Leftists who react, not think, and fall for smears that are obviously untrue
This article is part of the
$100,000 Challenge Series
People often think they are enlightened even when they believe things that should have been left in the Dark Ages.
In this series, I will challenge conventional wisdom and explore some odd and unjustifiable beliefs that persist, offering $100,000 to the first person who can solve each challenge, proving me wrong. My opinions are bound to ruffle some feathers and make you think.
In response to another article, I received the following comment from Allen H.:
I would agree with most of what you wrote if you were to ascribe the same failing on both liberals and conservatives.
I am glad that you understand fallacies of logic, because you will then understand that measuring a group by the act of single (small) groups of individuals is generalization. For example, the actions of Timothy McVeigh do not make all conservatives terrorists, nor do the actions that you described define all liberals.
I find it incredible that in the same sentence you condemn liberals for using ad hominem attacks, you use an ad hominem attack against them; “don't have the intellectual horsepower.” While I do not disagree that liberals are guilty of these attacks, I find them to be just as plentiful on both sides.
Additionally, can you cite the source for your argument that liberals are more likely to react than think? I do not have enough information to support/deny this, so having the study to support your argument would be helpful.
I appreciate your point of view.
REPLY FROM KEVIN PEZZI: I agree with you that generalizations cannot accurately convey the composition of any diverse group, so in that article I cited specific examples, and I could fill a book with countless others. I have liberal friends and even some opinions that liberals would welcome, but many of them are so uncivil (the point of that article) and so unfair that they figuratively shoot first and ask questions later in attacking me before getting their facts straight.
As an example of this, I believe the exact opposite of the Media Matters attacks on my opinions of Native Americans. Not only do I believe it, I had previously published that opinion well before they launched their ad hominem attacks and character assassination against me. I am part Native American, so to suggest that I or my ancestors should be grateful for their subjugation is as loony as saying Colonel Sanders didn't think people should eat chicken.
Another example: Media Matters alleged that I am a racist after reading what I called Chinese businessmen who intentionally put toxic substances in their products and how I referred to Japanese war criminals as “Japs.” The latter is just a common abbreviation—so common that even Time magazine used it, and I've heard it publicly used even in liberal yuppie towns and umpteen times on television military programs. If you knew even half of what those Japanese war criminals did to people—not just American soldiers—before and during World War 2, anyone who harps about calling them “Japs” needs his head examined!
Japanese soldiers slaughtered tens of millions of Asian civilians and raped young Asian girls before they reached puberty. One soldier later recounted that the victims “cried out, but it didn't matter to us whether the women lived or died.” He added, “We were the Emperor's soldiers. Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance.” And that's just the tip of the iceberg of what they did; read more about their atrocities in my articles on Japanese war crimes, Hirohito: the war criminal who got off scot-free, and another that presented even more horrors.
Many years ago, I thought of an easy way to rapidly erase racism in just about everyone but sociopaths (learn how to spot a sociopath). I posted this instant cure for racism on one of my websites in 2000 (a decade before Media Matters smeared me) and later another site. No fair-minded person with a functioning brain could read what I wrote years ago and conclude that I am a racist just because I loathe Japanese soldiers who “raped without reluctance” and massacred tens of millions of people (mainly Chinese and other Asians) they viewed as dirt. That riled me, so I wrote about it.
Think about it logically: If I were racist as Media Matters alleged, why would I care so much about something that happened so long ago to people I supposedly despise that I'd spend many hours writing about and criticizing the ones who did it? Why would I proudly think of a way to rapidly erase racism and spend more hours writing about that?
It makes no sense! A racist who devalued Chinese and other Asians would not care if they were murdered or raped. A racist would never waste his time writing about how to overcome racism, would he?
In short, the Media Matters portrayal wasn't accurate; it was calumny: a false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation. Now who takes pride in such defamation? Media Matters and the mental midgets who read their wicked smears and are too lazy, stupid, or uncaring to do their own research.
Media Matters smear merchants are well-paid and have the resources to dig through every word I've written, yet they deliberately ignored exculpatory evidence. That's not only grossly unfair and uncivil, but something that can get people in legal hot water. Research has shown that even some animals possess an inborn sense of fair play, and react negatively when they are treated unfairly, so it is not surprising when humans object to unfair characterizations.
