Left-Right Differences

[Zymologist]

I found the articles pretty interesting. I've always thought the foundation of conservative though is narcissistic, so the idea that it is based on altruism is laughable. I also found the examples in the "Does it do good?' article silly. A higher minimum wage is assumed not to work, misuse of affirmative action is cited as evidence it doesn't work, and his point about war concerns pacifism, which is a fringe view and thus a straw man. After all, it's important that these views not work, because he can't really complain about people advocating the right policy for the wrong reason. That's another thing I found silly. He presumes to know what is going on inside other people's heads. Also, Iraq and ISIS are poor examples of the good of military intervention, since those problems came about due to the US interfering with international conflicts. The self-esteem movement is also a bad target since it had bipartisan support.

The Differences Between Left and Right articles are also unintelligently written. Part 1 advocates the view common to conservatives that there is no cause and effect, that people are tabula rasa, and neuroscience is bunk. Ironically it reminds me of parents telling children "you can be anything you want to be when you grow up", which goes hand-in-hand with the self-esteem movement. He doesn't even make a case in Part 2. If there are major problems with American society, why shouldn't liberals want a cultural revolution?

[seanD]

I'm actually surprised the author didn't cite the gun control issue (unless the author himself is anti-gun). The gun control debate in my opinion supremely exemplifies where the left ignores all fact and reason with pure emotion.

[Sam]

I'm actually surprised the author didn't cite the gun control issue (unless the author himself is anti-gun). The gun control debate in my opinion supremely exemplifies where the left ignores all fact and reason with pure emotion.

According to 2012 data, the USA had a firearm-murder rate of 2.97 per 100,000 population ... that means that just the firearm-related murder rate in the US was higher than the total murder rate in any of the other "First World" countries. Currently, the USA sits at #114 on Wikipedia's page ranking countries by intentional homicide rate (Highest = #1). Subtract the number of firearm-related murders (2.97) from the total (4.7) and you'd get an intentional homicide rate of 1.73 per 100,000 — right around where you find Israel, Greece and Canada (still higher than where you find France, UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc.).

Gun control might be a complicated topic but let's not pretend that gun control advocates operate on "pure emotion."

[shunyadragon]

Source: Dennis Prager

Why do liberals support a higher minimum wage if doesn't do good? Because it makes the recipients of the higher wage feel good (even if other workers lose their jobs when restaurants and other businesses that cannot afford the higher wage close down) and it makes liberals feel good about themselves: We liberals, unlike conservatives, have soft hearts.

Why do liberals support race-based affirmative action? For the same reasons. It makes the recipients feel good when they are admitted to more prestigious colleges. And it makes liberals feel good about themselves for appearing to right the wrongs of historical racism.

The same holds true for left-wing peace activism: Supporting "peace" rather than the military makes liberals feel good about themselves.

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life's inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: "Does it do good?" Liberalism asks, "Does it feel good?"

(Read the whole article here; see prior articles in the series here and here.)

© Copyright Original Source

Delusions of 'white privileged' oligarchy.

[fm93]

Good to see that one of the site's MODERATORS AND CO-OWNERS has no qualms about blatant trolling.

[Psychic Missile]

Other people tell me what that foundation is and I take them at their word and judge it on its merits. I don't see how you could think those two sentences incompatible without making assumptions.

[Zymologist]

Other people tell me what that foundation is and I take them at their word and judge it on its merits. I don't see how you could think those two sentences incompatible without making assumptions.

Who has told you that the foundation of conservative thought is narcissistic? You quite clearly appeared to do exactly the thing you condemned the OP author for, in the very same paragraph.

[Jaecp]

Read that thing you bolded, something tells me the article says that its based on altruism as you literally highlighted

[seanD]

According to 2012 data, the USA had a firearm-murder rate of 2.97 per 100,000 population ... that means that just the firearm-related murder rate in the US was higher than the total murder rate in any of the other "First World" countries. Currently, the USA sits at #114 on Wikipedia's page ranking countries by intentional homicide rate (Highest = #1). Subtract the number of firearm-related murders (2.97) from the total (4.7) and you'd get an intentional homicide rate of 1.73 per 100,000 — right around where you find Israel, Greece and Canada (still higher than where you find France, UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc.).

Gun control might be a complicated topic but let's not pretend that gun control advocates operate on "pure emotion."

If it wasn't driven by pure emotion then gun control wouldn't be at the apex of political talk every time there's a mass shooting (when it involves white folks, that's especially juicy for this). Pro-gun control advocates know that it's pure emotion, hence the reason they seize the political opportunity with ferociousness every time it happens to get gun legislation passed.

[Rational Gaze]

the American Psychological Association is a liberal conspiracy, the UN experts on climate change just can't be trusted, and that the Congressional Budget Office is a servant of the left etc

Yeah, because the government would NEVER lie to people.

[Rational Gaze]

According to 2012 data, the USA had a firearm-murder rate of 2.97 per 100,000 population ... that means that just the firearm-related murder rate in the US was higher than the total murder rate in any of the other "First World" countries. Currently, the USA sits at #114 on Wikipedia's page ranking countries by intentional homicide rate (Highest = #1). Subtract the number of firearm-related murders (2.97) from the total (4.7) and you'd get an intentional homicide rate of 1.73 per 100,000 — right around where you find Israel, Greece and Canada (still higher than where you find France, UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, etc.).

