In the bubble

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, December 8. 2016

Lifson: A fascinating peek into the mentality of the liberal bubble.

I have seen that eye-roll that he refers to, too many times. It's infuriating. If you want to see it, ask somebody if they have considered how much global warming would benefit the earth, and humans too.

Posted by The News Junkie in Politics at 15:59 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I saw this earlier. Where de Boer goes wrong is in expecting that their views are founded on intellectual premises to begin with. He is puzzled because he has been taught that the Real Intellectuals, those on the left, operate by rational discussion, consideration of alternatives, etc. When he asks for intellectual clarification, he receives back the assurance that it is obvious that these are the right answers, and he despairs that they do not support this.

They don't support this with intellectual argument because leftism is social, not intellectual. In one sense, they are right: it is the most fashionable set of beliefs, and that should be obvious to him. They are not wrong to say that it is obvious, for in the social realm, it is. Only when one confuses that with intellectual evidence do things go awry.

This is not to say that the leftists are always wrong, BTW. What is fashionable is not automatically stupid. It's just that you can't rely on it to be right.

#1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-12-08 16:43 (Reply)

And you SHOULDN'T.

#1.1 Sam L. on 2016-12-08 20:14 (Reply)

de Boer suffers from the very "disconnect" he decries.

Said (like AVA above #1) in other words,
this guy's cognitive dissonance is that
he's trying to make sense of nonsense...
...saying he identifies with the Radical Left
(which is interested in power SOLELY)
but expects them to "reason" (ha!) like he does.

Where I disagree with #1 is that, because of this,
I believe Leftists are therefore MOSTLY (if not always) wrong,
and what is fashionable/obvious is ALMOST always wrong/stupid.

#2 kauf buch on 2016-12-09 05:41 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Their assumptions are mistaken for facts, and are never enumerated, much less discussed.

Few people question their fundamental assumptions, regardless of political persuasion.

QUOTE:

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

The News Junkie: Ask somebody if they have considered how much global warming would benefit the earth, and humans too.

On a densely populated world, stability is preferred. Some warming (+1°C) won't not cause significant problems, but rapid change beyond that will tend to disrupt agriculture, bring about human migration due to inundation and desertification, and result in widespread ecological damage.

#3 Zachriel on 2016-12-09 06:22 (Reply)

"Global Warming"
*barf*

1. It's been COOLING for at least the last 15-20 years.

2. There's NO compelling proof that man's "input" to warming OR cooling
is of any significance (as opposed to, say, a volcanic eruption),
or that man could do much of anything significant to "alter/slow it.

3. After all, it's just a scam to surrender local/national power to international bodies.

#3.1 kauf buch on 2016-12-09 06:37 (Reply)

kauf buch: 1. It's been COOLING for at least the last 15-20 years.

That is incorrect. Over the last 20 years, NOAA shows warming of 0.177 ±0.090 °C/decade. HADCrut4 shows 0.159 ±0.097 °C/decade.

kauf buch: 2. There's NO compelling proof that man's "input" to warming OR cooling is of any significance

That is incorrect. The physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century. In particular, the surface and troposphere are warming, while the lower stratosphere is cooling — a signature of greenhouse warming.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-09 06:50 (Reply)

PFFFT.
Ever read Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace To The Profession"?

#3.1.1.1 kauf buch on 2016-12-09 07:21 (Reply)

You might want to start by correcting your false statement.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-12-09 07:35 (Reply)

more fake news from you.

don't you ever read your own sources?

#3.1.1.1.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-12-09 09:38 (Reply)

Thinking of you...
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2016/12/09/if-all-you-see-2057/

#3.1.1.1.1.2 kauf buch on 2016-12-09 15:36 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, December 8. 2016

In the bubble