Posts Tagged ‘cognitive dissonance’

Religious Freedom Ruling *for* Muslim Inmate Has WND Commenters Dazed

Posted: January 21, 2015 in legal / law, religion
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
8

Well, perhaps not “dazed,” but certainly very split in their opinion. This was one of those stories, just a few hours old as I’m posting it, that I clicked on just to see how people would react: “Supremes Rule for Bearded Muslim Inmate.” The rule was in place in Arkansas and 9 other states based on the idea of easy inmate recognition amongst guards and ability of inmates to hide contraband in their beards.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 9 to 0 that a prison in Arkansas (and among all Arkansas state prisons) that prohibited inmates from growing facial hair could not prohibit that. The Muslim inmate, Gregory Holt, wanted to grow it as part of his religious observance.

But on the other hand … he’s a Muslim!! And that’s enough for WND commenters to just hate it. Well, that and he’s a prisoner (“TruBluAmerican” wrote: “You’re in prison you pig, you have no rights beyond 3 squares and a roof over your head, which is MORE than a lot of law abiding people have!”)

And so, on the one hand, you have “kingdad” who wrote:

Be Glad that they chose to uphold Religious Liberty as their are more and bigger Religious liberty cases coming down the pike. Important cases compared to this minor case of insignificance. All the other states have rules that permit State Prison inmates to grow beards esp. if it is a part of their Religious beliefs. Other religions have beards that are also mandatory, some Jews, the Sikhs for example.

But you have a reply by “Elena” who wrote: “You think the SCOTUS will come to the rescue of the former Atlanta Fire Chief? Keep dreaming. Only non-Christians are protected.” (This is in reference to an Atlanta fire chief who was fired by the mayor because of his virulently anti-gay statements.) A view echoed by “SATCitizen” who wrote: “OK Supreme Court. . .now you better remember this ruling when it comes to CHRISTIANS’ beliefs and the violation of.”

Or, you have “freedom defender” who wrote: “The rules on beards is rediculous to say the least. But once again, these liberal judges side with the muslim. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket, to use an old term.”

It’s interesting, sometimes, to see how cognitive dissonance plays out with this sort of thing.

WND Commenters Miss Irony in Laughing at Modern Beliefs in Norse Mythology

Posted: March 6, 2014 in religion
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Remember when the world ended on February 22, 2014? I do. I slept in. Otherwise, I was home, and it was like any other weekend day. But, according to a small group of adherents to old-school-style Norse mythology (Odin, Thor, etc.), Ragnarök was supposed to happen – a series of events that would lead to the end of the world.

Didn’t happen. But, it got some main-stream press, and WND did one of their two-paragraph snippets, entitled, “According to Norse Mythology, World Ends Saturday.”

A hackneyed response by atheists, when asked by a Christian why they don’t believe in “God” (the implication clearly being the Judeo-Christian deity), is “Which god?” And then going on to explain that the person who asked the question is almost as much an atheist as the person responding, the atheist just believes in one less god than the asker.

I personally have yet to use this line, but I’ve yet to really be in a situation where it’s relevant or would come up. And I tend to classify myself more as an apathetic atheistic agnostic rather than an atheist, but I’m digressing.

The point, as you might have guessed, is that most of us roll our eyes at the modern-day Norse believers (though I still need to see Thor 2 — that Chris Helmsworth is dreamy), concluding quickly that it’s silly superstition and mythology. And yet, somehow, Christianity gets a free pass from most of us. And, there is an inherent irony and display of cognitive dissonance whenever any religious person laughs at another.

One need look no further than the first of the 38 comments, by “John C” who wrote: “Yeah, anyone who believes in Valhalla and Ragnarok won’t need a sweater where they are going.” As in they’re going to the Christian version of Hell. Because they believe in Valhalla and Ragnarök instead of a 900-year-old man fitting two of every animal into a boat and managing it for a year or so while a vengeful deity full of love drowns everyone and everything by covering the planet with water.

“Well, when you put it that way …”

More Cognitive Dissonance: This Time, It’s Israel and Abortion … which Should an Ultra-Conservative Choose?

Posted: January 31, 2014 in abortion, politics
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

I’ve written before about the United States’ (effectively) unconditional support for anything Israel does, especially among the very conservative (at least Christian conservative). So, it makes you wonder: What’s a Christian conservative to do when Israel happens to have a more liberal – a more progressive – policy in favor of something that the Christian conservative loathes? Enter the cognitive dissonance!

In fairness, I fully realize that I’m pulling a bit of an over-simplification here, and I fully recognize that one can generally be in favor of some group while not liking some of the individual things they do. For example, I’m generally in favor of President Obama, but I think his use of the NSA with their spying is horrible.

