Patterico's Pontifications

12/17/2014

An Academic’s Shocking View: “I Hate Republicans”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:54 pm



You didn’t see that one coming, did you? Here’s Professor Susan J. Douglas:

I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal “personhood.”

This loathing is a relatively recent phenomenon. Back
 in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me. And I’m
 not alone. Back in 1960, only 5 
percent of Republicans and 4
 percent of Democrats said they’d
 be “displeased” if their child married someone from the opposite
 party. Today? Forty-nine percent 
of Republicans and 33 percent of
 Democrats would be pissed.

According to a recent study 
by Stanford professor Shanto
 Iyengar and Princeton researcher 
Sean Westwood, such polarization has increased dramatically 
in recent years. What’s noteworthy 
is how entrenched this mutual animus is. It’s fine for me to use the word “hate” when referring to Republicans and for them to use the same word about me, but you would never use the word “hate” when referring to people of color, or women, or gays and lesbians.

It’s funny: I don’t hate Democrats. For one thing, I am married to one. But I also deal with Democrats on a day-to-day basis. If I “hated” all these people, my life would be pretty miserable. Instead, I disagree with their views, pretty much keep my disagreements to myself (unless discussion is invited and welcome), and simply enjoy them as people.

Douglas is “a professor of communications at the University of Michigan.” Does she teach classes? Are any of her students Republicans? Does she “hate” them? How do they feel about a professor who holds power over their grades and (to that extent) their futures, who “hates” them because of the party she identifies with?

Does she have colleagues? Are any of them Republicans? If so, do any of them dare talk about their political affiliation in front of her? I doubt it. And what does it say about the leftist academic bubble, that someone like Douglas can declare that they “hate” a party that pulls about half the vote in the entire country, and apparently feel confident that they will suffer no social repercussions whatsoever from this pronouncement?

A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance
 of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty; support for authoritarianism; a heightened sense of threat from others; and a personal need for structure. How do these qualities influence political thinking?

According to researchers, the two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality. These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance. The need for certainty, the need to manage fear of social change, lead to black-and-white thinking and an embrace of stereotypes. Which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you—whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats. And, especially since the early 1990s, Republican politicians and pundits have been feeding these needs with a single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview that vilifies Democrats.

So now we hate them back. And for good reason. Which is too bad. I miss the Fred Lippitts of yore and the civilized discourse and political accomplishments they made possible. And so do millions of totally fed-up Americans.

It’s possible to confront a “single-minded, uncomplicated, good-vs.-evil worldview” and respond with something besides hate. That, in fact, is what I am doing in this very post — and it’s something Republicans (and Democrats less hateful than Ms. Douglas) do all the time in this country.

I have not read the “studies” Douglas cites, but it’s clear that the qualities she describes are derisive terms for a world view that Thomas Sowell describes as “constrained.” “Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance
 of ambiguity” as well as “a need to avoid uncertainty” represent a philosophy that recognizes the importance of incentives, and favors order even if it potentially raises the chances of individual instances of injustice. (Of course, “dogmatism” is a loaded term, as are many of Douglas’s terms.) “Resistance to change” represents a support for traditions that reflect common wisdom over ages. “Support for inequality” is a nasty and unfair slur against a philosophy that prizes equality of opportunity over equality of result — and recognizes that efforts to equalize results often result in government creating power imbalances among groups, and in unintended consequences that decrease the quality of life for everyone, including the least fortunate.

In short, Ms. Douglas, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. While I don’t hate you, and I try not to hate even your ugly thoughts — because hate is a negative emotion that corrodes the soul — I certainly reject your hatred. I feel sorry for those who have to deal with someone so hateful. I feel sorry for your students, for your colleagues, for your neighbors, and everyone else who crosses your path and feels the sting of your nasty worldview.

And ultimately, I feel sorry for you — because you’re clearly proud of your hatred, which means you are unlikely to change. Which means you’re trapped — you have trapped yourself, that is — in a situation I don’t envy: a life driven by negative emotions and ugliness.

