General

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

cryptocode — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:18:06 GMT

Jay is also right. Hatred is clearly an emotion. But we did not express it by facial feature or words. All of us have a good set of emotions, but that is not what the word emotional means. Emotional, to me, describes a person with limited or no ability to surpress his emotions in real-time. And I do agree with previous writers that these are usually people with limited critical-thinking skills and often a lack of reasoning ability. However it could also be, particularly in this case, that the 'emotional' people have found that such attacks work successfully, but only in the very short run.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

cryptocode — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 03:03:03 GMT

YES! Excellent article. "Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul."

I hadn't realized my cold hatred of the State was emotional, but it certainly is. And I'm a Radical. It does astound me. But it's a good to know that truth.

Thanks for the article.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Autolykos — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:57:17 GMT

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:
Because only robots shut themselves off from the problems, struggles, and oppressions many people face outside their little boxes....? Maybe....

Wait, what?

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Laotzu del Zinn — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:18:31 GMT

Because only robots shut themselves off from the problems, struggles, and oppressions many people face outside their little boxes....? Maybe....

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

jay — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:02:28 GMT

There's a difference between hyperbolic language that Rockwell often uses and "physical", real-time emotion that the OP described.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Autolykos — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:17:06 GMT

scineram:
Why are anarchocapitalists so emotional?

Is that the best you can do?

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Autolykos — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:15:42 GMT

MacFall:
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.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was only referring to liberals. There are plenty of people who are primarily emotional due to the reasons I outlined.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

scineram — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:05:51 GMT

Why are anarchocapitalists so emotional?

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

MacFall — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:47:39 GMT

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.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Autolykos — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:23:07 GMT

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!

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Merlin — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:52:45 GMT

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.

Holly sh...

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

bcyclwutztht — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:33:01 GMT

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.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

Sieben — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:17:02 GMT

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.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

cryptocode — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:06:47 GMT

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.

Re: Why are Liberals so Emotional????

MaikU — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:37:00 GMT

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.