the right wing, either. I don’t think the left even thinks he does. Based on my actual statements in response to a specific post, the best that can be said for this effort to move the goalposts all over the county, (never mind the stadium), are that they are silly. **Luci** sarcastically noted that it would be nice to look to the shining example of Trump to find guidance on how to lose gracefully. That Trump was not then running for president does not change his inflammatory (and blatantly dishonest) rhetoric. And the link was not to Trump supporters but to Obama opponents burning him in effigy in front of a church and generally showing their brand of “respect” for the president. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/62 "2016-11-18T20:24:02Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > Well, this kinda post proves my point. You are just SO sure you’re the ones who are right, that “reality” is on your side. I try to check with reality first, then try to be on _its_ side. I won’t say I do that all the time - I have been known to pop off without the facts - but when someone shows me the facts and they’re not on my side, I yield. I may grumble about it first, but as a citizen, I don’t feel I have any business voting if I’m going to put my preconceptions ahead of the facts. Speaking of fact, on global warming, here’s an unfortunately [un-chilling fact](http://grist.org/briefly/um-where-did-all-of-the-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-just-go/). > [@](#): > > Most things, my friend, aren’t that simple at all. All the evidence isn’t anywhere near as one sided on all those issues you mention as you say… and those aren’t at all the only issues either. Abortion?, guns?, crime policies?, immigration?, terrorism?, free speech?. I apologize that my post wasn’t fully inclusive of all [del]Internet traditions[/del] issues. But I wanted to finish my post in a finite amount of time. But mind if I pick a couple of them? Crime policies, for one. Crime in the U.S. has been steadily declining for a quarter-century, to levels that predate the upheavals of the mid to late 1960s. Trump has been selling America on the notion that we’re in the midst of an ever-increasing crime wave, and his suggested policies are based on that world view, even though it’s totally bonkers. Immigration? Net immigration from Mexico has been roughly zero during the Obama administration. So we’re gonna build a bigger wall to keep those zero people out. > [@](#): > > Look, we all think we’re right. Yeah, but we’re more likely to BE right if we look up the facts first, and have opinions that are based on them. > [@](#): > > We wouldn’t hold an opinion about something to begin with, otherwise. But we all should accept the possibility that we just _might_, possibly, be wrong. We’re not talking about issues as uncontested as the Earth being not being flat here. In many cases, actually, we ARE. [ETA] Talking about something as uncontested as the Earth not being flat, that is. [/ETA] I realize that that’s not true of _every_ issue, and certainly many issues allow for multiple opinions based on the same facts. And you’ve got a right to your opinion, but _you don’t have a right to your own facts_, and neither does Trump. Even if an issue allows for multiple valid opinions based on the actual facts, if you’re starting from pretend facts, then your opinion is probably invalid, even if there’s not one single valid opinion. > [@](#): > > The idea that your side (whochever side that is) has the uncontested REALITY is actually also very dangerous, for free speech and democracy itself. No, _reality is out there_, and all sides have access to it. But if one side _refuses to take advantage of that access_, and decides to invent its own reality, well, fuck that shit. Because reality is real, and it can come bite us all in the ass, even if we choose not to believe in it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/63 "2016-11-19T05:01:36Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Somehow, a way must be found so that Trump is _our_ fault. Reverse engineered, starting from the conclusion and working backwards, weaving a complex and fragile web of assumptions and evasions. The Cirque du Soleil of rationalization. > > So, OK, fine. Its transparently stupid, but you never cared what we thought about you anyway, right? What is it now, some sixty percent of _everybody_ thinks he _très suxxor_? Probably his high water mark! > > Probably if there ever was a way to rid ourselves of him, you’d tell us it was your idea! Complain how we got in your way! > > And that’s OK, too. Two weeks ago, we might have cared at least a little. Now, there’s _much_ bigger fish frying us. I don’t know why you are attacking me like this, especially in the context of the comments about verifiable reality in this thread. I point out that Dem voter turnout dropped off far more than GOP turnout. Was it because so many voices were saying it was a done deal for Clinton? I dunno, all I know is that those voices were out there. Maybe Trump’s nonsense machine is to blame for suppressing that vote. Maybe it was disillusionment with the Obama administration among certain populations. Coulda been complacency, I can’t say for sure. But Dems sure didn’t show up like they have in the past, we know that much. I’m not trying to lay the blame for Trump on the Dems, but I think we can blame the Dems _not winning_ on them not showing up to vote. Is that too subtle a difference to be meaningful? I don’t think so. You gotta get people to vote for you to win. Obama did it, Clinton didn’t. What is your theory on why that is? I don’t know how this line amounts to me not caring how the collective 'dope “we” thinks of me. You’ve always been one of my favorite posters here. You saying (collective) you don’t care what I think and labeling me a small fish out to fry you doesn’t help. I’d prefer seeing the factual or logical flaw in what I said pointed out- that is most of the point of my coming on here. Y kant Dems vote? ([allusion reference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Kant_Tori_Read_(album))) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/64 "2016-11-19T06:06:24Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t know why you are attacking me like this… Wasn’t. More a generic address to a type. But I could pretend its all about you, if it will make you happy. Wouldn’t cost me anything, so sure. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/65 "2016-11-19T06:49:00Z")
