What is wrong with you people?
 

Ok, admittedly I've been out-of-the-loop for a while, since I've been working in China the past 2.5 years. But seriously, I cannot believe what I see on CNN.

McCain and Obama in a dead-heat? Really? I mean, I tried to be understanding for a while, but as we get farther from the conventions I'd think people would wake up and realize that electing a Republican isn't going to change anything... no matter what McCain says.

When I talk to the other Americans living over here it seems that it's about 95% for Obama, 5% for McCain. That seems more reasonable to me. I can get my head around that.

But 50/50?

Seriously. I'm at a loss. I don't know HOW that's even possible. Hell, in 2000 I was a conservative republican, FOX News watcher. I don't know WHAT more proof people would need to switch their affiliation. Ok... I can understand CEO's may want to vote Republican. But what about the other 99.9% of the population?

Explain it to me. I don't understand it. If anyone can give me an insight I'd be in your debt. At least I won't feel like I'm living in Wonderland anymore.

I actually haven't met anyone for McCain. That's less than 5 on this end. Anyone know anyone voting for McCain?

This extremely difficult, yet extremely rewarding essay appeared over the weekend.

A somewhat easier-to-digest opinion from Penn Jillette, in a short video: The Party of Hate. Republicans are the party of fear, Democrats are the party of hate. Hard to disagree after seeing your thread title. Let me ask you this: if you weren't addressing a group of people -- let's say you were addressing your friend's Aunt, who has said to you that she'll vote for McCain. Would you come back at her with What is wrong with you?

Our opinion is completely right and everything else is completely wrong. That's the problem.

I don't know anybody supporting Obama. I guess we all gravitate to groups of similarly minded individuals

Maybe it's a new spin on "don't ask, don't tell." :D

Riddil. Yeah, good question. I'm at a loss myself.

The party of hate. Are you kidding me? How about the party of "what the eff have you been doing to our country?"

I do not know specifically of anyone for McCain, aside from the folks who would rather roll over and die than see a black man as president.

'Cause Bush has done a bang-up job. Let's have MORE!

It's a sad sad sad sad sad sad sad world. :headshake

Hmmm, I'm pretty much in the middle. Completely undecided. I know many people for McCain and some for Obama.

Its common that people of like interests gravitate towards each other. When I was young and smoked weed - everyone I knew did so too. Now that I am older I can't think of many IRL that I know of who does. Or similarly, doctors hang out with doctors; lawyers with lawyers and teachers with teachers. Its normal.

And I'm the lone liberal in the defense industry. I feel like such a sell-out.
(Still voting for the big O though!)

Personally I think it's a case of battered wife syndrome. You get used to getting beaten up and your too affraid to leave because you don't know what else to do.
And if you DO happen to get out of that relationship, you usually wind up finding someone who will treat you as bad or worse than the last one.

New Slogan: "Vote for Obama. You don't have to get beaten up every day!"

Nice parallel, Sheldon.

Vote for Obama: Wouldn't you rather have a black guy than a black eye?

I found my peer group - finally! - when I found the Cellar.
Sad that it's international in a way, because it doesn't easily translate to face to face meetings. But far more interesting in all other ways.

I'm always quite shocked when people fulminate about the internet separating people. I think they mean families with teenagers though, who prefer spending time in their bedrooms chatting online than with their parents. But they'll grow out of it - I spent hours alone in my (shared) room reading, until the cold in our unheated house drove me downstairs to the living room. Now I love spending time with Mum & Dad.

Back to the OT - UT has a point. I've been quite shocked at the vitriol displayed by both sides online (not so much here, but in various blogs & articles I've surfed). But then I am not confrontational and rarely say anything online that I wouldn't say in person and yet even I have been known to rant a little before realising my views aren't shared.

I see it happen all over though. Check out any YouTube clip of Al Murray, Pub Landlord for some really nasty international exchanges or pretty much any football (soccer) clips montage for all Brit slanging matches.

