Wednesday, 1 Mar 2006
By Katelyn Sills
It is my belief that liberalism, as understood today, is based on ignorance, rumors, and outright lies. But let me explain myself.
First, to even hold the liberal viewpoint, I believe one must be ignorant of the facts. Those who self-identify as liberals often hold positions such as being against the death penalty, for abortion “rights”, for affirmative action, for higher taxes for the rich, and for many more government benefits. Now, it can be said that there are two sides to every argument. Yet, when the facts are revealed, most liberal arguments dissolve almost immediately. For instance, many people who “support abortion rights”, are unaware of what actually happens in an abortion. They are surprised to see that an unborn baby is not just a lump of tissue, but a defined human being. Just an accurate picture can change a large part of their worldview. But if just an insertion of facts causes a person to change from a “liberal” into a “conservative”, this implies that liberalism is having the absence of facts, or ignorance.
This leads us to ask where liberals get their former “facts”. Interestingly enough, most liberals I have talked to, have admitted that they don’t listen to the news very often. And if one is not actively listening for news, all one can depend on is what they hear from other people. This is where the rumors come in. For instance, one of my liberal classmates today thought that Dick Cheney’s hunting partner had died. When the people around us were saying, “Um, no, I don’t think so.” and “I haven’t heard that”, my classmate finally admitted that she had heard it from a friend. In such a rumor, the person thinks (or wants to think) that the information is true, but does not take the time or make the effort to confirm it. It is my belief that when a person does not get their information from a trusted source, but instead relies on the daily small talk, harmful rumors develop.
And we have the last essential piece of liberalism- the lie. This is reserved for when a politician or liberal leader is in a desperate situation, and ignorance and rumors just can’t do enough. The prime example of course, is President Bill Clinton. But this idea of lying is not limited to that incident. I have had yet another liberal classmate tell me that it would be ok to lie if your livelihood was at stake.
So there you have it- the three basic principles that sustain liberalism as we know it, and they are all based on the absence of truth. Therefore, the best way to combat liberalism is to simply, tell the truth.
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:52 pm
It is tragic to see that so many people buy into the lies and hype of today’s ‘liberalism.’ The thing is, these folks buy into lies for so long that when the truth is told, they don’t accept it because it doesn’t jibe with that one thing that they heard someone who watched the news reference from this book that this one guy wrote… which of course is a stereotype. Not all liberals are truth-evading suckers (I know a few who aren’t). The thing is, with the liberals who read up and research their points etc. is that they have a tendency to start with the answer first (e.g. ‘a woman’s right to choose’) then build the question around it. Funny how that works.
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Would that be anything like saying, as Katelyn does, “A zygote is a citizen” and building the question around that?
Or that the creator of the universe was mollified by the ritual killing of livestock and the burning of their carcasses in his temple, insisted that woman were “unclean” during their menstrual periods, and put an example of every living creature on earth in one boat during a worldwide flood, and speaks to the world through the voice of an ancient shaman who used to be a member of the Hitler Youth?
Aren’t these the answers that a lot of this right wing thing is based upon?
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:54 am
Katelyn -
Define your terms. What do you mean by “libralism.”
Try reading the hisotry of the rise of libralism in the 19th and 20th C. Read the history of conservative politics in the same period.
Be specific and educate us. If we don’t know the truth about abortion you need to show us, not just tell us.
If you want to teach folks to see the world your way, you need to invite them in, treat them hospitably. The rant above does not invite dialog. It shouts out “Beware of Dog.”
Finally, if we don’t want to be “truth-evading suckers,” we have to engage in dialog and debate with a williness to listen and perhaps be changed.
March 3rd, 2006 at 8:40 am
Interesting how you equate abortion and being against the death penalty as the same thing. You are assuming that abortion is killing a living being I guess? Last time I checked that is not the case and is part of the problem with how abortion has been morphed (by the right) into “murder” You cannot make the leap that the death penalty and abortion are the same.