Thanks to Simon Jester.

UPDATE: Added to the post the sentence: (Of course, “dogmatism” is a loaded term, as are many of Douglas’s terms.)

62 Responses to “An Academic’s Shocking View: “I Hate Republicans””

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. Thank you, Patterico. This is one of the reasons I don’t care for name calling and histrionics: I see how nasty it is daily.

    The problem with the academic Left is that they don’t hear other opinions. Soon they come to believe that theirs is the only common opinion. Add to it narcissism and Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed,” and you have demonization of “the other.”

    And my academic pals think that they are tolerant!

    The sadly amusing part is the author painting “the other side” with a brush…and being blissfully unaware she is displaying the very tendencies she claims to abhor.

    This is my world, folks.

    But it turns out there a lot of moderate faculty who keep their mouths shut. We should have a secret handshake or something.

    Simon Jester (3d3f38)

  3. From the same institution:

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2014/12/16/lefty-hate/

    Wow.

    Simon Jester (3d3f38)

  4. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me.

    No worries, Susan. Trust me, you are in no danger of marrying anyone. http://www.niu.edu/northerntoday/2007/feb26/images/Douglas-06.jpg

    From her Wackopedia entry:
    In a more recent article for “In These Times,” Professor Douglas posted a piece titled “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans” where she insisted that Republicans have “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.” The article was written, apparently, without irony.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. hoochie is still butthurt about “the GOP’s endless campaign to smear the Clintons over Whitewater”

    …seriously?

    hooch needs a heaping teaspoon of moveondotorg in her tasty cup of rooibus (pronounced ray-bus) tea this afternoon i think

    happyfeet (831175)

  6. A professor of communications who can’t see beyond (or rather chooses to embellish upon) the worst possible characterization of motives for an entire range of political thought and thereby declares that class of thought (and those who hold it) as worthy of hate?

    Try professor of propaganda, instead. But, I repeat myself don’t I?

    rtrski (2e2489)

  7. Does she have colleagues? Are any of them Republicans?

    She’s a college professor, so it’s a safe bet that none of her colleagues are Republicans.

    Chuck Bartowski (3e0e89)

  8. Her hate piece will be included in Volume II of “Really Bad Ideas, Thinking for
    Dummies” by Fred Beloit, Slippery Fingers Press, 2015.

    Fred Beloit (e503e2)

  9. Our tax money at work. I especially enjoy her charge that the nasty little Republicans “support … authoritarianism.” If there is one thing that unites the Republican base it is the idea that there are constitutional limits on centralized power. Conversely, if there is one thing that characterizes progressives, it is that their power is limitless. Heck, Obola can write memoranda that have the force of law, and Pelosi during her term as Speaker laughed at the idea that anything the House passed did could be unconstitutional.

    I think this sad little piece of progressive protoplasm is suffering from terminal cognitive dissonance. The only thing that is preventing her from realizing this is that she has surrounded herself with several thousand equally deluded minds in the form of faculty colleagues; and she can force feed this crap down the throats of thousands of students who have little recourse other than to open wide, take a big gulp and smile. The latter is important because this allows her to pretend that she is serving some useful purpose on this world. She’s basically spending her days raping the minds of our children.

    bobathome (5d64cd)

  10. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me.

    No worries, Susan. Trust me, you are in no danger of marrying anyone. http://www.niu.edu/northerntoday/2007/feb26/images/Douglas-06.jpg

    How bad could she ….

    OMG Is there a charity for that? She should be getting disability checks or something/

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  11. A couple of things, folks, speaking from the academic aquarium.

    1. Most academics are the people no one wanted on that 4th grade kickball team. We are an odd bunch. Me included.

    2. Narcissism and entitlement are what the “clerisy” are all about. For example, I cannot tell you the number of times I hear about what “people of color” want from…rich white people.

    3. Narrative is more important than anything else.

    4. There is a hierarchy of victimhood. Look at the U of M student who had his apartment vandalized because of his innocuous (and actually pretty funny) satire of campus victicrat politics.

