Conservative NYT Pulitzer Prize Winner Bret Stephens Destroys Bill Maher

[HomerThompson]

No, I was being sarcastic. He was weaseling.

Major conservative media figures and politicians criticizing Ted Cruz for disparaging New York values is incongruent with his statement that there is was no backlash at all. So he then goes from saying "no backlash at all" to "it doesn't rise to the level of a backlash". While both statements use the word backlash, Jack is clearly moving the goalposts in this one case.

That's what you did. You made the original positive claim that there was a backlash from conservatives. A few dudes at a bar bitching doesn't count as a conservative backlash.

 

[HomerThompson]

First off Jack, sure he was trying to help them understand working class mid-westerners and said exactly what he meant:

"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
​

Secondly the story was started by an Obama supporter and donor; Mayhill Fowler, in HuffPo. She sat on it for several days debating whether or not to print it.

Oh and it was the outrage merchants of the left that first seized upon it: (Hillary Clinton) = "I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America," she said on Saturday. "His remarks are elitist and out of touch."



And I don't even know where to go with your comment that the left doesn't pander to it's fringe.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/29/clinton-camp-says-shes-been-forced-left-enough-already



http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...-of-bernie-sanders-in-a-surprising-way-2015-7





And you have to love this op-ed in the NYT:

They saw the party being mired too often in political correctness, transgender bathroom issues and policies offering more help to undocumented immigrants than to the heartland. -Mark Penn served as pollster and senior adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008. Andrew Stein is a former Manhattan borough president and New York City Council president.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/...ntity-politics.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

The funny thing is, that you can explain the entire rise of the Alt-Reich with that quote.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

It is hilarious at how he still flippantly throws that term around, when he himself was victim of unjust labeling, and couldn't understand why Professor Ice Cube was berating him so much, for using the N-word in a joke.

This is proof of Trump's racism according to Huffpo. Just going on since he was runnning/president

1) He attacked Muslim Gold Star parents
- islam is not a race. that is like calling Reagan a racist for hating on communists. It is a philosophy you willing take or give up.

2) He claimed a judge was biased because “he’s a Mexican”
“He’s a Mexican,” Trump told CNN of Curiel. “We’re building a wall between here and Mexico. The answer is, he is giving us very unfair rulings — rulings that people can’t even believe.”
- Mexican is not a race, he does think that if you are from another country or 1st gen, you may have an allegiance to your old country and that might override your objectivity in ruling cases about mexican walls

3) He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him
- racists liking you does not make you racist

4) He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States
- had nothing to do with his race, his father was Kenyan, it is not going on too much of a limb that you want proof of being born in the USA
- notice how any criticism of Obama is "your a racist", remember my old thread about WHO should be president

5) He treats racial groups as monoliths
Like many racial instigators, Trump often answers accusations of bigotry by loudly protesting that he actually loves the group in question.
- OMG, really, the dem play to victim class and pander to them more than fucking anyone, listen to hillary talk about blacks once
- OMG he said THE mexicans!!!! oh the racism!!!

The rest of it is just too ridiculous or occurring 20 years ago and not worth reading.

Do we really want to go back decades to see who the racists are??????

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yeah, read the whole quote in context.



The right's attempt to portray that as mocking is unquestionably dishonest.

And the way to go with my point that the left fringe is not pandered to by mainstream politicians or in control is to simply acknowledge it as true.​

​

Still will not admit that it was insensitive as hell to suggest that working class mid-westerners cling to guns, Bibles and anti-immigrant sentiment because of bitterness of their own circumstance.
And still neglecting the Clinton quotes showing the left started the outrage.
#Not surprised #Still shakes head


Sure Jack, we'll simply acknowledge the accuracy of your statement because you made it and ignore the fact that even left leaning sites state the opposite.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

There can be one or two people who criticized Cruz from the right without there being a backlash. C'mon now. 2 pundits does not equal a backlash from the right. That's silly hyperbole. Trying to score a win in an argument through pedantry is weak.

