Face it. You're All Regulatory Capitalists.

Karma's bucket o' tips (5.50 / 4)

n/t

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:27:04 AM CDT

well (7.33 / 3)

I can't say that I buy your argument, particularly the first paragraph.

Yes, in forums such as these, we may get heated, and our rhetoric may be over the top, but in public?  The left is a model of decorum compared to the right.  

We keep countering crazy with facts, and I don't see it getting us anywhere, ergo, the ugly will probably continue to ramp up.

How do you respond to a follower of Michele Bachmann, who has said the Census is a plan to round up conservatives, that Americorps is a plot to put our kids in re-education camps, and if the Republicans take power, their agenda will be to do nothing but dismantle the (very tiny) gains we've made in the last two years, and run endless investigations of the Obama administration?

How do you have a rational conversation with this person?  How can you not get agitated at the prospect of these nuts running our country?

But I don't shriek at my in-laws when they parrot this crap.  I use facts--"Has Obama taken away your guns?"  "Which of your taxes have been raised?"  "No, Bush was President when the stock market crashed, and Hank Paulson developed TARP."

But after a couple of hours of one of those conversations, it's nice to come here and be able to bitch about how incredibly fucking stupid the teabaggers are.

YMMV.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:34:58 AM CDT

puzz, (6.00 / 2)

I'm not arguing that the left demonizes the right more than the right demonizes the left.

But, make no mistake, both sides do it.

And my main point is that both sides are doing it from within the same political philosophy, regulatory capitalism.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 14:45:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Talking to the irrational (6.00 / 1)

How do you have a rational conversation with this person?  How can you not get agitated at the prospect of these nuts running our country?

You don't.  They are ideologues.

And so, I asked myself these same questoionws when I heard people say that the Bush administration (or the Jews) was behind 911, that Clinton was scared into signing the law that made regime change our national policy with Iraq by a letter from some Republicans, that the Suporeme Court gave the election in 2000 to bush,that the war in Iraq was some deep conspiracy to give Bush and Cheney's friends oil control in Iraq, that the Bushies used the threat of nuclear war to scare America into going into Iraq, that Republicans are responsible for Obama and the Democratic super majority (up until Massachusetts) from passing the agenda that the extreme left wanted.  All these are equally as counterfactual and irrational, and there was and is much more.

Thing is, like the irrational right, the irrational left can't see how irrational these things are.  

How do you talk to these people?  And you are right, the thought of any of these irrational ideologues running the country is scary.   But it makes for interest, doesn't it?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:17:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's crazy (7.00 / 3)

when I heard people say that the Bush administration (or the Jews) was behind 911,

Everyone knows it was the Illuminati!

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:37:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thng is, puzzled (6.00 / 1)

this "narrative" about America is widely believed in the Muslim world!  And they often cite American writers for support!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:47:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I did it! (7.00 / 2)

But it was mainly Paul's idea.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 23:47:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It does no good to demonize the other side (6.00 / 4)

but nothing else will effect any change either, when it is impervious to fact.  

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 07:58:22 AM CDT

The question is (0.00 / 0)

will demonizing effect any change?  It motivates only those already convinced of your cause, and causes those demonized to dig in, not change.

So what could be moving people to do this?  You're a relentless demonizer.  I'd be interested in your insights.  Could it have something to do with emotion?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:20:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Give an example of me demonizing some group (0.00 / 0)

or person. Perhaps you believe the insults I direct your way equate with demonizing. If so, we have a different understanding of the term.

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 09:41:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ddb (0.00 / 0)

to describe someone or something as very bad or dangerous although they are not

Perhaps I am using the term a little loosely, to mean any negative opinion, denigration, or dehumanization not supported by the facts.  Certainly you are not going to tell me that your insults are meant to make people seem angelic.

I think that karma (we could ask  him) may have had a meaning something like this in mind.  And he might say that he is upset that we and the political parties insult each other all the time.

So, let me rephrase my serious question just for you.  If you and i agree that insults don't accomplish anything in terms of moving people, say, why do you, I, and others do it?  Since you are, by your own admission, a constant insulter, at least when you are not a proud wielder of the fist, I thought you might have some insight into why we keep repeating what seems to be such a useless behaviour.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 19:59:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Somebody on my Facebook page (6.00 / 2)

called them "Republicunts."

I chided him as gently as I could... but wow.

I'm just embarrassed. Now, I call the worst of the worst of the people on the "other side" all manner of names, as we all know -- mostly "fucktardr "douchebag," "asshole" and the like. But it's an angry thing, and I would hope that it's not ever mistaken for a sweeping generalisation meant to include ALL damned people who vote for ANY Republicans, or hold any conservative viewpoint...

Listen, I'm fucking exasperated. No doubt. But this relentless vitriol -- jesus. First, when you're the MAJORITY? You just look like a total SHITHEAD when you keep up the assault the way some - way too many -- on the "left" (christ, I hate hate HATE this bifurcation) are doing.

Sigh.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 10:35:51 AM CDT

You hate bifurcation? (7.00 / 2)

I've been thinking that I'm bifurcation curious.

DA is The Most Interesting Man in the World. - Karmafish

---

by: devilishadvocate @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 13:59:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

obviously (7.00 / 1)

you're more liberal than Karma in that regard.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 14:07:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oy, oy, oy (7.00 / 2)

That's what I get for reading the comment without checking the parent feature.

Ok, so you're more liberal than Maryscott.  As if.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 14:08:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Republicunts" (6.00 / 2)

Blechchchchchc.

I wonder if the person who used that construction is in any sympathy with feminism?

As for the bifurcation, it's difficult to avoid, I think, but definitely has its problems.

I mean, when we talk about "the left" just who are we talking about?  Everyone left of center?  And, if so, what exactly constitutes the center?

Or do we mean hard-left ideologues?  But, then, just how do we draw that line?

It's a puzzlement.





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 15:02:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's the big deal (7.00 / 1)

It was probably just some Demoprick talking!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 21:36:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ed Encho "friended" me on Facebook, incidentally. (0.00 / 0)

We talked. He's done with WildWildLeft and Diane, and apologised for everything nasty that went down between us and with MLW.

I'll leave it to him to speak for himself here, if he wishes; I simmply told him that I am not one to hold grudges when someone holds out an olive branch sincerely, which is true. My wounds have healed, and h think (cannot remember precisely) he said he got really sickened by the direction things took at WWL and in his own behaviour vis a vis Israel/Jews... but like I said -- it's not my place to speak for him.

He said he's done with blogging and politics for the time being, so I don't expect to see him around the blogs for a while. Just thought I should convey the gist.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 16:16:18 PM CDT

Thank you n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

RE: Ed Encho on Facebook (8.33 / 3)

Thank you MaryScott, as you kindkly offered, I will speak for myself.

In taking a break from it all I had an opportunity to reflect on some of what I had been a part of during my time in the blogosphere and specifically here at MLW. It takes some doing to recognize that one has been mistaken in some of his behavior and what I became a part of here during the ugliness of the past has in my opinion done nothing other than aggravate what is becoming a very dangerous situation in this country today.

Hell, I was over the top on so many things, Ed Encho was a monster that needed to be fed and my diet of choice was more outrage, upping the rhetoric and working as closely to the anti-Semite strike zone as possible without actually going over it. A lot of good all that did and all that it caused was more hurt and allowed for the rise of the fascists to become easier because we were fighting amongst ourselves.

So in reaching out to mend fences I am sincere, I would offer up a suggestion that ALL of us would do well to bury the hatchet once and for all. Life is too short folks.

Thank you MaryScott for moving on as far as our past goes.

I do want to offer up a bit of a clarification though regarding Diane and the WWL gang. We split up due to creative differences as well as out of both of our recognition that my posts and comments were too often doing more harm than good. Diane rightfully censored a comment where I mused about nuking Tel Aviv as a pragmatic and preemptive way to prevent WW III. It caused much outrage with the people there and Diane is very sensitive to the problems caused by any sort of over the line commentary that would only serve to feed into the agendas of those who traffic in anti-Semitic outrage which is too often bogus and politically expedient. That such language is often open to being construed as anti-Semitic only serves to downplay REAL anti-Semitism and also reinforces prejudices against those who are Zionist Jews who seek a peaceful solution to the horrors in the Middle East rather than the neocon bomb em all and let Jesus come back solution...and then the Jews can all convert or die.

I certainly didn't want to give an impression that I was ending the collaboration due to WWL's radical ideas and anti-Semitism, on the contrary, it was I who crossed the line there just as I did here at MLW and it became a situation where a mutual parting of the ways was necessary. It's a shame that there can't be any sort of a serious and honest examination at how engaging in diatribes only serve as more gasoline on the fire that is now about to consume America. The racism in this country is so overt at this time of economic ruination that those of us who feed into it will have just as much blood on our hands when it runs in the streets.

My comment about being "sickened" by my role in things were directed at the ugliness here at MLW NOT WWL, I also apologize for the deletion of my posts as I did not know it would potentially fuck up the programming code.

I just wanted to comment, you won't see me here often as I have moved on to other things.

In parting, I can only say that we all need to work to make the lives of all people better and the world a safer place by being willing to admit our past wrongs and by offering and accepting that olive branch whenever it is offered.

As Dylan once sang, we have to learn to "swallow our pride, it's not poison"

Thanks

Just my two cents

EE

---

by: EdEncho @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 10:37:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ED (0.00 / 0)

You're a mensch for this!  And i mean that in the sense of "stand up human being."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:03:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you, Ed (6.00 / 1)

And I apologise for the misrepresentation.

I really should KEEP my Private Messages at Facebook... but damn, that would create such a fucking backlog... Still, considering my terrible memory.

Anyway -- I really appreciate your coming back to straighten out everythig -- including my comment here -- but especially the past.

You are welcome back, even if you don't come back for a long time because you want a break. I get THAT, I reeally do. Hell, I've been on mostly hiatus for going on 2 years, now. Don't feel like writing a WORD about politics -- in essay form, anyway.


--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:22:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The president is with you, karma (5.00 / 1)

Today on the view, commenting on the Sherrod incident, Obama said:

Part of the lesson I want everybody to draw is, lets not assume the worst of other people, let's assume the best; let's make sure that we get the facts straight before we act.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:45:09 PM CDT

What?!? (10.00 / 1)

(Can't resist department)

Heyt, man, why do ya gotta demonize us for demonizing?  What is your demonizing going to get?

It makes us feel bad to be demonized so.

I feel like Jefferey on the intel commercial.  You mean this blog is not the greatest thing ever developed in blogdom?

OOOP! OOOuh.  OOOOOOh.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:50:09 PM CDT

Right now... (7.43 / 7)

A really good friend and a damn fine human being is seeing taliban on the roof of Kohl's.  My daughter is having a seriously tough time dealing with her dad being in a war zone again.  Our tiny fort had a couple dozen dead soldiers and probably hundreds of soldiers with PTSD.  There's a 19 year old and her 8 month old baby who are dead because of PTSD.  That's the fucking tip of the fucking iceberg.

Then there are my friends who can't marry.  My family and friends who can't go to the doctor.  The guy who was ready to leave the military and join his uncle's charter boat business in the Gulf, and now has no chance to follow his dream.

So it should be really fucking obvious why I have no intention at all within the foreseeable future to stop demonizing those who have totally fucked up so many people's lives.  

I think Glenn Beck is an idiot and I can't stand to watch him.  I also cannot watch Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel.  I don't read books by right wing politicians because I think they are a waste of paper, but I also refuse to read any murder mystery that features a cat.  I hate cats.  My son is getting a cat, and I will like that cat, but still, if you ask me, I will still hate cats.  

I am not logical, I am not reasonable, I am not cutting anyone any slack and I am not willing to think that Boehner is just misunderstood.  I don't have that luxury right now.  

When I am stressed -- and the last eight months have been most ridiculously hellish, hellish to the point where every single morning is not the first day of the rest of my life but simply another chance for things to just go wrong -- I am belligerent and angry and confrontational and completely unwilling to see anyone else's side.

Which is a really long way of saying that while you may think that various people are just being stupid by dehumanizing those on the other sides, you don't have a fucking clue what is going on in their lives and why they might have come to the conclusion that it is perfectly reasonable to cheer when the breaking news is that Cheney has had another surgery on his heart, and one that looks from the outside to suggest that he is not particularly long for this earth.  (And though we do not fly a flag ever, I will fly a flag at full mast the day that bastard is buried.)

I will not stop demonizing people who piss me off.  I will not stop assuming the worst of pretty much every politician who has an R after his name.  I will continue to be very angry at those who feel the need to tell me all about their lord and savior Jesus Christ.  I am an angry and belligerent human being right now, with damn good reason.


Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 20:53:47 PM CDT

You know, Joools (0.00 / 1)

This is why i always liked you.  You say what you think.