You can “feel” that abortion is murder all you want…but if there isn’t a heartbeat, a brainwave or anything resembling life in the first several months of pregnancy then it is not murder. Fact, not fiction kiddo. an acorn isn’t an oak tree.
there is so much more to this arguement and for you to make the case that a liberal is ignorant b/c of your percieved conflicting beliefs that this post makes the case for why conservatives act much like the words they resemble
traditional
conventional
conformist
unadventurous
old-fashioned
traditionalist
old school
not my words…look it up
now lets try liberal
open-minded
broadmined
moderate
freethinking
tolerant
hmmmmmm seems you have your comparisons right…just should have put conservative where you put liberal….
honestly I don’t know if you wrote your post, hit publish and were truly happy that it illustrated your views and solidified future readers to agree with your assertions, but you have a long way to go before you are George Will
keep trying to link liberalism the way you are and you will look more and more foolish.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:57 pm
“but if there isn’t a heartbeat, a brainwave or anything resembling life in the first several months of pregnancy then it is not murder.”
That’s not the case at all. There is a heartbeat present by 3 weeks, and brainwaves a few days before that.
I think that you are demonstrating Katelyn’s point quite well.
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
That last comment was mine, sorry.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I’d like to see the literature on that please and will then retract my comments…
March 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
donviti,
“By the third week of pregnancy (approximately 21 days after fertilization), the heart begins to beat, pumping blood throughout the body, and the brain begins dividing into three primary sections (forebrain, midbrain, and hindbrain).”
“The embryonic heart starts beating 22 days after conception, or about five weeks after the last menstrual period, which by convention we call the fifth week of pregnancy.”
Abortions are rarely done before the 5th week, because the woman usually is just finding out that she is pregnant. So, most abortions are done when a heartbeat is present, thus stopping a beating heart.
March 4th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I can admit that I was well off. Thank you for showing me this literature.
I still stand by point though that this little post does nothing to support her arguement against liberalism and ignorance….
March 4th, 2006 at 7:48 am
of course your findings are by an anti abortion site and here is what I’ve found on web MD.com
at 6 weeks….I stress the usually part….
Ultrasound usually detects a heartbeat by now. Between 17 and 56 days the embryo is most susceptible to drugs, disease, and other factors that interfere with normal growth
28 Weeks
Your baby weighs about 2 pounds 4 ounces (about 1 kilogram). Brain wave patterns appear like a full-term newborn
the important part between what your website and mine are the interpretations …..so while I can agree with what your website is saying I am still going to stand by my original statement with a caveat that stating I should have been more specific regarding a timeline.
have a great weekend.
March 4th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Katelyn,
Pay the Reasonable cynics like donviti no mind. Rhetoric and semantics are poor substitutes for genuine reason.
The truth always has the longest shelf life. Keep witnessing to the Truth!
March 4th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
donviti, I’ve seen people on both sides use the non-political dictionary definition of “conservative” and “liberal” as part of their political arguments before, and it is a dangerous mental trap to fall into. A person on the Right Wing side of an argument - dissenters in the former Soviet Union, for instance - can be free thinking, tolerant, etc. This also applies to most conservatives in America today, as they are part of an American political culture which emphasises these things. On the other hand, a person on the left can be extremely traditional, conventional, conformist, etc - just look at the support for New Deal/Great Society programs even as they have shown their ineffectiveness. The simple fact remains that in their traditional, non ideological definitions, “conservative” and “liberal” are not always opposites. While a conservative may be opposed to change in a particular circumstance, a liberal may also uphold a certain status quo. A skepticism about society and a pessimistic view towards “progress” does not necessitate close-mindedness - indeed it can be indicative of reasoned deliberation and wisdom.”Utopian” or “revolutionary” would be closer to an opposite for the word conservative.
That being said, the article is somewhat naive. Ignorance about politics is not a phenomenon limited only to people of a leftward pursuasion, and while it is true that in many instances knowledge is a conservative force - knowledge about political history, supply and demand, abortion realities, et al - in most cases education tends to produce a liberal outlook. College graduates are more likely to be liberal than high school graduates who are more liberal than the uneducated. This is not to say that the smarter one is, the more liberal one is, and indeed much of the reason behind this is that a student spends much time in an idealistic environment, insulated from the “real world”. Also, those with more education who do not seek employment in academics tend to become the most conservative old people (aging is another one of those conservative forces). You must take these things into consideration before opening yourself up to attacks.