1. I quoted four or five pundits and two major right wing politicians. And the list was hardly comprehensive. It's easy to include more: Congressman King, Giuliani, etc. It's was the first two or three offerings from the top of a Google search. Consider this article from Time about the "backlash" against Cruz' remarks, in which two of the four New York politicians quoted rebutting Trump are Republicans. Conservatives were a a healthy part of the backlash against Cruz' remarks, mostly invoking how well New Yorkers held up after 9/11. I attribute any ignorance of it to conservatives and liberals watching mainly their own tailored media these days.

By naming several major conservative media figures and several major conservative politicians, I proved my point through facts, not pedantry. Arguing about how many critics constitute a backlash is pedantry.

http://time.com/4182887/ted-cruz-new-york-values-donald-trump-republican-debate/

2. It's also important to look at his wording. He first says 'there was no backlash at all' then later acts as if he meant 'there was no major backlash'. If you've ever debated Jack about anything, you'll know that he'll question your upbringing and the quality of your soul over such minor weaseling. I don't think it is a huge deal. He's clearly wrong and we've all tried to weasel our way out of such things by later trying to shore up our earlier comments. It's just funny to watch him do it knowing how sanctimonious he often is.

 

[HomerThompson]

I saw no evidence in that article of a conservative backlash. Using Trump backers like Guiliani is disingenuous, and not to be taken seriously. But, you already know that.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In this political climate I feel it's especially important to be aware of our biases and seeking to have them affirmed. It's a great point.

Yes. Though I'd say that people need to hear the Truth; they don't need to hear bullshit from all sides. But since people are more likely to believe false claims that they agree with, it helps to hear voices from all over. And people should be aware of multiple narratives that can be told with accurate facts.

Still will not admit that it was insensitive as hell to suggest that working class mid-westerners cling to guns, Bibles and anti-immigrant sentiment because of bitterness of their own circumstance.

I didn't say anything at all about whether it was "sensitive." Just that if you read the whole thing, it is clear that his intent was not mockery. He was telling supporters to try to understand those people instead of just writing them off. Exactly the kind of thing we should all be doing.

And still neglecting the Clinton quotes showing the left started the outrage.

Meh. That style of argument has never appealed to me. If you are claiming that the left was outraged about Obama's remarks and the right was not, that is false.

Sure Jack, we'll simply acknowledge the accuracy of your statement because you made it and ignore the fact that even left leaning sites state the opposite.

That's the same poor argument, unless you're claiming that "left-leaning sites" are generally more reliable? Look at the primaries if you want to see what I mean. Look at the platforms. Notice how left-leaning politicians always rush to condemn crazies on their side.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That's what you did. You made the original positive claim that there was a backlash from conservatives. A few dudes at a bar bitching doesn't count as a conservative backlash.

I agree. A few dudes bitching at the bar isn't a backlash. But major media figures and major politicians bitching about it are a backlash. I'm not making any radical claim. When the editor of the National Review or a personage as well respected as Giuliani criticize your remarks there was a backlash from the right.

What did you want, rioting? NYLM?

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

And people should be aware of multiple narratives that can be told with accurate facts.

Hugely true

 

[Jack V Savage]

1. I quoted four or five pundits and two major right wing politicians.

Two politicians who were running against him at the time! That's like Pain trying to say that outrage over Obama's call for empathy comes from the left. Completely, disingenuously ignores context.

By naming several major conservative media figures and several major conservative politicians, I proved my point through facts, not pedantry. Arguing about how many critics constitute a backlash is pedantry.

Your point was to take a colloquial remark and hold it up to more rigorous standards to strip it of meaning to get a cheap "gotcha", was it not? Was my statement that I saw no backlash to Cruz's remarks true? Of course. He didn't take a hit in the polls, he didn't walk the comments back under criticism, he didn't get blasted by anyone, etc. His opponents in the primary race and their surrogates chided him to try to score off him.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Two politicians who were running against him at the time!

What about Giuliani or King? What about the media figures I cited? None of them were running against Trump.

You were trying to establish a double standard and failed. In the most notable example of cultural animus from a conservative in the last election, the guy faced plenty of criticism from the right, and that criticism made headlines. Try watching something other than MSNBC. Conservatives hate liberals, often unfairly. But they don't hate New York itself or New Yorkers as such. And Cruz' attempt to make a political issue a cultural one fell flat.