    5. There ARE some moderate faculty on every campus. In fact, I think they are pretty common. But the loudmouths shut everything down. As a college President once told me: some people would rather have a cause than an effect.

    6. If you are around a “yes squad” every day, of course your opponents are not only wrong, but evil. I can promise you that the professor has never read nor critiqued the “articles” suggesting Republicans are this or that. But imagine her response at an article discussing racial differences. She won’t read that either; she will just react.

    Again, Sowell’s “The Vision of the Anointed” is excellent reading.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmOpkQM9sOQ

    And let me brighten everyone’s day with the excellent Milton Friedman owning Phil Donohue:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P9Y4H2GyS4

    Simon Jester (3d3f38)

  12. Douglas erects a strawman replete with every absurd leftist stereotype of Republicans and then attempts to tear it down. I could do the same: I hate Democrats because they, a) hate America; b) are communists; c) hate white people; d) coddle criminals; e) are hypocrites (see Ted Kennedy v Clarence Thomas; Obama drones v Bush enemas; women never lie about rape, but we love Bill Clinton in spite of fact that he raped Juanita Broderick). Ironically, one of the things she claims to hate about Republicans is our black and white thinking and our use of stereotypes. You simply cannot make this stuff up.

    Peter (1d4db1)

  13. She has a product that she sells to a niche market. If she had had the talent to think up a line of women’s clothing with the word PINK on them, she would be selling that instead. Yes, yes, I am questioning her sincerity and ascribing base, commercial motives to her maunderings.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. When you mentioned Linda Douglas, I thought of this one: http://youtu.be/U0XCl6OHgiM

    Denver Todd (5f001f)

  15. She is intolerant of intolerance.

    JD (86a5eb)

  16. It is ironic that this so called academic is so proud of her primitive nature.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  17. Next comes the mob.

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  18. Simon? You’re not odd, you old sod, you’re refreshing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. The thought that people like Ms Douglas are paid good money to shape the minds of our young is distressing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  20. “Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance
 of ambiguity” as well as “a need to avoid uncertainty” represent a philosophy that recognizes the importance of incentives, and favors order even if it potentially raises the chances of individual instances of injustice. “Resistance to change” represents a support for traditions that reflect common wisdom over ages.

    – Patterico

    See, this is the problem with trying to place all qualities on one spectrum: how does (for instance) “dogmatism” represent “a philosophy that recognizes the importance of incentives”? Can one be dogmatically “unconstrained” as well as dogmatically “constrained”?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  21. Sure, republicans are evil. That’s why the christian guy tried to get the gay guy fired. Oh, that didn’t happen. What did happen is the tollerant left gay guy tried to get the christian guy fired because he somehow found out he was a Christian even though he never talked about his faith at work. You see the christian guy created a hostile workplace environment just because he is a christian. Good thing the christian guy was a hard worker so they didn’t fire him, they just reprimanded him for being so hostile to gays though he never said anything about gays, politics, or religion.

    I have heard the left say that conservatives should be killed for the good of the world. I haven’t heard the conservatives say that about the left. I don’t think they understand the meaning of tolerance.

    My older stepson said that the Taliban had a reason for killing those students and burning their teacher alive in Pakistan. As if they had a valid excuse! I said it was because they are monsters. The left excuse monsters, but republicans are evil?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  22. How’s that tolerance working for Brendan Eich who never let his beliefs get in the way of promoting those who didn’t hold his same beliefs. He had to be removed because of his thoughts, not his actions.

    Why is it that some feminists say that I’m raping my wife when my wife and I have consensual sex?

    Ms. Douglas is just being open about her intolerance. I find that clarifies her beliefs. Oops, according to her own beliefs, does that mean she’s bad?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  23. The more of this I see, the more I’m convinced that the Left will be imploding sooner than one might reasonably think.

    the bhead (fbcafb)

  24. I went to college more than 20 years ago at a fairly conservative public university. I got my degree in speech communication. Among our department’s faculty were:

    One of the best rhetorical scholars in the country, who was a devout Christian and did most of his research on Eisenhower, Reagan, and the early church.