Additionally, Republican and conservative politicians have been known to lie, though in my believe the Democrats do this far more often as a byproduct of greater moral relativism and rationalization of their actions on behalf of “social justice” or “the common good”
March 4th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Chase, “somewhat naive”?
Notice the words “most”, “many”, etc. Indeed, it would be naive to say that all liberal arguments are based on ignorance. However, I believe, as demonstrated through the many discussions on my blog, that many are.
As I have said, true education (the spreading of facts) produces conservatism. I think I should point out that simply going to college does not guarrantee that one will learn actual facts. When the teachers are mostly “liberal”-leaning and their opinions taught as fact, students may learn things that are not facts at all.
March 4th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Now that’s different. It is true to say that liberal arguments are based on ignorance - ignorance of history, of economics, of the human nature that ties the two together - but it is quite a different proposition altogether to state that learning truth will change a person’s ideology. Modern liberalism has as its core tenet the denial of unpleasantries, and to say that all that is needed to produce a conservative worldview are all of the relevant fact is, indeed, naive. Take, for example, John Maynard Keynes. I garauntee that he knew more economic history than I would ever even care to. Yet his interpretation of the facts was terribly askew from reality. The same applies to any number of leftist public interest groups or professors. The ignorance of liberalism lies not in its acknowledgement of particular facts (for example, the horrid procedure of a partial birth abortion) but its interpretation of them, which has been pollutted by generations of relativism and third or fourth hand revolutionary ideology. If a person has a warped ideology, no insertion of facts will change that person’s worldview unless the lense he or she looks at those facts through is similarly changed. The insertion of relevant knowledge may even drive a person further leftward. Some people whom are branded leftists do not have this warped ideology: they do not have blinders on and thus facts can be a conservative influence, but the fact remains that the most die hard leftists - the ones who are doctrinaire, and committed to upholding leftism as an ideology and not simply as a set of tendencies - are among the most politically informed (the same holds true for the conservative stalwarts). To claim that liberals are merely ignorant of the facts is itself ignorant of the facts, as, if you’ve ever talked to run of the mill conservative students such as my peers here in Alabama, you would know. Ignorance cuts both ways, and the “fact” that millions of Americans have no health insurance (a fact that I care absolutely nothing about, in my caulous libertarianism) would probably drive a good many ignorant conservative students leftward.
It is thus also somewhat intellectually dishonest - unintentially, I am sure - to include the section on rumors. The fact that high school students do not keep up with current events very well is a long established phenomenon. Being a conservative, you most likely (as you are a human being) have a proclivity to “fact check” liberals (those with whom you disagree) more often than conservatives. I garauntee you that almost as many (percentage wise, since I don’t know the ideological makeup of your school) conservative statements made in your high school are based on rumors as you percieve the liberal statements to be. I know because I’ve proven susceptible to rumors before, as we all have at some point. Again, it is not an action exclusive to liberals, and it is not in itself a cause of liberalism (more accurately, it is a symptom of a safety obsessed political subculture. A clear example would be the frequent frenzies over the possibility of small chance of personal injury that comes from some product or activity, which usually turn out to be false or overblown but were used as an excuse for Congressional hearings and OSHA regulations anyway).
At any rate, I’ve probably digressed from my original point, which I no longer remember. I’m sorry if you thought I was attempting to insult you personally; rather I was trying to help you not be open to more serious criticism in the future.
Two more quick things: the use of “most” still does not get you in the clear on this - it’s still a generalization about the same things that can be applied easily by the other side to people of our pursuation. And, if you read carefully, you can tell that I was by no means implying that our modern government/leftist education monopoly actually “educates”
March 4th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Chase-
Ok, so we agree that most liberal arguments are based on ignorance, yes? And so, assuming the person is reasonable, when the person learns the fact which he was missing, his opinion will change. This has been demonstrated over and over on my blog throughout the past 6 months.
But I did not start assuming that liberal arguments are based on ignorance, and then assume that they would change. I have seen people present a liberal argument, be called on it, and then, gradually, change their opinion. Thus, as I said, when simply the insertion of facts can change a person’s opinion, this means that the former opinion was based on the absence of those facts, or ignorance.