With that in mind, we get to an article by Ryan Jones of Israel Today that was either written for or posted in full by WND: “Israel Picking Up Tab for Abortions.” I’ll quote the first four paragraphs and a fifth one farther down:

Israel’s newly-passed health budget for 2014 includes a significant increase in government funding for legal abortions, a move that Sandy Shoshani, national director of the pro-life organization Be’ad Chaim, says is a serious indictment of the nation’s spiritual condition.

Last month, the Health Basket Committee – which annually decides which medications, treatments and procedures will be covered or subsidized by the government – determined that the previous practice of paying for abortions for women under the age of 19 and over the age of 40 wasn’t enough.

Included in the new budget is 16 million shekels (USD $4.5 million) to also cover abortions for women between the ages of 20-33.

While all women seeking a legal abortion must receive special approval, the committee in charge of making that decision rubber-stamps 97 percent of requests, or well over 20,000 abortions each year.

… That Israel’s government would regard the lives of unborn babies in so flippant a manner is evidence that “the moral fibers of our nation are in shreds,” said Shoshani, who warned that “you can’t bring a curse on your nation and not expect repercussions. We just opened the door wide and made ourselves vulnerable.”

The article got 220 ratings (4.80/5 star average) and 283 comments, and it was published 13 days ago (I’m sorta catching up). I was curious to see how WND commenters would handle this issue: Maintain unbridled support for Israel no matter what, condemn this practice, or something else?

Mostly, at least skimming the high-rated comments, anyway, they ignore it. There are a lot of comparisons to Hitler and pointing out numbers of people he killed versus number of abortions performed. Lots of people saying that the US is “in judgement” because of their policies. Some anti-Obama stuff. Some anti-Muslim stuff. The most direct comments I found (that were highly rated) claim that the current government of Israel is anti-Biblical and going to lead to Israel’s downfall and the apocalypse.

We’re Against Wildlife Protection and Hunting Restrictions, Unless Obama Is, Too

Posted: December 18, 2013 in politics
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

In a link to an Associated Press article, WND posted on December 7, “Obama Offers 30-Year Eagle-Killing Permits.”

I admit that the image in my head was of former governor, former VP candidate Sarah Palin now not going elk hunting in her helicopter, but going eagle hunting.

This visage in my head is because, typically, I read and hear about how conservatives are against any hunting restrictions, are against wildlife protection, want to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency, and think it’s insane that if you kill an animal on your property that’s threatening you, it is you who could be doing something illegal and could be punished. That’s what you typically hear about, right?

This story is about President Obama’s administration granting permits to some startups that want to make wind farms to generate electricity, but those startups are afraid to do so because of the danger of killing a bald or golden eagle that may fly into the blades. The illegality of killing those eagles makes many balk at trying to start it up, because lawyer fees may cost as much as the equipment (maybe? — you get the idea). This permitting process is meant to ease that so more will be encouraged to make these wind farms.

It seems like a win-win from my point of view between the small (but growing) wind power industry and conservative ideas in the sense of easing restrictions on killing wildlife accidentally. Environmentalists, won’t be happy, but that’s a third party that WND certainly doesn’t care about in this story.

What I don’t understand is why WND readers are so ticked about this. The story does only have 3 ratings (3.67/5 stars) and 14 comments. The highest-rated is “Tosheba” with 10 up and 0 down: “Oh, man, this dude is dangerous.” “Looking4Sanity” (who won’t find it on WND) responded with, “The worst is yet to come. Brace yourself.” That person got 8 up votes and 0 down. Other comments are similar but longer.

I seriously do not understand this. It it that bald eagles are different because they are the national bird? Then what about the golden eagle permit? Or, is it as I proposed that they really would be for this if anyone except President Obama had been the one to authorize it?

Surprising WND Articles with No Comments, Part 7: Cognitive Dissonance Among Liberals

Posted: December 16, 2013 in politics
Tags: , , , , ,
0

It’s been awhile since I’ve found a WND story that I both found mildly interesting and no World Net Daily commenter deigned to respond to. However, such a story was posted by Ellis Washington – who does do a regular “Commentary” on WND — and it was posted on November 29 and entitled, “Cognitive Dissonance and the Left.”

I found it a particular eye-roller, personally, because it’s something that I think many liberals would point out about many conservatives, or at least the ultra-conservatives such as those at WND. Now that I think of it, I would guess that many conservatives would also think that cognitive dissonance runs high among the Tea Party folks.

Since it’s the subject of the article and this post, let me just define the term to make sure everyone is on the same page. Cognitive dissonance is when one is able to hold to conflicting ideas and accept both of them. For example, if I think that driving directions don’t work but I happily print out a Google map direction to a location and use it, then that is a nice, contrived example of cognitive dissonance.