    An African American prof (who grew up in the late 50s – 60s) of media and civil rights/student protest rhetoric who was a minister in town, was offended at comnparisons of the gay rights movement to the civil right movement, loved Rush Limbaugh, and often wondered “Do these people with the Malcom X hats realize he sounded more like Ronald Reagan (get of drugs, take care of your family, clean yourself up, etc) than anyone else?”

    A prof of political communication who was a devout Democrat but voted for Bush in ’92 because “I refuse to vote for the dodger.”

    They were amazingly good teachers, and didn’t care about your beliefs – just about how you knew the material. All of them were phenomenally kind to me. Sadly, I wonder if any of them could be hired nowadays.

    The Ghost of George Parr (a1801c)

  25. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-phrenology_644420.html

    “social science has lately become a tool of Democrats who want to reassure themselves that Republicans are heartless and stupid.”

    Read it all.

    stan (d4a529)

  26. Matt Briggs used to have a list up of all the really stupid studies that liberals have published purporting to show all kinds of ridiculous things about Republicans.

    stan (d4a529)

  27. Your so ugly you could be a modern art masterpiece.” – R. Lee Ermey

    on the plus side of the ledger, she has one hell of a war face.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  28. Too talentless for real scholarship.
    Too homely for a rich husband.
    Radical feminism!

    nk (dbc370)

  29. It’s amazing how unselfconscious those in the academy are, at least that vast majority that sit on the left side of the aisle. (It’s a pretty lopsided venue, I think there’s one file of seats on the right, and something in 3 digits on the left.)

    The old mote in their eye admonishment leaps to the fore.

    Dan (00fc90)

  30. Mid-term Paper for Communications 101 – Professor Douglas. Due on Exam day, 10 to 12 pages, one side, double spaced.

    Assume you’re a Republican who opposes taxpayer funded abortion on demand, supports orderly and legal immigration, and after examining the available evidence remains unpersuaded mankind’s activities are responsible for imminent climate catastrophe.

    Write a strong and forceful rebuttal to Professor Douglas’ recent polimic: I Hate Republicans. Demonstrate your communications skills by critiquing the article, include the historical use of overt expressions of hatred in the context of political struggle, identify and discuss her choice of examples, consider both the nature and the structure of her argument, decide if she intends to persuade opponents or reinforce existing prejudices. Assign Professor Douglas’ article a grade and explain your judgment.

    Lastly, answer the question yes or no: Do you trust Professor Douglas to grade your paper fairly?

    ropelight (41c34d)

  31. Ms.Douglas gives me further evidence that “you have to go to college to be successful” is maybe not the good advice some claim it to be.

    Gramps, the original (9e1415)

  32. #21: Tanney, your stepson would probably approve of Pol Pot’s culling of the Cambodian gene pool for the same reason, that is “they had a reason …” But I rather doubt that he ever heard of the murder of 25% of a country’s population using ball-peen hammers since this was done by communists riding Cambodian of anyone who could read or had a need for glasses, including of course their families. In the abstract, this is the sort of social justice that “professors” like Ms Douglas find praise worthy when espousing the virtues of equality. This idea that “they had a reason” is a universal “Get Out of Jail Free” card. It would be valued currency at pretty much any U. S. university. At least when applied to the accomplishment of any unconstrained goal.

    bobathome (5d64cd)

  33. #20, Leviticus, you are confusing dogmatism with reason. The constrained view is that humans are fallible and therefore successful social systems are organized around ideas that work despite the individual failures that characterize its constituent parts. There is nothing dogmatic about supporting this view if you believe the underlying premise. If I believe the earth is spherical, spins on an axis inclined to sun, and travels in an elliptical orbit around the sun, then is it not dogmatic to conclude that there will be variations in the duration of the day over the course of a year.

