I've just returned from an enjoyable, plush cruise during which I was visously attacked by a Keynsian liberal, undeservingly. I merely dissagred with him. The attached both myself and my innocent husband.
Why are Liberals so Emotional???? Direct verbal attacks used to be considered unacceptable in polite sociely. The attacker was an educated man in his early 60's who had studied some economics in college. His major was accounting after a first year in electrical engineering.
More serious answers only please.
Emotions carry more weight with them than do the material facts of reality. It's their metaphysics, imo.
The question should be rephrased as: Why are liberals people so emotional?
I have no farging clue. Sometimes you just have to know when to tell your emotions to get off the train.
Many (most?) peoples' beliefs are based on emotion rather than reason, justice and consistency, e.g. people who have less money than others must be sad which makes me sad so they should have more money so I feel better. Their philosophy is not "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" but rather "Take from others what you would like given to you". Otherwise they'd be sad.
People get angry for two major reasons:
1. They have no other grounds to argue
2. They believe people who are wrong are deserving of anger/punishment.
"2." is the statist philosophy after all, so it shouldn't be that surprising. These are people who are typically incapable of seperating cause from effect. They are as a person emotional hotbuttons blind to how they are controlled. Lacking the ability to internally ponder issues and emotions is an effect of abuse/trauma. People who have adopted ideology as a religion have turned their beliefs into their personality. If you undermine their ideology, they fear their personality. It is a sign of massive insecurity.
To build upon what Nielsio said, people who are so highly emotional are typically lacking in critical-thinking skills. Years of public schooling and more subtle forms of statist indoctrination have made them "unlearn" their inborn ability to think critically.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
This might help (and his whole Bomb in the Brain series). To lowball it, neurological studies show that political beliefs are largely ABOUT emotion. When people are given facts that contradict their prior beliefs, they simply ignore it and get a rush out of it.
I agree that they are emotional, but so are most who claim to be conservative today too. Try (like I have) telling one of today's conservatives (or neocon if you like) that you are against war and aggression and you will be dealing with a highly emotional argument there as well. I think the left is perhaps a bit more emotional but that's debatable. The key is to hold the high ground and don't become an emotional wreck yourself. It's easier said than done especially (as others have alluded to) if you lack a good sound argument and the means to back it up. It's better just to say "I'll get back to you on your point with a counter argument later" than to simply stoop to their level and become emotional. I'm not trying say you did any of these things, I'm just giving warning to others (like myself) who have fallen into heavy emotional arguments only to later look back and feel mildly ashamed for acting foolish. Sometimes it's just best to keep quiet if you don't have enough bullets in your intellectual gun and especially if you are bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Could you elaborate more on what the disagreement was? That might help.
cryptocode: I've just returned from an enjoyable, plush cruise during which I was visously attacked by a Keynsian liberal, undeservingly. I merely dissagred with him. The attached both myself and my innocent husband. Why are Liberals so Emotional???? Direct verbal attacks used to be considered unacceptable in polite sociely. The attacker was an educated man in his early 60's who had studied some economics in college. His major was accounting after a first year in electrical engineering. More serious answers only please.
I'll tell you why. Because it is always uncomfortable to hear the truth. It's like hearing about your abuse in a childhood that you're trying to forget from some random stranger. It is scary to them. How can someone know this, they probably think, how dare this savage to say that my reality is actually a delusion imprinted since the childhood?
I just got from similar conversation... When I told that State is very similar to mafia I was cursed, I was called drug addict (yeah), I was called a fool, all such names in one sentence, even when I tried to stay civil and polite. So yeah, they are all emotionally attached to their delusion (world view).
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Everybody is emotional. Just take a look at this forum there are always emotions brewing in all sorts of topics. I'm glad Lew Rockwell is emotional about economics. To label people with a certain set of views as more "emotional" than another takes a lot of ego and emotion in the first place.
I think a better question would be, why do people identify with ideas as their sense of self? The reason these "liberals" get angry is because they take attacks on their viewpoints very personally as if without them they wouldn't be who they are anymore, like a part of them would "die". For me, seeing people as who they are, which is more than just their ideas, lends itself to people actually wanting to engage in educational discussion. But if I think "this person is a communist" as if that's a permanent state of their being then I can't possibly expect any changes.
While I agree that we are all emotional, that isn't OP's point. At least, it isn't mine. Some people are more attached to their ideologies than others. Some can differentiate reality from fiction and debate politely even in controversial issues, some do not. Some explode as soon as you mention that their world view is false and EXPLAIN it step by step.
If I think I am right and I see obvious crackpot, I don't start shouting at him and cursing him for his ignorance. I can be sarcastic a little bit, but usually I am not interested in a debate (with creationists, for example).
