E-Mail 'Challenging liberal myths that are commonly assumed to be fact' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Challenging liberal myths that are commonly assumed to be fact' to a friend

Loading ...

16 Responses to "Challenging liberal myths that are commonly assumed to be fact"

Severian says:

July 26, 2006 at 2:05 pm

No big surprise is it? The liberals are the same people who claim to support minorities, but jump to label conservative minorities “house n*****s” or “oreo cookies.” Yeah, that’s indicative of true color blindness. /:) The left always seems to harbor the true racists, be it on the basis of skin color or bashing the “Jooooo’s” you’ll see liberals right there with their hatred on their sleeves.

Conservatives look at the individual first, not the group that person allegedly belongs to. Liberals are all about the group, it’s easier than thinking of people as individuals, and supports their simplistic brand of thinking about issues. Personal responsibility and individuality are not traits valued by the left.
Brian says:

July 26, 2006 at 3:06 pm

Great post, ST!
benning says:

July 26, 2006 at 4:17 pm

Well, color me amazed! Heheheee! We knew it all along!
forest hunter says:

July 26, 2006 at 7:32 pm

Outstanding post ST!
Lorica says:

July 26, 2006 at 7:39 pm

Aren’t these the same people that called two of the most distinguished individuals this world has ever seen, Gen. Colin Powell, and Sec. Condolezza Rice, Uncle Toms?? How about their treatment of Justice Thomas?? – Lorica
Ron Goodwyne says:

July 26, 2006 at 10:23 pm

No surprise here, though it is always nice to have confirmation. Conservatives are all about personal responsibility and that usually gets us labeled racist but the fact is, we want personal responsibility from everyone, not just certain minorities. Liberals, on the other hand, want the government to be responsible for everyone and for them, minorities are the least qualified to make decisions for themselves. That has always seemed racist to me. I’ve never been able to figure out why minorities so often don’t see that.
Marshall Art says:

July 26, 2006 at 10:54 pm

It’s a question for the ages, Ron. But I’d like to think the tide is turning, aleit slowly.
Drewsmom says:

July 27, 2006 at 6:34 am

These loons only do this s$#t WHEN THEY ARE PANDERING FOR VOTES — PERIOD.
Look how the loons support bobby klansman, byrd and if a Republican was found to have been a former pointed head guy it would be on every front page for eternity. GOOD GRIEF.[-(:d
tom says:

July 28, 2006 at 1:01 am

This is a fascinating and underreported result, if true. It runs contrary to the stereotyped assumptions we are faced with almost daily. In academia, a finding contrary to conventional wisdom is usually broadcast with gusto. That doesn’t seem to be the case with this one. The prior research is reported in Gilliam, F. D. & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560-573. The effect mentioned above is not mentioned in the abstract. It does not seem to be in the full article, either, at least not in an obvious way. If anyone reading knows more about this, please leave a comment.

-KENT SCHEIDEGGER AT CRIMEANDCONSEQUENCES.COM

James Tarranto of the WSJ Opinon further debunks this study and says:
We should say, though, that although these results are consistent with our own prejudices about those on the liberal side of the political spectrum, we doubt this study comes anywhere near proving anything. This is for several reasons:
Sister Toldjah says:

July 28, 2006 at 8:29 am

LOL! “Debunked”? This is the second time I’ve had to point out to you that you haven’t read something carefully. From Taranto’s piece:

We pointed out that the sample was highly skewed toward liberals and Democrats (as well as toward the well-educated and, to a lesser extent, toward whites), and said, “if this study shows that the participants are racially biased, that doesn’t prove that Americans are racially biased. At most it proves that well-educated liberal white Americans are.”

Now Morin has done a follow-up column, in which he shows that we were right:

Taranto’s comments after that simply stated that the results didn’t mean it was necessarily true that liberals were subconciously racist towards black people, because other factors may or may not have been present.

Keep hope alive, tom.
tom says:

July 28, 2006 at 1:15 pm

ST –
Who’s not carefully reading? Try starting with the original WSJ article by Taranto on June 23 where he states

We are skeptical of the entire enterprise of trying to measure something as intangible as racial attitudes. Clegg’s criticism (with which we neither agree nor disagree) illustrates one reason why: Even if you assume that these numbers are meaningful, how much of a difference would constitute “proof of a racist society”? We can’t think of an answer to the question that isn’t entirely arbitrary.

Even if we assume that the disparities Morin and Iyengar find actually do mean what they think they do, there is an enormous systemic bias in their study, which they acknowledge, seemingly without grasping its significance, in their full write-up:

Just trying to keep you honest, ST.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 28, 2006 at 1:22 pm

Um, I don’t need anyone to ‘keep me honest, tom’ – worry about yourself, and the way you continually misread things before you start worrying about my supposed issues with honesty.

Taranto did not “debunk” anything. He merely gave his opinion. Debunking something means disproving it, which Taranto did not do. Go back and re-read it.
tom says:

July 28, 2006 at 4:53 pm

So….. I guess you’re still not skeptical of this study.
tom says:

July 28, 2006 at 4:56 pm

BTW Debunking means: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. The word disprove is nowhere in the definition. However these definitions of ‘debunk’ do seem to apply here.

To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

debunking:
n : the exposure of falseness or pretensions
Severian says:

July 28, 2006 at 5:39 pm

Tom doesn’t see the equivalence of “expose the falsness of” and “disprove” despite the fact he can quote a dictionary. You can lead a liberal to knowledge, but you can’t make him understand apparently. Although, like leading a horse to water, if you can get him to float on his back you’ve got something.
Sister Toldjah says:

July 28, 2006 at 5:42 pm

“Soâ€¦.. I guess you’re still not skeptical of this study.”

Finally. You got one right.

“BTW Debunking means: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: debunk a supposed miracle drug. The word disprove is nowhere in the definition. However these definitions of â€˜debunk’ do seem to apply here.

To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of

debunking:
n : the exposure of falseness or pretensions ”

Um, I know what debunking is and I’m glad to see you actually clicked on the link I provided to see what it meant.

Don’t insult my intelligence by trying to claim you weren’t saying that Taranto disproved this piece.

I’m losing my patience: you’ve so far been dishonest -while questioning my honesty, taken things I’ve said out of context (deliberately?) to prove some kind of ‘point’, and have tried to pass off this phony ‘but that’s not what I meant by debunking’ bit.

You must think because I’m blonde AND conservative that I’m doubly stupid, so much so that I’m supposed to just accept what you say without question. If that’s the case, you are sadly mistaken. I’ve been around the block with liberals who challenge me in a way I like to be challenged: and that is, using honest arguments in an attempt to debunk (meaning: prove false) something I’ve said. If you want to challenge me using honest arguments that don’t twist my words and insult my intelligence, please do so. Because one more post like the one I’m answering, and you’ll have one less blog you can comment on.

Comments are closed.