    You, on the other hand, believe that power justifies all. I presume that this is because you hold the unconstrained view that humans are perfectible, and that we can choose without error those who are so perfect as to wield this power justly. Further, you appear to believe that this perfect shepherd our flock of fallen sheep can be raised to godlike perfection with proper nurturing. Your beliefs may be comforting, but it has no rational basis. Try growing fancy guppies from the cheaper versions used as food fish. Keep track of the number of generations and the level of culling that is required to make a fancy guppy, then ignore the tank for a year and see what you have. Guppies are not “perfectible” in the sense that they won’t revert to their basic nature even with very selective breeding aimed at one easily identified trait. There have been about 100 generations of humans since Julius Caesar, and I’d be willing to bet that Julius would be genetically indistinguishable in any number of predominantly Italian communities. You might find the life and times of a fellow named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko very illuminating. Stalin understood the philosophical importance of this question, so I’m sure you will understand his interest in Lysenko’s theories. Nancy Pelosi, Obola, and Harry Reid would also fall in that camp if they were as capable of introspection as Stalin.

    bobathome (5d64cd)

  34. “that with this perfect shepherd our flock of fallen sheep …”

    bobathome (5d64cd)

  35. Say “dogmatic” around teh Prez and get the Pavlov Reaction.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  36. Well, In the up is down, light is dark, right is wrong, back is forward, world of the uni liberal people like Linda here say the opposite of what they mean.

    So lets look again at her words, keeping that in mind.

    Back in the 1970s, I worked for a Republican, Fred Lippitt, the senate minority leader in Rhode Island, and I loved him. He was a brand of Republican now extinct—a “moderate” who was fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation. Had he been closer to my age, I could have contemplated marrying someone like Fred. Today, marrying a Republican is unimaginable to me.

    She professes love for her Republican Fred. Fred at some point must have ditch Mz. Smeagol for a less difficult woman.
    The opposite of love isn’t hate, but indifference. So she can say she hates Republicans all she wants, but her true goal is to gain the attention of GOP boys.
    She’s on the hunt for a hubby, preferably a republican with a strong stomach.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. Leviticus can always speak for himself, and (not surprisingly) does it better than anyone else.

    I think Leviticus does not so much believe that “power justifies all” in any kind of moral sense, but it is the reality of human experience that at the end of the day whoever used power the most effectively is the one who wins the day; so, if you don’t want to lose, use (your power).

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  38. Over at Ace’s place, a deconstruction of the some of the “studies” that Professor Susan Douglas cites like a cudgel (and I will bet you five large she has never read them; they simply agree with her bumper sticker thinking):

    http://theweek.com/article/index/273736/how-academias-liberal-bias-is-killing-social-science

    The problem is that I see a similar dogmaticism even among science faculty. I honestly think it comes from a lack of differing opinions. If you think about it, that is where Republicans and folks on the Right have an advantage: the Leftward world view is everywhere in media and the clerisy.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  39. Ace on the mark… http://ace.mu.nu/archives/353844.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  40. #38: Use of power … It is understood that many people have power, but not all use it without constraint. The Constitution provides a firewall that sensible people appreciate. Even FDR respected the Constitution to the extent that he felt obliged to attempt to reconstruct (“stack”) the Supreme Court rather than simply ignoring it. George Washington could have taken over the country with the support of the military, but he chose not to. Winston Churchill used his enormous personal powers to try and persuade the fools he was surrounded with, and even as Prime Minister he worked diligently to educate and inspire. These examples are in stark contrast to the behavior of Obola, Reid and Pelosi. On the day they rammed Obolacare thru, they tried to stage a phony racial assault by marching arms-linked thru tea partiers on the mall who opposed them. No attempt to persuade there, just as soiled stratagem to divide and conquer. The policemen on the beat have life and death powers, but thankfully most of them obey rules limit their actions, at least until our recent regime which has been stoking the fires of racial hatred and suspicion.

    The words duty, honor, country mean something to some people. For the rest, well, good luck comrade.

    bobathome (5d64cd)

  41. #2 “… Soon they come to believe that theirs is the only common opinion.”