If people don't share your viewpoint it is very easy to see them as "other". The great thing about here is - for example - UG likes poetry and chilli, TW occasional zings off some amazing one liners, Radar has a beautiful daughter etc etc. We come together more than we drift apart I think.

Nicely said, SG.

OK, take note. *I'm* voting for McCain, unless something really odd happens between now and then to change my mind.

I don't see Obama's prescription for America as being the right one. McCain isn't much better but if he can energize the Congress, where the REAL power is (and if the electorate can elect enough similar leaders), we might get something useful done.

But everyone is worried about electing the figurehead and no one is even able to tell who is running for the House and Senate in their district. 90% is voters don't even know what district they live in.

Around here, it's hard for me to poll people and discuss rationally because El Paso is a bastion of Democrats in a Republic of Republicans. Also half of the residents speak no English.

My wife isn't good enough to translate anything not written down. Pity, I'd love to talk to my crazy neighbor about their Mastiff breaking loose, freaking out my dogs and chasing cars and people down the street.

Usually when I hear the phrase "you people" it is followed by "are ruining my life and starving my children."

I'd just like to reiterate that UT's link was a really excellent and insightful article.

Some opinions are left.

How I respond to individuals varies by individual. I try to show respect to all, and the response you illustrate isn't very respectful. I almost certainly would not address her that way, unless I were provoked severely. Highly unlikely and unlikely to be useful in any way.

When I oversimplify the positions of the parties to equal levels, this is what it is reduced to: Reps==intolerant.

Pretty good summary, unfortunately.

The label elitist is earned as much as close minded is. The labels are practically useless. Why is the author bothering to use them? Did he just call me broad minded, color blind and smart? Is he suggesting that those elitist Dems are name calling? Is that a good thing? Is he calling names? Is that ok?

So now "moral equivalence" is a virtue?

One critical cultural distinction that is absent in this analysis is that our very foundation as a country "exalts" the individual. "All men are created equal..." Remember that? And that ours is a country of laws. And that there's a bona fide process for creating those laws, obeying those laws and enforcing those laws and penalizing those who don't obey them.

I believe our country's respect for the rule of law is the very essence of what distinguishes us from every other society.

And another thing, Yeah? So what? What weight does the author assign to "heartfelt-edness"? SonofV has some very heartfelt visions of how our family should be run, at least a heartfelt as his parent's visions. And they're often in direct conflict with each other. But that has no real bearing on their validity. Why not? Because they're bad visions. All play, no work, all dessert, no vegetables, etc etc. I exaggerate for effect. My point is that it is a false premise that how intensely one feels is a reliable basis for deciding the worth of an idea.
Author Jonathan Haidt argues for rational thought to rule our decisions. He then lays the very cornerstone of the foundation of his arguments in the sand of his passions. I am wary of structures built on sand.

I struggled considerably with the feeling that I was on the hook for his accusations of Democrat's shortcomings, especially that *I* don't get it. But I'm over it. I'm not bitter. Really.

The end of his article was quite good. The addition of three channels comprising his definition of morality, ingroup/loyalty, purity/sanctity, authority/respect was understandable and reasonable. I"m not certain of my level of agreement yet, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

In the meantime, the difficulties in ascribing motivations to groups as large and diverse and contradictory and amorphous as political parties aside, I'm more concerned with understanding smaller collections of politically tainted people, namely candidates. That's a lot easier for me to process with confidence.

Thanks UT for the informative article.

Gya, I'm sad I missed this thread for so long. Unfortunately cellar access from China is limited to the rare times when Tor is running well. (Well = equivalent to 14.4 modem)

Some great comments in this thread. More insightful than I could have hoped for, actually.

To be honest, my thread topic was intentionally over-the-top. It was really just trolling (I'm sorry!). The post was motivated from an emotional outburst after I was struck dumb after I saw Palin's mind-numbing interview with Charlie Gibson.

Not only would I not say, "What is wrong with you?" to my Republican Aunt, I wouldn't say it to anyone face-to-face. I consider difference of opinion perfectly valid. Hell, in my youth I was a bible-thumper. Who am I to disparage anyone? And even though I may be voting for Obama, the reality is I'm much more of a Libertarian, so there's plenty with his platform that I disagree with. (Not to mention I despise the current Dem Congress).