You said, “I find it incredible that in the same sentence you condemn liberals for using ad hominem attacks, you use an ad hominem attack against them [by saying they] 'don't have the intellectual horsepower.'”
What I said was, “Liberals who don't have the intellectual horsepower to substantively make their case often resort to ad hominem attacks and character assassination.”
By including “who” after the word “liberals” in that sentence, I was careful not to generalize, but instead specifically referred to a subset of liberals: those who don't have the intellectual horsepower, NOT all liberals. You seem to be an intelligent person, Allen, so if you misunderstood that, perhaps I need to further clarify what I wrote.
Regarding a source for my argument that liberals are more likely to react than think: One of the best proofs of this is the Media Matters smear against me. When I complete my series of articles addressing their many mischaracterizations, I think fair and civil people would agree that their characterization of me was FAR from accurate; it was deliberately distorted, a vile smear, and a caricature.
Myriad liberals swallowed that caricature hook, line, and sinker and even gleefully welcomed it, parroting their attacks without taking the time to first verify if they were accurate. Considering the number of liberals attacking me and the number (zero) defending me, this doesn't say much for the fairness or civility of many liberals, who are clearly reacting rather than thinking and deciding for themselves.
In my article, I presented the dictionary definition of liberal. Surely, some of them possess the admirable qualities embodied in that definition, but when I look at the joy many evince in tearing others down and how few of their brethren are willing to challenge them on their behavior and call off the dogs, I can't help but wonder how many deserve to be called liberal (with all of its positive connotations) and how many deserve a less complimentary characterization.
If one were to make a list of my good and bad qualities, and a list of what I've accomplished after rising from poverty and facing dozens of obstacles, anyone who thinks that I'm more flawed than an average person and more worthy of condemnation—well, anyone who thinks that is not thinking; they are reacting. And, frankly, anyone that out of touch with reality is not just wrong, but a vicious lunatic.
It takes almost no intelligence to find fault with others and to hyperfocus on their fabricated and real imperfections, yet many busybodies pat themselves on their backs for doing that. Theodore Roosevelt said it best:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
I am doing my best to make this world a better place. I thought of a way to ensure that welfare recipients would receive as much as they now do and potentially much more, while reducing the welfare burden on taxpayers.
I wrote to James Shelton, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement in the Department of Education, offering to give my tips that enabled me to go from dunce to doctor.
I discussed an outside-the-box way to save energy, how we could leave China in the dust, and I gave proof that the rags-to-riches American Dream is still possible, offering to give some of my inventions to people to help them achieve their dreams. I asked nothing in return except that anyone I helped would agree to help others when they become successful.
I explained a proven example of how a bankrupt economy in total collapse can be quickly transformed. I also wrote about the perfect way to kickstart our economy and put people back to work, in addition to other blog articles proposing solutions. Could my liberal critics, even collectively, offer better solutions? Most are too busy reacting, not thinking, and criticizing, not helping.
Before I was booted off Facebook for a reason that mystifies my friends, I encountered a man, Blan, who expressed a liberal opinion yet was so smart and persuasive that when I read what he wrote, he immediately changed my mind on a big issue that liberals and conservatives often debate. At least one conservative attacked his positions, but I defended and praised him because after considering what he said and the brilliant way he said it, I knew he was correct and that my prior position was less accurate than my new viewpoint—one that I'd arrived at with the help of Blan.
Note that he didn't need to beat me over the head, smear me, insult my opinions, sheds, or inventions, resort to ad hominem attacks or character assassination, or do some of the petty things certain liberals do when they don't know how to win friends and influence people. Blan is a great man who possesses a real gift for changing hearts and minds, which is ultimately the goal of smart people who engage in political discourse. Preaching to the choir is less stressful, but it does nothing except waste time while perhaps making us temporarily feel better.
The United States is facing problems that many experts think cannot be solved without “taxing citizens like serfs” and taxing “the snot out of tomorrow's middle-income Americans” (as Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard put it), or without substantially cutting entitlement benefits that many people are counting on—and will suffer if they don't receive.
The experts did not see our current financial crisis coming (but I did, way back in the late 1980s, and I put my prediction in a book I published in 1998, when so-called experts were talking about endless prosperity), and the experts don't have any bright ideas for solving our economic crisis—but I think I do, so with my ardent desire to help people, I've written about some of those ideas and will write about more when I have time.
