What a wingnut believes are "rational auidiences"

[mythbuster43]

http://hl98.blogspot.com/

A guy pretending to be a "rational" conservaitve, but is in reality just another run-of-the-mill wingnut rambling ignorantly about ObamaCare, liberals, and what he thinks is socialism.

You know how I know he's a wingnut? He regularly posts pictures from--and links to--flickr member SS & SS, a husband and wife account by the looks of it. It is literally the most batshit insane, paronoid, frothingly crazy cesspool of Teabagger lunacy I have ever encountered. Those guys are seriously mentally ill and need professional help.

People who say they're blogs are for "rational audiences" and then repeatedly link to batshit insane lunatics are among the main reasons while I'll likely never be able to take conservatism seriously.

[Alehksunos]

Rational/rationalism...

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means.

[Sylvana]

I sometimes wonder if liberal blogs have a similar bias. I am almost certain of it.
Both sides believe they are speaking for the truth and rationality, while being just as dishonest and irrational as each other. This is a more liberal site and so will be leaning more to wards one side than the other and being more liberal minded myself it feels as though conservatives are more crazy and have more crazies within them than liberals do. However I wonder how much of that is true, and how much of it is my own confirmation bias. I am willing to be that the people who visit that conservative blog all consider themselves honest and rational people, just as we all do.

[Distind]

That's pretty much why I don't approve some of the quotes that get submitted, while from over here in the left mid field bleachers it looks rather nuts, and from the boxes it looks like frothing lunacy, if you really look at it... it's pretty much just mild stupid in the opposite direction of your own.

That said... if you're in the boxes to begin with and don't look outside your own asshole, well, you get something like this guy. On one side or another.

[guizonde]

on a similar point to sylvana and distind, who raised the concept of cognitive bias, last night i had a friendly squabble with an extreme left friend of mine. he knows i'm a "jaded anarchist", and i know he's a "utopian communist", and i raised the point that moderation is dying out. all we have left are oligarchs, wingnuts, extremists, fundamentalists, etc... both our viewpoints are close enough not to go nuclear on each other (i lost faith in the political system, thus my anarchism: treat others as you would like to be treated, and he's... close to that, but more communism), and we found that the political spectrum is radicalizing itself. just check out the terms "RINO" and "DINO". most of them are middle-ground, and that makes them "... in name only"? i don't think so. i'm just wondering when did being a moderate stop being the voice of reason, is all.

your two bits, anyone?

[mythbuster43]

You make a good point on how all we seem to have left are extremists. Terms like RINO and DINO are reflections of our political parties' need for "purity".

Sylvana has a great point as well. I'm sure visitors of conservatives blogs consider themselves rational people as well. But in my opinion, if you think Obama is a radical Marxist, you fail at being rational and you also fail at knowing the definition of "Marxist".

[Distind]

i'm just wondering when did being a moderate stop being the voice of reason, is all.

your two bits, anyone?

I don't think it ever really stopped, I just think we stopped listening, because it's easier to declare ourselves right rather and fail at accomplishing anything than work out something. Doesn't help that we've made bubbles for ourselves politically rather than simply having to deal with the people around us.

[Witchyjoshy]

The reason I don't call myself a moderate is simple, actually...

To me, a moderate might seek to find middle ground, even where there is none.

However, as a liberal, I prefer to think of myself as open-minded.  That is, if the right suggests a genuinely good idea, then I'd go with that idea and praise it.  That's why, even if I'm technically a democrat, I prefer "liberal" over that.

...That being said, how open-minded I really am isn't for me to claim, because I'm obviously biased towards myself.  I'm probably a lot less open-minded than I think I am.

And I'm going to stop right there before I go for the obvious downward spiral from that logic.

[guizonde]

The reason I don't call myself a moderate is simple, actually...

To me, a moderate might seek to find middle ground, even where there is none.

However, as a liberal, I prefer to think of myself as open-minded.  That is, if the right suggests a genuinely good idea, then I'd go with that idea and praise it.  That's why, even if I'm technically a democrat, I prefer "liberal" over that.

...That being said, how open-minded I really am isn't for me to claim, because I'm obviously biased towards myself.  I'm probably a lot less open-minded than I think I am.

And I'm going to stop right there before I go for the obvious downward spiral from that logic.

sure, "moderate" is a category like "liberal" and "conservative", and yet my definition of moderate was more akin to using ideas from all around without going full-on extremist, and less based on compromise. your definition works, too, but i find it's more applicable to centrists. great, another category... oh, well...

[Witchyjoshy]

Political positions are confusing and often subject to personal interpretation despite all attempts otherwise.

[mythbuster43]

I feel like I should change the title of the thread now.

[Lt. Fred]

I sometimes wonder if liberal blogs have a similar bias. I am almost certain of it.
Both sides believe they are speaking for the truth and rationality, while being just as dishonest and irrational as each other.

This is nonsense. Without question there are honest conservatives, and dishonest liberals. The numbers are not equal, nor is it true that liberal distortions of fact are as systematic or widespread as conservative distortions of fact. That's just true.

Both sides do not do it. Fact.

But in my opinion, if you think Obama is a radical Marxist, you fail at being rational and you also fail at knowing the definition of "Marxist".

This is a legitimate view, but I respectfully disagree.

I think this is part of the effective double-think most conservatives have developed. They know Obama needs to be a Marxist in order for their ideology to make sense, so they believe him to be a Marxist.

[mythbuster43]

But in my opinion, if you think Obama is a radical Marxist, you fail at being rational and you also fail at knowing the definition of "Marxist".

This is a legitimate view, but I respectfully disagree.

I think this is part of the effective double-think most conservatives have developed. They know Obama needs to be a Marxist in order for their ideology to make sense, so they believe him to be a Marxist.

I think that's more circular reasoning then double-think. It's sort of like how fundamentalists say that the Bible is the literal word of God and "prove" it by saying that God said so in the Bible.

[Feral Dog]

I sometimes wonder if liberal blogs have a similar bias. I am almost certain of it.

Having seen Feministing slowly turn into a Tumblr--Social-Justice style borderline self-parody, I'd say yes.

[shykid]

Get any group of passionate, like-minded individuals together and they will insulate themselves from reality given the opportunity to shut out dissenting opinion. Examples of this are endless, but cults in general are the most obvious one: they operate on this tendency taken to its extreme.

That said, when someone goes out of their way to call themselves rational, I'm immediately going to be suspicious of their rationality.