Due to the "contrarian nature" of many of my blog posts that some of the readers have mentioned as one of the blog's main attractions, I have been excoriated by both liberal and conservative bloggers. My progressive readers are not too happy about my lack of unqualified, starry-eyed admiration of Assange and his WikiLeaks project, they get annoyed with my questioning of "choice feminism" that requires an unwavering acceptance of every stupid, misguided choice if said choice is made by a woman, become sulky when I ridicule their love of scratching the itchy scab of their imaginary "privilege," and start foaming at the mouth when I remind them that there was nothing good about the Soviet Union.
The conservatives, on the other hand, get upset when I mention that the US is a country that has some problems, go into tantrums when I remind that, statistically, hosewives are one group of population that suffers the most from depression, get sulky when I ask them difficult questions such as "What makes you think making a budget will cover a multi-billion dollar deficit?", and become rabid when I make fun of the general stupidity of the Tea Partiers.
There is a difference, though, between getting tons of hits from people who come from liberal sites that post angry rebuttals of my posts and visitors from the conservative blogs that attempt to do the same. Visitors from progressive blogs leave comments, argue, initiate discussions, offer evidence in support of their opinions. I might disagree with them, but I am forced to recognize that their comments are interesting to read. Conservative readers come by, gawp, and, at best, leave a comment of the "I-know-this-is-somehow-wrong-but-I-don't-have-the-brains-to-explain-why" variety. Their writing is stilted and full of spelling and grammar mistakes. They think that calling one "a Jew whore" and "an autie retard" is a powerful intellectual argument.
I explained before why I find any conservative position to be unsustainable on the level of reason and logic. It is not surprising to me that visitors who come here from conservative websites turn out to be very unintelligent and incapable of maintaining a discussion. They don't really have opinions, that's the problem. They have emotional outbursts whose underlying causes they are able neither to identify not to control.
P.S. An interesting response to this post appeared here. Finally, I'm being linked to by somebody intelligent. :-) Things are looking up.
P.S. An interesting response to this post appeared here. Finally, I'm being linked to by somebody intelligent. :-) Things are looking up.
16 comments:
I would like to make a belated wish for your speedy recovery. I hope that none of your tea party followers on your Jared thread have called your affliction a physical manifestation of God’s retribution for your attack on His chosen instrument on earth, Sarah Palin. Their understanding of bilingualism is 1 Corinthians 13:1 (“speak in tongues of men and of angels”) rather than Spanish and English. If you begin to show signs of stigmata or glossolalia, let us know.
Clarissa said...
""when I make fun of the general stupidty of the Tea Partiers.""
Yeah, those rednecks are so stupid I doubt they could even spell stupidity!
Yes it is a cheap shot to make fun of typos, but you did leave yourself a little open here.
Thank you, James!
Could you also show me where I made fun of anybody's typos? Or do you think people consider Bush Jr., Sarah Palin and other of your freakazoid brethren to be idiots because of typos?
Thank you, Canukistani! You make feel better with your great sense of humor, as always.
You know, I'm not a republican (so I wouldn't know) but I imagine that at least one of the some 50% of Americans who voted for Bush did so for intelligent, explainable reasons. Were you trying to say that all conservatives are emotional and have no underlying factual motivation for their opinions, or are you just making an observation about conservatives on the internet? Because the former observation would be indefensible and wrong. The latter is only slightly better.
While we're on the subject of conservative or liberal opinions, what are we labelling conservative or liberal? As a liberal, do I have the right to attribute the "best" of the liberal movement to my movement, and do I have the right to attribute the "worst" of the conservative movement to the conservatives? Do I have the right to disassociate myself from people who are violent on the left, yet do I get to blame the conservative movement as a whole for the tea party, and the violent rhetoric we see on the right?
More of this is an observation on how we are quick to indict a group whether it be conservatives, christians, muslims, atheists, w/e for the ills of violent members within that group. BUT, when we are part of one of those groups, we utter the timeless phrase, "Oh, but they're not real _______'s". Oh, but that's just a minority of our group.
