Conginitive Dissonance, Squared

By -
I was perusing the LewRockwell.com blog today, to see how they would try to spin the Washington Post story about Paul (stony silence seems to be the answer), and it struck me that many people there seem to hold the following the propositions simultaneously (you can easily confirm this for yourself in a few minutes of browsing that blog):

1) The average American is a "sheeple," who credulously swallows whatever the mainstream media tells him;
2) The mainstream media hates Ron Paul and is working to sabotage his campaign; and
3) Ron Paul has an excellent shot at winning the presidency.

Can anyone explain to me how 1-3 can all fit inside the same head without it bursting asunder?

Comments

  1. Daniel2:34 PM

    I suppose said head must have a pressure release system of some sort. Presumably this works by releasing a lot of hot air from their mouths at regular intervals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim3:28 PM

    The average LRC writer is a sheeple who credulously swallows his own crap?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:17 PM

    Well, that's nice of you guys.

    As Gene knows, I am a libertarian. I wrote a piece for LRC and often have comments and emails posted there. However, I wouldn't consider myself some ideologically driven person who just follows beliefs blindly and badmouths those who don't agree with me. In fact, I would say that I am quite open-minded to ideas and beliefs that don't necessarily mesh with my own, and that I always give everybody the benefit of the doubt-- I certainly don't badmouth everybody who doesn't think the way that I do.

    Do I sometimes slip up? Sure, everybody does. Do I often get into heated debates? Absolutely! What I don't do is write people off as reprobates and idiots just because they don't agree with my worldview. My goal is understanding the world around me and learning from others what I don't know; I only wish that everybody else felt that way. It is clear from your comments that the both of you do not (feel that way). If that is the case, then you cannot be any different than those that you apparently despise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim8:55 AM

    It is hard to be good in all ways. So I've chosen to concentrate on avoiding passive-aggressive displays of self-pity. Admittedly this is hard, so some other things sometimes slide.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:06 PM

    Jim, I actually must apologize. For some reason I completely missed the question mark in your comment. So, sorry for tossing you in there.

    I guess the point that I was trying to make is that I have often seen people just exude a deep hatred for others merely because they don't agree with them on particular things.

    I am not perfect, I have slipped up. In fact, I certainly wasn't very nice to Gene in the past. Then again, Gene can often come off as insulting at times (at least, that was how I perceived it). I think he and I have gotten past that. Granted, he and I don't really know each other from Adam, and we certainly don't agree on many issues, but there is at least some level of respect shared (I think).

    I just get sick of the hate going back and forth. Life is too short to hate somebody for their ideas.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more