|
Is Liberalism really a Mental Disorder ?
For decades Doctors and professional Psychological Analysts have been trying to solve the puzzle of this mysterious yet destructive dilemma. It has not been determined if it is a disease which is affecting the human Brain's ability to properly analyze facts and truths presented to them which they find mentally impossible to properly analyze to help them come to a logical solution to the problem trying to be solved. Dr. Shawn Czerwinski is a Political Psychologists at one of the finest universities in Philadelphia. He believes it is due to Genetic Deficiencies Syndrome otherwise known as "GDS" which ultimately affects the ability of the human Brain to function properly. This disease or impairment is due to poor genetics in the political family tree of the persons affected. Dr. Czerwinski and other colleagues have agreed that one of the best remedies for this mental problem of not being able to properly analyze proven facts and statistics to reach a logical conclusion is quite simple. Those with the extreme liberal minded deficiencies should either study more, communicate more with smart and intelligent people, stay away from their extreme liberal minded friends who may carry this uncurable disease or just simply start believing that it's very possible, if not probable, that you're wrong and if you can't properly analyze something that concerns your family, neighbors, friends, community school system, County programs then just shut up and sit down and let more intelligent people be in charge of analyzing and solving our problems in society and elsewhere. So, what other cures or remedies are there to help the mentally impaired over-Liberal minded persons in our society?
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Health & Fitness category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Mental health?
I saw your follow-up question on Razhie's column, and just thought I would add some input. You are operating under the assumption that most people do not listen to Rush and Larry and all the other talk show hosts on KABC and KFI. You can then point them in their direction as somewhere they can be enlightened. It's an interesting strategy.
You're right when you assume most people do not listen to talk radio, but I do. I am a moderate American, and I listen to every person you mentioned. It's not because I agree or disagree with what they're saying; I just enjoy talk radio, so I'm listening to it as an unbiased American. I listen daily, so my judgement of each host isn't based on one or two listens. I am listening to large portions of every single show.
So when you tell someone to listen to Rush Limbaugh as a way of hearing the good word, I find that outright disturbing. Rush's show can really only be categorized as blubbering, and yes, don't think I didn't recognize that this whole liberalism-is-a-mental-illness shtick is something that started with Rush.
The reason there are very few liberal talk show hosts is because it doesn't get ratings. Not because they're spreading misinformation or lies, but because liberals don't listen to the radio. It's really that simple; to blow it out of proportion is to take (another) page out of Rush's book.
Really, you're only harming conservatism. You're pointing average Americans in the direction of staunch, hard line conservative talk show hosts that can only appeal to a tiny number of people. You are essentially breeding opposition and disgust by having the ultra-conservatives represent basic conservatism. If you really want to spread conservative ideals, forget about Rush, forget about Bill, forget about Sean (and thank God you didn't mention Levin), and point them to Larry. Larry doesn't spread verbal garbage, and he's moderate enough that his ideas can have some appeal.
At this point in time, you're only hurting the Republican Party and conservatism at large. While I don't particularly care if you're able to bring Americans into your fold, I thought it would be nice for you to know that your current strategy will have them running in the opposite direction.
]
seriously? I'm with the rest of the guys on this. But I will answer your slant-ass question just for the hell of it.
I may not agree with what any of you fucking whackjobs say, but I defend with my life your right to say it.
People who believe in only absolutes( this includes both you right wing nutjobs and your left wing counterparts)are turning our government into a giant fucking trainwreck. and as for your "liberal minded" horseshit, how about you take a look in the bloody mirror. a hundred years ago, you'd be called a liberal communist whacko by the conservatives of the day. women voting? preposterous!
put some fucking thought into what you're writing. there will always be a debate, and a debate has to have two or more sides to exist. dehumanizing your opponent is a sign of weak minded imbiciles who can't build a reasonable argument to save their pathetic lives. personal attacks are about as effective in an argument as a gun control freak during a foreign invasion. only less so, because I can use the entire state of california to establish strategic depth in order to defend the states that are worth a shit. (just picture a human shield, but en masse)
And if you think Sarah Palin is a gleaming beacon of intelligence.... holy shit, we are all fucked. she's Nancy Pelosi, but with a gun-toting alaskan twist(too bad she has the worst training I've ever seen in handling firearms, because she would have gotten cool points for dropping that caribou). both are really nice ladies, and great grandmothers, but have no fucking business in deciding national policy. both sides have idiots pulling the strings.
And as if to add insult to injury, the last real republican died in the 1880s. you wingnuts are all just different shades of democrats. spending out the ass, larger, more intrusive government, jesus its a fucking freak show. even the tea-partiers can't get their fucking act together, they're just marching in step with some new cockbag generation of Neo-cons who want to reap the independent vote. the system, in its present condition, is fucked. but it always has been. and always will be. the only difference between now and the 1850s is that 1: the congressmen and senators were a helluva lot more violent back then and 2: we have dickbag 24 hour media to cover the flying circus that we call a government. now people can see what their representatives are up to. and yet they still vote for their incumbents. why? because you're going to have a shithead in office either way, so you might as well keep the shithead thats predictable.
I am so glad I live in a state where the second largest political party is secessionist. At least those people come out and shout "HOLY SHIT, LOOK AT US, WE'RE BATFUCK CRAZY!!!" instead of trying to hide it behind silly rhetoric. There is one man who has summed up our system in its entirety- and that is The Joker from "The Dark Knight"-
"You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go 'according to plan.' Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan.' But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
Amen, crazy face-painted guy. you have so eloquently put what every american thinks about their system into words that all easily understand.
now straighten yourself the fuck out, and drive the fuck on.
-Gunner
]
Aha. Owned.
]
Please go troll somewhere else.
You made this shit up. There is no such thing as Genetic Deficiencies Syndrome, and the phrase "political family tree" is absurd. Plus, nothing appears online when you google or PubMed search the name Dr. Shawn Czerwinski at all. (I really was expecting to find one Dr Czerwinski at one of the 17 universities in Philadelphia, but didn't find a single one...) So, I feel rather confident assuming you made that up as well.
Which makes this behavoir cheep, cowardly trolling. Rather than having a real political discussion about values and evidence, you made random, offensive nonsense up, and that is not just disgusting, it's very core of the political problems in this planet right now: People who make shit up.
Of course, you aren't the first person to try this particular fictional story. Michael Savage, Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck have all tried to promote this joke as well, looping in a few crack pots with degrees while they do so, in order to sell books and frighten people.
It has no basis in science I've ever read, but it based on stories from people who are looking to confirm what they already believe is true. What science does actually tell us with a great deal of confirmation, is that the more highly educated a person is, the more likely they are to be socially liberal. Socially liberal minded people also have a tenancy to score higher on abstract thinking tests, and tend to achieve the highest and most sophisticated scores on the moral and ethical questionnaires used by physiologists to measure a person's empathy and understanding of just action.
Fiscal conservatism has a real and valuable place in governance of any large body of people, but to call liberalism a mental disorder is to spit in the face of everyone (even members of a 'conservative' political party) in the last 200 years who fought for individual liberty, human rights and fair treatment from employers and governments. If you are a woman, you just called the vast majority of people who accepted the 'progressive' idea that you shouldn't be your husband or father's possession, mentally disordered.
If you want to read an actual scientific study that examines people's values and political persuasions, try searching value mapping studies done in the last few years.
If you want to be a troll, go someplace else.
]
More Questions: |