Funny thing is that from 2000 I've been a strong McCain supporter. I think he's sharp, and more concerned with doing the right thing, than toeing the political line.

BUT

He has changed in recent years. Although even considering his changes, I think he's a sharp enough man that he would be a good president. Finally I won't have to feel embarrassed to be a citizen of a country that has a dunce in the top office.

For me, even though I like(d) McCain, he's carrying a lot of baggage: shifting stance from his own legacy, his move to the right, his choice of Palin....

It's for that reason I think... eh... maybe "change" is the right message. I'm willing to give Obama a chance. I figure he can't be worse than the current prez, and maybe with a Dem in office the worthless congress can actually get to work.

George Sr had the same problem. George Sr knew who Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc were. But to get elected, he had to hire them anyway. Thank god for people like Margaret Thatcher who, in Denver, restored George Sr's backbone that had been removed by the above extremists.

McCain will have the same problem. Palin clearly identifies who is now running the McCain campaign.

The Charlie Gibson interview made it obvious that Palin is another extremist front man as George Jr was. George Jr was given an 18 month indoctrination mostly by Rice and Wolfovitz so he could be that front man. Palin will be put through the same program by Republican extremists who are slowly perverting the McCain campaign with their agenda.

George Sr knew Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were not trustworthy. He stated his disappointment of them in his son's administration. But a Republican can no longer get elected without entertaining those rightwing party brokers.

What is wrong with people? Why do so many twenty year olds smoke cigarettes when any logical person knows better? Same process that addicts twenty year olds also issues talking points every morning to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. That same program was used by Hitler to become popular. Democrats have no equivalent propaganda machine. Disparage the intelligencia and bourgeois - then tell the brownshirts how to think. Brownshirts never ask why or demand numbers. They believe only the first thing they are told. They are easily manipulated by feelings - not by facts and numbers. These people can even be told to smoke cigarettes to be healthy - and will believe it.

It makes no logical sense. But so many people only believe based upon how they feel. The right wing extremists are very good at playing this game. Christian Colleges even teach how to use body language and smiles to influence people - do not even teach calculus or other basic sciences. Cuomo could not understand why so many would vote him as Governor of NY. The majority reason? They liked him. Nothing more. A majority is that ignorant as to be told Saddam had WMDs - then blindly believe it only because it was the first thing told. Most people can be manipulated only by their feelings. The fact that Palin promoted George Jr agendas in Charlie Gibson's interview gets ignored by those who 'feel'.

This majority do not make decisions based upon facts. I don't understand how one can be so naive. But they feel - therefore they know. Concepts taught in junior high school science - how to know a fact - are completely forgotten.

One fact remains completely undeniable from the Charlie Gibson (ABC News) interview. The George Jr people are inside and running the McCain campaign as also indicated by how McCain has changed. McCain had no choice. McCain even quoted George Jr directly when reading a speech written by his new staff. "Our economy is sound" as AIG was going down. Only George Jr was also saying that.

Where did George Jr go as a category five hurricane was destroying New Orleans? He went to McCain's birthday party. Curious? Not as curious as how so many know. They only entertain their 'feelings' which is why Rush Limbaugh, et al are so important in telling them how to think.

I finally got to the essay. Very good stuff, bears a re-read.

I should probably re-read it. I've forgotten already the details of what it said. Something about Republicans just make decisions differently and political candidates would be wise to understand that.

the author says there are five channels through which the electorate communicates and that the democrats focus on two and largely ignore ("just don't get it") the others.

Aside from the "tools" suggested with the essay, I was more interested in the central conceit, which I understood as the idea that belief structures are shaped by community. It applies not only to the obvious camps of politics and religion, but really every facet of life. Why is it that Europeans abhor American-football, but are soccer fanatics? And yanks love the NFL, but nod-off during a footy match? It's entirely because everyone is so damn passionate about their "home" sport.