However, there are always those who are so warped that they refuse to listen to reason at all. If you believe that this is what all liberalism is based on, then I would think you are the naive one. Most people do change their opinion when presented with the facts. For instance, using your example of partial birth abortion, do you really think that people who would allow partial-abortion are ok with pulling a full-term, alive baby out by the legs until the bottom of the skull is revealed, and then sticking a pair of scissors in the back of the skull? I don’t think so. I think that those people simply do not know what a partial-birth abortion really is. That is ignorance.
Also, Chase, although I agree that many high school students are probably not fact-checking often, it has almost always been the “liberal” argument that is inaccurate. But this is not exclusive to high school students. If you listen to progressive radio, you notice the same characteristics: not many facts, and lots of increasingly exaggerated commentary. For instance, right after Dick Cheney’s shooting accident, the local progressive talk radio station was saying (only half-jokingly) that the accident was caused because Dick Cheney was distracted by a woman in the group. No doubt, someone probably believed them, and a new rumor was born.
As to conservatives in my high school, there are about 3, myself included. If you’re not a strong conservative (with the facts) in California, you get shot down, fast.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Chase,
Had you written the letter I most likely wouldn’t have taken the “iteral” written route.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Katelyn,
interesting line
“I think I should point out that simply going to college does not guarrantee that one will learn actual facts”
what the hell kind of statement is that? You need to wise up a long ways.
What college doesn’t teach facts? You should really think about what you type before you hit the submit button.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Chase,
Had you written the letter I most likely wouldn’t have taken the “literal” written route.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Katelyn,
I believe that you are grossly oversimplifying. Being liberal does not always equal being pro abortion and being conservative is not the same as being against abortion.
I had to smile at your definition of liberalism as the absence of facts - I know some people whom you would conisder very liberal that think the same about conservative world view. In my experience, two different people presented with the same facts often come to completely different conclusions.
By the way, I would be interested to hear what do you consider to be a reliable source of information, since you criticize liberals for being misinformed.
March 9th, 2006 at 6:52 am
“Being liberal does not always equal being pro abortion and being conservative is not the same as being against abortion.”
I never said they were. I think you are grossly misunderstanding my point. I have seen on my blog many examples of this absence of facts, on topics such as nuclear power, surveillance, etc. Abortion is only one of the issues, but it is the one that those that identify as liberal, have the least knowledge of.
In my opinion, to truly be informed, you have to 1) read both sides of every issue, 2) gather all the facts that you can from various news sources, and then, disregard the opinions you just read and 3) create your opinion from the facts you gathered.
Obviously, any liberal who is reading here has already done #1, but in my experience, many “liberal” people don’t go out and do this. Often my opinion is the first conservative opinion on a topic that they have actually heard from the source, unfiltered. Secondly, you have to read or listen to multiple sources, and compare them for consistency. Thirdly, you have make sure your opinion is directly from the facts.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Liberalism…
Read more comments on my blog….
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:58 am
Katelyn: “I think I should point out that simply going to college does not guarrantee that one will learn actual facts”
Donviti: “what the hell kind of statement is that? You need to wise up a long ways.
What college doesn’t teach facts? You should really think about what you type before you hit the submit button.”
If anything donviti, YOU submitted too fast. At the very least, you attempted to back up your previous opinions with your information, but this time, you left with an insult. I say this because it would have been much better for you to react with respective reasoning than to just say, “what the hell kind of statement is that? You need to wise up a long ways.” The fact that you did this shows that you had anger and disrespect in saying this. You didn’t back up your claim about what Katelyn had said at all. I believe you demonstrated Katelyn’s claim of liberal ignorance well. It is also typical for liberals to insult when they have no just claims to back up what they say.
April 15th, 2007 at 1:46 am
hahaha, so i think i read another blog of yours that said there is “media biased” in the news.
and here u say that “not watching the news” is a character of liberals?
well, i guess not watching the news IS worse than watching biased media, eh? hahaha. it’d be interesting if we make a poll or survey and ask three questions:
1. do u watch the news?
2. do u watch Both sides of any issues that were on the news?
3. do you define yourself as a liberal or conservative? (at least in the case of US, because these terms are all relative)
dude, Chase’s replies are way too long. lol.
Donviti’s replies towards the end are pretty stupid indeed, lol, no offense.