You don't have to stop whatever it is you do with people on the right, but you perhaps should at least understand when they do the same thing toward people on the left  using the same justifications.

I have a little, tiny understanding of your frustration with the war.  My daughter's "lovah" (thanks, DA) is living with us now.  After three tours, he is suffering from PTSD.  He was getting help from the Army.  But then they discharged him.
Thing is, he never got his official discharge papers.  Seems someone in Obama's army found a reference to "2014" on his enlistment papers, and it is being held up.  He can't get any help from the army anymore, and he is not eligible for VA help.  And he can't get any money for help in the civilian sector.  And because of his limbo status, he is unemployable.

You will understand, then, that he is just irrationally angry, PTSD style, with Obama for fucking up his life.


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 21:48:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know what?. (7.50 / 2)

I wrote an answer to you and then deleted it, because I don't want to talk to you.  You want to pick apart my argument and show me where I am wrong, and how I have to agree that the right are justifiably angry, and bullshit bullshit bullshit.

I don't want to debate this shit with you.  I am not going to.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:08:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good, Joools (0.00 / 0)

There is nothing to debate.

I didn't say you had to do anything, and I CERTAINLY did NOT say that the right are justifiably angry nor ask you to agree with that.

I agree with puzzled, and my example of my daughter's "lovah" was meant to show that.  I am sorry that your life has been so stressful.  I can have only a small understanding of how stressful that is.  You, my daughter's lovah,  and everyone else have a right to their emotions, to feel anything.

I hope everything turns out well for you.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:15:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, everyone has a right to feel however they want. (7.50 / 2)

Doesn't mean that I have to listen to their bullshit or care about them, or concede that they might have a point.  Fuck every single goddamn person who does not agree with me.  Just for now.  I will get over it, probably, but for now, I just don't care.  If I think somebody is on the wrong side of an issue, then fuck them.  

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:19:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK by me, Joools n/t (0.00 / 0)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:21:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

fuck, Joools (7.00 / 2)

I'm sorry your life has been such stressful suckage.  You have every right to be angry and confrontational.  Hell, I'm surprised you haven't whiffle-batted every moose in Alaska to a bloody pulp.

But the cat-hating is just wrong.

I'll pray for you to be delivered from your sin.  ;-D

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 21:48:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

no way. (7.20 / 5)

Cats are wrong and evil and stupid.  I will go to my grave hating them.

However, yesterday (I think it was yesterday.  I got up at 5 am to fly back to Anchorage, and somewhere over Canada I lost all track of time and space.) I was driving my son back to his hot and tiny apartment in Minneapolis and saw two or three dead cats on the highway -- two or three because I was driving fast because my Dad's car can move and he won't make me pay if i get a speeding ticket, and because a couple of the roadkill were fairly unidentifiable, and I felt very sad for them and their misguided owners.

Today I picked my dogs up from the kennel and let them out to pee.  Mojo took a stand and peed for a long time...Abe wandered by and decided to mark where Moj peed, except Mojo was still peeing, so he accidentally peed on Mojo's leg.  Just lifted his leg and used Moj's leg as a fire hydrant.  Mojo, BTW, didn't EVEN NOTICE.

See?  Dogs are far more entertaining.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:16:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right the Fuck On, Joools! (7.00 / 2)

That was a righteous rant, for sure.

But, what can I say?

I am opposed to the demonization or dehumanization of other people for reasons that have to do with both history and my personal family history.

But you are mighty pissed-off and I will not judge your anger.

Cheers!

{And drop by more often, dammit.}





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 00:06:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is for you Joools (9.67 / 3)

I am with you, you have every right to be royally pissed, the one thing I don't agree with is Cheney I what him in jail not dead.  

This is a small bit of satisfaction...

House Republicans late Thursday were able to corral enough votes to defeat a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks.

In the process, they set off a host of fiery speeches and denunciations from their Democratic colleagues and produced a veritable YouTube moment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose district includes many of the affected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 14:20:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

that was awesome (9.00 / 3)

God, if we had 100 more like him, something might actually get done.  It's about time somebody called the Republicans out on their crap, and he chose a very opportune moment to do so.


Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 14:59:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was awesome. (7.50 / 2)

I saw Claire McCaskill getting cranky at somebody yesterday too, I love the righteous indignation.  Somebody standing up and shouting about something they (actually) believe in.

Unlike the current crop of Republicans in DC, who seem to stand up and shout about whatever their focus groups and polls and strategists think will get them votes.

In other news, the Blue Angels are in town for the air show this weekend and I have been totally enjoying their practices.  Unfortunately they are expecting 170,000 people to show up over the two days and my kids are too uninterested to be willing to deal with the hassles of getting there, so I guess I will be resigned to continue watching from afar.

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 17:59:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey (10.00 / 3)

that's my pal Kathleen.  Got a new dog, did I tell you?  It's a Plott Hound. Fucker is fast.  Anyway, nice to see you.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 18:44:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am so happy (9.50 / 2)

for you Phil you should never be without a buddy by your side!

Pic PLEASE!

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 21:24:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That was a great moment (0.00 / 0)

If only the Democrats had allowed it to come to a straight up or down vote.  It would have passed.

Instead, the Democrats' attempt to exclude the Republicans led to this aid not yet getting to those who deserve it for now.

It should be noted that the object of Wiener's wrath, Rep. King, the "gentleman" he kept telling to sit down, was an original co-sponsor of the bill, as was Wiener, and voted "aye" on it.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:14:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* (6.00 / 3)

No. Don't even try that equivalence.

Show me the kind of rhetoric you're talking about. From everything I've seen, the anger from the left towards the right is completely and utterly justified.

There is NOTHING on the left that even remotely resembles the evil on the right.

I don't care if saying this alienates them; they need to hear it. They need to OWN it.

I'm not saying everyone on the right is evil, but where there are concentrations of right-wing ideology, there are concentrations of evil, hatred, and selfishness; where there are concentrations of left-wing ideology, you get dangerous levels of tree-hugging and Gaia worship. Not quite the same level of threat.

Innocent, well-meaning church folk are only innocent so long as they don't go along with the hateful rhetoric of their leaders. Liberals are tolerant of divergent views -- but it's one thing to tolerate a view when it's ranting on a street corner, and quite another when it's beating you up and taking your lunch money... or just killing people because they look too gay or because they perform abortions.

How about this -- try to find anyone on the left threatening anyone on the right with violence because of differences in belief or lifestyle.

Now try to find anyone on the right telling their brethren or their followers that they should live and let live.

---

by: woozle @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 21:03:43 PM CDT

It's like Anderson Cooper (6.60 / 5)

explaining away the Breitbart smear of Shirley Sherrod, by blithely saying, "both sides do it."

Yeah, not so much.  Yeah, I'll admit the blogosphere savaged Sarah Palin in some extremely un-pretty ways when McCain first named her to the ticket, but for the most part, we don't go in for the kind of baseless character assassination that so many on the right seem to traffic in.  And there's a big difference between you or I snarking on Sarah and the kind of willful destruction engaged in by the right-wingers who are paid, and paid well by Fox et al.

Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 21:40:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cooper (0.00 / 0)

Was that "explaining it away" or simply a statement of fact?  "Both sides do it" does not mean that one approves of it.  It also makes no counting of who does it "more."

Today, I caught a little clip which said that someone had said that the Arizona law was the same as or equivalent to he Japanese internment camp law.  I have no idea who said this.  But it is pretty crazy, and my bet is that it isn't somebody on the right.

And Shirley Sherrod herself said, in a Media Matters Interview,

They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday," she said of Fox. "I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person."

Besides being just factually incorrect, this is pretty crazy.  But my bet is that the left wing will be no better in recognizing just how crazy this is than the right wing is at recognizing their craziness.

Are we here offering a variation of the old "they do it, too" justification, with the additional switch of "and they do it more?"  Is that what makes it all right?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 22:09:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

woozle, (0.00 / 0)

I'm not entirely sure that I get your point.

My suggestion is simply that we stop demonizing and dehumanizing our political opponents and that American liberals and American conservatives are both part of the political tradition of regulatory capitalism.

I also wish to suggest that political dehumanization has not worked out well in recent history.

It honestly sucked in the middle of twentieth century Europe, for example.

40 million dead?  50 million, maybe?

My family was lined up and shot.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 00:26:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

My point is that you're making a false accusation against liberals.

I'll reiterate my request: what "demonizing and dehumanizing" are you referring to? (And "have you stopped beating your wife?")

I can't speak for other commentators, but to the extent that I demonize people on the right, I'm pretty damn sure they deserve it -- and the people who follow them need to know this, in no uncertain terms.

If you can show me examples of unwarranted demonization coming from the left, I will join you in condemning them -- but I'm just not seeing it.

Your last 3 sentences sound like Ben Stein complaining about "the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed." Troll much?

---

by: woozle @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 07:37:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi woozle, (0.00 / 0)

what can I say?

If you do not see demonization of conservatives coming out of the left than you don't see it.

I could dig up some stuff easily enough.

Heck, all one needs to do is scan the recent Glenn Beck thread to see some pretty nasty commentary concerning that guy.

But the truth is, it's not my job to protect conservatives.  

And, ya know what?  I probably shouldn't have mentioned what happened to my father's side of the family.  It's not really appropriate I think.

The reason that I mentioned it is because I am of the firm conviction that demonization creates hatred and thus leads to violence.

Peace to you, please.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 12:13:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thing is, Karma... (9.00 / 3)

I was raised in Minnesota by Norwegian Lutherans.  We have an insanely strong belief that what other people do is none of our business AND that what we do is absolutely none of theirs.  Which means that whether or not I believe abortion is murder, for example, I will not force that belief on others.  It will only impact my own actions.

But those fundie assholes on the right and some R politicians and some conservatives think that because they are uncomfortable with gay sex, no one should be allowed to fuck that way, that because they believe abortion is murder no one should be allowed to have one, that because they have a thing for Jesus everyone must hear about him all the goddamn time.  And if you concede these points, suddenly we are all straight and pregnant (but only by the missionary position, and only men enjoy the sex) and being born again.

So by calling Sarah Palin out when she talks about how she CHOSE to stay pregnant but wants to strip that choice from every other woman in the world seems reasonable to me.  

Lately I feel that there is not a single Republican politician that I think is authentic.  There isn't a single one who says a goddamn thing that they mean.  Every single position they take is simply for political reasons.  Totally and absolutely for something today, vilifying tomorrow for political expediency.

I hate that shit.  I hate people who tell me what they think I want to hear.  I hate people who are so willing to toss what they truly believe overboard for political or personal gain.  

So how can I be bothered to try to see their side of things, or concede that they are not complete pooheads, or agree that their way might be better for Americans?

Obama 2012.  Because he didn't piss off enough people the first time around.

---

by: Joools @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 13:54:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yup. (10.00 / 1)

Y'know, Joools, I love meta and the reason that I love meta is because I see it as micro-politics, politics writ small.

Politics, if it means anything, is about human interaction.  How we relate to one another as human beings.

And while there is a lot of justifiable anger at the right, I just don't have it in me anymore.

I gave it up for Lent!

:O)

That's partly due to the fact that I simply do not expect much of anything from the right-wing.

In truth, when I do get angry, it's normally at the left, but that's because I come out of the left and, given their ideals, I tend to expect more from them.

Cheers!




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 15:44:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

argument fail (0.00 / 0)

Karma, you're bluffing. You want me to think you have tons of evidence  when in fact you have none and can find none.

You lose. Unless I see evidence, I will continue to believe you are bluffing. (Is this the Glenn Beck thread to which you refer? I see no abuse.)

Anything anyone says about Glenn Beck -- short of actual threats or incitement to physical harm, of course -- he probably has earned, as a public figure who lies freely about important issues whilst being paid a king's ransom* and being taken as authoritative by an alarming percentage of Americans.

(*or, in more modern terms, enough to keep a thousand mere mortals happily employed.)

But still, if you feel he is being unfairly criticized, give an example and explain why it is unfair. We can debate about that.

We can't debate about examples that are only in your head.

I will agree that demonization is evil -- but it's just not something that any liberal I am aware of, or anyone widely respected by the Left, is guilty of. It's inconsistent with basic liberal principles -- but entirely consistent with far-Right values.

---

by: woozle @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 16:32:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You honestly believe that the (0.00 / 0)

left is morally pristine, huh?

Amazing.

I had (2.00 / 1)
a father, you are not fit to lick his boots.  You may refer to your own spawn as "son" nobody else.

Refering to someone's children as "spawn" is demeaning and dehumanizing.

Go fuck yourself douche bag (0.00 / 0)
Clear enough for you?

Calling someone a "douchebag" is also demeaning and dehumanizing.

