@busdriver11:
Without getting into specifics, ask yourself why people are called those things. For example, with same sex marriage, were opponents positions based on rationally thought out arguments that could be proved, or “I believe it to be wrong”, there is a big difference. One of the things that gets muddled in this wonderful world of social media and such is the idea that somehow when you say something, whatever it is, it has the right to be heard without comment or criticism. There is a difference between arguing, for example, that there are cases where it may not be clear if a rape has been committed, and someone saying things like “there are different kinds of rape” or “a woman can’t get pregnant if raped, the body won’t allow it”, the former is saying that sometimes the line between consent and rape can be murky, which can be argued with facts, the other two are statements of belief that have no rational basis,and were used to try and justify banning abortion in case of rape. There is a difference between blurting out what you believe, and actually trying to present a case with proof and facts, and usually with what you are saying, it usually is some businessman or outspoken advocate who says something, claims it is truth, but whose argument is non existent, and they get called on it. Back in the 70’s William Shockley tried to make a case that Whites were genetically imbued with higher intelligence than blacks, and while I didn’t support and would not support suppressing his right to speak at a college campus or whatnot, the same way I would not want to suppress people I find repugnant, like Phylis Schafly and such, but he took a lot of crap because his work was shoddy, unscientific, and if he had used the same kind of logic in defending his work on the transistor, he would have been refused publication in a science journal. The reason names were thrown at him was he didn’t make an intellectual argument or a defensible one, he did what many do, had a personal belief, and constructed a framework that ultimately was indefensible.
“Without getting into specifics, ask yourself why people are called those things.”
Very often, it is used to just shut people up. You start throwing around derogatory names, and people stop talking, start backtracking and will do just about anything to not be viewed in that manner. When you start calling people names, discussion stops, and I believe that is often the goal.
"For example, with same sex marriage, were opponents positions based on rationally thought out arguments that could be proved, or “I believe it to be wrong”, there is a big difference.One of the things that gets muddled in this wonderful world of social media and such is the idea that somehow when you say something, whatever it is, it has the right to be heard without comment or criticism.’
Whatever reasons that people have to support same sex marriage or not, there are things that aren’t acceptable. I don’t care what a persons reason is. Look at what happened to people who supported Proposition 8 in California. Their names, address, occupation, and employer were released to the public. People were harassed, vandalized, fired, threatened, intimidated, etc. And these weren’t even people who had spoke out, but had merely donated more than $100 to support it. What will happen to churches that support traditional marriage? Be put out of operation because of “hate speech”?
"There is a difference between arguing, for example, that there are cases where it may not be clear if a rape has been committed, and someone saying things like “there are different kinds of rape” or “a woman can’t get pregnant if raped, the body won’t allow”
There are some completely ridiculous things that people say, that of course should be challenged. People should be able to challenge anything that they like. However, vindictively trying to get someone fired, threatening them, trying to get them blacklisted because one disagrees with their opinion, is most definitely trying to shut them up.
I’d add the War on Poverty and countless other attempts at socially engineering our way to a better, brighter future.
Washington and rest of the founders have a track record… so do some of the smuggest intellectuals from the 60s to present day. If you’re looking at results, rather than aims, it ain’t a pretty comparison.
So what? Do you stop trying to make this a fairer, safer society? Because some measures failed? I don’t follow your argument.
What’s succeeded?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/
Unemployment rate, household income, poverty rate (other than the transfer aspect), marriage numbers, etc., etc.
My point is that the anti-intellectual fervor Niose is whining about (if it even exists at a greater rate than in the past) might be due to the failings of our last batch. And, that it might be beneficial if today’s crop admitted they would need to stand on a stool to smooch the founder’s behinds.
That, and either come up with come up with a plan entirely unlike the old plan or admit they’re no smarter than Farmer Bob out there on the back forty.
@katliamom:
If you believe in the 'I pulled myself up from my own bootstraps, No one ever gave me anything, I worked hard for everything" etc, etc, then the standard line is that social programs all failed, were a waste of money. The same people who argued the “Great Society” was a waste of money also were some of the biggest supporters of the Vietnam war, which was the biggest waste of money and manpower in US history, other than the remnants of the John Birch Society, few people think Vietnam was worth it. More importantly, economic studies have shown that great society programs did work, Medicare has helped the elderly get medical care, Medicaid has helped save lives. Head start started during the great society days, and it measurably helped poor kids get ready for school. The financial aid for college helped a lot of kids get educations, and measurably increased their economic and social status. Like anything else, the Great society had its wins and losses, but the ‘loyal opposition’ has often created the myth that all of it was wasted, and it wasn’t. The war on poverty failed, in part, because paying for that and Vietnam proved to be more costly then anyone thought, and then later on when the Reagan Revolution came, many of the programs were cut or gutted. Put it this way, the poverty and hunger rates declined due to those programs, and since the end of those programs, the rate has increased.