Here is what he considers to be cognitive dissonance, though he goes on to talk about other things in his actual copied Facebook conversation in the article:

Here is how the cognitive dissonance of the left is manifested regarding their Obama messiah:

A) Barack Obama is a historical, transformative and revolutionary political figure, to speak against him or his policies means I’m a racist or a right-wing fanatic; and

B) Barack Obama is a bad or deceitful person who is spying on me and those I care about while stealing my doctor and destroying my health plan through Obamacare.

Wow. Talk about a reductio ad absurdum (carrying an idea far beyond its intent to make it seem ridiculous on its face — something like a straw man in this case). Ellis Washington’s bio at the top of the article states he “is a former staff editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at the Rutherford Institute. He is a professor of Constitutional Law, Legal Ethics, and Contracts at the National Paralegal College, a counselor at the American College of Education, and a founding board member of Salt and Light Global.” For someone who is an editor of a law review journal and a law clerk and a professor of law and ethics, one would think he would know his logical fallacies.

What he has stated is something I don’t think any liberal other than the most deluded actually think, though in this case I am speaking from my own personal viewpoint. For (A), I would agree with the first part, that President Obama – like almost any US President, is a historical, transformative, and revolutionary political figure, especially in contrast with George W. Bush. But, I don’t think speaking against him or his policies means that someone is a racist or a right-wing fanatic per se, so long as one does it because of the policies and not saying things like, “Obama’s policies suck because he’s black” or “because he’s a commie pig.” Then, yes, you are a racist or a right-wing fanatic and you are employing ad hominem attacks which are also non sequiturs.

For point (B), I think that some of the policies that President Obama has maintained, set up, and enhanced, are bad, and I think some of the ways he has implemented them are also bad. Obviously the “You can keep your doctor” under the Affordable Care Act and then the issues with keeping your doctor was a huge issue. The NSA spying, to me, is a big issue. Though I would point out that it was Bush who vastly expanded the CIA’s and NSA’s spying powers and programs.

With that said, I don’t think the views I hold represent cognitive dissonance. One can be both a transformative, revolutionary political figure and still have bad policies. Heck — one could look at Assad in Syria and point out that he is both transformative and has bad policies. It’s only when you carry the two ideas to a ridiculous extreme and set up a straw man that they become an example of cognitive dissonance.

But, the ridiculous argument that he set up, and the examples of left-wing ideas against which he argues, made me certain that someone would comment. It has gotten 3 ratings, however, and all were 5 stars.

In Soviet-Style Russia, WND Readers Would Be Happy!

Posted: November 24, 2013 in politics
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

Until you tell them it’s authoritarian communism.

Russia, now an ostensibly democratic country, continues to stifle free speech and expression. Perhaps most visibly lately is their ban on any “homosexual propaganda” which has been playing out more than it might have because of the winter 2014 Olympics being held it Sochi. In fact, a Google-based auto-complete for the word “Sochi” has “boycott” listed in the top five because of the repression.

Sochi Auto-Complete to Boycott

Sochi Auto-Complete to Boycott

The purpose of this post is not to discuss the Sochi Olympics nor “homosexual propaganda” (the ban on which WND gleefully touted), but rather the latest, posted last night (see, I’m catching up on my back-log!): “Moscow Mayor: No More Mosques in My City.” WND’s take is the three paragraphs from a Christian Science Monitor article, and while it’s further evidence of a lack of freedom of religion and expression in Russia, it’s also capitalizing on Islamophobia, a raison d’être for WND.

While the recent anti-US-government rally was much lauded by WND – even though every participant would have been arrested and the story never allowed to be published in Russia – the WND commenters are quite pleased over this bit of censorship. In the 15 hours since the article was posted, it has gotten 10 ratings (4.80/5 average) and 16 comments. The top-rated comment is the general perception, but it’s worth quoting several just to show the hypocrisy, Islamophobia, and just general attitudes of these particular WND commenters:

  • “lazarus” (13 up, 0 down votes): “Kudos to the Russians.”
  • Reply to “lazarus” by “wearyconservative1946” (5 up, 0 down votes): “Agreed, but I’d be even more impressed if world leaders would come together to ban ALL Islamic worship and it’s congregations AND deport ALL muslims and persians to whatever country of assbackward, 6th century savages they choose.”
  • “charlie” (13 up, 0 down votes): “pity he cant come here and run for president, but then why not, a terrorist from kenya did!”
  • “no1hd” (11 up, 0 down votes): “Putin and his group seem to be more concerned about their people than our obama boys.”
  • “Av8rcfii” (11 up, 0 down votes): “Holy moly batman, I’ve always considered myself a proud patriot, but I’ve really been impressed with the Russians attitudes lately. Wish they’re pull a red dawn on our Muslim crowd too.”
  • “Dug” (11 up, 0 down votes): “When he’s finished in Moscow, he can come to Sydney and do the same.”
  • “chris” (1 up, 0 down votes): “Freedom of religion, more like forward operating bases for Chechen Muslims. There has never been a Islamic related attack that has not originated or had some of the operations discussed in a mosque. If countries would just enforce immigration policies preventing these cockroaches from entering, they would’t have to worry about freedom of religion issues.”

