This is a question more directed towards our comrades here outside the US. There’s something I’ve always noticed about American liberals (though plenty of conservatives and others are not immune). They seem to have this extreme confidence in their opinions about broader global affairs and what is happening in the world, despite them being incorrect or having only a superficial understanding of the situation. Obvious examples would be how they are sure Ukraine is winning and Putin is just an irrational comic book villain, how Kim Jong Un insists everyone gets the same haircut as him (or no one), believing anything Zenz says about Xinjiang, or really any story at all that involves the global south.
Is this just phenomenon of US American liberals? Or is it rampant across the global north? My interactions with fellow Americans in general on anything geopolitical makes feel like they have this truly unearned sense that they really know what’s going on, when all they do is listening to and ardently defend State Dept propaganda. But I have never really interacted with liberals outside the US so idk.
I asked a liberal about this and I got an answer that sort of makes sense with the liberal worldview.
Basically their response to "the media could be lying to you" is "that would never happen, journalists have integrity." When I dig into that they do agree that probably the people at the top don't have any integrity, but any individual article written by an individual journalist is going to be factual because that individual has integrity. Plus, if media was some big propaganda machine, journalists would want to write about that and we would all know about it.
It perfectly aligns with the neoliberal worldview of individualism. They think a system made up of competent individuals can't be corrupt because the individual parts aren't corrupt.
They're wrong, but it actually helped me understand where they're coming from. So now I only point out systemic issues and focus conversations about broad systemic problems. These conversations confuse liberals but they do seem to be the most effective because you remove the individual from the equation.
I like to point out specific examples. Like when Vanity Fair knew about Epstein, had a story ready to go, and spiked it . It won't make them change their opinions but it does give them cognitive dissonance which causes psychic damage. Or direct them to Jon Stewart giving a tongue bath to war criminals Hillary Clinton and Condi Rice.
Does this liberal, like most liberals, proclaim to now be against the War on Terror? If so, force them to read a few NYT articles from 2002/2003 and see how much integrity they see in journalism.
No, they think America should be the world police and that the war on terror was actually good. They're a lib through and through.
Ah yes, journalists, famous for their integrity and for not taking lunch and career influence from powerful individuals.
I mean, the sheer fact that I had to listen to a podcast to understand what was happening with the Bernie campaign in Iowa or Qanon definitely doesn't undermine the journalistic profession at all!
I had to explain the concept of access journalism to a friend the other day after the latest Apple event.
The response was “well how are they supposed to get those interviews?”
The key is to just assume that the interview is biased and probably wrong.
Did you ask them what happens when those people at the top without integrity use their lack of integrity to influence the journalists below them, like, firing them?
"Oh the journalists will still publish then" they might say, so then point out that people like your friend won't listen to them without the prestige of a publication attached. Then point to like Seymour Hersch
Of course. Their answer was that the Free Market corrects this, because if a journalist has a really good story, they will go sell that story to some other media outlet. They actually believe media outlets are competing for readers with hard hitting journalism rather than with advertisement and fearmongering, so hard hitting real investigative journalists are somehow being sought after by media companies.
I mean it used to be that way especially in local news, but it definitely isn't that way anymore. They just haven't seen the change from small independent media organizations that did compete for stories to giant media conglomerates who compete for readers.
hey actually believe media outlets are competing for readers with hard hitting journalism rather than with advertisement and fearmongering, so hard hitting real investigative journalists are somehow being sought after by media companies.
ask them why they think Time Warner or whoever owns CNN now has more to gain from "news advertising money" than "manufacturing public opinion for politics advantageous to the owner company"
ask them why they think Fox News does this but like, Comcast has no ulterior motive in owning MSNBC. Disney has no ulterior motive in owning ABC. Ask them how profitable they think "the news" is compared to these company's other holdings. Like, is a pulitzer prize winning article going to give Disney more money than Mickey Mouse? Is it like, a coincidence when you see ABC "opinion" pieces about how extending copyright law is Good, Actually?
Ask them if they'd trust a news organization if Donald Trump bought it and then when they knee jerk say no ask them why they fucking trust one owned by Jeff Bezos any more. because he's polite in his vampiricism??
Did that too. They didn't think the owner would matter, because if journalists were not able to do their ethical journalism for an owner like Bezos or Trump or anyone else, then the journalist would just participate in the free market and find a new job. And once all the journalists have refused to work for unethical people like Bezos, that news outlet would be forced to shut down.
There is really no arguing with a lib that has swallowed the entire boot
that news outlet would be forced to shut down.
So they implicitly think every journalist is ethical because they wouldn't be able to replace them with unethical journalists who say things for money, lol
Don't forget the national-intelligence to msm-contributor pipeline https://archive.ph/https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3138630/why-do-so-many-us-intelligence-chiefs-become-media-pundits
It's prominent with Westerners in general and made even worse by those with an imperialist past. But other countries can be just as guilty. Smaller ones like mine just America worship and default to whatever American liberals say. Or at least the older generations do. Gen Z liberals Canada/EU worship more and default to whatever liberals there say, which is usually parrot the US position lol
I think this is a more general human condition. Leftists aren't inherently better, but having a counter-hegemonic position basically requires a much higher degree of literacy on the topic than the hegemonic position. The alternative is to have your voice continually completely disregarded.