I could literally find thousands of such quotes on this site alone, and fuggedabout Daily Kos.

So don't give me this garbage that the left doesn't engage in dehumanizing speech.

The truth is, particularly when it comes to a particular tiny country on the edge of the Mediterranean, many on the left dehumanize and demonize on a daily basis.

In fact, they repeat just the kind of crap that ends up getting people killed.





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 16:48:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is "Demonizing", that we may know it? (0.00 / 0)

I'd call those examples "rudeness" -- a far cry from "demonizing".

Let's take a look at this for a second. I'd never really thought deeply about the difference between "demonizing" and other forms of abuse; it was always on an intuitive level. It's good that you've brought this up, because this kind of dialogue is at its best when we ask previously unasked questions.

Wikipedia only touches lightly on the modern usage, saying that "the term demonization is used metaphorically to refer to propaganda  or moral panic directed against any individual or group."

That's actually drawing the line more restrictively than I would; it implies that demonization is by nature a coordinated effort, not an individual initiative.

I would loosen that restriction a bit to say that "demonization" can be applied to the actions of an individual within the context of a dialogue. If, for example, I tried -- without producing any substantially valid evidence -- to convince other readers here that you were not just wrong but actually a threat which needed some sort of corrective action, I think it would be fair to say that I was demonizing you in the comments section of My Left Wing.

So what are the key attributes which distinguish demonization from other forms of verbal abuse?

I suggest the following are relevant:

1. emotional manipulation substituted for sound reasoning
2. erroneous premises asserted as fact
3. target portrayed as a major threat, against which retributive action is needed by others
4. existing law is seen as inadequate for dealing proper retribution

I'd say if you've got #3 and #4 combined with either #1 or #2, you've got demonization; otherwise, no.

(There are some edge cases, like the LDS/Catholic campaign against gays which led to the passage of Prop. 8 -- I'd argue that this was demonization even though the retribution sought was entirely through legal channels.)

Your two quotes might qualify for #1, and that's about it.

Now let's look at the receiving end. Demonization is more of a problem than other forms of verbal abuse because, as you say, it leads to more physical abuse -- a small number of people in privileged positions (talk show hosts, politicians, widely-read pundits) can convince a large number of people that some form of retribution is necessary -- leading a number small in percentage but large in absolute numbers to actually attempt to violently carry out said retribution -- while remaining apparently completely unaccountable for the twists of logic and fact necessary to carry this out.

We certainly have plenty of recent examples of Right-wing ideology leading to violent retribution. The numbers of gay/trans murders are legion, just for starters. Then there are the handful of abortion clinic murders -- which are tiny, yes, but they are the iceberg-tip for a much larger number of threats, vandalisms, and other non-fatal violence and threats -- terrorism -- perpetrated by the Right upon the rest of society.

Has anyone ever been actually hurt by anyone using liberal principles, claims, or arguments to justify their actions? How about threats issued in the name of liberal tropes?

The only example that comes to my mind is the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski -- and there's no way he was incited to do what he did by, say, radical left-wing radio talk-show hosts, or the fanatical rhetoric of John Muir, John James Audubon, or the Branch Sierrans.

Greenpeace arguably crosses the line of decency sometimes -- but their targets are hardly defenseless, and the action is taken by Greenpeacers themselves (not by mobs of the mistakenly-enraged) so it's really hard to qualify it as demonization. In any case, I don't think this is who you're talking about.... and to the best of my knowledge, no individuals have ever been harmed by action:
* against Greenpeace's chosen targets and
* taken by 3rd parties who justified such actions using arguments made by Greenpeace.

PETA also gets pretty fanatical, and arguably demonizes those who wear fur and eat meat -- but they don't demonize the Right in general. I'd argue that their ideology isn't liberal, either... but I probably don't need to, as I don't think they're the ones you're talking about. (If you are, then I agree: they cause more harm than good, and we can argue about whether liberal ideology should be considered culpable for their actions.)

So... sorry, thanks for playing, but no, you still have not produced any evidence of demonizing, or even "accusing the right of the most heinous shit possible".

The leaders on the Right, with very few exceptions, are in fact "fascistic, evil, warmongers" who are behaving inhumanly -- but I don't think it's possible to use liberal principles to argue that they should be physically harmed via extrajudicial means or that they need to be "taught a lesson". We might say such things in anger about Bush or Cheney or Rove or  Limbaugh or Beck or Coulter or Palin, but does this really represent a threat to any of them? Is it truly unjustified?

Would we say such things about a random person who happens to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or voted for McCain, or voted for Prop 8? That would be crossing the line, and I don't think we would.

So, there's the playing field as I see it. Feel free to offer corrections to the rules, or show me where liberals have run afoul of them.

In the absence of either, your claim continues to fail.

---

by: woozle @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:36:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

woozle (0.00 / 0)

Would you be happier if karma were to substitute, perhaps, "gratuitous insults" for "demonization?"  I don't think his point depends on any particular characterization of that particular word.  He is describing a behaviour that diminishes rational argument.

You say:

I suggest the following are relevant:

1. emotional manipulation substituted for sound reasoning
2. erroneous premises asserted as fact
3. target portrayed as a major threat, against which retributive action is needed by others
4. existing law is seen as inadequate for dealing proper retribution

Nice point.  but I think it is too fine.  I would say that if any one or more of these four bullets is present, and is used outside the specific argument negatively in ad hominem or, I guess, ad groupem fashion, then you have demonization.

Thus, the question of whether Beck was right to say that Sherrod should not have been fired based on the Breitbart tapes is relatively answered with only a 'yes' or 'no.'  And perhaps an explanation of one's reasoning.  An answer like, "Beck is crazy and needs to be locked upo for crimes against humanity" is demonization of the kind karma is talking about.  Use another word if you like, but clearly this meets the criteria.

Likiewise, "Of course Beck is right.  He is God's messenger on earth, and we should always take what he says as truth" would be as grave an error, call it, perhaps, "angelicization."

Of course karma can think for himself, but I think he is talking about tone and arguments directed not to the matter at hand, but to the person or group in a gratuitously negative way.

Let me put this here so you don't have to scroll:

Part of the lesson I want everybody to draw [from the Sherrod incident] is, lets not assume the worst of other people, let's assume the best; let's make sure that we get the facts straight before we act.

How would you respond to this?  Would it make any difference according to who said it?  How is this lesson different from the one you'd propose drawing for the Sherrod incident?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 21:01:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by "dehumanizing", did Karma mean "gratuitously insulting"? (0.00 / 0)

I don't think an accusation of mere rudeness -- "gratuitous insults" being a type thereof -- is consistent with what Karma was saying.

The left constantly accuses the right of being fascistic, evil, warmongers.  Inhuman monsters.  These church-going neighbors of yours, who want, like you, to build a decent life for themselves and their children, are demeaned and dehumanized and rhetorically spat upon by the left.  It's disgusting.  It's revolting.  And it undermines the integrity of your political positions, as well as the integrity of the progressive movement.

There are actually multiple claims here:

1. The left accuses the right of being fascistic, evil warmongers.
2. The left accuses the right of being inhuman monsters.
3. The left attacks their basically decent churchgoing neighbors, demeaning and dehumanizing and rhetorically spitting upon them.
4. All of the above undermines the integrity of political positions taken by the left.

I've been responding mainly to #2 and #3, but let me be more specific about my responses to each of these points:

1.

(Short) Yes, they do, because they are.

(Longer) We are mainly referring to the leaders, but the followers need to understand what they are supporting when they support right-wing leaders -- and yes, we accuse the right of being fascistic, evil warmongers because the most vocal and powerful among the Republicans are just that.

If you, followers, want not to be lumped in with these evil, war-profiteering lying bastards, then:
- stop voting for them
- stop defending them when they don't deserve it
- stop echoing their lying bastard talking-points
- stop giving them carte-blanche just because you think they are on the Side of Virtue
- learn to think skeptically and argue rationally

2.

Dunno about this. If we've been doing this, we at least need to see what you're talking about so we can stop doing it. The examples Karma cited...

example 1:

You may refer to your own spawn as "son" nobody else.

I'd call that right on the edge. We call our own kids "spawn" all the time, and joke about our friends' "spawn"; it's all in the context.

The context is that this was rich1107 replying to Madscientist. Is rich1107 The Left? Is Madscientist The Right? By what token is Karma implying that this is an example of The Left attacking The Right?

Also... if it's "dehumanizing", it's definitely Dehumanizing Lite™. The word "dehumanizing", when used as a strong accusation, brings to mind images more along the line of Nazi Death Camps -- an example comparable to one which Karma originally cited, before conceding that this was perhaps excessive -- so I hope you'll understand why I squint kinda funny when asked to accept that one person calling another's kids "spawn", to that person's face in the presence of a relatively small audience, is "dehumanizing".

example 2:

Go fuck yourself douche bag. Clear enough for you?

No, that's just rude, not dehumanizing. That's "get outta my face and don't talk to me anymore".

An answer like, "Beck is crazy and needs to be locked up for crimes against humanity" is demonization of the kind karma is talking about.  Use another word if you like, but clearly this meets the criteria.

Yes, that would be demonizing and/or dehumanizing (Lite). Who said it?

I would just say that Beck is crazy and should be taken off the air, and the $50 million he gets every year could be used to do some good instead of being used to promote diseducation.

3.
...is what I've been asking for examples of, and haven't yet gotten any (see #2).

4.
Yes, the activity of which Karma accuses the Left would weaken the Left's position if it was a substantial part of how the Left engages with the Right. I don't think a sprinkling of rude comments in a small forum like this qualify, however.

If you want to address the question of how to deal with individual rudeness, that's something

In response to your question:

Part of the lesson I want everybody to draw [from the Sherrod incident] is, lets not assume the worst of other people, let's assume the best; let's make sure that we get the facts straight before we act.

How would you respond to this?  Would it make any difference according to who said it?  How is this lesson different from the one you'd propose drawing for the Sherrod incident?

I totally agree with the quote, and that should not depend on who is saying it. If it can be shown that I'm objecting solely on that basis, then I can rightly be called out for doing so.

However, I might legitimately object on the basis of what further conclusion the speaker is attempting to draw or imply.

---

by: woozle @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:50:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

two final thoughts (0.00 / 0)

one.

Since when has the Right ever given a shit about whether anyone was being "dehumanized"? ...unless it was them, of course.

Objecting to an attack on someone else because it is "dehumanizing" is, at its core, a liberal argument.

This is the difference between liberals and "conservatives": we give a shit about people outside our tribe, or at least try to.

When people outside our tribe start attacking us and trying to destroy our way of life and the hard-won freedoms we've gained (for everyone, not just us!) over the decades and centuries, however, it seems a bit disingenuous to complain about "dehumanization" or "demonization" when we call those people some rather strong names.

I do hope you will pardon me if I contemptuously dismiss the whole "liberals do it too, so they're just as bad" argument with the perhaps-overused and somewhat coarse phrase "Fuck that shit."

two.

More importantly, it seems to me there are two legitimate targets you could choose to criticize:

1. liberal ideology/values
2. individual behavior

You have not attacked either of these. Instead, you have created an undefined group called "liberals", then used the behavior of one or two individuals whom you have assigned to that group as a means of condemning that group -- implicitly damning the ideology without actually naming any legitimate charges against it!

Keith Olbermann's rage is as nothing compared to mine.

---

by: woozle @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 10:21:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey fuckface, (0.00 / 0)

referring to someone as "son" when you have no such relationship is demeaning and dehumanizing in my book.

When you act like a douche bag I am going to tell you to go fuck yourself.  These are expressions of anger and frustration directed at you personally by me.  I would have no hesitation to the same in person to your face.  Don't like that?  Don't act like a douche bag and it all goes away.

---

by: rich1107 @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 21:12:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich (0.00 / 0)

I apologize for using that term. I was wrong.  I didn't expect it to have such an impact.  you don't seem like the sensitive type to me.

Where i come from, up in the mountains, this is a common form of address with no particular meaning.  The only time it can't be used is with women, or by children when referring to adults.

What do you think of this:

Part of the lesson I want everybody to draw [from the Sherrod incident] is, lets not assume the worst of other people, let's assume the best; let's make sure that we get the facts straight before we act.

Anbd, since you have apparently not understood the question, let me repeat:  why do most of your arguments consist of ad hominem fallacies?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 22:15:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for (10.00 / 1)

understanding and the gracious apology.  I offer the same for offending you.

I think I have explained that in my opinion there are no "bad words" -- ehtnic abuse words and phrases aside -- but the the words on George Carlin's list, for example, are just words, like blue or extremely, etc. that help us express out feelings.