Pfft. Pretend doesn’t make me happy, unless it involves Amazon blondes and cosplay. Your post followed mine and seemed to follow. I’m not much of a type. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/66 "2016-11-19T11:13:57Z")
No hurt, no foul, no prob. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/67 "2016-11-19T16:20:21Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > My post refered to an attitude that goes well beyond this election in the US. > > I don’t feel the need to defend myself anyway. Of course you don’t. The issues I brought up are _indefensible._ The right-wing’s wholesale science denialism when it comes to global warming is _indefensible_. The right-wing’s political hostage-taking and brinkmanship is _indefensible_. So when you say shit like this: > [@Crisstti](#): > > Well, this kinda post proves my point. You are just SO sure you’re the ones who are right, that “reality” is on your side. Yeah. No kidding. The left doesn’t hold a monopoly on the truth. But in many cases, the positions they take cannot be defended. Reality _is_ on our side when it comes to climate change. Reality _is_ on our side when it comes to the debt ceiling negotiations being fucking awful for democracy. And reality is very much on our side when it comes to Trump’s qualifications. You can call this arrogance. I don’t give a rat’s ass. Young earth creationists will gladly call Richard Dawkins “arrogant” because he claims to know things they think cannot be known, that doesn’t make it accurate (or, more importantly, not stupid). Maybe instead of just asserting that anyone claiming expertise or understanding is “arrogant”, you should engage. You should consider taking a closer look at the issues, trying to understand why, say, almost every newspaper that endorsed anyone endorsed someone other than Trump. Or why so many people are freaking the fuck out about his economic plans. Or why he’s so well-liked by white nationalists and supremacists. > [@](#): > > Look, we all think we’re right. We wouldn’t hold an opinion about something to begin with, otherwise. But we all should accept the possibility that we just _might_, possibly, be wrong. We’re not talking about issues as uncontested as the Earth being not being flat here. When it comes to Trump… sometimes we are. What is the left wrong about when it comes to Trump? His authoritarian tendencies? His [constant and unprecedented lying](https://www.thestar.com/news/world/uselection/2016/11/04/donald-trump-the-unauthorized-database-of-false-things.html)? His _abysmal_ source analysis, that leads him to trust places like [The National Enquirer](http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/278668-trump-defend-oswald-cruz-allegations-you-cant-knock-the) and [Alex Jones](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-alex-jones-conspiracy-theorist-extraordinaire-got-donald-trumps-ear/2016/11/17/583dc190-ab3e-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html) but [reject the CIA as a source](http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/291700-trump-before-intelligence-briefing-i-dont-trust-intelligence)? These are all matters of public record. That his tax plan is unworkable? [That’s just math](http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/3/13121510/trump-clinton-tax-plan-cartoon), and unless you spot him the kind of growth that really shouldn’t be possible, it just doesn’t add up. That his trade plans would kinda suck? Okay, we can argue about that, but so far the leading analysis on this comes from Moody’s, and their analysis was, to put it bluntly, that [Trump would cause a major recession](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/24/heres-why-trumps-economic-plan-would-spark-a-recession-moodys-mark-zandi.html). Now we’re out of “the earth is flat” territory, but we’re still very much in the “we’re 99.9% sure that Ted Bundy wasn’t framed” territory. > [@](#): > > The idea that your side (whochever side that is) has the uncontested REALITY is actually also very dangerous, for free speech and democracy itself. The left is very often wrong about GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. We are not the uncontested arbiters of reality. We can be wrong just as much as anyone else. _However_. Only one side sees a guy who claims that the big bang and evolution are lies from the pit of hell and thinks, “Let’s put that guy on our science and technology panel”. The left is often wrong. The right is _almost always_ wrong. This isn’t arrogance. It’s recognizing that one side at least tries to interact with reality, while the other does not. > [@Caldazar](#): > > Seriously? I mean, I tend to support a number of “leftist” positions generally, but this type of attitude is really annoying. You cannot seriously say you can’t understand the “right-wing” on these issue. You may not agree with the positions and in a number of cases, the positions may in fact be rationally bankrupt, but you seriously don’t know the answers to your questions? That’s like saying you don’t understand why Celine Dion is so popular because you think her music sucks. More like saying I don’t understand why flat earthers exist. > [@](#): > > Trump: Trump’s message resonates and makes people feel good about themselves. Clinton’s message does not resonate and does not make people feel good about themselves. Trump will, likely, achieve nothing that benefits the poorer/working classes with whom his message resonates because his policy positions, if he even really has any, are nonsense. But do you seriously believe that a majority of his supporters are that stupid and don’t know that he’s full of it? Yes. Fucking hell, how is that even a question? Yes, _many of Trump’s supporters believe he’s going to do right by them_. A great fucking many of them are that stupid. > [@](#): > > The arrogance, if that’s even the correct word for it, is that human beings should somehow aspire to be highly rational beings who don’t let their emotions get in the way, and that those who hold this view do not allow themselves to try to extend empathy and understanding towards others who don’t share this goal. Because of course, if you don’t share the view that logic and rationality are the greatest