That’s actually more in line with Rensin’s argument. Stop treating your political opponents as if they are dumb, but rather realize there are differences in morality and policy preferences. That may manifest itself in anger and outrage (as it does on the right when they think about those on the left). It may manifest itself in other ways.
I think there is something important in realizing that smugness tends to hurt any persuasion attempts. People may feel that folks are just blinkered by their own side, and to a certain extent that may be true, but you’ll also find that people tend to vote against things that poll numbers say they support (expanding Medicaid, background checks for guns) - it is my opinion that they do so because they don’t trust who is proposing those things they may express support for. If those people belong to a group that is smug to them and treats them like idiots, they may wonder what exactly is said group hiding. I think fighting for what’s right, without thinking the white working class is stupid, using anger or whatever, may work better - people generally react VERY strongly against someone who thinks they are stupid.
There’s no shortage of smugness and condescension among the conservatives, either. They act like it’s self-evident that raising taxes necessarily increases unemployment and that lowering taxes reduces it. Not only that, but you’re an imbecile if you don’t buy it. Doesn’t matter that it’s dead wrong. Or “It’s cold today, OBVIOUSLY global warming is a hoax!” The trouble isn’t that only one side is capable of smugness, since it isn’t so. The trouble is that only one side has facts on its side.
The problem with arrogance comes when you’re not always right. I’ve said before and I’ll reiterate that yes, liberals have more facts and are more intellectual about politics than conservatives. But sometimes liberals think themselves into intellectual ditches. Take a recent Vox article on transgenders and bathrooms:
This is a classic example of getting the right answer by asking the wrong question. There is not a woman on Earth that cares about whether attacks on women in bathrooms can be blamed on transgender liberalization laws. What is actually important is how often men attack women in bathrooms, and if widespread knowledge that men can freely enter women’s bathrooms will lead to more predators using that tactic. That is still unknown. Funny thing is, when I opened the article, I was hoping that they were going to say that attacks on women in bathrooms by men was an urban myth, like razorblades in apples on Halloween. But they didn’t say that. They just said that attacks on women by men in bathrooms wasn’t related to transgender laws. Which is something a really smart person could argue even if attacks skyrocketed.
Another thing liberals do to often is to decide that something is a fact when it isn’t. predictions of the future are NEVER “facts”, yet liberals used expert projections to support the passage of ACA and treated any questioning of those “facts” as conservative lies.
Indeed, but just because people hold some ideas you deem stupid doesn’t mean they are stupid. You are extrapolating from the specific to the general, and en masse that is bullying.
Bullshit it’s unknown. Any man inclined to assault women in ladies’ rooms will not be restrained by any “bathroom bill” – because a man who does not care about the laws that say he may not enter a woman’s body without her permission is not going to care about rules or laws that say he may not enter a public restroom reserved for women.