• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

"The unteachable ignorance of the red states."

Sig

Experienced Member
Joined
25 September 2000
Messages
1,604
Location
Tyson's Corner, VA
Interesting perspective from the left, not sure if this level of thought is the ticket to success. The primary assumption of her article is that the Kerry voters are enlightened and the Bush voters are ignorant. Fortunately, I do not believe, or at least hope, that this is not the generally accepted school of thought amongst the left.

Here are some interesting excerpts from an article that bore the subtitle: "The unteachable ignorance of the red states."
From the online mag 'Slate', by Jane Smiley.

"The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not. (Well, almost 58 million—my relatives are not ignorant, they are just greedy and full of classic Republican feelings of superiority.)"

" The error that progressives have consistently committed over the years is to underestimate the vitality of ignorance in America. Listen to what the red state citizens say about themselves, the songs they write, and the sermons they flock to. They know who they are—they are full of original sin and they have a taste for violence."

"Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question. A corollary to this point is that they make sure you understand that Satan resides in the toils and snares of complex thought and so it is best not try it.

Next, they tell you that you are the best of a bad lot (humans, that is) and that as bad as you are, if you stick with them, you are among the chosen. This is flattering and reassuring, and also encourages you to imagine the terrible fates of those you envy and resent. American politicians ALWAYS operate by a similar sort of flattery, and so Americans are never induced to question themselves. That's what happened to Jimmy Carter—he asked Americans to take responsibility for their profligate ways, and promptly lost to Ronald Reagan, who told them once again that they could do anything they wanted. The history of the last four years shows that red state types, above all, do not want to be told what to do—they prefer to be ignorant. As a result, they are virtually unteachable.

Third, and most important, when life grows difficult or fearsome, they (politicians, preachers, pundits) encourage you to cling to your ignorance with even more fervor. But by this time you don't need much encouragement—you've put all your eggs into the ignorance basket, and really, some kind of miraculous fruition (preferably accompanied by the torment of your enemies, and the ignorant always have plenty of enemies) is your only hope. If you are sufficiently ignorant, you won't even know how dangerous your policies are until they have destroyed you, and then you can always blame others.

The reason the Democrats have lost five of the last seven presidential elections is simple: A generation ago, the big capitalists, who have no morals, as we know, decided to make use of the religious right in their class war against the middle class and against the regulations that were protecting those whom they considered to be their rightful prey—workers and consumers. The architects of this strategy knew perfectly well that they were exploiting, among other unsavory qualities, a long American habit of virulent racism, but they did it anyway, and we see the outcome now—Cheney is the capitalist arm and Bush is the religious arm. They know no boundaries or rules. They are predatory and resentful, amoral, avaricious, and arrogant. Lots of Americans like and admire them because lots of Americans, even those who don't share those same qualities, don't know which end is up. Can the Democrats appeal to such voters? Do they want to? The Republicans have sold their souls for power. Must everyone?

Progressives have only one course of action now: React quickly to every outrage—red state types love to cheat and intimidate, so we have to assume the worst and call them on it every time. We have to give them more to think about than they can handle—to always appeal to reason and common sense, and the law, even when they can't understand it and don't respond. They cannot be allowed to keep any secrets. Tens of millions of people didn't vote—they are watching, too, and have to be shown that we are ready and willing to fight, and that the battle is worth fighting. And in addition, we have to remember that threats to democracy from the right always collapse. Whatever their short-term appeal, they are borne of hubris and hatred, and will destroy their purveyors in the end."
 
Let's hope it is not the general view of the left.

I am a moderate, who is turning more and more anti-left by the hatred and extreme views spouted by the far left.

We should all be working together towards bettering America and the world, rather than focusing on hatred of one party or another. This is the reason idiots like Michael Moore really bothered me.
 
NsXMas said:
This is the reason idiots like Michael Moore really bothered me.