of virtues, there must be something wrong with you. Yeah. Actually, there is. When you make serious, life-changing or world-shaping decisions based on emotions and “feelies”, rather than on logic and rationality, bad shit tends to happen. It’s not arrogant to ask people to fucking _think_. It should be basic fucking requirement before entering the voting booth. “Have you turned your brain on today?” If you’re voting based on which candidate makes you “feel good” rather than on which candidate will be better for you and the country, then you have failed as a citizen and I have absolutely no problem calling you out on that. I don’t know how to fix it, and I realize this attitude is counterproductive, but can we please call it as it is? Can we stop making excuses for it? “The left is so arrogant for calling us stupid just because we don’t think about the issues but just _feel_ about them instead!” Fuck that noise. I’m sorry, these people don’t need to be coddled, they need to be told by the more than half the country that _isn’t_ fucking stupid that that kind of shit won’t be tolerated. Because it only gets worse from here if we enable that kind of fucking stupidity. People now realize that doing what Trump did is _a viable path to the most powerful position in the country_. If we don’t do something about this, we might end up with someone there who _wants_ to do some real damage, and isn’t just a pathological narcissist. > [@](#): > > This was Clinton’s arrogance, in a nutshell. Objectively, she was the more qualified, between her and Trump. Why are people so stupid? “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?” Because she, and I would argue some people here, have a fundamental misunderstanding of how human beings work. And they are too damn arrogant to correct that misunderstanding and modify their behavior in order to influence others in an effective manner. It’s easier just to call them stupid and write them off as hopeless. Well okay. Once the opponent is appealing to people’s feelings, what do I do to correct this? Once I have a reputation as a robotic, dishonest, self-serving cretin, despite the facts showing exactly the opposite, what do you do? How do you shift that opinion without giving up everything that makes us _not them_? ---
**Author:** ![Crisstti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Crisstti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crisstti)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/68 "2016-11-27T03:16:22Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I try to check with reality first, then try to be on _its_ side. I won’t say I do that all the time - I have been known to pop off without the facts - but when someone shows me the facts and they’re not on my side, I yield. I may grumble about it first, but as a citizen, I don’t feel I have any business voting if I’m going to put my preconceptions ahead of the facts. > > Speaking of fact, on global warming, here’s an unfortunately [un-chilling fact](http://grist.org/briefly/um-where-did-all-of-the-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-just-go/). I apologize that my post wasn’t fully inclusive of all [del]Internet traditions[/del] issues. But I wanted to finish my post in a finite amount of time. > > But mind if I pick a couple of them? Crime policies, for one. Crime in the U.S. has been steadily declining for a quarter-century, to levels that predate the upheavals of the mid to late 1960s. Trump has been selling America on the notion that we’re in the midst of an ever-increasing crime wave, and his suggested policies are based on that world view, even though it’s totally bonkers. > > Immigration? Net immigration from Mexico has been roughly zero during the Obama administration. So we’re gonna build a bigger wall to keep those zero people out.Yeah, but we’re more likely to BE right if we look up the facts first, and have opinions that are based on them. > > In many cases, actually, we ARE. [ETA] Talking about something as uncontested as the Earth not being flat, that is. [/ETA] > > I realize that that’s not true of _every_ issue, and certainly many issues allow for multiple opinions based on the same facts. And you’ve got a right to your opinion, but _you don’t have a right to your own facts_, and neither does Trump. Even if an issue allows for multiple valid opinions based on the actual facts, if you’re starting from pretend facts, then your opinion is probably invalid, even if there’s not one single valid opinion. > No, _reality is out there_, and all sides have access to it. But if one side _refuses to take advantage of that access_, and decides to invent its own reality, well, fuck that shit. > > Because reality is real, and it can come bite us all in the ass, even if we choose not to believe in it. Yeah, reality is real, or to put it another way, facts are facts. But we can’t always know them, not with certainty anyway, especially if we’re talking about the pros and cons of a certain policy, or proposed policy, or of ethical matters. Do you think you KNOW what’s the right answer on abortion, on gun issues, on crime policies, education policies, immigration?. What’s better, Trump like (proposed) policies on immigration, or Merkel’s?. It’s not a black and White matter, like with many other issues. ---
**Author:** ![Crisstti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Crisstti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crisstti)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/69 "2016-11-27T03:51:17Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Of course you don’t. The issues I brought up are _indefensible._ The right-wing’s wholesale science denialism when it comes to global warming is _indefensible_. The right-wing’s political hostage-taking and brinkmanship is _indefensible_. So when you say shit like this: No my friend. I feel no need to explain myself because I don’t accept someone deciding and establishing in the discussion that people who might have voted from Trump need to explain themselves and should be put on the defensive like this, ESPECIALLY on a thread called “the arrogance of the left wing”. Trying to deflect much?. You can start a thread asking for Trump voters to explain why. That’s not what this thread is about. > [@](#): > > Yeah. No kidding. > > The left doesn’t hold a monopoly on the truth. But in many cases, the