small dead animals: The Liberal Legal Bubble

The Liberal Legal Bubble

What can explain liberals? widespread failure to anticipate the Court?s wariness of the mandate? Research conducted by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests one possible answer: Liberals just aren?t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think. Haidt helped conduct research that asked respondents to fill out questionnaires about political narratives?first responding based on their own beliefs, but then responding as if trying to mimic the beliefs of their political opponents. ?The results,? he writes in the May issue of Reason, ?were clear and consistent.? Moderates and conservatives were the most able to think like their liberal political opponents. ?Liberals,? he reports, ?were the least accurate, especially those who describe themselves as ?very liberal.??

Posted by Kate at April 1, 2012 6:15 AM

The reason they took it for granted is because they have a contempt for the constitution and believe that the government can do whatever it wants. In a system as obviously corrupt as the US legal system I too am surprised at the recent decent. I hope it lasts.

What can explain liberals? widespread failure to anticipate the Court?s wariness of the healthcare mandate?

-

Liberals only see and hear 4 of the SCOTUS judges..

-

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/x/B/3/new-supreme-court-robes.jpg

We have to fire Oblamer,

if he appoints another Supreme Court judge we will be in deep shite..

Liberals...."their own believes"

What?! Liberals have beliefs?

Again, might I suggest caution. We have no valid idea of the nature of the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court. The questions asked by the judges are not the decision of the judges.

There are four judges, all Liberal, with two appointed by Obama for just this situation, who are activists rather than Constitutionalists. We have one 'swing' vote.

Therefore, based on the arguments themselves, we cannot come to a conclusion, for the arguments do not rest in isolation. They rest within your basic foundational belief of whether you are an activist or a constitutionalist.

I was educated, including 4 years of grad school, by liberals. Therefore, yeah, I can recite liberal views in ways that liberals will recognize and accept. However, most liberals have never been bothered to learn conservative thought, and therefore only know what the DailyKOS tells them.

Being Liberal means never being right and never having to apologise for being wrong.

Someone once described a liberal "argument" thus: "I'm right and you're stupid".
My experience with liberals is that they are often not only viscerally incapable of imagining what a counter argument to their position might be, but are, indeed, incapable of imagining that there could even exist a differing point of view. It's part of the reason they often come a cropper with the immigrant communities they court superficially, since they are at a complete loss to imagine that members of those immigrant communities may have a wholly different, non-liberal, world view.

Liberals are not logical or rational. Every single thought and decision they make is based purely on emotion.

They're pretty simple to understand, frustrating, but simple.

Again, might I suggest caution. We have no valid idea of the nature of the forthcoming decision of the Supreme Court.

Yes, anything can be rationalized. Especially if the person doing so lacks real world experience. That this even needs to be considered longer than thirty seconds demonstrates those who deal only in words lack common sense.

DrD - that might be what they say, but IMHO they're thinking I'm right and you're evil because you know I'm right and you want to do something different anyways.

SDH at 10:28 AM

exactly, and studies even point to this, on money matters they will go emotional as soon as you say welfare

they are absolutely "emotional stupid"

The court is going to rule the mandate as unconstitutional along with the balance of Obamacare. If it had decided to uphold it on Friday, the news would have leaked. Liberals not only can't think like a conservative, they cannot keep a secret. They have alreay leaked this result if you think about it. That explains the talking points and the healthcare stock rise. Wall street insiders do not make bets, they take positions in sure things. They are also huge donators to the Obamacause.

What the testing showed, was what has been apparent for long time: liberals have reduced capacity to think, compared to conservatives and libertarians.
Especially those who describe themselves as very liberal. Just more evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder, or at the very least, indicative of diminished mental capacity.

The lefties fail to differentiate between the federal government buying its way into areas of state jurisdiction and bulling their way into state jurisdiction. Personally, I think both should be illegal.

The best comment there, "Liberals believe that freedom means freedom from responsibility." Right on the mark.

Explains well why they instantly respond with 'throwing their food' when pressed with facts and the truth.

NME666 I call it being emotionally liable.

