Trying to understand liberal mindset...

[GratefulCitizen]

I surfed through some liberal blogs, trying to understand their thinking.

I don't know what to think.

In this popular one:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/

I couldn't find a coherent argument for or against anything.
(I do like the "Patriotism" bald eagle graphic, though. It'll make a good screensaver .)


An example of their rational discourse:
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/...e-name-calling

In summation, the response they recommend is: nuh-uh, cuz yur a [insert insult].


Here's more of their recommended techniques (scroll down to bullets):
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/re...torespond/view

Some of what I liked:
*******************
Show respect.
Avoid a shouting match.
Never whine or complain.
Never act like a victim.
You should convey passionate conviction without losing control.
Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry(hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitest.
-Don't give them any opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways.
Never answer a question framed from your opponent's point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames.
A useful thing to do is use rhetorical questions.
Tell a story.
*******************

I still don't know what to think, but...
if laughter makes you live longer, they just guaranteed my 100th birthday.

[Ret10Echo]

G.C. Thanks for the chuckle..

Oh..and they forgot...

"I know you are so what am I?"

[Books]

The first site seemed more than a bit juvenile. The latter though. . .

Moving beyond "He said, She said" bickering seems like a good thing. . . unless the desire for civility is merely professed, not actually desired.

Most of the of the recommendations seemed to mirror the stuff we were coached on for debate class. I remember one teacher telling me that the difference between a liberal debater and a conservative one is that the liberal debater would acknowledge a good point in the conservative's argument (worthy when trying for dialectic understanding; spineless when trying to win an arguement) whereas the conservative would attack with renewed purpose until he or she won.

Perhaps now the Dems are finally starting to understand how to argue?

Doubt it.

[Para]

I heard a statement once that could possible sum it all up. "If you are not a liberal by the time you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are 30, you have no brain." (Note: I have never been a liberal.) But beyond that, I think that liberal live in a fantasy land much like communists do. Everything they believe and profess is nice in theory, but lacking in practical application.

[HOLLiS]

Problem I have is with labels. They often seem like creating a straw-man. Normally I would hope we can see each other as people first. I know that the narcissistic sociopath does not even think in those terms, but for the rest of us, there is a shared common humanity. I don't know what the solution is. I do know that is it is not a black and white issue.

I have seen members of both sides, conservative and liberal choose to be self serving.

If we are to counter the Liberal mindset, I would think the easiest path to win them over, to understand their position, and to not push them away.

Now for the narcissistic sociopath, dig a big hole and bury them there.

I guess I prefer honesty, a honest liberal is better than a dishonest conservative. Ignorance can be cured by education. I don't know what can be done when a person lacks character.

[longrange1947]

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

...............Ignorance can be cured by education. ............

Yes, but stupid is forever and that is the problem with many, not all, libs.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by HOLLiS

If we are to counter the Liberal mindset, I would think the easiest path to win them over, to understand their position, and to not push them away.

Ignorance can be cured by education. I don't know what can be done when a person lacks character.

Well...problem is some (not all) of the liberals I've met are some of the most closed minded individuals. I am confident and strong in my beliefs but have generally always been able to listen to another's point of view. However, when attempting to further explore a subject such as politics or the GWOT it becomes painfully obvious the other party cares not for civil or open discussion.


True, although "book smarts" does not always equate to common sense... A good friend has often said he'd declare common sense dead, but he can't find a body.

[REMFlt]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames.

Values is a word popularized in the 1990s because morals implies religion. Personally I can't stand that liberal jargon. Values allows a person to say "My dedication to civil liberties leads me to believe adults can have relationships with children." Morals tell any right minded person that child molesters deserve to be castrated and then shot.
just my .02

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Books

Most of the of the recommendations seemed to mirror the stuff we were coached on for debate class. I remember one teacher telling me that the difference between a liberal debater and a conservative one is that the liberal debater would acknowledge a good point in the conservative's argument (worthy when trying for dialectic understanding; spineless when trying to win an arguement) whereas the conservative would attack with renewed purpose until he or she won.

Perhaps now the Dems are finally starting to understand how to argue?

Doubt it.

I doubt it, too.

Was your debate class coached by a liberal?
I'll pick apart some of their "debate" techniques.
The fallacies will be referenced between asterisk lines.


*************************
 Progressive values are the best of traditional American values. Stand up for your values with dignity and strength. You are a true patriot because of your values.

