It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Psychology of Progressive Hostility

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Of course there's gonna be that. And if all I wanted was such affirmation I could have pm'd said members the article, they'd have pm'd me back with a high 5, "right on", and I'd have been on my way. And I couldn't care less about stars and flags; this place and my little stats here aren't part of my identity. If you have the urge to pretend I'm lying about that too, read the first paragraph of the thread in my sig. I won't expect you read the rest of it, although it would benefit you to do so. I'm just suggesting the first paragraph to show I'm not kidding about S&F. My motives were what I stated they were.

ETA: I'll even put it in my sig not to star or flag me, I really don't give a # about popularity.
edit on 10 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I’m going to have to call BS on your claim here. If you were really wanting to help people be more open-minded about the views of the other side, you would have posted a more neutral article, or you could have posted a 2nd article that was maybe not so complementary of the right, such as this one:

www.psychologytoday.com...

But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your goal here was clearly to bash the left - and frankly, I’m getting really weary of all the left/right battles. And, dammit, I wasn’t going to participate in this thread!


This is really quite interesting.
In the OP it clearly states that the link was described as "just a space for right-wing windbags to pontificate about the same thing over and over and over…".

I don't really think you can get much fairer than that.

And the response?
Progressive hostility.


The OP wasn’t stating that himself. He said it was one of the comments in the article. The OP doesn’t disagree with what the author of the article is saying.


Exactly, he made it a point to show opinions he didn't agree with.


He made it a point to exemplify the “progressive hostility” talked about in the article. But I’m sure he’ll come in now and say I’m wrong, and all he wants is peace and love.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I’m going to have to call BS on your claim here. If you were really wanting to help people be more open-minded about the views of the other side, you would have posted a more neutral article, or you could have posted a 2nd article that was maybe not so complementary of the right, such as this one:

www.psychologytoday.com...

But you didn’t do that, did you? No, your goal here was clearly to bash the left - and frankly, I’m getting really weary of all the left/right battles. And, dammit, I wasn’t going to participate in this thread!


This is really quite interesting.
In the OP it clearly states that the link was described as "just a space for right-wing windbags to pontificate about the same thing over and over and over…".

I don't really think you can get much fairer than that.

And the response?
Progressive hostility.


The OP wasn’t stating that himself. He said it was one of the comments in the article. The OP doesn’t disagree with what the author of the article is saying.


Exactly, he made it a point to show opinions he didn't agree with.


He made it a point to exemplify the “progressive hostility” talked about in the article. But I’m sure he’ll come in now and say I’m wrong, and all he wants is peace and love.


I have no illusions of peace and love anytime soon. You make a lot of incorrect assumptions. You extrapolate too far from what you read, when you really have no basis on which to do so. It's not like we've known each other a long time and you know how to read further into what I'm saying.

When I said if one or two people read this and learn something from it that'll be a plus, how do you get from there to thinking I expected everyone to read this and all of a sudden start having cordial political discussion?



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
He made it a point to exemplify the “progressive hostility” talked about in the article. But I’m sure he’ll come in now and say I’m wrong, and all he wants is peace and love.


Is it that inconceivable that you are wrong?

Look at the OP again.
He states that he's unfamiliar with the website and unsure how it will be received.
He then states that other opinion which casts doubt on the reliability of the website.

Context is important.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Yes, context is important.

OP posts an article that is derogatory towards the left.

Other posters get excited and start posting how awful the left are.

Op agrees with some of them, and doesn’t bother calling out the ones who post rather insulting memes towards the left.

It is very clear the OP is not neutral in any way.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
So you are trashing what the OP says in the OP based on how other members behave as if the OP coordinated it?

Isn't this like when you accuse people of painting the entire left based on the behavior of a few? You taking the OP and constructing context for it based on how others who had nothing to do with the OP itself behave?

Let's take this into another idea.

If I were to construct a thread in theology on something Christian on my perception and understanding of how Christians should behave, not only do I have no control over which atheists are going to come into that thread and try to deconstruct my argument, but I likewise have no control over which Christians are going to come into my thread and both disagree with my personal understanding and/or distort what I said with their own ideas on it.

So for you to then read that thread and conclude that I approve or disapprove of this, that, or the other because I of whom I do or do not choose to engage with is faulty reasoning at best. Or to draw an idea of what I *really* think on the topic outside what I outline in my OP or responses is even further an exercise in your own prejudices and assumptions.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

I didn't say that the OP was neutral.
I'm saying he made it a point to show opinions he didn't agree with.
Something which would be impossible if he was neutral.

But the fact that you are trying to change your argument now seems to show that you realise you are wrong.

That's progress.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Yes, context is important.

OP posts an article that is derogatory towards the left.