positions they take cannot be defended. Reality _is_ on our side when it comes to climate change. Reality _is_ on our side when it comes to the debt ceiling negotiations being fucking awful for democracy. And reality is very much on our side when it comes to Trump’s qualifications. Man, you really just named all the issues that we can divide the right and left by (NOT). > [@](#): > > You can call this arrogance. I don’t give a rat’s ass. Young earth creationists will gladly call Richard Dawkins “arrogant” because he claims to know things they think cannot be known, that doesn’t make it accurate (or, more importantly, not stupid). > > Maybe instead of just asserting that anyone claiming expertise or understanding is “arrogant”, you should engage. You should consider taking a closer look at the issues, trying to understand why, say, almost every newspaper that endorsed anyone endorsed someone other than Trump. Or why so many people are freaking the fuck out about his economic plans. Or why he’s so well-liked by white nationalists and supremacists. Yawn. Typical arrogant and aggressive “liberal”. Guess I should appreciate it since it proves my point beautifully. Sure, anyone who doesn’t agree with you about abortion, guns, climate change, taxes, immigration, voting IDs… is just stupid (or evil of course). Bet you wish there were “reeducation” camps for such people. Like the ones Castro had over in Cuba. To teach them the right facts and ideas. BTW, the mainstream media in the US is left wing biased, so their endorsement doesn’t really say much. And it doesn’t matter anyway, that’s just a fallacy. > [@](#): > > The left is very often wrong about GMOs, vaccines, and nuclear power. We are not the uncontested arbiters of reality. We can be wrong just as much as anyone else. The left is, I think, wrong about a lot more issues than that. Abortion, certain aspects of gay rights issues, gun laws, criminal policy, immigration, voter ID laws, microaggressions, affirmative action. But I don’t claim those to be absolute fact either. You can make a reasoned argument for both sides on most cases. > [@](#): > > _However_. > > Only one side sees a guy who claims that the big bang and evolution are lies from the pit of hell and thinks, “Let’s put that guy on our science and technology panel”. > > The left is often wrong. The right is _almost always_ wrong. This isn’t arrogance. It’s recognizing that one side at least tries to interact with reality, while the other does not. Of course it’s arrogance. You think you’ve got it all figured out. You KNOW what the right is wrong about, and what the left is wrong about. You just might not, you know?. BTW, hardly any issue the right and the left disagree on (and not just on a US level) is something that can be scientifically settled. ---
**Author:** ![Crisstti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c77e96/32.png) [@Crisstti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crisstti)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/70 "2016-11-27T04:05:30Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Climate change is likely to cause hundreds of thousands of additional deaths per year in the coming decades. That’s relevant. Our students being taught religious dogma instead of the science they need to understand medicine - that’s relevant. Consistent failures of public perception leading to a great many people voting for an unqualified, dishonest con man - that’s _definitely_ relevant. What are these “failures of public perception”?. > [@](#): > > Reasons for gay marriage: expanding the institution of marriage, with its myriad social and financial benefits, to include a group of people formerly refused access without good reason > Reasons against gay marriage: …I got nothing. Do you have a good reason? The religious right kept fishing for a decent one in Obergfell and _they_ had nothing. Being in favor myself I find t hard to word an argument against it. But i’ll give it some thought. > [@](#): > > Voter disenfranchisement is considerably more common than in-person impersonation voter fraud, the only kind of voter fraud that voter ID laws cover. The latter almost never happens. The former happens _all the time_. Voter ID laws are a bad idea that try to fix a fake problem by making it that much harder for people, mostly young, old, minorities, and the very poor, to vote. Hell, in North Carolina we just got a blatant example of [how racist these laws can be](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/north-carolina-voter-id-law-overturned-racially-discriminatory-intent/) - but really, the goal is just to depress turnout for the democrats. Even if this malicious intent weren’t obvious from how the laws are designed and the statements of various republican politicians, this is, once again, a case where the republican view is not evidence-based, does not comport to the facts, and does more harm than good. Pointing that out does not count as “elitism” and should not be seen as such. “A federal appeals court, comprised of three Democratic appointees”. Tells you something, doesn’t it?. If anything I think it’s racist to think minorities are somehow less capable to get a simple ID card. You know, I think people on the US should look for examples on other countries to see how the law is in this respect. I can tell you that in my country, you simply cannot vote without your ID card on hand (NO other document will do), and you also have to put your finger on ink and leave your fingerprint on a book. This whole thing is very lax in the US… and I don’t see how you can know that voter fraud hardly ever occurs. > [@](#): > > Trump campaigned on a promise to open up libel laws and make it easier to sue the press, and has himself abused SLAPP lawsuits constantly, to the point where the American Bar Association commisioned an article on it… [and demanded it be heavily revised so that Trump wouldn’t try to sue them](http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/26/13408060/aba-libel-law-trump-abuse-times)! Can you name any “leftist” policy of the past decade that’s remotely as anti-free-speech? I wasn’t aware of it. I can: hate speech laws. It is my understanding that the US (and Britain) are of the places where it’s harder to sue for libel, ESPECIALLY if you’re a public person. To bring those laws to the level of other Western countries might not be a bad think, in part anyway. You certainly can make an argument for it. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/71 "2016-11-27T04:15:31Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > If anything I think it’s racist to think minorities are somehow less capable to get a simple ID card. NO, GODDAMMIT. This is a bullshit tactic that you should be ashamed of using. “NAACP,” you as much as proclaim, “YOU’RE the real racists! YOU’RE the ones who don’t think much of black people!” Seriously, check your shit here. It is not racist to state facts. The conclusion drawn from the facts may be racist, the selection of facts among others may be motivated by racism, but the facts are not. And African Americans in the US are ON AVERAGE in a worse position to obtain state-issued photo IDs than white people. There are plenty of reasons for this ranging from disparities in health care to poverty to disparities in prison sentences that lead to worse jobs that lead to worse transportation, and so on and so on. But the basic facts are not in serious dispute, and for you to suggest that it’s racist to raise these basic facts is downright shameful bullshit. This is precisely the sort of thing that’s so frustrating when arguing with some conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![Zero-syde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Zero-syde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zero-syde)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/72 "2016-11-27T04:16:24Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > It’s one of the most unappealing aspects of it, and it’s been in full display with the whole elections thing, including on this fórum… so many people are so completely certain they are right and so whoever disagrees with them is evil, fascist, racist, homophobe, or at the very least, an idiot. > > Not even considering the possibility that they might themselves, you know, be wrong. > > Watched a short video someone posted on Twitter the other day about just this, and it was so spot on: the left refuses to engage in debate. They just label and insult. > > Not to mention the absurd alarmism, talk of a nuclear war and what not… seems to many democracy is fine as long as their side wins. And free speech exists only for the “right” ideas. > > This kind of attitude only helps the likes of Trump win popularity. You’re right. As history teaches us, evil often wins. Idiocy can trump reason. Welcome to the reign of the evil, fascist, racist, homophobic idiots. What, you think your side gets a gold star because a system designed to protect xenophobic slave owners rescued a bunch of racists in an election they were otherwise totally incapable of winning? Every time the right complains about what they’re being called, it only reinforces the fact that the moderate right _will not_ do its part to silence the ignorant, racist, xenophobic and as-per-mousolini’s-definition _fascist_ wing that has taken over. Every time the right shelters the alt-right and its worst elements, it becomes **part of the problem**. An individual doesn’t have to _want_ to be racist in order to be so, it depends entirely on _what that individual does_. Aiding and abetting the Roman Saluting “heil trumpers” **is evil**. This is why I call out feminists for sexism, communists for dangerous naivety, post modernists for ludicrous attacks on the fundaments of science and reason, anti GMO/VAC-er’s for likewise, etc. They might be “on my side” when it comes to our two party system, but you’ll **never** hear me leaping to their defense or denying their existence because of guilt by association. No, I _own the responsibility_ and _fight it_. What the right does with it’s foul side is _deny responsibility_ and _empower it_. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/73 "2016-11-27T12:26:28Z")
> [@Crisstti](#): > > Man, you really just named all the issues that we can divide the right and left by (NOT). They’re just the most obvious ones. Let’s go through a few more. > [@](#): > > Sure, anyone who doesn’t agree with you about abortion, guns, climate change, taxes, immigration, voting IDs… is just stupid (or evil of course). Just to take the first one from this list… Banning abortion _[doesn’t reduce abortion](https://www.bustle.com/articles/160450-anti-abortion-laws-dont-reduce-the-abortion-rate-new-study-finds-and-thats-not-all)_. It just makes it more deadly. If you don’t know that, then you’re ignorant. If you know that and _still_ want to make abortion illegal, then you’re probably evil, because you want people to suffer for no good reason. Whether abortion is wrong or not is a moral issue we can discuss. Whether it should be possible to get a legal abortion is a factual issue we have for all intents and purposes found the solution to. But with the American right wing, _it gets worse_. Do you know what the best ways of preventing abortions are? Comprehensive sex education and readily available contraceptives. So naturally, all these moral crusaders who think abortion is murder are lining up to donate money to Planned Parenthood and campaigning for in-detail sex education with a focus on smart contraceptive use (particularly long-term high-success-rate methods like IUDs and Depo-Provera)… Right? :rolleyes: And yes, on the issue of climate change, you can quibble about the left-wing position (albeit not much). But while you can quibble about the left-wing position, the right-wing position is _indefensible_. The last republican candidate openly said that climate change was a conspiracy invented by the Chinese. The party line on climate change at this point is essentially, “Climate change isn’t real”. That’s not fact- or reality-based. That’s _insane_. On all of the other issues, it’s not like there isn’t information out there to help us figure out what’s going on. But we need to _examine_ that information. You don’t seem interested, to put it bluntly. > [@](#): > > Bet you wish there were “reeducation” camps for such people. Like the ones Castro had over in Cuba. To teach them the right facts and ideas. People can believe what they want to believe. But at this point, the dogged insistence of people on the right wing in this country to believe things which are not true and actually directly _contradicted_ by the evidence is really hurting the country. It would be _really_ nice if you