Community influence trumps all logic arguments weighing pros and cons of any two different structures. We've proven to both Dems and Reps that actual policy is almost meaningless. Remember that survey that actually reported the "best match" to most Americans ideals were actually Kucinich and R. Paul? Didn't seem to help them very much.

The effect of community so important that I think it casts doubt on every argument anyone uses for or against either party, and their appeal to the greater population. I don't care how intensely my European friends explain the magic of soccer to me... I won't give a lick. (Likewise, my efforts to pass on the passion for NA football have been entirely in vain). In my mind it's not an emotional connection... I can see the common-sense logic clearly indicating NA football is superior. But finally I have to admit that it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with community preference and rearing. I actually WANT to enjoy soccer, it'd be more fun to hang out in a pub on soccer-night. But I don't think it'll ever happen, my predisposition is to ingrained.

Sadly, it's the same for our two-party system in the US. It has nothing to do with real merit, simply either parties ability to appeal to that "community" feeling in their constituents. It's why Republicans have adopted the "small town values" mantra. What does it mean? They don't even know, but everyone from small towns FEEL as if they're a part of something bigger, even if the Republican policies contradict the ideals of small-town life.

So, I took a long roundabout way to get back here, but I also wanted to address tw's post. Personally I feel you're being a bit extremist in your views, but ok, I can understand where your ideas come from. But I also think it's a mistake to assume that it's only evil Republicans who can be so vile. Democrats can be just as conniving.

Even though I hated Bill Clinton when he was on office, in retrospect I have to admit overall he did a fine job. I think Hillary would also be a good leader (except I think she has one big flaw... just like Bush Jr. it seems she has unerring faith in her vision of the future, dissenters be damned). Even though I think Hillary would be leagues better than most, I simply could never bring myself to vote for her. Throughout the primaries she showed willingness to do or say anything to give herself an advantage. I can't argue it's not effective, but because I don't believe it's ethical I can't support her.

So even though I couldn't bring myself to vote for her... I have to respect her. She was a master showman, just like her husband. The theme of politics today is to do and say whatever is necessary to get to the leadership position.... McCain with Falwell, Clinton in a black church speaking "southern" slang, etc. It's that same "showman" idea that makes W. Bush dance like a twit every time he attends a photo-op where there's some band. People think it's cute... and being cute is better than being judged on your failed policies.

That's why I say they're all rotten. Get rid of the lot of 'em, and lets elect a bunch of goats to lead the country.

I wonder if there will ever be a day when someone will invent a government which actually focuses more on qualifications and acountability, and less on showmanship and "cuteness".

And as a side-note... the reality is that I do have a unique view into exactly why at least some people still support Bush, and will vote Republican in November no matter who is on the ticket.

Remember a few posts back I said that in my youth I was a bible-thumper? That's rarely something you choose for yourself, it's normally an inherited trait. My parents are still very much card-carrying members of the bible-thumping-squad. That said, here are a few recent gems from my Dad...

"How can everyone call Bush an idiot? The man graduated near the top of his class from Harvard" (I wouldn't be surprised if he also believes McCain was a flying ace, who graduated from West Point)

"I'm so tired of people talking about 'evolution' all the time. Just look around, do you really think we all came from monkeys?" (Funny, the Catholic church is now more liberal than my father...)

"I'm spending $50 a week in gas! I hate these Dems that are forcing the price of gas to go skyrocket because they won't let us drill for oil right off our own coast!" (As the financial crisis and the watering down of the dollar started hammering the price of oil)

When my wife and I mentioned we were considering having a baby, but are having doubts because it would take time away from her career, he offered his encouragement by saying, "You can do it! No problem! Just look at Palin, she has 5 kids and was running an entire state! You can have 1 baby and still run your own business, no problem!"