Clarissa. I think its ridiculous that people decided to actually call you such hateful phrases. But, I can guarantee you that there are some corners of the internet where I could go to and be called a fascist, a racist, an asshole for expressing opinions that are not "liberal" enough. That coming from someone who voted for Obama, was for a single payer system during the healthcare debate, is for full gay and minority rights, and only could find myself agreeing with the republicans ever on some economic issues.
I think we need to call out asshole behavior and speech when we see it, regardless of where it comes from. Otherwise, it makes people believe that, somehow, because the "other side" (Whatever the fuck that means) is worse, they get a free asshole pass for the day. No, they don't.
David: in my first post on Jared Laughner I explained why I'm convinced that conservative beliefs cannot be sustained on a reasonable level.
Of course, if you are willing to explain how it makes sense to freeze things in an unchanged state against the constant flow of time that defines our existence as human beings, I'd love to hear that argument. Simply put, what sense does it make to try to "conserve" things if it is inscribed in the very nature of who we are that everything changes, progresses, mutates all the time?
Clarissa:
I suppose we are operating out of different definitions of conservatism vs liberalism.
When I think of conservatism, I think of a movement that is primarily concerned with matters of economic deregulation and increased social restrictions. (This is a loose working definition, but helpful and descriptive) When I think of liberalism, (modern, i.e. the American left) I think of a movement that is concerned with removing social discrimination and stigma, increasing regulation of industries to protect individuals. Again, a loose description.
But, taking "my" description aside for a moment, let's talk about yours:
If we are to assume that we are talking about a difference between conservation of society vs. allowing change ("progression" if you will), it is clear that yes, we do change as individuals. However, it would be naive to believe that all change is something that should be embraced. For example, communism was once a quite novel idea that hadn't been implemented as a form of governance among the governments of early 20th century Europe. Part of the problems that the soviet union suffered resulted from rather regressive policies of political freedom and labor, BUT, it is true that their state-centric economic model failed rather spectacularly.
In other words: not all new ideas are good, not all change is good. I do think that embracing change as a general axiom of life though, is good.
Where does this leave us? Personally, I'd rather use my loose definition of conservatism an liberalism to discuss this issue: but even if we were to use yours, I don't think everything is as clear cut as you make it out to be.
" For example, communism was once a quite novel idea that hadn't been implemented as a form of governance among the governments of early 20th century Europe."
-When the horrible tsar's regime fell in the Russian Empire in February of 1917, it was a decidedly wonderful thing. Then, years later the Soviet Union led by Stalin adopted the most regressive CONSERVATIVE policies of that Russian Empire. And that was then it became such a horrible place. The downfall of the USSR was caused by its conservatism. Surely, nobody would call that place liberal or progressive in their wildest dreams.
You are absolutely right when you say that the Soviet ecnomy was a total failure. As somebody who actually experienced the Soviet economy first-hand, however, I can tell you that it was extremely similar to the one upheld and supported by Bush, Jr. We had exactly the same bailouts to dysfunctional companies that were considered "too big to fail." Taxpayers money was similarly squandered on falining businesses that simply could not compete.
All this talk about free markets that comes out of the Republican camp cannot possibly be trusted after the bailouts of 2008. Nothing reminded me more of the USSR that Bush Jr.'s last months in office.
Right, the U.S.S.R was probably a pretty poor example. In retrospect I should have used something like the French Revolution and the reign of terror (The idea here being that the progressive spark of desiring change does not necessarily lead to a good outcome). Regardless, I think we need to avoid making an argument that approaches tautology - where progressivism is "proved correct" by associating it with all examples of enlightened political thinking, and conservatism "disproved" by associating it with all examples of unenlightened political thinking. If we define it that way then, yes, conservative positions will be untenable.
All of this comes down to labelling. Am I conservative for supporting a free market system in general? Probably not as much in U.S. society - where things such as capitalism are taken for granted. Am I then a liberal for supporting certain forms of regulation? For one, I agree with you that financial institutions should never be too big to fail. I also think that there are many problems that have resulted from deregulation - such as problems that have resulted from repealing parts of Glass-Steagall. However, I was for the bailouts when they happened and still am. (Necessary evil) What threshold do I or others have to cross to be conservative?
