Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Well, like…duh.
Jeremy Frimer…noticed that socialists seemed unable to tolerate even mild questioning of Che Guevara’s eminently questionable legacy. Frimer is a researcher at the University of Winnipeg, and he decided to investigate. What he found is that liberals are actually very comfortable with authority and obedience — as long as the authorities are liberals. And that conservatives then became much less willing to go along with “the man in charge.”
Frimer argues that conservatives tend to support authority because they think authority is conservative; liberals tend to oppose it for the same reason. Liberal or conservative, it seems, we’re all still human under the skin.
Via Driscoll.
As Fred Siegel wrote in his recent book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class, “The best short credo of liberalism came from the pen of the once canonical left-wing literary historian Vernon Parrington in the late 1920s. ‘Rid society of the dictatorship of the middle class,’ Parrington insisted, referring to both democracy and capitalism, ‘and the artist and the scientist will erect in America a civilization that may become, what civilization was in earlier days, a thing to be respected.’”
That’s certainly been the president’s motto as well — he’s far more interested in waging war against the Tea Party, non-union businesses like Gibson Guitars, and the GOP in general, than dealing with any of those pesky headlines he keeps seeing in the newspapers from the Middle East and Eastern Europe:
By way of News Junkie at Maggie’s Farm.
Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.
Today, Conservatives are the Freedom people and Liberals are the statist-control people.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
House of Eratosthenes: Jeremy Frimer… Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.
That is not what the study found. Even ignoring the methodological problems with the study, it found that in-group behavior is universal, not relegated to liberals alone.
- Zachriel | 09/07/2014 @ 09:23Even ignoring the methodological problems with the study, it found that in-group behavior is universal, not relegated to liberals alone.
I don’t recall anyone saying that it was relegated to liberals alone.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 05:42mkfreeberg: I don’t recall anyone saying that it was relegated to liberals alone.
Your claim says the effect has increased, while the study you cited (leaving aside the methodological problems) indicates it to be a result of natural in-group behavior.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 05:44Your claim says the effect has increased, while the study you cited (leaving aside the methodological problems) indicates it to be a result of natural in-group behavior.
Relying on y’all’s summary, I don’t see a contradiction there.
Where is the issue raised regarding “relegated to liberals alone”? I don’t see that either.
- mkfreeberg | 09/10/2014 @ 06:20mkfreeberg: Relying on y’all’s summary, I don’t see a contradiction there.
The study you cited doesn’t support your claim. It indicates that the effect is due to in-group behavior.
We do agree with your headline. “The Left is not Liberal”. While liberals are generally on the left, not all those on the left are liberal.
- Zachriel | 09/10/2014 @ 06:32It indicates that the effect is due to in-group behavior.
Relying on y’all’s summary, I don’t see a contradiction there.
- mkfreeberg | 09/11/2014 @ 23:10Here’s the claim juxtaposed with the study:
Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.
Today, Conservatives are the Freedom people and Liberals are the statist-control people.
The cited study, even given its obvious problems, indicates the effect is due to in-group behavior, found in both liberals and conservatives. The claim is directly contradicted by the very study you cited.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2014 @ 06:02Hey! I thought the global
warmingchangingwhatevering had gotten the Cuttlers. Whew. Guess we can take them back off the endangered list.Since you’re here, I’m going to point out to you that you are in error as to Morgan’s claim.
This isn’t Morgan’s claim at all, but a quote of someone else’s claim.
On top of that, you are mistaken about the alleged contradiction between the claim and the study. The study deals with in-group behavior, but the claim deals with what goal that behavior is meant to help in reaching. This is, I observe, a confusion that your group is particularly prone to suffering. It’s akin to telling a man bound for Hawai’i that it doesn’t matter which flight he boards, since they’re all airplanes and they all fly much the same way.
- nightfly | 09/12/2014 @ 09:17nightfly: This isn’t Morgan’s claim at all, but a quote of someone else’s claim.