Michael Moore was so upset by the results of the election did you hear what he did?

v


v



v



v


v


v



v


v
He wasn't able to eat for 5 minutes. The rest of the day, he didn't supersize any of his meals. :D
 
Last edited:
unless citing specific names and party affiliations, i couldn't discern which group was being praised or maligned. swap "Kerry" with "Bush", "Democrat" with Republican", and the rhetoric makes as much sense, and is equally worthless as an argument.

to be persuaded by this type of "argument by vituperative opinion", you'd have to surrender your critical thinking skills at the by-line. this type of apoplectic jingoism brought to power such people as napoleon, lenin, hitler, and joe mccarthy (and, now that you mention it, michael moore), because they coddled the insecurities and uncertainties brewing inside ALL of us, and nurtured them in the masses languishing in limited perspective.

kinda like reading this post...
 
What leads you to wonder whether this is the view of all left leaning people?

Do you think you could find something similarly extreme from an ultra-conservative? Would you wonder if you thought the same way?

If you hear a message from the Ku Klux Klan, do you wonder if all white people think the same way?

Excellent way to stir up an argument.
 
Can someone explain what the political terms "left wing" and "right wing" mean? Are Republicans "Left" and Democrats "Right", or is it the other way around? I always thought Left = conservative, Right = liberal, but now I'm confused. I tried searching in Google, but could not find a clear answer--only political propaganda. Thanks.
 
Thank you Ojas!
icon14.gif


I knew there was a reason I avoided politics, both in the office and outside of. :D
 
NsXMas said:
This is the reason idiots like Michael Moore really bothered me.

Michael Moore just gets under my skin. Hey, let's blame everything on Bush. I mean there was an increase in hurricanes under the Bush administration. :D


lowfastnsx said:
What a bias piece of crap!!! The RED STATES are ignorant!!?? BEOTCH PLEASE.

Kerry lost- DEAL WITH IT!!!.

I agree. Time to move on and focus on what's important.
 
Ojas said:
PHOEN$X, On the continuum, Republicans are on the right (conservative), Democrats are left (liberal).

Just to add onto how things are always relative and should be put into perspective, most of the rest of the World would consider democrates to be right and republicans even more to the right. :D
 
I have committed another crime against humanity and a received a negative reputation point:) This is quite amusing. For the first post in the thread, which my words were far from offensive.... I received a very articulate negative reputation point from one brave member. I salute you sir, whomever you are. You were even so kind as to not even use words, just a blank space with a red dot. So thoughtful you are.

I am amazed at the sensitivity levels of some our members. If someone defames you or insults you directly, fine post your feelings in the reputation rating. But seriously, when folks are sharing information and points of view...... be mature enough to take it in stride. If you disagree, no problem.... let's discuss it. But leaving anonymous and wordless negative reputation posts is just ridiculous.

Here are my ghastly words that hurt someone's feelings:

"Interesting perspective from the left, not sure if this level of thought is the ticket to success. The primary assumption of her article is that the Kerry voters are enlightened and the Bush voters are ignorant. Fortunately, I do not believe, or at least hope, that this is not the generally accepted school of thought amongst the left."

How dare I suggest that the quotes are not representitive of most Democrats. Maybe I'm on to something here, perhaps it was a pissed off Republican that thought I was sticking up for Democrats! :) It's a conspiracy, Carl Rove is on the forums and I have angered him :D
 
Sig said:
I have committed another crime against humanity and a received a negative reputation point:) This is quite amusing. For the first post in the thread, which my words were far from offensive.... I received a very articulate negative reputation point from one brave member. I salute you sir, whomever you are. You were even so kind as to not even use words, just a blank space with a red dot. So thoughtful you are.

I am amazed at the sensitivity levels of some our members. If someone defames you or insults you directly, fine post your feelings in the reputation rating. But seriously, when folks are sharing information and points of view...... be mature enough to take it in stride. If you disagree, no problem.... let's discuss it. But leaving anonymous and wordless negative reputation posts is just ridiculous.

Here are my ghastly words that hurt someone's feelings:

"Interesting perspective from the left, not sure if this level of thought is the ticket to success. The primary assumption of her article is that the Kerry voters are enlightened and the Bush voters are ignorant. Fortunately, I do not believe, or at least hope, that this is not the generally accepted school of thought amongst the left."

How dare I suggest that the quotes are not representitive of most Democrats. Maybe I'm on to something here, perhaps it was a pissed off Republican that thought I was sticking up for Democrats! :) It's a conspiracy, Carl Rove is on the forums and I have angered him :D
Sig,
I don't know who left you a negative review (I have yet to give a negative point, and probably won't), but I'm guessing it's not for "sharing points of view", but for what appears to be an attempt to rile people up, by posting an obviously radical leftist view, and wondering aloud whether this is the way all Democrats think.