stopped covering for them, and just owned up. > [@](#): > > BTW, the mainstream media in the US is left wing biased, so their endorsement doesn’t really say much. And it doesn’t matter anyway, that’s just a fallacy. So, just for example, the “Dallas Morning News” is a left-wing shill paper? Because here’s what they wrote in their endorsement: There is only one serious candidate on the presidential ballot in November. We recommend Hillary Clinton. We don’t come to this decision easily. This newspaper has not recommended a Democrat for the nation’s highest office since before World War II — if you’re counting, that’s more than 75 years and nearly 20 elections. The party’s over-reliance on government and regulation to remedy the country’s ills is at odds with our belief in private-sector ingenuity and innovation. Our values are more about individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense. Or maybe the Columbus Dispatch, bought and paid for by George Soros with its secret hard-on for Karl Marx: For us, the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not pleasant, but it isn’t difficult. Republican candidate Donald Trump is unfit to be president of the United States. Democrat Hillary Clinton, despite her flaws, is well-equipped for the job. The Dispatch traditionally has endorsed Republican presidential candidates, but Trump does not espouse or support traditional Republican values, such as fiscal prudence, limited government and free trade, not to mention civility and decency. We are disappointed that so many Republican leaders have accommodated a narcissistic, morally bankrupt candidate who is so clearly out of step with those values. Maybe the Arizona Republican, those secret communists: Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles. This year is different. The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified. That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president. Or those filthy leftists at the San Diego Tribune: This paper has not endorsed a Democrat for president in its 148-year history. But we endorse Clinton. She’s the safe choice for the U.S. and for the world, for Democrats and Republicans alike. :rolleyes: And by the way, this “MEDIA IZ TEH BIASED!!1” shit is getting _real_ old. The most-watched news network in America is entirely in the bag for the republican party. The other mainstream news networks dedicated, collectively, _three times as much time_ to Clinton’s email server as they did to any of the issues. They crafted a consistent narrative wherein Clinton is untrustworthy, and Trump is unstable, where in fact Clinton’s occasional lies paled in comparison to Trump’s absolute blizzard of dishonesty. They normalized (and are _still normalizing_) Trump, as though anything about this campaign was normal or acceptable. > [@](#): > > The left is, I think, wrong about a lot more issues than that. Abortion, certain aspects of gay rights issues, gun laws, criminal policy, immigration, voter ID laws, microaggressions, affirmative action. But I don’t claim those to be absolute fact either. You can make a reasoned argument for both sides on most cases. You’re (almost - I’ll get to that in a moment) right. Which is why I pulled out examples where there is _no_ reasoned argument. But even here… microaggressions are pushed by _which_ liberal politicians? Can you point to a single democratic senator who has proposed any legislation acting on them, or even acknowledged them? > [@](#): > > BTW, hardly any issue the right and the left disagree on (and not just on a US level) is something that can be scientifically settled. CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CLIMATE CHANGE! CHRIST ON A FUCKING BIKE _CLIMATE CHANGE!!!_ And of course, evolution, the effect of anti-abortion laws, the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, the effects of free trade, the effects of immigration, the likelihood of Muslims being terrorists, basic macroeconomics, the effects of using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, and much, much more. If you hold science to an _incredibly_ reduced scope, ignoring everything that isn’t STEM, _and_ acting like laws aimed at regulating morality are independent from their effects… Then yeah, all you’re left with is possibly the single most crucial humanitarian and ecological crisis of the next 100 years, which the right wing _denies exists_. > [@Crisstti](#): > > What are these “failures of public perception”? Just for example: the perception that Clinton is more dishonest than Trump. This is _nuts_. Clinton lied within normal bounds of politics, dropping the occasional whopper about her scandals. Trump lied constantly. Virtually every policy he proposed, every answer he had, was based on dishonesty or incompetence. And the media failed to communicate this. > [@](#): > > “A federal appeals court, comprised of three Democratic appointees”. Tells you something, doesn’t it? What, are these people suddenly unqualified to examine basic facts because they’re democrats? Well okay, let’s assume these judges are biased (for no reason) and instead [look at their reasoning](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/): In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. “This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV),” the judges wrote. So the legislators made it so that the only acceptable forms of voter identification were the ones disproportionately used by white people. “With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans,” the judges wrote. “The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess.” […] Most strikingly, the judges point to a “smoking gun” in North Carolina’s justification for the law, proving discriminatory intent. The state argued in court that “counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic,” and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result. So in other words, the evidence is that the republican party _explicitly targeted African-American citizens_. So the judges examined that evidence and struck the law down. If you think republican judges would not have done that, then the implication there is not “this is a partisan decision”, it’s “we shouldn’t have republican judges, because they are incapable of examining the evidence on a rational basis”. > [@](#): > > If anything I think it’s racist to think minorities