There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven. The time for Americans to waste their time tearing others down is long past. If many liberals were as smart as they think they are, this would be utterly obvious. It would also be clear that by sniping at me, they are helping no one except conservatives who opine that many liberals are mean, nasty, spiteful, filled with hate, and looking for any flimsy excuse to stick a knife into the backs of anyone who doesn't agree with them on everything.
In another article, I discussed online incivility triggered by even minor differences of opinion. Allen, you strike me as a bright person, so after reading the dictionary definition of liberal in my article on how liberals claim to be more tolerant and civil, can you please explain how most liberals deserve such a complimentary definition? Yes, there are liberals who deserve such encomia, but most liberals seemingly do not. If they do, where are they? True liberals are:
- Not limited to established, traditional, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
- Open to proposals for reform or new ideas for progress.
- Tolerant of change or the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
- Accepting; not criticizing or disapproving.
- Showing respect for the opinions, practices, or rights of others.
- Full of love and generosity.
- Tolerant and forgiving under provocation.
- Inclined to forgive and show mercy.
- Indulgent, easy-going, charitable, open-minded, understanding, sympathetic, kind-hearted, unprejudiced.
In another article, I contrasted the definitions of conservative and liberal. Being liberal sounds much better, but that dictionary definition does not fit many liberals, who are just as flawed as many conservatives.
The $100,000 challenge: Show how the liberals attacking me fit the dictionary definition of liberal and are not better characterized by the following four words:
nitpick (verb): to be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details; to be overly critical.
petty (adjective): marked by: (1) contemptible narrowness of mind, views, outlook, or ideas; (2) meanness, especially in trifling matters; deliberately nasty for a foolish or trivial reason.
small-minded (adjective): intolerant; mean; petty; narrow-minded; bigoted; lacking tolerance, flexibility, or breadth of view.
bigot (noun): (1) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing opinion, belief, or creed; (2) a person who is obstinately intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on politics or religion, and has animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
I don't agree with conservatives on everything, but I don't know of any conservative attacking me except for a nut on Facebook who wrote about shooting a specific Member of Congress a specific number of times in a specific spot—definitely a threat that Jared Loughner would approve of. After the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, people who make such threats are viewed as lunatics, which that person is. Before I realized what a whack job she is (I hadn't seen many of her postings, thanks to the heavy-handed way Facebook filters News Feed content), I gently tried to help her with her alcohol problem, which sent her into a rage that lasted for weeks. Her extreme reaction made me (as a doctor) realize that she was more than a boozer: she is almost certainly mentally ill, suffering from the borderline personality disorder (BPD).
Her attacks on me can be blamed on mental illness, but what is the excuse of the liberals who attack me or sit idly by and applaud calumny? Are they so poor at differentiating fact from fiction that they believe the smears when they are so wildly inaccurate? Anyone who believes such nonsense does not deserve to be called liberal; they deserve to be called idiot.
Yes, I get it: I drive bird-brains and vile people nuts. They react like crabs by trying to pull others down to their low level. No one blames crustaceans for acting like crabs who react but don't think, but liberals could do better, but many of them don't. The question is: Why?
The answer is obvious.
UPDATE: Now that I am increasingly liberal, it is easy to spot equivalent idiocy in conservatives, some of whom also delight in taking cheap shots, such as a well-known big mouth with a track record of rushing to judgment, which I will later prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.”
— Euripides, Greek tragic dramatist (484 BC - 406 BC)
“Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
— Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, quoting someone he termed an "unknown sage" in The Saturday Evening Post article "The World of the Uneducated" (November 28, 1959)
“A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.”
— Eric Hoffer
“Small things affects small minds.”
— Benjamin Disraeli
“Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.”
— Oscar Wilde
“Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.”
— Fulton J. Sheen
“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
— Jonathan Swift
“I have seen great intolerance shown in support of tolerance.”
— Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Related articles:
Dr. Lazar Greenfield versus the PC police
Not all liberals want more of your money
Liberals claim to be more tolerant and civil—but are they?
Online incivility triggered by minor differences of opinion
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
Reference: Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking: Excerpt: “Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning …”
