Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Zombie Reviews/Rebuts George Lakoff's "Little Blue Blook"
Really great article you shouldn't miss, even if you're looking at that lame headline I just wrote thinking "Huh?"
George Lakoff is a tip-top thought leader among progressives. His new book -- titled as a tip of the hat to Chairman Mao's Little Red Book -- contains further elaborations and prescriptions. Corrected: I incorrectly stated he wrote What's the Matter With Kansas?, too, a similarly smug read on politics. But in fact that was a completely different asshole, name of Thomas Frank. It would be unfair to say George Lakoff is a one-trick pony; he has, fully, three tricks. Though these tricks are interrelated, so maybe it is just one trick. When you hear progressives bleating that it's not their policies or policy outcomes that lose voters, but only their messaging, that's them echoing George Lakoff. All he's about is "messaging" and "narrative frames." Now it's true that he didn't invent that whine, but, being some kind of cognitive scientist, he's added a great deal of faux-scientific authority to it. He's made it proper and scientifically respectable to lose and lose and lose and just keep saying "our messaging failed us." I'm going to quote Zombie extensively (and Zombie and PJM: I'm only doing this to sell this whole article to my readers!) The whole thing is worth a read (maybe bookmark it for later), but here's something fun:According to [Lakoff's] analysis, conservatives are conservatives because their minds and morals have been twisted by cruel parenting, and they seek to reconstruct this pathological family unit on a grand society-wide scale; whereas progressives naturally were raised by wonderful, caring co-parents to become wonderful, caring adults who seek to replicate this loving family environment for all mankind... And yet his new Little Blue Book is supposed to be an instruction manual on how to convert wavering conservatives and undecideds to the liberal worldview — even though insults and mockery are an integral component of that worldview. To summarize Lakoff’s presentation in one sentence, he essentially says, “Hey, you ignorant yet diabolical rubes, shut the hell up and submit to an incessant barrage of our vacuous euphemistic leftist slogans, because you’re too stupid and evil for an honest debate.” The eternally vexatious problem which drives Lakoff to distraction and which inspired him to write (along with one of his researchers) The Little Blue Book is that despite their psychological pathologies and awful moral structure, conservatives somehow still manage to occasionally win elections. Lakoff has come to the conclusion that this is due not to the superiority of conservative philosophy, but to superiority in conservative messaging. I’ve designed a little chart to clearly illustrate what I call Lakoff’s Paradox: Why is it that conservatives still manage to sometimes win public opinion and elections despite being so vastly inferior? Behold:One more interesting point: You know how liberals and conservatives often talk right past each other, speaking in completely different words and ideas and thus not addressing each other's central points? Lakoff recommends that. He actually recommends not addressing conservatives' key points at all, and specifically forbids progressives from even mentioning them. His idea is that progressives can just fill the air with their own words and "narrative frames" and thus crowd out conservatives' (stupid conservatives actually repeat their rivals' words and frames, in order to argue against them!) and he also suggests that this tactic will suggest that conservatives' arguments are beneath the dignity of civil debate. Which will, in theory, persuade independents, by a stealth process: Progressives utilizing the Lakoff Method won't actually convince such people on an intellectual level (as he specifically forbids intellectual engagement), but they will get the subliminal message that there is simply nothing in the conservative argument to be intellectually engaged at all. As Zombie notes, this makes no sense. It's my own heuristic, for example, that when I don't know much about an issue, and am just trying to find my bearings in a political dispute I know nothing about, I'll listen to two Talking Heads arguing with each other on TV. And, in this Collecting Very Basic Information Mode, I assume that if one of the Talking Heads refuses to address the point made by the other, and changes the topic, then that point has been conceded as largely correct. My reasoning is extraordinarily simple: If you had a good response, you would have offered that good response. If you instead flee and change the topic, you don't have a good response, but do not have the intellectual honesty to admit "that's a fair point," and are trying to sound like you're responding when in fact you're not responding at all. I believe I share this heuristic with 98% of the non-drooling population of the planet. Now, as I become more aware of a subject, I'll wind up discovering better defenses than that first Change-the-Subject Talking Head offered. And yet my position will have been substantially shaped by his inability to offer a good defense. And, of course, most of the persuadable, non-rigorous voters will never see anything except, at most, a single Talking Head debate on the subject. And yet Lakoff -- Thought Leader for the Bien Pensant Left -- advises just this strategy of childishly changing the topic. Well, he says change the "narrative frame" by refusing to even note any points made in a conservatives' "narrative frame;" in practical effect, this means changing the topic. If the discussion is about abortion, and a conservative doubts whether it's a moral right to end another human life, he advises ignoring that point and discussing the "narrative frame" of "choice."
The Little Blue Book is being marketed as an “Indispensable Handbook for Democrats” to help them communicate their values more clearly. But I think that the marketing is itself a ploy. The Little Blue Book was not written to help liberals communicate; instead, it was designed as a feel-good mantra, a comforting rectangular teddy bear reassuring the left-wing audience that they are good people. The book’s real underlying message is this: We liberals are morally superior to our nasty and small-minded opponents; if everyone could just see what was in our hearts, we’d be more popular than those mean old conservatives. That is the conceptual frame Lakoff embeds in The Little Blue Book: We’re better than you. Progressives can position it carefully on their coffee tables and feel righteous.I really don't get this strategy at all. It seems totally jackass to me. He seems to be confusing what's actually useful (honestly debating an opponent) with what feels good (attempting some kind of stealth "shaming" and intellectual ostracism by running a cheap eigth-grade-alpha-girl game in which he never acknowledges his opponent's words or thoughts at all). But, then, I was raised in a demented Strict Daddy family structure so I crave Authority Figures to Instruct me as to what's right and wrong. Great article, and a good insight into the minds of the left. Self-Hypnosis? A commenter going by "... is what JQ Public is thinking" notes:
One of the commenters over there had an interesting take. He thinks Lakoff - 'the thinker' - has a purpose beyond what seems to be a fairly stupid surface strategy. While the method might not convert non-believers, it makes the believers they DO HAVE absolutely bullet-proof from facts or reason. They are literally taught not to think - aka, 'indoctrination' in the darkest sense of that word. Such people can be made to do anything.Ah, so it's not a hypnosis technique taught to readers, but a hypnosis technique directed at readers. If they themselves learn to "think" by never thinking, they can at least never be persuaded themselves. Probably not his intention, but almost certainly his actual accomplishment.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
I read a lot of this yesterday. Lackoff's the Left's ego-boo. Interdict with him like we've learned with Alinsky.
Posted by: nickless at July 10, 2012 02:38 PM (MMC8r)
2
Feeelings, nothing more than feeeelings...
Posted by: rd at July 10, 2012 02:38 PM (9sUlj)
3
Actually, Thomas Frank is responsible for What's the Matter with Kansas.
Posted by: mt_molehill at July 10, 2012 02:39 PM (3a7G5)
4
I wonder how much of his worldview was shaped by being constantly called "Jackoff" while growing up?
Posted by: kathyssayso at July 10, 2012 02:39 PM (ZtwUX)
Posted by: JIm Sonweed at July 10, 2012 02:40 PM (pJbuO)
6
One more interesting point: You know how liberals and conservatives
often talk right past each other, speaking in completely different words
and ideas and thus not addressing each other's central points? Lakoff recommends that. He actually recommends not addressing conservatives' key points at all, and specifically forbids progressives from even mentioning them.
That's my sister. Cannot.Have.Calm.Conversation. And thus we're no longer speaking.
often talk right past each other, speaking in completely different words
and ideas and thus not addressing each other's central points? Lakoff recommends that. He actually recommends not addressing conservatives' key points at all, and specifically forbids progressives from even mentioning them.
That's my sister. Cannot.Have.Calm.Conversation. And thus we're no longer speaking.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:40 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: toby928© Person of Pudge at July 10, 2012 02:40 PM (evdj2)
8
Lakoff's communications framing strategy masterpiece was Don't Think of an Elephant!.
Posted by: mt_molehill at July 10, 2012 02:41 PM (3a7G5)
9
My morality is benevolent. Now put down that doughnut before I kill you.
Posted by: Prius driver at July 10, 2012 02:41 PM (4pSIn)
10
rhymes with...
rhymes with...
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:41 PM (OgiBc)
11
George Lakoff, not just wrong, but evil.
Posted by: Vengeance is mine saith The LORD, I will repay. at July 10, 2012 02:43 PM (1Yitz)
12
If conservative mindset is due to cruel parenting, how does Lakoff account for the former libs who changed to conservatism? (David Horowitz comes to mind, but there's so many unknown and unheralded who fit in this category. I'm one of them.) And my parents were far from cruel, they were pretty laissez-faire.
Posted by: kallisto at July 10, 2012 02:43 PM (jm/9g)
Posted by: Andy at July 10, 2012 02:43 PM (5Rurq)
14
"ego-boo," I like that.
So a "boo" is any kind of woobie, and you add that to a word to create a specific type of boo?
So a "boo" is any kind of woobie, and you add that to a word to create a specific type of boo?
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:43 PM (115KO)
15
What a jackoff....sounds like by idiot gubmint teat-sucking loser of a brother.
Posted by: model_1066 at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (YbQJm)
16
Thomas Frank wrote "what's the matter with Kansas?"
Posted by: buzz at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (i27M5)
17
Lakoff rhymes with................
Posted by: Ronster at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (6KYyi)
18
We'll have that worldwide family of man as soon as we kill all the clinkers.
Posted by: Pol Pot at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (QKKT0)
19
This guy has a funny name
Posted by: Jack Mehoff at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (jucos)
20
>>>Actually, Thomas Frank is responsible for What's the Matter with Kansas.
aaarrrrggghhh...
Damnit. Hey, you know what happened here, right? I wanted to believe there was one less asshole in the world, so I created an Obama-like "composite" character combining parts of Thomas Frank and George Lakoff.
aaarrrrggghhh...
Damnit. Hey, you know what happened here, right? I wanted to believe there was one less asshole in the world, so I created an Obama-like "composite" character combining parts of Thomas Frank and George Lakoff.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (115KO)
Posted by: wheatie at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (MbB0O)
22
To quote myself: Lakoff is the PT Barnum of Berkley.
Posted by: toby928© Person of Pudge at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (UOM48)
24
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:40 PM (UOM4
___
Have you tried a few drops of haldol in her kool-aid? That might calm her sufficiently for you to put her some knowledge.
___
Have you tried a few drops of haldol in her kool-aid? That might calm her sufficiently for you to put her some knowledge.
Posted by: kallisto at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (jm/9g)
25
I really don't get this strategy at all. It seems totally jackass to me.
You got to say one thing for ace, he is quick on the uptake.
You got to say one thing for ace, he is quick on the uptake.
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (KZI7g)
26
Yup, I read the whole thing yesterday and Zombie does a great job deconstructing Lakoff. He pointed out DWS, which of course was the first person that sprang to my mind as an afcionado of this technique. She NEVER addresses any counterpoints but plows on ahead with her talking points of the day. I also saw a couple of days ago that she refuses to go on with anyone else as counterpoint; hmmm, I wonder why?
Good insight into the liberal mindset.
Good insight into the liberal mindset.
Posted by: GnuBreed at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (ccXZP)
27
I always heard 'ego-boo' as 'ego-boost,' but it usually gets applied as 'security blanket,' so yeah, I guess.
Posted by: nickless at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (MMC8r)
28
Paging Doctor Feelgood.
Paging Doctor Feelgood.
Posted by: Motley Crew at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (xCxXI)
29
Is "nuturant" a word or just psuedo-technical Leftard jargon?
Posted by: Cicero at July 10, 2012 02:46 PM (QKKT0)
Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 10, 2012 02:46 PM (sClIO)
31
I was framed!
Posted by: Progressive Thought at July 10, 2012 02:46 PM (evdj2)
32
Damnit. Hey, you know what happened here, right? I
wanted to believe there was one less asshole in the world, so I created
an Obama-like "composite" character combining parts of Thomas Frank and
George Lakoff.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (115KO
A good name for your "composite" would be Thomas Jackoff.
wanted to believe there was one less asshole in the world, so I created
an Obama-like "composite" character combining parts of Thomas Frank and
George Lakoff.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:44 PM (115KO
A good name for your "composite" would be Thomas Jackoff.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (UOM48)
33
Leftists apply the same tactics when appealing to Christians, too.
In other words there could be a book called What's the Matter With Christianity?
For examples, we've all heard that Jesus would be for universal health care.
And Jesus was a community organizer and He loved illegals.
And Jesus would never disrupt a town hall meeting with shouting and asking questions.
Leftists apply the same tactics when appealing to Christians, too.
In other words there could be a book called What's the Matter With Christianity?
For examples, we've all heard that Jesus would be for universal health care.
And Jesus was a community organizer and He loved illegals.
And Jesus would never disrupt a town hall meeting with shouting and asking questions.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (OgiBc)
34
I remember in law school they actually told us you don't want to get too bogged down in point-counterpoint when drafting reply and response briefs. You want to try and keep the focus on your strong points, blah, blah, blah.
I guess I was stupid for thinking it's not a good idea to let their argument stand without attack and pretend they don't have good points.
But, I see it a lot in briefs, where the lawyers never fully address the other side's points.
I guess judges are stupid and buy it or the lawyers would quit doing it.
I guess I was stupid for thinking it's not a good idea to let their argument stand without attack and pretend they don't have good points.
But, I see it a lot in briefs, where the lawyers never fully address the other side's points.
I guess judges are stupid and buy it or the lawyers would quit doing it.
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (kSaUf)
35
He seems to be confusing what's actually useful (honestly debating an opponent) with what feels good (attempting some kind of stealth "shaming" and intellectual ostracism by running a cheap eigth-grade-alpha-girl game in which he never acknowledges his opponent's words or thoughts at all).
That right there is the conservative/progressive separation in a nutshell. Practical, rational and productive versus "feel good" narratives and emotional plea bargaining.
I printed the essay out yesterday and I've been reading it in bits and pieces as I've had time. It really is very good. I love how Zombie points out that Lakoff thinks he's being clever by going back and forth between partisanship and "objective" science, while never actually abandoning the partisanship for the objectiveness. It's not clever at all. It's really blindingly obvious that every word in the book is partisan pandering. You almost want to ask Lakoff, "Um, were you trying to be subtle? Because you... really failed. Like... really."
That right there is the conservative/progressive separation in a nutshell. Practical, rational and productive versus "feel good" narratives and emotional plea bargaining.
I printed the essay out yesterday and I've been reading it in bits and pieces as I've had time. It really is very good. I love how Zombie points out that Lakoff thinks he's being clever by going back and forth between partisanship and "objective" science, while never actually abandoning the partisanship for the objectiveness. It's not clever at all. It's really blindingly obvious that every word in the book is partisan pandering. You almost want to ask Lakoff, "Um, were you trying to be subtle? Because you... really failed. Like... really."
Posted by: Michelle You-Know-Who at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (4df7R)
36
The most brilliant and damning insight Zombie has is that while the liberal authoring this book accuses conservatives of some sort of authoritarian fetish as a driving force in their philosophy, it's actually the liberals who do it. Behold the Nanny State. What to eat, what to buy, what to say, and how to do it all... those are key elements of modern liberal political philosophy, not conservative. Conservatives just want to be left the hell alone.
Borrowing the author's ridiculous stereotyping, it's like liberals, raised in permissive and rudderless households, crave authority. They want to be told what to do and how to do it and that they're good little people because of it because the prospect of independent agency (i.e. free will and personal responsibility) terrifies them. They aspire to perpetual childhood.
Borrowing the author's ridiculous stereotyping, it's like liberals, raised in permissive and rudderless households, crave authority. They want to be told what to do and how to do it and that they're good little people because of it because the prospect of independent agency (i.e. free will and personal responsibility) terrifies them. They aspire to perpetual childhood.
Posted by: dawnfire at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (bIeax)
37
Conservative mindset is due to cruel parenting?
Gee, i guess it is really cruel to tech your kids responsibility, and the meaning of the word NO!
Gee, i guess it is really cruel to tech your kids responsibility, and the meaning of the word NO!
Posted by: cicero skip at July 10, 2012 02:47 PM (3m9Uc)
38
The Little Blue Book - Confessions of a sociopathic, intellectuallyretarded, adult
By George Lakoff
By George Lakoff
Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking... at July 10, 2012 02:48 PM (NBj0d)
39
Dammit, icky First Lady sock off.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 02:49 PM (4df7R)
40
>>> remember in law school they actually told us you don't want to get too bogged down in point-counterpoint when drafting reply and response briefs. You want to try and keep the focus on your strong points, blah, blah, blah.
well that's certainly true, you want to *focus* on your best points and not fight the battle on your opponent's chosen battlefield, but to actually refuse to even acknowledge his points at all...?
well that's certainly true, you want to *focus* on your best points and not fight the battle on your opponent's chosen battlefield, but to actually refuse to even acknowledge his points at all...?
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:49 PM (115KO)
41
I really don't get this strategy at all. It seems totally jackass to me.
I think the principal benefit of the strategy is that anybody can do it. Beyond sheer will, there are no qualifications needed for anyone on your side who happens to get the megaphone.
Anyone can be a pod person.
I think the principal benefit of the strategy is that anybody can do it. Beyond sheer will, there are no qualifications needed for anyone on your side who happens to get the megaphone.
Anyone can be a pod person.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (85Ks6)
42
The one mistake that Zombie makes, is refering to this schmuck as a "scientist." People with Ph.D.s in social studies are not scientists, they are cerebral onanists who have to work with a small organ.
The conflation between "scientist" and political advocate isn't a conflation at all.
The conflation between "scientist" and political advocate isn't a conflation at all.
Posted by: The Political Hat at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (XvHmy)
43
Andrew Sullivan pulls this shit all the time, too.
Andrew likes to argue that only he is a true conservative and a true Catholic, and everyone else is a fraud.
Andrew Sullivan pulls this shit all the time, too.
Andrew likes to argue that only he is a true conservative and a true Catholic, and everyone else is a fraud.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (OgiBc)
44
Ace has noted before that whereas Conservatives can easily repeat liberal argument since we swim in them culturally, Liberals in general, and Proggers in particular, have no idea what we really think.
We're scarecrows at best to them.
We're scarecrows at best to them.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (evdj2)
45
Authoritarian puritanical parenting.
This guy went to the "Footloose" school of political science.
Everything you need to know about Republicans you can learn through the "John Lithgow Method."
This guy went to the "Footloose" school of political science.
Everything you need to know about Republicans you can learn through the "John Lithgow Method."
Posted by: eleven at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (KXm42)
46
Why are linguists such assholes?
I mean other than their field is one where you can make up whatever shit you want and it is as good as any other shit any other asshole has made up.
I mean other than their field is one where you can make up whatever shit you want and it is as good as any other shit any other asshole has made up.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (T0NGe)
47
>>My reasoning is extraordinarily simple: If you had a good response, you would
have offered that good response. If you instead flee and change the topic, you
don't have a good response, but do not have the intellectual honesty to admit
"that's a fair point," and are trying to sound like you're responding when in
fact you're not responding at all.<<
How else would one approach this analysis, but your heuristic?
Btw, your heuristic has a corollary, often seen in academic seminars, namely, "I have such a good answer to that question that I will bring up the question myself, for fear that no one else will."
>>My reasoning is extraordinarily simple: If you had a good response, you would
have offered that good response. If you instead flee and change the topic, you
don't have a good response, but do not have the intellectual honesty to admit
"that's a fair point," and are trying to sound like you're responding when in
fact you're not responding at all.<<
How else would one approach this analysis, but your heuristic?
Btw, your heuristic has a corollary, often seen in academic seminars, namely, "I have such a good answer to that question that I will bring up the question myself, for fear that no one else will."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 02:50 PM (ErMTw)
48
I blame it on mead and skullduggery!!!
Posted by: Honey Skullduggery Badger, drinker of mead at July 10, 2012 02:51 PM (GvYeG)
49
Andrew Sullivan pulls this shit all the time, too.
Andrew likes to argue that only he is a true conservative and a true Catholic, and everyone else is a fraud.
He's a true heterosexual also.
And I'm glad you said "pulls this shit," since all too often the operative verb in Andi's case is "push."
Andrew Sullivan pulls this shit all the time, too.
Andrew likes to argue that only he is a true conservative and a true Catholic, and everyone else is a fraud.
He's a true heterosexual also.
And I'm glad you said "pulls this shit," since all too often the operative verb in Andi's case is "push."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 02:52 PM (ErMTw)
50
so the argument boils down to this:
If you want to be a true Kansan or a true Christian or a true conservative, all you need to do is to vote for Democrats, otherwise you're a walking paradox.
so the argument boils down to this:
If you want to be a true Kansan or a true Christian or a true conservative, all you need to do is to vote for Democrats, otherwise you're a walking paradox.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:52 PM (OgiBc)
51
Liberals like to say that....."No, means NO!"
Except if you're a parent.
....Then, that is a bad thing...and you're being authoritarian.
Or except if you're a Republican.
....Then, you're 'causing gridlock'.
Liberals like to say that....."No, means NO!"
Except if you're a parent.
....Then, that is a bad thing...and you're being authoritarian.
Or except if you're a Republican.
....Then, you're 'causing gridlock'.
Posted by: wheatie at July 10, 2012 02:52 PM (MbB0O)
52
Progressives utilizing the Lakoff Method won't actually convince such
people on an intellectual level (as he specifically forbids intellectual
engagement), but they will get the subliminal message that there is simply nothing in the conservative argument to be intellectually engaged at all.
That's where we are with progressivism, isn't it? No persuasion, no engagement, just "shut up" like a boot stomping on a human face.
people on an intellectual level (as he specifically forbids intellectual
engagement), but they will get the subliminal message that there is simply nothing in the conservative argument to be intellectually engaged at all.
That's where we are with progressivism, isn't it? No persuasion, no engagement, just "shut up" like a boot stomping on a human face.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 10, 2012 02:53 PM (T0NGe)
53
George Lakoff, at age 71, still can't get over his overly-strict dad telling him what to do and showing him no affection.
George Lakoff, at age 71, still can't get over his overly-strict dad telling him what to do and showing him no affection.
Posted by: dan-O at July 10, 2012 02:53 PM (sWycd)
54
Borrowing the author's ridiculous stereotyping, it's like liberals,
raised in permissive and rudderless households, crave authority.
No. They just don't want to see anyone else doing better than them or being happier. It's an ideology based entirely on envy.
raised in permissive and rudderless households, crave authority.
No. They just don't want to see anyone else doing better than them or being happier. It's an ideology based entirely on envy.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 02:53 PM (85Ks6)
55
Lackoff on Parenting;
GOOD = BAD
BAD = GOOD.
Or, even shorter:
Anything associated with my side is a GOOD. Otherwise, Bad.
Lackoff's not thinking, here, he's taunting us and masturbating them.
GOOD = BAD
BAD = GOOD.
Or, even shorter:
Anything associated with my side is a GOOD. Otherwise, Bad.
Lackoff's not thinking, here, he's taunting us and masturbating them.
Posted by: nickless at July 10, 2012 02:53 PM (MMC8r)
56
I mean other than their field is one where you can make up whatever shit you want and it is as good as any other shit any other asshole has made up.
Psychology. When I took my Abnormal Psych final decades ago, I allegedly missed two questions on it. I went to the prof and argued that my answers were just as valid as the ones he was looking for. He ended up agreeing with me that it was all bs anyway.
Psychology. When I took my Abnormal Psych final decades ago, I allegedly missed two questions on it. I went to the prof and argued that my answers were just as valid as the ones he was looking for. He ended up agreeing with me that it was all bs anyway.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (evdj2)
57
23
Hmmmm......my sister and I had loving parents, thus she's a raving libtard.
What happened to me?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (UOM4
Alternate set of parents. They were the strict ones but they only came out at night.
(In all seriousness, these pseudo-psychological arguments (conservatives are the way they are because they came from strict households, yadda yadda) are a form of arrogance that infuriates me. It's a pat on the head that says "You can't help being a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, so just let mommy government change your diapers and everything will be oogie." It dismisses the possibility that there might be a rational counterargument out of hand and infantilizes the opposition. It's just blood-boilingly dismissive and it never fails to drive me mad. Like now.)
Hmmmm......my sister and I had loving parents, thus she's a raving libtard.
What happened to me?
Posted by: Jane D'oh at July 10, 2012 02:45 PM (UOM4
Alternate set of parents. They were the strict ones but they only came out at night.
(In all seriousness, these pseudo-psychological arguments (conservatives are the way they are because they came from strict households, yadda yadda) are a form of arrogance that infuriates me. It's a pat on the head that says "You can't help being a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, so just let mommy government change your diapers and everything will be oogie." It dismisses the possibility that there might be a rational counterargument out of hand and infantilizes the opposition. It's just blood-boilingly dismissive and it never fails to drive me mad. Like now.)
Posted by: joncelli at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (CWlPF)
58
The strategy is them mindfucking you.
Some people are weak enough that it causes them to pause for a moment and question their conservative/Christian/Kansan/redstate bona fides.
The strategy is them mindfucking you.
Some people are weak enough that it causes them to pause for a moment and question their conservative/Christian/Kansan/redstate bona fides.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (OgiBc)
59
What's a "Blook"?
Posted by: LibertarianJim at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (PReJ3)
60
This is a brilliant post that is itself heavily dependent on the brilliant post of someone else.
Ace Of Spades HQ: the lichen/moss of the conservative blogosphere.
Ace Of Spades HQ: the lichen/moss of the conservative blogosphere.
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (Wr7z4)
61
Im paradoxically skullduggerish and meady!!!!
Posted by: Honey Skullduggery Badger, drinker of mead at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (GvYeG)
62
Lakoff's Paradox: Why is it that policies that appeal to children (i.e., it's always time for dessert!) fail out in the real world?
Posted by: t-bird at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Mark formerly in Spokane,now in Sandy Ut at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (gt+Iu)
64
>>How else would one approach this analysis, but your heuristic?
I don't know what other conclusions any thinking person would draw. I put it at 98%, because I guess there must be 2% of people who are simply wackadoo.
I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and infer what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
Who would craft that kind of three-bumper-shot chain of reasoning?
Besides Lakoff, and the people who read him.
Shoe on the other foot: If we began doing this, would Lakoff claim WE were Charlie Sheen Winning?
I don't know what other conclusions any thinking person would draw. I put it at 98%, because I guess there must be 2% of people who are simply wackadoo.
I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and infer what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
Who would craft that kind of three-bumper-shot chain of reasoning?
Besides Lakoff, and the people who read him.
Shoe on the other foot: If we began doing this, would Lakoff claim WE were Charlie Sheen Winning?
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (115KO)
65
If only this mindset on honest debate were present in the engineering world we could all still be hunter gatherers gently caressing mother gaia. So yeah this is a great way to run a government.
Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 10, 2012 02:55 PM (tf9Ne)
66
All we need is a little midnight basketball people ...
Posted by: Honey Skullduggery Badger, drinker of mead at July 10, 2012 02:55 PM (GvYeG)
67
Let me fix Lackofs Progressive points:
- Undisciplined whelps cant accomplish anything
- Spending other peoples money is benevolent
- Equality trumps liberty
- Messages are Rejected by Reality, human nature, Adam Smiths Pimp Hand, math and Physics being what they are, hard.
- Undisciplined whelps cant accomplish anything
- Spending other peoples money is benevolent
- Equality trumps liberty
- Messages are Rejected by Reality, human nature, Adam Smiths Pimp Hand, math and Physics being what they are, hard.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 02:55 PM (WkuV6)
68
It's my own heuristic,
for example, that when I don't know much about an issue, and am just
trying to find my bearings in a political dispute I know nothing about,
I'll listen to two Talking Heads arguing with each other on TV. And, in
this Collecting Very Basic Information Mode, I assume that if one of
the Talking Heads refuses to address the point made by the other, and
changes the topic, then that point has been conceded as largely correct.
Simple, he thinks you're stupid.
He thinks everybody's stupid. Either that or he has never thought about these issues. I've found that's true of the Left. They don't want debate, engagement or persuasion. They want applause and approval.
for example, that when I don't know much about an issue, and am just
trying to find my bearings in a political dispute I know nothing about,
I'll listen to two Talking Heads arguing with each other on TV. And, in
this Collecting Very Basic Information Mode, I assume that if one of
the Talking Heads refuses to address the point made by the other, and
changes the topic, then that point has been conceded as largely correct.
Simple, he thinks you're stupid.
He thinks everybody's stupid. Either that or he has never thought about these issues. I've found that's true of the Left. They don't want debate, engagement or persuasion. They want applause and approval.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 10, 2012 02:55 PM (T0NGe)
69
Another pointy head that thinks he's smart, but really is just talking out of his narrative frame.
Posted by: Dirty Old Man at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (ex1ST)
70
Liberals are all projection, all the time.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (evdj2)
71
People with Ph.D.s in social studies calling themselves scientists are like lawyers calling themselves Doctors.
You have to have a fucking word attached to your name to have self-esteem? That's kinda sad, don't you think? Wait. No. You don't think, you feel--otherwise you wouldn't need a word to feel good about yourself.
You have to have a fucking word attached to your name to have self-esteem? That's kinda sad, don't you think? Wait. No. You don't think, you feel--otherwise you wouldn't need a word to feel good about yourself.
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (kSaUf)
72
The technique is also a type of brainwashing. You're actually training these people not to even listen to the only people who could possibly ever convince them they're wrong.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (85Ks6)
73
One of the commenters over there had an interesting take. He thinks Lakoff - 'the thinker' - has a purpose beyond what seems to be a fairly stupid surface strategy. While the method might not convert non-believers, it makes the believers they DOHAVE absolutely bullet-proof from facts or reason. They are literally taught not to think - aka, 'indoctrination' in the darkest sense of that word. Such people can be made to do anything.
Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking... at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (NBj0d)
74
Lakoff is as phony as Fauxcahontas Warren. Both of them have made a fortune pushing bullshit studies that just play to the liberal echo chamber and tell liberals what they want to hear. It's amazing that the "intellectual" "reality-based community" falls time and time again for these charlatans.
Posted by: rockmom at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (NYnoe)
75
haha, lolz, I see once again I am smarter than Lakoff.
I've been describing the arguing strategy (i.e., symptoms) of the liberal pathology for awhile.
Filibustering, shotgun arguments
there is no counter argument
among others which I've described but forgotten.
I've been describing the arguing strategy (i.e., symptoms) of the liberal pathology for awhile.
Filibustering, shotgun arguments
there is no counter argument
among others which I've described but forgotten.
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 10, 2012 02:57 PM (QxSug)
76
This has got to be some sort of weird psychological projection right? We were raised by bad authority figures so we crave authoritarian social structure. Haven't the progressives pretty much replaced the "family" father with a govt. father? So he thinks were are evil and stupid because we believe the social structure is a bottom up model instead commanded from the top down.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at July 10, 2012 02:57 PM (ZhEoC)
77
"Benevolent, nurturant parenting??"
Can this wonderful parenting operate at long distance, say from Indonesia or Kenya to Hawaii? Must've been a helluva lot of post cards ...
"Benevolent, nurturant parenting??"
Can this wonderful parenting operate at long distance, say from Indonesia or Kenya to Hawaii? Must've been a helluva lot of post cards ...
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 02:57 PM (ErMTw)
78
simpler Lakoff, call it self-fellation.
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (QxSug)
79
So let me get this straight, a UC Berkley professor writes about nihilist and thinks he is original?
History be hard for some peoples.
http://tinyurl.com/6wbn6vk
History be hard for some peoples.
http://tinyurl.com/6wbn6vk
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (KZI7g)
80
Simple, he thinks you're stupid.
Yes.
He thinks everybody's stupid.
Yes, again.
Either that or he has never thought about these issues.
And right again.
To wit: Aaron Sorkin.
Simple, he thinks you're stupid.
Yes.
He thinks everybody's stupid.
Yes, again.
Either that or he has never thought about these issues.
And right again.
To wit: Aaron Sorkin.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (OgiBc)
Posted by: nickless at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (MMC8r)
82
Is the proper technique for benevolently applying the hoe to the back of the bourgeois' necks in an appendix or do you have to pay extra for that?