Now, in fairness, a few pointed out what I did. For example, “ClearThinkingUSA” posted 8 hours ago, “The power to ban mosques is the same as the power to ban churches or synagogues, or Buddhist temples. Next he will ban baptist churches because no true Russian can be anything other than Russian Orthodox.” They got 2 up-votes and 1 down-vote for their trouble.

“ClearThinkingUSA” wrote another comment 4 hours ago (4 hrs after the first post) clarifying: “No freedom of religion or first amendment rights in Russia.” They got 4 down-votes until “Arch” gave them a single up-vote.

No Good Choice for a WND-Style Conservative in This Story

Posted: November 7, 2013 in politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

I found this story interesting only because I wondered which way über-conservatives from World Net Daily would react; apparently, they didn’t either because very few people commented or even rated the story. It’s a story from Foreign Policy that WND headlined, “21 Nations Line Up Behind U.N. Effort to Restrain NSA.”

Why did I think this would be a hard choice? Well, during G.W. Bush, of course spying was good because it helped get those dirty muzzies. But under President Obama, spying is horrible because Obama is trying to take our gunz and force his muslim terrorist beliefs up our butts and pack it in with gay polls. On the other hand, the UN represents globalism, which also is super-duper bad because it erodes our rights and ‘Mer’ca’s sovereignty.

The story, posted about a week.5 ago, has only garnered 4 ratings (3.75/5 stars) and 14 comments. From what I can tell, the majority of the comments seem to bypass this cognitive dissonance; where it’s addressed, it’s more of a tu quoque argument of, “Oh yeah, well, other people spy on their people, the UN should go after them!” For example, the highest-rated comment, with 6 up-votes, is by “tigertooth”: “Almost every nation uses data transmitted/received information. But our ‘government’ uses this data on the taxpayers, honest people who work. And we support the ‘government’ leaders (traitors) with pay and benefits. Why don’t they gather information from the hotbeds of hate? Muslim temples of jihad?”

Another example is by “Manuel Manjarrez,” who wrote: “if they call out the usa call out Isreal France China and Russia who do the same thing hypocrytes though at least they spy on everyone and not just american conservative constitutionalists but instead of going after foreign spies and muzzie terrorists they go after americans with different beliefs from the white house who knows it might change but the next president if he or she is conservative should have a massive purge in the bureaucracy because of sympathiezers of leftism but I doubt it if it is a bush or christie who wins”

Surprising WND Articles with No Comments, Part 6: Abusing Children in the Name of Religion

Posted: November 6, 2013 in religion
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

I’m way behind due to a s— -load of work the past two weeks. One benefit of this is that I can make darned sure that this particular WND story, posted two weeks ago and originally on AlterNet, has gotten no comments: “Does the Bible Sanction Child Abuse?.” This story was posted over two weeks ago, it got 1 5-star rating, and it has no comments.

Unlike other posts without comments on WND that I’ve talked about, I would interpret this one as, “Um, yeah … we don’t want to admit that this is real.” The full story is about conservatives (read: Religious Conservatives) opposing a UN convention meant to protect children. After all, the Bible is quite clear that if you spare the rod, you spoil the child. Remember though, these folks are “pro-family.” Uh huh.

Homophobic Pasta, Boycotts, and Anti-Boycotts

Posted: October 3, 2013 in homosexuality
Tags: , , , , , ,
2

One need not look far to find companies that über-right-wingers will boycott because the company has stated publicly that it supports sexual equality. I covered Betty Crocker a few months ago, and I even posted a follow-up just a few weeks ago.

So it’s always interesting (or just annoying) to see those same people outraged when the other side will call for their own boycotts when a company states that it’s against equality. The Italian pasta company Barilla recently did this, with the CEO stating very clearly, “I would never do [a commercial] with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect, but because we don’t agree with them.” The CEO has since apologized numerous times because of the large backlash and the often amusing marketing by Barilla’s competitors, such as the one below.

Garosalo Pasta for Sexual Equality

Garofalo Pasta for Sexual Equality

Of course, WND had to post about this with the story, “Barilla Pasta Boss: No ‘Gays’ in Our Ads.” And the second-highest-rated comment by “Bryan Taylor” states:

This is the part where the ‘oh so tolerant’ gays come out of the closet in droves to harass, intimidate, coerce, and use the force of government to help Mr. Barilla recant his current position on gays and then condone the gay lifestyle. They [gays] talk about being tolerant and allowing others to have their own beliefs, but rarely do they act that way. Gays bashing Chik-Fil-A is a perfect example of the bigotry of the gay/lesbian lifestyle. They want to talk about equal rights, but only “their” rights count.

Hypocrisy, anyone?