"Liberals are such idiots!"

[FerrelGeek]

I remember one now that exemplifies your point. "butt-hurting liberal".

I'm fairly new to this forum and only really participated in tech stuff before, so I haven't really heard this much name calling since the schoolyard.

The history of politics in the US has been one of name calling. The insults throw by political candidates during the 19th century were, at time, caustic. Did you watch Lincoln? The exchanges in Congress in the movie show the tone that some political debate took.

Before you jump in to a forum, it's a good idea to lurk for a bit to get the 'feel' of the place. Yes, conversation in here gets pretty hot. But there are plenty on the left that spew out their bile against conservatives. A few seem to have disappeared, but there are plenty left to pick up the fight.

 

[woolfe9998]

The bolded was my point as well. I just thought the OP's liberal myopia was comical....nothing more, nothing less.

Like I said, possibly, but then there are several comical things in this thread. For example, one person who is one of the worst offenders on either side comes in to accuse the opposite side, then proceeds to demonstrate once again why he's one of the worst offenders in his second post.

There's only one way to determine if one side is worse than the other. Take a random large sampling of posts, employ a reasonable definition of what constitutes abusive posting, then quantify it. No one has done that, nor is it likely worth anyone's time. However, that does mean that essentially there's no cause to take either side in this thread. Ironically there isn't much to say here other than to further demonstrate the problem.

 

[nehalem256]

Like I said, possibly, but then there are several comical things in this thread. For example, one person who is one of the worst offenders on either side comes in to accuse the opposite side, then proceeds to demonstrate once again why he's one of the worst offenders in his second post.

There's only one way to determine if one side is worse than the other. Take a random large sampling of posts, employ a reasonable definition of what constitutes abusive posting, then quantify it. No one has done that, nor is it likely worth anyone's time. However, that does mean that essentially there's no cause to take either side in this thread. Ironically there isn't much to say here other than to further demonstrate the problem.

Unfortunately post #26 and #28 I think nicely point out why this is impossible.

One side believes that calling people they disagree with racists and bigots isn't abusive; its just stating a fact.

 

[Svnla]

OP obviously has not witnessed "republictards", "racist" labeling and such from the other side.

 

[justoh]

It's easy to call, there are far more insults thrown by conservatives towards liberals than vice versa. In fairness, 90% of those are from incorruptible.

 

[jackstar7]

I just call him ignorelist.

 

[woolfe9998]

Unfortunately post #26 and #28 I think nicely point out why this is impossible.

One side believes that calling people they disagree with racists and bigots isn't abusive; its just stating a fact.

It's either stating a fact or it's mis-characterizing someone's opinions and beliefs. Either way, it isn't same thing as "name calling" in this classic sense. Calling someone a "scumbag" is a content free insult. If we expand our definition to include every mischaracterization of someone's position, argument or beliefs, that brings in every straw man and mistatement of fact, making it very nebulous. However, I wouldn't mind a broader definition than what the OP is referring to here. The trouble is that, as I said, no one has gone to the considerable trouble to compile data based on any definition, so there is no point in picking a side in this thread.

I would also mention that perceptual bias plays a large role here. People tend to perceive statements made by people on their "side" as being reasonable rather than insulting, and perceive statements on the other side in the opposite way. This is why I decline to offer my perception here, because I am mindful that it is likely influenced by my own bias, in spite of the fact that I believe my bias is less than the typical poster here. Which again, underscores why the entire discussion is pointless unless someone can do better than offer their personal, unquantified observations.

The question of when it is and isn't reasonable to label someone a bigot is a topic that probably deserves its own thread, if it could be done thoughtfully, perhaps on the DC. It needs to be discussed in the abstract to avoid making it personal to certain posters. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Like I said, possibly, but then there are several comical things in this thread. For example, one person who is one of the worst offenders on either side comes in to accuse the opposite side, then proceeds to demonstrate once again why he's one of the worst offenders in his second post.

There's only one way to determine if one side is worse than the other. Take a random large sampling of posts, employ a reasonable definition of what constitutes abusive posting, then quantify it. No one has done that, nor is it likely worth anyone's time. However, that does mean that essentially there's no cause to take either side in this thread. Ironically there isn't much to say here other than to further demonstrate the problem.

I only read a couple posts in this thread but I'm sure it's filled with a ton of comedy as are most threads in this forum. I can't imagine why one would be motivated to "prove" that one side is more abusive than the other...unless of course they desired to use such "unbiased" information as a club to abuse the other side. Irony...you gotta love it!

 

[Incorruptible]

It's easy to call, there are far more insults thrown by conservatives towards liberals than vice versa. In fairness, 90% of those are from incorruptible.

Wrong, There is far more hatred from liberals than Conservatives. I believe you're the one who attacks Christians.

 

[justoh]

Wrong, There is far more hatred from liberals than Conservatives. I believe you're the one who attacks Christians.

I guess I owe you an apology. You proved me wrong with your last post. The moment I started reading the second sentence I was expecting it to involve at least "scumbag" or "piece of shit," but instead you surprised me by bringing attention to, and, unless I'm reading this wrong, honoring me for my anti religious sentiments? You're alright.

 

[futurefields]

I used to be super liberal. But started changing in my late 20's. I'm 30 now and a lot of my views have changed. Honestly, i am way less into politics in general.

These days im more of a local news guy. I listen to the local talk radio etc .. im in Seattle though so our local shit is probably a bit better than whatever armpitville kentucky has.