    They simply cannot imagine that anyone could in good faith see things differently than they do, as they accuse everyone else of being narrow-minded. A close relative was recently bemoaning the fact that Putin has turned out to be a tyrant, despite the fact that “we all thought he was so smart”. I explained that tyranny and stupidity are not the same thing, and then politely inquired whether she had a mouse in her pocket when she opined on what “we” all thought.

    Another anecdote about the same woman: she asked me if I ever wondered about the possibility that I am deluded and my conservative values are all wrong. I replied that of course I gave had such moments of reflection, and suggested that it is a healthy thing to think critically about your world view. Then I simply asked “What about you?”. She looked at me as if I had just grown horns, and shaking her head she said “Me? Why should I wonder about that… I am the NORMAL one!”

    After I recounted this to another relative, I rhetorically asked “Where do you go from there?”

    Ray Van Dune (4d1d8e)

  42. The words duty, honor, country mean something to some people. For the rest, well, good luck comrade.
    bobathome

    Your point is wel taken, bobathome. Unfortunately “the rest” seem to have been in charge for quite some time now. We’ve all been Grubered.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  43. Um, Sammy? You do realize that other people already posted that link? I mean, three comments before you?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  44. To:Gramps, the original.

    My dear ole daddy used to say: The experience of life will give you common sense and wisdom but one needs to be college educated to become truely close minded and ignorant. And I’m talking 50 years ago.

    Hoagie (4dfb34)

  45. BTW, I wasn’t defending Leviticus’ point of view, I was just offering a footnote as to how I have come to understand the nuances of his position. I think it is not, “Since you have the power, do what you want”, as much as, “The one with the most power applied at a point will win, so, have the most power, but don’t be evil with it.”

    But again, let Leviticus speak for himself.

    BTW, is he/you, in NM, or did you have to relocate for your job?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  46. Imagine, if you will, a professor who said:

    I hate homosexuals. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Bradley Manning, Hillary Clinton or any of the legions of other blowhards pushing same-sex marriage, state-paid gender reassignment surgery or championing state-paid abortion on demand.

    What, exactly, would said professor’s college do? Would the department chairman person set up some system under which the professor’s assigned grades to his students would be monitored, or would he have to go through some sort of counseling, or would he just plain get canned?

    The Dana who has been out of college for a long, long time! (f6a568)

  47. #FreeJahar

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  48. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change

    A series of studies has found that political conservatives tend toward certain psychological characteristics. What are they? Dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance
 of ambiguity; a need to avoid uncertainty

    Anyone see a contradiction there?

    Gerald A (d65c67)

  49. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  50. See, this is the problem with trying to place all qualities on one spectrum: how does (for instance) “dogmatism” represent “a philosophy that recognizes the importance of incentives”? Can one be dogmatically “unconstrained” as well as dogmatically “constrained”?

    I worded that poorly by failing to object to her terminology, but a certain rigidity in adhering to rules is characteristic of the constrained vision. I’ll tweak the post.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  51. UPDATE: Added to the post the sentence: “(Of course, “dogmatism” is a loaded term, as are many of Douglas’s terms.)”

    Patterico (9c670f)

  52. Douglas needs to settle down

    happyfeet (831175)

  53. LOL. After backlash Douglas now whines that the mag changed the title of article without her permission.

    A magazine that published a column by a University of Michigan professor titled “It’s Okay to Hate Republicans” said late Thursday that it had crafted that headline without her knowledge and had swapped it for the original one, “We Can’t All Just Get Along.”

    I think her umbrage might have more merit had she not opened the piece with the words “I hate Republicans”.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/18/magazine-admits-changing-title-on-michigan-professors-column/?intcmp=latestnews

    elissa (4b7b6c)

  54. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 12/18/2014 @ 6:28 pm

    On the subject of how these conservatives are so dogmatic, rigid etc. what would this person say if you suggested to her that maybe SSM is a bad idea. Or that the gummint should allow even a little leeway for family owned businesses to decide if they want to provide products and services for things like SSM. I figure she’d say allowing no room for disagreement on that stuff is just standing up for what’s right. What’s that got to do with dogmatism, rigidity etc?