As so often coined "Liberalism is a mental disorder". wWen you can wrap your head around the full implications and reality of that statement, everything else falls onto place perfectly.

My experience when arguing with left-wingers is that they; list emotional 'talking points' rather than rational arguments, refuse to acknowledge that a point of theirs has been refuted but simply move on to another talking point, and try to block counter arguments by interrupting and talking over top of the opposing side.

When I argue with left wingers at work it is not to convince them, but to show to the others that are listening how ridiculous the left wing 'arguments' are. Generally both of us walk away thinking we won, only one of us is right.

"What can explain liberals? widespread failure to anticipate the Court?s wariness of the mandate?"

I think "failure to anticipate" is completely wrong. They knew d@mn well it was unconstitutional, and they went for it anyway. It was a Hail Mary. The last big push they had in them before they stop pretending and reach for the Molotov cocktails.

"Liberals" in all their shades from pink to fire engine red have been feeling the walls closing in on them these last twenty years, it seems to me. Their speech is ever more strident, their policies ever more extreme, their behavior ever more frantic.

They aren't stupid. They're desperate.

Interesting, totally superfluous research. We ALL knew that.

I've repeatedly told my liberal interlocutors that they have a completely unbalanced view; that they need to seek out conservative/libertarian views through the blogs.

I've also explained that WE don't need to similarly pursue liberal blogs, 'cos we already know the narrative inside and out, up and down; that we understand the intellectual history of progressivism; that we get it through the ether even if we boycott Pravda-west.

I agree with ET's precaution on Scotus/ObamaCare. I simply cannot dream of it being overturned, even if the Repubs gain both houses in 2012.

I?ve had the opportunity to debate with progressives on a number of occasions: not bragging, I won every time (and, so, was rarely invited back!). C/conservatives like me live in enemy territory: we learn to be informed, wary, and canny. We need to live by our wits. When writing or speaking, I always anticipate the opposition?s parry and have learned to counter-parry: it?s sort of like playing chess.

On the other hand, progressives, who?ve taken over most of our institutions, live in the warm, stupor-inducing soup of their own ideology: they rest on their undeserved (non-existent, actually) laurels. In general, on policy issues, progressives are arrogant, lazy, uninformed, and intellectually lazy. This makes them easy pickings, IF one has a chance to actually engage them in a debate.

Of course, once progressive institutions, including the consensus media, find out which of their political enemies are difficult to counter, they shut them out?lovers of tolerance and diversity that they are! So, WHAT a relief it is to have SUN News letting in the sunlight for a change. Suck it up, progressive losers!

MND, I altogether agree re the progressives.

ET, I share your concern re SCOTUS, but the arguments so far give some reason for hope--I hope!

Liberals always assume they are smarter than everyone else. Obama is a prime example, with gaff after gaff demonstrating his ignorance. Which the fawning press consistently ignores or outright covers up.

Cognitive dissonance and projection are the only standards they seem to have.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Narrow-minded Liberals want Conservatives to shut up, or be shut up, Conservatives want Liberals to keep talking, but that fails every time. Liberal talk radio seems to consist of sound bites and fart jokes, it gets boring quickly.

I used to believe that liberals were just mentally bankrupt, but I now believe they're just pure evil. On par with the mohammedan death cult. At least the muzzies are up front about their evilness. Liberals not so much. Still evil though.

And that's why I bought more ammunition yesterday.

My wife, whilst volunteering, recently expressed disdain for a proposal that David Suzuki be engaged as a host for an event. She said, "If you do, for the first time in my life I'll be out in the streets protesting!"

Her friend, a nice liberal, has the same response every time:
"WHE-R-R-R-R-RE ar-r-r-r-e you get-t-t-t-ting this information?". [CAPS hers].

This is the thing: not only are they not conversantant with the finer points of the AGW-denier argument, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW there's such an argument.

All praise to Nancy Pelosi's daughter who, after smearing the tooth-challenged deep south in her short film, showed up the following week on Maher with a film about deadbeat welfare recipients in NYC, a large percentage of whom were black. Maher just couldn't process this counter-narrative info. Liberalism really is a mental disorder, for which we should have some compassion; a compassion not unlike what we have for a child who's cut his finger.