are somehow less capable to get a simple ID card. Minorities are, statistically, far less likely to have voter ID. This has many reasons; one of the most substantial has to do with the fact that a great many of them are poor and live in urban areas, [so they don’t drive and don’t have a driver’s license](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html). They are also far more likely to be poor, which makes the costs of _getting_ voter ID that much more onerous. And, you know, everything that **LHOD** said. The fact is, there are real disparities here, real reasons why minorities are less likely to have ID and more likely to have trouble obtaining it. We don’t get to just paper those over by pretending that those issues don’t exist, and acting like we’re the _real_ racists for pointing them out. That’s _bullshit_. That’s the kind of colorblind argument that leads to real racial disparities, things _caused by racism_, being ignored. > [@](#): > > You know, I think people on the US should look for examples on other countries to see how the law is in this respect. I can tell you that in my country, you simply cannot vote without your ID card on hand (NO other document will do), and you also have to put your finger on ink and leave your fingerprint on a book. In my country, you need photo ID to vote. You also need photo ID for _everything else_. In fact, you have what is known as an “Ausweispflicht”: if you are above 16 years of age and do not own photo ID, then you are in violation of the law and can be fined up to 5000€. And in any little town, you can _get_ that photo ID with little to no hassle. _Those things are connected._ If _everyone_ in the USA had photo ID, if it was legitimately trivial for people to get photo ID, or if the kind of voter fraud voter ID stops was actually a real problem, then there could be a case made here. But none of those things are true. Around 10% of the voting-age populace has no photo ID. Voter ID stops in-person impersonation fraud - and nothing else. This kind of fraud is risky, low-impact, and as a result, _extremely_ rare - a comprehensive study found 31 cases _since 2000_ out of almost a billion votes cast. And I have literally heard more than 31 stories of people trying and failing to get photo ID because they lacked their birth certificate, or struggled with the regulations, or couldn’t get to the DMV because they had to work and were living hand-to-mouth. > [@](#): > > This whole thing is very lax in the US… and I don’t see how you can know that voter fraud hardly ever occurs. Because there are systems in place to check and make sure. > [@](#): > > I can: hate speech laws. Don’t exist in the USA, are not pushed by the left in the USA, are absolutely impossible due to the first amendment. If you’d like to extend to other countries, then okay, hate speech laws are bad. But I’m talking about the democratic party and the left-wing of the USA, because “Der Linke” _isn’t sitting across from Trump on the ballot_. > [@](#): > > It is my understanding that the US (and Britain) are of the places where it’s harder to sue for libel, ESPECIALLY if you’re a public person. To bring those laws to the level of other Western countries might not be a bad think, in part anyway. You certainly can make an argument for it. You can make an argument for it… If you aren’t already aware of a few things like, oh, say: > **[A billionaire political donor sued Mother Jones. We won. Here's what happened.](https://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones-vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit/)** > > The backstory of the massive lawsuit against Mother Jones. What we do know is that the take-no-prisoners legal assault from VanderSloot and Melaleuca has consumed a good part of the past two and a half years and has cost millions (yes, millions) in legal fees. In the course of the litigation, VanderSloot sued a former small-town Idaho newspaper reporter whose confrontation with him we mentioned in our article. His lawyers asked a judge to let them rifle through the internal records of the Obama campaign. They deposed a representative of the campaign in pursuit of a baseless theory that Mother Jones conspired with Obama’s team to defame VanderSloot. They tried to get one of our lawyers disqualified because his firm had once done work for Melaleuca. They intrusively questioned our employees—our reporter was grilled about whether she had attended a Super Bowl party the night she finalized the article. > **[The ABA wouldn’t run a piece calling Trump a “libel bully.” Here it is.](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/26/13408060/aba-libel-law-trump-abuse-times)** > > An American Bar Association journal commissioned an article on Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuits — then worried they’d be a target. The New York Times reported Tuesday that the American Bar Association refused to publish a report that it had commissioned on Donald Trump’s tendency to file meritless lawsuits. The punchline? ABA’s in-house lawyers were afraid Trump might file a meritless lawsuit over the contents of the report. Whether you want to argue that libel laws should be made more broad, the fact is that it is _already_ very easy for the wealthy and powerful to tie up untold resources of news media outlets by suing or threatening to sue them, regardless of how frivolous these lawsuits are. And Trump in particular is _extremely_ fond of such lawsuits. Even if you think we should make it easier to sue for libel, the way Trump uses such lawsuits as a cudgel indicates that _he_ wants to use it as a way to chill and suppress free speech that might damage him or his reputation, _regardless of how accurate it is_. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/74 "2016-11-27T18:37:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > the effect of anti-abortion laws, the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, Nice post, but I do have one quibble. Perhaps the poor showing of abstinence-only sex education in the US is tied to the (arguably) unnecessarily liberal social climate here. I am confident that a fact-based, scientific argument could be made that demonstrates conclusively that: Women + Freedom = premarital sex. Consider for a moment the far less liberal social environment of Saudi Arabia. I am sure the sexual abstinence of the women there is not perfect, but are you prepared to argue that they are anywhere near as promiscuous as American women? I’d like to see you make the case for that! So, I contend that in a different social climate, abstinence-only education would in fact achieve its desired effect. Therefore, for you to claim that you have all the evidence on your side about the efficacy of abstinence-only education frames the question too narrowly. The \*fact \*is, your view omits broader social factors which, if taken into account, actually do bring the issue to the level of a disagreement about values. And reasonable people can disagree about values. To claim otherwise does kind of come across as an arrogant short-circuiting of the debate before it even occurs. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/75 "2016-11-27T19:43:46Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Nice post, but I do have one quibble. Perhaps the poor showing of abstinence-only sex education in the US is tied to the (arguably) unnecessarily liberal social climate here. > > I am confident that a fact-based, scientific argument could be made that demonstrates conclusively that: Women + Freedom = premarital sex. > > Consider for a moment the far less liberal social environment of Saudi Arabia. I am sure the sexual abstinence of the women there is not perfect, but are you prepared to argue that they are anywhere near as promiscuous as American women? I’d like to see you make the case for that! > > So, I contend that in a different social climate, abstinence-only education would in fact achieve its desired effect. Therefore, for you to claim that you have all the evidence on your side about the efficacy of abstinence-only education frames the question too narrowly. The \*fact \*is, your view omits broader social factors which, if taken into account, actually do bring the issue to the level of a disagreement about values. > > And reasonable people can disagree about values. To claim otherwise does kind of come across as an arrogant short-circuiting of the debate before it even occurs. If the effect that you are going for is the oppression of women, then sure. And that is correct too, people that do not have sex are much less likely to get pregnant or an STD than even the most meticulously safe sex. The only questions are, does abstinence only education work in our society, and do we want to live in a society where it does? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/76 "2016-11-27T19:58:05Z")
I think the question is whether _GOP voters_ want to live in a Saudi Arabian-style society. If the answer is, “no”, is it arrogant to point out that their position makes no sense/ignores reality? If the answer is “yes”, how does that jibe with their enthusiasm for “freedom”? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/77 "2016-11-27T20:04:36Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Nice post, but I do have one quibble. **Perhaps the poor showing of abstinence-only sex education in the US is tied to the (arguably) unnecessarily liberal social climate here.** > > I am confident that a fact-based, scientific argument could be made that demonstrates conclusively that: Women + Freedom = premarital sex. > > Consider for a moment the far less liberal social environment of Saudi Arabia. I am sure the sexual abstinence of the women there is not perfect, but are you prepared to argue that they are anywhere near as promiscuous as American women? I’d like to see you make the case for that! > > So, I contend that in a different social climate, abstinence-only education would in fact achieve its desired effect. Therefore, for you to claim that you have all the evidence on your side about the efficacy of abstinence-only education frames the question too narrowly. The \*fact \*is, your view omits broader social factors which, if taken into account, actually do bring the issue to the level of a disagreement about values. > > And reasonable people can disagree about values. To claim otherwise does kind of come across as an arrogant short-circuiting of the debate before it even occurs. Bristol Palin was certainly not raised in a liberal environment. She earned money championing abstinence-only. 2 babies, 2 different fathers, both while unwed. By citing S.A., it appears you say that abstinence-only works best when paired with barbaric punishments, even death. You need to work on your sales pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/78 "2016-11-27T20:32:05Z")
You two are being whooshed a little bit here. How do we point out to conservatives that the consequences of their policy positions are just awful, without being accused of arrogance? Facts? Those get hand-waved away. Reasoning? It gets re-cast as ideology. So, real-world examples that expose the absurdity of conservative positions? I’m sure the word “liberal” will be trotted out and- guess what? I don’t consider myself to be a liberal. The best I can come up with is a kind of judo- find a way to frame things in their terms (arrogant!), and salt it with just the right amount of real-world information… ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/79 "2016-11-27T20:33:45Z")
One area of arrogance I really wish the left would stop is declaring arbitrary things they don’t like ‘racism’ to score sensitivity points. It’s OK if you think a white guy wearing dreadlocks is silly-looking, but the current left-mantra on the topic is that a white guy wearing dreadlocks or a headband with a feather is guilty of ‘cultural appropriation’, and that if you think it’s OK (not even if you do it) you’re a terrible racist just like someone wearing blackface in a minstrel show. There was plenty of actual racism in this campaign like suppressing minority voters, being endorsed by the KKK, and supporting anti-immigrant sentiment, but calling it out as ‘racist’ doesn’t have much impact when you’ve already diluted the term by claiming that people who think any race can wear any hairstyle or hat also have the ‘racist’ badge of shame. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037/80 "2016-11-27T20:38:40Z")
I think I’ll start worrying about that the day after the tighty rightys apologize for what they did to words like “freedom” and “liberty”. I’ve got some time, most likely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arrogance-of-the-left-wing/772037.md?page=5)