BF2S Forums Racist or Hypersensive?

"THEY" isn't very PC of you.

lol

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To a degree, yes, but they certainly don't have a monopoly on this superficiality.  We see similar things among the Tea Party.  Sarah Palin is sort of a patriotic version of Sharpton, with the same sort of shallow rhetoric hooking in her followers.

To me, it's not so much a left/right issue as it is one involving intelligent people vs. stupid people.

Unfortunately, the abundance of stupid people in general makes a lot of issues very heavy on emotional manipulation rather than rational discussion.

What does Palin say or do that can remotely compared to what Sharpton does? SHe is a conservative whith conservative POV. Other than this I agree

So far, I haven't seen much evidence that Palin comprehends fiscal conservatism.  I especially haven't seen that among a lot of her followers.

It's easy to rally behind social conservative issues because they fall perfectly in line with tradition and religion.  Neither of those things require much thought, because they aren't justified through critical thinking.  Fiscal conservatism is a much more intellectual endeavor that requires more explanation for its basis.

So far as I've seen, Palin just appeals to patriotic people through shallow catchphrases and a little religion thrown in.

Granted, I realize much of the same could be said of Obama, although I would argue Obama is considerably more intellectual and intelligent than Palin.

She's just a cheerleader that found a ready audience.

Peoples basis for liking Palin seems to be as shallow as what drove them to like Obama. It's simply an emotional attachment because they feel or felt that the person 'gets them'. I think it's sickening but whatever.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

What does Palin say or do that can remotely compared to what Sharpton does? SHe is a conservative whith conservative POV. Other than this I agree

So far, I haven't seen much evidence that Palin comprehends fiscal conservatism.  I especially haven't seen that among a lot of her followers.

It's easy to rally behind social conservative issues because they fall perfectly in line with tradition and religion.  Neither of those things require much thought, because they aren't justified through critical thinking.  Fiscal conservatism is a much more intellectual endeavor that requires more explanation for its basis.

So far as I've seen, Palin just appeals to patriotic people through shallow catchphrases and a little religion thrown in.

Granted, I realize much of the same could be said of Obama, although I would argue Obama is considerably more intellectual and intelligent than Palin.

She's just a cheerleader that found a ready audience.

Now this is an analogy I can buy into.

lowing wrote:

Now this is an analogy I can buy into.

I don't know why the left is so enraged by her, she's nothing more than the counter to the Obama madness that this country experienced two years ago. His ride to office was fueled by nothing more than emotion. She's doing the exact same thing.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now this is an analogy I can buy into.

I don't know why the left is so enraged by her, she's nothing more than the counter to the Obama madness that this country experienced two years ago. His ride to office was fueled by nothing more than emotion. She's doing the exact same thing.

I think the main worry with Palin is that she seems dumb as a brick.  Even if I was a Republican, I'd be embarrassed by her.

The thing is, I supported Obama not because of his charisma but because I felt like he actually knew what he was talking about.  I don't always agree with his views, but he can at least discuss them in a somewhat rational manner.  Palin just seems like she's always spouting out buzzwords or winking at the camera.

The thing is, Palin seems to appeal to one of the scarier demographics of the country -- the clueless rednecks.  She seems to represent the worst aspects of white culture.

Reagan and Clinton may have also appealed to the rednecks, but they both at least had some crossover appeal to more educated people.  Even Dubya had more going for him than Palin.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now this is an analogy I can buy into.

I don't know why the left is so enraged by her, she's nothing more than the counter to the Obama madness that this country experienced two years ago. His ride to office was fueled by nothing more than emotion. She's doing the exact same thing.

I think the main worry with Palin is that she seems dumb as a brick.  Even if I was a Republican, I'd be embarrassed by her.

The thing is, I supported Obama not because of his charisma but because I felt like he actually knew what he was talking about.  I don't always agree with his views, but he can at least discuss them in a somewhat rational manner.  Palin just seems like she's always spouting out buzzwords or winking at the camera.

The thing is, Palin seems to appeal to one of the scarier demographics of the country -- the clueless rednecks.  She seems to represent the worst aspects of white culture.

Reagan and Clinton may have also appealed to the rednecks, but they both at least had some crossover appeal to more educated people.  Even Dubya had more going for him than Palin.

Don't confuse education level with intelligence. I know a lot of dumb fuck college grads. I also know quite a few genius rednecks.

Your view on this is superficial and completely stereotypical. I mean really, what is your average hipster liberal doing besides spouting off buzzwords? Sure, his words may be couched in a manner that makes him appear to be intelligent, but he's just regurgitating the work of another without putting any real thought into it. He's as mindless as the redneck you despise, but he's even worse in my eyes because at least the redneck doesn't have a misplaced sense of superiority and can see his own flaws.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Pretty much...  I'd also apply it Clinton, Dubya, and Reagan.

