Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wobbly]

That's the smug-ist article I've read in a long time...

[PTTG??]

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

To be "smug," in the sense the article claims, is to value one's own opinion as falsely privileged over your opponent's. The discrepancy in legitimacy is very real.

But sure, let's talk about "smug."

[Wolfhunter107]

There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance.

Isn't that in of itself kind of intolerant?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Yeah, only liberals can be smug. ive literally never heard of conservatives being smug; just doesn't happen.
don't really see the point you're trying to make here

Read the article

There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really — but by the failure of half the country to know what's good for them.

In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.

It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.

Coming right after 'reality has a liberal bias' it is easy to see the point, even if you disagree. Liberal media tells all its liberal viewers that they're smarter than everyone else, and results come in: they agree

Well of course people see liberals as "condescending" - liberals claim that people are wrong! They challenge people's beliefs! And as for "defensive", well when you attack with ridiculous claims of us being "snobby" of course we'll get defensive.

See? I'm not actually serious, I'm just pointing out how hypocritical arguments like these are. It's some guy saying "look, these liberals are totally snobbish badguys," no evidence or supporting arguments, and of course conservatives will listen and agree!

I'm saying that people are wrong. Is that smug, really? That's a nice way of putting it. It lets you dismiss liberalism as "those smug ivory-tower coastal elites." Keep that bubble going, LW, don't let any reality in

I live in the epicenter of the global liberal world, am posting on a forum that is mostly progressive, spent my life in liberal education and liberal workplaces, out of everyone I know on a second name basis only three are not liberals

tfw bubble

your smug is too real

it's called TONGUE-IN-CHEEK and SELF-MOCKING HUMOR you british bastard

I'm saying that people are wrong. Is that smug, really? That's a nice way of putting it. It lets you dismiss liberalism as "those smug ivory-tower coastal elites." Keep that bubble going, LW, don't let any reality in

It may not be smugness from an objective viewpoint, but it is certainly seen as such from their subjective one, and, as we have already seen in this election, perception really fucking matters. If you want to influence the world, it's optimal to learn how to present your viewpoint in a way that will make it most accessible to the person you're talking to.

Otherwise you'll keep getting blindsided with Trump after Trump coming to power in all Western countries, with Putin and his ilk cackling at the backstage at the liberals' repeated failure to reverse the slide into unpopularity, as the new conservative world order continues to rise and destroy everything you love and care about.

Do you want that?

But if calling people wrong is "smug," how do we even do anything?

That's the smug-ist article I've read in a long time...

SOMEBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS ME

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

...how is this a rebuttal of smugness, though? "Sure, we're smug, but we're also the most right!" is a rather smug sentence, from the perspective of a conservative.

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

Erm, this is generally true... but liberals can be just as clannish as conservatives, and have you even seen the vaccination scare?

Also YES LET US DISCUSS THIS AGAIN: intolerance intolerance redux! Define tolerance, please!

To be "smug," in the sense the article claims, is to value one's own opinion as falsely privileged over your opponent's. The discrepancy in legitimacy is very real.

"Yes, we are very privileged, and this is for totally good reasons, also you're wrong." See how anything can be twisted into smugness? REALITY IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND MUTABLE to these people. Oh wait, that's smug too.

But sure, let's talk about "smug."

smug bastard indeed

[smjjames]

Would be nice for an objective article explaining what's wrong without all the smugness and sarcasm in that article, but that's just me.

[Sergarr]

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

"Less smug" does not mean "abandon all liberal ideas". It just means that you should never resort to "it's obvious to everyone who has a brain" debate tactic that is so favored by the Reds/Republicans.

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

Yes, and that's why you should be less smug - not only you should be above such a petty level of discourse as that, you should also avoid it because it makes the intolerant people fucking win!

I'm saying that people are wrong. Is that smug, really? That's a nice way of putting it. It lets you dismiss liberalism as "those smug ivory-tower coastal elites." Keep that bubble going, LW, don't let any reality in

It may not be smugness from an objective viewpoint, but it is certainly seen as such from their subjective one, and, as we have already seen in this election, perception really fucking matters. If you want to influence the world, it's optimal to learn how to present your viewpoint in a way that will make it most accessible to the person you're talking to.

Otherwise you'll keep getting blindsided with Trump after Trump coming to power in all Western countries, with Putin and his ilk cackling at the backstage at the liberals' repeated failure to reverse the slide into unpopularity, as the new conservative world order continues to rise and destroy everything you love and care about.

Do you want that?

But if calling people wrong is "smug," how do we even do anything?

That's easy enough - you don't call people wrong, you call their opinions wrong - hell, not even "wrong", but rather "honestly mistaken", and back your alternatives up with whatever it takes to make then convert to your side - fact, feelings, whatever it fucking takes, selected to have a maximum effect on whoever you're talking to with all the might of the real scientific knowledge you've got on the liberal coalition, thanks to the nearly unanimous support of academia.

It would, obviously, not make the True Conservative Believers™ change their opinion, but there are enough swing-voters in USA that could really be convinced to vote the other way to make it worth it.

At least, until the Republicans break out the big guns and ban the minorities from voting completely.

[Guardian G.I.]

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

To be "smug," in the sense the article claims, is to value one's own opinion as falsely privileged over your opponent's. The discrepancy in legitimacy is very real.

But sure, let's talk about "smug."

For some really odd reason, people don't like being antagonized. Calling out people in a hostile way won't make them change their beliefs - at best you'll only make them shut up and quietly resent you.

This quiet resent is one of the many little things that brought Trump into the White House.

[uber pye]

Exactly. I've given up on having productive conversations with many people on the other side of the fence from me, because the conversation never goes from 'We disagree' to 'Let's try to find a compromise we can both accept'. The needle on one of the record players seems to always get stuck on the 'Let me tell you how you are wrong' part.

that's pretty much what i see too. The left sees the right as stupid hicks or evil old people, and never thinks to see their hardships or the elderly's wisdom. The right sees the left as selfish welfare city hipsters or dumb easily manipulated children, and never thinks to see their changing values or the youths new ideas.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

"Less smug" does not mean "abandon all liberal ideas". It just means that you should never resort to "it's obvious to everyone who has a brain" debate tactic that is so favored by the Reds/Republicans.

Ah, so you're saying that the Republicans did it first? SO SMUG

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

Yes, and that's why you should be less smug - not only you should be above such a petty level of discourse as that, you should also avoid it because it makes the intolerant people fucking win!

See what I did above, there? Anything can be seen as smug.

I'm saying that people are wrong. Is that smug, really? That's a nice way of putting it. It lets you dismiss liberalism as "those smug ivory-tower coastal elites." Keep that bubble going, LW, don't let any reality in

It may not be smugness from an objective viewpoint, but it is certainly seen as such from their subjective one, and, as we have already seen in this election, perception really fucking matters. If you want to influence the world, it's optimal to learn how to present your viewpoint in a way that will make it most accessible to the person you're talking to.

Otherwise you'll keep getting blindsided with Trump after Trump coming to power in all Western countries, with Putin and his ilk cackling at the backstage at the liberals' repeated failure to reverse the slide into unpopularity, as the new conservative world order continues to rise and destroy everything you love and care about.

Do you want that?

But if calling people wrong is "smug," how do we even do anything?

That's easy enough - you don't call people wrong, you call their opinions wrong - hell, not even "wrong", but rather "honestly mistaken", and back your alternatives up with whatever it takes to make then convert to your side - fact, feelings, whatever it fucking takes, selected to have a maximum effect on whoever you're talking to with all the might of the real scientific knowledge you've got on the liberal coalition, thanks to the nearly unanimous support of academia.

That's what we do. But then the hangers-on just spew their regressive-left-armchair-SJW smugness at the conservatives and that's all the ENEMY sees, and they see us as the ENEMY because they see "us" calling them the ENEMY.

Exactly. I've given up on having productive conversations with many people on the other side of the fence from me, because the conversation never goes from 'We disagree' to 'Let's try to find a compromise we can both accept'. The needle on one of the record players seems to always get stuck on the 'Let me tell you how you are wrong' part.

This is exactly what I've said before, the political ideology doesn't matter as much as somebody's Liberal Points politeness, willingness to compromise and explain, open-mindedness, etc. Even if they aren't a True Liberal. *sigh* when will the world ever learn

"BUT THAT IS BEING SMUG DOZEBOM"

SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Reelya]

Exactly. I've given up on having productive conversations with many people on the other side of the fence from me, because the conversation never goes from 'We disagree' to 'Let's try to find a compromise we can both accept'. The needle on one of the record players seems to always get stuck on the 'Let me tell you how you are wrong' part.

that's pretty much what i see too. The left sees the right as stupid hicks or evil old people, and never thinks to see their hardships or the elderly's wisdom. The right sees the left as selfish welfare city hipsters or dumb easily manipulated children, and never thinks to see their changing values or the youths new ideas.

Actually, I'd be interested to see how young college students of the modern day stack up in the "open to new ideas" stakes. Because openess is the historical trait that defined liberalism.

It's very hard to measure. Is a liberal person immersed in liberal culture "open-minded" because they support LGBT rights, environmental activism etc? That's how most liberals view the meaning of the concept, but just going along with the commonly-held social views of the dominant liberal culture doesn't actually require mental effort or bravery. It's actually easier to go along with it than to voice dissent. A better test of open-mindedness for someone immersed in liberal culture would be how the react to non-liberal ideas.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Open-mindedness isn't so much the beliefs you hold as your ability to interact with and consider the beliefs of those who disagree. Or so some CONSERVATIVE people would say who aren't LIBERAL enough. As EVERY good LIBERAL knows, OPEN-MINDED is another word for LIBERALS.

[smjjames]

So, how exactly would we work our way out of this? Compromise and discussion would be the most obvious, but the challenge seems to be to get both sides to sit at the table and not scowl at each other in the first place.

[Reelya]

Find the things you agree on, then discuss the disagreements is a good start. People focus too much on the dissent.

For example. Prof. Jonothan Haidt talks about a seminar where they brought together poverty experts from the left and right, each set of people had a completely different perspective, but it was clear, everyone involved did in fact care deeply about ending poverty. Then they were able to see that both sides points had some truth to them, rather than "you're wrong, it's really like this" logic.

[uber pye]

[hot shit, lots a quoting]

Actually, I'd be interested to see how young college students of the modern day stack up in the "open to new ideas" stakes. Because openess is the historical trait that defined liberalism.

It's very hard to measure. Is a liberal person immersed in liberal culture "open-minded" because they support LGBT rights, environmental activism etc? That's how most liberals view the meaning of the concept.

Those are almost universal values within the social sphere called "liberal", so it would sound like a very poor measure of how truly open to new ideas a liberal person is (we are social animals after all). You'd have to be incredibly brave or stupid to say anything against LGBT or environmental causes in a strongly liberal circle, so can supporting what everyone else supports be "open-minded"? There's sort of a paradox there. I'd think a test of open-mindedness would have to measure acceptance and tolerance of all possible viewpoints, not just ones someone happens to agree with already.

if we use the merriam-webster definition: receptive to arguments or ideas, i'd say no, not on my campus at least. I try to bring up a counter argument or be a devil's advocate and i immediately get told "no, your not right".

[Sergarr]

Oh, that fixes it then. Liberals need to be less "smug." Well, fine. Go ahead and call all Muslims terrorists. Allow cops to kill black people freely, who cares? Want to shoot gays yourself? Not a problem. Abortions? We'll compromise and just execute the mother too. And yeah, we'll even set up a nice system where you can have illegals work for you, then ship them off to the border instead of paying them. Global warming? Clearly a conspiracy, one including every reputable scientist in the world.

"Less smug" does not mean "abandon all liberal ideas". It just means that you should never resort to "it's obvious to everyone who has a brain" debate tactic that is so favored by the Reds/Republicans.

Ah, so you're saying that the Republicans did it first? SO SMUG

See, if I was talking to a Republican, I would say that the Democrats did it first. But you're not a Republican, right?

No. I refuse. I will not normalize the ignorance, bigotry, and clannishness that has taken over the right wing of this country. There is a difference between the left and the right, and it is a meaningful one. BECAUSE it does not tolerate intolerance. BECAUSE it uses fact and reason through science. BECAUSE it values democratic ideals over corporate absolutism.

Yes, and that's why you should be less smug - not only you should be above such a petty level of discourse as that, you should also avoid it because it makes the intolerant people fucking win!

See what I did above, there? Anything can be seen as smug.

Anything, yes - but not by anyone. That's the point - True Believers™ will continue to True Believe whatever they believe, but you don't aim to convince those people. You aim to convince the 2-3-5% of the people who could be converted to Democrats. Like the white worker class, for example. Those people were voting for Obama, you know.

That's what we do. But then the hangers-on just spew their regressive-left-armchair-SJW smugness at the conservatives and that's all the ENEMY sees, and they see us as the ENEMY because they see "us" calling them the ENEMY.

The problem here is that these "regressive-left-armchair-SJW" are never quite properly denounced by the non-regressive Democrats (and by "properly denounced" I do not mean "bash them every day like they did with Trump for a few months on all official and many unofficial Democrat media channels", it would be nice if the Democrat party has just officially acknowledged it as a fucking problem in the first place, instead of branding everyone who even raises this point as "an ENEMY of PROGRESS" and all but practically pushing anyone who doesn't 100% believe in the absolute goodness of their racially-segregating policies into Republican's hands), which is why they can feel like those represent what your side truly wants.