Other posters get excited and start posting how awful the left are.

Op agrees with some of them, and doesn’t bother calling out the ones who post rather insulting memes towards the left.

It is very clear the OP is not neutral in any way.


You're right. This post I made on page 1 acknowledging how some right-leaning members are assholes toward you and how unhelpful that is was totally a 4D chess move and was actually code for me giving them a pass.

It's not my responsibility to police and challenge every ignorant post made here.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
go on a left leaning forum like arstechnica or anandtech and say something supporting conservative values and get cursed out by everyone there including the mods.

go to resetera and they will ban you outright for saying anything pro conservative.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You’re right - how could I have been so blind to not see that the OP agrees with everything the left does and has no complaints about the left? Just because he posted an article that is derogatory to the left and he didn’t say he disagreed with the article - doesn’t mean he agrees with the article at all!

Thanks for clearing that up for me.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

You’re right - how could I have been so blind to not see that the OP agrees with everything the left does and has no complaints about the left? Just because he posted an article that is derogatory to the left and he didn’t say he disagreed with the article - doesn’t mean he agrees with the article at all!

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Disingenuously taking everything people say to an extreme when you know that's not what they meant isn't helping matters either. Do you want me to accept responsibility for that too? I will if it makes you feel better. At this point I'm not even sure what you want, it sure as hell isn't to discuss what was posted.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: kaylaluv

I didn't say that the OP was neutral.
I'm saying he made it a point to show opinions he didn't agree with.
Something which would be impossible if he was neutral.

But the fact that you are trying to change your argument now seems to show that you realise you are wrong.

That's progress.


I’m not changing my argument at all. I’ve said all along that the purpose of this thread was to bash the left. I stand by that.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

You’re right - how could I have been so blind to not see that the OP agrees with everything the left does and has no complaints about the left? Just because he posted an article that is derogatory to the left and he didn’t say he disagreed with the article - doesn’t mean he agrees with the article at all!

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Somebody up thread mentions how you have a habit of drawing the most extreme conclusions possible in a snarky way and that opens you up to be treated in kind.

This is a prime example of that behavior.

How closely did you actually read the article? Many of the examples of the people talking in that article were people who hold leftwing views, but not always on everything. And *they* were mentioning how they find it hard to disagree with their own, and what you just posted is an example of why. There is no reasonable disagreement possible because it becomes this sort of extreme hyperbole.

Did you miss that when you read the article?



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

You clearly are.
Our argument was regarding the quote he cited in the OP.

Your opinion was...
"He made it a point to exemplify the “progressive hostility” talked about in the article."

My opinion was...
"He then states that other opinion which casts doubt on the reliability of the website."



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:07 PM
link   
On second thought, she is being helpful. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of precisely what the author of the article was talking about.

I really would like to get along with her. She seems like a pleasant person, until you disagree with her.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Murgatroid

We get it. Liberals are stupid and dumb and ugly and horrible and worthless and evil and crazy and dumb... whereas conservatives are smart and wise and beautiful and fantastic and, like, the best people ever!!!

I never even thought that. Just self absorbed.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Its a sort of narcissism for sure, when someone cuts them off on the highway they probably think, why did this person do this to me, why do they HATE me?

the same reason they read this thread and think, why does the op HATE me, just because I'm liberal, uggh!



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, I read the article. It concentrates on the fringe and distorts things said out of context to make it seem that “progressives” as a whole can’t argue logically. What it leaves out is all the times conservatives get super emotional on things like gun control and abortion, and use phrases like “SJW” and “snowflakes” and “libtards” and “virtue signaler”, and use those phrases like handing out candy at Halloween, whenever they don’t agree with someone on the left.

The problem is not progressives any more than the problem is conservatives. The problem is some people are dicks. Those “some people” are on both sides of the political arena. Both sides. Not just on the left and not just on the right. Both sides. Equally. I’m not buying any of this “but the left do it a lot more” stuff.

I could find plenty of articles from the left that are equally as derogatory to the right. But I don’t start threads on them because I know that all it will do is cause more division. It won’t make anyone on the right say “wow, I never realized how awful I was being - I’ll change today!” All it will do is piss them off. I know because I’ve seen others posting those types of articles already. And I’ve seen the responses from the right - and it wasn’t pretty.



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Obama let them down. Hillary cheated Bernie Sanders. Hillary lost. Trump is winning. The combination could lead to an increased number of suicides.

I wonder if statistics are kept on left-wing vs. Right wing suicides.?



posted on Mar, 10 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785
Yeah, it really is fascinating.

I've gained a much better understanding from her than the article.
But we're all people, she's just one side of the coin.

It makes me wonder what I'm blind to and if it's even possible to have the objectivity to know.




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join