"Liberals just aren?t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think."

This is absolutely true; after all, we couldn't get away from their assumptions short of moving into a fallout shelter. It's true and it explains why Chris Matthews is wrong about stuff, and so are all those daft Humanities profs., and the annoying relative who thinks the CBC is a bit too right wing; but how can it possibly explain Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe 'insisting upon the ?clear case for the law?s constitutionality."'? This isn't a case of some silly smug dope whose understanding of life consists of believing that the world is divided into Liberals and Racists; this man is supposed to be one of the top constitutional experts alive. He has an agenda to push, sure; but it really never occurred to him that the Mandate might be unconstitutional? How!?

lookout @12:54 - in my experience it never gets to the "debate" point; dedicated lefties always go into what I believe Mark Levin has described as "full screech" at a hint of serious dissent. (The exceptions are "oh, but have you read [obscure article by some d*uchebag]? No? Oh, well that explains why Castro is actually a very successful economist", and those women who purse their lips contemptuously to let you know how polite they're being.)

"Liberals just aren?t as good as conservatives and libertarians at understanding how their opponents think."

I have conducted simple tests with friends & acquaintances of mine to test this hypothesis. Generally, I've found this to be VERY TRUE. There seems to be little self awareness of those on the Left that any other legitimate views could possibly be held by anyone who is caring, thoughtful, & intelligent.

Black Mamba:

Maybe this will help?
Lawyers/law profs aren't interested in THE TRUTH or JUSTICE.
They're interested in winning.

Winning, in this case means, removing all obstacles to the unrestricted expansion of State Power.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you what Buckley said about the Harvard Faculty and the Boston phonebook.

Put another way: the argument BEGINS with the desired outcome and develops backwards. It's probably not conscious, which is why I demur in calling liberals EVIL. Liberals really believe in the beneficent role of government and do not understand public choice economics (that government players are as self-interested as the rest of us).

" ... I have conducted simple tests with friends & acquaintances of mine to test this hypothesis. Generally, I've found this to be VERY TRUE. There seems to be little self awareness of those on the Left that any other legitimate views could possibly be held by anyone who is caring, thoughtful, & intelligent.
Posted by: Robert W. (Vancouver) ..."

This is also exactly what I have noticed when attempting to debate those on the left. They invariably become agitated , then strident and if that fails , change the subject or call you a racist.

Black Mamba, the debates I mentioned were quite a while ago?when non-groupthink didn?t mean outright social rejection and the possibility of being harassed by HRCs and/or losing one?s job. I?d agree that these days, with progressives?or just go-along-to-get-along types (too many of the people I know)?debate?s pretty well gone out the window. So, as I said, thank God for SUN News, which is putting debate back in the public square.

I've always liked this elegant bit from BookwormRoom:

"Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts."

conservatives think liberals are wrong
liberals think conservatives are evil

Actually, tanker, I'm beginning to think that a good many liberals, aka progressives, are, indeed, evil!

Of course they're not interested in what you have to say. Neither are toddlers who refuse to behave. Reasoning won't work with either lot. You give the toddlers a good spanking and send them to bed hungry. Communist and liberal troublemakers you send to prison and make sure they stay there, because by the time they're full grown it's too late to try fixing them.

In other words, not showing up to riot is a failed conservative policy. Winning hearts and minds of decent people isn't enough. The liberals who are in power, and who are the real problem, won't be persuaded by anything but a credible threat of force.

Well dah, if the left didn't have academia and the media in their backpockets they'd never win elections. The left can't debate on a level playing field that's why the media stacks the deck in their favour.

I know a lot of liberals. They need to work in agriculture or ag support for a couple of years.

Before submitting, review the post to ensure your comment is on topic and does not contain words that might get caught in the spam filter (eg: insurance, viagra, online, poker). This is not a forum or a repository for off-topic link dumps. Profanity is discouraged. Take your extended debates and/or flamewars to private email. THESE RULES APPLY TO EVERYONE. Thank you.

whitney houston news sylvia plath whitney houston whitney houston autopsy results obama trayvon jim yong kim michael bush