@catahoula:
The legacy of the founders wasn’t all positive, like the ‘intellectuals’ of the 60’s they also had their disasters. They completely ducked on the issue of slavery, and left it to be settled by a civil war that killed 500,000 Americans and left lasting scars in this country that still have not healed. They made women second class citizens, by not allowing the right to vote (yes, folks, the constitution made it so only men could vote, took an amendment almost 150 years after 1776 to gain women that right). Those same founders also though of the Native Americans as no better than animals, and started what was to become de facto genocide. The political system the founders created left behind the electoral college, that rather than being an anachronism, today has helped paralyze the election process, as both parties seek to game it. They also created a country where the states could violate the constitution at will, it wasn’t until the end of the civil war that the bill of rights and the constitutional protections were extended to the states via amendment when they could have done that when they wrote the law.
And let me tell you where those ‘intellectuals’ came through. Those intellectuals supported the government sponsoring scientific research, which despite what some elements want to claim, is responsible for much of the technology we enjoy today, the list is huge; Intellectuals made the argument against segregation, it was intellectuals arguments that decided Brown Vs Board of Ed. Intellectuals pushed for federal aid to education, that allowed a lot of kids to go to college who couldn’t before, the intellectuals pushed for regulation of cars emissions, that has us today with cars that pollute 1000 times less than they did back then, and as a result of that you have cars like a Corvette that has 450 HP and can do 26 MPG on the highway; intellectuals pushed for car safety regulations, that saves 10’s of thousands of lives; intellectuals were the ones who argued that bans on interracial marriage were wrong, it was intellectuals who fought for women’s rights and so forth. Sure, I can name a lot of things that didn’t work or did the opposite effect, but I can also name a lot of things that over the years intellectuals promoted that worked spectacularly well, leading to one of the big ironies, the things that the ‘intellectuals’ fought for often benefit people who most rail against it.
@busdriver11:
I suggest you go back and read up on the proposition 8 campaign and what the proponents put in their ads, and what their rhetoric was like, them whining about the consequences of their support is not even ironic, it is pathetic. What happened is what is supposed to happen, free speech or the right to have your point heard does not mean you get a free pass, speech has consequences, always have. Whether you claim religious belief or not, it doesn’t matter, if you are taking an unpopular stand, you pay the price. How many people over the years advocating unpopular positions, liberal or conservative, faced consequences, some of them severe? Pacifists during wartime, those who fought Jim Crowe down south, they paid with their lives. If opponents to same sex marriage feel they need to speak out, if they felt they needed to ban same sex marriage, if they felt they needed to disparage gays and lesbians the way the proponents did, then they have to have the faith of their convictions, too, as people who spoke out for gays and lesbians in the decades before paid. All the talk of retribution, of being silenced, is nonsense, what they wanted to do was put a lot of filth out there, demonize gays, call them pedophiles and worse, and not face consequences, and guess what, doesn’t happen…if some racist moron wants to spew anti black propaganda, he is going to face consequences, the way someone 60 years ago espousing equality for blacks in the south faced consequences, it is called being willing to stand up and be counted and willing to take the risks, someone who complains about the consequences of their speech is a coward, he wants it both ways, and you can’t have that.
@musicprnt, thanks for your comment. As someone who applauds efforts such as War on Poverty and its contemporary equivalents, I have no doubt that they work. (That doesn’t mean that they’re perfect - or that they eliminate problems altogether.) Thanks to such programs, often dismissed as “social engineering,” we’ve made tremendous strides – and suffered setbacks as result of the many attacks against them. As a society we should strive to always improve it – and it’s something I believe the Founding Fathers wanted, too. After all, they were after creating a “more perfect union” and structured our laws in such a way as to allow for continued change.
You may have missed the point of what is meant by success - they spent money, so that counts, as success. Nothing new there with that mindset.
What is the typical refrain after a failure, another failure, and another failure - “We need more funding.” Does not matter that what they are doing has proved not to work countless times before, regardless of money spent.
I once saw a debate between five professors on a panel, and it was amazing that one professor just blew the others away with two questions after each elaborate plan to solve something: 1) “When in history has that ever worked?” And, 2) “Can you give one example from the inception of civilization to present day when people behaved the way you are predicting?” Even the audience started to laugh.
He showed how the other intellectuals had no grasp of failure, just a grasp of they sound educated. And I say other intellectuals because he had degrees, books, and academic awards even beyond theirs, so he was just as intellectual and more they were. It was funny to watch.
“I suggest you go back and read up on the proposition 8 campaign and what the proponents put in their ads, and what their rhetoric was like, them whining about the consequences of their support is not even ironic, it is pathetic. What happened is what is supposed to happen, free speech or the right to have your point heard does not mean you get a free pass, speech has consequences, always have.”
I doubt that every person who contributed $100 knew exactly what was going to be in every ad, and should be held responsible for it. Don’t you think that many people just thought they were supporting traditional marriage? Do you think those were appropriate consequences for the donations including job loss, property destruction, death threats? How about rape, murder, would that be fine? Is it all good?
“Whether you claim religious belief or not, it doesn’t matter, if you are taking an unpopular stand, you pay the price.”