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (WkuV6)
83
g*d damn you mommy and daddy for teaching me right from wrong, the value of hard work, to respect others, to defend the bullied, to have morals, to do the right thing even when others don't...
I hate you, I hate you, I hate you for trying to make me turn out to be a decent person with integrity!!!
I hate you, I hate you, I hate you for trying to make me turn out to be a decent person with integrity!!!
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (Yhu4q)
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (6ClcK)
85
I feel better now.
Posted by: Honey Skullduggery Badger, drinker of mead at July 10, 2012 02:59 PM (GvYeG)
86
>>> I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and infer
what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
You are looking at this like it is a debate format of 2 guys sitting across the table bantering back and forth.
In the media marketplace of ideas, this approach does work (for the left).
The only way it is allowed to work is because the MSM acts as the moderators of this discussion and thus controls the framing of it.
Without having the MSM in their pocket, this approach would certainly not work for the left. Since they do, it is a very effective approach.
what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
You are looking at this like it is a debate format of 2 guys sitting across the table bantering back and forth.
In the media marketplace of ideas, this approach does work (for the left).
The only way it is allowed to work is because the MSM acts as the moderators of this discussion and thus controls the framing of it.
Without having the MSM in their pocket, this approach would certainly not work for the left. Since they do, it is a very effective approach.
Posted by: dan-O at July 10, 2012 02:59 PM (sWycd)
87
This tactic is becoming so over-used on the Sunday AM inside the beltway love-fest talking heads shows, that I cannot but believe that many independents and undecideds will give themsleves the face palm salute and say those Dem/Prog jackals don't have a clue about the real world.
Unfortunately, the real world is also where 52% voted for Obozo last time out and 47% are getting free stuff from Obozo's government! This coupled with lies, unchallenged by the Dem media, and voter fraud will make this next election a squeaker, if an Executive Order does not suspend it entirely (perhaps during a contested recount in Florida).
Unfortunately, the real world is also where 52% voted for Obozo last time out and 47% are getting free stuff from Obozo's government! This coupled with lies, unchallenged by the Dem media, and voter fraud will make this next election a squeaker, if an Executive Order does not suspend it entirely (perhaps during a contested recount in Florida).
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 10, 2012 02:59 PM (i3+c5)
88
right projection
**"Benevolent, nurturant parenting??"**
Good catch, the left's best (er, famous) politicians are product of single mother households (e.g., sociopaths) and or the scions of criminal masterminds (i.e., JFK).
**"Benevolent, nurturant parenting??"**
Good catch, the left's best (er, famous) politicians are product of single mother households (e.g., sociopaths) and or the scions of criminal masterminds (i.e., JFK).
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 10, 2012 02:59 PM (QxSug)
89
>
Right on. Which is why lefty global warming debate that starts and ends with "the science is settled and the debate is closed" is the dead give away that the arguments are not on their side.
Right on. Which is why lefty global warming debate that starts and ends with "the science is settled and the debate is closed" is the dead give away that the arguments are not on their side.
Posted by: scofflawx at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (KiqmW)
90
This is the same type of reasoning that allows them to claim the media has a conservative bias--bias because only a conservative would even mention the conservatives arguments/positions. And it is only because they support the conservative position that they even bring it up.
Yes, yes, we on the VRWC have so many moles and double agents and have managed to place our operatives at all levels of liberal institutions.
Yes, yes, we on the VRWC have so many moles and double agents and have managed to place our operatives at all levels of liberal institutions.
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (kSaUf)
91
The shit the liberals are shoveling_ Top Story on Drudge-- is some of the most racist shit I ever saw. Good thing the Dems made it or the MSM would be up in arms
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (05RcU)
92
For examples, we've all heard that Jesus would be for universal health care.
And Jesus was a community organizer and He loved illegals.
And Jesus would never disrupt a town hall meeting with shouting and asking questions.
Try this one: Jesus absolutely hated lawyers.
Seriously, it's true. All of a sudden Mr. Pious Progressive has to sputter.
And Jesus was a community organizer and He loved illegals.
And Jesus would never disrupt a town hall meeting with shouting and asking questions.
Try this one: Jesus absolutely hated lawyers.
Seriously, it's true. All of a sudden Mr. Pious Progressive has to sputter.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (T0NGe)
93
People with Ph.D.s in social studies calling themselves scientists are like lawyers calling themselves Doctors.
Faculty in social studies are most certainly NOT scientists, but scientist wannabes. And that includes economists, who are the pick of a bad lot. Sociologists are beneath consideration.
People with Ph.D.s in social studies calling themselves scientists are like lawyers calling themselves Doctors.
Faculty in social studies are most certainly NOT scientists, but scientist wannabes. And that includes economists, who are the pick of a bad lot. Sociologists are beneath consideration.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (ErMTw)
94
70 Liberals are all projection, all the time.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (evdj2)
Exactly correct.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 02:56 PM (evdj2)
Exactly correct.
Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking... at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (NBj0d)
95
They are literally taught not to think - aka,
'indoctrination' in the darkest sense of that word. Such people can be
made to do anything.
Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking
<rip>
What is every liberal arts college?
'indoctrination' in the darkest sense of that word. Such people can be
made to do anything.
Posted by: Is what JQ Public is thinking
<rip>
What is every liberal arts college?
Posted by: Karnac the Mediocre at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (sClIO)
96
So my daddy kicking my ass and making me work and earn money as a kid is why I am millionaire?
Well, yes it is.
Well, yes it is.
Posted by: Billy Bob, the 1% at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (KZI7g)
97
Stephen Colbert's show is What's The Matter With, Kansas? for television.
Colbert uses mockery to poke holes in conservative values such as freedom, patriotism, and individuality.
Stephen Colbert's show is What's The Matter With, Kansas? for television.
Colbert uses mockery to poke holes in conservative values such as freedom, patriotism, and individuality.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (OgiBc)
98
Our trolls here are another good example. They rarely can pull off imitating conservative thought, because they really don't have any basic understanding of it. Lampshade is/was one of the better ones; he was pulling in lots of reply comments for awhile before his natural nastiness and bias about our stances manifested too often.
But I regularly see socks here that imitate liberal thought so well it fools me for a while (ahem, ace, Average Joe).
But I regularly see socks here that imitate liberal thought so well it fools me for a while (ahem, ace, Average Joe).
Posted by: GnuBreed at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (ccXZP)
99
There's this little shit on youtube named pyrrho who does this all the time. He churns out these videos saying everybody is stupid but he is smart.
Posted by: Redd at July 10, 2012 03:01 PM (suLy7)
100
Ace -- by the way, I think you dismiss the Lakoff strategy a bit too breezily.
It is formulated with an unstated assumption that Lakoff can't actually openly acknowledge, but which is understood by every friendly reader (and which is a major component of the academic Marxist milieu Lakoff hails from): most people are stupid, and stupid people are easily led.. The idea of this "alpha girl bullshit," as you aptly label it, is not to reach or affect YOU. You (and I, and all of us reading and posting here in fact) are not going to be pushed off our conservative beliefs by this sort of intellectual pettifoggery, but that's not the point: we don't matter to Lakoff because we are a relatively tiny minority.
The Lakoff strategy presumes that the vast 'inert mass' of largely non-political voters -- and the unformed future generations -- are NOT sharp critical thinkers with BS detectors, or stubborn prideful people. Rather that they're susceptible to...well, to this sort of 'high school' shunning crap taken to the political realm like most kids were back in high school.
I think it's dangerous to blithely assume he's entirely wrong about this, too.
It is formulated with an unstated assumption that Lakoff can't actually openly acknowledge, but which is understood by every friendly reader (and which is a major component of the academic Marxist milieu Lakoff hails from): most people are stupid, and stupid people are easily led.. The idea of this "alpha girl bullshit," as you aptly label it, is not to reach or affect YOU. You (and I, and all of us reading and posting here in fact) are not going to be pushed off our conservative beliefs by this sort of intellectual pettifoggery, but that's not the point: we don't matter to Lakoff because we are a relatively tiny minority.
The Lakoff strategy presumes that the vast 'inert mass' of largely non-political voters -- and the unformed future generations -- are NOT sharp critical thinkers with BS detectors, or stubborn prideful people. Rather that they're susceptible to...well, to this sort of 'high school' shunning crap taken to the political realm like most kids were back in high school.
I think it's dangerous to blithely assume he's entirely wrong about this, too.
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (Wr7z4)
101
even if you're looking at that lame headline I just wrote thinking "Huh?"
Yeah, what's a 'blook'?
Yeah, what's a 'blook'?
Posted by: t-bird at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (FcR7P)
102
I don't know what other conclusions any thinking person would draw. I put it at 98%, because I guess there must be 2% of people who are simply wackadoo.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (115KO)
I love two things: My little red tricycle and Barack Obama
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 02:54 PM (115KO)
I love two things: My little red tricycle and Barack Obama
Posted by: Nepoleon XIV at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (XvHmy)
103
>> I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and infer
what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
This reminds me of a piece I saw on CNBC not too long ago with Debbie Wasserman-Schulz squaring off against Paul Ryan on the economy.
Ryan was just mutilating her with every word he said and she just kept mouthing the talking points like he wasn't even there. It was surreal.
what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
This reminds me of a piece I saw on CNBC not too long ago with Debbie Wasserman-Schulz squaring off against Paul Ryan on the economy.
Ryan was just mutilating her with every word he said and she just kept mouthing the talking points like he wasn't even there. It was surreal.
Posted by: Andy at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (5Rurq)
104
@73
That's exactly what I was thinking. These people control a good deal of the media, so there are an awful lot of folks who never hear conservative arguments outside of this bubble, if at all. The effect this has on that audience is to be completely unaware of people who don't share that opinion except as cariacature, if at all. When I moved to Maryland, I met someone who grew up in Seattle to non-religious, liberal parents; it astonished her to the point of shouting when anyone disagreed with her politically.
That's exactly what I was thinking. These people control a good deal of the media, so there are an awful lot of folks who never hear conservative arguments outside of this bubble, if at all. The effect this has on that audience is to be completely unaware of people who don't share that opinion except as cariacature, if at all. When I moved to Maryland, I met someone who grew up in Seattle to non-religious, liberal parents; it astonished her to the point of shouting when anyone disagreed with her politically.
Posted by: Hal at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (MftY/)
105
Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand:
>> So he thinks were are evil and stupid because we believe the social
structure is a bottom up model instead commanded from the top down.
I think there's something to this.
In most apartments I've lived in, I never even knew the names of my neighbors. Urban living, and no voluntary associations like going to church, lead to alienation. They crave some organizing principle for society, so they can feel a part of something. They find it in statism.
>> So he thinks were are evil and stupid because we believe the social
structure is a bottom up model instead commanded from the top down.
I think there's something to this.
In most apartments I've lived in, I never even knew the names of my neighbors. Urban living, and no voluntary associations like going to church, lead to alienation. They crave some organizing principle for society, so they can feel a part of something. They find it in statism.
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (6ClcK)
106
91
The shit the liberals are shoveling_ Top Story on Drudge-- is some of
the most racist shit I ever saw. Good thing the Dems made it or the MSM
would be up in arms
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (05RcU)
Will the MSM ask Obama to repudiate these statements?
The shit the liberals are shoveling_ Top Story on Drudge-- is some of
the most racist shit I ever saw. Good thing the Dems made it or the MSM
would be up in arms
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 10, 2012 03:00 PM (05RcU)
Will the MSM ask Obama to repudiate these statements?
Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (X/+QT)
107
I swear by the insanity of cthulhu that I assumed that The Little Blue Book was a parody because no one could call it that and think they would be taken seriously.
I have a background in semantics and it is my considered position that his conceits regarding narrative frameworks are bullshit. There is an objective reality outside of language and attempting to simply use words words words to avoid that will necessarily fail. It's not an intellectual position, it is ivory tower bullshit. As deeply as it pains me to say this, language is not everything. Calling a manatee a thoroughbred will not allow me to ride it to a win in the Kentucky Derby.
To haul out the psycho ex analogy again, this refusal to concede that your opposition may have any legitimate basis is less than childish. It is demented. It is showing up at the party and claiming that he still loves me even thouh he's called the cops to have me dragged away for violation of the restraining order.
We've gone round and round about how the Right at least makes an attempt to reconsider the fundamentals of our positions if real world application of those positions proves disasterous. The Left, by and large, completely refuses to do so. To the Left, it is reality which has failed. That is insane.
But, then, I was raised in a demented Strict Daddy family structure so I crave Authority Figures to Instruct me as to what's right and wrong.
You know, anyone who is going to accuse me of craving an Authority Figure to Instruct me had better know precisely how to tie those knots. Otherwise, well, do not taunt Happy Fun Alex or she may need to demonstrate precisely what strict instruction entails.
I have a background in semantics and it is my considered position that his conceits regarding narrative frameworks are bullshit. There is an objective reality outside of language and attempting to simply use words words words to avoid that will necessarily fail. It's not an intellectual position, it is ivory tower bullshit. As deeply as it pains me to say this, language is not everything. Calling a manatee a thoroughbred will not allow me to ride it to a win in the Kentucky Derby.
To haul out the psycho ex analogy again, this refusal to concede that your opposition may have any legitimate basis is less than childish. It is demented. It is showing up at the party and claiming that he still loves me even thouh he's called the cops to have me dragged away for violation of the restraining order.
We've gone round and round about how the Right at least makes an attempt to reconsider the fundamentals of our positions if real world application of those positions proves disasterous. The Left, by and large, completely refuses to do so. To the Left, it is reality which has failed. That is insane.
But, then, I was raised in a demented Strict Daddy family structure so I crave Authority Figures to Instruct me as to what's right and wrong.
You know, anyone who is going to accuse me of craving an Authority Figure to Instruct me had better know precisely how to tie those knots. Otherwise, well, do not taunt Happy Fun Alex or she may need to demonstrate precisely what strict instruction entails.
Posted by: alexthechick SMOD 2012 at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (VtjlW)
108
I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and infer what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
Ace, the other method is to just ignore the hobos when they whine. I have ended these little whiners in the past be asking them to formulate their ideas in a testable hypothesis - facts are anathema to their paradigm.
Ace, the other method is to just ignore the hobos when they whine. I have ended these little whiners in the past be asking them to formulate their ideas in a testable hypothesis - facts are anathema to their paradigm.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (WkuV6)
109
"SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!" explained the Democrat.
Posted by: Blow it out your Axlerod at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (soZKf)
110
Shorter Lakoff: "I reject reality, and substitute my own."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (ErMTw)
111
98
Our trolls here are another good example. They rarely can pull off
imitating conservative thought, because they really don't have any basic
understanding of it.
Just a fucking minute here. I resemble that.
Our trolls here are another good example. They rarely can pull off
imitating conservative thought, because they really don't have any basic
understanding of it.
Just a fucking minute here. I resemble that.
Posted by: Palin Steele sucking Clarence's dick at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (KZI7g)
112
82
Is the proper technique for benevolently applying the hoe to the back of
the bourgeois' necks in an appendix or do you have to pay extra for
that?
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (WkuV6)
It's the subliminal part of Bill Maher's show. You wear the glasses and they tell you how to wield sharpened shovels effectively.
Is the proper technique for benevolently applying the hoe to the back of
the bourgeois' necks in an appendix or do you have to pay extra for
that?
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (WkuV6)
It's the subliminal part of Bill Maher's show. You wear the glasses and they tell you how to wield sharpened shovels effectively.
Posted by: joncelli at July 10, 2012 03:04 PM (CWlPF)
113
Proposition: "Ted Kennedy was a fat, drunken misogynist who was expelled from Harvard for cheating and walked away from a drowning woman to save his political career."
Retort: "Ted Kennedy really cared for the little man."
Retort: "Ted Kennedy really cared for the little man."
Posted by: Lakoff, Little Blue Book, Example 13 at July 10, 2012 03:04 PM (QKKT0)
114
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 10, 2012 03:02 PM (Wr7z4)
This technique, which I perfected, has worked every time it has been correctly implemented!
This technique, which I perfected, has worked every time it has been correctly implemented!
