Posted by Tina
The East coast is being hit by huge storms. (We have a few coming through ourselves) The State Department used this as an excuse for delaying what would have been another late afternoon Friday Hillary email dump. “So sorry!” Two key football games are scheduled for tomorrow. It’s one of those lazy weekends. There isn’t much going on that sparks my interest today. But I did read a couple of excellent articles worth sharing with you, both from The American Thinker.
The first article, The Left’s Problem with Nature and Logic, by William Sullivan involves commentary on “the most fundamental skill of humankind” which is recognizing patterns:
It is our most fundamental skill because it has been honed by evolutionary necessity. Anticipating weather changes, observing agricultural trends, studying the migration of animal herds, discerning predators’ activities so that we do not become prey, and so on. Recognition of these patterns has been critical to our species.
Of course, merely recognizing a particular pattern is of no usefulness if expectations and behavior are not amended as a result of its recognition. Civil societies have been cultivated primarily due to sensible action in response to such observations.
Sullivan goes on to make the case that this basic skill appears to be absent among our friends on the left:
Is it not, therefore, the most damning of facts that the “progressive” left appears to find no usefulness in logically appraising and acting upon the patterns we routinely observe? Rather, they buck every natural compulsion by not only ignoring patterns, but by acting in direct defiance of logic and survival instincts that we humans have inherited.
How else can one describe a group who could read a report that shows that 450 out of 452 (or 99.6% of) suicide terror attacks in 2015 were perpetrated by Muslims and carried out in the name of Allah, only to insist that Muslims are not uniquely linked to global terrorism? (continues with other examples)
I have observed the same thing and been frustrated by it for some time. I hope you will read The Left’s Problem with Nature and Logic, the first of the two articles I mentioned above, so we can discuss this perplexing phenomenon. Is this some kind of personal survival skill? After all, it exists among the following as well as in the leadership. Is it just part of the PC training? PC is one of the truest forms of propaganda training I’ve witnessed in my life. Or is it a conscious tactic on the part of leadership that trickles down to the faithful who follow? Or…you tell me.
Perhaps more importantly how do we break through what seems to be a wall to reach the educable?
(I will post about the second article, which offers a path forward, shortly)
OMG Propaganda explaing Propaganda
Funny
Well the fact remains those of us who are pissed off are pissed off at the facts.
I see not a mention of Flint Michigan nor the Tea Party Gov removing democracy. A whole city is poisoned and not a peep.
The Left is the enemy!
Well fascism is here and watch and learn the people are not going to put up with this. It will be a long road,but we will fix this disgusting raid on Democracy.
#EnoughisEnough
Hilliary, Trump, Rubio, Cruz ect ect they are all corrupt
In other words you have nothing to offer but complaining and snide remarks.
By the way…your Flint Michigan response is on another thread where you first posited this absurd TP attack.
Precisely.
There is a pattern to Dewey’s lunacy.
There is!
There is a pattern of the IRS targeting conservatives
There is a pattern of Hillary behaving as if she believes the law doesn’t apply to her.
There is a pattern of refusing to acknowledge the ties between current widespread terrorism and Islam.
There is a pattern of denial about negative economic news.
There are patterns all over that liberals will not acknowledge.
There is a pattern of ripping to pieces those who point out the obvious as if they were the nutty one! (smile) The absurdity in this is sky high. It’s fair to say that a large portion of Americans are in the category of people who deny the obvious, who refuse to acknowledge the patterns. Is it possible to break through to them…or not?
“There is a pattern of denial about negative economic news.”
What about a pattern of denial about positive economic news?
For example, you claimed that the black unemployment rate was worse under Obama, but it has actually gotten better, dropping from almost 13% in 2009 to around 8% last month. Yet you refused to correct your error.
Similarly, when you parroted Trump’s absurd claim that the unemployment rate could be 30-40%, I pointed out that this was impossible, because that’s higher than the total percentage of adults not in the labor force. You wouldn’t correct this either, and instead continued to defend this lie.