Now if your point is that there is cultural animus among many conservatives toward the East and West coasts, then to that extent you are clearly correct. Currently I think that animus is both less pronounced and less relevant than the coastal elites disdaining Middle America, because it is Middle America where former Democrat voters gave Trump the electoral votes he needed. But if not addressed firmly, it will eventually cost the republicans some elections in the future, and rightfully so.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What about Giuliani or King? What about the media figures I cited? None of them were running against Trump.

Against Cruz, you mean. Surrogates, though, no?

You were trying to establish a double standard and failed.

I was pointing to a double standard, and I succeeded. The left is regularly subjected to ugly attacks, and the MSM never makes the same effort to write off irrational behavior by left-leaning people as being a natural result of that vitriol. But "condescension" by educated types toward the common clay of the New West is seen as justifying Trump.

And Cruz' attempt to make a political issue a cultural one fell flat.

In what sense did it fall flat? Did it hurt him in the polls? Is Cruz no longer considered a conservative in good standing? What, specifically, was the harm done to him? Just a couple of candidates running against him and their surrogates tried to make something of it, right?

Now if your point is that there is cultural animus among many conservatives toward the East and West coasts, then to that extent you are clearly correct. Currently I think that animus is both less pronounced and less relevant than the coastal elites disdaining Middle America, because it is Middle America where former Democrat voters gave Trump the electoral votes he needed. But if not addressed firmly, it will eventually cost the republicans some elections in the future, and rightfully so.

It's not just that there is cultural animus. That hardly needs to be said. It's that said animus is seen as justifying irrational, destructive behavior when it flows one way and not when it flows the other way. No one responds to the kind of ugliness put out by you or TCK with, "that's why Republicans are going to lose lots of seats next year," or thinks it would justify electing Roseanne, and there are no super long MSM pieces set in "Clinton country" where the reporter attempts to explain the hatefulness of the residents in sympathetic terms. Liberals are just expected to be grown-ups.

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Depends, doesn't it? A politician who called the electorate stupid would be shooting himself in the foot. But, you know, the electorate is mostly stupid, and a comedian who pretended that that were not so would not be doing a good job. I think empathy is good--everyone wants it from others and everyone should try to give it--but people should be free to call a spade a spade.

I have nothing against comedy or satire, but there's a fine line between being a comedian and calling the electorate stupid as a comedian and being a comedian and calling the electorate stupid while trying to be a political comentator. Bill has stopped being the provider of satire a while ago and now genuinely believes that he offers valid and serious political commentary. I wouldn't even mind the idea of him being a liberal pundit if he were only able to distinguish between appropriate comic and political content, and he doesn't; he doesn't realise that he shouldn't be able to sit on both those chairs.

You shouldn't get to have politicians as guests on your show, ask them to defend their positions and policies and then make fun of their shoes and act like that is a valid discourse.

Same goes for many liberals. A culture of intelectual condescention (in the context of the video) has caused liberals to be overly dismissive towards those percieved as intelectually deficient - if you are religious you must not have a good grasp on economics, if Trump's stance on illegal immigration appeals to you you must also be a white supremacist, etc.

Maher is a representative of a culture of false intelectualism where your thoughts, opinions, hopes and dreams are not valid or are wrong if your intelect is percieved as deficient or you exhibit traits which someone, somewhere in liberal culture has judged to be counter intelectual.

 

[dontsnitch]

It's amusing that people disagree that Stephens took Maher to task just because he didn't resort to being rude. Maher is the poster boy for condescending leftist who is blind to it due to the amount of sycophants that make up his echo chamber. His audience of trained seals helped erode any chance or need of contemplation. Not that it's not Maher's right to make money out of being a jackass, but what's to deny?

 

[PorkPiePusher]

Guy has it wrong. The problem isn't intellectual condescension. Trump does that all the time to people and conservatives love it. Making jokes about bread bags on feet is fucking funny.

The problem is closed mindedness, which is followed by intellectual condescension as a mechanism to mask the closed mindedness. So, since there's a correlation of closed mindedness to intellectual condescension, it's easy to misidentify what pisses people off as intellectual condescension.

EG -- Anything about race being just condescended as "racist" and ignored.

Are there any differences more than skin deep? I don't know. But even mention the possibility as the cause for different things we see in society and you're automatically condescended as "racist". Are you racist? Yes. But is why is racism automatically scientifically incorrect? It's not. Liberals are just closed minded.

