False claims about 40 beheaded babies & 30 Harvard student groups condemning Israel may teach us how the US left, right & liberal process news

[pknopp]

So The British and the French should have just rolled over and took it From Germany in 1939?

Let's make it easy. What did Iraq or Syria do to us?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let's make it easy. What did Iraq or Syria do to us?

Iraq under Saddam paid for terrorists that attacked the US and her interests. Syria was an Obama Fuck up.

 

[marvin martian]

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.

You need to stop lying on behalf of terrorists.

 

[bripat9643]

Well we agree on something then. X is a vast disinformation hub.

You mean Facebook and youTube, don't you? There's also MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS. I don't watch any of them.

 

[pknopp]

Iraq under Saddam paid for terrorists that attacked the US and her interests. Syria was an Obama Fuck up.

No they didn't. But this is why I don't trust the word of any side.

Yours is just a blindly political rant.

 

[whitehall]

Indications are that the claim is true but what do Harvard students know? Are they in contact with the Hamas monsters or are they just left wing knee jerk activists?

 

[BlindBoo]

So The British and the French should have just rolled over and took it From Germany in 1939?

The isolationist Republican's thought so. They said it was not our war and they fought FDR, who thought we should help stop the new German aggression. Some things never change as the Neo-Republican isolationists now think the Ukraine should just rollover and take the new Russian aggression.

 

[BlindBoo]

Indications are that the claim is true but what do Harvard students know? Are they in contact with the Hamas monsters or are they just left wing knee jerk activists?

I know that the Hamas Terrorists would kill all the Harvard Students if they could. I don't know, but I think their students have been sheltered from reality by the new Bulldozer Parents. Unlike the Helicopter parents the Bulldozer push anything bad away from their kids experiences.

 

[martybegan]

Let's make it easy. What did Iraq or Syria do to us?

Don't dodge the question. You give the blanket statement "war is bad" like every war is a choice by both sides.

 

[martybegan]

The isolationist Republican's thought so. They said it was not our war and they fought FDR, who thought we should help stop the new German aggression. Some things never change as the Neo-Republican isolationists now think the Ukraine should just rollover and take the new Russian aggression.

That doesn't answer my question to pdumkoff.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Indications are that the claim is true but what do Harvard students know? Are they in contact with the Hamas monsters or are they just left wing knee jerk activists?

Poorly raised and easily indoctrinated

 

[whitehall]

Every conservative speaker has been a victim of assault on a college campus because leftie students refuse to allow them to express their 1st Amendment rights but Harvard students get away with outrageous racist and bigoted demonstrations.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

Your credibility on these boards has now left the building.

 

[marvin martian]

I know that the Hamas Terrorists would kill all the Harvard Students if they could. I don't know, but I think their students have been sheltered from reality by the new Bulldozer Parents. Unlike the Helicopter parents the Bulldozer push anything bad away from their kids experiences.

It appears they are also indoctrinating their kids with DemoKKKrat anti-semitism.

 

[BlindBoo]

That doesn't answer my question to pdumkoff.

Yeah? I never intended to answer that stupid question. My statement about the past isolationist and the current batch was accurate.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah? I never intended to answer that stupid question. My statement about the past isolationist and the current batch was accurate.

And pointless to the conversation being held.

 

[BlindBoo]

It appears they are also indoctrinating their kids with DemoKKKrat anti-semitism.

Yeah? But you're a nut job partisan operative spreading hatred of Americans.

 

[BlindBoo]

And pointless to the conversation being held.

You're the one who brought up 1939 and German aggression. Don't like the isolationists in todays Neo-GOP being compared to the isolationist of FDR's day? Too bad. They are/were the ones who want/wanted Ukraine/France and England to roll over and just take it. The French obliged but the UK didn't because......

 

[martybegan]

You're the one who brought up 1939 and German aggression. Don't like the isolationists in todays Neo-GOP being compared to the isolationist of FDR's day? Too bad. They are/were the ones who want/wanted Ukraine/France and England to roll over and just take it. The French obliged but the UK didn't because......

In the context of "war always being bad". You added the extra crap as a usual dig at Republicans. From over 80 years ago.

 

[pknopp]

Don't dodge the question. You give the blanket statement "war is bad" like every war is a choice by both sides.

I said we can't condemn others for the very thing we do.