I guess the main thing that I had an issue with was this: "any conservative position is unsustainable on the level of reason and logic". I know, I shouldn't be the word police. I know its just your opinion and stronger statements make for stronger writing. But in general, it makes for jarring reading to see that "any" instead of "some". Take this last paragraph less as a criticism and more as "this is where I'm coming from".
""Could you also show me where I made fun of anybody's typos?""
Never said you did, but insulting people by calling them stupid and then spelling stupid wrong has got to be worth a laugh or two!
""Then, years later the Soviet Union led by Stalin adopted the most regressive CONSERVATIVE policies of that Russian Empire. And that was then it became such a horrible place.""
You are an academic? What do you teach, Gender studies?
Look up "Russian civil war". The reds were invaded by the old regime remnants with international help [the Whites] and had to ruthlessly supress peasant uprisings from people who did not like having their seed grain confiscated [the Greens].
And all the while Trotsky's Red Army was suppressing [read, shooting] anyone who did not do as the party said.
It is interesting that you consider things only to have gone downhill after Stalin took over. The reason Stalin was able to do so was because all those nice folks like Lenin had set up a totalitarian society that ruthlessly smashed anyone and everyone who got in their way.
Oh and they overthrew the first democratically elected government Russia ever had in order to do so.
You consider this to be a good thing? Or are you ignorant of as much history as you seem to be?
BTW the various Communist parties in the West did not consider Stalin "Conservative" they followed lock-step with whatever he asked and the liberal elites of the time believed that in his state lay a future for all mankind "I have seen the future, and it works!".
James, you are embarrassing yourself here. Ignorant, uneducated people like you should abstain from giving lectures to knowledgeable people if they want to avoid looking ridiculous. Your weird lecture on history sounds kind of pathetic. Foolks like you should listen more and pontificate less.
Take 5 to 10 years to educate yourself about some basci facts of history and then you might be ready to participate in discussions on this blog. Good luck in your educational endeavors!
Clarissa learn to spell "Basic" before trying to sneer.
Also you seem very adept at simply ignoring the arguments of people who disagree with you and simply yelling "Ignorant" at them.
Not very bright are you? You would be funny if not for the fact that you seem to be responsible for teaching the next generation. But I seriously doubt anyone with your level of reasoning could be an actual academic, I suspect you have padded your C.V for this blog a touch.
have a nice life lady, you can continue calling people who disagree with you ignorant for decades, it will not make you right.
I understand, James, that you are not the sharpest tack in the tool-box, but do you really think that people need to provide CVs in order to start blogs? It's kind of sad that anybody should be so clueless.
Enter "starting a blog" into the Google search box and a lot of exciting new knowledge will be revealed to you.
On my scorecard David wins this argument on points. Clarissa and James both lose a lot of points for obvious reasons.
It's clearly true that every conservative isn't an ignorant fool, although some are, and neither is every liberal, although some are. All you have to do is read the comments on various blogs to find examples of all of them.
Clarissa, the kinds of things you've said here significantly diminish the quality of your argument. And it's disappointing.
"Of course, if you are willing to explain how it makes sense to freeze things in an unchanged state against the constant flow of time that defines our existence as human beings, I'd love to hear that argument. Simply put, what sense does it make to try to "conserve" things if it is inscribed in the very nature of who we are that everything changes, progresses, mutates all the time? "
Clarissa I want to try to tackle this. In my opinion, it depends upon what we are trying to progress and mutate into. What if in the distant future progress means that the majority accepts pedophila. There are pedophiles out there like nambla who wants society to accept their deviant behavior. My question is is all change actually good?
This isn't about good or bad. Change is a natural part of human existence that we simply cannot escape. It exists outside of our wishes or our moral judgment. When I finish this comment, I will be a different person from the one who started writing it. Physiological processes have taken place in my body in this short time, I have become a minute older. We can judge change, but we cannot avoid it.
Post a Comment