MinTrut
Diamond Member
- Jun 7, 2021
- 14,327
- 7,879
- 1,938
As many have heard, a bizarre false claim has been made that HAMAS militants beheaded 40 babies in their counter-attacks against ongoing Israeli ethnic cleansing and war crimes this past weekend.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
Patently absurd on its face, the truth, while still tragic, is a different matter:
MSN
In keeping with Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinian men, women and children which have left thousands upon thousands dead, it appears that as many as three dozen kibbutz inhabitants were murdered, a few as young as two.
While deeply sad, it pales in comparison to the vast multiples of this number of innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel.
But for the purpose of this thread, the most important aspect of the story from a group perception standpoint is that conservatives accepted at face value that 40 babies had been beheaded despite the absurdity of the claim, while liberals (and even more so the left) were far more (and correctly) skeptical.
Meanwhile, 30 student groups at the famously liberal/left-leaning Harvard have come out with stern condemnations of Israel's long history of behavior far worse and vastly more numerically lopsided than the terrible event noted above:
Cornel West on Harvard students blaming Israel: Largely right but lacking nuance
What these two stories have in common is that liberals, and to an even greater extent the left, appear far more inclined to ask questions which challenge pre-conceived narratives, prejudices, and supposed authorities rather than accepting alleged truths at face value.
Contrary to the conservative claim that liberals and the left are led more by feeling than fact, the reverse appears to be true.
In the case of the false baby beheading claim, conservatives allowed their pre-conceived notions of Muslim barbarism to quash the more logical path of skepticism and deeper research that liberals and the left followed.
And in the case of the endless cries of alleged "Unprovoked attacks on Israel!" by Palestinian groups, the highly educated students of Harvard looked long and hard at the ACTUAL long history of Israeli brutality, terrorism, land theft, ethnic cleansing and widespread civilian murder to conclude that Israel was in fact the longstanding aggressor, and had provided endless provocation over many decades.
Conservatives famously attack liberals and the left - often confusing the two - in an unending barrage of barbs pertaining to their alleged infantile and overly emotional response to events, but the opposite seems to often be the case.
Liberals and the left seem much more inclined to investigate, use logic and reason, and weigh numerous sources before drawing conclusions, whereas conservatives seem more inclined to trust arbitrary - and often untrustworthy - authority figures providing bad information which confirms their prior prejudices.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are immune from this behavior (see the eight year liberal witch hunt against Trump for instance), but rather that they seem less inclined to base their beliefs on feelings and pre-conceived notions than conservatives.
Is this something that is likely to change?
Is the difference the higher levels of education that liberals and the left tend to pursue?
Obviously all three groups have societal value, but this difference is quite glaring, and often disconcerting.