 Remember that right-wing ideologues have convinced half of the country that the strict father family model, which is bad enough for raising children, should govern our national morality and politics. This is the model that the best in American values has defeated over and over again in the course of our history—from the emancipation of the slaves to women ’ s suffrage, Social Security and Medicare, civil rights and voting rights acts, and Brown v. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Each time we have unified our country more behind our finest traditional values.

 Remember that everybody has both strict and nurturant models, either actively or passively, perhaps active in different parts of their lives. Your job is to activate for politics the nurturant, progressive values already there (perhaps only passively) in your interlocutors.

 Show respect to the conservatives you are responding to. No one will listen to you if you don ’ t accord them respect. Listen to them. You may disagree strongly with everything that is being said, but you should know what is being said. Be sincere. Avoid cheap shots. What if they don ’ t show you respect? Two wrongs don ’ t make a right. Turn the other cheek and show respect anyway. That takes character and dignity. Show character and dignity.

 Avoid a shouting match. Remember that the radical right requires a culture war, and shouting is the discourse form of that culture war. Civil discourse is the discourse form of nurturant morality. You win a victory when the discourse turns civil. They win when they get you to shout.

 What if you have moral outrage? You should have moral outrage. But you can display it with controlled passion. If you lose control, they win.

 Distinguish between ordinary conservatives and nasty ideologues. Most conservatives are personally nice people, and you want to bring out their niceness and their sense of neighborliness and hospitality.

 Be calm. Calmness is a sign that you know what you are talking about.

 Be good-humored. A good-natured sense of humor shows you are comfortable with yourself.

 Hold your ground. Always be on the offense. Never go on defense. Never whine or complain. Never act like a victim. Never plead. Avoid the language of weakness, for example, rising intonations on statements. Your voice should be steady. Your body and voice should show optimism. You should convey passionate conviction without losing control.

 Conservatives have parodied liberals as weak, angry (hence not in control of their emotions), weak-minded, softhearted, unpatriotic, uninformed, and elitist. Don ’ t give them any opportunities to stereotype you in any of these ways. Expect these stereotypes, and deal with them when they come up.

 By the way you conduct yourself, show strength, calmness, and control; an ability to reason; a sense of realism; love of country; a command of the basic facts; and a sense of being an equal, not a superior. At the very least you want your audience to think of you with respect, as someone they may disagree with but who they have to take seriously. In many situations this is the best you can hope for. You have to recognize those situations and realize that a draw with dignity is a victory in the game of being taken seriously.

 Many conversations are ongoing. In an ongoing conversation, your job is to establish a position of respect and dignity, and then keep it.

 Don ’ t expect to convert staunch conservatives.
*************************


This long list basicially advocates the fallacy: "style over substance".
Style Over Substance: Presenting something in an attractive way makes it more right.

<personal comment: the humor in this is the fact that they actually have to instruct there own to act like a rational adults>


-snip-

[GratefulCitizen]

*********************
 You can make considerable progress with biconceptuals, those who use both models but in different parts of their life. They are your best audience. Your job is to capture territory of the mind. With biconceptuals your goal is to find out, if you can by probing, just which parts of their life they are nurturant about. For example, ask who they care about the most, what responsibilities they feel they have to those they care about, and how they carry out those responsibilities. This should activate their nurturant models as much as possible. Then, while the nurturant model is active for them, try linking it to politics. For example, if they are nurturant at home but strict in business, talk about the home and family and how they relate to political issues. Example: Real family values mean that your parents, as they age, don ’ t have to sell their home or mortgage their future to pay for health care or the medications they need.
************************
The "nuturant model" argument is an advocation for, and this is a demonstration of, the logical fallacy: "appeal to pity" (Ad Misericordiam)
Appeal to Pity: Gain agreement by sympathy or empathy.

This is also an assertion.
Assertion: I say that X is true. Therefore X is true.


*************************
 Avoid the usual mistakes. Remember, don ’ t just negate the other person ’ s claims; reframe. The facts unframed will not set you free. You cannot win just by stating the true facts and showing that they contradict your opponent ’ s claims. Frames trump facts. His frames will stay and the facts will bounce off. Always reframe.
*************************
This is ignoring the question.
(Which is a preparation for "begging the question".)


*************************
 If you remember nothing else about framing, remember this: Once your frame is accepted into the discourse, everything you say is justcommon sense.* Why? Because that ’ s what common sense is: reasoning within a commonplace, accepted frame.
*************************
This blatantly advocates the logical fallacy: "begging the question" (Petitio Principii)
Begging the Question: The truth of A is assumed within the original premise about A. Thus A is not really proven by the argument.


