Yeah, but they’re all black.
Its not the pre-emptive disqualification I mind so much, if you could have been a little less obvious about it.
And I remember the 1980s, when “Greed is good” became the mantra for a new generation. Carter had asked the nation to act responsibility, to stop wasting energy, to put on a sweater and put some solar panels on the roof. Reagan came along and said, “It’s morning in America, we’re the greatest country ever, and we don’t need to change a thing.” Maggie Thatcher declared that any man who still rode the bus at age 30 was a failure. And consumerism boomed, and the rich got richer and the poor struggled, and people chased the money dream at the cost of sense and common decency. Can I place the blame for self-centered consumption-driven culture at the feet of conservatives? Isn’t 1980 the year the world really went to hell?
This is a fun game, no?
As has been said before, you don’t debate. You conclude, then work backwards to select what appears to you to be supporting evidence from personal anecdote. And reject all and sundry evidence, or nuance, or discussion, to the contrary.
And here we have the epitomy of **Starving Artist **debate. When confronted with a contrary anecdote that demonstrates how limited and personal (even myopic) your own “evidence” really is, you simply ignore it and declare the objective truth and the generic applicability of your own memory.
As Robot Arm, Gyrate, and others have at pains pointed out, the world is far larger and more complex than the tiny part that you actually observed, even with (or in spite of) television’s aid. Your observations are therefore no more likely to be correct than those of the blind man examining the elephant’s tail. This also has nothing to do with whether you start from a liberal perspective or a conservative one.
Well that’s not very civil, now, is it? I thought conservatives were against public nudity. 
Starving Artist offered the opinion that there are problems with liberalism. Does anyone really believe that liberalism, as desirable as it may be is without problems? As Shodan points out, this thread is masked as a legitimate inquiry while the real agenda is to ridicule a conservative poster.
This thread supports the original point by the pittee regarding liberals and incivility.
Not that I’m suggesting agreement with Starving Artist, but rather that this pitting is totally unneccessary. I would have liked an answer to the question though.
Polycarp hasn’t been back since he played the racist card. I think the idea was to signal to the Usual Suspects that he really did want a pile-on. Then he can sit back and enjoy the fun, while remaining above the fray.
That’s generally how it is supposed to work - once liberals see an argument trending against them (about race) they cry “racist”. Sometimes subtly, as Poly did, often blatantly, as seen by the other trolls in this thread. The idea is to change the subject away from the issues and try to put the other side on the defensive. The other side is supposed to try and prove that they are not racists. Then the Usual Suspects, on and off the SDMB, simply ignore everything they say and repeat the charge over and over.
Fortunately or otherwise, it’s been done too often to have much impact, at least on me.
The other tactic, which I expect shortly, is to try repeatedly to force the other side to say something racist. If that doesn’t work, simply make something up, assign it to the other side, and proceed as usual.
SOP, but good (often) for chuckles.
Regards,
Shodan
However, when 2+2=4 becomes troublesome for progressive ideology, the average progressive will want to argue about the definition of 4 and complain that mathematics is Eurocentric. That’s why it’s generally a waste of time to argue with progressives.
Or, conversely, you could actually say something racist and then claim that the mean liberals are picking on you when they call you on it. But you’d never do anything like that.
Speaking of racist cards…
Oh, no! I’ve been called racist for the 30,000th time. I’m so devastated.
If you had any brain cells at all you’d realize that scientific relativists are ridiculed by the average progressive, while anti intellectual reactionaries get their own talk shows.
Mathematics has a liberal bias.
Algebra however is Objectivist, because A = A.
LOL!
Heh. Academic politics is a whole different continuum, and the battle between postmodernism and positivism has been going on in pretty much all disciplines. It’s not really related to the more standard political positions, although there is likely some correlation as positivism is an older and more conservative (with a small c) approach.
I’d not heard of the Sokal hoax but it rings true. In my own particular area of expertise (musicology), despite being of a postmodern bent in aesthetic preferences, I tend to give New Musicology a wide berth for many of the same reasons Sokal gives - there has been a lot of poor reasoning and sloppy research methodology muddying the waters there. But positivist music types are still music types - plenty of liberals on that side too.
People who constantly themselves troll see trolling where it isn’t actually there.
That final line in my OP was tongue-in-cheek, as I think SA recognized. While he has a worldview I consider bizarre, I think he recognized my good faith in challenging him to make the case for why he sees liberalism at fault for most if not all of this country’s woes – and in a few isolated instances, I have agreed with his points. I’m largely unabashedly liberal, but I recognize that it is not a panacea, and that occasionally a conservative position is valid. (For example, much [not all] of modern liberalism takes a rosy idealistic view of human nature, and is then shocked when people do follow the profit motive. Moral conservatives, the ones who see responsibility for their fellow man as a personal, not a governmental duty, take this into account.)
And racial attitudes do exist. We’d be fools to deny they do, even though we believe them to be benighted. I think it’s important to figure out why some of the racial stereotypes exist. (For example, the ‘decline in two-parent family’ meme – IMO, the real issue is not that it impacts black families disproportionately (a racist view) but that it impacts poor families disproportionately – and a disproportionate number of them, for historical socioeconomic reasons, happen to be black.) It’s all well and good to say racism shouldn’t exist. But in point of fact, it does – and if we play ostrich about it, we fail to do what we could if we recognized it does, and combatted it properly.
And thanks for the generalizations about what “liberals” do – how do you face yourself in the morning, Shodan. knowing that you’re no different from Fred Phelps and Lester Maddox? If you find that stereotype insulting and offensive, good: that’s exactly what you’re doing, and you deserve to know what it feels like.
Fortunately for me, it doesn’t have that effect. Because, as I mentioned -
I’m supposed to care about this - it is meant to bother me, just like the same foolishness from Gyrate and Really Not All That Bright and various other clowns.
But I don’t. Like I said, it is mostly a signal that you have run out of arguments and can’t change the subject.
Regards,
Shodan
Oooooh! Score! Except not. The Sokal Affair is a well-recognized consequence of scientific relativism…and roundly ridiculed by the average progressive. No points for you.
On the other hand, the greatest disaster due to a rosy view of human nature has to be from Alan Greenspan being certain that the profit motive and the invisible hand would prevent the financial community from running the economy off a cliff. Kind of makes any number of welfare cheat pale by comparison, doesn’t it?