He clearly posted it because he agreed with it, just as he posted the study because he thought it supported his position, even though it actually contradicts his position.
nightfly: The study deals with in-group behavior, but the claim deals with what goal that behavior is meant to help in reaching.
The claim is that conservatives are “freedom people”, while liberals are increasingly not. The study contradicts that claim finding *symmetry* between liberals and conservatives.
However, you do bring up an important problem with the study. The supposed authority figures on the right represent strong social stricture, while the supposed authority figures on the left lead only by persuasion.
- Zachriel | 09/12/2014 @ 09:39He clearly posted it because he agreed with it, just as he posted the study because he thought it supported his position, even though it actually contradicts his position.
I posted an excerpt from the study that supports the position. But Frimer has more to say that contradicts it? Here’s his own concluding paragraph:
So, what are y’all saying is my position? It’s clear y’all need to restate it in order to find fault with it, so how are y’all choosing to restate it, exactly?
- mkfreeberg | 09/12/2014 @ 17:40mkfreeberg: So, what are y’all saying is my position?
We did above. See our first comment, among others.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 05:58We did above. See our first comment, among others.
Well if we just leave it there, all y’all have managed to demonstrate is that there’s a collective of anonymous individuals on the Internet, somewhere, in the habit of debunking the positions of others, after they’ve simply invented those positions to satisfy themselves.
This isn’t anything above & beyond what we knew already.
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 09:22mkfreeberg: after they’ve simply invented those positions to satisfy themselves
The position was original stated by News Junkie at Maggie’s Farm, then referenced in your original post, so we didn’t invent it. Do you reject the position?
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 09:38The position was original stated by News Junkie at Maggie’s Farm…
Then, head on over. Y’all have commented there before.
Y’all do know how to follow a link, don’t y’all?
- mkfreeberg | 09/13/2014 @ 10:24Z: Do you reject the position?
mk: blah, blah
In other words, you now refuse to take a position even though you posted it, then defended it.
- Zachriel | 09/13/2014 @ 11:36In other words, you now refuse to take a position even though you posted it, then defended it.
Hah! Yeah, sure. Right. More like I’m not following y’all’s script and y’all don’t know what to do about it.
Here’s what y’all would find at the comment thread at Maggie’s if y’all ever took the trouble to head over:
That’s an argument I’ve been making for years. The left is not liberal, they are fascists (without the nationalism). They do not allow differing opinion, they do not really desire republican or democratic government. They want a benign (their definition of benign anyway) dictator. They are not interested in process, they are interested in results (they want). In the end, they are really not interested in anybody but themselves.
#1 mudbug on 2014-09-06 19:58
Why is the question even asked? This has been a given for a century.
#2 Talnik on 2014-09-06 20:16
ATTN: All you Microsoft lovers–did you want to buy guns?
Here is the piece about the Microsoft billionaires making it impossible for anyone to buy guns in WA State. Also, while I am at it — you do know don’t you that it is Microsoft who controls the vast majority of government computer software contracts.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bill-gates-wife-donate-1-million-gun-control-group-article-1.1916384
#3 faculty wife on 2014-09-07 11:10
I should add that the subject of net traffic at Maggie’s Farm, relative to what we experience here at The Blog That Nobody Reads, is one on which I can comment with some authority. Without anyone linking to us at all, our traffic holds pretty steady. If someone merely mentions something we wrote in the comments over there, we really feel the shock waves. It’s like a killer whale doing a belly flop into a kiddie pool. Trust me, those three opinions up there, grossly incorrect according to y’all, must be contaminating the fragile minds of many, many more “readers” than anything we could ever say over here.
Laudable as your efforts are to get the entire Internet thinking correctly & all — I really don’t know what y’all are doing over here with this one. It comes off looking like a mental problem. How about step out of the comfort zone, heading on over there, and fixing what’s really broke?
Unless y’all don’t really think it’s broke…
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 09:11mkfreeberg: Here’s what y’all would find at the comment thread at Maggie’s if y’all ever took the trouble to head over
Yes, we read those silly comments. We sometimes post there, but sometimes our comments disappear, so we don’t do it often.