****************
Never answer a question framed from your opponent ’ s point of view. Always reframe the question to fit your values and your frames. This may make you uncomfortable, since normal discourse styles require you to directly answer questions posed. That is a trap. Practice changing frames.
****************
This is ignoring the question.
This is begging the question.


****************
Be sincere. Use frames you really believe in, based on values you really hold.
A useful thing to do is to use rhetorical questions: *Wouldn ’ t it be better if...? Such a question should be chosen to presuppose your frame. Example:* Wouldn ’ t it be better if we had a president who went to war with a plan to secure the peace?
****************
This defines begging the question.


****************
Stay away from set-ups. Fox News shows and other rabidly conservative shows try to put you in an impossible situation, where a conservative host sets the frame and insists on it, where you don ’ t control the floor, can ’ t present your case, and are not accorded enough respect to be taken seriously. If the game is fixed, don ’ t play.
****************
This is ignoring the question.


****************
Tell a story. Find stories where your frame is built into the story. Build up a stock of effective stories.
****************
This is begging the question.
This advocates the fallacy: "repetition" (Ad Nauseum)
Repitition: The more X is repeated, the more true it becomes.


****************
Always start with values, preferably values all Americans share like security, prosperity, opportunity, freedom, and so on. Pick the values most relevant to the frame you want to shift to. Try to win the argument at the values level. Pick a frame where your position exemplifies a value everyone holds — like fairness. Example: Suppose someone argues against a form of universal health care. If people don ’ t have health care, he argues, it ’ s their own fault. They ’ re not working hard enough or not managing their money properly. We shouldn ’ t have to pay for their lack of initiative or their financial mismanagement. Frame shift: Most of the forty million people who can ’ t afford health care work full-time at essential jobs that cannot pay enough to get them health care. Yet these working people support the lifestyles of the top three-quarters of our population. Some forty million people have to do those hard jobs — or you don ’ t have your lifestyle. America promises a decent standard of living in return for hard work. These workers have earned their health care by doing essential jobs to support the economy. There is money in the economy to pay them. Tax credits are the easiest mechanism. Their health care would be covered by having the top 2 percent pay the same taxes they used to pay. It ’ s only fair that the wealthy pay for their own lifestyles, and that people who provide those lifestyles get paid fairly for it.
**********************
This uses the fallacies: "appeal to pity", and "appeal to fear".
Appeal to fear: X is presented. It causes fear. Therefore Y (which has some relationship to X) is true.

This is begging the question. The middle is filled with a few steps to diguise it.


**********************
Be prepared. You should be able to recognize the basic frames thatconservatives use, and you should prepare frames to shift to. The Rockridge Institute Web site will post examples from time to time. Example: Your opponent says, We should get rid of taxes. People know how to spend their money better than the government. Reframe: “ The government has made very wise investments with taxpayer money. Our interstate highway system, for example. You couldn ’ t build a highway with your tax refund. The government built them. Or the Internet, paid for by taxpayer investment. You could not make your own Internet. Most of our scientific advances have been made through funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health — great government investments of taxpayer money. No matter how wisely you spent your own money, you ’ d never get those scientific and medical breakthroughs. And how far would you get hiring your own army with your tax refund?
***********************
This sets up the fallacy: "false dilemma".
False dilemma: Either A or B is true. If A is true, B is therefore false. C is not an option.
They restate the position as "We should get rid of taxes." (Implying all tax revenue).

This is the fallacy: "missing the point" (Ignoratio Elenchi)
Missing the point: A set of statements leads to conclusion X. Yet conclusion Y is drawn.
The implicit conclusion is that taxes cannot be lowered.


************************
Use wedge issues, cases where your opponent will violate some belief he holds no matter what he says. Example: Suppose he brings up abortion. Raise the issue of military rape treatment. Women soldiers who are raped (by our own soldiers, in Iraq, or on military bases) and who subsequently get pregnant presently cannot end their pregnancies in a military hospital, because abortions are not permitted there. A Military Rape Treatment Act would allow our raped women soldiers to be treated in military hospitals to end their rape induced pregnancies. The wedge: If he agrees, he sanctions abortion, in government-supported facilities no less, where doctors would have to be trained and facilities provided for terminating pregnancies. If he disagrees, he dishonors our women soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for him. To the women it is like being raped twice — once by a criminal soldier and once by a self- righteous conservative.
******************************
This is advocating the fallacy: "personal inconsistency" (Ad Hominem Tu Quoque).
Personal Inconsistency: Person A makes a claim. Person B asserts that person A's previous claims or actions are inconsistent with person A's claim. Therefore person A's claim is false.

