Jim,
Happy coincidence. I've never talked with anyone here before. I posted a comment, people replied, and we were off.
"I find it odd that Nick D. and Vastleft had never posted anything here before they showed up in this thread. I don't mean to say that you need an established posting history to be a valid member of this community, not by any means, but when two people show up out of nowhere and start yelling at one another and at others, it feels weird."
Who's yelling? In my opinion, Vastleft has made the most intelligent arguments of anyone with whom I've interacted.
What can I say to the fact that you feel weird? It's a public forum, it's not invitation only.
If it makes you feel better, I got onto this site through bOING bOING, where Theresa Nielsen-Hayden is the moderator, and whose work there I've enjoyed immensely.
I have to go to sleep now. Ciao.
PS @#115: do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you just going to quote me to me? Seriously, I'd love to hear what you have to say.
@#115: "Which of these is not like the other?"
Congrats, you have demonstrated that you are unable to detect subtleties like satire or sarcasm, or playing devil's advocate. Should I refer you to a good course on rhetorical technique, so that you can learn to distinguish someone demonstrating an idea from someone stating their position? Vastleft had no trouble getting the gist.
Vastleft:
Per #1: I believe that George Bush has demonstrated the courage of his convictions (that America is a democracy in a world in which democracies are imperilled, and that decisive action needs to be taken, as we took in WWII), and that the Congress has voted their conscience and their well-considered opinions in backing him. And by the way, the Democrats in Congress have rubberstamped all of those same decisions, from going to war in Iraq to granting indemnity to the telecommunications companies that executed his illegal wiretapping.
See? It's not so hard. Surely there's ONE Republican out there who debates like that, without calling liberals faggots? Hmmm? I don't even believe any of that, and I can construct a reasonable argument, even when exhausted from arguing with people who share my values.
2) "I am buffaloed by the implication that outspoken lefties are in someway abetting the far right."
Sorry, never said or implied that. Please reread my posts.
"Just consider the farce it is that Hillary Clinton is commonly portrayed as the polarizing "too liberal" candidate."
You may find that farcical, but it's the reality on the ground in our very conservative, not to say reactionary country. Hillary is not radical, but when the mainstream is right of center, that's what she is to them. Time to face the fact that we're not living in a liberal think tank here. You agree with that, right?
"In what theater does this going too far or too low take place? Seriously, I don't know what you mean."
Any liberal reaction that is equivalent to what Coulter and Rush Limbaugh spew out is what I mean. If you think that there is no liberal equivallent, and that such liberal spewing is merely hypothetical, then you have grasped the thrust of my position. I.e., if Democratic politicians exhibited the same hysterical, offensive-to-anyone-who-has-a-sense-of-decency quality that so many commenters here have shown, then they will have revealed themselves to not have the discipline needed to win any struggle, let alone a political struggle against determined enemies who have the upper hand.
Oh, uh, that was addressed to John S. Quarterman, BTW.
Notice I said "Flame them." Them. Not "Coulter."
I repeat: Not. Coulter.
OK, once again in case that wasn't clear, or you missed it the first twenty times I said it: NOT! COULTER!
Please people, try to read and understand my post before you respond to it.
If you're implying that I meant anything like "it would be too shrill and to ungenteel to call people murderers, crooks, and incompetent" then you have completely mischaracterized my argument and I suggest you reread my post. Ditto your other gross exagerations and misrepresentations of my position.
But OK, I'll shrill it up for you:
If you want to whine and complain about how the right doesn't fight fair (boo hoo hoo), while at the same time surrendering the playing field, the agenda, the rulebook, and your own oh-so-easily vacated so-called principles to them at the first utterance of a hurtful (sob!) word, or the first loss of a policy battle, then you need to grow up and learn how to play with the big boys and stop crying like a little girl who's been pushed down in the mud by a (sniffle) big (sob) mean ol' fascist meanie.
And then realize that you are not fit to govern, either.
How's that?
Vastleft: I am also sick at heart about all those things. I'm not against getting a little gauche, or making waves, or even shocking people. But there are limits, and in the end you just wind up fueling the fire of fanaticism (pardon the alliteration) when you start playing on too low a level. You help make the lunatic fringe the mainstream when you do that, and then they really have won.
#98: Michael, I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Abandoning logic for screaming and cave painting?