As in my earlier example, if I posted a message from the KKK, and then wondered aloud if all white people think that way, do you think that would be a legitimate discussion thread, or a way of getting people twisted?
 
nkb said:
Sig,
I don't know who left you a negative review..., but I'm guessing it's not for "sharing points of view", but for what appears to be an attempt to rile people up, by posting an obviously radical leftist view, and wondering aloud whether this is the way all Democrats think...

I agree that the negative review is B.S.

I didn't read this as a "Rile people up" thread.
I read the original post, I rolled my eyes :rolleyes:at yet another extreme "let my voice be heard, the country is stupid" speech, then moved on.

I took it for what it is, garbage. And by reading the replies,
everyone seems to agree.

Sig,
You didn't call anyone names, or attack anyone.
thanks for the interesting post in the correct "Off Topic" area.
 
sig, i don't know who gave you a ding for posting that quote, because "killing the messenger" doesn't alter the message. i'm glad you posted it, because it reminds us to discern the difference between "making us think" and "making us think we're thinking."
 
Haha, I got another ding, some coward left this: "dinged you just because i felt like it".

This is really funny. Because the same things happened on the other websites that had this feature.

What the users didn't know what that it is possible for the administrator to turn on a feature to reveal who left the dings.

Boy on the other website when the administrator turned on the audit trail, there was hell to pay.

So mr. genious who left me an anonymous ding, I feel sorry for your immature mind.

It doesn't affect me one bit, but if the administrator chooses to reveal who left the dings, I will embarass you out loud.

:D

Have a great day!!!

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42891
 
Last edited:
NsXMas said:
Haha, I got another ding, some coward left this: "dinged you just because i felt like it".

QUOTE]

You can give me the bad boy REP......that just means the chicks will dig me!!! :p
 
What I find interesting is that the majority of those who voted for Bush cited the two most important issues as:

1) Morality/Family Values
2) Terrorism

Well, to address #1, I really do not understand what this means. So I ask some of you conservatives to explain this to me. If I were a Senator, Congressman, or even the President, what sort of legislation could I introduce which would demonstrate that I am a very moral leader and am a supporter of Family Values?? Can you give a few examples of such legislation?? I'm really trying to understand this, but this issue seems to me to be something that our government has little or no influence with. I'm hardly a Libertarian, but I'm the last one who wants our government dictating what my family values should be. But I guess I'm in the minority here.

As far as #2 goes, what I find funny is that those who cited that this was the most important issue for them, are people from the south and midwestern states like Kansas, Alabama, Nebraska, etc. -- all the places that have very little chance of being terrorist targets. On 9/11, the attacks took place in Manhattan and Washington DC. Take a look at how those people voted:

Washingon DC results
90% Kerry
9% Bush

Manhattan results
82% Kerry
17% Bush

These are the people who were most affected by the terrorism -- the people who last family members, friends, etc.
 
These are the people who were most affected by the terrorism -- the people who last family members, friends, etc.[/QUOTE]



Actually people all over the country and the world lost family and friends. Im from Texas and lost two close friends in attack.
 
Eric5273 said:
What I find interesting is that the majority of those who voted for Bush cited the two most important issues as:

1) Morality/Family Values
2) Terrorism

Well, to address #1, I really do not understand what this means. So I ask some of you conservatives to explain this to me. If I were a Senator, Congressman, or even the President, what sort of legislation could I introduce which would demonstrate that I am a very moral leader and am a supporter of Family Values?? Can you give a few examples of such legislation?? I'm really trying to understand this, but this issue seems to me to be something that our government has little or no influence with. I'm hardly a Libertarian, but I'm the last one who wants our government dictating what my family values should be. But I guess I'm in the minority here.
Even though I'm not the conservative voice you're looking for, I think it's pretty obvious what these people are referring to.

Morality and family values can be equated (in this case) with opposing abortion (both late-term and all others), promoting religion (allowing religious references in the pledge of allegiance, in government buildings, allowing prayer in school, etc), and, to a lesser extent, shielding kids from any possible negative influence (like comprehensive sex education).
 
Back
Top