In any case, you now refuse to take a position even though you posted it, then defended it. Not sure why, but there you are.
- Zachriel | 09/14/2014 @ 09:16Yes, we read those silly comments. We sometimes post there, but sometimes our comments disappear, so we don’t do it often.
So y’all got banned? Heavens to Betsy, I can’t imagine such a thing I wonder what they were thinking.
That puts you over here to work your Internet-opinion-correcting magic? Where y’all are bound to have no effect whatsoever by comparison? Is this something like liberals wanting to restrict gun ownership among law-abiding citizens in the wake of a school shooting? Ineffectual solutions seem to be a recurring theme.
In any case, you now refuse to take a position even though you posted it, then defended it. Not sure why, but there you are.
If by “refuse to take a position” y’all mean “fail to follow the script we have prepared for you” — which does seem to be the correct translation, from what I’m seeing here — that would be right. Otherwise…well, others have already commented on the reading-comprehension problems.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 09:30mkfreeberg: So y’all got banned?
No. Some of our comments were selectively disappeared.
mkfreeberg: If by “refuse to take a position” y’all mean …
… refuse to take a position.
- Zachriel | 09/14/2014 @ 09:31Some of our comments were selectively disappeared.
Can’t imagine why that would’ve happened.
M: If by “refuse to take a position” y’all mean …
Z: … refuse to take a position.
Right. Fail to follow y’all’s script.
- mkfreeberg | 09/14/2014 @ 16:26mkfreeberg: Right. Fail to follow y’all’s script.
If you mean clarify your views and provide support, then yes.
- Zachriel | 09/15/2014 @ 05:17If you mean clarify your views and provide support, then yes.
No, “fail to follow y’all’s script” means, simply, fail to follow y’all’s script. Y’all seem to lose track of the difference between a dialogue and a monologue.
- mkfreeberg | 09/16/2014 @ 21:48mkfreeberg: No, “fail to follow y’all’s script” means, simply, fail to follow y’all’s script.
Our “script” is to ask for clarification and support for your claims. People can draw their own conclusions as to why you can’t or won’t provide it.
mkfreeberg (quoting The News Junkie at Maggies Farm): Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.
That is not what the Frimer study you cited found. Even ignoring the methodological problems with the study, it found that in-group behavior is universal.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 05:13Z: “Our “script” is to ask for clarification and support for your claims.”
Your script is to misrepresent the claim and then demand that the opponent defend that in leiu of what was actually claimed. Morgan, like anyone else, is under no obligation to defend imaginary statements he never made, that only exist in others’ fertile imaginations.
“Morgan: (quoting The News Junkie at Maggies Farm): Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.”
Z: (quoting Cuttlor Half-Elven of Erehwon): “That is not what the Frimer study you cited found. Even ignoring the methodological problems with the study, it found that in-group behavior is universal.”
It must be said, yet again, that in-group behavior is NOT THE POINT – what makes that particular group “increasingly illiberal” is their behavior towards everyone else. They enforce it internally in much the same way everyone else does, but their stated aims and their activities have been steadily making other people less free, arrogating to themselves and their fellow-thinkers the power to decide for large swaths of those they deem sufficiently unenlightened. The ethos is the same that was so succinctly expressed by Leela on Futurama: “This is Fry’s decision… and he made it wrong, so it’s up to us to interfere in his life.”
- nightfly | 09/17/2014 @ 08:30nightfly: Your script is to misrepresent the claim and then demand that the opponent defend that in leiu of what was actually claimed.
That was not our intent, so we have asked for clarification, something he has avoided.
Mkfreeberg did say he didn’t see a contradiction between the results of the study and the claim that “Since the Progressive Era, what is termed “Liberal” has been increasingly illiberal.” The study results suggest that obedience to authority is intrinsic to in-group relationships.
nightfly: It must be said, yet again, that in-group behavior is NOT THE POINT
Then why cite a study about in-group behavior?
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 08:49Then why cite a study about in-group behavior?