"Sure, it makes sense to talk about policy. But maybe you haven't noticed this -- in the public sphere, nobody does."
Rational debate may be in the ICU, but it ain't dead yet. Absolutes like "nobody" can rarely be shown to be true, and this is an example.
I'm also disappointed and discouraged by the current state of American politics, but I would consider myself a coward if I abandoned my principles in favor of some Realpolitik version of cave painting.
But OK, I agree that much of politics is irrational. Of course people are only rational part of the time. They are also rational part of the time. And anyway, rational debate is only one political tool, I recognize that. But it's one of the best that I know of.
Your dismissal of anyone's approach that isn't your "speaking to the caveman" reminds me of when conservatives patronizingly call me naive, and say I don't know how the world works, when I probably have much wider experience of the world than they do.
And your assertion that all Republicans are irrational is equally patronizing to them. Have you never known a Republican that could think logically?
But wait, I guess I'm giving comfort to the enemy and helping them accomplish their goals. Hmmm...where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, that's how conservatives characterize those who disagree with their foreign policy. I must be a naive, wooly headed traitor to the progressive cause. Yikes!
#97: Randolph, for the record I thought your observation about sexist men being mainpulated by their sexism was spot on accurate.
@#93: you misinterpret me. I was not recommending debating with Coulter and her ilk that way. Clearly, she is not open to that kind of reasoned argument. I was referring to debate with rational conservatives who are actually capable of of it.
If you go back and read my post, you'll see that what I actually was saying is that the orthodox conservative view on the subject was such and such, and that's what we should dispute, instead of getting into mudslinging matches with nuts like Coulter. I never said we should not call her out as being a demogogue.
"In short, I'd rather that liberals engage the statements that hatemongers like Coulter make, rather than engaging the lofty principles that you imagine underlie Coulter's statement."
Once again, misrepresenting what I said.
"Another reason for this is because by focusing on the issue of self-sufficiency, you've managed to overlook the operative phrase in the Coulter statement in question, which is that the Democratic party is 'the party of women.'"
Thanks for relieving me of my crushing ignorance, but, again, you are totally misrepresenting what I said. That was one example. Please save the fine tooth comb and the invective for the opposition.
Sorry to post twice and at length, but... I think it behooves us to try to understand the opposition's point of view, otherwise all they hear is the same noise that we hear when someone like Coulter speaks. Which is why she is so ineffectual at convincing us, but so compelling for non-discriminating dittoheads who just want their opinions reflected back at them. Let's not make the same mistake.
E.G.:‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?", as intemperate and offensive as that quote is, reflects conservatives' belief that entitlements are unnecessary, counter to American values like self-sufficiency, and ultimately hurt the economy.
Counter THAT argument effectively, and you may just make a conservative think twice about the healthcare issue.
Flame them with language couched in liberal terms like "You don't care about the welfare of children" and they won't even hear you, because they will rightly preceive that you are not disputing their argument on the terms they have presented it.
OK, I'm done lecturing.
"I don't understand the objection, here. Her looks are part of her public persona and, really, without the in her looks give her, she'd be near-universally hated by the very sexist men on the radical-right."
I dunno... I can't see any good reason to discuss her looks at all. They're irrelevant to the discussion, whether she uses them to her advantage or not. I mean, a woman can dress any way she wants. It is after all her views that we disagree with, isn't it? And they're easy enough to discredit.
"But the min-maxer, in the end, will probably win."
What I don't understand is why the Democrats seem to give the Republicans' tactics a free pass, instead of exposing them tit-for-tat, very agressively, for the cheap tricks they are. That's the only way to take the teeth out of them... unless gaming theory has another suggestion?
It's incredible the amount of hatred toward women that remark reveals. The implication that the Democratic Party should be ashamed because women vote for it is really revealing of her self-identification with the type of playground bullies who tease boys who aren't masculine enough for them. Ghastly.
Also, it's her assumption that compassion is a sign of weakness, stupidity, or gullibility. Maybe she's never known anyone who has been both compassionate and strong. That would be my guess... but then I'm indulging in armchair psychology now.
I've often said that in some ways I prefer the tag "Progressive" to "Liberal," because to many people "Liberal" suggests the kind of overly permissive parent who lets their kids have ice cream for dinner, i.e., weak and ineffectual parents.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 16 |
Total: 16 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Nick D.:
Show all comments by Nick D..