The failure of the right wing to read by 1kiki

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The failure of the right wing to read

POSTED BY: 1KIKI
UPDATED: Monday, May 13, 2013 06:21
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1470
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, May 12, 2013 12:27 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

It's something I've consistently noted.

The right-wing - as exemplified by the right-wingers on this board - consistently fails to address what is actually posted here.

Instead they address things which no one posts:

the supposed liberal worship of Obama
the supposed support of illegal abortion doctors
the supposed interest in taking away all guns, at the same time arguing a contradictory argument
the supposed focus on assault weapons to the exclusion of everything else
the supposed demand to have women elevated higher than men under the law
the supposed hatred of America, coupled with
the supposed support of radical Islam
the supposed blind and unsupported liberal faith in AGW
the supposed hatred of US troops
etc

This is in addition to an inability to offer specifics on any of their own positions. When challenged to come up with supporting facts, and specific concrete mechanisms as to how their talking points will result in the outcomes they claim, they either bail or come up with yet more talking points.

All this would be irrelevant if it was an occasional thing. But I've been keeping track recently and have found not even one single right-wing post which contained both facts and logical argument.

What am I to conclude from this total failure of thought on the part of the right-wing?

At first I considered being slightly complemented - perhaps the liberals have invaded the heads of the right-wing so thoroughly that the right-wingers literally can't stop thinking about liberals, and as a result spend all their thoughts arguing with the liberal voices in their heads. But that would only be true if the right-wingers were addressing actual liberal arguments - and clearly they are not.

The better explanation is that the right-wingers have been propagandized by their own leaders into focusing on the liberal boogey-man - the cartoon drawn for them that is to be the focus of their ire.

Now, if the right-wingers engaged in a simple examination of even one actual liberal argument, it would reveal to them that the cartoons they believe in are fictitious. But since no repetition of the request for actual quotes of actual arguments has ever been answered, it's obvious that they either can't read the arguments or can't understand them.

In addition, requests for supporting relevant facts go completely unanswered. Either no facts are brought forth at all, or opinions are presented as facts, or facts are posted that have nothing to do with the points they are trying to make.

The same is true of the request for concrete mechanisms by which their talking points would result in the outcomes they claim. Not one single logical argument has been put forth by the right-wing. There are multiple possible explanations for this - they have failed to read their own talking points, and are content to parrot them indefinitely; they have read the talking points, but failed to understand then; they have read and accepted the talking points but failed to think actively about them.

This complete and total failure to address actual arguments, to incorporate facts, and to present logical arguments - and oppositely the exclusive dependence on irrelevant talking points as a substitute for relevant response, facts and logical argument - leads me to hypothesize that the right-wing is so thoroughly propagandized by their leaders that they literally cannot read the written words in front of them.

But, I'm going to continue to observe them, and see if that conclusion sticks. Or maybe someone else will come up with a better alternative working hypothesis.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:46 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

'S'all those big words. Hard to figure out how to pronounce 'em, so it's hard if you hafta move yer lips while reading.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:39 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the posts very long. I'll go though a few of the examples with specifics:

the supposed liberal worship of Obama
Someone - I don't remember if it was little rappy or perhaps his little pal jongsie - posted that exact comment a few days ago. I looked for it and didn't find it in the welter of spew they post, but it was something bitter to the effect that since we worship Obama we will never admit he did/ does anything wrong. Perhaps you haven't seem the amount of criticism we have posted regarding Obama. Perhaps you haven't seen that many of us voted for him once - but not twice. Perhaps you don't know that some of us actually protested against his policies, and participate in campaigns to get them reversed. In that case, I'm telling you now - there is no Obama worship here, a fact we've amply demonstrated, and for which there is ample evidence on this board.
But despite every fact available to them, the right-wingers here persist in thinking of us as Obama worshipers.

the supposed support of illegal abortion doctors
Now this is an even more tenuous assumption than the one above, as it depends on a series of assumptions which are wrong.
It equates support of Planned Parenthood with support of Dr Gosnell who was performing illegal late term abortions.
Now, it assumes that Planned Parenthood performs late-term abortions - it does not. And it assumes that legal late-term abortions are performed for the same reasons that illegal late-terms abortions are - they are not. It further assumes that the illegal procedures performed are the same as the legal ones - they are not. And it assumes that b/c people think there are some valid reasons to perform late term abortions, that all late-term abortions are considered acceptable - they are not.
For all of these reasons, which were outlined in the thread, support of PP does NOT equate to support of Gosnell. And yet, the arguments keep making that point, in complete disregard for everything that was posted.

the supposed interest in taking away all guns, at the same time arguing a contradictory argument
the supposed focus on assault weapons to the exclusion of everything else
This is a particular favorite of the old man who calls himself geezer. I won't go into the details in this one - suffice to say that when challenged to quote ANY poster on this board who made either of those arguments, he failed, and bailed.