Would you like to correct these now, or would you like to continue this pattern?
Chris I realize your experience is that I meant that today black unemployment is worse than when Obama took office. Regardless of the words I used my intent was that over the Obama term blacks have not done well. If several attempts to clarify wasn’t good enough for you there is nothing I can do now to alter your thinking or repair your obvious need to be right in the situation.
I also explained to you that Trumps off the cuff remarks about the actual unemployment numbers included several percentages including the top, 40% and were meant to relay the obvious, prospects for employment under Obama have been pretty lousy.
The only pattern here is your relentless insistence that I bend to your will. I have said my piece. You do not have to agree with me. You have been given more than sufficient room to express your opinion in the matter. The pattern is YOU WILL NOT DROP IT!
And by the way, I am not in denial about positive economic news. The rich are getting richer. Large corporations have done well over the last seven years even if they had to jump through hoops and pay more lawyers. The stock market rise means that investors got back at least some of what they lost in the crash, if not more. They are also smarter about investing.
My point has always been that we can do so much better AND SHOULD so that all Americans have a “shot.” And it would be irresponsible not to share the downside.
Tina: “Chris I realize your experience is that I meant that today black unemployment is worse than when Obama took office.”
Yes, because in my experience, and the experience of all English-speaking Americans, that’s what the sentence “Black employment even worse” means.
“Regardless of the words I used”
You can’t just “regardless” over “the words I used!” As if the words you use don’t matter!
“my intent was that over the Obama term blacks have not done well.”
Then that is what you should have said, instead of repeating a claim that was clearly untrue and refusing to retract it.
If you’re going to insist that your specific arguments and reasons to support your claims about Obama don’t matter, why not just say “Obama bad; me angry” followed by a series of inarticulate grunts? It would get your point across clearly and we wouldn’t have to get into a debate over whether or not your evidence is correct.
“If several attempts to clarify wasn’t good enough for you”
Clarification would have included an admission that your claim about black unemployment was wrong. Since you continued to insist it wasn’t, and then ludicrously claimed it wasn’t even what you said after you spent so much time defending it–there was no clarification.
“I also explained to you that Trumps off the cuff remarks about the actual unemployment numbers included several percentages including the top, 40% and were meant to relay the obvious, prospects for employment under Obama have been pretty lousy.”
Who cares? How is this a defense? By your logic, there’s no number Trump could have said that wouldn’t have been ridiculous. He could have said unemployment was 100% and you could say he was just “drawing attention to Obama’s overall record using hyperbole” or whatever rationalization for his insanity you want to throw out there.
What you’re ultimately rationalizing is a post-fact world. It doesn’t matter what false claims someone makes, as long as the “intent” is to bash Obama.
Maybe this woman can explain the appeal that Trump has for many Americans.
That woman says that black males are 50% unemployed. Actually, their unemployment rate is 8.3%–double that of white males, but much less than what she said.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
It’s possible she was talking about the black youth unemployment rate, but the youth unemployment rate is always much higher than the overall unemployment rate.
I understand the appeal. Trump appeals to the uninformed.
It could also be that she’s relying on conditions in her neighborhood. It may be she is better informed than you or I in this sense.
I think it’s remarkable that she has changed her opinions and support. Something has struck a chord…something organic rather than cold numbers on a page.
Tina: “It could also be that she’s relying on conditions in her neighborhood.”
Why is it that you are always willing to make excuses when people say ridiculous things, as long as it suits your narrative? As you’ve said before, words have meaning. “Black men are 50% unemployed” means the unemployment rate for the entire nation; especially in this context, since Trump is running for president of the country, not this woman’s “neighborhood.”
As it happens, black unemployment in Atlanta is much higher than it is across the nation as a whole, but still less than half of what this woman claimed:
“The unemployment rate for African Americans in Atlanta (22 percent) is nearly twice the city’s overall 13 percent, more than three times higher than the rate for their white counterparts (6 percent) and more than twice the rate for Latinos (9 percent). White residents earn more than three times as much as their black counterparts, twice as much as Latinos and about $30,000 more than Asians in the city.”
http://www.aecf.org/blog/as-atlantas-economy-thrives-many-residents-of-color-are-left-behind/
“I think it’s remarkable that she has changed her opinions and support. Something has struck a chord…something organic rather than cold numbers on a page.”