I've given up trying to rebut. Just like I think soccer is boring, he thinks Dems are devils and Reps are angels from above. "Son, just promise me you won't vote for Obama. The man wants raise my taxes and put everyone on welfare!" (Said by a man earning less than $50K a year)

Bless the man, I love him. But he is another victim of society who would much rather hear someone encourage his "small town values", rather than listen to someone outline an actual policy plan. It'd only confuse him. He'd always choose... small town values! "That's not confusing at all! That's exactly what I believe!"

I think I know your dad... and all his buddies. ;)

I didn't realize Riddil was my brother...

I know people who are fervently in both camps and trying to sway me to their candidate. I get bombarded with emails from both sides daily. I am leaning towards Obama, but I am not positive at this point.

Birds of a feather....

Time and time again you remind us you are not sure at this point. Oh what may I do to persuade you over to my side? ;)

I need better choices in candidates - Is it too late for that?

Sorry, too late.

And you're a bit slow on the uptake, are you not? :)

Just thought of my new user title.

I'd rather say that I'm "focused" on the issue.

Focus? Bof us?

If you're so focused wouldn't you have an inkling towards which side of the fence you will eventually fall? Are you waiting for a sign from God? :right:

Just sayin' I've seen about 27 posts about how undecided you are...methinks thou doth undecideth too much. How many times do you need to reiterate how torn you are? How about just let us know when you've made a decision?

You got it. BTW - there is an ignore feature that comes in handy if my posts bother you so. I'm sure you wouldn't be the first to ignore me.

Not everyone plays team politics.

That's easy!

Don't let the fence chafe your ass, or at least stop telling everyone. Yawn.

Thanks - I'm pickin up what your puttin down.


You got it.

Hey classic, who ya votin' for? :haha:

Depends on whether he learns to like the ass-chafing.

Careful Zen or I'll send Sheldon over and he'll chafe your ass, butt good.

Owie! Splinters!

not that kind of woodie...

Well, Zen's profile says his occupation is "Intellectual Prostitute" so i could also fuck with his mind. :-)

Fixed that for both of us.

Mind you ... it'll cost ya!

Jonathan Haidt TED Talk

I just found this today, I'm so glad!

To anyone who enjoyed the guy's essay, here he takes 19 minutes to beautifully lay out his thinking on moral psychology and how it relates to liberal vs. conservative.

If you watch this 19 minutes you will never ask "What is wrong with you people" again. You'll know what's wrong -- and you'll be amazed to find that you are wrong, too, and that every culture in earth's history is proof of it.

Try it, you'll like it!

That was great, UT. Thanks!

It gives a LOT of food for thought. And then it ends....

Putting it all into practice, though, thats the tough part.

That's great if you take it a little further, and utilize an organic business model. That's the easy part...the practicalities. The difference is, some people already knew everything he was saying. And some people will never listen, he's "too different".

The proof will be right in the pudding on this one. And on and on it goes.

Christopher Hitchens I can understand but Christopher Buckley endorsing Obama!

WTMF!

So if you're still voting for McCain you are either stupid or a racist. And since racism is a form of stupidity I guess that narrows it down.

Not as much as it will cost you. ;-)

This was good. Sarah Silverman.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/dafdd1aa7b

McCain prefers to defeat tyranny and eliminate problems that tyranny poses the entire world, and not just America. Obama is lukewarm on tyranny removal, offering rather halfheartedly a strategy that is essentially the same one the Republican Administration has been succeeding with. His party, however, so heedlessly plunges after defeat abroad that they've forgotten that if they helm the Oval Office, defeat in the war accrues to them. And then there'll be two more terms of Republican Presidency to fix what the Dems dropped and broke.

Lame goes to the Dems, long-range strategic vision to the Reps. Remember the Dems have not smashed a tyranny since Roosevelt and Truman. Since then, they have been as firm as wet noodles.

McCain is literate about economics. Obama is relying on the electorate's economic illiteracy to win -- bread-and-circuses, modernized. A vote for Obama and his crowd is a clear demonstration that you don't know shit about economics, and don't want to learn either. I ask you, how do you live with such a mental deficiency? I sure couldn't.

Lame goes to the Democrats, who intend to tax us back into prosperity. Say what?! McCain's idea of what to do is traditional Republican: less tax burden and get out of business' wealth generation. Supply-side economics, to recall a Reagan program. Again, clear longrange strategy goes to the Republicans.

Foreign policy: Look, just kill antidemocracies. McCain is willing, but Obama wants foreigners to groan under continued oppression, poverty, evil, and misgovernance, automatically generating and continuing foreign-policy quandaries. You know, just like Radar wants. The biggest difference between the two is Obama doesn't know he's going for that, and Radar simply doesn't care. Neither of 'em has got it right. Oppressed peoples have this funny habit of making war on us Americans, wholesale or retail.

The lame and the stupid will vote for Obama. I will vote for McCain, and in your face, all of you.

Thats a great policy - Kill anyone who's views differ from your own.
Wha Whaa WHAAAATTTTTT??????

Thats just plain stupid UG - And quite honestly, I find it offensive. Some, if not most of my best friends (both here and IRL) are voting for Obama.

Now that UG is back, people can stop bagging Classic and Lookout for being right wing.

UG, where/how/who have you been? Can you tell us, or is it still classified?

Yeh - that'll happen.

Well, you two are relatively a little to the right, cellar-wise, but I think it only became noticable in the last few weeks while UG was quiet. Now your back as centerists. It's all a matter of perspective and comparison. UG is so far to the right that I get a sore neck trying to look at him.

hey, hey! I'm with Classic! :D

Ha! I just saw this post! I followed a TED link to the same talk the day before yesterday. It was alink on the OffTopic section of a gaming site I frequent. I was intending to post a link here, but you've already done it.

Any dwellars who haven't seen this yet, I thoroughly recommend doing so. It's brilliant, truly brilliant. That whole idea of preset proclivities to a particular political mindset is something I find very intriguing. Our Kid* passed me a Stephen Pinker book that dealt with these ideas and I was fascinated. This was about 2 or 3 years go I think. I'd say it fundamentally altered my perceptions about politics and people and made me a lot less hostile towards people who have a different political stance to mine.

* cultural note: Our Kid is northern slang for sibling, used both as a description and as a form of address. I am on a mission to spread this particularly bit of dialect cause I like it :P

I think the part of this TED talk that really struck home with me was the final distinction drawn between the liberals who seek to increase fairness and freedoms even at the risk of chaos, and conservatives who seek to preserve order, even at the risk of unfairness or a loss of freedoms.

The reason that struck home with me relates somewhat to that Churchill quote about being a liberal at 20 and a conservative at 30 (or whatever it was). Despite the fact that, in terms of my political beliefs and my attitudes towards issues like immigration, crime and punishment, taxation and benefits, and so forth, I am pretty left wing, revolution no longer looks fun to me *smiles* the preservation of order means more to me now, than it once did. At 18 I would have welcomed the chaos and disruption of revolution with open arms and a ready fist. Nor, now, do I seek out new experiences. I have my cave, and I stay in it *smiles* unless forced out.

That said...despite my conservatism in this regard, my younger self came gleefully forward when watching the news reports of the financial chaos of the last few weeks. Obviously, I don;t actually want the fincnial system to collapse...I feel greatly saddened knowing how many people are affected (possibly myself, if my landlord's troubles do not improve), but there was something exhilirating in watching Capitalism rock on its heels.

[/threaddrift] anyway, watch that talk, it's wonderful. Speaking from experience, the other side look a lot less other, when you know why we follow the political paths we do.


[eta] trying to put classic and Lookout into the same spectrum as UG is very difficult :P The neo-cons have changed all the rules, they have their own little spectrum going on. I don't think if you took classic's views or Lookout's views and moved rightwards that you'd ever encounter UG on your travels.

I think if you place Lookout and Classic next to UG you'd have a textbook example of the difference between conservative and neo-conservative. I, as a leftwinger can have a conversation with Lookout and Classic in which we disagree totally, but in which we are speaking in some kind of common tongue. There are, and you'll not hear me admit this very often *grins*, more values shared than not between the left and the right of mainstream politics.