There is more than enough actual argument made by actual people to understand what their positions are. And there is specific argument denying that those false positions attributed to them are valid.

So what are we to make of people who continue to misrepresent the positions of others? And what are we to make of people like you who seem to be willing to excuse that dishonesty by assuming that they - that's you - can read people's minds and elucidate what they really mean by what they don't post, or by what they post that contradicts what you want to think?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 3:51 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by DOMOKUN1:
1KIKI -

You present the list of points that righties bring up that lefties never bother to mention - just because they are not specifically mentioned by the lefties, does that automatically make them not issues of the left? So righties shouldn't bring them up?

Bullshit. None of that list is actually what liberals think or do, just what the rightie nutjobs around here project on us because rightie nutjobs can't imagine being anything but slaves to authority.

I note that you talk real comfortably about what's happening around here for a noob. What do you really know about this place, if you're as new as your sign-up date?

Or aren't you?

Quote:
What do you define as liberal arguments or cornerstones of the ideology?

Yeah, I know you and the hand in your sock can't grok this, but there is no cornerstone.

We think what we want, not what we're told by some faux news channel, nor do we ever say any of the crap that RWED RWAs try to project on us. Which is kind of the point of the thread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:07 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by kuku:

the supposed liberal worship of Obama
the supposed support of illegal abortion doctors
the supposed interest in taking away all guns, at the same time arguing a contradictory argument
the supposed focus on assault weapons to the exclusion of everything else
the supposed demand to have women elevated higher than men under the law
the supposed hatred of America, coupled with
the supposed support of radical Islam
the supposed blind and unsupported liberal faith in AGW
the supposed hatred of US troops

So close. Just delete "supposed" and insert "UNDENIABLE" and then you will have defined liberals better than Michael Moore Food or Richie Maddow ever could.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:22 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So close. Just delete "supposed" and insert "UNDENIABLE" and then you will have defined liberals better than Michael Moore Food or Richie Maddow ever could.

This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

is EXACTLY what we're talking about. Righties on this board plug their ears to what liberal thinkers are in fact saying. If the RWAs had to actually consider the reality of liberal arguments, rather than projecting the messed up RWA ideology on every damned thing, folks like Rap and Jong and the new sock would have to deal with how very very wrong they are.

BTW Jongs - get back on the meds. You've been on a downward turn lately.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 5:41 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Mal4, you can't deny the undeniable truths about liberals and expect to be taken seriously. You and your "kind", as Kuku writes, deserve only the mocking condescension and sickening zealotry you all so eagerly dole out at every opportunity. It's clear that this place has gone back to what is was six or seven years ago, an all-out bash-fest against Conservatives. I mean... "The Failure of the right wing to read"? What the fuck is that except obsessive and antagonistic zealotry? Should I make a thread called "The failure of the the Left wing to read"? So be it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 6:40 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

It's clear that this place has gone back to what is was six or seven years ago, an all-out bash-fest against Conservatives. I mean...

And it never occurred to you to wonder what conservatives have done to deserve "bashing"?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:16 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
So close. Just delete "supposed" and insert "UNDENIABLE" and then you will have defined liberals better than Michael Moore Food or Richie Maddow ever could.

This ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

is EXACTLY what we're talking about. Righties on this board plug their ears to what liberal thinkers are in fact saying. If the RWAs had to actually consider the reality of liberal arguments, rather than projecting the messed up RWA ideology on every damned thing, folks like Rap and Jong and the new sock would have to deal with how very very wrong they are.

BTW Jongs - get back on the meds. You've been on a downward turn lately.

I wonder where Riverlove is these days.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 7:44 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Good thread, ikiki. I find myself constantly frustrated by these kinds of misrepresentations of liberal views. It hinders conversation, debate, finding common ground, because you just get a group of people that continually insist your views are something that they are not.

And JOngstraw's response above just demonstrate that.

I think of it is about the lack of capacity to understand gradients of position.

ie If you support some gun restrictions, this must mean you support a blanket ban.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So close. Just delete "supposed" and insert "UNDENIABLE" and then you will have defined liberals better than Michael Moore Food or Richie Maddow ever could.

Jongsstraw will never be able to come up with any examples, of course.

All of the RWAs on this board share a common flaw: they can't engage reality. They have no interest in reality. Reality is scary... it's much more comforting to stick one's head up someone else's ass. It's warm and dark there, and that scary vision of a nuanced and complicated world "out there" is obliterated.

So, if they can't engage reality, how can they even recognize an alternate opinion, much less understand what it means? The answer is... they can't. It's like expecting a pig to fly. The only thing that will change their responses, if anything, is cold hard reality... not a view of reality (reality is to be blotted out at all costs) but actual consequences of foolish choices based on false assumptions. And even that is doubtful; some people just NEVER hit bottom, yanno? So let them wallow in their own strange alternate reality. Sooner or later, it'll catch up with them, whether they recognize it or not.