Posted by: Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels at July 10, 2012 03:04 PM (i3+c5)
115
Trolls, the Daily Show, Colbert, academics all follow the same template to influence the weak minded:
1. Simplify
2. Convolute
3. Mock
4. Laugh
Trolls, the Daily Show, Colbert, academics all follow the same template to influence the weak minded:
1. Simplify
2. Convolute
3. Mock
4. Laugh
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:05 PM (OgiBc)
116
Liberal ideas simply don't work in the real world!
You can take your narrative frames, Mr. Lakoff, and shove them up your ass!
You can take your narrative frames, Mr. Lakoff, and shove them up your ass!
Posted by: General Woundwort at July 10, 2012 03:05 PM (06lNq)
117
I would think being raised by a strong authority figure would give me the ability to tell who is worth respecting and who is full of shit. Otherwise I would just fall in love with the first power wielding moron I came across.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at July 10, 2012 03:05 PM (ZhEoC)
118
Also note that lefties want to use the government to shut down Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, yet I've never heard of a conservative who wants to silence the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, or other leftist media outlets. See 'em go out of business, sure (be still my savage heart!), but use the government to silence them? Never.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (ErMTw)
119
Even though the linked article is slightly longer than an Ace Movie Review... take the time and read it! You got 116 deep in these comments - you can read the article!
Even though the linked article is slightly longer than an Ace Movie Review... take the time and read it! You got 116 deep in these comments - you can read the article!
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (d9tUw)
120
Ah, the topic changers. That is what I miss most about Breitbart. He would not let them get away with an ounce of that crap.
" Gee, CNN anchor, that's great, but what does that have to do with what I just said?"
" Gee, CNN anchor, that's great, but what does that have to do with what I just said?"
Posted by: Lauren at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (wsGWu)
121
Thank god this is getting some attention. Beck has been beating this drum for a long time, but even conservatives called him a conspiracy nut for saying that progressives did this shit. They are evil incarnate. This is Orwells nightmare. Right out of his book.
BTW, conservatives win elections because our positions (most of them), are natural and just plain common sense. Logic.
I still ask myself about what they are trying to achieve by taking us over a fiscal cliff. An obvious cliff, too. Everyone can see it coming, yet these idiots want to step on the gas and call it "social justice"
A country of this size going chaotic will be a humanitarian disaster larger than just about anything in history. Nobody will come to help us. How this is good for their cause, or ANYONE, I really cannot figure it out. I think these people are sick and twisted misanthropes who just want to see the USA destroyed.. Probably hoping it will cure their guilty conscious about not seeing their kid or something. These people are evil and must be stopped at all costs
BTW, conservatives win elections because our positions (most of them), are natural and just plain common sense. Logic.
I still ask myself about what they are trying to achieve by taking us over a fiscal cliff. An obvious cliff, too. Everyone can see it coming, yet these idiots want to step on the gas and call it "social justice"
A country of this size going chaotic will be a humanitarian disaster larger than just about anything in history. Nobody will come to help us. How this is good for their cause, or ANYONE, I really cannot figure it out. I think these people are sick and twisted misanthropes who just want to see the USA destroyed.. Probably hoping it will cure their guilty conscious about not seeing their kid or something. These people are evil and must be stopped at all costs
Posted by: Can of Raid at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (mLZe7)
122
Great article.
Zombie is a hero for slogging through that book.
Posted by: sandy burger
I think Zombie is in the bay area, carrying that book marks him (or her) as a right winger there.
Zombie is a hero for slogging through that book.
Posted by: sandy burger
I think Zombie is in the bay area, carrying that book marks him (or her) as a right winger there.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (WkuV6)
123
115
Trolls, the Daily Show, Colbert, academics all follow the same template to influence the weak minded:
1. Simplify
2. Convolute
3. Mock
4. Laugh
The smartest kids in Special Ed.
Trolls, the Daily Show, Colbert, academics all follow the same template to influence the weak minded:
1. Simplify
2. Convolute
3. Mock
4. Laugh
The smartest kids in Special Ed.
Posted by: Blow it out your Axlerod at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (soZKf)
Posted by: Mikey NTH - making bunnies cry since 1966 at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (hLRSq)
125
i added 73 to the post.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (115KO)
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (OgiBc)
127
116
Liberal ideas simply don't work in the real world!
You can take your narrative frames, Mr. Lakoff, and shove them up your ass!
I am married now, so I can't help you. Wish I could.
Liberal ideas simply don't work in the real world!
You can take your narrative frames, Mr. Lakoff, and shove them up your ass!
I am married now, so I can't help you. Wish I could.
Posted by: Mrs Barney at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (KZI7g)
128
Lakoff is just spewing the the same drivel that other lib-progs have spewed....to try to justify using permissiveness to lure in followers.
Using permissiveness to lure in followers....has been used before.
Hitler used it.
Other despotic movements have used it.
It works.
It works until the followers wake up to it with a sugar hangover, or an STD.
Lakoff is just spewing the the same drivel that other lib-progs have spewed....to try to justify using permissiveness to lure in followers.
Using permissiveness to lure in followers....has been used before.
Hitler used it.
Other despotic movements have used it.
It works.
It works until the followers wake up to it with a sugar hangover, or an STD.
Posted by: wheatie at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (MbB0O)
129
Zombie is a hero for slogging through that book.
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (6ClcK)
IIRC, Zombie lives in SF and frequents Berkeley. Either he/she is a convert or a deep-cover agent for conservatism. Either way, he/she has cast-iron balls.
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (6ClcK)
IIRC, Zombie lives in SF and frequents Berkeley. Either he/she is a convert or a deep-cover agent for conservatism. Either way, he/she has cast-iron balls.
Posted by: joncelli at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (CWlPF)
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (WkuV6)
131
I haven't read the comments yet.
But let me say this, never let linguists and "cognative scientists" anywhere near philosophy or you get this dreck.
At the very least his assertions would only apply to SoCons, and even that'd be a stretch, because in order to assert that he assumes that the Progressive stance is..erg...well I guess he's asserting that it's amoral (or just naturally right? I can't which.)
In any case, he's an asshole.
I haven't read the comments yet.
But let me say this, never let linguists and "cognative scientists" anywhere near philosophy or you get this dreck.
At the very least his assertions would only apply to SoCons, and even that'd be a stretch, because in order to assert that he assumes that the Progressive stance is..erg...well I guess he's asserting that it's amoral (or just naturally right? I can't which.)
In any case, he's an asshole.
Posted by: tsrblke at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (22rSN)
132
Posted by: alexthechick SMOD 2012 at July 10, 2012 03:03 PM (VtjlW)
Excellent comment. It just got better and better.
Excellent comment. It just got better and better.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 03:07 PM (85Ks6)
133
Two more thoughts.
One is that this advice puts "paid" to the notion of "marketplace of ideas."
The second is the name of the book. "Little Blue Book?" C'mon, George, that's not a very subtle reference to Mao's "Little Red Book." Why not just come out of the closet already?
Two more thoughts.
One is that this advice puts "paid" to the notion of "marketplace of ideas."
The second is the name of the book. "Little Blue Book?" C'mon, George, that's not a very subtle reference to Mao's "Little Red Book." Why not just come out of the closet already?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:08 PM (ErMTw)
134
I think the next step should be a progressive boot camp.
Think of the fun they could have, like weeding Michelle's garden, or collecting all of those nasty, nasty plastic grocery bags, etc.
Think of the fun they could have, like weeding Michelle's garden, or collecting all of those nasty, nasty plastic grocery bags, etc.
Posted by: Fritz at July 10, 2012 03:08 PM (02fNe)
135
we don't matter to Lakoff because we are a relatively tiny minority.
True that, but this gives me a segue into noting that I think that the rise of the snarky, politcally active, dirty cons, like the ones who post here, is having an outsized effect. Stuff gets said here, or at Zombie, or JWF, that gets picked up by Fakebook or Twitface and in short order, I'm hearing echoes of it in meatspace from regular folks.
Breitbart is smiling down on us.
True that, but this gives me a segue into noting that I think that the rise of the snarky, politcally active, dirty cons, like the ones who post here, is having an outsized effect. Stuff gets said here, or at Zombie, or JWF, that gets picked up by Fakebook or Twitface and in short order, I'm hearing echoes of it in meatspace from regular folks.
Breitbart is smiling down on us.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:08 PM (evdj2)
136
Progressives utilizing the Lakoff Method won't actually convince such people on an intellectual level (as he specifically forbids intellectual engagement), but they will get the subliminal message that there is simply nothing in the conservative argument to be intellectually engaged at all.
I can see an easy connection to the state of public education. You won't even need a subliminal message if there are no honest intellectuals.
I can see an easy connection to the state of public education. You won't even need a subliminal message if there are no honest intellectuals.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 10, 2012 03:08 PM (9TTOe)
137
I find Lakoff's framing strategy to be interesting insight into a group of people who can passionately argue against the death penalty for serial killers so depraved that their own mothers would pull the switch on them, while simultaneously arguing for infanticide by tortuous dismemberment as the most sacred right of womanhood. It takes a mighty flexible mind to hold that a freethinking adult guilty of heinous murder cannot be put to death, but, innocent children can be sliced and diced for Mama's peace of mind.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at July 10, 2012 03:09 PM (kXoT0)
138
> 118 Also note that lefties want to use the government to shut down Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, yet I've never heard of a conservative who wants to silence the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, or other leftist media outlets.
Posted by: Jay Guevara
As has been often said:
Liberals want Conservatives to Shut Up, Conservatives want Liberals to Keep Talking.
> 118 Also note that lefties want to use the government to shut down Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, yet I've never heard of a conservative who wants to silence the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, or other leftist media outlets.
Posted by: Jay Guevara
As has been often said:
Liberals want Conservatives to Shut Up, Conservatives want Liberals to Keep Talking.
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 10, 2012 03:09 PM (d9tUw)
139
This goes back to a brief convo we were having this morning on the Headline thread. "He who controls the language controls the message," and, "He who writes the definitions controls the language." When you can define that "altruism" equals "redistribution of wealth," "civil rights" equals "getting stuff we want for free," "freedom" equals "dependence on government," etc, etc, you can do a great deal of damage with very little effort. You just imply that your definition is the only definition that's real, and you shout down anyone who would argue.
Lakoff's narrative frames are really just Orwellian newspeak and doublethink reframed (ha-ha!) as legitimate rhetorical tactics. There can be no reasonable argument for both sides of an issue, because that opens the door for that icky gross conservative messaging to sneak in there and trick the idiot audience into believing that the conservative ideology is better than progressive ideology. Therefore any difference in opinion must be cast as a differencebetween good and EEEEEVILLLL. There is no gray area; if you aren't good, you're EEEEEVILLLL. No one wants to be EEEEVILLLL, so the listener forces himself to overlook the cognitive dissonance between what he THINKS is "freedom" and what he THINKS is "dependence," and simply take it as writ that they are one and the same. Sure it doesn't make sense, but at least it means he isn't EEEEEVILLLLL.
But Lakoff thinks he's being original and non-Orwellian. Which is why Lakoff is an idiot.
I assume that if one of the Talking Heads refuses to address the point made by the other, and changes the topic, then that point has been conceded as largely correct.
You have to think in terms of today's soundbyte heavy culture, Ace. What goes unsaid is left unheard, whereas what's spoken is heard over and over and over again. To the left, acknowledgement of the other side's view is detrimental to their own messaging, which they agree is their weak point. To them, messaging is as much about volume (both quantity and loudness) as it is about nuance. Essentially their goal is to shout louder and use prettier words than their conservative counterparts, so that the conservative message doesn't even get heard in the first place.
Lakoff's narrative frames are really just Orwellian newspeak and doublethink reframed (ha-ha!) as legitimate rhetorical tactics. There can be no reasonable argument for both sides of an issue, because that opens the door for that icky gross conservative messaging to sneak in there and trick the idiot audience into believing that the conservative ideology is better than progressive ideology. Therefore any difference in opinion must be cast as a differencebetween good and EEEEEVILLLL. There is no gray area; if you aren't good, you're EEEEEVILLLL. No one wants to be EEEEVILLLL, so the listener forces himself to overlook the cognitive dissonance between what he THINKS is "freedom" and what he THINKS is "dependence," and simply take it as writ that they are one and the same. Sure it doesn't make sense, but at least it means he isn't EEEEEVILLLLL.
But Lakoff thinks he's being original and non-Orwellian. Which is why Lakoff is an idiot.
I assume that if one of the Talking Heads refuses to address the point made by the other, and changes the topic, then that point has been conceded as largely correct.
You have to think in terms of today's soundbyte heavy culture, Ace. What goes unsaid is left unheard, whereas what's spoken is heard over and over and over again. To the left, acknowledgement of the other side's view is detrimental to their own messaging, which they agree is their weak point. To them, messaging is as much about volume (both quantity and loudness) as it is about nuance. Essentially their goal is to shout louder and use prettier words than their conservative counterparts, so that the conservative message doesn't even get heard in the first place.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:09 PM (4df7R)
140
Calling a manatee a thoroughbred will not allow me to ride it to a win in the Kentucky Derby.Posted by: alexthechick
Though it would make for great youtube.
Though it would make for great youtube.
Posted by: Karnac the Mediocre at July 10, 2012 03:09 PM (sClIO)
141
The Leftist's view is a Utopian one, which is, in itself, nuts. But it gives license to ignore anything else as a distraction from Utopia. And the history of Leftism over the last 150 years proves that nothing is beyond destroying if its in the way of achieving the Leftist Utopia.
Posted by: nickless at July 10, 2012 03:09 PM (MMC8r)
142
You're missing the broader meme.... Cognitive Science is based on the precept that Perception is Reality... therefore if you can control peoples perceptions then you control their reality.
Knowing that Language IS programing, he then attempts to reprogram perceptions by controling what language you hear...
Problem is that Reality tends to Bitch Slap folks who ACT on an erroneous Perception of Reality... Like California and Anthro Global Warming... where the Government is destroying the economy, because of a perceived, but untrue, threat...
So, IMO.... this Guys writing breaks the threshold of what I conside EVIL (ie, things which make Race Survival Less likely)
You're missing the broader meme.... Cognitive Science is based on the precept that Perception is Reality... therefore if you can control peoples perceptions then you control their reality.
Knowing that Language IS programing, he then attempts to reprogram perceptions by controling what language you hear...
Problem is that Reality tends to Bitch Slap folks who ACT on an erroneous Perception of Reality... Like California and Anthro Global Warming... where the Government is destroying the economy, because of a perceived, but untrue, threat...
So, IMO.... this Guys writing breaks the threshold of what I conside EVIL (ie, things which make Race Survival Less likely)
Posted by: Romeo13 at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (lZBBB)
143
do not taunt Happy Fun Alex or she may need to demonstrate precisely what strict instruction entails.
There's potential for a side career there, you know.
There's potential for a side career there, you know.
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (GBXon)
144
I would think being raised by a strong authority figure would give me the ability to tell who is worth respecting and who is full of shit. Otherwise I would just fall in love with the first power wielding moron I came across.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at July 10, 2012 03:05 PM (ZhEoC)
This is exactly what happens to girls who are raised without a father. They'll be violent without any concept of restraint against women and boys, but submit like a Jihadists model wife when any violent thug comes along.
I've seen it happen, and it is getting worse, with all the fatherless households (and the households with a man-child for a "father")
This will not end well...
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at July 10, 2012 03:05 PM (ZhEoC)
This is exactly what happens to girls who are raised without a father. They'll be violent without any concept of restraint against women and boys, but submit like a Jihadists model wife when any violent thug comes along.
I've seen it happen, and it is getting worse, with all the fatherless households (and the households with a man-child for a "father")
This will not end well...
Posted by: The Poltical Hat at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (XvHmy)
145
>>>s formulated with an unstated assumption that Lakoff can't actually openly acknowledge, but which is understood by every friendly reader (and which is a major component of the academic Marxist milieu Lakoff hails from): most people are stupid, and stupid people are easily led.. The idea of this "alpha girl bullshit," as you aptly label it, is not to reach or affect YOU. You (and I, and all of us reading and posting here in fact) are not going to be pushed off our conservative beliefs by this sort of intellectual pettifoggery, but that's not the point: we don't matter to Lakoff because we are a relatively tiny minority.
even so, his strategy relies on the "Stupid Voters" bringing a very nuanced, three-bank-shot style of reasoning to the table.
