Cognitive Dissonance and the left losing its collective mind

a reply to: dawnstar

I should add: Russia is a problem. But focusing it on the president isn't how you do it...its all based on innuendo. Its a spy problem that should have been handled by spy agencies. Not the farce that we have today.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

The right and that's you included are just as defunct of truth and facts, it's just that you think you are better, reality is you're just as bad.

You have anything relevant to add?

I dont think I am better than anyone. The facts I provided are easily verifiable using various websites so why dont you hop on over and research it on your own. I llove it when a foreign national jumps in on these conversations without an adequate understanding of the situation.

I have something relative, it's as simple as looking at the other point of view, not just looking infact but digesting what it really means.

If you honestly looked at the other sides pov you wouldn't be so confused and feel the need to have a go at me for pointing it out.

a reply to: LoneGunMan

In the 2016 election the media ensured in the minds of America that Hillary would win no matter what. In fact they portrayed Trump as being a ridiculous choice that could never conceiveably win.

Donald Trump is a ridiculous choice, as his corrupt, constantly changing cabinet amply demonstrates. The media were right: Trump lost the popular vote. The cognitive dissonance is on the part of conservatives who accept a venal, compulsive liar who cheats on his wives, bullies his subordinates, uses foul language, and generally behaves in the most unchristian way possible. He spent Easter golfing, for crying out loud. Even Putin goes to church on Orthodox Easter.

You are right about a political meltdown having been engineered, however. Who might want to do that?

a reply to: LoneGunMan

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of the nation in terms of sides being set against each other. But I must disagree with the methodology you described.

Cognitive dissonance is the inability to accept something as fact because doing so would be frightening to the point of being debilitating. The over the top reaction from the left we are witnessing is proof that they acknowledge the election results, but are not able to deal with it in an adult rational manner.

"There is nothing more mealy-mouthed, bullying, irresponsible and victimized than a well-coddled self, especially if it belongs to a liberal. ... The liberal is continually angry, as only a self-important man can be, with his civilization, his culture, his country and his folks back home. His is an infantile world view. At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child-miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." ~ P.J. O'Roourke

That quote may seem unnecessarily harsh, as O'Rourke is often considered to be. Now consider the swarms of vagina heads screaming like maniacs, the staffers at the hillary campaign headquarters collapsing into the fetal position wailing as if their souls had been ripped from the bodies, and so on. Is O'Rourke really that far off?

As for the same reaction from the right had hillary won - not a chance in hell. (see above) If that was going to happen it would have happened when obama won. There are some cities that you just know are going to erupt into riots when a sports team wins, or loses, and they never disappoint. And there are some where you know the celebration will go off perfectly. Is it a coincidence that the liberal/democrat run cities are the ones on fire with looting and overturned police cars? I don't believe it is. Of course there are exceptions and I freely admit that, but I think the majority are as I described.

Take a two year old having a temper tantrum and put that mind in a twenty year old body and observe. Can you honestly say that is is the behavior of the average conservative? I can't. But I can think of numerous occasions where that description fit liberals perfectly. The problem is that unlike the two year olds the twenty year olds can organize a political movement to legitimize their tantrums.

For the record, I do not believe these two year old types of liberals are representative of ALL liberals. However, there do seem to be quite a lot of them. And they despise the right who are being forced to take on the roll of disciplinarian, babysitter if you will. In its purest simplest form conservatives are slapping the hand of the spoiled liberal child determined to take a bite out of every single cookie in the box.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

My son has a loathing for weak people. He has put himself into the fire, and walked through it...people who do such things tend to have a hard nosed attitude towards others short comings. And that is him.

He calls the fetal position, "the fecal position" as his testament to his opinion on that particular sign of weakness.

a reply to: Xcathdra

All the food is made in Republican counties. Democrats control the big cities where starvation would be a real problem.

a reply to: LoneGunMan


An ideological "civil war" has been in the wings for quite some time.

It's not a left vs right.
It's not a democrat vs republican.

It's a Constitution vs non-constitution fight.


A growing number of people don't feel that they want to have a government limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

a reply to: DJW001

Trump is a ridiculous choice, he was also the best choice.