As a clever leftist, you've probably never read any studies supporting the perspective that The Moon has no breathable atmosphere because you likely have no counter-hegemonic position on that. Everyone generally agrees and you have no reason to suspect the overall infrastructure of physical science is corrupted, so you just assume it's true and assume the counter-hegemonic position is incorrect.
Furthermore we should be careful to avoid falling into a cognitive trap that because we're more well-read than those with a hegemonic perspective (because we have to be) then we must be more correct. We may be, but not necessarily because we've read more.
you have no reason to suspect the overall infrastructure of physical science is corrupted
:I-was-saying: cause there's a reproducibility crisis. But also that's a very enlightening point
We may be [right], but not necessarily because we’ve read more.
Case in point: leftcoms.
Case in point: talk to any conspiracy theorist who isn't experiencing mental break
liberals are liberals for one of two reasons. because they don't really give a shit, or because they're stuck in the "understanding" phase of personal development wherein it's assumed that anyone who doesn't believe in liberal democracy or international financial economy simply doesn't understand the mythology well enough
Actually there's a third reason, and that's the really vile people, the true believers.
They often are at least aware of the criticism of capitalism and liberalism, but what we criticize, they see as the good thing.
"The west's wealth is based on imperializing Half the world? Okay, so let's keep doing it"
There's a 4th type too.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
Someone should make a list of all the types of liberalism so we can combat it
If we're doing this then I would also like to add the 5th liberal class, the "human golden retriever"
No, this is also a thing among finnish liberals. Inanna I wish I had the unearned confidence of a western liberal.
But Ive also noticed a lot of, i dunno "finnish exceptionalism" ig, which is about the same as the one in 'murica. Im curious if that is also a thing in all of the global north, or did we import a virulent strain during the 80s.
In the past I had good results pointing out Finland's concentration camps. These were separate from the Nazi ones and were used to ethnically cleanse Russians. But today they've evolved a defense: calling you a Putin puppet for bringing it up.
Loved to hear about how everyone who didnt take a side with Ukraine in their heroic struggle against the asiatic horde menace is a part of the fifth column. Really warmed my commie heart :Care-Comrade:
Nope. It is documented liberals are always wrong. There is one case that comes to mind of miners in the USSR because they didn't get paid as much as miners in the US. An objective analysis is that the mines of the USSR had much better working conditions, and actually probably better pay when adjusted for purchasing power, but we'll we all know how that ended up
Aaron Sorkin writing and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race
No, its also American Conservatives, American Libertarians, American Socialists, and American Communists.
I think this just a feature of everyone everywhere regardless of political preference
Still I will say the worst offenders are taxi/uber drivers who go on full “expert mode” to explain why Chile needs a Bukele
There are three great genuses of liberals in the world: Anglos, Euros, and the various comprador classes of the Third World
And those further divided into various subspeices: Social libs, Ordo libs, Neo-libs, Conservative libs, classical libs and incoherent hybrids of all of them (which is the largest subspecies)
Using this metric, we can scientifically determine that the most consistently wrong libs are Anglo conservative libs, followed closely by comprador social libs
No this is a thing pretty much all over the west but I've also observed this behavior by people from India, South Korea, Vietnam and China when they visit Switzerland just to a lesser extent. I think a lot of it has to do with just how our brains are wired, unless you have a 'real' connection to a topic or a place or a people you will generally just have an opinion about the other place based on what you've read and so a lot of countries just become an adjective.
Generally I'd say that western people are more opinionated and hate when you point them out that they are wrong, which is probably due to western chauvinism, and american expectionalism which is a suped up version of western chauvinism. Again Switzerland is one of those adjective countries that people like to use to basically talk about their own country.
Not unique to Americans but something that is way more common here is having a deep-seated need to have and defend an opinion regardless of whether you've even read as much as a Wikipedia article about it. And the celebration of anti-intellectualism.
Part of the problem is that most adults in the US have a 6th grade reading level or lower.
Part of the problem is that most adults in the US have a 6th grade reading level or lower.
This not only causes extremely ignorant people to walk around assuming they have it all figured out, but results in people with above-average intelligence assuming they have galactic brains because of how loudly and proudly ignorant most people around them are.
I've thought this about dunking on chuds subs forever, especially among liberals. Why do you waste so much time and energy dunking on these dumbshits? They speak for themselves, who cares?
i don't think you should spend too much time doing it but dunking on chuds and libs is good because shame is still a social force that can cause people to reevaluate things.
oh...right i misunderstood but i do think that's a reason why they do that, even amongst themselves, I think there's a big impetus for libs to make sure everyone knows they have the correct opinions by signaling through dunks (which totally is a waste of time and cringe since it's people i don't like doing it )
chinese liberals don't pretend to know everything but they generally default to "see what american liberals think" when it comes to everything
It has long been observed that American liberals think that they are right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with them must be crazy, stupid or unintelligent. They love nothing more than sneering at anyone they deem lesser than them. The American right has beat on this drum for decades now, and been dismissed for just as long.
It has long been observed that American liberals think that they are right about everything, and anyone who disagrees with them must be crazy, stupid or unintelligent.
this could be applied to just about any political group in America.
i guess they could say "hey i could be wrong though!" or something. But yea, this probably applies to most people.
Canadian liberals are just American liberals with one less colour on the national flag, but with the added insufferable smugness of imagining themselves to be worldly non-Americans, and capable of independent action.
The Quebecois are better on the social safety net front, but worse on the racism front, so pick your poison I guess.