So no, we are not just some crackpots for a statists. We actually expose the true nature of man and that's what hurt them. They don't wanna hear it.
Yeah I agree, some people are definitely more attached than others- but I think this goes for people in every category, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, whatever the label is. But I think to expect everyone to have the same level of detachment to ideas as oneself is a bit much. Personally when I see someone get highly emotionally reactive to something I said, I try to look at myself and the manner in which I projected my ideas, the culprit is usually arrogance on my part.
I argued with one dude who rejected the invalidity of formal logical fallacies and argued purely based on emotion. I told him that I felt that his argument was wrong and that, therefore, he was wrong. (He didn't get the sarcasm.)
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
People choose ideologies based on what makes them feel good. If they choose an ideology that is actually wrong, it will make no difference. I could work really hard and try to be objective, and wind up supporting Ron Paul or maybe even no one in elections, and the outcome would be the same as if I had blended in and voted for Obama. I'll feel a lot better if I vote for Obama because there's the social support and good feeling of winning and doing something.
invalidity of formal logical fallacies
Did you mean to say validity? I actually practice for these situations constantly. It's a running dialogue that I keep in mind to cover various scenarios. I try and cover all possible objections or counter arguments, but there is simply no substitute for actually arguing with someone with a different or radically different ideology.
If anything, conversations like these help to combat those ideas in the future. After a while, you can practically make a list of items that are almost always brought up in conversation over a particular topic.
Maybe the OP just failed to articulate a coherent argument? We don't even know what the disagreement was about, so I can't really respond.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Hmm... maybe validity was the wrong concept. I pointed out the logical fallacies in his argument; they were hasty generalization, non sequitur and circumstantial ad hominem. He replied that I was missing the much more bigger and emotional meaning of his argument.
Well I would guess that your argument had an even bigger and more emotional meaning? Why not bring that up?
I honestly don't see that as a valid stereotype anymore. The left comes in all stripes, and seems to have no more particular emotions than other political sect. That said, if such a dichotomy can actually exist between "emotional" and "rational", there is nothing intrinsically superior in any state of being. There is no reason in itself to choose to be "more rational" than "more emotional".
auctionguy10,
No. I hadn't established an argument. I was going Socratic on him. Then I decided to point out a bunch of logical fallacies.
Some people react violently as soon as you present the least challenge to their world view. As soon as they are around people who think the least bit differently, they cannot handle it and fly into a rage. Any disagreement with their "goodthink" will immediately convince them that you must be a racist, homophobic, puppy killer. It's best to try and spot these people early and avoid them, or decide whether or not to do a preemptive strike.
And yes, I have to say from experience that liberals (modern liberals, not Milton Friedman liberals) react that way more often.
Naevius nailed it. But it doesn't apply only to liberals.
This did not seem to post the first time. Sorry if it is a double post.....
At the OP concerning 'attack'.
I think that it is important to distinguish emotion from attack.
I do not know how to argue the point correctly but is it not true that emotion is distinctly human? We have emotion because we can reason and understand. Emotion is not UN-reasonable, it is a product OF reason; a tool. The issue is not emotion in and of itself but how it is used.
Individuals have a choice in the beneficial or destructive use of emotion. That one chooses to benefit or destroy is rational choice between aggression or non-aggression whether that choice is directed in- or outward.
Is that choice conditioned or a product of reason?
I can only argue in the simplest terms that to consider human choice as conditioned contradicts humanity. Aggression as a conditioned response is a cop out; a lame or insufficient excuse in the attempt to justify aggression.
To the OP - this is his (the aggressor's) emotional concern, not yours. Release any energy that binds his emotional aggression to your energy as something that has passed on to the winds. Salt spray is cleasing and invigoration. Benefit from your beautiful experience with your husband on the high seas. This is the energy focus and rational course to chart towards your purpose for taking the cruise. May this be a blessing to both you and your husband.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
Daniel Muffinburg: I argued with one dude who rejected the invalidity of formal logical fallacies and argued purely based on emotion. I told him that I felt that his argument was wrong and that, therefore, he was wrong. (He didn't get the sarcasm.)
oh god, this must have been hilarious :D
only people that disagree with me suffer from various irrational behaviors that may cloud their judgement (like an inability to control their emotions). after all, this is the only way i can explain people coming to different conclusions than myself.
</more serious answer..really>
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
only people that disagree with me suffer from various irrational behaviors that may cloud their judgement (like an inability to control their emotions). after all, this is the only way i can explain people coming to different conclusions than myself. </more serious answer..really>
If you don't ever believe that you can be wrong about something, you never unlearn your mistakes.
