PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
How do we judge the nature of strangers, or those we know only in passing?
Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'
What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.
1. I find this most explicative when one on the other side of the political divide calls the other a liar.
I don't lie. But I have found that those who do so regularly are the quickest to jump to this accusation.
Nor is it a surprise to find that those on the Left, the Liberal folks, are the fastest on the draw in this respect.
2. Another character difference between the two political persuasions is individualism. It is one of the cornerstones of conservatism, and the 'sotto voce' of America's founding documents. We want to make our own decisions.
The other side seems to feel that we lack the capability, and they should do this for us. That's why Liberal folks leap to ban things that they don't like, and use judicial decree to overturn voter's opinions.
And that goes right back to judging others by ourselves.
Liberals must feel that they need experts to 'advise' them what the right things to do are.
When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority.
3. And speaking of judging others by oneself, it seems to me a constant calumny by Liberals that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell right-wingers, and conservatives what to think....but I never hear conservatives claiming that those on the Left are 'programmed' by the ubiquitous variations on MSNBC or the NYTimes that echo throughout our secular society.
Why is that?
Kinda sounds like the Left is trying to prevent the reality from becoming broadcast....i.e., they are the ones who march lock-step, following orders.
4. Another difference is preparation, knowledge,...or perhaps that related to item #3.
Conservatives know more about what's going on....in fact, if Liberals knew as many of the ingredients in a story as conservatives do, they'd probably be conservatives. Instead, when they're told things they didn't know, they shout "liar!"
Examples? Sure....
a. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!
b. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation
c. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasnt covered the ACORN scandal is that he didnt know about it.
Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!
ABCs Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureaus decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.coms video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didnt know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «
Maybe the difference is just plain ol' laziness.
5. One more difference: insight- found more in the conservative camp than in the Liberal.
There was actually a study by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal.
"In The Righteous Mind, Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves very liberal, were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.
Liberals dont understand conservative values. And they cant recognize this failing, because theyre so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0
Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...
And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.
Simply by assuming them to be most like the individual we know the best. That is the measuring stick we use to estimate.
Hence, the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'
What would we do in similar circumstances, how would we act, what would we say?
That's human nature.
1. I find this most explicative when one on the other side of the political divide calls the other a liar.
I don't lie. But I have found that those who do so regularly are the quickest to jump to this accusation.
Nor is it a surprise to find that those on the Left, the Liberal folks, are the fastest on the draw in this respect.
2. Another character difference between the two political persuasions is individualism. It is one of the cornerstones of conservatism, and the 'sotto voce' of America's founding documents. We want to make our own decisions.
The other side seems to feel that we lack the capability, and they should do this for us. That's why Liberal folks leap to ban things that they don't like, and use judicial decree to overturn voter's opinions.
And that goes right back to judging others by ourselves.
Liberals must feel that they need experts to 'advise' them what the right things to do are.
When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority.
3. And speaking of judging others by oneself, it seems to me a constant calumny by Liberals that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News tell right-wingers, and conservatives what to think....but I never hear conservatives claiming that those on the Left are 'programmed' by the ubiquitous variations on MSNBC or the NYTimes that echo throughout our secular society.
Why is that?
Kinda sounds like the Left is trying to prevent the reality from becoming broadcast....i.e., they are the ones who march lock-step, following orders.
4. Another difference is preparation, knowledge,...or perhaps that related to item #3.
Conservatives know more about what's going on....in fact, if Liberals knew as many of the ingredients in a story as conservatives do, they'd probably be conservatives. Instead, when they're told things they didn't know, they shout "liar!"
Examples? Sure....
a. "Stephanopoulos appeared on The Sean Hannity Show and New York radio station WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show, where both Hannity and Malzberg suggested to Stephanopoulos that he ask Obama about Ayers."
Right-wing radio hosts suggested "damn good" Ayers question to Stephanopoulos day before Dem debate | Research | Media Matters for America
He didn't know about Ayers!!
b. CBS's Bob Schieffer on Sunday said the reason he didn't ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case on last week's "Face the Nation" was because he didn't know about it.
Chatting with Howard Kurtz on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Schieffer said, "This all really became a story when the whistleblower came out and testified that he'd had to leave the Justice Department and so on. And, frankly, had I known about that, I would have asked the question."
His excuse?
"I was on vacation that week. This happened -- apparently, it got very little publicity. And, you know, I just didn't know about it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Bob Schieffer: What Black Panther Story? 'I Was on Vacation' - Fox Nation
c. Several Chicago readers and Twitterers report that ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson told WLS-AM Chicago talk show hosts Don Wade and Roma this morning that the reason he hasnt covered the ACORN scandal is that he didnt know about it.
Charlie Gibson on as their usual Tuesday morning guest. Don asked Charlie, why, after the senate last night voted to halt funding to ACORN and after three of those video tapes of ACORN employees helping the pimp and prostitute set up shop, there was no mention of it anywhere on the network news. Charlie gave out a most uncomfortable laugh and said that that was the first he heard of it!
ABCs Jake Tapper reported on the Census Bureaus decision to drop ACORN from its data collection partnerships on Friday as a result of BigGovernment.coms video stings.
Gibson also admitted to Don and Roma that he didnt know about the Senate vote to de-fund ACORN.
Michelle Malkin | ACORN Watch: Charlie Gibson and the ostrich media; Update: Audio added «
Maybe the difference is just plain ol' laziness.
5. One more difference: insight- found more in the conservative camp than in the Liberal.
There was actually a study by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who, until 2009, considered himself a partisan liberal.
"In The Righteous Mind, Haidt seeks to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature.
The hardest part, Haidt finds, is getting liberals to open their minds. Anecdotally, he reports that when he talks about authority, loyalty and sanctity, many people in the audience spurn these ideas as the seeds of racism, sexism and homophobia. And in a survey of 2,000 Americans, Haidt found that self-described liberals, especially those who called themselves very liberal, were worse at predicting the moral judgments of moderates and conservatives than moderates and conservatives were at predicting the moral judgments of liberals.
Liberals dont understand conservative values. And they cant recognize this failing, because theyre so convinced of their rationality, open-mindedness and enlightenment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/bo...anted=all&_r=0
Sadly, it is much easier in our milieu to be a Liberal than a conservative, and perhaps because there are so many more of 'em, it even takes an extra dollop of courage to be a conservative...
And....in judging others by ourselves....
.... we end up being governed by ineptitude personified.