|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Right Wing Cartoonist vs Reality | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'd like to know who these "soc-cons" are. Social conservatives, as opposed to fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives focus on social issues, such as gun rights, gay marriage, mandating religion, abortion, etc and make up the majority of the Republican base. Fiscal conservatives generally either don't cre about the social issues, or can even be liberal with respect to them, but don't want a large government or a lot of governmental spending. They're usually for lower taxes. The thing I have a hard time figuring out is why fiscal conservatives continue to be Republicans. Republicans mostly focus on the social issues, which aren't the focus or are even against the fis-cons beliefs, and even expand government and government spending as much if not more than Democrats, just on different programs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The MSM is mostly made up of lefties, so it's not on my shoulders. So even you have bought the hoary old sly lies of Rush et al. Care to provide evidence of any news media owned by liberals? Do you think Faux Spews is liberal? CNN? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Perdition
The question was not what they are but who they are: name names.
Fiscal conservatives generally either don't cre about the social issues, or can even be liberal with respect to them, but don't want a large government or a lot of governmental spending. They're usually for lower taxes. Correction: they are usually for balancing the budget and responsible spending. There are many financial conservatives in the democratic party. There used to be a majority of financial conservatives in the republican party, but they have been run over by religious conservatives.
Social conservatives focus on social issues, such as gun rights, gay marriage, mandating religion, abortion, etc and make up the majority of the Republican base. Which can be broken down into religious conservatives and ethical conservatives, where the religious conservatives try to impose religious dogma on people, laws and government, while ethical conservatives try to encourage laws and behavior that are ethical. This would include laws for greater equality for all people, gays, immigrants, women, etc etc etc. The gay republicans would fit in this group. Do you deny that the religious conservatives have taken over the republican party? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : names by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Do you deny that the religious conservatives have taken over the republican party? Nope, that's partly why I wondered why many fiscal conservatives continue to ally themselves with the Republicans, who seem hell-bent on moving things farther and farther to the right, in terms of religious/social issues but only pay passing lip-service to fiscal policies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Rrhain writes: This is a serious question. What on earth makes you think the media is "leftie"? They don't ritually snarl and spit when they say Obama, or roll their eyes when they interview Democrats. It's the little things that give them away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
No, with typical leftie logic you group everyone together. You can't seem to deal with folks as individuals--you have to lump them all into (over)broad groups. Then you disparage the whole group.
Perhaps you should take a look at the cartoon in the OP. Who is to blame for the problems of this nation, according to the cartoonist? The old, sick, and poor, not to mention the people who have built careers as public servants. Who is the enemy? Well, Obama of course. He had the audacity to sign a bill that prevented insurance companies from revoking a child's insurance when they become sick. What a terrible guy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
What makes you think all conservatives are Christian? Actually, I would suspect that many are not christians but keep up appearances in order to get votes. What you have to remember is that religion is the distraction for the Republicans. While Republicans try to stop any health care bill that would help the middle class and hurt insurance companies they have to convince the middle class that they are on their side. What do they use? God talk. So what happens? They get middle class christians to vote for candidates who are against the interests of the middle class. Republicans are anti-union. How does a lack of unions help the middle class? Republicans are against socialized health care. How has private health care and insurance helped the middle class compared to other countries with socialized health care? Republicans are against social safety nets. How does a lack of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid help the middle class? How does deregulation of markets help the middle class (e.g. the recent housing market crash, credit card debt)? All of this is ignored by many voters when Republicans claim "God is on our side".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
No, with typical leftie logic you group everyone together. You can't seem to deal with folks as individuals--you have to lump them all into (over)broad groups. Then you disparage the whole group. Hi Coyote, That's not "Leftie" logic. It's an innate human cognitive flaw. It's the same reason people come up with and believe stereotypes like "Asians can't drive and are good at math," or "Southerners are a bunch of inbred hicks." As human beings on every part of the political spectrum, we all tend to overgeneralize and tribalize. It's just one of the things we, as a species, tend to be rather bad about, and it's almost impossible to avoid completely even with effort. The irony, of course, is that your criticism of "Leftie" overgeneralization is itself an overgeneralization of liberals. There is no such thing as a homogeneous group of human beings, whether we're referring to political alignment, religious beliefs, race, nationality, culture, or whatever. Coyote, I've noticed that you really seem to have an intense dislike of whatever you perceive to be "liberal," yet I've rarely noticed much in terms of specific arguments regarding specific policies that you disagree with. Granted, I could just be failing to recall places where you've been more descriptive and not just hating the "other team," but I'm curious: what specific "conservative" beliefs and policies do you support, and what specific "liberal" beliefs and policies do you not support? I ask because I don't want to classify you, an individual, according to my general perception of self-identified conservatives, any more than I'd like you to assume that my political views are identical to your general perception of liberals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
pray away the gay
from my cold dead fingers muslims are wanting you dead lefies are liberal tree hugging socialist abortions are evil captialism= good socialism=bad communism=evil dont work, dont eat unions will dismantle our government military budget must take priority Cut all social welfare spending. take your pick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can't seem to deal with folks as individuals--you have to lump them all into (over)broad groups. Then you disparage the whole group. Groups like "lefties", you mean? Don't act like conservatives aren't the primary practitioners of identity politics on the American stage. "Real Americans." "Grizzly Moms." And, of course, the most important identity group in conservative politics - wealthy white men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
And, of course, the most important identity group in conservative politics - wealthy white men. Not quite, that should be wealthy, white, heterosexual, pseudochristian, males under 50. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
There is nothing wrong with generalization as long as it portrays accurately the majority of a group.