Our discussion started by me trying to introduce another fact regarding Beck's position.  You do have to admit Beck on a site called My Left Wing can hardly be expected to be welcomed with open arms.  The fact that is is tolerated at all gives the lie to the left being just as bad as the right;)

Anyway, I am sure we will continue to disagree; it would be boring if we didn't;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 22:39:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, rich (0.00 / 0)

for this.

I wasn't expecting or asking for Beck to be welcomed.

I was expecting agreement on what he said, that is, "Sherrod should not have been fired on the basis of the Breitbart clip."

That's all.  Everything else was not on point.

I agree with you on the "no bad words" thing.  And I agree that they help us express ourselves.  And i agree with Lehrer about those who use them instead of more precisely expressing themselves in adult terms. I'm not saying anyone is "bad" for using them.

You may remember that the point has been made before, about words on your "bad word" list:

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 23:10:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

errr, (0.00 / 0)

"...And i agree with Lehrer about those who use them instead of more precisely expressing themselves in adult terms. I'm not saying anyone is "bad" for using them"

But you just did...the implication is that one is not an adult if certain words are chosen to express your feelings and opinions;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 00:55:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich (9.00 / 1)

Your inference is that one using them is not an adult.  That's not what i said nor was it what i implied.  And your presupposition is that not being an adult makes one bad.  You know, like your newborn grandchild, who is, I bet, not yet an adult.

There are all kinds of places where such language is useful and proper.  But rational discussion where points must be made with nuance is not one of them.  Comedy, like Lewis Black, is one of them.  there, we let our child out to play.

Now you CAN infer from this that I think it is perfectly ok for adults to release their "inner child" at times.  It's like i told my daughter when she was about three, much to my wife's chagrin, picking one's nose is one of the great pleasures of being a human being, especially in the morning after a great clog has formed.  But it is not a pleasure that we should enjoy in certain social situations.  Then we discussed some social situations relevant to her life.

Using those words in rational discussions is a bit like picking one's nose.  Notice that today, when Rp. Wiener made an emotional point, he managed to do so without the use of these words.  I still think he was expressive, don't you?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:14:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you wish (0.00 / 0)

to dictate what is acceptable and when?  That has a very bad smell to it;)  It has the smell of holier than thou and control over others.  They are after all oly words not nodse boogers;)

I see no sign here that says this list of words is verboten. If there were I could choose to participate under those rules or not and go elsewhere.

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:22:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, rich (6.00 / 1)

I just said what i believe.  I didn't say anybody had to do anything.

When you are invited to be the guest of the Obama's at the White house, go ahead and pick your nose.  You will not find me among those who criticize you for it.  I'll laugh.  I'll say, "yep, that's rich."

But when you get up to speak, I'll expect comedy, and have a hard time taking what you say seriously.

What I'm saying is that if one wants to be taken seriously, it helps to speak in a serious manner, like an adult.  Not like a parent (say, scolding) or like a child (using naughty or tantrum words).

Nobody, I hope, wants to be in the adult stance all the time.  We all want to play.  And we all tend to get our pointer in the air at times, scolding.  Sometimes, although rarely, that might even be appropriate.

But you know, rich, scolding other adults is just as inappropriate, more so, in fact, than calling them son, when you aren't their parent.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:50:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mad, (0.00 / 0)

I am shocked at the animosity that comes from a call for not dehumanizing people.

It's amazing.

My argument, simply, was that we should avoid it and that the cries of Fascism! on the left and the cries of Socialism! on the right come from people with the same political philosophy, regulatory capitalism.

This is controversial?

.
.
.

I suppose that it might be, because I am suggesting that we are more alike than not.

If I am right, than what a shame.

How sad is that?

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 00:41:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

From a distance (0.00 / 0)

all pools of water seem pretty similar.  Then you get closer and discover one is the effluent from  a cesspool and the other is a swimming pool.  I don't think you can call me a fool for despising the one and jumping into the other;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 00:48:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Gee, rich (0.00 / 0)

Which wold you choose?

For someone with a microbiology background, guess which one would be more interesting?

Why "despise" either.  Both are a part of our world, a part of our nature?  Why would  one be the object of hate?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:03:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

so you would prefer to swim in the sewage?

My point was an attempt to explain that from 100,000 feet all US politics can be generally classified as regulatory capitalism (Although if our tea baggers are to believed that might be a stretch;)

There are real and meaningful differences within that broad classification.  People's lives are literally at stake - the perpetual war desired by the neocons.  Which in turn takes food out people mouths among a host of other negatives.  It is not like a choice of what shirt to where that carries no real consequences.  It really matters.

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:15:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich (0.00 / 0)

I didn;'t say that, did I?  It's a matter of what one's purpose is.  Thre guy across the street works in a sewage treatment plant.  He's around sewage 8 hours a day.  We often discuss the wonders of sewage.

People's lives are literally at stake

Yes, it is really serious.  That's why those on the right are so frightened and serious.  they think that your way will cost dearly, in lives and mouths fed, along with other important ways.

Like you , they think they have the answer.  and sometimes they swear just like you.  Sometimes they demonize others just like you.

The problem isn't the people on the left or the right, it is what keeps people apart.  It is refusing to see that no one has TH right answer, and that anyone who disagrees is evil.

Ultimately, it is making the mistake of thinking either that one speaks directly to and for God, or is God, and is ultimately the possessor of the right answer.

I've met zillions of people with that attitude, and they teem like an algae bloom on political blogs, sucking all the oxygen of rationality out of the air.

Thing is, I've never met God, especially on political blogs, just those who act like they think they are God.

For me, wherever i am, whatever people think, I will continue to offer other ideas, other points of view. it's a bit like taking someone's baby blanket away.  They often swear!

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:59:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, karma (11.00 / 1)

I was kind of shocked at first, also.  But I think everyone has been honest.

Some think that they are just better than anyone who could disagree with them, and that anyone who disagrees with them is thereby shown to be a lesser human being, if human at all.  it feeds their sense of superiority, or "right5eousness," to use a word from the religious lexicon, as someone did above.

Others just seem to get off on it.

Others have the childish attitude that they have every right to throw tantrums.

Others are so fond of this that they have delivered elaborate intellectualizations to defend their right to demonize.  They remind me of serial killers:  "I wouldn't call it killing at all.  I had to teach those whores a lesson.  If anything, I probably saved women by scaring them out of the sordid occupation."

I've been thinking lately, and in reading your essay here, about "Urthwalker," who posted here a while back.  On his blog, he explained why he was discontinuing a regular feature that amny had enjoyed:

I know many of you have emailed how much you enjoy the 'Teabonics' flickr stream running on the right-hand side of the site, but I think it has run its course.  Besides the fact that it is becoming repetitive, it's also a bit mean-spirited for my taste.  When someone is behaving like a regressive racist, I know how satisfying it can be to laugh at their public displays of grammatical creativity.  But poking fun does little but enhance our own false sense of superiority while solidifying the in-group/out-group dynamic so antithetical to rationality.  Whatever catharsis we gain by discounting an entire sub-culture over a handful of individuals comes at the expense of progress.

Maybe it just comes down to our taste, our sensitivity, our own inner need to feel superior.  Maybe some people are so invested in what they are doing that they are willing to forego progress.  We all know people who would rather that things stay the same so that they can complain than to have them change for the better.  of course, this has to be a secret project, secret even from themselves, perhaps.

But to me, and we have discussed this many times, "liberal elitism" is or should be an oxymoron, elitism not being consistent with what i see as the better part of liberalism.  To me, this elitism, and its expression in denigrating others who disagree, are just as hypocritical as those Christians, and i am quoting one here, who say, "Yeah, I('m Christian.  And if you come on my property uninvited, I'll blow you away."

Of course, like the liberals in question, he did not hear anything contradictory in what he was saying!  He might as well have said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, we are taught, but if they step on my land, I've got a shotgun for them."  

And he did!

final note, karma:  when i read "in-group/out-group dynamic" in urthwalker's note, I thought of you and "othering."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 01:39:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Karma you may recall (8.00 / 3)

what happened to my family as a direct result of rightspeak, if you take it out of the tubes and right in the airwaves, the hate, go get them it is war speak, is so in your face.....
http://www.myleftwing.com/show...
Rightspeak brought the secret service to my door and a man lost his job of 30 years because after Obama was elected right wing media and tea party speakers fed his rage to point of action.
The secret service told me that the amount of threats against our president are over the top, never been seen before at this level.  Don't you think that Rush, Beck and others don't know this?  So why don't they tap it down a bit, it is because they want people with guns angry, they want people shot.  How could you come to any other conclusion?

I understand what you are saying you expect more from the left. I listen to air america and msnbc and never do they lower themselves to the level of the right.  It is people who don't have an answers that resort to hate speak, inciting violence.

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:33:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

your situation (9.00 / 1)

came immediately to my mind when I read this piece.  

The guy who was on his way to San Francisco a couple of weeks ago to kill people from the ACLU and the Tides Foundation is another case.

No one I know had even heard of the Tides Foundation unless they listen to Glenn Beck, and have been subjected to his screeds demonizing this group, whose mission is:

[S]ustainability, better education, solutions to the AIDS epidemic and human rights.

Yeah, really dangerous stuff.  These people must be stopped at all costs, before they actually help someone.  

The right is inciting people to violence.  The left may be angry, but for the most part we're a pretty peace-loving group.


Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 09:49:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you puzzled (9.00 / 1)

for the link that is an awesome article finally the press is putting it together and starting to shed light.  Glen Beck and others have no shame!

It is a matter of life and death, see the documentary Food INC and vote no to corporate take over of our food every time you buy groceries  

---

by: Kathleen @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 12:13:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi Kath, (6.00 / 1)

yeah, I remember this.

What a scary and terrible episode for you and your family!  And I'm really sorry that you guys had to go through that.  Wow.  Just awful.

Anyway, it does kinda represent an example of what I am talking about.  When we demonize and dehumanize others it can have very ugly real world consequences... just as you went through, yourself.

And I think I find it ironic and awful, in part, because both left and right come out of the same political tradition.

We shouldn't be enemies.

Cheers!





Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 11:31:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't want to answer kathleen directly (0.00 / 0)

But i wonder if the gentleman fired had in his discharge papers as a reason for his firing, "right wing media and tea party speakers fed his rage to point of action. "

Could he have claimed non-culpability for his actions?

She knows that during the anti-Veit Nam war movement, there was also rhetoric.  And some, listening to that rhetoric, killed others and destroyed property.  I she or i got up at some rally and called the administration criminal, and saying that we should do something to get rid of it, are we guilty?

Or are all of us responsible for our own actions?

In your opinion.

The point you make is telling.  There are people who can be prodded by language, even demonizing language.  And if Kathleen wants Limbaugh and aothers to damp it down- I do too- then she should have the same words for those who use similar language about the right in general or Limbaugh and Beck in particular.

At any rate, I'm sure that Beck gets death threats,  Someday he may be offed and the killer might say, "I had to kill him, man, he's crazy and he's spreading lies.  Keith said so."

I certainly hope everyone shows up with the same arguments.

You, karma, are just making the arguments in advance.  Against the rationalizers who say, for instance, "well they do it too," or "they do ore of it," or "it's true when we do it," or "we have justification."

We all feel we have justification when we become poisoned with self-righteousness and hatred.

Understanding for everyone is much more organic.  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:31:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think, woozle (0.00 / 1)

is that those on the right who demponize the lkeft think just like you do:
\

I can't speak for other commentators, but to the extent that I demonize people on the right, I'm pretty damn sure they deserve it -- and the people who follow them need to know this, in no uncertain terms.

Them:

I can't speak for other commentators, but to the extent that I demonize people on the left, I'm pretty damn sure they deserve it -- and the people who follow them need to know this, in no uncertain terms.

Since this trading of insults does absolutely no good, and everyone believes that they are justified in doing it, what exactly is the good of doing it?  We can easily see the harm.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:18:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The difference is... (0.00 / 0)

...that I can explain why I think this, in rational terms, using reality-based facts. Those on the Right cannot.

That's also basically the difference between the Right and Left, as they now stand.

---

by: woozle @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 07:54:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

woozle (11.00 / 1)

Really?  I've been waiting for an example.

I've heard some narratives from you that are just as odious and non-factual as those narratives I hear from the right.

I may right a longer piece to introduce myself, because so far, you haven't come close to guessing what I'm about.  You have correctly lumped me in with those who are not practitioners of your religion, but you seem to have made the mistake of assuming that I practice some other religion, as someone who doesn't practice yours is a heretic and infidel, and therefore evil and to be dismissed with accusation of the most heinous of motives.

Let's for a moment go to the purpose and sense of this diary.  Here is the first statement:

I am so fucking sick to death of the left accusing the right of the most heinous shit possible.

I think we should take karma's words as true, since he is making a statement about his inner self.