I don't get how anyone could be emotional about keynesianism. Seems pretty sterile stuff. I can see maybe capitalism or communism or some other ism or whatever... but keynes?
Maybe they its their animal spirits getting the best of them. Or because they have some unidentified emotional thing, the animal spirits seem like real things. Who knows?
Normal 0
This is speculation but, it could be that people who are more emotive and caring in their nature are attracted to ideas that allow them to satisfy the needs those feelings create. So they choose ideas that allow them to actually 'see' or easily visualise people being helped, over ideas that are more abstract. Even if those directly satisfying ideas in the long run do more harm then good.
However both sides can play the game - Libertarians are stereotyped as 'uncaring'. I have heard us be accused of being sociopath, unsympathetic, no empathy ect.
Normal 0 Normal 0
I always wondered why libertarians were thrown into that category- it never really made sense. To me Libertarians have the caring streak- since they value everyone as an individual, generally believe in charity, and advocate the use of violence only in the name of self defense. I tend to highlight these points in any political discussions.
People are turned off when you say things like "Well if he's poor, thats HIS problem"- the better option would be to point out the hypocrisy of the welfare supporters, by asking them why they won't part with their riches to help the less fortunate. Its easier to do this in a city with lots of homeless all over like in NYC- for all these supporters of welfare who "care" about the poor, barely any of them help the homeless out with little more than some change they don't want to carry.
Faustus: However both sides can play the game - Libertarians are stereotyped as 'uncaring'. I have heard us be accused of being sociopath, unsympathetic, no empathy ect.
isn't it ironic? We actually are libertarians (I can't speak for all of us, but you get my point) because we care about people, it's one of the fundamentals, so to speak. The problem with liberals and other kinds of statists, that they want this "care" shift onto other people (the masters, the gods) and themselves be left alone from caring about anything. From caring about education (state provides, hooray), from caring about roads (state provides, hooray), from caring about defense (state provides, hooray), etc. etc.
It's an addiction. Not thinking about how to do this and that and hoping that someone else figures it out.
I was discussing the New Deal with a liberal. So every time I pointed out that what he said was good ended in failure, he would appeal that even if failed, it was worth so people could feel the goverment caring about them.
haha priceless. They always deny flaws of their systems. If you debunk it and show how it isn't gonna to work, they will say eventually it is necessary evil or just call you a fockin freetard.
I've been thinking about this incident, and several others, quite a lot, and your comments have been helpful. Several of you have asked for a more complete description so hoping not to bore you, here it is.
One evening we happened to sit at dinner next to Jim and Sheila (I'll call them) from Chicage. Jim said he had been enjoying history and named a number of biographies he'd read this year. When he finished I said I'd been reading a lot of economics the last 3 years and said after Keynes and Chicago I'd found the Austrian school and loved it. During my explanation I'd said I found Keynes math impossible, and though I later learned it was meant to only describe models, that the models themselves were completely unrealistic. (I didn't assume at that time that he'd studied any econ at school). In response to my discussion he made no sounds at all. So after that we fell pretty silent. Then he asked if we played bridge at our club a lot. (We were a group of bridge players.) I didn't explain that I'd been too sick recently and instead said the we'd found the worldwide 24/7 bridge site and enjoyed it. He responded that they prefered to play with real people. (Now that is not an attack but it is certainly a put-down.) We said nothing else to them directly that evening.
The following evening we selected a different table, but when Jim and Sheila arrived they came directly to the table at which we were sitting. I said nothing for half the meal. The most at the table began talking about their rear view cameras in their Lexus' cars and how great they were. My husband joined in and said our daughter's Ford also had a rear view camera moved to the back of her horse trailer and in addition one on the inside of the trailer to enable her to observe the horses in transit, and he agreed they were marvelous. Jim then said loudly, "Does she have a shotgun in the back window?" (Now that's an attack.) There was dead silence for a few seconds, then my husband said, "Well we do have guns, but what you see in back windows is usually some fishing rods." Again there was dead silence. There was little more conversation, and none from us.
I think the comments in this thread can be grouped into several groups.
Some indicate we all have the same emotions. Yes, typically, but different emotions, and emotions overall, are different strengths in different people. Further, during the maturing process, some people learn how to control them more fully than others.
Some said it's uncomfortable to hear the truth. But I think that begs the question of what the truth is. But it's also close to saying that it's uncomfortable to hear opposing views.
Several said that many people, one way or another, identigy personally with their opinions, beliefs, ideology, etc. I think this is closer.