Do "Stupid Voters" do so, or do they read the surface cues?
If they read the surface cues, then this "go below their liminal consciousness" strategy will, alas, go over their heads.
even so, his strategy relies on the "Stupid Voters" bringing a very nuanced, three-bank-shot style of reasoning to the table.
Do "Stupid Voters" do so, or do they read the surface cues?
If they read the surface cues, then this "go below their liminal consciousness" strategy will, alas, go over their heads.
Posted by: ace at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (115KO)
146
re: RNC vs DNC comparison contrast list: since when have Dems ever been altruistic? They are power hungry, micro-managing control freaks from hell, if they believed in hell, or Islamic Jahannam, to be multi-cultural politically correct.
Posted by: adagioforstrings at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (smBk5)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (KZI7g)
148
As the great Hobbes once said:
"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
Posted by: eleven at July 10, 2012 03:11 PM (KXm42)
149
btw, have you noticed we on the Right no longer use the phrase intellectual honesty?
Why? Because we gave up and finally accepted who are ideological opponents truly are.
(And that's what precipitated books such as How To Argue With A Liberal, I suppose)
btw, have you noticed we on the Right no longer use the phrase intellectual honesty?
Why? Because we gave up and finally accepted who are ideological opponents truly are.
(And that's what precipitated books such as How To Argue With A Liberal, I suppose)
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:11 PM (OgiBc)
150
Posted by: Can of Raid at July 10, 2012 03:06 PM (mLZe7)
This is what continues to amaze me, namely, where do the Dem shills think they are going to go when the wheels come off, as they most assuredly will, and how are they going to cope once they are there (wherever there is)? There aren't enough really-well-gated communities inside the beltway, let alone outside the beltway to hold them all.
This is what continues to amaze me, namely, where do the Dem shills think they are going to go when the wheels come off, as they most assuredly will, and how are they going to cope once they are there (wherever there is)? There aren't enough really-well-gated communities inside the beltway, let alone outside the beltway to hold them all.
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 10, 2012 03:11 PM (i3+c5)
151
142, how much of this crap flows from Chomsky
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (WkuV6)
152
"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
Yo pizzle my shizzle.
"Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding."
Yo pizzle my shizzle.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Team Dagny at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (9TTOe)
153
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Relax people. That was a very lucid retort. Hey, I'm a science-guy type person. So this all very scientific.
Relax people. That was a very lucid retort. Hey, I'm a science-guy type person. So this all very scientific.
Posted by: LackOff (Rhymes with...) at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (soZKf)
154
I was raised by left-liberals -- my father became a conservative, my mother did not. My grandparents were conservatives.
I married a leftist, raised by leftists.
I adored my husband, and it was a wonderful marriage until he died.
Oh--by the way--I'm a conservative.
So, uh, George--how did THAT happen?
I was raised by left-liberals -- my father became a conservative, my mother did not. My grandparents were conservatives.
I married a leftist, raised by leftists.
I adored my husband, and it was a wonderful marriage until he died.
Oh--by the way--I'm a conservative.
So, uh, George--how did THAT happen?
Posted by: Molly at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (t495v)
155
Manatee would be a cool name for a thoroughbred though.
Posted by: eleven at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (KXm42)
156
In most apartments I've lived in, I never even knew the names of my neighbors.
The elevator/men's room effect, writ large. Mind your own business, don't look left or right, ignore everyone else.
Urban living, and no voluntary associations like going to church, lead to alienation. They crave some organizing principle for society, so they can feel a part of something. They find it in statism.
Some found it in Guyana. Drink up!
In most apartments I've lived in, I never even knew the names of my neighbors.
The elevator/men's room effect, writ large. Mind your own business, don't look left or right, ignore everyone else.
Urban living, and no voluntary associations like going to church, lead to alienation. They crave some organizing principle for society, so they can feel a part of something. They find it in statism.
Some found it in Guyana. Drink up!
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (ErMTw)
157
I think Zombie is in the bay area, carrying that book marks him (or her) as a right winger there.
-----
FYI - Zombie is a she
I think Zombie is in the bay area, carrying that book marks him (or her) as a right winger there.
-----
FYI - Zombie is a she
Posted by: Toaster at July 10, 2012 03:13 PM (YCJ3T)
158
This explains the pointless "debates" held on the issues on Fox and other outlets that allows righties to come on once in awhile and talk.
Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, etc., all do this. Instead of talking back and forth, they just shout out their own positions louder and louder.
Bob Beckel, Alan Colmes, etc., all do this. Instead of talking back and forth, they just shout out their own positions louder and louder.
Posted by: Boots at July 10, 2012 03:13 PM (neKzn)
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:14 PM (evdj2)
160
157 - Toaster, I thought his or her cover was a mystery
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:14 PM (WkuV6)
161
And a cast-iron stomach. I've seen those Code Pink photos.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:14 PM (evdj2)
162
I would think being raised by a strong authority figure would give me the ability to tell who is worth respecting and who is full of shit.
Ah, there's you're problem. In the leftists' worldview, it's the people who are full of shit (themselves) who are worth respecting, not the clodpated Neanderthals with "sloping foreheads" that conservatives would be likely to respect.
This is why they need to work on their messaging, see? To make you understand that the peiople you think are full of shit are NOT full of shit, and are actually full of unicorn wishes and puppy dog dreams. You RUBE.
Ah, there's you're problem. In the leftists' worldview, it's the people who are full of shit (themselves) who are worth respecting, not the clodpated Neanderthals with "sloping foreheads" that conservatives would be likely to respect.
This is why they need to work on their messaging, see? To make you understand that the peiople you think are full of shit are NOT full of shit, and are actually full of unicorn wishes and puppy dog dreams. You RUBE.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:15 PM (4df7R)
163
More seriously: This thing squares with everything I saw Back In The Day at that ridiculously leftist liberal arts college I no longer acknowledge as an alma mater. They've created, not just their own world view and philosophy, but their own religion and metaphysics, complete with their own savior and their own transubstantiation. Call them out on it and they look at you like you've sprouted antlers or something. Meanwhile they can't understand failure after failure, blaming everyone around them rather than acknowledging that, you know, maybe their first principles are utter bollocks.
Add to that a need to feel "special", which comes from fostering approval from the "right" crowd. Which adds in that envy thing, not just of anyone getting more approval, but anyone who seems "special" by other means...it's a sorry, malignant mess, that I continue to suspect will only be cleared out with flamethrowers.
Add to that a need to feel "special", which comes from fostering approval from the "right" crowd. Which adds in that envy thing, not just of anyone getting more approval, but anyone who seems "special" by other means...it's a sorry, malignant mess, that I continue to suspect will only be cleared out with flamethrowers.
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at July 10, 2012 03:15 PM (GBXon)
164
Whoo-doggie...Jakoff's instruction is to not even listen to the other side???.
Talk about your epistemic closure
Talk about your epistemic closure
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:15 PM (Yhu4q)
165
While Lakoff may rely on stupid voters and they are everywhere, in this election cycle we have a whole group of voters who are involved and pissed off for the first time in their lives. They woke up one day and were unemployed, their savings were gone, they kids they sent to college have moved back home, their home is unsalable, and even with every one pitching into the pot they are having a very hard time with the mortgage, groceries, and utilities. Just show those voters a photo obama playing his 100+ and counting round of golf or one of Moochillini strutting around in another designer outfit complete with gaudy jewelry and $700 dollar shoes.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at July 10, 2012 03:16 PM (kXoT0)
166
And a cast-iron stomach. I've seen those Code Pink photos.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:14 PM (evdj2)
...and the Folsom Street Fair photos. Everything self-eye-gouge inducing short of {CENSORED TO PROTECT YOUR SANITY}
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:14 PM (evdj2)
...and the Folsom Street Fair photos. Everything self-eye-gouge inducing short of {CENSORED TO PROTECT YOUR SANITY}
Posted by: The Poltical Hat at July 10, 2012 03:16 PM (XvHmy)
167
I do have to give the Left credit, though.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are.
I do have to give the Left credit, though.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:17 PM (OgiBc)
168
I love these types of threads but in the back of my mind, there is always just a hint of irony, since we pat ourselves on the back for being able to see through the other's idiocy.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:17 PM (evdj2)
Posted by: Fresh at July 10, 2012 03:17 PM (O7ksG)
Posted by: Brother Cavil presents at July 10, 2012 03:18 PM (GBXon)
171
What I think we in the political attention sphere forget is that the average voter simply does not know the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
If you present an issue to them and give them multiple choice and ask them to match up what D's generally want to do vs R's, they will fail and fail miserably. They likely don't even know whether Ted Kennedy was a Republican or Democrat. Nevermind Harry Reid.
The existence of this bubble is a bigger obstacle to the party that makes sense (us) than anything else.
If you present an issue to them and give them multiple choice and ask them to match up what D's generally want to do vs R's, they will fail and fail miserably. They likely don't even know whether Ted Kennedy was a Republican or Democrat. Nevermind Harry Reid.
The existence of this bubble is a bigger obstacle to the party that makes sense (us) than anything else.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 03:18 PM (85Ks6)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:18 PM (KZI7g)
173
Why Progressives Fail:
They overregulate the economy, and Adam Smith's Pimp Hand slaps them down.
They raise taxes, and Laffer gets them.
They think the only freedom that matters is sexual, and humanity surprises them by caring for more after age 19.
They overregulate the economy, and Adam Smith's Pimp Hand slaps them down.
They raise taxes, and Laffer gets them.
They think the only freedom that matters is sexual, and humanity surprises them by caring for more after age 19.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:19 PM (WkuV6)
174
When Lakoff was titling this book, do you think it ever went through his head, "Hey. You know, Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese during his reign, particularly during the Great Leap Forward. Maybe I shouldn't be using his book, synonomous with Red China, as the titular template for my own rhetorical analysis and style guide."
...
Nah, I didn't think so either.
...
Nah, I didn't think so either.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:19 PM (4df7R)
175
151
142, how much of this crap flows from Chomsky
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (WkuV6)
A lot of it. Chomsky is a straight-up anarcho-syndicalist and the intellectual father of modern linguistics. He helped make it a leftist enterprise dedicated to deconstructing society and he longs for the destruction of the US, and says so openly.
142, how much of this crap flows from Chomsky
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:12 PM (WkuV6)
A lot of it. Chomsky is a straight-up anarcho-syndicalist and the intellectual father of modern linguistics. He helped make it a leftist enterprise dedicated to deconstructing society and he longs for the destruction of the US, and says so openly.
Posted by: joncelli at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (CWlPF)
176
Ignoring the argument, shouting louder, and repeating the same chant ad infinitum would seem to be a bad strategy, but then most of the listeners graduated from public schools.
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (i3+c5)
177
I love these types of threads but in the back of my
mind, there is always just a hint of irony, since we pat ourselves on
the back for being able to see through the other's idiocy.Posted by: toby928
Occupational hazard. It comes with the territory.
But how many examples do we need to know that we understand both sides of the debate better than most lefties?
Any number of us could give a truncated history of the American left. do you think any of your leftie acquaintances could do the same for the America right?
mind, there is always just a hint of irony, since we pat ourselves on
the back for being able to see through the other's idiocy.Posted by: toby928
Occupational hazard. It comes with the territory.
But how many examples do we need to know that we understand both sides of the debate better than most lefties?
Any number of us could give a truncated history of the American left. do you think any of your leftie acquaintances could do the same for the America right?
Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (sClIO)
178
Progressives are stupid and they lie.
That's like saying Cylons are mean and angry. There's more to it than that.
Leftist are many.
And they have a plan.
Progressives are stupid and they lie.
That's like saying Cylons are mean and angry. There's more to it than that.
Leftist are many.
And they have a plan.
Posted by: Battlestar Soothactica at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (OgiBc)
179
Words cause our banner, victorious our day.
Will silence be promised as violence display?
The curse increased we fight the pow'r
And live by it by day.
Our gods awake in thunderous roars,
And guide the leaders hand in paths of glory to the cause.
Words cause our banner, victorious our day.
Will silence be promised as violence display?
The curse increased we fight the pow'r
And live by it by day.
Our gods awake in thunderous roars,
And guide the leaders hand in paths of glory to the cause.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (evdj2)
180
#167 "I do have to give the Left credit, though.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are."
Yup and it was a taxpayer funded study nine times out of ten. Those SOBs know from grant writing.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are."
Yup and it was a taxpayer funded study nine times out of ten. Those SOBs know from grant writing.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (kXoT0)
181
" He seems to be confusing what's actually useful (honestly debating an opponent) with what feels good
(attempting some kind of stealth "shaming" and intellectual ostracism
by running a cheap eigth-grade-alpha-girl game in which he never
acknowledges his opponent's words or thoughts at all)."
Seriously Ace, where have you been? That's pretty much the entirety of the Left's thought, and has been for decades. They're not about what makes the world a better place, they're about what makes them feel good, what lets them feel like they're the "good" people.
That's why they judge people by their political positions ("Bill Clinton is a Feminist President because he supports abortion") rather than their actions ("Bill Clinton is a misogynistic douche bag because he uses women and then throws them away like a a dirty Kleenex"). Actions are hard, positions are easy. Doing things that make the world a better place, or actually arguing with your opponent and honestly addressing their points? That's hard. The requires work, and thought, and judgement.
Taking positions that let you feel good about yourself, w/o any concern for whether or not they actually work? Ignoring your opponents points and just assuming they have nothing valuable to say? That makes like so much easier.
Therefore, to the Left, that is what's "good".
(attempting some kind of stealth "shaming" and intellectual ostracism
by running a cheap eigth-grade-alpha-girl game in which he never
acknowledges his opponent's words or thoughts at all)."
Seriously Ace, where have you been? That's pretty much the entirety of the Left's thought, and has been for decades. They're not about what makes the world a better place, they're about what makes them feel good, what lets them feel like they're the "good" people.
That's why they judge people by their political positions ("Bill Clinton is a Feminist President because he supports abortion") rather than their actions ("Bill Clinton is a misogynistic douche bag because he uses women and then throws them away like a a dirty Kleenex"). Actions are hard, positions are easy. Doing things that make the world a better place, or actually arguing with your opponent and honestly addressing their points? That's hard. The requires work, and thought, and judgement.
Taking positions that let you feel good about yourself, w/o any concern for whether or not they actually work? Ignoring your opponents points and just assuming they have nothing valuable to say? That makes like so much easier.
Therefore, to the Left, that is what's "good".
Posted by: Greg Q at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (4Pleu)
182
Zombie is a hero for slogging through that book.
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (6ClcK)
If I owe Cahrlse Soonnhj one thing, it's being the site that introduced me to a lot of fellow morons *and* Zombie. When he gave her the bum's rush I knew his lunacy was irreversible.
Posted by: sandy burger at July 10, 2012 02:58 PM (6ClcK)
If I owe Cahrlse Soonnhj one thing, it's being the site that introduced me to a lot of fellow morons *and* Zombie. When he gave her the bum's rush I knew his lunacy was irreversible.
Posted by: Captain Hate (dagny solidarity) at July 10, 2012 03:20 PM (exHWU)
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:21 PM (l2max)
184
The problem with progressives is that they believe their own lies. Kind of like a dog who sniffs his own ass and likes it.
The problem with progressives is that they believe their own lies. Kind of like a dog who sniffs his own ass and likes it.
Posted by: Fresh at July 10, 2012 03:21 PM (O7ksG)
185
When Lakoff was titling this book, do you think it ever went through his
head, "Hey. You know, Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of
millions of Chinese during his reign, particularly during the Great Leap
Forward. Maybe I shouldn't be using his book, synonomous with Red
China, as the titular template for my own rhetorical analysis and style
guide."
More like "...responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, that's hot, I hope I'm that successful.."
head, "Hey. You know, Mao was responsible for the deaths of tens of
millions of Chinese during his reign, particularly during the Great Leap
Forward. Maybe I shouldn't be using his book, synonomous with Red
China, as the titular template for my own rhetorical analysis and style
guide."
More like "...responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, that's hot, I hope I'm that successful.."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at July 10, 2012 03:21 PM (ZKzrr)
186
Like Alinksy's book, this is more a reflection and codification of the approach than a textbook that created it, but it is informative. The left is following a relativist/postmodern approach to persuasion, one which avoids logic and fact, that rejects truth and evidence, and replaces all that with emotion and manipulation.