I see you, correct me if I am wrong, as someone on the left, and someone who makes accusations against the right of the most heinous shit possible.  I don't see you disagreeing that it happens.  You seem to just justify it.  While saying that unlike you and other liberals, those on the right are not justified.

woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.  I'm more interested in other questions.

Kathleen once explained to me that some people here go over the top in language and accusations because they are frustrated.  That is, they are frustrated that everything doesn't go the way they think it should.  That's understandable.

Betsy, who has an essay up now, once reminded us that anger is based in fear.  That's a nice insight.

So, I am less interested in your rationalizations, and more interested in where the anger comes from.  You know, as i do, that it is ineffective and unhealthy.  that is, it won't accomplish whatever purpose you have, and it will hurt you more than anyone else.  So, while I certainly think your behaviour may have an explanation, I don't see it as rational.

You mentioned that your rage is greater than Olbermann's.  The fact is that i no longer watch Olbermann for the same reason i don't watch Hannity.  To me, they are one and the same.  Both chant straight from their bible, both are dogmatic, and both are vicious.

And i bet that you, as well as Olbermann and Hannity and many others, think that there is one best way to do anything in politics, and you have it.  So you think that the business of politics and political discussion is about winning arguments.  About winning an losing.  And like Olbermann and Hannity, no method is too dirty to use.  I'll bet fallacious ad hominem arguments are one of your favourites.  (Note that such arguments are fallacious even if what you say about someone is true.)

I think politics should be about finding a way to solve practical problems as a group, often a group with widely different opinions about how to go about solving the problem.  In this, politics is like life.

Obama said last year concerning the health care debate:

THE ONE THING I HOPE IS THAT WE
CAN HAVE A CIVIL ARGUMENT ABOUT
IT AND WE ARE ABLE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE GOOD MOTIVES ON BOTH
SIDES.
EVERYBODY'S A PATRIOT.
EACH OF US ARE AMERICANS WHO
CARES DEEPLY ABOUT THIS COUNTRY.

[All caps from the source of the transcript.  Sorry.  this is from "This Week," I believe last October.)

From what you've said, you disagree with Obama on this.  And since he said it during the campaign in general, not just on the matter of health care, it is inconceivable that you voted for him.

As someone wrote just after he was elected:  now we find out if we deserve him.  the him we have to find out if we deserve is the him who wrote these words and the ones I quoted above.

Above, you started a sentence with this clause:

When people outside our tribe start attacking us and trying to destroy our way of life and the hard-won freedoms we've gained (for everyone, not just us!) over the decades and centuries, ...

Here's the thing, woozle.  If you were to show this to people and asked who started a sentence this way, I believe most would say it was the right wingers.  That's where I've heard it from mostly.  It is the fear one hears most on the right.  The left is going to implement policies that will lessen our basic liberties.  That is the fear most powerful on the right, IMNSHO.  After all, the left wants to enact a law that actually forces people to buy something from a private company, sort of an anti-progressive redistribution of the wealth.  Let me repeat that:  FORCE people, under penalty of law, to buy sa product or service offered by private companies.  And this is not like car insurance, where it is a price for the privilege of using the roads.

Do you think it any wonder that people who are afraid that "the other tribe" is going to destroy their way of life and take away their hard one freedoms are a bit upset, and find things like this frightening?

Call them lunatics or war mongers, or anything else.  But if you want them to come around to your view on health care, you have got to take not of this fear and allay it.  Dehumanizing them, demeaning them, calling them names, and s on, will not help.

Of course, i wold and have said the same thing to right wingers.  They should understand, for instance, that some lunatics on the left actually have a fear that there will be a "theocracy" brought in if they get power.

There is no lack of hysterics on either side.

This is the difference between liberals and "conservatives": we give a shit about people outside our tribe, or at least try to.

Nice out with the 'try.'  As we say in therapy, "Children try.  Adults do."  You will excuse me, but I have lived the code of "unconditional positive regard" for most of my life.  Trying was not allowed.  I have known liberals in my life to be understanding of criminals and work for their better treatment.  For the poor.  for people who were the object of injustice.  It seems odd to me that if you can ascribe a tribe as "not sharing my political religion," you can exclude them from what i take to be liberal principles.  Or is yours, "I treat all people as human unless they disagree with me about politics."

Here's the odd thing, woozle.  In working for the chronically mentally ill, I never found liberals to be as interested in helping as Christians, although this is a broad generality.  Liberals were more likely to give money than time.  I have had group homes actually adopted by churches, and our outpatient teams came to depend on church members.

I can't say what their politics were, because i didn't ask.

One more thing...it's hard to stop.  Below you refer to "widespread conservative violence."  It's odd.  Phil says that the left falls into unrealistic narratives, and in your answer, you repeated a few that you hadn't before. Like this one.  Where is the WIDESPREAD violence BY THE RIGHT?  Who is in charge of the right and is calling the shots?

If I went into a prison and asked all those convicted of violent crimes whether they were liberal or conservative, how do you think those who answered would fall?  If I asked all the violent criminals in that prison who they would have voted for in 2008 if they could have voted, do you think it might be the leftist candidate?  Can we reason from this that there is "widespread violence on the left?"

If you get your nose out of your bible, stop chanting with the choir, make an effort to actually see reality rather than trying to see what you believe, you will see something quite different from what you see.  Perhaps you will see that we are all people with good motives, we are all patriots, and that we all care deeply about this country.  And that holding or not holding a particular political religion does not change that.

The reality is that if we believe it, we will see it.  If you want to see reality, you have got to strip away your beliefs.

As Nietzsche said:

Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.

Your fire and brimstone approach belies you as just as fundamentalist as those "fundie" Christians you probably like to demean.

(Someday, if you like, I'll tell you more about myself so you can take pot shots at me.)


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 07:15:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

reply to Madscientist (10.00 / 1)

[woozle] The difference is that I can explain why I think this, in rational terms, using reality-based facts. Those on the Right cannot.

[Madscientist]: woozle -
Really?  I've been waiting for an example.

You never asked... nor did you offer any criteria by which you might be convinced. Am I supposed to assume that one example would satisfy you? Ten? A hundred? If I spent all week, I could probably find a thousand, which surely would suffice (unless you think you have ten thousand counter examples)... what would be enough?

I've heard some narratives from you that are just as odious and non-factual as those narratives I hear from the right.

Look, I think we need to have a little talk here about rationality, and the nature of rational discussion.

"Odious" is a judgement, not a statement of fact.

"Non-factual" is a statement of fact, but not a valid criticism in this context (or, at best, a vague one).

I have made statements which I didn't back up with facts, but I also have made statements which I did back up. Calling my arguments "fact-free" implies that I have not backed up any of my statements (lumping both types in together)...

...and totally side-steps the fact that your proper response, o Most Wise and Impartial One, is to name statements for which you would like to see backing.

You have most carefully avoided doing this, I note.

More to the point: all of my claims, to the best of my knowledge, have been falsifiable. You have made no effort to falsify them.

[karmafish] I am so fucking sick to death of the left accusing the right of the most heinous shit possible.

[madscientist] I think we should take karma's words as true, since he is making a statement about his inner self.

That, my dear Watson, is a very slight variation on a classic faitheist argument against criticizing religion. Do you really want me to answer it? Greater minds than I have long since made short work of it.

woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.

Ten points for every logical fallacy in that argument (and five points for rhetorical manipulations). You go first.

So, I am less interested in your rationalizations, and more interested in where the anger comes from.  You know, as i do, that it is ineffective and unhealthy.  that is, it won't accomplish whatever purpose you have, and it will hurt you more than anyone else.  So, while I certainly think your behaviour may have an explanation, I don't see it as rational.

(Again with the manipulations...)

You don't see it as rational because you refuse to engage it on a rational level -- as I have shown above.

My anger at conservatives comes from the things that they have done. I thought I had made that plain.

Both chant straight from their bible,..

You imply that there is a work of liberal Scripture somewhere. I would very much like to read it.

Another logical fallacy, too... you're not very good at this, are you? Maybe I should give you a points handicap...

And i bet that you, as well as Olbermann and Hannity and many others, think that there is one best way to do anything in politics, and you have it.

I (and, I hope, Olbermann -- but clearly not Hannity, much less Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al.) think political decisions should be made on the basis of rational analysis of available data.

Do you think something different?

So you think that the business of politics and political discussion is about winning arguments.  About winning and losing.

Only when my opponent seems to think that being right is more important than being correct -- that defending your position is more important than finding the truth through questioning and rational discussion of available information.

I'm not sure how else to get you to acknowledge the logical fallacies you're dispensing in the process of accusing me of being irrational.

(There are many more throughout the rest of your writing, but I'll try to pick out the bits that do make sense and respond to them only, rather than getting riled up by your rather obvious attempts at emotional manipulation)

At least I'm proposing an objective way of measuring the validity of our respective arguments (points for each logical fallacy); feel free to suggest an alternative.

And like Olbermann and Hannity, no method is too dirty to use. I'll bet fallacious ad hominem arguments are one of your favourites.

You mean, like the one you just did there?

Mirror much?

[Obama] The one thing I hope is that we can have a civil argument about it and we are able to acknowledge good motives on both sides.  Everybody's a patriot. Each of us are Americans who cares deeply about this country.

From what you've said, you disagree with Obama on this.

No, I think I've made it plain that I agree with him by my continuing attempts to engage with you in a civil way, despite the many names and curse words that came into my head while I've been writing.

I do hope we can, but that does not imply blind faith that this shall be so. There are malign players on both sides, and it would be foolish and naive to pretend otherwise.

(I maintain that the Right is more of a magnet for them than the Left, due to the nature of its ideology, but I don't deny that evil does exist on the Left; I've even given examples.)

Here's the thing, woozle.  If you were to show this to people and asked who started a sentence this way, I believe most would say it was the right wingers.

Yes, I recognize that. Does that make it wrong?

Pop quiz: What is the difference between a valid argument and an invalid one?

After all, the left wants to enact a law that actually forces people to buy something from a private company, sort of an anti-progressive redistribution of the wealth.  Let me repeat that:  FORCE people, under penalty of law, to buy sa product or service offered by private companies.  And this is not like car insurance, where it is a price for the privilege of using the roads.

The Left wanted universal healthcare paid for by taxes. The industry-friendly legislation which actually passed was a compromise with elements ON THE RIGHT, thanks.

Is the Right moving to fix this one objectionable element?

No. They wanted it in there in the first place -- the current legislation basically being a CARBON COPY OF LEGISLATION PROPOSED BY THE GOP UNDER CLINTON -- as an excuse to repeal the whole thing, which is now the major plank in the GOP platform for the next election. Fuckers. Assholes. Dickheads. (...but I mean that in the nicest possible way.)

Call them lunatics or war mongers, or anything else.  But if you want them to come around to your view on health care, you have got to take not of this fear and allay it.  Dehumanizing them, demeaning them, calling them names, and so on, will not help.

You're blurring together two things. There are the leaders on the Right, and there are the followers. I have tried to make it quite clear that I only consider the leaders to be assholes.

The followers are merely asshole-enablers.

They need to know what they're doing.

What method do you suggest? Rational argument with no curse-words has been working so very well for the past 9 years, after all. Liberals get called spineless flip-floppers and cowards because they try to negotiate and they try to be polite.

Fuck that shit. I'm still trying to negotiate -- but still, fuck that shit. I will not be polite if the argument has gone beyond politeness. I will be civil -- but I don't have to be polite.

The Right has lost the privilege of politeness.

They lost it when Bush stripped habeas corpus, and nobody on the Right complained.

They lost it when the Bush administration decided to torture prisoners of war, and their supporters cheered them on.

They lost if when it became clear that Bush had lied, knowingly, in order to get us into Iraq -- and nobody on the Right said a thing.

They lost it when Right-wing pundits declared dissent to be treason, and none of their listeners complained.

They lost it again, when the Tea Party declared dissent to be patriotic again as long as you're criticizing Obama.

They lost it for so very many reasons. I lost count a long, long time ago. If I stopped to do a little research, I could probably come up with pages of this crap, but I'll spare you. (Maybe I shouldn't; you do seem to have conveniently forgotten it.)

Of course, i wold and have said the same thing to right wingers.  They should understand, for instance, that some lunatics on the left actually have a fear that there will be a "theocracy" brought in if they get power.

Call me a loonie, then... oh wait, you already did. You want the evidence?  (Hint: If you want to keep me busy for several hours researching when I should be doing something useful, this is a great way to do it. With luck, I might even be cranky and irritable when I'm done, and thus more likely to rise to your bait... or I might quickly find the evidence I think I'll find, and be insufferably smug. You pays your money and takes your chances...)

As we say in therapy, "Children try.  Adults do."

Therapists quote Yoda now?

I dismiss this claim with an airy wave of my hand. (Polite-speak for "fuck that shit".)