He's also actually keeping campaign promises, a sure sign he's got no idea what he's doing, as that simply isn't done.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Where was this Russian angst when Romney was running and the media blasted him and Democrats said he had Cold war thinking.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

compared to this:

TWP members celebrated their role in the event and glorified Heyer’s death. “Dead commies is never bad…” wrote TWP chat participant ‘Kombat-Unit.’ “1 dead enemy, 35 injured & 2 dead cops is a win to any true revolutionary…” boasted Discord user ‘Harbinger of Hate’. “# your optics…I’m here to fight a #ing war.”

www.unicornriot.ninja...

or this:



or just how many lawsuits are there now against the internet wannabee investigators (probably deliberately) misidentifying the car driver that ran over heather, or the shooters, ect... causing them to get an onslaught of hate mail and threats... to the point where some were advised by the fbi to leave their home for their own safety.

your post is an off the wall reaction to trump winning the election, just as much as these examples are!! ya, you hold the power, time to lock up those who don't step in your line, blow them up, declare them insane, name them enemies of the state!!!

meanwhile a great majority of the population is just out there living their lives, ignoring the echo chambers of both parties and believe me, they know... the insanity lies on both sides of the aisle!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

He's also actually keeping campaign promises, a sure sign he's got no idea what he's doing, as that simply isn't done.

Instead of draining the swamp, he's stocking it. Hillary still stalks the land a free woman, and Mexico will never pay for the wall. What other promises were there?

a reply to: DJW001

If you need to ask you should look into it.

Hillary being free is one I still hope changes but she's royalty so I don't expect much.

The wall and the border is still being worked on not abandoned. I actually hope no wall is built it's a stupid idea.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Where was this Russian angst when Romney was running and the media blasted him and Democrats said he had Cold war thinking.

Being ignored.

That said...whatever happened in the last election cycle was obviously a psyop from multiple actors. The good news is, much of the underlying mechanisms are being laid bare. The bad news is, most folks are too dumb to care.

a reply to: LoneGunMan

Well the content is a little different, but I've seen this exact same title at least three times on ATS in the last year.

Weird.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's a Constitution vs non-constitution fight.

You and BFFT are both right.

I've lived in a city, although my heart is, always has been, and always will be deeply attracted to the country life. Country boy at heart, if you will. And I do not disparage the city life; it has its advantages. It is simply different.

Where I live now, one is required by reality to exist independently. If an altercation occurs, it will likely be over long before any authorities arrive. If a wild animal shows up in the yard, one might as well take care of the problem themselves, because no animal control exists... there are simply too many wild animals. My closest neighbor is 1/4 mile away, and my best friend from childhood. The nearest grocery store is 10 miles away. My wife and I can go for days without seeing another human here if we so choose. The road in front of my house carries maybe 100 vehicles per day.

That means we need to do things ourselves. We have chickens and turkeys running loose in the yard (and some ducklings coming up). The chickens provide eggs and meat if needed, and the turkeys provide meat and protection for the chickens and ducks (who are really just the wife's pets). A dog provides another layer of protection, keeping the larger critters run off, and I provide the final layer of protection with a little .22 pistol. And the birds eat the bugs, providing free, natural pest control.

We grow vegetables. Fresh tomatoes, taters, squash, cucumbers, okry... a few melons...

If something breaks, we fix it. I have a supply of concrete blocks and lumber on hand, plus plenty of tools. I have not yet owned a car that I didn't work on. It's just easier considering the distance to a mechanic.

But things were different when I lived in the city. For one thing, if something broke, people expected us to call for a repairman. It sort of amazed the neighbors to see me drag out a few saws and a hammer to make house repairs. They seemed perplexed when I drove the car up on ramps and crawled under it to change the oil. I was a bit perplexed at why people were so adamant about making sure their yard was manicured...to my way of thinking, you cut the grass when it got high to keep snakes from hanging around... they actually have laws about mowing the grass, and no problem with snakes.

I never really got over the shock I would occasionally get when the city showed up to work on water lines or fix the sidewalk right in front of my house, like they owned the place. I kept expecting someone to come to the door and ask permission. Guns were some kind of weird artifact to my neighbors, something to be admired for being, not used as a tool.

Don't even think about chickens in the city. You buy eggs and meat, and you pay people to come spread poison around the place to kill any bugs.

Anything you want is a short walk down the street. A car is not really a necessity, just a nice thing to have. Feet work in a pinch.

In short, life is completely different. I can sort of understand why; people live so close together, there is really no privacy. What one does affects everyone around them. It's not like that in the country... what we do affects us, and no one else.

The problem comes in when either group decides they can dictate to the other how to live. Outlawing guns might sound real good to city folk who have a patrol car cruising down their road every 30 minutes, but out here giving up all guns is literal suicide. Eventually, something will come out of the woods that considers you lunch, and without a weapon, you are lunch. In the city, guns are this exotic luxury you see more on TV and movies than in real life.