I guess it's somewhat inevitable that major political leaders will resort to this manipulation, because it's very effective.

The best that we can hope for is that the manipulator actually knows what he's talking about.  I never felt that way with Dubya or Reagan, but Clinton seemed pretty intelligent.

H. W. Bush was one of the few recent presidents we've had that didn't run on charisma, and he was clearly intelligent, but of course, intelligence alone won't get you re-elected.

I mean with Obama, there isn't a single person on this planet who knew what they were voting for. The guy was as cryptic as he possibly could be while he was campaigning so it clearly wasn't the issues that people were voting on. It was simply 100% emotion in the form of hope or whatever else that fueled his rise. Hope meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people because it's a completely personal emotion. Now his approval ratings are worse than Bush's were. Playing with emotion is a dangerous path to tread because it's as capricious as the breeze.

Sadly, this is the country we live in. We'll never have an enlightened voter base who chooses the best candidate based purely on rational conclusions. Not without a poll tax anyway...

Um...  While I would certainly prefer a more intelligent voter base, I still don't see how you think a poll tax would accomplish this...

Because you cut out the bottom end that will vote for whoever will toss them the most money out of the treasury.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Don't confuse education level with intelligence. I know a lot of dumb fuck college grads. I also know quite a few genius rednecks.

Intelligence is surely not synonymous with education, but it does help.  Wisdom is a more common sense grounded intelligence that many less educated people have as well.  So we mostly agree on this point, however...

A lot of people are both uneducated and clueless.  The hockey mom types really are sheltered from world affairs, and most rednecks don't know much beyond what affects their day to day life.  Granted, the same could be said for a lot of inner city poor.

The importance of education is that it can help someone with average perception and average intelligence comprehend more esoteric topics like foreign policy.  That's how an uninformed voter becomes informed.  So, the net effect of better education for the masses is having a better informed voter base.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Your view on this is superficial and completely stereotypical. I mean really, what is your average hipster liberal doing besides spouting off buzzwords? Sure, his words may be couched in a manner that makes him appear to be intelligent, but he's just regurgitating the work of another without putting any real thought into it. He's as mindless as the redneck you despise, but he's even worse in my eyes because at least the redneck doesn't have a misplaced sense of superiority and can see his own flaws.

I'm not defending hipsters.  I'm defending people who actually follow and discuss the issues.  People who actually have an interest in cross-referencing sources and keeping up with policies and issues are the most rational voters most of the time.  Granted, I realize they comprise a rather small segment of the population, but you're more likely to find these people in big cities that have good education systems.

Generally speaking, the more metropolitan an area is, the more informed the average person is.  That might sound elitist, but it's mostly true.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I mean with Obama, there isn't a single person on this planet who knew what they were voting for. The guy was as cryptic as he possibly could be while he was campaigning so it clearly wasn't the issues that people were voting on. It was simply 100% emotion in the form of hope or whatever else that fueled his rise. Hope meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people because it's a completely personal emotion. Now his approval ratings are worse than Bush's were. Playing with emotion is a dangerous path to tread because it's as capricious as the breeze.

Sadly, this is the country we live in. We'll never have an enlightened voter base who chooses the best candidate based purely on rational conclusions. Not without a poll tax anyway...

Um...  While I would certainly prefer a more intelligent voter base, I still don't see how you think a poll tax would accomplish this...

Because you cut out the bottom end that will vote for whoever will toss them the most money out of the treasury.

I would argue that problem is even more prominent among the elite rich, because they tend to be the biggest recipients of government favors -- at least when you look at how much money is given out per interest due to lobbyism.

I know the biggest slice of the budget is Social Security/welfare, but if you divide those budgets by the number of recipients, the amount per person is relatively low.  Compare that to how much money is doled out to each corporation under corporate welfare.

If anything, the system is actually more angled at appeasing the rich than the poor.

hypersensive

JohnG@lt wrote:

I live in the largest city in America and your view is just plain wrong. The people that surround me are even more likely to put their head down and grasp simple pleasures in life rather than take the time out of their day to educate themselves. No, if anything, what you get in cities is a firmer grasp of mob mentality. People are more likely to attach themselves to a group and mindlessly follow the groupthink than think for themselves. They're misguided and not to be admired in the slightest.

I'm not disputing human nature.  Yes, the average person is a sheep, but I find it very hard to believe that the average person who lives in the middle of nowhere is going to be better informed than the average person living in a large city.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The man I admire is one who lives away from society and can form his own opinions on a topic without becoming a sheep. From isolation comes real thought, not from immersion.

From what I've observed, isolation just tends to make a person more extremist.  People generally hold more moderate views when they interact with a variety of viewpoints.

When someone has mostly experienced the same views all of his life or has only introspectively viewed the world around him rather than having actually discussed things with others on a regular basis, that tends to make a man much more dogmatic.