I think you're actually asking a question here, though it's difficult to be sure:

Where is the WIDESPREAD violence BY THE RIGHT?

I gave you some earlier; I guess that wasn't enough? How many do you need? (See my response to "I've been waiting for an example", above.) I could make an entire post just of Ann Coulter quotes demonizing the Left; maybe I should do that.

Who is in charge of the right and is calling the shots?

When people kill gays or abortion doctors and cite the Bible as justification, isn't that automatically right-wing?

Or are you trying to say that there are elements on the Right which reject the Bible-centered worldview?

I don't know who is in charge, but that's not the question. The question is who has influence. The answer includes Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the rest of the demons.

Perhaps you will see that we are all people with good motives, we are all patriots, and that we all care deeply about this country.

You gain trust by earning it, not by being manipulative and dismissive.

I'll concede that it's possible you truly want the best for America.

Here's a very important question: if you could enact or revoke any federal or state laws you wanted, with no struggle, what kind of future would you be trying to create? What is your ideal vision for America? What goal are you working towards?

As Nietzsche said:

Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.

Your fire and brimstone approach belies you as just as fundamentalist as those "fundie" Christians you probably like to demean.

How do you tell the difference between false convictions and true beliefs? This is not a rhetorical question.

(Someday, if you like, I'll tell you more about myself so you can take pot shots at me.)

I think this is the best suggestion you've had in this whole debate.

Here are my views -- those I've thought to set down, anyway. Feel free to ask questions.

Here are the views of Maryscott O'Connor, our gracious host. I agree with most of them, too.

The existence of that page is one of the main things that drew me to this blog; I think everyone who participates in discussions like this should be strongly encouraged to write something similar, and keep it updated as time permits.

Your turn.

---

by: woozle @ Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 20:34:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reply to woozle (11.00 / 1)

I'm beginning to like you, woozle.  Not the least because some of the guesses I made about you are confirmed now.

Let me start generally with a bit about me.  I wasn't always a therapist.  I have degrees in Microbiology and Philosophy.  My philosophy mentor was a polymath, but his dissertation and main work were in logic.  In fact, today, 40 years later, the paper based on his dissertation is still onbe of only to sources cited on that particular subject.  And I acted as his clerk when he wrote it, and his sounding board.  This is all neither here not there, except to say that I am not unfamiliar with logic.

In fact, when my micro advisor asked me for advice on how to better the graduate program, I told him that from what i saw, there should be a requirement that all candidates have a course in logic.  He asked if I didn't think that training in the scientific method took care of it.  I just said, "No."

And I would like to say what Richard Feynman said:  I know what it means to now something.  One doesn't come to know something about reality by thinking great thoughts about it.  (He was taking on those in the "social sciences.")

So let me say this now.  Not one of your claims that I committed logical fallacy was accurate.  Of course, that is arguable, and if you wish to argue it, go ahead.  The discipline requires that you name each fallacy, traditionally in Latin.  For some of them, it seemed to me that you came to the conclusion by assuming that I was making a claim that i did not, in fact, actually make.  Check it out.

You never asked... nor did you offer any criteria by which you might be convinced.

In my tradition, one is expected to back up his claims.  We are less formal here, of course.

Your second point is key, and one I've been thinking of contemplating your stuff.  I had the opportunity to debate Ken Ham, perhaps the leading young earth anti-evolutionist, in 1983.  I actually won the argument by pointing out something wrong with the argument he made based on entropy.  (He would probably see it differently, but his engineer partner ended the argument there.)  The next year, he had a new line that skirted this flaw.  In fact, over the years, he has continually changed what he claimed to keep his belief alive.

I was thinking about Ham because if i were to ask him what evidence would change his mind about evolution, the honest answer would be "nothing."  And I sensed the same thing about you and some of your narratives.  And you give it away when you talk about "true beliefs."  Ham has some as well.  As I said, I don't think that in the realm of religions, metaphysical or political, there ARE any "true beliefs."  In fact, in my own religious tradition, the Perfect Master maintained a "noble silence," holding that such questions are undecidable, and that arguments about them do not advance on in life, and may be a hindrance.  That's the closest thing to a "true belief" that I have.  Even at that, the point is not to do religion and philosophy or politics;  the point is to make sure that when doing them, they don't become an attachment.

I think we need to have a little talk here about rationality, and the nature of rational discussion.

Sure.  I discuss it here all the time.  In fact, on this board, we see little political discussion (I tend to use the more therapeutic term 'conversation') aimed at increasing mutual understanding, and more argumentation aimed at declaring oneself a winner.

"Odious" is a judgment, not a statement of fact.

that's right.  further, it is my judgment.  i own it.  I also thought that the people i worked with did odious things.  That was also my judgment, not shared, most of the time, by those who perpetrated those things.  They made a different judgment.

And you make similar judgments about people whose politics differ from yours.  Own your judgment just as i did.

"Non-factual" is a statement of fact, but not a valid criticism in this context (or, at best, a vague one).

 

Actually, it is also a judgment.  But unlike 'odious,' it is not a value judgment, and we can go to the lab to check it out.  All i know is that you made here and before, some statements which have absolutely no backing by facts, and I think your faith is so strong, like Ken Ham's, that you really are convinced that they are true.  I will cite some later.

all of my claims, to the best of my knowledge, have been falsifiable. You have made no effort to falsify them.

As we say in logic, the onus falls on he who makes the claim.  Here's the thing, woozle.  I don't have many opinions.  I tend merely to throw out alternative views to one I think is becoming groupthink, or even just one proposed.  that's why a few years ago on right wing sites, I was accused of being a socialist!  Of course, if one thinks that there is one true belief, and he possesses it in God-like manner, he is likely to maintain that there are NO alternative viewpoints.

It's not that i never had a lot of opinions, nor that I never thought that some political beliefs I had were "true."  I've just matured out of that.  Now I ask, especially of me, "How do you KNOW that?"

       

[karmafish] I am so fucking sick to death of the left accusing the right of the most heinous shit possible.

   [madscientist] I think we should take karma's words as true, since he is making a statement about his inner self.

That, my dear Watson, is a very slight variation on a classic faitheist argument against criticizing religion. Do you really want me to answer it? Greater minds than I have long since made short work of it.

Wrong.  The point was simply that karma's statement says nothing about objective reality.  It describes his feelings.  I would suggest taking it as true even if I knew that no person on the left ever uttered one statement negative towards anyone on the right.

As we have recently discussed here in other contexts, everyone has a right to their feelings.  Feelings can be explained, but they aren't to be justified.  That is, no one can say that a feeling is "wrong."

Whether someone's explanation for his feeling corresponds to reality is another matter, but for me, the important thing is the feeling.  We always try to, although I am not always successful in doing this, affirm another's feelings.  Even if they disagree with YOU politically.

   woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.

[you]Ten points for every logical fallacy in that argument (and five points for rhetorical manipulations). You go first.

No fallacies there.  Just a statement that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations, and a short explanation to help you understand why i am not.  I am less interested in your justifications of your actions ("he dissed me and i can't allow that on the street") and am more interested in what emotional needs and motives are behind choosing exactly that action and not another to accomplish your purpose.  ("If I hadn't have shot him, I would have lost street cred, and that means people would be coming after me.")

You imply that there is a work of liberal Scripture somewhere. I would very much like to read it.

'Scripture' need not be written.  besides, you yourself linked to scripture you said you agree with below.  further, it is not necessary that everyone in the orthodoxy agree with every dogma.  They might be in different denominations, believing essentially the same thing, but differing on some details.

Are you saying that the work 'Liberal' refers to nothing at all, and tells us nothing about what a person so identified is likely to believe?

Here are some of your narratives:

Liberals get called spineless flip-floppers and cowards because they try to negotiate and they try to be polite.

Only by liberals.  What i remember is those opposed to the war in Iraq being called "traitors."  You can bet that I thought that was silly.  After all, I was against the war.  So war Ron Paul.  And to my what of thinking, so was any true conservative (you don't find many of them around any more).

And "flip-flopper" is a term of partisan politics that is used by both sides.  My comment on that is that a politician who can change his mind is what i want.  It shows the ability to change with the situation and evidence.  What i fer are politicians who will govern in a robot-like manner, blindly following their "true beliefs."

Unfortunately, we don't take kindly to reasoning politicians.  Look what happened to Bush the elder when he saw the need to"flip-flop" on taxes.

They lost it when Bush stripped habeas corpus, and nobody on the Right complained.

You know, woozle, i thought of putting up a set of false narratives that i thought you might believe.  this would have been one of them.  The fact is that concerning the Gitmo detainees, Bush did not "strip" habeas corpus.  Of the hundreds of POWs in the US during WWII, how many had access to habeas corpus?  Nome.  This is the first time in the history of English common law or American law that someone thought that those taken on a battle field had right to habeas corpus.  The Supreme Court creted a right, with Souter arguing that the length of time was reason enough to overturn precedent.

A better criticism, and one i made, is that the Bushies did not give the detainees access to a tribunal to question heir status, as the Geneva convention provides.

They lost it when the Bush administration decided to torture prisoners of war, and their supporters cheered them on.

We've argued this many times here, with your co-religionists (who, no matter what their denomination, are, like you, religious antiBushites) always making this argument.  But none is able to give me any better than a Potter Stewart definition of 'torture,' nor can they tell me wher the line dividing just any aversive treatment from torture lies.  Most of us agree that the rack is torture.  Most of us agree shouting is not.  Where is the line in between?

My point here is that I just don't have the answer.  And more important, I don't have the political impetus to either claim that "water boarding," as done according to the rules promulgated, is either torture or it is not.  It seems to be a matter for those with "true beliefs."  And some believe one way, and others another.  that makes it a religious argument.

I prefer and preferred to go with McCain, and extend the laws already on the books to prevent it.

They lost if when it became clear that Bush had lied, knowingly, in order to get us into Iraq -- and nobody on the Right said a thing.

This is one I once believed.  When the SSCI report on the run up to Iraq came out in 2004, I eagerly downloaded my copy (took 32 separate downloads at the time), and began looking for some evidence ("proof") of my conjecture.  There is none.  Even Joe Wilson no longer believes it.

Over the years, I have asked many people to provide evidence and make the argument.  thusly:

1)  Show that what bush said was wrong.  (The easy part.)

2)  Show that when he said it, he knew it was wrong, and said it anyway.

The only honest person in this may be Michael Moore, who said:  "He said there were WMD.  There weren't.  Therefore he lied."

Would you like to have your honesty judged on this standard?

(One way to achieve your goal is to show that something Bush said had absolutely no grounding in any statement from the intelligence agencies, and then show that it came only from the White House.)

They lost it when Right-wing pundits declared dissent to be treason, and none of their listeners complained.

I'm with you here up to a point. I try to avoid applying the actions of a few to a whole class.  Just because i can show you that some Negroes are lazy and shiftless (whatever that means) does not mean that Negroes are lazy and shiftless, even if Negroes don't rise up to condemn those who are.  In other words, This classic example of prejudice doesn't make it in my book.  I think it is a matter of your religious beliefs, more than anything.

Some on the left, for instance, see dissent with them as heretical and deserving of damnation.  Others on the left mostly ignore this.  What should be our conclusion?  You'll have to tell me, because i don't have one of these religions, so I tend to take people one at a time.  I'm not a collectivist, and i don't believe that collective nouns have feelings, intentions, and so on.

You know, one of the problems with Indo-European languages in general, and English in particular, is that we can make syntactically sound sentences that make no sense simply by using parts of speech correctly.  Bertrand Russell's example was "Quadruplicity drinks procrastination."  Many of the statements we make about "the right" or "the left" are just as senseless.  We do it for convenience, but in a serious discussion, they cloud rationality.  Usually, we can get by with "some on the left," for example.  Or we could name the particular persons involved.  I realize that this isn't as politically expedient for true believers.

Call me a loonie, then... oh wait, you already did. You want the evidence?

Well, I didn't, really.  You put yourself in the category.

Evidence?  Sure.  Convince me that an actual theocracy is likely should any of the likely Republican nominees become president, and the likely Republican winners in the House and Senate become a majority.  I'm not interested in a repeat of "some on the right want a theocracy."  At the very least, to take it off "lunacy," I want some evidence that the majority of those who would be in power, and certainly the president, want and would work for as a priority, the establishment not only of a religion they all agree upon, but an actual theocracy, where the head of state and the legislatures govern according to the precepts of that religion.  I would mention the difficulty of getting this past the Supreme Court, but my bet is that you probably think they would be in on it.

Only when my opponent seems to think that being right is more important than being correct -- that defending your position is more important than finding the truth through questioning and rational discussion of available information.

Let me re-iterate.  I don't think that there are grand precepts in politics which are "correct."  I think that there are many points of view.  And I think that arguing about grand precepts keeps us from getting to the actual work of politics, finding practical solutions for practical problems.