For example, I have never met a single gay person that likes to watch sport. And after years of talking to gay people, I have never heard of a gay person who likes to watch sports. Yet, I know they exist because there are gay sports bars out there. In this particular case, I think it is fairly safe to assume that gay people don't like to watch sports even though there are undoubtedly some who do. How about this one. Liberals are pro-choice. I for one am a debout pro-lifer. Yet, I would describe myself as liberal. There is nothing wrong with generalizing that liberals are pro-choice because the number of liberals who are pro-choice outnumber the liberals who are pro-life by a kazillion or so. If we aren't allowed to generalize, then we could never ever make any statement about any group whatsoever. We could never make the statement that Americans speak English because there are some who don't. We could never make the statement that dogs bark because there are undoubted some out there who don't. We could never make the statement that men have penises because there are undoubted some out there who don't. Do you see how ridiculous this politically correct culture of anti-generalization is? When we generalize, we are not saying ALL people in a given group is such and such. We are, however, state that the large majority of the group is such and such therefore we don't need to waste our time and breath say "the large majority..." If enough people in group x like lobster, then we might as well say people in group x like lobster.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
bluescat48 writes: Not quite, that should be wealthy, white, heterosexual, pseudochristian, males under 50. Under??? Didn't you mean OVER? - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
No I meant under like all the corporate big shots, who do practically nothing, bring in millions and pay very little if any taxes.
Edited by bluescat48, : typos & sp There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
There is nothing wrong with generalization as long as it portrays accurately the majority of a group. It's that last constraint you added, Taz, that's the problem. Broad generalizations are particularly susceptible to things like confirmation bias. If you generalize that "Asians tend to be bad drivers," you'll notice the bad drivers that you observe are Asian, and file it away in your head as confirmation of your pre-existing generalization. You'll fail to notice the Asian drivers who don't piss you off, and you won't accurately tally the bad drivers of other races for comparison. Generalizations based on personal anecdotes are almost never accurate in representing the group as a whole. When we're talking about political persuasions, where people can get very emotionally heated and there can be a harsh tribalistic division, an "us vs. them" mentality, the problem can be made worse. Generalization involves taking limited information and applying it to an entire group. We observe racists and Islamophobes in the Tea Party, and we generalize that the whole thing must be a racist and Islamaphobic organization, or that most Tea Partiers are racist and hate Muslims. Every time we see a sign or three at a Tea Party rally that expresses fear of Muslims or mentions race, we say "aha! See? They're all racist douchebags." We take limited information from a small subset of the overall group and use them as our representatives, not because we actually performed some experiment or survey and determined what most of those people actually think and feel, but rather because we noticed something distasteful, established a hypothesis, and sought to confirm it rather than test it. Coyote does the same thing with "the Left." So do Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity and several other talking heads who claim to represent American conservatives. Depending on which one of those guys you listen to, "the Left" is a bunch of idiots who think communism is a good idea, want to ban Christianity but are sympathetic to Muslims, want to turn your kid gay, want to raise your taxes so they can waste your money on welfare queens, want to drive all businesses into the ground, possibly want to euthanize your grandma, and would rather save a tree than an unborn child. I believe Michael Savage was fond of the term "red diaper doper babies," which was his way of saying "you're all a bunch of whiny commie drug addicts." But we all know full well that political opinions are much more nuanced than a binary "Right vs Left" dichotomy. It's not even just shades of gray - there are all manner of points where subgroups of each overlap, and where members of the same "leaning" will vehemently disagree with each other. Greenpeace and PETA, for example, are often-used symbols of the American "Left," and I consider both groups to be largely idiotic and sometimes harmful (going by the stated goals of the organizations, not just the actions of several members). The Log Cabin Republicans are staunch supporters of gay rights while being members of a party whose active politicians tend to support legislation that restricts those very rights - but remain a part of the Republican Party because of their other conservative views. So yes, Taz, you can use accurate generalizations to predict the most likely attributes of a member of a group. But developing an accurate generalization of a large group isn't something the average person, including you or I, can just do by observing a few (or even many) anecdotes. We can rely mostly on the self-stated goals of a group (ie, members of PETA support animal rights and are unlikely to wear fur), but we can't rely on anecdotal evidence to support broad, general conclusions ("conservatives are all a bunch of racists" or "Muslims all want to cut off our heads"). That's where you fall into the trap of cognitive bias.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024