This was not an unpopular stand. Proposition 8 passed in California. Aren’t you aware of that? It was also passed by a majority of black voters. This was the stand of every single major presidential and vice presidential candidate for BOTH parties for years (except for Dick Cheney, who supported gay marriage). In fact, many of these people have only changed their position recently. Should those kind of attacks have been levied on those people, also? They were pretty darn vocal. Both sides.
“How many people over the years advocating unpopular positions, liberal or conservative, faced consequences, some of them severe? Pacifists during wartime, those who fought Jim Crowe down south, they paid with their lives. If opponents to same sex marriage feel they need to speak out, if they felt they needed to ban same sex marriage, if they felt they needed to disparage gays and lesbians the way the proponents did, then they have to have the faith of their convictions, too, as people who spoke out for gays and lesbians in the decades before paid.”
So people who support traditional marriage should be willing to pay with their lives? Wow. Talk about trying to silence someone’s opinion. That is pretty hateful.
This is another thing find to be par for the course with those who call themselves intellectuals - it does not matter what other people do. If something is unpopular within the person’s “group” then he ignores what others think and do, and declare his position as the reigning one.
Does not matter if what the intellectuals believe goes down in flames via the vote. Today’s intellectuals = self-absorbed thinking.
I wonder what the gay marriage supporters are going to do with a current black ministers and black churches coalition coming out real strong against gay marriage. They are setting rallies from last I heard. Will be interesting to watch.
Wonder of the supporters will be going to the churches and call them names? Ah, this is becoming a circular firing squad of supposed intellectual people.
Just who ARE these intellectuals you keep talking about? Congress? California voters? (And if so which issues/elections?) SCOTUS? Someone other than President Johnson? Is there an identity to this mystery group, and can you specify what it espouses? Your examples run the gamut…
That we have failed to close the economic gap between blacks and whites is not proof that the War on Poverty programs had no successes.
As it has been pointed out, the WonP programs included Medicare and Medicaid, which helped millions pay medical bills they otherwise would not have been able to pay, expanded Social Security to help widows and college-age students (ask Paul Ryan if that program was a success for his family), Food Stamps (SNAP now) which has been successful in feeding American families. The other programs, including Title 1 assistance for elementary and secondary education, VISTA, work-study programs, Head Start, etc. have a success/failure record that is at least debatable. Something that would take real nonbiased research and reading to evaluate, not the repetition of talk-show bullet points.
The poverty rate of the elderly, for example, fell from 35 percent in 1959 to 9 percent in 2012. So that part of Won P succeeded.
Why has the official rate of poverty seemed to stagnate despite the massive spending? Again, looking for an honest answer to such questions really takes much more investigation than most of us have time to put in on a chat forum…but it doesn’t hurt to go looking. Lo and behold, the “official” poverty rate doesn’t count the assistance provided by the programs aimed at poverty.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf
That its not counted in determining the official poverty rate does not mean that those programs have provided no success at alleviating poverty.
"Something that would take real nonbiased research and reading to evaluate, not the repetition of talk-show bullet points.
Why has the official rate of poverty seemed to stagnate despite the massive spending? Again, looking for an honest answer to such questions really takes much more investigation than most of us have time to put in on a chat forum…but it doesn’t hurt to go looking. Lo and behold, the “official” poverty rate doesn’t count the assistance provided by the programs aimed at poverty."
That’s why I like you, jazzymom. Whether I agree with you often or not, you always seem to be looking for an honest answer. And THAT, is rare!
The story linked inside this seven-charts article has some insights worth reading:
Sad that the poverty rate for blacks (in 2011) was triple that of whites but look how much it fell since 1959; it was cut in half…could it be that Great Society programs had some successes there? Not to mention the percentage of high school diplomas and the number of blacks who are college graduates. So, some success there, no?
And why blame the gaps in income and employment on the so-called failure of WonP programs rather than turning some critical analysis to the persistence of discrimination?
There’s a lot more to the story than those seven charts.
Thanks, busdriver…the feelings mutual. I have quite a few friends who sit across the aisle and we don’t let each other get away with much. 
Jazzymom, you intellectual you…
“Thanks, busdriver…the feelings mutual. I have quite a few friends who sit across the aisle and we don’t let each other get away with much.”
And I love that! To be able to disagree with people without being insulting or anyone getting angry. To discuss things and convince people to change their positions about issues, or at least consider that the other side isn’t crazy, stupid or selfish, but just has a different perspective. To be able to call people on their preconceptions or misunderstandings of the issues without losing a friendship----that is awesome. Those friends are people to hold onto.
Worth holding onto…yes. These friends and I go way back with many many chits of goodwill between us banked so that even if we do have a flare up due to one or the other’s misinformed stubborn flat-out wrong opinions we are able to smooth it over and apply some wine to the wounds and remember why we’re friends. And stick to safe topics for awhile. We’re not superhuman after all.
The discussions that stay calm keep me on my toes, though, and that’s a good thing.
A good glass of wine goes a long ways towards a friendship. Though probably not helpful having too many during the actual discussion!
So many seem fixated on the income gap between group A and group B. If the gap is the truly the problem, then why not take the money of the 1% and simply burn it up? The problems should be solved.
We need to stop focusing on our differences and begin to collectively look for solutions.