So, you are right.  Defending one's position gets in the way.  I just don't believe that grand political statements can be shown to be true, or falsified, for that matter.  

The Left wanted universal healthcare paid for by taxes. The industry-friendly legislation which actually passed was a compromise with elements ON THE RIGHT, thanks.

Pure fiction.  Let me translate your assertion into logical terms.  "There exist no person about whom it could be said that they were both "on the left" and who didn't want universal health care paid for by taxes."  I can't imagine defending this statement.

Perhaps you might settle for "many on the left wanted..." or even "most on the left wanted."  Or perhaps you are simply making the ad hodeclaration that if you weren't for this, then you are ipso facto not "on the left."

Therapists quote Yoda now?

"Children try, adults do" was a staple of therapy before there was any conception of Yoda.  The question is, "Yoda does therapy?"

I dismiss this claim with an airy wave of my hand.

You wouldn't be the first.  It is typically done by those who don't want to give up a good game of "Why Don't You, Yes But."  Like, "Why don't you give up the mean-spirited and unhealthy demeaning of other people?"  "Yes, but, ......"  Your responses to much of this essay are an example.  The rationalizations.

I gave you some earlier; I guess that wasn't enough?

Key is "widespread."  And "by the right?"  I haven't seen it.  I discussed this previously.  Is it prevalent?  Do you think that the majority of violence in America is by people who identify themselves as "right wing" and who do it to further right wing goals or for right wing reasons?  One third?  One quarter?

When people kill gays or abortion doctors and cite the Bible as justification, isn't that automatically right-wing?

No.  You make an assumption.  How many people have killed abortion doctors or gays and cited biblical justification?  How would you compare that number to the number of those who killed people and cited left wing justification?  How would you compare the number killed?  Make it world-wide, and consider Stalin and Mao.  Take your time tabulating.

Or are you trying to say that there are elements on the Right which reject the Bible-centered worldview?

Yes.  Are there members on the left who accept the Bible-centered worldview?  I don't think that these questions are important.  I think you are trying to get at another question.

The answer includes Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and the rest of the demons.

So you DO demonize.  Literally!  Now what is your evidence that these persons are actually fellows of Satan dispatched from a hell somewhere?

You gain trust by earning it, not by being manipulative and dismissive.

This is the common sociopathic view.  it starts from a view that basically, no one is trustworthy, and that it is up to them to convince you that they are.  Winners start from the view that it makes more sense to start from a working assumption that people are trustworthy, to be on the lookout for the unexpected, and to distrust people who lose their trust, at least until they understand more.

Here's soe philosophy from the old Kung Fu show.  (I'll go anywhere.)  The young Caine and a fellow student, both around ten, were dispatched to another monastery to deliver some manuscripts.  Along the way, they meet a man who offers to show them a shortcut.  They go that route, and ar robbed on the way.

Back at the monastery, the Master asks each what he learned from the experience.  The other boy says, "Never trust a stranger."  (Basically your view.) Caine answers "expect the unexpected."  The other boy is dismissed from the monastery.

woozle, I don't know if you are untrustworthy, but you certainly are dismissive.  Not only that, you so enjoy dismissing others that you defend it like an addiction.

Here's a very important question: if you could enact or revoke any federal or state laws you wanted, with no struggle, what kind of future would you be trying to create? What is your ideal vision for America?

I'll give this important question the answer it begs:  "If elected Miss America, I will work for the abolition of war, the outlawing of nuclear weapons, and peace on earth."

My ideal vision of the world is unformed.  I am no longer an idealistic thinker.  And even if I were, I wouldn't think that I had a right to impose my idealistic world on others.  I'm just not that sure of things.  I have no religious views like that.

What goal are you working towards?

Surviving another 24 months.  Call me a crazy optimist if you like.

How do you tell the difference between false convictions and true beliefs? This is not a rhetorical question.

This is an interesting question, but has nothing to do with the Nietzsche quote.  Nietzsche is saying that convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.  This is true whether or not we think of the conviction as true or false.

the word 'belief' implies faith in that which cannot be proven.  When we drive, we do so with the faith that their are not a bunch of right winders coming the other way intent on turning into our path.  We Americans believe that "{all men are created equal," that is, that human beings are equal at an inherent level, as part of our nature.  And that we all have inherent rights.  We can't prove these beliefs.  But they form the basis of the classical liberal philosophy that is the basis of our founding.

These principles were enunciated by Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, and many others directly to counter the notion that rights were granted by a king or the Church.  The practical colonists who founded our country saw that the greatest threat to these beliefs and the implementation of them came from government, and therefore wrote two constitutions that were meant to enumerate the powers of government, and limit it to those power enumerated.

Those liberals are in contrast to social democrats, who think that the government should be powerful and an agent of good, and that rights "trickle down" from the government to the people when the government thinks they are justified.

Luckily, in America, even the Social Democrats (we call them "Liberals" here for historical reasons) maintain some vestigial memory of the fears and convictions of the founding fathers.  How long that will last is anyone's guess.

Do you have a guess?

by the way, woozle, for your information, if i use a construction like "it's my bet..." I am not making an argument.  So, anything in that construction could not be a false or fallacious argument.  I use that construction when i can't make an argument.  I highly recommend the practice.

Finally, thank you for your patience.  You asked many questions, and I tried to answer them.  Be aware that if you don't see me as having fun when i answered you, if you don't see some humour in my approach, you haven't understood me.

Please answer if you wish, and have some fun doing so.

"Reason is, and should be, always the servant of our emotions."


"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 00:45:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

okay, here we go... (0.00 / 0)

So let me say this now.  Not one of your claims that I committed logical fallacy was accurate.

Here's what you said:

woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.

Highly-trained as you are in the art of critical thinking, if you can't be bothered to acknowledge at least the one glaring logical fallacy in that statement, then I think my time is probably better spent elsewhere.

---

by: woozle @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:50:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay, woozle, here we go (0.00 / 0)

Here's what i said:

woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.

You replied:

woozle, I spent years working n forensic psych, mostly with murderers, rapists, and arsonists.  they all justified what they did, too.  So you can bet that i am not impressed with elaborate rationalizations.

The claim of logical fallacy is yours, so the onus is yours.  Please name the logical fallacy and show that it occurs here.

Normally, we reserve the term "logical fallacy" for arguments which are unsound due to faulty logic.  Note this carefully.

My statement makes no argument.  It consists of three statements of fact only.  You were not asked to draw any conclusion from these facts, nor did i offer one.

But go ahead, have at it.

btw, your assumption of my skills in "critical thinking" is flattering but unfounded.  And I use this term more specifically, in the manner that Marcuse would use it.  It refers (roughly) to the process of working toward the roots of thoughts or historical events in the manner of Kant.  Marcuse referred to his philosophy and Marxism in general as "critical philosophy."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 14:50:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll bite (6.00 / 1)

bloggers and various powerful media entities engaged in a narrative, based on little evidence, to paint the "Tea Party" movement as "racists" and violent extremists.  

Since I monitor and air political narratives and view both sides, I saw it happening, understood how they did it and mentioned it here many times.

This was a shifting narrative.  At first they called the movement "astroturf" saying there wasn't a movement and it was conflated.

When that didn't work, they tried to paint them as violent, during the HC "Town Halls."  Using three events where a handful of gun nuts showed up with guns.

When that didn't work, they went with the "racism" charge.  They're still on that.

The truth is that the "Tea Party Movement" is conflated, it's not that big.  The truth is that there's very little evidence that they are either violent or racist.  

The truth is that, it's closer to the Black Power and Afrocentric movement in America in the 60's.  In this way....not a lot of actual participants but lots of people who agree, in principal or culturally, with some of the ideas they gleem from the movement.

Blogs and media cleary, in my opinion "demonized" the "Tea Party" in an orchestrated way.  

I could also bring up how President Bush and VP Cheney were "demonized" and (let's face it they called Bush a chimp and Hitler)for doing some of the very same things (war, wiretapping, gitmo, secret prisons, drone strikes) that President Obama is doing today.  Don't see the same rhetoric towards him, do you?  I watch this stuff for a living.  I went to Anti-War demostrations, saw things that make the cherrypicked signs at any "Tea Party" rally look like Norman Rockwell paintings.

Plus, as an active participant on Left Wing Blogs, please don't tell me the left didn't "de-humanize" or "demonize" Conservatives writ large.  You guys had more abusive and descriptive pet names for the right than my standard "moonbat."  Because you did and still do.  

I think Karma is saying, it's a negative when both sides do it but it's important to admit it happens.  

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 10:49:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

fact check (10.00 / 1)

The Tea Party was and continues to be astroturfed. It does indeed have violent (and and...) and racist (and  and...) components, but violence and racism arguably are not what they're primarily about.

They're mainly about deflecting legitimate concerns (shared by many, including myself) by advocating solutions that benefit the people in power... while poisoning the well of discourse by having those concerns associated with violent racist Tea Party lunacy.

Bush and Cheney were not demonized, they were accurately characterized -- at best; at worst, they were given a free pass by the press.

Yes, Obama has been continuing many of the same policies. I don't know any liberals who are not pretty sincerely pissed at him -- but do you hear any complaint from the Right? Well, yes -- from the same people who thought it was great when Bush did it.

Plus, as an active participant on Left Wing Blogs, please don't tell me the left didn't "de-humanize" or "demonize" Conservatives writ large.  You guys had more abusive and descriptive pet names for the right than my standard "moonbat."  Because you did and still do.

As I said earlier, that's NOT THE SAME DAMN THING as DEMONIZING.

What you're basically saying is another form of that ever-popular right-wing mantra, "sit down and shut up."

You'll happily ignore or explain away widespread conservative violence, but if liberals get just a bit rude or disrespectful towards conservative values -- whoa, time-out, let's have a little talk about our methods of self-expression and make sure we're having a civilized dialogue.

How about this: let's see the Right start apologizing for murdering gay people and murdering abortion doctors and spreading lies about nearly everything and shutting down town hall meetings -- and then maybe we'll talk.

Until then, GTFO with suggestions that liberals have any misbehavior to APOLOGIZE TO CONSERVATIVES for.

---

by: woozle @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 14:28:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

you responded with less substance even more lame cherrypicking than the media does. That second "Witch Doctor" pic (btw) is from Lyndon LaRouche people.  Sorry but that isn't proof of anything.

widespread conservative violence

What the hell are you talking about?  

A popular talking point when a discussion of Islamic Violence comes up is for people to bring up Tim McVeigh.  It's not a compelling argument.  One psycho vs. Nation States who kill thousands and subjugate millions or billions of women vs. Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph.

There isn't a RW "violence" problem in America.  It's a total fabrication.  1000 Young Black Males have been shot dead in 4 American cities so far this year (Chic, LA, NY, Phil)  That's a fucking violence problem.  How dare you marry violence with old ladies who listen to talk radio and attend a Town Hall Meeting.  It's disgraceful.

Nobody is telling liberals to shut up and sit down.  Just don't lie.  May I remind you, while you project your unhappiness with the current state of affairs......YOU'RE IN POWER!!!  Go look in the mirror.  

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 17:13:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's follow (0.00 / 0)

the money:

Tea Party "allies" and "support groups." Many of these groups are corporate-dominated front groups such as Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity - two groups who've relentlessly promoted the Tea Party movement with massive resources. Not listed as an "ally" is the super-rich Koch family, which has also poured giant resources towards boosting the Tea Partiers. Fox News and other corporate media outlets, too, are non-official Tea Party "support groups."

There are racists in the TEA party, after all it is an offshoot of the Republican party which has long been the last refuge of racists.  That is is not their main agenda however.  It is really all about protecting the wealth of the elites and the corporations with the TEA party memmbers acting as useful idiots.  Tea Party = Fascism.

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 17:56:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, yeah (0.00 / 0)

you're a one trick pony, rich.  hannity callers have more depth.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:37:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evidence to "refudiate";) (0.00 / 0)

When ya don't have the goods dismiss -- pretty old trick;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:45:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Einstein (0.00 / 0)

there is no evidence to refudiate.  That's the point.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:48:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Uh Huh, (0.00 / 0)

The money to fund this bunch of nit wits just magically appeared from nowhere and there stated objectives don't align with a fascist agenda at all.  Nothing to see here, move along, move along;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:08:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

read the link, Philistine. (0.00 / 0)

there is no evidence to refudiate.  That's the point.

evidence (again

---

by: woozle @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 10:01:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh (0.00 / 0)

you're back to square one.  Let's cast aside the "racist" and "violence" meme (because it's fabricated) and go back to Astroturf......via Wikipedia.  Go re-read what I wrote.  I said the "Tea Party" is conflated.  You understand what a "loss leader" is?  