Like Alinsky this can be effective in the short term, but inevitably creates animosity, spite, and anger. The tone they complain about is exactly what they systematically created.
Like Alinsky this can be effective in the short term, but inevitably creates animosity, spite, and anger. The tone they complain about is exactly what they systematically created.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 03:22 PM (r4wIV)
187
>
I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and
infer what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
-----------
May I remind you of the Presidential Debates?
I've yet to see one where the press didn't think the Dem won.
And I've yet to see one where the Democrat squarely answered the point instead of shifting to the topic they want to talk about.
(to be fair, the GOP does it too. But since I'm an admitted partisan I'll say they're only doing so because the Dems started it.)
I have no idea who would look at someone Changing the Topic and
infer what Lakoff urges them to: "Gee, that guy changing the topic is
CLEANING THE OTHER GUY'S CLOCK, because, obviously, his points are so
contemptible they don't even warrant civil response!!!"
-----------
May I remind you of the Presidential Debates?
I've yet to see one where the press didn't think the Dem won.
And I've yet to see one where the Democrat squarely answered the point instead of shifting to the topic they want to talk about.
(to be fair, the GOP does it too. But since I'm an admitted partisan I'll say they're only doing so because the Dems started it.)
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 10, 2012 03:22 PM (kSaUf)
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:22 PM (OgiBc)
189
>>
While Lakoff may rely on stupid voters and they are everywhere,
In a drunken stupor last night, I accidentally landed on O'Reilly's show. The saving grace was that it O'Reilly wasn't onscreen at the time.
His producer Jesse Watters was on a beach somewhere testing the intelligence of the voters.
Through the haze, I heard him ask what looked to be a 20-something girl a couple of questions.
1) Who did the US gain independence from? She said Russia.
2)...and in what year? She guessed1968
While Lakoff may rely on stupid voters and they are everywhere,
In a drunken stupor last night, I accidentally landed on O'Reilly's show. The saving grace was that it O'Reilly wasn't onscreen at the time.
His producer Jesse Watters was on a beach somewhere testing the intelligence of the voters.
Through the haze, I heard him ask what looked to be a 20-something girl a couple of questions.
1) Who did the US gain independence from? She said Russia.
2)...and in what year? She guessed1968
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:23 PM (Yhu4q)
190
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 03:18 PM (85Ks6)
Actually, I read this blog a lot, and I can't always tell the difference between establishment Republicans and Democrats.
The difference between Democrats and Conservatives is stark, but you need to be awake to really see it.
Actually, I read this blog a lot, and I can't always tell the difference between establishment Republicans and Democrats.
The difference between Democrats and Conservatives is stark, but you need to be awake to really see it.
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 10, 2012 03:23 PM (i3+c5)
191
since we pat ourselves on
the back for being able to see through the other's idiocy
I don't see it that way. I test their claims, and they are found wanting. Take their ideas and test them, they fail.
the back for being able to see through the other's idiocy
I don't see it that way. I test their claims, and they are found wanting. Take their ideas and test them, they fail.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:23 PM (WkuV6)
192
167
I do have to give the Left credit, though.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are.
Yes. That IS impressive!
I do have to give the Left credit, though.
They somehow managed to back up every single one of their lies, smears, and vilifications with an scholarly study.
That's thorough, I don't care who you are.
Yes. That IS impressive!
Posted by: Joseph Goebbels at July 10, 2012 03:23 PM (soZKf)
193
The worrisome thing for me is that when argument with facts and logic becomes passe, policy disputes are still resolved, just in the old fashioned way; with murder.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (evdj2)
194
The problem is in the massaging.
Posted by: John Travolta, totally straight at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (/Mla1)
195
189, its ok, she thinks we vote in march
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (WkuV6)
196
Excellent comment. It just got better and better.
Thank you kindly.
Arrrggghhh Chomsky. As a linguist, he had some truly interesting ideas. As a political figure, my feelings can best be summed up via flamethrower.
Look, I love linguistics. I love semantics. I read Wittgenstein for fun for pity's sake. I am also completely aware that these gorgeous little theoretical frameworksare just that, pretty little playgrounds in my head. That is not to say that control of thenarrative is unimportant. Far from it. But when your control is built on a lie, and manipulation of language is a lie, then that control will eventually fall.
Thank you kindly.
Arrrggghhh Chomsky. As a linguist, he had some truly interesting ideas. As a political figure, my feelings can best be summed up via flamethrower.
Look, I love linguistics. I love semantics. I read Wittgenstein for fun for pity's sake. I am also completely aware that these gorgeous little theoretical frameworksare just that, pretty little playgrounds in my head. That is not to say that control of thenarrative is unimportant. Far from it. But when your control is built on a lie, and manipulation of language is a lie, then that control will eventually fall.
Posted by: alexthechick SMOD 2012 at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (VtjlW)
197
The thing is, in today's culture, with people who don't like to read, where people think its gay or boring to think through something, and where frivolity replaces wit, this works. Just shout down your enemy and people figure you won because they don't have the tools or inclination to think it through.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (KZI7g)
199
"Doing things that make the world a better place, or actually arguing with your opponent and honestly addressing their points? That's hard. The requires work, and thought, and judgement."
And you might lose the argument!
Lakoff, if I gather correctly, is essentially employing the W.O.P.R. mentality. "The only way to win is not to play."
I wil concede that it apparently has been working generally for Romney. Per Breitbart, his best responses to Swiss bank account and Bain smears has been non-response, which helps to kill the story.
And you might lose the argument!
Lakoff, if I gather correctly, is essentially employing the W.O.P.R. mentality. "The only way to win is not to play."
I wil concede that it apparently has been working generally for Romney. Per Breitbart, his best responses to Swiss bank account and Bain smears has been non-response, which helps to kill the story.
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:26 PM (l2max)
200
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was about the Walking Dead. I just watched a bit of the Talking Dead and it was pretty entertaining.
Posted by: redd at July 10, 2012 03:26 PM (suLy7)
201
noods
noods
Posted by: soothsayer at July 10, 2012 03:26 PM (OgiBc)
202
re: RNC vs DNC comparison contrast list: since when have Dems ever been altruistic? They are power hungry, micro-managing control freaks from hell, if they believed in hell, or Islamic Jahannam, to be multi-cultural politically correct.
Posted by: adagioforstrings at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (smBk5)
You say: They are power hungry, micro-managing control freaks from hell, if they believed in hell
They say: We are benevolent guides who wish to assist our fellow men and women in making personal and social decisions that will benefit all humanity, without being constrained by outdated, paternalistic social constructs.
Posted by: adagioforstrings at July 10, 2012 03:10 PM (smBk5)
You say: They are power hungry, micro-managing control freaks from hell, if they believed in hell
They say: We are benevolent guides who wish to assist our fellow men and women in making personal and social decisions that will benefit all humanity, without being constrained by outdated, paternalistic social constructs.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:27 PM (4df7R)
203
193, and you wonder why the Conservatives buy guns. Do we fear the hippies, no? We remember Cambodia.
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:27 PM (WkuV6)
204
>>>even so, his strategy relies on the "Stupid Voters" bringing a very nuanced, three-bank-shot style of reasoning to the table.
>>>Do "Stupid Voters" do so, or do they read the surface cues?
>>>If they read the surface cues, then this "go below their liminal consciousness" strategy will, alas, go over their heads.
I think you slightly misunderstand the furrow Lakoff is plowing here, Ace. Others in this thread came close to it when they called his underlying thesis "Orwellian" and spoke about the linguistic/cog-sci belief that perception is reality. Lakoff's strategy bets, in a sense, that most voters are too stupid to even understand the surface cue; that is to say, they aren't logical or attentive enough to political arguments to even notice very often when a liberal politician offers a non-answer to a conservative argument (or changes the subject). Instead, they respond to two things:
1.) "SHINY!" (i.e. if Dems just talk about happy poll-tested talking points crap then that will be enough -- the Stupid Voter forgets about the non-responsiveness and gloms onto his emotional identification with the Dem talking point)
2.) The subliminal thing, where conservative ideas are pushed out the media space by not being engaged or granted respectability.
Understand this: Lakoff comes from an academic Marxist tradition that is obsessed with the mainstream media's loss of complete control over the discourse. This isn't speculation on my part: I know several grey-haired liberal academics, and have been to these sorts of conferences in the past (a life long since past, ah youth...). They fixate on how the rise of Fox News and the internet (Drudge, blogs, etc.) has stripped them of power to shape the discourse, set the frame. What Lakoff is REALLY trying to do, I suspect, is reset America back to the 1940s-1960s era when conservative ideas were, as a rule, treated with disdain by the entire media as a whole. In their mind, THIS is the reason progressive policies and government expansions were so popular successful then (and not, say, because they responded to certain political needs or desires at that specific place and time -- again, it's always the messaging and never the reality with these guys).
>>>Do "Stupid Voters" do so, or do they read the surface cues?
>>>If they read the surface cues, then this "go below their liminal consciousness" strategy will, alas, go over their heads.
I think you slightly misunderstand the furrow Lakoff is plowing here, Ace. Others in this thread came close to it when they called his underlying thesis "Orwellian" and spoke about the linguistic/cog-sci belief that perception is reality. Lakoff's strategy bets, in a sense, that most voters are too stupid to even understand the surface cue; that is to say, they aren't logical or attentive enough to political arguments to even notice very often when a liberal politician offers a non-answer to a conservative argument (or changes the subject). Instead, they respond to two things:
1.) "SHINY!" (i.e. if Dems just talk about happy poll-tested talking points crap then that will be enough -- the Stupid Voter forgets about the non-responsiveness and gloms onto his emotional identification with the Dem talking point)
2.) The subliminal thing, where conservative ideas are pushed out the media space by not being engaged or granted respectability.
Understand this: Lakoff comes from an academic Marxist tradition that is obsessed with the mainstream media's loss of complete control over the discourse. This isn't speculation on my part: I know several grey-haired liberal academics, and have been to these sorts of conferences in the past (a life long since past, ah youth...). They fixate on how the rise of Fox News and the internet (Drudge, blogs, etc.) has stripped them of power to shape the discourse, set the frame. What Lakoff is REALLY trying to do, I suspect, is reset America back to the 1940s-1960s era when conservative ideas were, as a rule, treated with disdain by the entire media as a whole. In their mind, THIS is the reason progressive policies and government expansions were so popular successful then (and not, say, because they responded to certain political needs or desires at that specific place and time -- again, it's always the messaging and never the reality with these guys).
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 10, 2012 03:28 PM (Wr7z4)
205
Jeff B, so Al Gore killed the progressive movement?
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:29 PM (WkuV6)
206
It's amazing how much leftists project. WE want an authority figure? What about the drones making the "O" symbol with their hands? WTF did they want?
It's amazing how much leftists project. WE want an authority figure? What about the drones making the "O" symbol with their hands? WTF did they want?
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 03:29 PM (ErMTw)
207
Its not just apartment dwellers who do not know their neighbors. Look at the housinbg trends fromthe late 60s through the 70s and partially into the 80s.
Houses were being built without front porches which were a staple of Southern living up until then. Air conditioning killed the porch.
Houses were being built without front porches which were a staple of Southern living up until then. Air conditioning killed the porch.
Posted by: Vic at July 10, 2012 03:30 PM (YdQQY)
208
Posted by: Jean at July 10, 2012 03:27 PM (WkuV6)
We haven't forgotten China, the Soviet Union, or East Germany either!
We haven't forgotten China, the Soviet Union, or East Germany either!
Posted by: Hrothgar (CJSC Designated Serf) at July 10, 2012 03:30 PM (i3+c5)
209
He gets it pretty right about the book, its nothing more then a feel good circle-jerk for the leftists out there so they can tell themselves how great they are.
Posted by: Drew in Mo at July 10, 2012 03:31 PM (nEo/i)
210
speaking of lefty pathological epistemological closurer, check out the video at zero hedges' ultimate krugman take down.
The Keynesians still haven't accounted for Japan's two lost decades which had the Japanese do what the current brain trust wants the US to do.
The Keynesians still haven't accounted for Japan's two lost decades which had the Japanese do what the current brain trust wants the US to do.
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 10, 2012 03:32 PM (QxSug)
211
169
Progressives are stupid and they lie. Next.
It's worse than that.
Progressives foster stupidity...so that they can prey upon it.
They essentially seduce people with:
"Come to us....there is no right or wrong....it's okay to make stupid decisions....we will protect you from the consequences of your stupidity."
And it works!
Permissiveness is very seductive.
They denegrate and villify common sense....and 'thinking for yourself'....because you can't have people 'thinking for themselves'.
No!
That would bad.
People might figure out that what they're being fed...and led into...is a lie.
169
Progressives are stupid and they lie. Next.
It's worse than that.
Progressives foster stupidity...so that they can prey upon it.
They essentially seduce people with:
"Come to us....there is no right or wrong....it's okay to make stupid decisions....we will protect you from the consequences of your stupidity."
And it works!
Permissiveness is very seductive.
They denegrate and villify common sense....and 'thinking for yourself'....because you can't have people 'thinking for themselves'.
No!
That would bad.
People might figure out that what they're being fed...and led into...is a lie.
Posted by: wheatie at July 10, 2012 03:32 PM (MbB0O)
212
203
193, and you wonder why the Conservatives buy guns. Do we fear the hippies, no? We remember Cambodia.
Which reminds me, I need some more ammo.
193, and you wonder why the Conservatives buy guns. Do we fear the hippies, no? We remember Cambodia.
Which reminds me, I need some more ammo.
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:32 PM (KZI7g)
213
It takes a mighty flexible mind to hold that a freethinking adult guilty of heinous murder cannot be put to death, but, innocent children can be sliced and diced for Mama's peace of mind.
Alas, I have a Canadian FB friend who is currently on a crusade against circumcision (it's about the baby's right to choose) whowaspreviously gushing about thewoman's right to choose to kill her unborn child. She's a mom of 3, too. I'm wondering if I should point out the inconsistency there. ("They're just aborting the foreskin, it's the mom's body ...")
I used to think liberalism was understandable from a certain point of view. Nowadays I think you must throw away understanding in order to embrace liberalism.
Alas, I have a Canadian FB friend who is currently on a crusade against circumcision (it's about the baby's right to choose) whowaspreviously gushing about thewoman's right to choose to kill her unborn child. She's a mom of 3, too. I'm wondering if I should point out the inconsistency there. ("They're just aborting the foreskin, it's the mom's body ...")
I used to think liberalism was understandable from a certain point of view. Nowadays I think you must throw away understanding in order to embrace liberalism.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at July 10, 2012 03:32 PM (v3pYe)
214
"You know, anyone who is going to accuse me of craving an Authority Figure to Instruct me had better know precisely how to tie those knots. Otherwise, well, do not taunt Happy Fun Alex or she may need to demonstrate precisely what strict instruction entails. "
MOM! ALEX BUNKED THE ENTIRE MALE POPULACE OF THE MORON HORDE!
MOM! ALEX BUNKED THE ENTIRE MALE POPULACE OF THE MORON HORDE!
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:33 PM (l2max)
215
I think Ace and Zombie are giving Lakoff too much credit with this "ignore the conservative approach" to arguing.
Progressives know that they are superior in mind and message, so they really don't ever consider the idea that their conservative opponents actually may have a superior mental process and message. Thus when confronted with any sort of intellectual argument they have no response. It's not a strategy, it's a flaw.
Lakoff is just trying to make a "feature" out of a "flaw."
Progressives know that they are superior in mind and message, so they really don't ever consider the idea that their conservative opponents actually may have a superior mental process and message. Thus when confronted with any sort of intellectual argument they have no response. It's not a strategy, it's a flaw.
Lakoff is just trying to make a "feature" out of a "flaw."
Posted by: Thomas More at July 10, 2012 03:33 PM (e8kgV)
216
1>>93, and you wonder why the Conservatives buy guns. Do we fear the hippies, no? We remember Cambodia.
Norm Chumpsky said the death by murder or starvation of as many as 3 million Cambodians by the leftist Khmer Rouge was a ":noble social experiment".
Norm Chumpsky said the death by murder or starvation of as many as 3 million Cambodians by the leftist Khmer Rouge was a ":noble social experiment".