Perfect example is Chinese men are 5'6" and Dutch men are 6'2". If both countries played basketball and there were more Dutch basketball players than Chinese basketball players, the 8" height difference would obviously be one cause of that. Modern liberals would call that "racist" and just ignore it because it contradicts their ideology. They would try to mask that logical fallacy with name calling.

Are black cranium sizes smaller than whites', which are smaller than Asians'? Are Asian IQs > white IQs > black IQs as well? I haven't really looked at the science in detail. I don't really know. But if these are true then obviously pursuing affirmative action policies to create numbers of white, black, and Asian intellectuals in proportion to population demographics is going to create institutional racism against white and Asian people to reach those numbers. This could be a very rational point but will just by ignored for ideological reasons. The point is I'm open-minded to the possibility because I consider all ideas on their own merits. Today's liberals do not consider ideas on their own merits. Instead of thinking critically and rationally, they just look at a checklist of things that someone told them not to think about and see if any of those forbidden boxes get checked. That's not open-minded.

This same closed-mindedness has moved on to anything about homosexuality, gender, and transgenders.

Other examples: Not wanting a demographic with a 45% suicide rate in the military is automatically ideologically rejected and condescended as "hate". It's not considered on its own merits and then rejected. It's just rejected and called names. Anyone could go on for days with examples.

Mention any serious problem about Islam and how the religion does actually cause terrorism. There are obviously legitimate points to that. Mention this and you just get called another condescending name and your very rational viewpoints are ignored.

Liberals have turned into ideologues, like religious fundamentalists, and that's what makes people angry.

Guy does not have it wrong.

Intellectual condescention is a manifestation of prejudice and a precursor to closed mindedness, not the other way around. The guy doesn't talk about intellectual condescention in the sense of a high IQ person dismissing a low IQ person, he mentions it in the context of a priori dismissing people because they exhibit traits you automatically associate with intelectually or ideologically deficient groups.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I saw no evidence in that article of a conservative backlash. Using Trump backers like Guiliani is disingenuous, and not to be taken seriously. But, you already know that.

Against Cruz, you mean. Surrogates, though, no?

Yes, I meant Cruz. Thank you for the correction. No, Rich Lowry and the National Review in particular were notably anti-Trump and I believe still are. They opposed Cruz because they thought his comments were wrong, not for political gain. There is no reasonable sense in which they can be seen as Trump surrogates.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/national-review-endorses-ted-cruz-220633

In what sense did it fall flat? Did it hurt him in the polls? Is Cruz no longer considered a conservative in good standing? What, specifically, was the harm done to him?

Lol. It fell flat because the conservative voters to whom Cruz was appealing nominated a candidate who epitomized the New York values Cruz was decrying. You are trying to use Cruz' comments to show conservatives also have a cultural animus. But conservatives voted for the guy being demonized by Cruz.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Sorry but I just disagree. I know people personally, like people that I deal with daily that are conservative to a T but refused to vote Trump. I can understand why also. For example, I'm a liberal but if John Kasich ran against Hillary I would have voted Kasich. You know you don't always HAVE to vote for someone just because they have a D or R in front of their name.

One person who is a conservative that I know told me specifically he couldn't vote Trump because he can't be proud of him as president because of all the shit he talked before the election. It's amazing that someone who admitted to sexual assault is the one in your mind worthy of respect. Astounding actually

You know some non credible people

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Guy does not have it wrong.

Intellectual condescention is a manifestation of prejudice and a precursor to closed mindedness, not the other way around. The guy doesn't talk about intellectual condescention in the sense of a high IQ person dismissing a low IQ person, he mentions it in the context of a priori dismissing people because they exhibit traits you automatically associate with intelectually or ideologically deficient groups.

You're doltish, sirrah.
Condescension.
There exists no "t" in that word, and dinna you say a word about testosterone

 

[peytonlucy]

Republican party to Bret Stephens: Adios, we don't need you.

 

[icecoldvovchanchyn]

A rich white liberal cant fathom the idea of people only owning one pair of shoes and putting bags over them...Sigh. This is exactly why they lost. They are completely disconnected from real people and the day to day struggle of working class America