BTW Kiki, since you seem to have earned Jongsstraw's emnity, you must be doing something right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 12, 2013 8:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Jongstraw made a Herculean effort to reverse his normal MO and engage in genuine conversation. But I think it proved too much for him to keep up. He's been teetering for the last couple of months between silly irrelevancy and venomous snark. Perhaps he will regain his composure at some point in the future.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 13, 2013 2:23 AM

KWICKO

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 13, 2013 2:56 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
the supposed interest in taking away all guns, at the same time arguing a contradictory argument
the supposed focus on assault weapons to the exclusion of everything else

This is a particular favorite of the old man who calls himself geezer.

Cite?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 13, 2013 6:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The better explanation is that the right-wingers have been propagandized by their own leaders into focusing on the liberal boogey-man - the cartoon drawn for them that is to be the focus of their ire.
.....
leads me to hypothesize that the right-wing is so thoroughly propagandized by their leaders that they literally cannot read the written words in front of them.

In a nutshell.

Just for fun, how about some reality?

"What do you define as liberal arguments"

"liberal worship of Obama"

In fact, virtually every "liberal" here has expressed, repeatedly, the fact that they supported Obama because McCAIN/ROMNEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY. We've also repeatedly expressed dislike, distrust and downright anger at Obama, and nobody here has EVER expressed, that I can recall, unilateral support of him. My opinion of liberal argument: "Obama, tho' flawed, was the better choice".

"support of illegal abortion doctors"

I haven't actually seen anyone claim that. What I do see is remarks about how "killing babies" is fine with us, etc. Our actual stance, as I see it, is that "women should have the right to choose, WITHIN REASON, what they do with their bodies, whether they are physically, financially or otherwise able to carry a child to term and/or raise it, and that the government shouldn't be forcing women to bear children."

I haven't read the Gosnell thread, nor will I. For me it's a clear cut issue; what he did was horrendous, the laws the right keeps passing will increase the proliferation of people like him. Given, as everyone knows by now because I'll keep mentioning it, my mother was a victim of someone like him (NOT late-term, but a back-alley abortion doctor when abortion was illegal in this country), I feel personally about it, I have no desire to read about it happening NOW, sixty years after my mother suffered from one like him.

"interest in taking away all guns, at the same time arguing a contradictory argument"

That's been covered; the fact is that any argument about regulation of gun ownership is almost immediately met with "You want to take away our guns", and goes no further. There have been exceptions, but they are few and far between.

"focus on assault weapons to the exclusion of everything else"

Another one I actually don't see very often. What I see is remarks about "scary-looking" weapons being the reason we are against them. The view of the left has been clearly stated here; NOT that we want to take away anyone's guns, but that we are in favor of moderate measures to limit the proliferation of guns to anyone and everyone who wants to buy them, something which IS quite real today, at gun shows being the prime example.

"demand to have women elevated higher than men under the law"

Eh, I only know of a couple who do this. Mostly I see the argument that women don't NEED any further steps to gain equality with men, they already have it (and from a few, "they've got MORE rights than men"). In my opinion, "We still have a long ways to go toward equality, and we should continue working toward it."

"hatred of America"

I've seen a lot less of this, except from a few sources. That one rolls right off my shoulders; I grew up during "America: Love it or leave it". It's BECAUSE I love my country that I stay active in trying to improve it. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to be an American, certainly, and that's usually because I've lived overseas and have perhaps a better understanding of some of the very valid reasons why people from other countries dislike us. And because, in my opinion, I don't blind myself to our shortcomings. My stance: "America is an amazing country; we have to keep working to make it more so, and to keep it from being less so."

"support of radical Islam"

This I see more as "you want to ignore radical Islam", from Rap continuously, because we don't harp on it consistently, don't express our hatred enough I guess, or don't think Islam is the Most Evil Religion In The World and they're all out to get us. My idea of the liberal stance: "Islamic terrorism is dangerous, but not an all-consuming danger within this country and it's not our place to rule the world."

"blind and unsupported liberal faith in AGW"

Yeah, well, we've been around that horn enough lately; the idea that we consider it a "religion" when we consistently post facts, figures and data, complete with cites, makes that one amusing. The liberal stance is pretty clear: "Man-made climate change exists; it is a clear and present danger to the planet; we need to deal with it."

"hatred of US troops"

Yeah, that one gets me, but it's mostly just from Wulf, and we know how screwed up he is. That one comes probably closest to pissing me off (until I consider the source), because I was in my late teens when we still had the draft, had friends who never came back from 'Nam, had friends who came back changed from 'Nam, and care deeply about our troops, to the point of actually donating monthly to their support. My opinion is that "I support our troops when they abide by the tenants of the Constitution; I do not support many of the policies our government makes our troops enforce."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 13, 2013 6:21 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Cite?

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=54517&mid=93250
1#932501

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE