1. First, re-read my original post on “Why Rhetoric Matters”.
2. Then, go here and read how that post is packaged and presented by a guardian of the “reality-based community.” Pay particular attention to how the author alters my terminology and, in a stunning display of intelletual ineptitude, manages to miss the entire thrust of the argument.
3. Return here, scratch head / weep for the country, and discuss.
****
update: A great idea, but I’d change the title to “Goldstein for Nuanced, Misunderstood Geniuses Who Wish the Rest of the Country Wasn’t So Fucking Stupid As To Repeatedly Bring to Power Jesushumping, Anti-FREEDOM Morons—Or Rather, Who Wish We Could Just Do Away With Democracy Altogether And Get On With Installing A Benevolent Liberal Philosopher King Who Will Punish The Fundies And Conservatives For Their Anti-Progressivist Apostacies (But In A Kindly Way), And Who Will Finally Give The Country BACK TO THE PEOPLE (by, y’know, taking it away from them. But don’t worry, we can reconcile that with a bit of semantic prestidigitation. Just give us time)”
Because, y’know, more flies with honey, etc…
****
update 2: a very interesting gloss on all this from Brian O’Connell.
Jeff, whoever the hell that person is, he’s not worth your time.
I appreciated your post. And I spread the word to all 5 of my readers -one of which I’m SURE doesn’t read your blog.
He also thinks Caleb Carr, who has written some blockbuster novels in addition to political and social commentary, and teaches military history at Bard, can’t write. I think the problem is on the reading end.
The willful denial of what I actually wrote in favor of privileging how they have decided to read it—even in the face of overwhelming evidence militating against their peculiar interpretation—is astounding.
Like watching chimps trying to figure out a vibrator: It’s a foregone conclusion that at least one of them is going to fuck himself in the ear.
Cognitive dissonance is giving it too much credit, this is just plain old stupidity.
Like watching chimps trying to figure out a vibrator: It’s a foregone conclusion that at least one of them is going to fuck himself in the ear.
Thank God I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that.
Is that a jab at Bush?
Ah well. I dropped by and wrote my 2 cents, which was, I must admit, a bit more impassioned than I necessarily think was appropriate. That they seemed to take offense at my assertion that refusing to address your actual arguments made them “callow”, but I suppose that’s to be expected.
I generally find that people like that don’t want to do much other than misrepresent the opinions of others, so I doubt any of this will change that.
Love love love the last comment on the thread at that blog. He actually resorts to, “But… ABU GHRAIB!”
This is congnitive dissonance so brilliant it goes full circle and manages to resonate.
I tried to talk with them too, with the same results. When they can’t tell Abu Ghraib from Guantanamo Bay, the level of mental disconnect there means discussion just isn’t worth it.
And you guys are going to by those tee shirts, right? Nothing makes a lib more angry than capitalism, especially conservative capitalism!
Seems like this classic leftoid response is as timely as ever:
LOL, I love it David.
You must include the ™ symbol, David. It’s crucial!
Hah! You gotta love it! “Goldstein for Dummies!”
You’re right, Jeff! I hang my head in shame at the omission. (I actually did copy that into a text file for use as boilerplate, and apparently the TM symbol didn’t translate….)
I don’t weep for the country. The guy’s an idiot.
Jeff, you should be honored. He did the exact same thing to Lileks, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Totten, and Chris Muir all in the last couple weeks. And in one short sentence he points to an attack on Molly Ivins as evidence that Donklephant is not centrist. That’s a neat trick. Because the only kind of person that would think she’s anything but the bestest writer out there is an uber-right-wing-crank.
Jeff, If I called my Goldstein for Dummies post the Goldstein for Nuanced Misunderstood Geniuses, et al., I would have to write a Scribal Terror for Dummies translating the title to Goldstein for Dummies.
Jeff, you originally wrote that “leftist boilerplate” thing.
You broadly apply the sense of it to pretty much anyone on the left who vocally opposes Bush without also mouthing the appropriate right-wing ass-kissing platitudes.
You routinely cherry-pick fringe commentary to portray liberals / Democrats / “the Left” as stupid, unpatriotic, naive, uniquely self-serving and power-hungry (as opposed to conservatives, who are… ?), and out of touch with reality.
You fail to acknowledge even the remotest glimmer of a possibility that your opponents are either acting in good faith or simply “not bad people”.
So what, exactly, do you expect to get in response? Are we supposed to just sit here and take it without occasionally responding in kind? Let me ask you this, you who (quite correctly, I might add) pointed out that infuriating little bitch Amanda Marcotte’s tendency (OK, more than just tendency – more like official policy) to treat the most cartoonish, broad-ranging, and ridiculous redneck stereotypes as though they represented everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line: is “TRAITOR! AMERICA-HATER! TERRORIST-LOVER!” – or your more subtle, less hysterical-sounding, and therefore far more effective – versions of said Republican attack rhetoric, such as the “but don’t question their patriotism” stuff, any different at all? Or any of the endless other mean-spirited and often self-contradictory (apparently, we’re both too pacifistic and too “angry”; we’re both excessively licentious and crypto-Stalinist, etc.) caricatures of liberals the right not only promotes but plays to the hilt?
And before you go accusing me of “sanctimony”, let me just point out that I’m not coming at this from some sort of “mean people suck” angle, or suggesting that any mocking or caricaturing of one’s opponents should be off the table because it “cheapens the discourse”; I’m just saying that you, one of the most prolific (and, yes, talented) practitioners in the blogosphere of “kidding on the square” mockery that also enables you to achieve a much broader audience for your “serious” points (such as that “the Left” is engaged in a “velvet revolution” to institute worldwide Orwellian language restrictions (which, by the way, is a perfect example of what I mean about dismissing the possibility that “the Left” is acting in good faith: you assume that the intent is to reach the furthest-out logical extreme, rather than to reduce or eliminate bigotry, which is the stated aim), and so forth), strike me as just about the last person who has any legitimate basis for complaining when your targets return fire.
Yes, correct, I cherry pick. By citing, say, the DNC chair, the House Democratic leaders, the Senate Democratic leaders, the Mayor of London, etc.
Fringe players, all.
And I never acknowledge good faith of my opponents. Like here. Or here. To name but two recent examples.
Please. Stop it with the posing. And if you want to cite a specific post to make your point (like the velvet revolution post), link it. I’ll leave it to the objective observer to read both the post and the comments to see if I’m tarring everyone with the same broad brush.
Goldstein for Dummies is totally redundant, we already have Protein Wisdom.
Hey, look, CJ! It’s one of those caricatures of an angry leftist who bursts onto a blog and drops an ad hominem who only exists in the imagination of we righties!
And right on cue, too!
But it was so very clever. Hit ‘em back with “But, I’m rubber and you’re glue” line.
Often, when Jeff’s targets “return fire,” it’s more like watching clowns squirting seltzer down their own pants. Just doing my part to elevate the level of debate: Carry on. . .
“But it was so very clever. Hit ‘em back with “But, I’m rubber and you’re glue†line.”
I am more of a sticks & stones person.
And I may be ad hominem but didn’t suggest anybody fuck there dog.
.
Right. See, that happened in a vacuum. Or have you already airbrushed out the prompt from history’s incovenient record?
Please. Stop it with the posing.
See, that’s exactly what I mean about going straight to assuming the worst about your opponents’ motives… what makes you think I’m “posing”, other than that I’m criticizing you? “Posing” as what? Am I “grandstanding” for political benefit? For what audience? I’m posting anonymously on a right-wing blog where 95% of the readership is likely to be hostile to my views. So what could be my motivation for “posing”?
Here’s an alternative theory: while I recognize that you, being human and all, can feel as aggrieved and irritated by the other side’s hyperbole, I just don’t think you have a whole lot of room for public fainting spells when someone insults you. More generally speaking, I also, having been the target of countless right-wing caricatures and just straightforward venomous, mean-spirited attacks, have a hard time working up a great deal of sympathy for someone who seemingly can dish it out, but can’t take it.
Let me see if can sum up the counterargument to Jeff’s reasoning:
1. We have to address “root causes†of terrorism and that means interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, but without, you know…overthrowing anything or even demanding accountability (an exercise that America had the opportunity to debate last November and chose to stay with Chimpyâ€â€but that’s just because Rove stole Ohio and Kerry would have won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote just like Chimpy, which would have made him every bit as legititmate as Chimpy).
2. London police are evil MFs directly responsible for shooting a guy who failed to stop when ordered, but Chimpy is to blame for Islamofacist “insurgents†(I hate that word) killing a bunch of kids (and adults) getting candy from US troops.
3. Prisoners (who were shooting at Americans at some point) getting a lap dance (exaggeration) from a female interrogator is torture (the 21st century equivalent of Bataan, don’t you know); Chopping the head off a guy who maybe was interested in turning the lights back on for some more of those kids is an understandable outgrowth of Chimpy’s foreign policy.
4. There will be no peace until Palestinians have a state, which they had in 1948, but wanted ALL of it, and then, backed by the martial virility of the Arab governments, lost to the Jooooos (multiple times) and refused to even discuss the issue until Wye River where they promptly kicked the table over again. But Chimpy is to blame for this as well.
5. Things were so much better in the 60s when Kerry was killing babies and cutting off ears by his own admission and Chimpy was AWOL.
Yes, according to the left all these things are consistent and do not possess a hint of recognizable irony.
I don’t understand what you mean by “can’t take it”? Does being able to “take it” mean I can’t respond to “it”? I have to pretend to like it? I have to be lectured by someone like you who clearly thinks himself so far above the fray that he is within his right to analyze me and my motives, basing all his conclusions on the most feeble pop-psych projections he could possibly muster?
See, that’s what I mean by posing, CJ. What you have to gain is a sense of yourself as somehow more noble than partisans on either side. And in order to reach that point of comfortable self-flattery, you go to other blogs and calmy point out the flaws you see in others.
But let’s get back to the point of my not being able to “take it.” Please, explain. Here. IN MY OPEN COMMENT SECTION! WHERE YOU ARE ACTIVELY CRITICIZING ME EVEN AS WE SPEAK!
No, Jeff, I didn’t suggest that such people don’t exist; I merely pointed out that they are neither unique to, nor even more common on, the left-wing side.
prudence, let me give you a hint: you’re not clever, and you’re not entertaining, even to other liberals. Mostly, you’re just giving the people here convenient reinforcement of their silly stereotypes, and, as you can see by Jeff’s immediate response, a rhetorical club with which to bludgeon the substance out of a debate. So please, just go away or add some meaningful criticisms: trust me, there’s plenty here to criticize without resorting to childish nonsense.
wishbone – You forgot in number 2 that some lefties (Atrios, I think) managed to blame Bush for the bobbies bad shooting.
No airbrushing here. I saw a hilarious t-shirt that said “I neutered my cat this morning, now he’s a liberal” so I had a little fun and said “ I lobotomized my dog this morning, now he’s a conservative”, then you suggested I fuck said dog to show my “progressive bona fides”.
I guess humor is in the eye of the blogger.
Now back to my liberal vacuum.
Well, Prudence, don’t let the door hit you where the lord split you.
No, I’m not saying I’m “above the fray”. To be quite honest with you, my experience as a liberal is that the frequency, venom, and sinister implications of the left’s rhetorical excesses don’t even remotely approach being in the ballpark of those of the right. I’m just saying that I understand how you, as a right-winger, could legitimately see it that way, in good faith. This is not intended to rhetorically set myself up in the “neutral” or “moderate” position; I should think my non-neutrality would be fairly obvious. I’m not sure how else to explain it to you, because I happen to believe that this is one of those very fundamental points on which the right and left are irreconcilably separated: to me, acknowledging the faults of my own side is not a question of either “betrayal” (or “TREASON!”) or of seizing the political high ground of moderation. As far as I’m concerned, it’s both a simple recognition of reality and, I would hope, a way to engage in civil discourse by at least attempting to separate myself to some degree from the partisan flamethrowers on my side.
What I don’t get is, why isn’t that good enough? What exactly do you mean when you talk about “civil discourse”? Does that mean just not criticizing you?
As for “not being able to take it”, I really only meant that in the colloquial way: you seem to get extremely upset about relatively standard-style partisan criticisms of what you write. Yes, you have an open comments section, though I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but most of it is usually filled up by people who agree with you… so it’s not as if doing so inherently demonstrates some selfless sense of free-speech idealism on your part.
“TRAITOR! AMERICA-HATER! TERRORIST-LOVER!”
I can honestly say, given the hard left’s war with the president for their own gain (which I can safely say, has been all for naught)while we’re in a very serious war drops them squarely in the category of traitor and america hater.
Pick a side. Many liberals have. And its not the same side as their country.
Thanks CJ, I guess you are the spokesperson for the liberals.
I respect the people here and I think they can take care of themselves. It’s comments like yours that make people think the word liberal is synonomous with pussy.
I don’t think I am any better than anybody else or or as Jeff said,”someone like you who clearly thinks himself so far above the fray that he is within his right to analyze me and my motives.”
So thanks again, and let the bludgeoning begin.
I thought Prudence was gone already. Is it safe now?
So, Jeff, when they finish “Installing A Benevolant Liberal Philosopher King Who Will Punish The Fundies And Conservatives For Their Anti-Progressivist Apostacies (But In A Kindly Way), does that “Kindly Way” part mean that sending the apostates to a gulag won’t be necessary because a simple head shot in front of a mass grave will suffice?
My word is based; as in reality based, buster.
Prudence, there’s a difference between being a pussy and remembering that not everyone on the other side is intellectually equivalent to Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. And trust me, the last thing I’m trying to do is protect anyone here. I said what I said because you annoy me and undermine the points I’m trying to make.
I’ll say the same thing to you as I said to Jeff: someone with your rhetorical style can’t possibly expect anything but a defensive response by the other side when you attack them.
Although that being said, I should thank Matt for giving me my own nice little example of fellow-traveler stupidity to point out to Jeff and anyone else here who honestly believes it’s the left that’s “less civil”.
I happen to believe that this is one of those very fundamental points on which the right and left are irreconcilably separated: to me, acknowledging the faults of my own side is not a question of either “betrayal†(or “TREASON!”) or of seizing the political high ground of moderation.
And this is a point of separation how, exactly? I criticize Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt on this blog with greater frequency than I do Dick Durbin.
When I write a controversial piece about Tancredo, an interesting discussion between differing factions on the right breaks out in the comments over strategic options, military power, political pressure, deterrence, etc.
Conversely, when I write a piece criticizing particular partisan Democrats, leftist Brits, and some in the press, I’m immediately bombarded with ad hominem attacks, flagrant misrepresentations of my post, a series of argumentative non sequiturs, and a day of watching bile trickle through the comment threads.
I linked you to a “criticism” in my “Rhetoric” post from Ted Barlow that I thought was actually trying to engage me on the substance. I responded respectfully and made my argument. Why did you ignore that in putting together your thesis?
As for being able to take it, I don’t get upset. I just respond, often in kind. Some people just ignore it. I use it at as opportunity to sharpen a particular facet of my writing.
Then there’s this, which perhaps more than anything sums up the exasperation inherent in trying to “debate” people like you, CJ:
Precisely. Because my comments are often used more to agree with me than not suggests that there is nothing inherently free-speech about my allowing for the possibility of free speech.
Fantastic.
Yeah, CJ, because I’m the one that showed up and anonymously insulted all the readers of this blog and then bowed out of the arugment before they were even insulted back.
Prudence suggested he (or she) wasn’t welcome here, I agreed. How terribly uncivil of me.
What makes me laugh the most is that Jeff will go to another site that insults him to defend/debate the points he raises but never feels the need to remain anonymous in doing do. However, those who choose to come here and sling ad hominems back in lieu of a healthy debate choose to remain anonymous.
Telling, that…..wonder what the’re afraid of?
I’m probably too unevolved in my thinking here, but if the remarks of Shahzeed Tanwer were reported accurately and in context (and there is yet to be a demonstration that they were not) and reflect at least part of his motivation (again, there is no demonstration to the contrary)-
And if there is no tangible evidence of torture or a delilberate policy of torture at Guantanamo (here, room perhaps for quibbling over definitions, but if anyone has any solid evidence it has yet to be presented) –
then how can anyone take offense at the idea that those whose remarks (and those who, by their marked silence did nothing to dispute those remarks) led to the creation of such an impression in the mind of Shahzeed and Company are therefore somehow culpable?
Turing word “not” as in I’m not capable of understanding the Left’s problem here.
Precisely. Because my comments are often used more to agree with me than not suggests that there is nothing inherently free-speech about my allowing for the possibility of free speech.
OK, point made. I should have been clearer: what I meant was that I don’t think your having an open comments section is, in and of itself, enough to indicate that you are a selfless, idealistic, and non-judgmental proponent of free speech as opposed to the liberals who want to “Give The Country BACK TO THE PEOPLE (by, y’know, taking it away from them…”. I guess that was sort of a cheap shot from your perspective, but it wasn’t meant that way.
As for the Ted Barlow thing, I didn’t read it. That simple. One instance (or even a few) of your engaging in a respectful debate does not counterbalance the daily flow of posts which, from where I stand, can at best be said to contain no small element of disdain, sour grapes, and stunning misinterpretation, and at worst as active and willful misrepresentation, exaggeration, and oversimplification of opposing beliefs and political positions.
Somehow, we all missed the a priori ridiculous portion of CJ’s original post:
Hmmm. Fringe commentary?!?! Dick Durbin and Howard Dean, for example, are fringe? Pelosi is fringe?
Liberals are out of touch with reality. I am astounded on a DAILY basis with statements and attitudes from the leadership of the Democratic Party that, in addition to missing the point or being inaccurate (Guantanamo), seem to be ignorant of any event from 1917 onward in the past century. No, CJ, you are not stupid or pussies. You have lost your moral compass–I suggest it happened sometime in Reagan’s first term, when faced with Dutch’s overwhelming personal popularity, the official left began to actively engage in activities that went hand-in-hand with our enemies desires (remember the idiotic nuclear freeze movement?). Even when Republicans were foaming at the mouth over Clinton’s indiscretions and spouting “wag the dog” theories, they never advocated being understanding with bin Laden or his ilk or looking for “root causes.”
Beat you to it, wishbone!
But Jeff, Howard Dean is just the chairman, he doesn’t speak for the party!
Matt Moore- I didn’t think you were being uncivil, just having fun. I don’t feel unwelcome, I hope I’m not. The insult was just answereing in kind.
CJ-Lighten up! Are you always on. This is a comments section not the Senate. I don’t profess to hold the lofty title of journalist. I am just a punk ass that occasionally enjoys making snarky comments and sparing rhetorically with people on different blogs, for fun. I mean both sides deserve a little shit sometimes. Hope this wasn’t to annoying to you buddy.
Damn–I should…wait for it…read the whole thing.
If I could make one simple suggestion for people on the other side who want to be taken seriously instead of mocked? To quote my 10th grade geometry teacher, SHOW YOUR WORK. Quit assuming facts not in evidence, and actually walk them back, and see how much support there is for the assertion. All too often, the “proof” turns out to be either a bald assertion from a highly questionable source, or a single out-of-context quote that requires willful misreading to support the position.
Treat your arguments seriously, and maybe people will treat *you* seriously.
OK, this’ll be my last comment, because I’m obviously wasting my time: how exactly does “you routinely cherry-pick fringe commentary” connect to “Howard Dean and Dick Durbin are fringe”? What I had in mind when I said “cherry-pick” was all the times I’ve seen a link to some DU or Kos idiot spewing conspiracy theories or “Bush=Hitler” nonsense, followed by some variation on the obligatory “the left is becoming more unhinged every day” routine. Which is exactly my point: those people don’t represent my views, and they don’t represent the views of the vast majority of people I know. And when the people I know who do hold those views (maybe two) start in with that shit, I argue against them.
And wishbone, your entire comment is yet another perfect example of just automatically imputing the worst motives to your opponents (“actively engage in activities that went hand-in-hand with our enemies desires” about the nuclear freeze movement?? Christ, I might as well just go read directly from Ann Coulter).
Matt Moore, pretty sure he’s talking about my “hateful rhetoric”. Sorry, CJ, if I find the actions of the far left and its representative politicians to be traitorous. You can claim, of course, that I’m being “mean” to you but you may recall the sheer volume of “red staters are morons” comments after the recent election. As a professional with two degrees, do you really think I voted for Bush because I’m just stupid ?
Quite frankly, sometimes us stupid redneck “red staters” get sick of listening to all the liberal bullshit about how stupid we are and we start pushing back. Clearly, you can’t handle it.
CJ – Well, of course we connected your accusation of cherry-picking to Jeff’s criticism of Dean, Durbin, Livingstone, et al. That’s the post we were all talking about, so we assumed (since you didn’t link some other post with actual cherry-picking) you were talking about the same thing.
So please, if you can bring yourself to waste more of your time, link to one of those posts where Jeff equates some DU moron with the entire left. Because, to my knowledge, Jeff doesn’t even link to DU or Kos diarists very often, much less use their views to smear the entire left.
Matt – You’re right. There are too damn many Matts in the world. I blame Bush. Or Howard Dean, not sure which.
I always loved that one!
Of course they don’t, sillypants. You agree with them, therefore they seem innocuous.
Find those posts, CJ. I’ve linked to DU maybe 5 times since 2002; I’ve linked to Kos probably the same number of times (unless it is part of some larger link fest, which rounds up a variety of opinions—and besides, with 400,000 readers a day and diaries by Ted Kennedy and Wesley Clark, is Kos really “fringe”?) You seem to think that because they don’t reflect your views they are fringe. But the point is, Dean, Reid, Kennedy, Pelosi, Durbin—these people are expressing the kinds of things you’d expect to hear on Kos or Atrios.
Then there’s this:
Provide examples. Most of my posts are meant to be humorous. When I intend to talk seriously about a subject I talk seriously about a subject.
“sillypants”? You calling him gay? HOMOPHOBE!!!
I happen to believe that this is one of those very fundamental points on which the right and left are irreconcilably separated: to me, acknowledging the faults of my own side is not a question of either “betrayal†(or “TREASON!”) or of seizing the political high ground of moderation.
CJ-
Acknowledging faults of our own side is clearly not treasonous. It’s healthy self-awareness. But I think the difference between today’s liberals and conservatives is where they put the “but.”
Conservatives will tend to say, “Yes, Abu Ghraib-type abuse is loutish and offensive and counter-productive, BUT it is not in keeping with America’s values, it is not indicative of America’s level of respect for Arabs, the offenders will be held responsible, and let’s not let it distract us from our true enemies.
Liberals will tend to say, “Yes, Saddam was a bad guy and the insurgents demonstrate a concerning lack of respect for the value of human life, BUT fundamentally, who are we to impose our will? We’re in no way blameless ourselves, having actively supported Saddam for years, having inflamed their passions and offended their sensibilities by setting foot on Arab lands and imposing sanctions on Iraq, and having committed unspeakable acts of human degredation at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
As Jeff pointed out, the problem is rhetoric. And yeah, the misrepresentation goes both ways. It’s all ass-covering, point-scoring crap. Conservatives denying that perceptions of America matter, or asserting that we are an infallible power for good, risk making rash, disasterous missteps. It borders on hubris. Liberals denying that we are conducting the most humane and surgically-precise war in history, denying that there is nobility and a common sense self-defense rationale in actively pursuing stable democracy in the Middle East, and squawking that Iraq is a quagmire and our soldiers are war criminals, risk undercutting our mission and giving aid to the enemy. It borders on treachery.
I’m sure intelligent liberals and conservatives could come to some agreements on our faults as a nation. But at some point, it’s becomes time to agree unswervingly that America is worth defending.
*What I had in mind when I said “cherry-pick†was all the times I’ve seen a link to some DU or Kos idiot spewing conspiracy theories or “Bush=Hitler†nonsense, followed by some variation on the obligatory “the left is becoming more unhinged every day†routine.*
Well of course, thats not what you had in mind. Obviously, what Jeff is talking about, is that the far left’s leaders are leading the charge into insanity and the moveon/KOS/DU are following right along. Do you really think 1/2 of the KOS’rs are smart enough to have an actual debate, without moveon talking points ? When the DNC chairman, who, I might remind you, represents the DNC, says that he hates republicans and we’ve never done an honest days work in our life, you don’t think thats picked up by every single lefty who wants to get in the face of a conservative. When Dick Durbin, another champion of the left, compares Gitmo to nazi death camps and pol pot, come on, you don’t think thats per se evidence that the left’s LEADERS have lost their damn mind ?
I have news for you. Where their leaders lead, the sheep follow. The democratic leadership is leading the sheep right off the cliffs of insanity (yes, a Princess Bridge reference) and Jeff is simply pointing it out with amusement.
I think most conservatives would agree- we’d rather have reasonable debates on issues about which people disagree. For example, I’ll have a debate on “what constitutes torture” but I simply will not enter into an argument where a certain memme (torture at Gitmo) is argued to be the default starting position from which to commence the argument. As someone noted, cite facts which prove your case- citing an AFP article claiming that a source inside the UN has revealed that the US admitted (ADMITTED !!) that there was torture going on at Gitmo does not win you ANY arguments.
“Matt – You’re right. There are too damn many Matts in the world. I blame Bush. Or Howard Dean, not sure which.”
Amen
This will be my last comment on this thread as well.
I’m prepared to ground my argument in facts, CJ–how about you? 1983: The Soviets wanted a freeze with hundreds of SS-20s aimed at Western Europe with no comparable western nuclear system deployed. . The Left says: AAAAAAHHHHHH, Reagan the warmonger!!! Our hair will fall out like Jason Robards on the days after!!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Reagan says: screw that here come our Pershing IIs and cruise missiles unless the commies want to get rid of the SS-20s. And so it went, until the Soviets cried uncle.
Those are facts and I submit that the world was much better off without BOTH sets of weapons and that agreeemnt led directly to the much smaller arsenals the U.S. and Russia have today.
The Left lost its moral compass in that case and it is instructive for more recent events–anytime you begin arguing the viewpoint of the Soviets or Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein or enemies in the hoosegow at Guantanamo WITHOUT OBJECTIVE, VERIFIED REASON TO DO SO is indefensible (TOUCHING THE KORAN WITH AN UNGLOVED PINKY DOES NOT COUNT, DAMMIT!). And the environment today is filled with those on the left who DO believe that George Bush is a greater threat than…oh hell…insert one from column A and two from column B here…I’m done.
Hey, at least you didn’t have someone link to it with your address supplied, an assertion that you hate Muslims and a suggestion to hunt you down.
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2005/07/situational-logic-right-wing-style.html
Couldn’t they have taught these people to read before allowing them access to a keyboard?
Criminy. Don’t they have laws against that in Canuckistan? Lemme guess, you don’t want to turn him in for fear they’d prosecute you for hate speech?
CitizenJ
I’m skipping most of the comments because I want to talk to you directly, right now.
I don’t CARE whether the Leftists [who are demanding timetables for withdrawal, or equating our military troops to Nazis and Pol Pot, or marching in the street with giant puppets of Bu$Hitler] have “pure motives” or are operating in “good faith.”
There may have been legitimate debatable reasons to oppose the invasion of Iraq BEFORE IT HAPPENED. Now, to do so, is immoral and indecent. We are in a war and you have but two choices. America and the Iraqi people win, or the Islamists do. And every thing Leftists do to undercut the American effort is a choice that American loses.
Even Charles Lindbergh, who crossed the country giving speeches that American was being “tricked” into war by a conspiracy formed by FDR, England and Jews (now doesn’t THAT sound familiar!) had the common decency to shut the fuck up after Pearl Harbor.
Why don’t you do the same.
Jaysus, Kate!
Can you get that idjit’s account pulled? That has at LEAST got to be contrary to TOS!
That’s it! I’m so coining the phrase “cognitive dissident.”
Provided no one else has.
SW: At least no one “told” me.
Jeff,
Its hilarious to see these people show up and wilfully demonstrate right here in your comments just how intellectually vapid they are.
Astonishing.
CJ—In case you are peeking back in, the thing that strikes me most about your (laudable) suggestions for civil debate is that you don’t seem to appreciate how the host and most of the regulars here are way ahead of you. When you complain of
disdain, sour grapes, and stunning misinterpretation, and at worst as active and willful misrepresentation, exaggeration, and oversimplification of opposing beliefs and political positions
well, we can all tell the difference in those things and serious discussion. Yet, you feel the need to come here and straighten everyone out. You are like the fastidious new soldier who lectures everyone not to throw gear away because that’s what you were taught in basic, while veterans unload and lighten up whenever possible. You’re talking at the level of English Composition. We’re doing graduate work here—hell, we’ve dropped out and are doing the real thing.
Really, this is a pretty smart group of people, and if you’d ponder it you’d realize how condescending and arrogant you sound, like you are instructing us in how to think properly. I served in the Peace Corps. I’ve traveled around the world wearing a backpack twice. I helped found my campus ACLU chapter. I was a member of Amnesty International. I know “the other side” you want us to consider, and most people here do, also. We know it, we don’t agree with it, and we’ve gone beyond it.
And BTW, anyone who’s read this blog for any amount of time can’t help but notice how polite Jeff is. If you come to him with a reasoned argument and don’t call him names, you can get some very fine discussion indeed. Try it real hard next time and you’ll see. It could be a valuable resource for you.
Kate,
That feels like…(sniff)…
… it feels like… HEALING!
Turing word: peace, as in peace, tolerance, and understanding.
[…] are more evil than the bigotry of people like JD and Thor. What Goldstein does is both provide intellectual cover for bigots and advance a political agenda on behalf of homophobic bigotry [I support civil unions […]