The title is a reference to something that a lot of people reference, and I can’t find a cite, that you shouldn’t fight with people who agree with you 80% of the time, and disagree only 20%.
That argument was used with McCain, that argument has been used with Lincoln Chaffee and with the Maine girls.
It’s also been used by James Joyner (VERY Bright guy, and a valuable resource.) and Doug Mataconis (good research) and the others at Outside the Beltway, as well as Rick Moran, who has a flair for the word, and I believe is a classical liberal, which fits my general political style, of “Rightwingnuthouse.”
But I am sick of being told to stop arguing with people who agree with me philosophically 80% of the time. Not because I don’t think 80% politically isn’t enough of an agreement, but I am sick of those who assign themselves in the 80% who agree, philosophically, tend to spend 80% of their time bashing those who agree with them 80%.
I have come to the conclusion that the entire concept of the “80%” is actually a farce used by those who find satisfaction in bashing their philosophical and political brethren to gain status with others. That doesn’t change that they are good people, or are, in fact, 80% or 60 or there about percentage in agreement with conservatives, and definitely much more informed than I. That isn’t my problem.
My problem is, why do you directly insult, or insinuate insult or completely ignore the 80% you agree with in your essays, only to focus on the 20%?
It makes me mad. Another member of this group (though I think if he counts himself 80% his math is really really bad.)
A Column by David Brooks, one of the 80%.
In 1811, the popular novelist Fanny Burney learned she had breast cancer and underwent a mastectomy without anesthesia.
Thanks for that, what’s the point?
Burney’s struggle reminds one that character is not only moral, it is also mental. Heroism exists not only on the battlefield or in public but also inside the head, in the ability to face unpleasant thoughts.
“Reminds one,” meaning Brooks, because he’s smart enough to reference someone from 1811, Brooks is reminded, because he’s so smart, and you who aren’t reminded are Dumb.
In the mental sphere, this meant conquering mental laziness with arduous and sometimes numbingly boring lessons.
He’s paraphrasing there, so that you stupid people can understand what the well known novelist, who not many, and virtually none of the general populace actually, you “know” and almost definitely not well. It’s important for you who don’t know her, or him, well, then you are mentaly lazy.
Capitalism has also undermined this ethos.
Here Brooks proves his pure conservative nature by attacking capitalism, since choosing what is valuable and making up your own mind is against those things that are well known, Like Fanny Burney. Capitalism is why she’s not well known, and looking out for your own self interests instead of listening to those who know that Fanney Burney is well known, well, that’s just “mental laziness”
You Mentally Lazy buffoons! Don’t you understand the importance of a well creased pant leg?!
In this atmosphere, we’re all less conscious of our severe mental shortcomings and less inclined to be skeptical of our own opinions.
9 paragraphs in a small op-ed, and now we get to it!
It’s important to be skeptical of our own opinions and we should learn how to be skeptical from someone who asked no significant questions of Obama, bashed Palin and wrote a book about bush being dumb but effective.
YES! Superhero with an Op-Ed, When will you teach the Special forces how to do their job? We all know You are so much better than everyone else, that we need a guy like you in the warzone!
We have confirmation bias; we pick out evidence that supports our views. We are cognitive misers; we try to think as little as possible. We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group.*
“We have confirmation bias,” Yes “we” do, it’s called, “opinion” and “judgment.” as for “We are herd thinkers and conform our perceptions to fit in with the group.” I am curious as to who he is calling “we.”
Is he using the Well Known, “Royal We?” he’s speaking for all of us? Probably, but he also has the right since he is familiar with the well known author who wrote a personal letter and essay about 160 years before I was born. How stupid of me to not have the Fanney Burney collection in my personal library.
Lacking that, I must clearly listen to this light of logic and meaning, but wait! we are about to learn what David Brooks, the connoisseur of 200 year old essays, judge of mental laziness and creseelines.
The rigors of combat discourage it.
Yes David Brooks, it’s all about the rigors of combat. David Brooks to replace Petraeus.
Via: HotAir headlines.
*Notice that the reference for this quote is a manager of Berkeshire Hathaway. Another person that all you idiots should be familiar with.