In the city a car is optional but nice to have. In the country, it is an absolute necessity. Town and back is a full day's walk. Raise the price of gas,and you just raised the price of living.

In town, if you build something, it must follow code, or it will likely pose a danger (or at least a major annoyance) to your neighbors. You're better off to hire someone to build it, because they have the tools and the knowledge of how to pass the codes. In the country, you're better off building most things yourself, because you already have the tools and there are no codes... there are no neighbors to get offended. We use common sense. Not many buildings aren't built to the same basic concepts that are codified in cities anyway, because we just don't have time to do something over.

Two different lifestyles, two different ways of living.

The Constitution was written in 1783. In 1783, there were no cities like there are today. Cities back then were centers of commerce among farms. Everyone lived a country life, so the Constitution was written for a country lifestyle. The rights enumerated were rights that were seen as vitally important. Today they are still vitally important to those of us in rural settings, but not so much to those in urban settings. Since urban areas by definition have higher population densities than rural, we have this situation where urbanites are choosing to do away with those protections, despite the inconvenience and potential actual danger such actions would place on rural folks. As cities grow, the pressure increases. As the city lifestyle, which looks to money as the sole measure of all, falls into corruption to increase individual incomes, the pressure becomes unbearable. And rural America looks to their one protection from tyranny, the Bill of Rights, for protection.

So it is Constitution versus no Constitution, because it is also urban versus rural. If everyone living in a city were forced by law to spend one year of their life in the country, and everyone in the country forced to spend one year in a city, attitudes would change and change fast. Of course, that would likely kill off a few people, too.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

“A republic, if you can keep it.”
-Ben Franklin


I love that quote.

It describes the core of what the Constitution means. We (the people) actually are able to self-determine our own fate. We ultimately, will determine what kind of nation we will have.

If we no longer want to enjoy the freedoms we have, we have the ability to cede them to government.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Unfortunately, the ceding of rights to a government seems to be the route people will choose, when that route seems easier in the short term. I think Mr. Franklin recognized that flaw in humanity. Thankfully, the founding fathers gave us protections which have mostly held until now. When they no longer hold, though, the Great Experiment will be over and we will once again e embroiled in another War Between the States. Instead of being called the War of Northern Aggression, this one will likely be the War of Urban Aggression.

Both sides will lose.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Great insight.

FWIW, in the state of Texas it is illegal for a municipality to outlaw the keeping of chickens. Although not many do it. Since i am in the process of moving, and currently rent my home (until properties back home sell), i couldn't have them if i wanted...violates the lease.

I currently live right in the middle of the Centroplex of Texas. So its become much more city for me than I'd prefer. Although where i live is more country like...but i still have neighbors right up on me within about 30 feet on either side. But the deer roam freely, so it feels pretty nice.

The folks here kinda balance it pretty well. Its still country outside of Waco and Killeen. At least, the folks are country. Wish we had more latino's, though. It'd feel more like home.

a reply to: TheRedneck

but, I don't believe there are many city folks even that want to take your little .22 handgun from you. they just don't want guns capable of letting off enough rounds to turn your dog, chickens, ducks, geese, along with the wild animal that is sneaking in for it's dinner into a buffet for the vultures being carried into the places they and their children congregate and turning them into a buffet... after all they have no vultures to clean up the mess and it's not chickens and geese that are being slaughtered.
we each should have the right to live the way we wish, even if it's a self sufficient life out in the boonies... after all that is the last resort for some many times when the economy fails so many people. I do believe it is also part of the UN's bill of rights or whatever they call it, the right to provide for yourself.
there should be a sane way to give each group what they need, don't ya think?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They might not be able to outlaw chickens, but I bet they can regulate them... as in outlawing free range chickens. Ours roam the whole yard once they are adults (we have a 4' x 8' coop we keep them in until then) and they work better for pest control than any poison or spray we have tried, and even better than burning areas off. They do not get fed; they eat the bugs and turn them into eggs. I like eggs and dislike bugs.

Chickens really need a lot of room. They will live in tiny coops, but the smell becomes atrocious! if they have room to roam, there is no smell and no problem with them destroying the grass. That is typically due to over-fertilization, since chicken manure is one of the strongest natural fertilizers one can get.

Of course, I have room for them to roam without bothering anything. In the city, that wouldn't be the case.

TheRedneck