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:34 PM (Yhu4q)
217
I've yet to see one where the press didn't think the Dem won.
You've yet to see one where the press didn't SAY the Dem won.
Again, it's all about what's heard.
You've yet to see one where the press didn't SAY the Dem won.
Again, it's all about what's heard.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:34 PM (4df7R)
218
The Keynesians still haven't accounted for Japan's two lost decades which had the Japanese do what the current brain trust wants the US to do.
Good point. The Japanese crushed their economy but protected their big banks by artificially keeping real estate values high. Sounds familiar.
Good point. The Japanese crushed their economy but protected their big banks by artificially keeping real estate values high. Sounds familiar.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:35 PM (evdj2)
219
I read Wittgenstein for fun for pity's sake.
O____O
Wow, AtC. And I thought my steady diet of Norton anthologies was punishing.
I always took you for more of a sadist than a masochist, though.
O____O
Wow, AtC. And I thought my steady diet of Norton anthologies was punishing.
I always took you for more of a sadist than a masochist, though.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 10, 2012 03:36 PM (4df7R)
220
Norm Chumpsky said the death by murder or starvation
of as many as 3 million Cambodians by the leftist Khmer Rouge was a
":noble social experiment".
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:34 PM (Yhu4q)
I guess he was talking about how they executed them by putting an axe to their skulls. It saved bullets. It was a successful experiment, unless it was you skull.
of as many as 3 million Cambodians by the leftist Khmer Rouge was a
":noble social experiment".
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:34 PM (Yhu4q)
I guess he was talking about how they executed them by putting an axe to their skulls. It saved bullets. It was a successful experiment, unless it was you skull.
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:37 PM (KZI7g)
221
Epistemic closure of the lefty mind!
Posted by: MTF at July 10, 2012 03:38 PM (B5y+v)
222
Posted by: Jeff B. at July 10, 2012 03:28 PM (Wr7z4)
...and there are those who just can't comprehend when liberals in the leftist media complex are are being subtly biased
...and there are those who just can't comprehend when liberals in the leftist media complex are are being subtly biased
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:40 PM (Yhu4q)
223
The Little Blue Book is being marketed as an “Indispensable Handbook for Democrats” and "Indispensable Handbook for Alienating Your Friends and Family."
Posted by: PJ at July 10, 2012 03:40 PM (DQHjw)
224
"Progressives foster stupidity...so that they can prey upon it. "
And there's the key: they've managed to create a culture and educational setting where this approach works. Yes, if you're a conservative you are someone who loves reason and truth for its own sake, not because it reaches a desired conclusion. You beleive there IS such a thing as right and wrong, that you cannot hold two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time and in the same context.
All of that is alien to most people in the modern western world. What is obviously false and laughable to you seems common sense to them. What is plainly an inability to deal with your arguments is simply them winning because you can't respond to them. They are swayed by emotion and sophistry, and cheer on cue.
For God's sake, President Obama won entirely because of this effect. At least 53% of the population was mesmerized by his slogans and hypnotic motions while making speeches. We laughed and shook our heads and they all started nodding like bobbleheads.
And there's the key: they've managed to create a culture and educational setting where this approach works. Yes, if you're a conservative you are someone who loves reason and truth for its own sake, not because it reaches a desired conclusion. You beleive there IS such a thing as right and wrong, that you cannot hold two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time and in the same context.
All of that is alien to most people in the modern western world. What is obviously false and laughable to you seems common sense to them. What is plainly an inability to deal with your arguments is simply them winning because you can't respond to them. They are swayed by emotion and sophistry, and cheer on cue.
For God's sake, President Obama won entirely because of this effect. At least 53% of the population was mesmerized by his slogans and hypnotic motions while making speeches. We laughed and shook our heads and they all started nodding like bobbleheads.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 03:41 PM (r4wIV)
225
@ConservativeMonster - they hate circumcision because it is
a) a reminder that there are still a LOT of religiously-inclined people in the world. And even some people who aren't necessarily religiously-inclined but still are swayed to do it anyway.
b) a reminder that "blind watchmaker" style evolution is garbage. We've been taking that bit off for how many thousands of years? And it still grows back. Not once has someone been born pre-circumcised. You'd think that, if purely random evolution worked, our bodies would have gotten the hint by now and done away with it.
But hey, we're the ones who like to tell other people what to do allthedamntime.
a) a reminder that there are still a LOT of religiously-inclined people in the world. And even some people who aren't necessarily religiously-inclined but still are swayed to do it anyway.
b) a reminder that "blind watchmaker" style evolution is garbage. We've been taking that bit off for how many thousands of years? And it still grows back. Not once has someone been born pre-circumcised. You'd think that, if purely random evolution worked, our bodies would have gotten the hint by now and done away with it.
But hey, we're the ones who like to tell other people what to do allthedamntime.
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:41 PM (5npD/)
226
Yes, it is a given that progressives are stupid and they lie. They have also undermined the educational system to the point that your children will graduate from high school knowing almost nothing except the following:
Recycling is good so polar bears won't die.
Families are made up of whomsoever gravitates together to call themselves a family.
There is no right and wrong. Morality is flexible.
Math is hard and boring, so just text away on your phone while the teacher is talking.
Science is hard and boring, same technique as dealing with math.
Christians want to kill and enslave everyone with their paternalistic bullshit, but, islam is a religion of peace.
Do overs are infinite and can be had just by whining until you get your way. Or else Mommy and Daddy can sue the school board's ass off.
Recycling is good so polar bears won't die.
Families are made up of whomsoever gravitates together to call themselves a family.
There is no right and wrong. Morality is flexible.
Math is hard and boring, so just text away on your phone while the teacher is talking.
Science is hard and boring, same technique as dealing with math.
Christians want to kill and enslave everyone with their paternalistic bullshit, but, islam is a religion of peace.
Do overs are infinite and can be had just by whining until you get your way. Or else Mommy and Daddy can sue the school board's ass off.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at July 10, 2012 03:42 PM (kXoT0)
227
I don't know if Chumpsky made those comments about the KH, but I was complaining about this guy, Slovoj Žižek, prof of BS at NYU, making similar statements about other mass murders.
Posted by: redd at July 10, 2012 03:43 PM (suLy7)
228
Arrrggghhh Chomsky. As a linguist, he had some truly interesting ideas.
As a political figure, my feelings can best be summed up via
flamethrower.
LOL
Look, I love linguistics. I love semantics. I read Wittgenstein for
fun for pity's sake. I am also completely aware that these gorgeous
little theoretical frameworksare just that, pretty little playgrounds in
my head. That is not to say that control of thenarrative is
unimportant. Far from it. But when your control is built on a lie, and
manipulation of language is a lie, then that control will eventually
fall.
The key word is "eventually". Lots of pain can be caused in the process. As it happens, I love linguistics, too. My main problem is the same people who lecture us that it's alright for certain, um, population segments, to thoroughly bastardize the language because that is "correct" (I'll leave out the examples)... will then turn around and call someone stupid for saying "nucular". There's a disconnect and a prejudice there, and it means that the thought leaders on the subject simply cannot be trusted. Kind of like climate scientists.
As a political figure, my feelings can best be summed up via
flamethrower.
LOL
Look, I love linguistics. I love semantics. I read Wittgenstein for
fun for pity's sake. I am also completely aware that these gorgeous
little theoretical frameworksare just that, pretty little playgrounds in
my head. That is not to say that control of thenarrative is
unimportant. Far from it. But when your control is built on a lie, and
manipulation of language is a lie, then that control will eventually
fall.
The key word is "eventually". Lots of pain can be caused in the process. As it happens, I love linguistics, too. My main problem is the same people who lecture us that it's alright for certain, um, population segments, to thoroughly bastardize the language because that is "correct" (I'll leave out the examples)... will then turn around and call someone stupid for saying "nucular". There's a disconnect and a prejudice there, and it means that the thought leaders on the subject simply cannot be trusted. Kind of like climate scientists.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at July 10, 2012 03:43 PM (85Ks6)
229
"The Little Blue Book is being marketed as an “Indispensable Handbook for Democrats” and "Indispensable Handbook for Alienating Your Friends and Family.""
Is it on Amazon?
Are there reviews?
Can we destroy it in a massive moron horde review seige?
Is it on Amazon?
Are there reviews?
Can we destroy it in a massive moron horde review seige?
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:44 PM (5npD/)
230
Didn't we see this work out when the talking heads had absolutely no idea that there may have been a majority of the SCOTUS that might vote to limit Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce to regulation of interstate commerce? Even after Thomas had penned Lopez a few years before, signalling that the noble lie that everything that Congress wants to regulate is magically transformed into interstate commerce was, in effect, over?
Posted by: Alec Leamas at July 10, 2012 03:44 PM (mg08E)
231
"You know, anyone who is going to accuse me of craving an Authority Figure to Instruct me had better know precisely how to tie those knots. Otherwise, well, do not taunt Happy Fun Alex or she may need to demonstrate precisely what strict instruction entails. "
*swoon*
*swoon*
Posted by: Mikey NTH - making bunnies cry since 1966 at July 10, 2012 03:46 PM (hLRSq)
232
@229Is it on Amazon?
Are there reviews?
Can we destroy it in a massive moron horde review seige?
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:44 PM (5npD/)
Oh, you crafty bastard. Is that you Karl?
Are there reviews?
Can we destroy it in a massive moron horde review seige?
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:44 PM (5npD/)
Oh, you crafty bastard. Is that you Karl?
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at July 10, 2012 03:47 PM (KZI7g)
233
Arrrggghhh Chomsky. As a linguist, he had some truly interesting ideas. As a political figure, my feelings can best be summed up via flamethrower.
Posted by: alexthechick SMOD 2012 at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (VtjlW)
First of all, how original those ideas were is debatable. Not to mention how interesting.
But the more important part is that any potential interest is drowned by the intent.
Chomsky is like a chemical engineer who invents a new efficient fuel and the only thing he can think to do with it is burn down orphanages.
I don't give any credit for the invention part in cases like that.
Posted by: alexthechick SMOD 2012 at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (VtjlW)
First of all, how original those ideas were is debatable. Not to mention how interesting.
But the more important part is that any potential interest is drowned by the intent.
Chomsky is like a chemical engineer who invents a new efficient fuel and the only thing he can think to do with it is burn down orphanages.
I don't give any credit for the invention part in cases like that.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 10, 2012 03:48 PM (bxiXv)
234
Year Zero for the Khmer Rouge was 1975. The number one song in that year was "Love Will Keep Us Together" by the Captain and Tennille.
Was that the problem?
Was that the problem?
Posted by: Albie Damned at July 10, 2012 03:48 PM (Yhu4q)
235
I'll never forgive Chomsky for coining the term "meme." I hate that word, I hate how people use it and I want to punch them right in the boxy eyeglasses.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 03:50 PM (r4wIV)
236
I believe I share this heuristic with 98% of the non-drooling population of the planet.
More like 88-92% of the population. Who break roughly 50-50. So the actual decision comes down to the 8-12% who are swayed by herd instinct.
That's one reason ridicule is weapon #1 - even the 8-12% get ridicule (maybe not the joke, but they can see who's getting laughed at).
More like 88-92% of the population. Who break roughly 50-50. So the actual decision comes down to the 8-12% who are swayed by herd instinct.
That's one reason ridicule is weapon #1 - even the 8-12% get ridicule (maybe not the joke, but they can see who's getting laughed at).
Posted by: motionview at July 10, 2012 03:50 PM (i+DU3)
237
224"Progressives foster stupidity...so that they can prey upon it. "
And there's the key: they've managed to create a culture and educational setting where this approach works.
Exactly so.
And now.....they have created the perfect solution for when their bad ideas fail:
Blame it on the Republicans.
When their lies finally are exposed....and their bad ideas are finally shown to be 'bad ideas'....with disastrous results....
Blame it on the evil Republicans.
It's "their fault that our bad ideas didn't work".
224"Progressives foster stupidity...so that they can prey upon it. "
And there's the key: they've managed to create a culture and educational setting where this approach works.
Exactly so.
And now.....they have created the perfect solution for when their bad ideas fail:
Blame it on the Republicans.
When their lies finally are exposed....and their bad ideas are finally shown to be 'bad ideas'....with disastrous results....
Blame it on the evil Republicans.
It's "their fault that our bad ideas didn't work".
Posted by: wheatie at July 10, 2012 03:51 PM (MbB0O)
238
This makes complete sense. I once had a facebook debate with a guy who was a Lakoff disciple, and it was extremely frustrating. Any time I rebutted his statements with evidence even from sites known not to be "conservative" (e.g., talking points memo, cbs news, etc), he would just ignore it and change the subject. I kept saying stuff like, hey, do you agree with my evidence or call it into question, etc. You know, standard back & forth for any conversation between sentient beings. But no. The point is not to talk to people and engage them, but to beat them down. This is what the Left calls "critical thinking".
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 10, 2012 03:52 PM (Y5I9o)
239
But hey, we're the ones who like to tell other people what to do allthedamntime.
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:41 PM (5npD/)
Agreed. (though to be ornery about semantics, the bit doesn't grow back. It just hasn't been "selected away" by the super magical power of random mutation)
Just had a hilarious yet sad discussion with a "libertarian-socialist" who insisted that "socialism" was all about letting laborers keep what they earned, and that "capitalism" was behind all the bad things in the world. (USSR was "state-capitalism"). He never did tell me how a libertarian-socialist keeps the socialism part from trampling all over the libertarian part.
He did say something about building a society based on consensus rule instead of majority rule. Makes one wonder how exactly one creates that complete consensus ... He got really upset when I point out that the Socialism in "Nazi" is in fact an accurate label, and that I hate socialism for its historically murderous behavior.
Posted by: reason at July 10, 2012 03:41 PM (5npD/)
Agreed. (though to be ornery about semantics, the bit doesn't grow back. It just hasn't been "selected away" by the super magical power of random mutation)
Just had a hilarious yet sad discussion with a "libertarian-socialist" who insisted that "socialism" was all about letting laborers keep what they earned, and that "capitalism" was behind all the bad things in the world. (USSR was "state-capitalism"). He never did tell me how a libertarian-socialist keeps the socialism part from trampling all over the libertarian part.
He did say something about building a society based on consensus rule instead of majority rule. Makes one wonder how exactly one creates that complete consensus ... He got really upset when I point out that the Socialism in "Nazi" is in fact an accurate label, and that I hate socialism for its historically murderous behavior.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at July 10, 2012 03:53 PM (v3pYe)
240
The point is not to talk to people and engage them, but to beat them down. This is what the Left calls "critical thinking".
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 10, 2012 03:52 PM (Y5I9o)
I spent a long time (early in my internet "career") debating liberals. I eventually realized it was pointless, even if you could get them to concede a point of fact, the next day they would deny it again.
You could demolish arguments 1-20 in order and on day 21 they would start with argument 1 again, as if the entire discussion had never happened.
When we say it's a mental illness, we're not just being snarky. We're talking about dissociation from reality - even just the reality of a discussion between two people.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 10, 2012 03:52 PM (Y5I9o)
I spent a long time (early in my internet "career") debating liberals. I eventually realized it was pointless, even if you could get them to concede a point of fact, the next day they would deny it again.
You could demolish arguments 1-20 in order and on day 21 they would start with argument 1 again, as if the entire discussion had never happened.
When we say it's a mental illness, we're not just being snarky. We're talking about dissociation from reality - even just the reality of a discussion between two people.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 10, 2012 03:57 PM (bxiXv)
241
The best part of theLittle Blue Book is that Van Jones gives the game away in his blurb, calling Lakoff "the progressive movement's Jedi master of language."
These aren't the droids you're looking for....
These aren't the droids you're looking for....
Posted by: Lurk Ness Monster at July 10, 2012 03:59 PM (owtTW)
242
I disagree with ace. I think the left has done a good job of making some ideas socially unacceptable in order to shut down the debate before it begins.
For example, the black illegitimacy rate's effect on poverty. We all know that homes without daddies are more likely to be poor, but no one points it out anymore for fear of being shouted down as a racist. This allows the left to substitute their own policies, which have a track record of failure, as the only way to address the problem.