This would probably mean something if you didn't leave out a ton of crucial data. Number of guns per residents. US gun ownership is at 88.8 per 100 residents. According to what I found gun murders were 2.83 per 100,000 in 2012.

Let's look at some other nations for comparison: -
Venezuela has a gun-ownership rate of 10.7 per 100 residents, and is ranked 58th worldwide. It's gun-murder rate per 100,000 was 39 in 2000.
Swaziland has a gun-ownership rate of 6.4 per 100 residents, and is ranked 85th worldwide. It's gun-murder rate per 100,000 was 37.14 in 2004.
Switzerland, on the other hand, has a gun-ownership of 45.7 per 100 residents, which is 4th worldwide and had a gun-murder rate of 0.23 per 100,000 in 2013.

You might also want to consider countries that have mostly banned private gun-ownership and their murder rates before and after the change in gun laws, and then change in the rate of other crimes before and after. In my home nation of East Germany the UK, the gun-murder rate stayed the same, but the rates for other crimes went UP.

Then you can look at the statistics for the US for each state. Interestingly, the District of Columbia has a gun-ownership of 3.6% but a gun-murder rate of 16.5%.

[One Bad Pig]

As you can read from the link, that's nowhere near the conclusion drawn by the CBO (which is, indeed, an independent, non-partisan organization).

An office run by political appointees - and ALL government offices are run by political appointees - is not going to be independent or non-partisan. I take anything put out by the CBO with a huge grain of salt, as its figures tend rather toward the optimistic (e.g., its figures on the ACA). I would revise my statement slightly to "nobody wins, and most people lose." And I nowhere claimed that was the conclusion drawn by the CBO. I disagree with the conclusion drawn by the CBO, since it posits a net increase in real money, which is logically impossible. You can't get something from nothing.

The CBO also found that the impact on employment losses from a $10.10 minimum wage could be anything from zero to one million — there's simply no way to tell. But "everybody loses" is not what was determined by the CBO or by the majority of IGM economists polled in 2013.

Sam, the CBO's best case scenario for a $10.10 minimum wage is a slight decrease, not zero. I'm not confident that the IGM poll is an accurate representation of all economists (since by its own admission it doesn't have a sufficient sample size) - and you're fudging the "majority" statement. Further, the IGM poll only deals with the $9.00 projection.

And the CBO study linked shows that the statement "the lucky few who get an earnings increase also face higher prices" is not accurate. Here's the graphic again:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7169[/ATTACH]

As you can see, the overall real change in income (light blue) is higher for every group except those making six times or more the federal poverty level (approximately $140,000/year for a family of four). So everybody under the 88th income percentile in 2014 would have seen a real overall rise in income.

A rather small one. Best case is about $300 per family - and because food and fuel prices are going to be especially affected (most cashiers and gas station attendants will see a wage increase which will be passed on to consumers), that's not going to stretch very far at all. And you can bet your bottom dollar that those anywhere near six times the poverty level are going to be losing money (per Table 4, the 3-5.99 band would see a projected increase between zero and $50). And I'll note that the end result per the CBO would effectively be a forced redistribution of wealth, a favorite progressive plank.

Sure -- but if you're going to point that back at me, please first make sure you're accurately understanding and restating the source documents!

Right back at you, Sam.

[Rational Gaze]

Why do Conservatives continue to propagate the myth that liberals advocate various positions just because it feels good?

Yeah, everybody knows liberals only advocate for certain positions because they're economically illiterate.

Because that's a whole lot easier than dealing with the actual policy arguments that liberals make and the independent analyses of the position.

Well, people who actually do understand economics DO in fact grapple with the bogus arguments and false data liberals like to trot out. Liberals just ignore it... most likely because they don't understand what is being said.

[Zymologist]

Read that thing you bolded, something tells me the article says that its based on altruism as you literally highlighted

Are you talking to me? I don't see how what you said even relates.

I bolded what he said, because he said that the foundation of conservative thought is narcissistic, and that there's no way it's based on altruism. Then he condemned the author for presuming to know how people thought with respect to their politics.

[One Bad Pig]

So you would heartily support a post on an atheistic website saying that Christians only hold to certain positions (i.e. believing in the existence of heaven) "because it makes them feel good," reasoning that "it's often accurate?" And heartily support a post on a liberal website saying that conservatives only hold to certain policies "because it makes their racist selves feel better," reasoning that "it's often accurate?"

No, because I do not believe those statements are accurate.

Or might you point out that such rhetoric is clearly a gross display of painting with a broad-brush, and that its intent is obviously to insult and dismiss a position rather than critically engage with the arguments?

Excuse me? Did you read the linked article, which supported the headline with arguments? And your hypotheticals are caricatures of the article, which speaks in generalities, not absolutes. Do you understand the distinction?

I am not trolling, "blatantly" or otherwise; I posted the article because it seems to generally fit what I've observed about progressives (here and elsewhere). Hyperbole in response only acts to confirm my impression, operating as does on feelings rather than reason. So if you want to change my mind, try providing some argument yourself rather than hyperventilating.