    We’ve had more than one lib recently suggest that climate change deniers be jailed.

    Gerald A (9d7d51)

  55. I don’t know much, but I do know this. If I was sitting on the side of the road with car trouble, I would welcome the help of a working man or woman over the help of whatever liberal was in the paper yesterday.

    Does that make me a populist?

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  56. Leftists like Douglas wouldn’t bother me so much if they at least didn’t buy into the notion that their liberal biases imbue them with greater humanity, generosity, tolerance, compassion and intelligence. The fact most of them live and act like “limousine liberals” (eg, what the hacked emails reveal about the insiders at Sony Pictures, who probably think and vote like Douglas) is indicative of this.

    Mark (c160ec)

  57. This is standard among academic types. An acquaintance of mine is a retired college professor (Geography). I saw him right after the election and he went on a vituperative rant of “I hate white guys.”

    By the way, he is a 68-year old White Guy living in an affluent all white neighborhood. Par for the course for these people.

    DN (395a7b)

  58. 2. Thank you, Patterico. This is one of the reasons I don’t care for name calling and histrionics: I see how nasty it is daily.

    This is why it’s so hard to talk about leftism honestly. It appears that, once you accurately diagnose the appeal of leftism, you’re simply engaging in gratuitous name-calling. But the thing is socialism/communism/leftism/progressivism appeals to the worst instincts in human nature. Essentially the appeal is to the authoritarian impulse in human nature. Leftism gives people a framework to justify their hatreds. As this Academic illustrates.

    And my academic pals think that they are tolerant!

    They are tolerant. What they are tolerant of are self-serving lies.

    The sadly amusing part is the author painting “the other side” with a brush…and being blissfully unaware she is displaying the very tendencies she claims to abhor.

    Because she can imagine that conservatives are worse. We see this in the hacked Sony emails. The liberals are racist to their core. But they have convinced themselves that they’re the nice people. So the bitter clingers must be worse. As we’ve seen, though, from the Ferguson/Staten Island incidents in order to believe that you must also adopt the position that the facts don’t matter.

    …But it turns out there a lot of moderate faculty who keep their mouths shut. We should have a secret handshake or something.
    Simon Jester (3d3f38) — 12/18/2014 @ 12:04 am

    Because in order to maintain the lie, also known as the narrative, they need people to shut up. And anything they do, no matter how indecent, is justified as long as their critics are silenced. The ends justify the means.

    When conservatives look at the body counts of fascism and communism we see the failure of an ideology. When liberals look at the same thing, they conclude if only the right people were in charge authoritarianism would have worked. Naturally they conclude they’re the right people. Whatever stands in the way of them being in charge is by definition evil.

    And it’s a moral imperative to hate evil.

    Again, this is why the western secular left allies itself with Muslim extremists. They see eye to eye, they just express it differently. Muslims can steal and loot and rape and torture and murder because they’re on the right side of god. Leftists can steal and loot and rape and torture and murder because they’re on the right side of history.

    It’s very seductive, the notion that necessity aligns perfectly with indulging one’s greed and lusts and hatreds. That’s the eternal appeal of authoritarianism in all its forms. Susan Douglas has been seduced. It would be wrong, doncha know, not to hate Republicans.

    Steve57 (b0b04b)

  59. I saw him right after the election and he went on a vituperative rant of “I hate white guys.” By the way, he is a 68-year old White Guy living in an affluent all white neighborhood. Par for the course for these people

    College faculty and administration, school faculty and administration, lawyers, social workers, mental health tradesmen, human resources specialists, political journalists, the media and entertainment complex comprehend perhaps 5% of the workforce. They do not see you as a compatriot no matter what your complexion is; you’re just another bitter clinger and giving voice to your opinions is classroom disruption, or raaaaacism, or contempt of court.

    Art Deco (ee8de5)

  60. Speaking of things that have collapsed like rooskie monies: http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-literary-sources-of-haven-monahans-glitch-in-the-matrix-email/

    SarahW (267b14)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3945 secs.