Sieben : People choose ideologies based on what makes them feel good. If they choose an ideology that is actually wrong, it will make no difference. I could work really hard and try to be objective, and wind up supporting Ron Paul or maybe even no one in elections, and the outcome would be the same as if I had blended in and voted for Obama. I'll feel a lot better if I vote for Obama because there's the social support and good feeling of winning and doing something. Before the '08 election we were at another bridge convention, eating lunch with several other out-of-state couples. I asked who they were going to vote for. One woman said Clinton. She said she prefered Obama but was going to vote for Clinton because Clinton was going to win. Again I was dumbfounded and silent for a bit. I simply could not believe that there were people whose opinion was based on the opinion of the larger group. I asked her, finally, why, if she prefered Obama, she didn't vote for him. She replied, "Oh no, she primarily wanted to vote for the winner". Based on these and other experiences about being part of a larger or majority group, or an in-goup, seems to make people feel safe and secure and right, correct. Therefore those who do not agree are wrong, stupid and open to attack because they endanger the safety and security of their group. "The tyranny of the majority" in spades. Mere disagreement is also unacceptable and uncomfortable and this was my 'sin' with Jim. My Austrian opinions did not agree with his and he was right. Therefore it was acceptable to attack us. And their mantra about respecting others is a halucination. Now I'm thinking, Jim and his majority are basically fearful at heart, and thefore unwilling to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. They feel safe and secure only as part of a large group. There's safely in numbers, the banana that gets away from the bunch gets pealed, etc. At least I"m forming some explanation for such behaviour, even if it's not thecorrect one. | Post Points: 35
Before the '08 election we were at another bridge convention, eating lunch with several other out-of-state couples. I asked who they were going to vote for. One woman said Clinton. She said she prefered Obama but was going to vote for Clinton because Clinton was going to win. Again I was dumbfounded and silent for a bit. I simply could not believe that there were people whose opinion was based on the opinion of the larger group. I asked her, finally, why, if she prefered Obama, she didn't vote for him. She replied, "Oh no, she primarily wanted to vote for the winner".
Based on these and other experiences about being part of a larger or majority group, or an in-goup, seems to make people feel safe and secure and right, correct. Therefore those who do not agree are wrong, stupid and open to attack because they endanger the safety and security of their group. "The tyranny of the majority" in spades. Mere disagreement is also unacceptable and uncomfortable and this was my 'sin' with Jim. My Austrian opinions did not agree with his and he was right. Therefore it was acceptable to attack us. And their mantra about respecting others is a halucination.
Now I'm thinking, Jim and his majority are basically fearful at heart, and thefore unwilling to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. They feel safe and secure only as part of a large group. There's safely in numbers, the banana that gets away from the bunch gets pealed, etc.
At least I"m forming some explanation for such behaviour, even if it's not thecorrect one.
Well 1/5 Americans has significant mental problems. 1/4 have pseudo-diabetes. How many people are actually healthy? If they can't even get their own lives together, I much doubt they'll be generating some really intellectual politics.
Based on these and other experiences about being part of a larger or majority group, or an in-goup, seems to make people feel safe and secure and right, correct. Therefore those who do not agree are wrong, stupid and open to attack because they endanger the safety and security of their group. "The tyranny of the majority" in spades. Mere disagreement is also unacceptable and uncomfortable and this was my 'sin' with Jim. My Austrian opinions did not agree with his and he was right. Therefore it was acceptable to attack us. And their mantra about respecting others is a halucination. Now I'm thinking, Jim and his majority are basically fearful at heart, and thefore unwilling to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. They feel safe and secure only as part of a large group. There's safely in numbers, the banana that gets away from the bunch gets pealed, etc.
Yea this is strong part of it too imo.
This could help explain the whole Keynes fascination---people who subscribe to the group think way of life are ready customers of Keynes and his beliefs that the "aggregate" economy waxes and wanes according to the dictates of mass psychology.
Holly sh...
Again, I'd like to point out that the root problem seems to be that people have "unlearned" their ability to think critically. I place the blame for this squarely on public schooling.
Keep in mind that, along with "unlearning" critical thinking, people are indoctrinated with certain beliefs. The indoctrinations typically stay with them because they can't examine the beliefs with a critical eye. When others who can still think critically examine the indoctrinations in such a way, they feel like they're being personally attacked. They see the indoctrinations as being defining elements of who they are -- after all, they've had them since childhood!
Autolykos:Again, I'd like to point out that the root problem seems to be that people have "unlearned" their ability to think critically. I place the blame for this squarely on public schooling.
Yes, this.
And it's not just liberals by any means. Anyone remember the frothing rage of the American right that lasted for years following 9/11? Or how about the pants-crapping paranoia of the security statists? Emotionalism is hardly a monopolity of the American political left.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Why are anarchocapitalists so emotional?