You know, this is a great opportunity for y’all to test y’all’s reading comprehension skills. It seems pretty self-evident to me. And to Nightfly. And to the good folks at Maggie’s Farm, since they’re the ones who originally cited it. And to Morgan, since he’s the one who quoted it and expanded on it.
So: Speculate. Take y’all’s best shot at a possible explanation. If he’s feeling charitable, Morgan might tell y’all whether y’all are right or not.
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 09:15Severian: You know …
He seemed confused as to the results of the study because he had to make it fit his preconceptions rather than examine the results and his own views skeptically. However, we are more than happy to consider other explanations.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 09:20So, here’s a perfect opportunity to get the information you seek, and y’all won’t take it. Interesting.
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 09:36Severian: So, here’s a perfect opportunity to get the information you seek, and y’all won’t take it.
You asked us to speculate about why mkfreeberg cited a study about in-group behavior. We did. Then we asked for alternative explanations. Apparently there are none.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 09:40Developmentally normal people would realize that answering a question about “how did he misinterpret the study?” with “he misinterpreted the study” is question-begging.
That y’all said this foolishness, then doubled down it, means that one of three things must be true:
a) y’all are afflicted with some kind of autism spectrum disorder
b) y’all are pathetically incompetent trolls, or
c) y’all are both sperglords and pathetically incompetent trolls.
Personally, my money’s on c), but I’m always willing to listen to alternative explanations.
Now shoo; the grownups are talking.
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 12:31Severian: answering a question about “how did he misinterpret the study?”
The question was “why cite a study about in-group behavior?”
Why, not how.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 13:17I see y’all are going with a), then.
Inability to handle context is classic Asperger’s. And then, of course, there are all these….
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 14:46Zachriel: Then why cite a study about in-group behavior?
Severian: Take y’all’s best shot at a possible explanation.
The question was why mkfreeberg cited the study. In addition, you will notice that it’s a question, which is a request for information. We have also stated we would consider other explanations. He presumably thought it supported the original contention, but he was obviously confused, and has avoided clarifying his position.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 14:49No, really, I get it: you’re trying to convince me it’s a). There’s no need, kids; I believe you!!! I mean, sheesh….
Children with Asperger’s syndrome may:
•Not pick up on social cues and may lack inborn social skills, such as being able to read others’ body language, start or maintain a conversation, and take turns talking.
Check.
•Dislike any changes in routines.
Check
•Appear to lack empathy.
Check.
•Be unable to recognize subtle differences in speech tone, pitch, and accent that alter the meaning of others’ speech. So your child may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally. And his or her speech may be flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent.
Check.
•Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age. For example, the child may use the word “beckon” instead of “call” or the word “return” instead of “come back.”
Check.
• Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
Check.
…
•Be preoccupied with only one or few interests, which he or she may be very knowledgeable about. Many children with Asperger’s syndrome are overly interested in parts of a whole or in unusual activities, such as designing houses, drawing highly detailed scenes, or studying astronomy. They may show an unusual interest in certain topics such as snakes, names of stars, or dinosaurs.
Check.
•Have delayed motor development. Your child may be late in learning to use a fork or spoon, ride a bike, or catch a ball. He or she may have an awkward walk. Handwriting is often poor.
Check.
•Have heightened sensitivity and become overstimulated by loud noises, lights, or strong tastes or textures. For more information about these symptoms, see sensory processing disorder.
Check and mate. I mean, I’m not a shrink and I don’t play one on tv, but you don’t really need House MD for this one. And with the way y’all keep lobbing ’em straight over the plate, I’m going to go with comorbid masochistic tendencies, too.
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 15:14Sorry, Severian. Your last comment was caught in our spam-filter. If you have something to say that is on-topic, then you might try rewording your post.
- Zachriel | 09/17/2014 @ 15:31Heh heh heh.
— One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
— Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age.
— Be preoccupied with only one or few interests
and oh yeah,
–Dislike any changes in routines.
Four criteria is usually sufficient for a DSM diagnosis, I believe.
[n.b. to Morgan, Nightfly, et al — please don’t tell the Cuttlefish that they actually answered their own question in their post at 14:49. I’m trying to get them to post a perfect 11 for 11].
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 15:44I’m actually more interested in this:
La la la we can’t hear you la la la. True things become untrue, if they can be dragged off or under the radar by spam glitches, interruptions, late-night comedy jokes. Liberals live in their own unique brand of reality, which they manufacture from moment to moment according to their own tastes. Which is why they don’t build anything more useful than a busted $600 million web site — until it’s time to win an election THEN they can build things that work. Apart from that, they can’t build anything because “truth” is whatever they say it is.
Like here:
“Presumably” allows for a possibility of being wrong, but this is “obviously” ornamental only, because in the very same sentence the adverb “obviously” is used to describe the same thing — which does not allow for any such possibility. When you invent your own reality, maybe you can’t make a web site work as well as Sarah Palin can, but at least the concept of certainty versus doubt is suddenly beneath you.
That must be a great time-saver, all that research that doesn’t have to be done. Imagine it. ALL of your time freed up for writing narratives…which, in turn, is completely burned up by writing the same sentences over and over again. No wonder they can’t make a web site work.
- mkfreeberg | 09/17/2014 @ 17:57Which is why I say it’s a case of ASD.
Why did he cite a study in support of his position? Because he thought it supported his position.
Not only did they answer their own question, they answered it in the most obvious, tautological way possible…. but only after winding and looping and spinning and swerving all over the place. That’s just too weird, man. It’s either the most inept trolling imaginable, or it’s autism.
As in, “Many children with Asperger’s syndrome are overly interested in parts of a whole.” Since they can only process small pieces of data at any given time, they completely lose the rest of the thread, and all the context…. even when some of that context contains the answer to their “question,” even when they themselves typed it.
That would also explain the endless cut-n-paste. An Aspie’s mental buffer only holds X number of characters. So they have this .txt file of canned responses — which, as we’ve noticed, goes back to at least 2005 (!!!) — that they use to free up their extremely limited buffer space in the here-and-now.
It’s actually pretty sad. Not as sad as claiming you’ve got a “spam filter” for comments on someone else’s blog, but pretty pathetic nonetheless. But that raises a question: How representative is this, really, of the left as a whole? Their leftism might just be an epiphenomenon of their Asperger’s. If their “unusual interest in certain topics” really had been dinosaurs or astronomy, say, rather than Global Weather, they might not comment on political blogs at all.
- Severian | 09/17/2014 @ 18:34Zachriel: He presumably thought it supported the original contention, but he was obviously confused, and has avoided clarifying his position.
mkfreeberg: “Presumably” allows for a possibility of being wrong, but this is “obviously” ornamental only, because in the very same sentence the adverb “obviously” is used to describe the same thing
Um, no they don’t. Presumably refers to whether you thought it supported your original position; obviously refers to your confusion.
Notably, you didn’t either clarify your view or support your original contention.
- Zachriel | 09/18/2014 @ 03:12— overly interested in parts of a whole
– One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
– Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age.
– Be preoccupied with only one or few interests
– Dislike any changes in routines.
Five in two sentences. That’s definitely clinical. Please seek help.
Seriously. I’m not even mocking you. It must be awful for you — never being in on the joke, always hearing snickers behind your back and never quite figuring out why. You don’t have to keep living like this. Help is available.
- Severian | 09/18/2014 @ 05:10But in the meantime, y’all have done a dandy job of showing how liberals lose their adherence to reality, whatever adherence they might have had.
Don’t drive on a road designed by a lib. Don’t cross a bridge designed by a lib. Don’t buy anything built on a Monday or a Friday, or by a lib. They perceive “truth” by merely deciding what it is.
- mkfreeberg | 09/18/2014 @ 05:13You have apparently abandoned any pretense to presenting an argument concerning the thread topic. Good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 09/18/2014 @ 10:11– One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
– Be preoccupied with only one or few interests
– Dislike any changes in routines.