 

[Matt1970]

It's pretty close to even money around here but there is a slight slant towards the liberals making more insults.

 

[jackstar7]

It's pretty close to even money around here but there is a slight slant towards the liberals making more insults.

This is precious. Like a new kitten or something.

So cute.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I used to be super liberal. But started changing in my late 20's. I'm 30 now and a lot of my views have changed. Honestly, i am way less into politics in general.

These days im more of a local news guy. I listen to the local talk radio etc .. im in Seattle though so our local shit is probably a bit better than whatever armpitville kentucky has.

Very very common, and good for you.

Many (I would personally say most) liberals start to lean to the right once they have enough knowledge and wisdom to mentally step back and look at what liberal policies do to our country.

The vast majority of what I call "liberal extremists" are still in or just out of college, have been supported by their parents, and have absolutely no idea of the way the world really works - both socially and financially.

 

[jackstar7]

Very very common, and good for you.

Many (I would personally say most) liberals start to lean to the right once they have enough knowledge and wisdom to mentally step back and look at what liberal policies do to our country.

The vast majority of what I call "liberal extremists" are still in or just out of college, have been supported by their parents, and have absolutely no idea of the way the world really works - both socially and financially.

Yeah... I feel like polling bears this out.

 

[thraashman]

Very very common, and good for you.

Many (I would personally say most) liberals start to lean to the right once they have enough knowledge and wisdom to mentally step back and look at what liberal policies do to our country.

The vast majority of what I call "liberal extremists" are still in or just out of college, have been supported by their parents, and have absolutely no idea of the way the world really works - both socially and financially.

Hmm, interesting, in my experience it's the exact opposite. All of the most educated, intelligent, and compassionate people I know are liberal. And the ones that tend to the lesser educated tend to be conservative. Now I know a couple decently intelligent conservatives, they also tend to be very religious. And I know a few dumb liberals, they tend to have drug issues. But overall from my personal experience (in a VERY conservative state), I've met a huge majority more well-informed and intelligent liberals than conservatives. I've only gotten more liberal as I've gotten older and more informed of the world.

The ones that surprised me are the people that stereotypes often say would be liberal. The promiscuous, heavy drinking, drug using, partiers that almost all end up being conservative when I get to know them. Today's free-loving pot smokers and druggies always end up being conservative in my experience.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Yeah... I feel like polling bears this out.

Well, some people never grow up. Or, they directly benefit from liberalie policies and vote purely to benefit themselves at the sacrifice of our country.

 

[thraashman]

Well, some people never grow up. Or, they directly benefit from liberalie policies and vote purely to benefit themselves at the sacrifice of our country.

If by "at the sacrifice of our country" you mean doesn't only benefit the rich while slowly killing thousands of poor, then ok. Otherwise I think you meant to say "consistently proven to work better from a individual rights and economic perspective than the conservative alternative".

 

[natto fire]

Wow, thanks for these last posts, it is a solid reminder of why I never visit this shithole forum. Thought I would see what is up now that OT got put in it's P&N place. Too scary, because my brain has not turned to pure feces yet. Good luck to you P&N warriors, the disgust is too high for me to get anywhere.

 

[thraashman]

Wow, thanks for these last posts, it is a solid reminder of why I never visit this shithole forum. Thought I would see what is up now that OT got put in it's P&N place. Too scary, because my brain has not turned to pure feces yet. Good luck to you P&N warriors, the disgust is too high for me to get anywhere.

Eh, the irony of my last couple posts based on the thread was not lost on me. But I'll have a real discussion in a thread that is based on a legit P&N premise instead of based on the vitriolic crap we always see in here. I generally try my best not to start the mud slinging.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

If by "at the sacrifice of our country" you mean doesn't only benefit the rich while slowly killing thousands of poor, then ok. Otherwise I think you meant to say "consistently proven to work better from a individual rights and economic perspective than the conservative alternative".

Is this liberalie speak for taking my hard earned dollars and giving them to lazy people?


Killing thousands of poor people?? When was the last time a poor person in the US starved to death?

Or by "killing poor people" do you actually mean not allowing them a life of driving a current model chrysler product?

 

[poofyhairguy]

But overall from my personal experience (in a VERY conservative state),

That is the key. In a blue state most of the less intelligent people would be Democrats. Politics is cultural like religion.

Today's free-loving pot smokers and druggies always end up being conservative in my experience.

Sure, if you stick Libertarians in the conservative tent. Unless you know some self-hasting potheads (those are always fun).

 

[Thebobo]

Wow, thanks for these last posts, it is a solid reminder of why I never visit this shithole forum. Thought I would see what is up now that OT got put in it's P&N place. Too scary, because my brain has not turned to pure feces yet. Good luck to you P&N warriors, the disgust is too high for me to get anywhere.

Aw but its cozy in here.

 

[schneiderguy]

Liberals are fine, it's the libruls you have to worry about.

 

[thraashman]

Is this liberalie speak for taking my hard earned dollars and giving them to lazy people?


Killing thousands of poor people?? When was the last time a poor person in the US starved to death?

Or by "killing poor people" do you actually mean not allowing them a life of driving a current model chrysler product?

Well the CDC does not track death rates due to starvation or malnutrition so far as I can tell, so it's not an easy statistic to track. However studies have shown that 45k people die each year in the US due to lack of health coverage. Granted this was before Obamacare which is estimated to bring that number below 30k. The most recent "plan" the GOP pushed, being the Romney/Ryan plan, is estimated to increase the number to 70k. So, yes, the thousands of people Republican policies kill.