<personal comment: the whole paragraph is telling of the attitude this liberal must have towards the military >


-snip-

[GratefulCitizen]

******************************
An opponent may be disingenuous if his real goal isn ’ t what he says his goal is. Politely point out the real goal, then reframe. Example: Suppose he starts touting smaller government. Point out that conservatives don ’ t really want smaller government. They don ’ t want to eliminate the military, or the FBI, or the Treasury and Commerce Departments, or the nine-tenths of the courts that support corporate law. It is big government that they like. What they really want to do away with is social programs — programs that invest in people, to help people to help themselves. Such a position contradicts the values the country was founded on — the idea of a community where people pull together to help each other. From John Winthrop on, that is what our nation has stood for.
******************************
This is an assertion.


******************************
Your opponent may use language that means the opposite of what hesays, called Orwellian language. Realize that he is weak on this
Use language that accurately describes what he ’ s talking about
frame the discussion your way. Example: Suppose he cites the “ Healthy Forests Initiative ” as a balanced approach to the environment. Point out that it should be called “ No Tree Left" because it permits and promotes clear-cutting, which is destructive to forests and other living things in the forest habitat. Use the name to point out that the public likes forests, doesn ’ t want them clear-cut, and that the use of the phony name shows weakness on the issue. Most people want to preserve the grandeur of America, not destroy it.
*******************************
This is the fallacy: "appeal to ridicule" (Ad Absurdum).
Appeal to Ridicule: X is amusing, absurd. Therefore it is false.

This is the fallacy: "appeal to common belief" (Ad Populum)
Appeal to Common Belief: If something is believed to be true by a lot of people then it must be true.

This is a false dilemma.


*******************************
Remember once more that our goal is to unite our country behind our values, the best of traditional American values. Right-wing ideologues need to divide our country via a nasty cultural civil war.
They need discord and shouting and name-calling and put-downs. We win with civil discourse and respectful cooperative conversation. Why? Because it is an instance of the nurturant model at the level communication, and our job is to evoke and maintain the nurturant model.
*******************************
Appeal to pity.


*******************************
Those are a lot of guidelines. But there are only four really important ones:
 Show respect (Style Over Substance)
 Respond by reframing (Ignoring the question/Begging the question)
 Think and talk at the level of values (Appeal to pity/Appeal to fear)
 Say what you believe (Wishful Thinking)
*******************************
My assesments in red.

Wishful Thinking:
1. I want something to be true and factual.
2. Therefore it is true and factual.



Well, there are some of their logical fallacies.


I think I may finally understand a little more about liberals.

All of the fallacies listed are driven by the one big fallacy:

WISHFUL THINKING.


credit: http://changingminds.org/

Originally Posted by Para

I heard a statement once that could possible sum it all up. "If you are not a liberal by the time you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative by the time you are 30, you have no brain." (Note: I have never been a liberal.) But beyond that, I think that liberal live in a fantasy land much like communists do. Everything they believe and profess is nice in theory, but lacking in practical application.

The quote belongs to Winston Churchill, I believe.

[HQ6]

Originally Posted by Greenhat

The quote belongs to Winston Churchill, I believe.

LOL... he [ETA - he = Para not Churchill ] heard that one from me. The original version was from François Guizot who said, "Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head."

Churchill never actually said it - http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...cfm?pageid=112

As for liberals, I have been battling one all semester. They like to be filled with righteous indignation and moral superiority. In reality they only wish to help those within the US boarders (but they want the conservatives to pay for it) and are some of the most closed minded bigots I have met.

[Moving Target]

I've come to know a few reasonable liberals (relatively speaking), but they still bluster and spit whenever progress in Iraq is brought up

What bugs me most about the liberal stance on Iraq is their desire to leave. If we screwed up to the extent that they believe, wouldn't it be our duty to stay until our mistakes were fixed? Is national integrity even an issue to these people?

[jatx]

During graduate school, I was very fortunate to become friends with former US Senator Alan Simpson. When debating liberals, his advice was always to remember that they have only four persuasive tools: emotion, fear, guilt and racism. Sunday morning, watch the talking head shows and you'll see that it's true. There are variations, but most can be stopped in their tracks by pointing out which tactic is being used and countering with facts in a calm, self-assured manner.