This is not a good political strategy for you as I've said countless times around here.  And you should stick to whatever it is you do because you're a piker i.e. political narratives.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 22:54:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

QRM internetary (0.00 / 0)

You're not making any sense. You asked for evidence; I gave it to you (again). Please respond to it.

Also, I went up 6 or 7 levels in the dialogue and couldn't find which "what I wrote" you were referring to before getting lost. Please link directly to it if you want a response.

Thank you.

---

by: woozle @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 08:28:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Evidence to "refudiate";) (0.00 / 0)

When ya don't have the goods dismiss -- pretty old trick;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:45:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

nice dismissal (9.00 / 1)

How dare you accuse me of marrying violence? I don't even believe in marriage; it's bad for your mental health, and it gives people like Maggie Gallagher an excuse to demonize gay people. Violence and I never got along very well anyway, so there wasn't much temptation. (...ahh, the brief madnesses and dalliances of youth.)

When you have little old ladies holding up signs condemning homosexuality -- then yes, I'd say little old ladies are part of a causal chain which ends in violence -- especially when those little old ladies attend Town Hall meetings, where they join the mob shouting down any chance of civil discussion. (I'm still not marrying them, though, and you can't make me. Nyah.)

Also, you seem to be understandably confused about my being in power. It is a well-known fact that I am Mad Dictator for Life of The Known Universe, but unfortunately it's mainly a ceremonial title given to me as a sinecure by a sympathetic relative (hi Mom!). Fox News probably neglected to mention this little factoid when they were accusing me of not saving the world the other day. (I did save the world, but then I forgot where I left the damn thing. Not my fault! It's been a really busy week.)

If I had any real power, we'd be prosecuting Bushco for their crimes (which would consequently be recognized by the media instead of glossed over), we'd be out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we wouldn't be detaining anyone illegally or torturing anyone, and we'd be several Wall Street bailouts richer.

The Dems do not speak for me, except to the extent that they are less overtly evil than the "minority" thugs whose agenda still seems to be very much in charge.

Murder figures: link, please?

Your basic argument seems to be that there are other types of murder that are more common than the classes of murder I've mentioned, so those less-popular types of murder don't matter.

Is that what you meant?

Until you can raise one or more legitimate counter-arguments, my points remain unchallenged.

P.S. Where's the [ you are a troll ] button?

---

by: woozle @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:01:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But you don't demonize or dehumanize (3.00 / 1)

anyone.

{Ahem.}

The Dems do not speak for me, except to the extent that they are less overtly evil than the "minority" thugs whose agenda still seems to be very much in charge.

Right, because calling people who disagree with your politics "evil" is not demonizing.

{Shakes head.  Walks away.}




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:09:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the use of the word "evil" (0.00 / 0)

is now considered to be demonizing or dehumanizing -- any chance the PC has gone a little too far?

Look, I grew up in NJ and maybe we are a bit "rougher" in our speech than other parts of the country.  That might make me a bit of an outlier in terms of what is acceptable in this community.  

On the other hand, I am not the first or the last person here to get extremely angry and frustrated with Mad.  In my mind I was not demonizing or dehumanizing him, just letting him know he was being a dick;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 19:56:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich (0.00 / 0)

While I'm not sure if the words convey just what karma had in mind-- I'd say that people of different political persuasions treat each other in less than a cordial and human fashion- certainly calling someone "evil" goes to the core meaning of the word 'demonize."  The demon is, after all, the embodiment of evil.

btw, at best, you were letting me know you thought I was being a dick by being a dick.

The one sorta rule here is "Don't be a schmuck."  Maybe what karma is saying is that in these political debates, both sides tend to be schmucks.

Take woozle.....please~  (rimshot)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:11:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I find myself (0.00 / 0)

in pretty close alignment with Woozle so far;)

Yep, all I can do is respond based on what I think -- thankfully I don't know what you are thinking;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:16:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Water (0.00 / 0)

finds its own level.  An original thought is a foreign concept.

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 22:56:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hear (0.00 / 0)

quite a bit of arrogance and no substance to back it up  We can do without the condescension.  low viscosity bullshit finds its own level equally well.

---

by: rich1107 @ Mon Aug 02, 2010 at 00:34:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

And karma (0.00 / 0)

to be fair, he calls the Dems evil as well, just less overtly so.  The Dems are better at hiding it, one presumes.

The only question remaining is whether he falls into the sociopath realm (I'm OK, everyone else is not so hot) or the psychotic realm (I'm not ok, and neither is anyone else).

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:16:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mad, (0.00 / 0)

the self diagonosis, how tacky -- you should have a professional do that;)

---

by: rich1107 @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:18:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

rich (0.00 / 0)

read again.  You missed whom i was diagnosing.  Even then, I merely laid out the question in TA terms.

And notice that woozle's words negated the necessity to add a third dimension.  For you, for instance, one might inquire as to whether you think "I'm ok, those who think like me are ok, other are not so hot."  this is a version of "I'm ok, you're ok, they're not so hot."

The "winner's" position is "I'm ok, you're ok, they're ok."  Sort of what liberals pretend to subscribe to.  You know.  Treating all persons with humanity.

And i HAVE been diagnosed by a professional.  More than once.  In fact, it was a requirement to do the work i did in mental health.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Jul 31, 2010 at 20:57:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

sociapath/psychopath (0.00 / 0)

The only question remaining is whether he falls into the sociopath realm (I'm OK, everyone else is not so hot) or the psychotic realm (I'm not ok, and neither is anyone else).

I think most people are relatively sensible and decent.

Of course, that's somewhat filtered by the people I choose to interact with, so it may be overly optimistic. I could be convinced that a majority of people are not to be trusted, but I would feel very reluctant about it.

I judge politicians by their actions. The only rational hypothesis I have been able to reach regarding the public actions of the Right (with very few exceptions -- which are usually condemned!) is that they are selfish bastards primarily interested in acquiring power and not at all interested in the welfare of their constituents (much less anyone else) except to the extent that it serves that primary goal, which fits my definition of "evil" pretty well.

I am willing to entertain alternative hypotheses, but I will need to see evidence. (Negative example: Jesse Helms adopting a boy from an orphanage  does not prove that he wasn't an evil, bigoted,  racist bastard.)

---

by: woozle @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 09:52:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's not an example of demonization... (0.00 / 0)

...because it's not demonization if it's true.

---

by: woozle @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 09:41:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

woozle, (0.00 / 0)

as a liberal I find myself skeptical of absolutist theological notions such as "evil."

You are claiming that Republicans are evil.  Well... you actually claimed that the Democrats are less evil than the Republicans, which can only mean that you think that Democrats and Republicans are both evil... just that Republicans are more evil.

Part of the reason that I cannot ascribe to certain religious traditions is because of manichean notions of "good" versus "evil."

And just as I reject those notions in religion, so I reject them in politics.  These people that you despise and demonize, these evil ones, these Republicans and conservatives, are human beings.  You call them evil.  

You are mistaken.

Those people are people that we should disagree with as human beings, not as the hated other.

Not as the Evil Enemy.

Not as the Less Than Human.

If nothing else, the twentieth century was a lesson on how this kind of political thinking can play itself out.

I will agree that demonization is evil -- but it's just not something that any liberal I am aware of, or anyone widely respected by the Left, is guilty of. It's inconsistent with basic liberal principles...

It is inconsistent with basic liberal principles.

I agree entirely.

Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 00:14:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"evil" (0.00 / 0)

I define evil as "doing harmful things deliberately, especially where such acts are beneficial to the actor."

Do you disagree that the majority of the powerful on the Right fit this definition?

---

by: woozle @ Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 08:25:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama "witch doctor" poster (0.00 / 0)

That second "Witch Doctor" pic (btw) is from Lyndon LaRouche people.  Sorry but that isn't proof of anything.

It's been endorsed by Tea Partiers -- see CNN [image caption]: "A Tea Party rally protester holds a sign with President Obama depicted as a witch doctor."

---

by: woozle @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 09:39:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nowpublic.com/cultu...

---

by: PHIL. I. STINE @ Sun Aug 01, 2010 at 22:59:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I happen to think (6.00 / 3)

that Shirley Sherrod was right -- there are a scary LOT of people out there who DO want black people back the way they used to be, walkig with their heads down, unable to look whites i the eyes, unable to get good jobs, unable to live on equal footing. PLENTY of people want that again.

I wouldn't have thought that, 2 years ago. But then Obama was elected, and the scary numbers of outright racists started coming out of the woodwork, and I'm not fooling myself anymore. They're out there, and they are legion.

--7.88, --6.56      If I can't rant, I don't want to be part of your revolution.

---

by: Maryscott O'Connor @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 01:16:32 AM CDT

That may be true (0.00 / 0)

But that's not what she said.

Is it?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 03:32:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yesterday (4.33 / 3)

while picking up some parts for my Mercury outboard at a small shop in Puyallup, Washington, the proprietor of the shop started complaining about alcohol content in gas and how it effects outboard performance, and blamed it on "that fucking nigger." The day before, he talked about selling his parents' house on capital hill for 2.75 million and that they purchased it in 1948 for $2K. But he ranted about how the house was purchased by two fucking faggots and how he'd like to shoot them "cemetery dead." I think I'll shop elsewhere now.

One of my friends asked me why I didn't say anything about this. My response? What would be the point? Nothing I can say would have any effect.  

Pee for your Corporate Overlords

---

by: digdugboy @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 09:46:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's difficult (6.00 / 1)

It's hard to keep your mouth shut, but arguing with someone with such deeply entrenched prejudices is probably an exercise in futility.

I might have told him I couldn't in good conscience support someone with such hateful beliefs, and would be taking my business elsewhere.

I did that a few years ago, when the company who sprayed our lawn had a big banner ad along the freeway about supporting Bush.  I wrote a letter explaining that I didn't want my money going to a company that would waste it in that fashion.  I got a nasty screed back from the owner of the company that I still keep in a file someplace.


Insert witty quote here.

---

by: puzzled @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 10:29:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

puzzled (0.00 / 0)

I absolutely agree with you on this business and have done this in the past.

But I don't see the equivlence with a mere difference in politics.  Are you equating a mere difference in politics with overt racism?

Do you want a country where Democrats only trade with companies they perceive as Democratis and Republicans only with companies they perceive as Republican?  Wouldn't that narrow the choices for independents?  

And what the hell would the Socialists and Anarchists do?

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:22:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The key (6.00 / 1)

I put what the president said above.  That alone would calm the seas.

Here's what the vice president said:

BIDEN: I learned that lesson as a very young senator. I got here in '73. And one of the people, along with Danny and others on this floor who kept me here, were -- was Mike Mansfield, the majority leader.

And he used to once a week have me report to his office, which is where the leader's office is on the other side. And he really was doing it, I know, in retrospect now, to take my pulse, see how I was doing.

And I walked in one day through those doors on the Republican side, and a man who had became my friend, Jesse Helms, and his wife, Dot, who's still my close friend and I keep in contact with. And I walked through those doors and Jesse Helms, who came in '72 with me, was standing in the back excoriating Bob Dole for the Americans with Disability Act.

And I walked through the floor on my way to my meeting with Senator Mansfield. And I walked in and sat down on the other side of his desk. And, some of you remember, he smoked a pipe a lot of times when he was in his office.

And he had the pipe in his mouth, and he looked at me. He said, "Joe, it looks like something's bothering you."

I said, "Mr. Leader," I said, "I can't believe what I just heard on the floor of the Senate. I can't believe anyone could be so heartless and care so little about people with disabilities. I tell you, it makes me angry, Mr. Leader."

He said, "Joe, what would you say if I told you that four years ago, maybe five, Dot Helms and Jesse Helms were reading -- I think it's the Charlotte Observer, the local newspaper -- and they saw an ad in the paper or a piece in the paper about a young man in braces who was handicapped at an orphanage, who was in his early teens.

"And all the caption said was the young man wanted nothing more for Christmas than to be part of a family."

He said, "What would you say if I told you Dot Helms and Jesse Helms adopted that young man as their own child?"

BIDEN: I said, "I'd feel like a fool, an absolute fool." He said, "Well, they did." He said, "Joe, every man and woman sent here is sent here because their state recognizes something decent about them. It's easy to find the parts you don't like. I think you job, Joe, is to find out that part that caused him to be sent here."

He said, "Joe, never question another man's motive. Question his judgment but never his motive."

(My emphasis.)

These two things would bring most of the acrimony here and in politics to an end.  Maybe then Congress could get something done, and this board could focus on ideas.

I know some recoil at both this message from Biden and the one from Obama above.  I leave it to each of you to look deep within to find the answer to why that is.  (Or you could have rich, ddb, or C. read your mind and give you your motives.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 20:39:53 PM CDT