For example, the black illegitimacy rate's effect on poverty. We all know that homes without daddies are more likely to be poor, but no one points it out anymore for fear of being shouted down as a racist. This allows the left to substitute their own policies, which have a track record of failure, as the only way to address the problem.
Posted by: Warden at July 10, 2012 04:01 PM (HzhBE)
243
I'll never forgive Chomsky for coining the term "meme." I hate that word
The word, or the idea? Would mind-worm or thought-germ be better?
The word, or the idea? Would mind-worm or thought-germ be better?
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 04:06 PM (evdj2)
244
"I spent a long time (early in my internet "career") debating liberals. I eventually realized it was pointless, even if you could get them to concede a point of fact, the next day they would deny it again. "
Exactly. Its pointless, they will concede something, know very well that its true, and then later go back to exactly what you repudiated before. This happened to me again and again during the Iraq invasion and rebuilding. I just gave up and started mocking or ignoring them at this point.
Don't answer a fool, lest you be dragged down by his foolishness.
And Warden is right. You can't judge this by how you react as a conservative because we're aberrant and odd in this society. Christians are used to this but its gotten bad enough now that just being rational is enough to set you apart and make you seem weird.
Exactly. Its pointless, they will concede something, know very well that its true, and then later go back to exactly what you repudiated before. This happened to me again and again during the Iraq invasion and rebuilding. I just gave up and started mocking or ignoring them at this point.
Don't answer a fool, lest you be dragged down by his foolishness.
And Warden is right. You can't judge this by how you react as a conservative because we're aberrant and odd in this society. Christians are used to this but its gotten bad enough now that just being rational is enough to set you apart and make you seem weird.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 04:06 PM (r4wIV)
245
I believe I share this heuristic with 98% of the non-drooling population of the planet.
Unfortunately, there are a *lot* of droolers out there.
Unfortunately, there are a *lot* of droolers out there.
Posted by: rosignol at July 10, 2012 04:07 PM (AYFF7)
246
Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: steevy at July 10, 2012 04:08 PM (Xb3hu)
247
Don't answer a fool, lest you be dragged down by his foolishness.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 04:06 PM (r4wIV)
And they're doing it on purpose, it's an alienation tactic. A combination of shunning and passive-aggressive manipulation, trying to make the opposition look unreasonable.
They ignore you, spout talking points, etc., and then if you stop talking to them they accuse you of being unwilling to talk.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2012 04:06 PM (r4wIV)
And they're doing it on purpose, it's an alienation tactic. A combination of shunning and passive-aggressive manipulation, trying to make the opposition look unreasonable.
They ignore you, spout talking points, etc., and then if you stop talking to them they accuse you of being unwilling to talk.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 10, 2012 04:10 PM (bxiXv)
248
"The Little Blue Book is being marketed as an “Indispensable Handbook for Democrats” and "Indispensable Handbook for Alienating Your Friends and Family.""
Or "Rules for Radicals, 2nd ed."
"The Little Blue Book is being marketed as an “Indispensable Handbook for Democrats” and "Indispensable Handbook for Alienating Your Friends and Family.""
Or "Rules for Radicals, 2nd ed."
Posted by: Jay Guevara at July 10, 2012 04:14 PM (ErMTw)
249
What Lakoff is teaching leftist followers--to refuse to ever engage contrary ideas--is very similar to the programming techniques the Moonies used to keep their members on board. Check out the book Crazy for God by an ex-Moonie.
He talks about the techniques they use to put people into a trance state, and then the regimen they implant when followers are in that state. Incredibly crude stuff, like teaching them that doubts about what they are doing are the devil trying to get into their heads and that to keep him out they should literally beat their heads against the ground, and they would do it. Now there's a pretty effective shock collar. Just get the dog to shock himself when he gets to the boundary line.
But don't give Lakoff too much credit for this. Leftists have been doing it for years. They are always looking for how to avoid thinking straight. Indeed, this in my opinion is the actual etiology of leftism. This is where leftism comes from. People who think backwards, looking for how to arrive at preferred conclusions instead of following reason and evidence, become leftists. Some synergy there for sure. Leftist HAVE to think backwards to STAY leftists, because reason and evidence leads directly away from that cesspool at every turn, but I think that the more fundamental cognitive feature is the acceptance of backwards thinking, that it comes naturally to some people.
He talks about the techniques they use to put people into a trance state, and then the regimen they implant when followers are in that state. Incredibly crude stuff, like teaching them that doubts about what they are doing are the devil trying to get into their heads and that to keep him out they should literally beat their heads against the ground, and they would do it. Now there's a pretty effective shock collar. Just get the dog to shock himself when he gets to the boundary line.
But don't give Lakoff too much credit for this. Leftists have been doing it for years. They are always looking for how to avoid thinking straight. Indeed, this in my opinion is the actual etiology of leftism. This is where leftism comes from. People who think backwards, looking for how to arrive at preferred conclusions instead of following reason and evidence, become leftists. Some synergy there for sure. Leftist HAVE to think backwards to STAY leftists, because reason and evidence leads directly away from that cesspool at every turn, but I think that the more fundamental cognitive feature is the acceptance of backwards thinking, that it comes naturally to some people.
Posted by: Alec Rawls at July 10, 2012 04:20 PM (kTTUz)
250
Seems like we are no longer involved with the trolling, psychology or ugly third grader question and answer sessions.
This is progression to the art of fear.
This is progression to the art of fear.
Posted by: Mountains,Landbarons and Serfs at July 10, 2012 04:28 PM (ygeB6)
251
You know, noticing this was exactly step one in my conversion from being a left-wing radical to being a total right wing (social and fiscal) conservative (this was, like 8 or 9 years ago).
I used to get SO frustrated when liberals would not answer arguments from conservatives that I thought they should; I thought, there are good arguments against that right wing point of view! So I went out to try to articulate them really coherently.
And in the process I really started reading leftwing stuff from Center For American Progress and other places and they a. had NO arguments. ZERO. Just a whole bunch of framing and misrepresentation of facts or b. held a position that, could be argued, were so completely divorced on scientific reality or respect for people who disagreed with them that they would not at all be persuasive to the other side.
I used to get SO frustrated when liberals would not answer arguments from conservatives that I thought they should; I thought, there are good arguments against that right wing point of view! So I went out to try to articulate them really coherently.
And in the process I really started reading leftwing stuff from Center For American Progress and other places and they a. had NO arguments. ZERO. Just a whole bunch of framing and misrepresentation of facts or b. held a position that, could be argued, were so completely divorced on scientific reality or respect for people who disagreed with them that they would not at all be persuasive to the other side.
Posted by: elizabethe at July 10, 2012 04:29 PM (mRn8W)
252
193
The worrisome thing for me is that when argument with facts and logic
becomes passe, policy disputes are still resolved, just in the old
fashioned way; with murder.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (evdj2)
THIS!
G. Washingtons saying about 'Winning on the battlefield of ideas', will become 'the battlefield'. We are regressing as a culture because of the poison they spit. Ironic that they call themselves progressive. Makes me ill just thinking about how damn stupid these people are... and how in the hell people.. even some family members 'agree' with Obama and his nihilistic and misanthropic politics.
The worrisome thing for me is that when argument with facts and logic
becomes passe, policy disputes are still resolved, just in the old
fashioned way; with murder.
Posted by: toby928© at July 10, 2012 03:25 PM (evdj2)
THIS!
G. Washingtons saying about 'Winning on the battlefield of ideas', will become 'the battlefield'. We are regressing as a culture because of the poison they spit. Ironic that they call themselves progressive. Makes me ill just thinking about how damn stupid these people are... and how in the hell people.. even some family members 'agree' with Obama and his nihilistic and misanthropic politics.
Posted by: Can of Raid at July 10, 2012 04:38 PM (mLZe7)
253
Good idea to read C. S. Lewis's "That Hideous Strength". Best insight into the depravity of left-wing "thought" ever written.
Posted by: Tim the Enchanter at July 10, 2012 05:16 PM (izA2D)
254
The solution is to call them out on this silly nonsense EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Give them a mocking nickname-say, Lakoff Whackoff and use as in:
"Oh my God, you're a Lakoff Whackoff. Just burping out little talking points.
Don't you have a mind of your own? Or can't you think?
(point at them)
HA-ha-ha-ha!"
The laughing is important because this is so childish.
Give them a mocking nickname-say, Lakoff Whackoff and use as in:
"Oh my God, you're a Lakoff Whackoff. Just burping out little talking points.
Don't you have a mind of your own? Or can't you think?
(point at them)
HA-ha-ha-ha!"
The laughing is important because this is so childish.
Posted by: naturalfake at July 10, 2012 06:02 PM (54vf8)
255
Lakoff's second point is that morality trumps policy, so Libs must ALWAYS turn discussion's of differing approaches to policy to their supposedly holding the moral high ground, which means they are at the same time incessantly pointing out the rancid foul morality of those who don't share their position.
This is why you've noticed when you're arguing with Liberals and they start to lose the argument, they start talking about their fine INTENTIONS and your ROTTEN MOTIVES for being a Conservative.
"I love the poor. You hate the poor."
"I want sick people to get treated. You want them to die."
"I love working families. You hate working families."
"I love minorities. You're a racist quack."
etc. etc. ad naseum.
Lakoff's 3 points keep them from being effective debaters, that true - but what following his 3 points ALSO does is it effectively walls Liberals off from ever being found wrong. This is why many of them can stay on they liberal plantation for years despite mounting evidence that Lib policies don't work - because they have actually mentally conditioned themselves to NEVER discuss it rationally.
I wrote the definitive Conservative response to Lakoff's mental pathology several months ago - and I don't think it's going to far to call it a pathology. I never mention Lakoff by name, but I do spend the article dealing A LOT of how he's taught Liberals to non-think about issues:
http://tinyurl.com/6uatpl8
This is why you've noticed when you're arguing with Liberals and they start to lose the argument, they start talking about their fine INTENTIONS and your ROTTEN MOTIVES for being a Conservative.
"I love the poor. You hate the poor."
"I want sick people to get treated. You want them to die."
"I love working families. You hate working families."
"I love minorities. You're a racist quack."
etc. etc. ad naseum.
Lakoff's 3 points keep them from being effective debaters, that true - but what following his 3 points ALSO does is it effectively walls Liberals off from ever being found wrong. This is why many of them can stay on they liberal plantation for years despite mounting evidence that Lib policies don't work - because they have actually mentally conditioned themselves to NEVER discuss it rationally.
I wrote the definitive Conservative response to Lakoff's mental pathology several months ago - and I don't think it's going to far to call it a pathology. I never mention Lakoff by name, but I do spend the article dealing A LOT of how he's taught Liberals to non-think about issues:
http://tinyurl.com/6uatpl8
Posted by: drawandstrike at July 10, 2012 06:05 PM (uVLJc)
256
Liberals are able to stay on the Liberal plantation for years despite mounting evidence that Liberal policies don't work because..........
they've been conditioned not to CARE that Liberal policies don't work.
For them, it's all about being a part of the SPECIAL GROUP that cares more than everybody else. Results don't matter, so conversations about the latest Lib policy screwups never go anywhere because they keep talking about their fine intentions and mean and rotten the people are that keep criticizing them.
When the full tally is made of how many tax dollars got wasted on this green tech insanity by this present administration, you will find you can't have a rational discussion with Liberals like Stephen Chu about this.
They will at all times flash their 'morally superior to you' badge and talk about how fine their intentions were while you're just some evil Conservative that wants to rape the planet.
they've been conditioned not to CARE that Liberal policies don't work.
For them, it's all about being a part of the SPECIAL GROUP that cares more than everybody else. Results don't matter, so conversations about the latest Lib policy screwups never go anywhere because they keep talking about their fine intentions and mean and rotten the people are that keep criticizing them.
When the full tally is made of how many tax dollars got wasted on this green tech insanity by this present administration, you will find you can't have a rational discussion with Liberals like Stephen Chu about this.
They will at all times flash their 'morally superior to you' badge and talk about how fine their intentions were while you're just some evil Conservative that wants to rape the planet.
Posted by: drawandstrike at July 10, 2012 06:14 PM (uVLJc)
257
Per #255 - "Lakoff's second point is that morality trumps policy"
A great backgrounder to Zombie's review is a book on political morality by Jonathan Haidt called "Righteous Mind." It is the most intellectually stimulating book I've read in a decade.
He has questioned almost a quarter a million people and finds that there are six aspects of morality. Liberals only uses two, maybe three moral aspects (caring for others and freedom from tyranny) while conservatives have to balance all six. Obviously, conservatives have a more complex worldview, one that has ensured our species' survival.
This is a basis for that truism - "Democrats think the GOP is the evil party while the GOP thinks the Dems are the stupid party." Liberals don't want to engage the complexities of reality since they can only morally comprehend their two concerns of care and freedom.
Lakoff is, in part, telling his co-believers that they can only stay morally pure and engage in moral behavior by ignoring or drowning out conversative arguments.
A great backgrounder to Zombie's review is a book on political morality by Jonathan Haidt called "Righteous Mind." It is the most intellectually stimulating book I've read in a decade.
He has questioned almost a quarter a million people and finds that there are six aspects of morality. Liberals only uses two, maybe three moral aspects (caring for others and freedom from tyranny) while conservatives have to balance all six. Obviously, conservatives have a more complex worldview, one that has ensured our species' survival.
This is a basis for that truism - "Democrats think the GOP is the evil party while the GOP thinks the Dems are the stupid party." Liberals don't want to engage the complexities of reality since they can only morally comprehend their two concerns of care and freedom.
Lakoff is, in part, telling his co-believers that they can only stay morally pure and engage in moral behavior by ignoring or drowning out conversative arguments.
Posted by: Whitehall at July 10, 2012 07:24 PM (FmPSC)
258
They fixate on how the rise of Fox News and the internet (Drudge, blogs, etc.) has stripped them of power to shape the discourse, set the frame. What Lakoff is REALLY trying to do, I suspect, is reset America back to the 1940s-1960s era when conservative ideas were, as a rule, treated with disdain by the entire media as a whole
I'm way late to this, but this attempt to roll back the clock is like the old ghost dancing cults that sprang up among the American Natives at the end of the 19th century when they realized the continent was lost, and that their hunting-and-gathering way of life was pretty much gone and would never return.
Lakoff knows (or intuits) that the progressives are losing. And like the ghost dancers, he's trying to arm his people by getting them to pretend real hard otherwise.
I'm way late to this, but this attempt to roll back the clock is like the old ghost dancing cults that sprang up among the American Natives at the end of the 19th century when they realized the continent was lost, and that their hunting-and-gathering way of life was pretty much gone and would never return.
Lakoff knows (or intuits) that the progressives are losing. And like the ghost dancers, he's trying to arm his people by getting them to pretend real hard otherwise.
Posted by: OregonMuse at July 10, 2012 08:13 PM (xm1A1)
259
Of course liberalism is a cult. Duh.
Posted by: JohnJ at July 10, 2012 08:49 PM (Tt6ky)
260
And it should be mentioned that liberals feel that their way of life is under imminent threat. Maybe DHS should label them "terrorists".
Posted by: JohnJ at July 10, 2012 08:51 PM (Tt6ky)
261
I could only handle the first few paragraghs Ace and I want a refund on MY TIME. This guy is the 'smart one' the libs use for guidence? And we still lose arguments with these idiots?Fuck ME!
Posted by: Rich K at July 11, 2012 12:20 AM (X4l3T)
262
The hypnosis idea is right on.
This is PRECISELY what cults do, and I do mean PRECISELY.
So it should come as no surprise that this is what the left has been reduced to.
This is PRECISELY what cults do, and I do mean PRECISELY.
So it should come as no surprise that this is what the left has been reduced to.
Posted by: Lee Reynolds at July 11, 2012 04:03 AM (rJMw2)
263
@255 Read your article. Good stuff. Everything I've wanted to say but didn't have the writing skills to compose.
Posted by: Jay at July 11, 2012 05:01 AM (8AJaX)
264
Ace- Your post has a Master's degree in there somewhere. I always enjoy reading your stuff. Exposing manipulative liberal lies makes my day!
Posted by: jeanne burke at July 11, 2012 10:03 AM (lcHwJ)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0378 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0145 seconds, 272 records returned.
Page size 172 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat