Print

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

[Arx]

As far as I know, the smugness refers to a certain tendency amongst some liberals to bask in the fact that they are, in their opinions, objectively correct on all their issues, because they are backed by objectively correct science/history/etc. It leads naturally to a certain patronising style of discourse, where people that aren't liberals need to just accept that they're wrong because liberals are objectively correct.

This is worrying because, amongst other reasons, no-one would hold an opinion if they didn't consider it correct. Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Dude, chill out. Any time you want to belittle your opponent for an argument, reconsider your life that you're taking something on the internet so seriously.

[Neonivek]

Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Remember that it isn't Conservatives who are labeling conservatives. It is Liberals.

"Liberal Smugness" is a Conservative viewpoint for the most part.

While "Conservative Frothing" is a Liberal viewpoint for the most part.

[McTraveller]

On a completely different note - gotta love stuff like this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/corn-farmers-celebrate-epa-raises-210000539.html

The EPA is mandating a particular amount of biofuel use (production?), regardless of actual demand for said fuel.  It would be one thing if it mandated a particular percentage or something, but instead it is mandating a nominal amount.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Remember that it isn't Conservatives who are labeling conservatives. It is Liberals.

"Liberal Smugness" is a Conservative viewpoint for the most part.

While "Conservative Frothing" is a Liberal viewpoint for the most part.

Ehehehe, you're saying that anybody who calls you smug is a conservative. You smug liberal.

Isn't trolling fun?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

As far as I know, the smugness refers to a certain tendency amongst some liberals to bask in the fact that they are, in their opinions, objectively correct on all their issues, because they are backed by objectively correct science/history/etc. It leads naturally to a certain patronising style of discourse, where people that aren't liberals need to just accept that they're wrong because liberals are objectively correct.

That's an issue, and I don't deny that it exists. It's when people say that most liberals are smug, just for saying that people are wrong, that I get mad because that is so incredibly stupid. It's the Monroe effect - people are wrong! On the Internet!

This is worrying because, amongst other reasons, no-one would hold an opinion if they didn't consider it correct. Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

There are people like that on all sides of the political spectra. "Feminists," ferex, who call any criticism "sexism." I actually agree almost entirely with the ENEMY posters here, which is odd, because we're currently tearing each other apart. Isn't there a sociological theory that explains that?

snipstuff

Dude, chill out. Any time you want to belittle your opponent for an argument, reconsider your life that you're taking something on the internet so seriously.

First people were saying that liberals were generally smug, which I disliked because a. it was a generalization and b. it seemed like a personal attack. Then I realized that it wasn't a personal attack, and that people were sharing their perceptions of the left, which mostly consisted of SJWs, so *meh* I was fine.

Then this guy, LW, comes along and actually starts making personal attacks. Seriously? And then he makes a ton of logical fallacies, like false equivalencies and such, and then misinterprets my humor and demonizes me as this smug liberal who is using his "self-deprecating humor" to insult everybody in the world and expects everyone to treat him like a prince, what in the four hells LW?

[Neonivek]

Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Remember that it isn't Conservatives who are labeling conservatives. It is Liberals.

"Liberal Smugness" is a Conservative viewpoint for the most part.

While "Conservative Frothing" is a Liberal viewpoint for the most part.

Ehehehe, you're saying that anybody who calls you smug is a conservative. You smug liberal.

Isn't trolling fun?

No of course that isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that these stereotypes are basically how one side views the other... MORE so then they are how either of them uniquely act.

Sanctimoniousness is what both of those stereotypes are picking up on.

people were sharing their perceptions of the left, which mostly consisted of SJWs, so *meh* I was fine

Uhhh what? Is this a serious statement or ironic? because there are two entirely different ways I can respond here.

[smjjames]

As far as I know, the smugness refers to a certain tendency amongst some liberals to bask in the fact that they are, in their opinions, objectively correct on all their issues, because they are backed by objectively correct science/history/etc. It leads naturally to a certain patronising style of discourse, where people that aren't liberals need to just accept that they're wrong because liberals are objectively correct.

That's an issue, and I don't deny that it exists. It's when people say that most liberals are smug, just for saying that people are wrong, that I get mad because that is so incredibly stupid. It's the Monroe effect - people are wrong! On the Internet!

This is worrying because, amongst other reasons, no-one would hold an opinion if they didn't consider it correct. Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

There are people like that on all sides of the political spectra. "Feminists," ferex, who call any criticism "sexism." I actually agree almost entirely with the ENEMY posters here, which is odd, because we're currently tearing each other apart. Isn't there a sociological theory that explains that?

snipstuff

Dude, chill out. Any time you want to belittle your opponent for an argument, reconsider your life that you're taking something on the internet so seriously.

First people were saying that liberals were generally smug, which I disliked because a. it was a generalization and b. it seemed like a personal attack. Then I realized that it wasn't a personal attack, and that people were sharing their perceptions of the left, which mostly consisted of SJWs, so *meh* I was fine.

Then this guy, LW, comes along and actually starts making personal attacks. Seriously? And then he makes a ton of logical fallacies, like false equivalencies and such, and then misinterprets my humor and demonizes me as this smug liberal who is using his "self-deprecating humor" to insult everybody in the world and expects everyone to treat him like a prince, what in the four hells LW?

LW is... LW, British bants and shitposting and all of that.

[Phmcw]

We call a part of the left "caviar left" in Belgium and France. It's made of rich personalities with no link to the working class.


The left has now been co-opted by a neo-liberal agenda that promote austerity as the only real economic policy going forward and balk at any reform that would hinder free trade.
The whine at any social reform and only wake up for election time. When they get elected they relent on their promise and continue business as usual.
They usually do loud reform on some kind of minority right (such as gay marriage) but in a way that generate maximum controversy to distract from their economic polities.


There is no doubt that this is why Holland's approval is so low : he held none of his economic promises (as expected).


I'd link that to the "smug" liberals in America. Very willing to do anything... that don't compromise the economy for equality's sake.

[Neonivek]

Then this guy, LW, comes along and actually starts making personal attacks. Seriously? And then he makes a ton of logical fallacies, like false equivalencies and such, and then misinterprets my humor and demonizes me as this smug liberal who is using his "self-deprecating humor" to insult everybody in the world and expects everyone to treat him like a prince, what in the four hells LW?

Ok... This is getting heated... Uhhh... Lets not self-destruct the thread... Trump has so many more dumb things to do and we need this!

I'd link that to the "smug" liberals in America. Very willing to do anything... that don't compromise the economy for equality's sake

Nah it is unrelated. Besides remember that the USA has a very unique version of Liberalism.

It is more about the perception of the Liberals as treating themselves as right sanctimonious asses  who are just plain better then everyone else, everyone else being monsters.

Unlike those filthy sanctimonious conservatives who believe they are just plain better than everyone else!

Yeah the conservatives and liberals have the exact same reputation... if you unpack it. The Conservatives have the bible and the Liberals have secularism

[smjjames]

Liberals are generally secular and conservatives are generally religious, yes, but there's plenty of both on either side.

And yeah, we need to chill out some in this thread before it really gets out of hand.

[Phmcw]

I saw plenty of unnerving communication from democrats on many issues, and more missed opportunities to federate.
I think that the issue is that they really are too rich and upper class to really bond with "the peoples". In fact you can see in the mails that they have to use a lot of polls and plans to communicate because they don't relate to the public at all.


Republicans have a "shiny happy peoples laughing" approach that doesn't suffer from the same penalties for being too rich.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

To interject, because this comes up a lot and it drives me up a wall- logical fallacies aren't like yellow flags in soccer. They're provocative statements that are implicitly full of holes. Stop calling people out on fallacies and exploit the damn holes. We're not formal rhetoricians here.

...but how? How do you exploit a hole?

Conservatives believe that they are objectively correct on all their issues, but as far as I can tell the corresponding stereotype/appearance/whatever on their side is more 'frothing' than 'smug'.

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Remember that it isn't Conservatives who are labeling conservatives. It is Liberals.

"Liberal Smugness" is a Conservative viewpoint for the most part.

While "Conservative Frothing" is a Liberal viewpoint for the most part.

Ehehehe, you're saying that anybody who calls you smug is a conservative. You smug liberal.

Isn't trolling fun?

No of course that isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that these stereotypes are basically how one side views the other... MORE so then they are how either of them uniquely act.

Sanctimoniousness is what both of those stereotypes are picking up on.

Of course, I knew what you were saying, I was pretending to be a troll like LW

(did you see what I did there?)

people were sharing their perceptions of the left, which mostly consisted of SJWs, so *meh* I was fine

Uhhh what? Is this a serious statement or ironic? because there are two entirely different ways I can respond here.

Forumite: "Liberals are so smug!"
Doz: " No, they aren't generally that smug...?"
Forumite: shares stuff about SJWs
Doz: "Ohhh, you're talking about SJWs, sure they're smug I don't care, I just thought you were attacking me."
LW: "You smug intellectual elite prince, so full of yourself, using your backhanded humor to attack everyone, you're the reason the liberals are failing" *makes a fallacy or ten*
Doz: "What the hell?"

that is an accurate summary of the conversation, from my perspective

[smjjames]

I saw plenty of unnerving communication from democrats on many issues, and more missed opportunities to federate.
I think that the issue is that they really are too rich and upper class to really bond with "the peoples". In fact you can see in the mails that they have to use a lot of polls and plans to communicate because they don't relate to the public at all.


Republicans have a "shiny happy peoples laughing" approach that doesn't suffer from the same penalties for being too rich.

Are you talking about Belgian and French versions of Democrats or US Democrats here? They do both suffer from the same problem with not connecting with the working class though.

To interject, because this comes up a lot and it drives me up a wall- logical fallacies aren't like yellow flags in soccer. They're provocative statements that are implicitly full of holes. Stop calling people out on fallacies and exploit the damn holes. We're not formal rhetoricians here.

...but how? How do you exploit a hole?

By entering it? (inneudo not intended).

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

We call a part of the left "caviar left" in Belgium and France. It's made of rich personalities with no link to the working class.


The left has now been co-opted by a neo-liberal agenda that promote austerity as the only real economic policy going forward and balk at any reform that would hinder free trade.
The whine at any social reform and only wake up for election time. When they get elected they relent on their promise and continue business as usual.
They usually do loud reform on some kind of minority right (such as gay marriage) but in a way that generate maximum controversy to distract from their economic polities.


There is no doubt that this is why Holland's approval is so low : he held none of his economic promises (as expected).


I'd link that to the "smug" liberals in America. Very willing to do anything... that don't compromise the economy for equality's sake.

Oh, sure, as long as we're attacking the neoliberals. I can get behind that effort.

...what the hell Doz? You were just frothing at the mouth at LW, and now... Oh, I get it, when people don't attack you, you're more likely to agree with them.

[Sergarr]

Oh god, he actually said that?

(Googling 'trump says hillary clinton won popular vote fraud' brings up three news sites reporting the exact same thing and at least one cites his Twitter.)

Why, Trump.  Why.

(make it stop)

It gets better worse: Link to CNN transcipt of the interview with someone from Trump team:

And so he said he wouldn’t rule it out. He said it’s just not his focus right now. I think he’s being quite magnanimous and at the same time he’s not undercutting at all the authority and the autonomy of the Department of Justice, of the FBI, of the House Committees, who knows where the evidence may lead if, in fact, it were — if the investigation were re-opened somewhere.

But this is the president-elect’s position right now and I would say he has been incredibly gracious and magnanimous to Secretary Clinton at a time when for whatever reason her folks are saying they will join in a recount to try to somehow undo the 70 plus electoral votes that he beat her by. I mean this — you know, I was asked on CNN and elsewhere, goodness a thousand times, will Donald Trump accept the election results? And now you’ve got the Democrats and Jill Stein saying they do not accept the election results. She congratulated him and conceded to him on election night. I was right there. And the idea that we are going to drag this out now where the president-elect has been incredible y magnanimous to the Clintons and to the Obamas is incredible.

It could be interpreted as a threat to prosecute Clinton if the recount doesn't stop.

I wonder why Trump is so nervous about that recount, though. Could it be because an investigation would reveal evidence of FSB agents hacking voting machines, hmmm?