Three out of five. That’s improvement!
- Severian | 09/18/2014 @ 10:16There’s no pretense at all… and no need for any of us to say anything else. Your behavior is illustrating the topic in a way that a peer-reviewed dissertaion would fail to fully capture. I am honestly impressed by the completeness of both your example and your lack of self-awareness.
Unlike your merry band of Internet Adventurers, we regulars here are not a collective and don’t self-sort into a hive mind. I won’t answer for Morgan as to why he chose his examples as he did. But he did write to be understood, which I trust I’ve done. So if you really, REALLY need something concrete, I’ll be your huckleberry this time – I’ll tell you what I got out of the post, in outline form:
A: Hypothesis – liberals have the reputation of being more open-minded and tolerant than conservatives.
B: As per Frimer, liberals and conservatives actually show little if any difference in their attitudes, and behave as a group in similar fashions.
C: Conclusion – A is a false hypothesis.
D: As per News Junkies, another hypothesis – progressivism is increasingly illiberal, and conservatism is directed more towards liberty and liberalism more towards statism.
E: A is normally cited as a rebuttal of D, but as per B, A is false; therefore D is not rebutted.
F: In addition, it is observed that the aims of liberal groups tend towards increasing large-scale influence (if not outright control) over individual choices, further supporting D.
G: The study, B, doesn’t directly address F – your attempt to try to use it to rebut F thus fails.
That is, in brief, how the study is pertinent to what Morgan tried to say, while beside the point of how you tried to reply.
- nightfly | 09/18/2014 @ 13:48[…] really, he said that. And he’s right. For instance, Morgan linked to a piece which linked to a study that said both liberals and conservatives are equally […]
- The Rectification of Names | Rotten Chestnuts | 09/18/2014 @ 15:56nightfly: So if you really, REALLY need something concrete
Yes, that is generally preferable to vague generalities, handwaving, or off-topic aspersions. Thank you.
nightfly: A: Hypothesis – liberals have the reputation of being more open-minded and tolerant than conservatives.
B: As per Frimer, liberals and conservatives actually show little if any difference in their attitudes, and behave as a group in similar fashions.
C: Conclusion – A is a false hypothesis.
Frimer didn’t study open-mindedness or tolerance, but response to authority. They are related but not exactly the same quality, e.g. a liberal leader who counsels tolerance, such as Dr. King.
One problem, which Frimer notes, is that authorities tend to be conservative, so generally liberals will be more averse to authority simply by circumstance. Another problem is that Frimer’s authorities of the right tend to have actual power, while authorities of the left tend to lead by persuasion, something for which Frimer doesn’t properly account.
nightfly: D: As per News Junkies, another hypothesis – progressivism is increasingly illiberal, and conservatism is directed more towards liberty and liberalism more towards statism.
E: A is normally cited as a rebuttal of D, but as per B, A is false; therefore D is not rebutted.
Even if A were shown to be false, that still leaves D unsupported, a bald assertion. That was the original discussion. Why juxtapose B with D?
nightfly: F: In addition, it is observed that the aims of liberal groups tend towards increasing large-scale influence (if not outright control) over individual choices, further supporting D.
Many conservatives want to impose religious and corporate values through government, while not all liberals are big-government liberals.
nightfly: G: The study, B, doesn’t directly address F – your attempt to try to use it to rebut F thus fails.
We didn’t cite B to rebut F. We point to counterexamples.
In any case, we do appreciate your addressing the topic.
- Zachriel | 09/19/2014 @ 04:09— Not pick up on social cues and may lack inborn social skills
— overly interested in parts of a whole
— Dislike any changes in routines
— may not understand a joke or may take a sarcastic comment literally
— Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age
— Talk a lot, usually about a favorite subject. One-sided conversations are common. Internal thoughts are often verbalized.
— Be preoccupied with only one or few interests.
Damn. If only you’d done one of your patented misattributions, you could’ve had a near-perfect score.
You’re going backwards, kid. Seek professional help.
- Severian | 09/19/2014 @ 05:11