And to Katelyn, i think SOME people do change when presented with facts, some do not. =) The reason is: Facts themselves are not extremes, and unless its a case of “VERY VERRY VERY BIG MAJORITY”, or in the scale of correlations, its almost 100%. or ABSOLUTELY true.
otherwise, theres always room for relativism and conflict of ideologies.
And i do agree though, that many “liberals” dont do the 3 steps of finding knowledge that u champion….but i also think that many “conservatives” dont do so either. hahahaha, its the American YOUTHs we are seeing here.
you gave an example of your friends. “Friends”, girl, teenagers we’re talking about here. hahaha.
to me, i think the AMERICAN MASS is ignorant, if your argument is correct. Now again, to say that Which kind of ignorant, which side they’re on is another issue.
People…why do we fight over such issues…there are much better things to do than arguing that the left or the right, or the middle, or w/e is good…just find a way to improve the world.
P.S. btw, in my teacher’s opinion, “Radicals (Far leftists) believe the current structure is wrong, everything must be overthrown, and create a new system. Liberals (left to mild left) believe that the current system is fine, but there can be improvements. Conservative wants to conserve =). Reactionaries does not agree with current structure, and want the “old” days”. the terms are up for grab according to w/e “current” structures are, and what it means to “improve”.
…
..
..
..
…
so finally, there IS no truth in saying “most liberals are ignorant”. none at all.
i got a joke, though, maybe:
liberals are so lazy, and think too much to spend time eating up the news eh?
maybe thats why they are ignorant, hahahaa, unlike their conservative counterparts, who, like bookworms and nerds, check the news all the time =).
but then, again, that was just a joke =)
April 15th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
You’re right, I should change “news” to “facts”, since the news does not always tell all of the facts. I still think my original analysis is true. A lot of the people I talk (argue) with just don’t know the information.
When I’m talking about facts, I’m not necessarily talking about statistics. I’m talking about things that we know are true. Like that the heart of an unborn child starts beating at around 3 weeks after conception. There’s no room for relativism or conflict of ideologies there. It’s plain fact.
I would agree that some “liberals” and “conservatives” do not often seek out knowledge. They simply believe what they hear from other liberals or conservatives. So then, it depends on what the source is, as to whether they are ignorant or not. I’m generalizing here, but the conservative source is more often based on the facts, I’ve found.
Your teacher’s opinion is correct for the definition of the words liberal and conservative. However, for the opinions, the words liberal and conservative don’t match up entirely, (for instance, “liberals” are for the conservation of affirmative action, even though it is basically detrimental now). Still, they are the best terms we have as of now.
I still think that many people who self identify as liberal (for lack of a better term) are ignorant of the facts.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
yea, i guess so.
i shall not make any judgemental statements about “conservatives” ( i think i should put quotation marks around these words from now on).
would u like to give me more of the “the conservative source is more often based on the facts [that you]’ve found.” ?
btw. I wasnt made aware of the fact that the heart starts beating 3 weeks after conception, but i was aware of the argument that “liberals” would use.
Although the heart started beating, it depends still on what u think is the definition of being alive.
What if a person is in a coma? what if that person’s heart still beats, but the brain is found to be dead? is that still a living person?…often people would call someone who is evil as “without a heart”, wouldnt u agree?
also, they use the argument that the babies dont feel pain yet, even though its heart might started beating. What do u think of that?
something linked to that as well maybe vegetarianism….killing animals hurt them. why do we continue to do so?
they certainly got hearts, hahaha, and beating sometimes, eh? =)
April 15th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I’ll try to respond fully when I have more time. sunday night hw
May 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Ok, I finally have some time.
One example of the correct conservative source is (keeping with the abortion topic here) pro-life vs. pro-abortion groups. Many pro-choice people believe that making abortion illegal will result in thousands of deaths for women in back-alley abortions. They get their information from pro-abortion groups, but this information is a lie. Before Roe vs. Wade, in 1972, there were only 39 deaths.
People have given me lots of reasons for why they think that unborn children aren’t human beings. But I don’t think these really make that much sense. A person is something that is alive, human, and an individual. The only defining point that we can say that life begins is at conception (fertilization). That’s the first time we have completely different DNA from anyone else in the world. From the moment of fertilization, the cell begins to divide, and grow, so the unborn child is definitely alive.
If you want to read more, you can go here. I wrote a blog post on it.