It’s not remarkable at all. Lots of people vote with their gut, rather than reason, rationality, and a careful weighing of the issues. Empty bluster, of the type Trump offers, appeals to a lot of people. The idea that this should be encouraged, even celebrated, runs completely counter to the basic idea that we should have an informed citizenry who vote based on the merits of our elected officials’ arguments, not just our feelings.
Tina, (I don’t know why I waste my words, here, but one more time …)
Nobody is denying the ill-informed, ignorant manifestation of Islamic Jihad abroad in the world, or the ignorant and ill-educated fellows engaged in it.
But your “American Thinker” (and my chief objection to that publication is its turning that phrase onto an oxymoron) does not stop there; it then makes a bigoted foray into bigotry.
Do I have to define the term for you … again?
The unhappy pattern I’m looking at is the one where you want to do to the nation’s Muslim population what was done to the Japanese during WWII. There’s a nasty pattern for ya.
Libby the nobodies you are referring to don’t need to deny as long as they are able to avoid and as long as they excuse through moral equivalence statements. They don’t have to deny when they can make accusations that anyone who does recognize the pattern is instantly anti-“fill in the blank,” in this case Muslim.
The Muslims in this nation have been told by every left winger that can find a microphone or space to write that conservatives hate them and wish them harm. This constant mantra is not based in reality. It is a political bias that amounts to cheap shots and dirty tricks. Persons on the left who engage in such talk intend to malign with their words but have no pattern of evidence to support their specious claims.
You don’t give a fig about the Muslim community or you wouldn’t use them as props in a political fight to advance the power of your party. Instead you would accurately name the enemy that is terrorizing the world including those Muslims caught in the midst and the middle.
There is no pattern even remotely similar to the one you suggest in comment two. That places you squarely in the camp of maligning fabricators.
I do know why I waste my time. This absurdity needs exposure.
Tina:
“You don’t give a fig about the Muslim community or you wouldn’t use them as props in a political fight to advance the power of your party. Instead you would accurately name the enemy that is terrorizing the world including those Muslims caught in the midst and the middle.”
Libby, right before:
“Nobody is denying the ill-informed, ignorant manifestation of Islamic Jihad abroad in the world, or the ignorant and ill-educated fellows engaged in it.”
That’s not accurately naming the enemy, Tina? What do you want her to call them? “Left-Wing Muslim National Socialists of the Obama-Loving Quran of Satan?”
Good point Chris.
My remark should have been directed to the general position of the party she supports, which is what I was thinking.
It isn’t true that “nobody” denies (or avoids) naming the enemy. And as you should know I have include in my criticism the official instruction this administration has given to certain entities in terms of talking points in training materials.
Tina: “How else can one describe a group who could read a report that shows that 450 out of 452 (or 99.6% of) suicide terror attacks in 2015 were perpetrated by Muslims and carried out in the name of Allah, only to insist that Muslims are not uniquely linked to global terrorism?”
Muslims are uniquely linked to global terrorism.
Happy now?
My objections are to conservatives’ proposals on how to deal with that problem, which now seem to include the possibility of banning all Muslim immigration.
Chris there you go again. Not only do you refuse to accept clarifying remarks, you also have apparently decided that these remarks by Trump automatically attach to every conservative/republican. In truth you’re so busy deciding what others would do you never really find out the truth about them.
Your animosity also seems to make it impossible for you to even consider whether at least some of the things conservatives propose might work out better overall.
In terms of Muslims, my experience is that under Obama, things have gotten worse both at home and abroad. His divisive style and his failure to lead effectively guarantees it.
Trumps words were thoughtless. I can think of several things Obama has said that are equally thoughtless and I will be happy to poke back at you with them if you continue down this road. I’d much prefer to have an honest, less toxic discussion.
Time to move on?
Tina: “Chris there you go again. Not only do you refuse to accept clarifying remarks,”
What on earth are you talking about?
When did Trump clarify his statements about banning all Muslim immigration to mean that he did not, in fact, want to ban Muslim immigration? (I think we have a different definition of “clarify;” you seem to be using it to mean “dodge all responsibility for what was said and refuse to take back one’s original statement.”)
“you also have apparently decided that these remarks by Trump automatically attach to every conservative/republican.”
What I said was:
“My objections are to conservatives’ proposals on how to deal with that problem, which now seem to include the possibility of banning all Muslim immigration.”
Note the word “include” modifies “conservatives’ proposals.” It doesn’t mean all conservatives support such an awful plan–most do not–but Trump has now brought that view into the conservative dialogue, and not enough have objected for my liking. You certainly haven’t. My statement was fair.
Chris, “Ban all Muslims” was his first comment. In later comments he clarified by saying he meant “temporarily” until we got the situation sorted out”
There is a difference of considerable note.
As I’ve written before, believe whatever you want.
Chris you’ve been quite vocal about your objections to conservative proposals. In fact I would call you down right hostile to conservative proposals. Why would it matter that you modify “conservative proposals” in that sentence?
“…and not enough have objected for my liking.”
What does that mean? Do you imagine that every conservative is hanging on your every word looking for guidance or permission to think or speak of rejection or support? Must conservatives consult with you so they will know how to respond correctly? Do you even get how self-important you sound?
I repeat, Trumps words were thoughtless. Not good enough? Tough beans.
If you so desperately need a project how about taking on your own party’s two major players. In my opinion you haven’t voiced much criticism of either Obama or Hillary Clinton. Given his incredible list of failures on every issue and her criminal activity and lies you should be writing articles to post to our front page. At least you should if you are willing to hold yourself to the same standard.
Tina: “Chris, “Ban all Muslims” was his first comment. In later comments he clarified by saying he meant “temporarily” until we got the situation sorted out”
There is a difference of considerable note.”
Not really. Japanese internment was temporary. Most realize today that it was still a bigoted and unnecessary policy.
“Until we get the situation sorted out” is a meaningless phrase; Trump used it because he has no specific plan to offer, just red meat designed to fire up the most radical fringe of our society.
I don’t imagine that conservatives have any duty to make me happy. I do think they have an ethical duty, at this point, to stand up to a vapid wanna-be tyrant who is currently leading in the polls among Republicans. To their credit, many have. The National Review, Rod Dreher, Megyn Kelly, and pretty much every other Republican candidate, and numerous others have all spoken out against Trump. Other conservative publications, like Breitbart, are 100% on the Trump bandwagon. So I suppose I could have been more clear in my criticism of conservative policies–most do not agree with Trump, but I still feel that many conservatives flirt uncomfortably close with anti-Muslim rhetoric, as we’ve discussed previously.
“I repeat, Trumps words were thoughtless. Not good enough? Tough beans.”
No, that’s good enough for me.
Furthermore, a blog post is not an article. “Article” denotes a certain journalistic integrity; blog post more accurately describes this litany of right-wing paranoia.
I mean, “angry refugees” ?? That is paranoid projection is what that is. I doubt the republic can survive an electorate of which 30% have gone clinical.
Well la-ah-te-dah! Aren’t we the royal snob.
We refer to many of the so called “professionals,” those that fawn over men like Obama and participate in the destruction of women like Sarah Palin, as “journalists.” Given their obvious bias, I think there’s room for bloggers, many of whom are well educated, experienced, and informed, to write articles whether or not they are right-wing.
What you refer to as paranoia is simple observation based on well-documented patterns of behavior. Would you rather no one noticed?
Maybe you just prefer surprises.
Furthermore, the word article is defined as: a piece of writing included with others in a newspaper, magazine, or other publication.
synonyms: report · account · story · write-up · feature · item · piece
I think we on the right are safe.