I have decided to point you to a post by the usually reasonable Wordsmith over at Sparks From the Anvil. His original post asked the question: "Are conservative bloggers as rude/disrespectful as liberal bloggers?" which is, of course, starting off with a biased question. But then, I'm sure it was intended for an audience that largely agrees with him and was asked that way for the fun of ranting. I have no problem with that.
The comments had all been of the "Well, of course not! It's a given that liberals are more hateful and rude! Liberal=rude." That sort of answer. No support for their position, just a battering of the "enemy." Again, just harmless ranting amongst like-minded individuals.
On a lark, I thought I'd leave my two cents. I said two things (four cents, I suppose):
1. In my experience, I've run into more rude conservatives than I have rude liberals - by far. However, I further noted that I had no doubt that there are rude liberals out there, just in my experience, I've encountered far more rude conservatives.
2. I asked, "Does anyone have any source for what you consider a rude liberal?"
Just that. I cited my experience and I asked a question. I was polite. I acknowledged the reality of rudeness (and politeness) on all "sides," and I left the question.
Well, you know where this is going. I was slammed. I was demonized as "intellectually lazy," as "willfully ignorant," and smelling of "intellectual arrogance." And then things got worse ("socialist!" "ass!" "hater!" and on and on).
I was just going to leave well enough alone, but I had two thoughts that I wanted to share here:
First, I thought that this made for some pretty good comedy and tragedy. To watch the anger and arrogance of these hypocrites is rather amusing, and extremely sad.
[And I use "hypocrite" here not to engage in name-calling but because that is the role they were playing. The post was on the hatefulness and disrespectfulness of so-called liberals and they had exactly one liberal to make a comment and several so-called conservatives respond and nearly to a person, the conservatives were disrespectful and hateful, engaging in the worst sort of demagoguery.
(The site's host, Wordsmith, did not engage in the attacks, nor did maybe one or two others - but neither did they point to the hypocrisy of the ones who chose to engage in the disrespectful behavior.)]
Secondly, I think it instructive as we try to learn better how to communicate with each other to look to where we go wrong. There sometimes seems to be a severe disconnect between our beliefs and our actions.
The people at this site no doubt are appalled by indecent and disrespectful talk when they see it in their opponents. And somewhat rightfully so. When they finally got around to answering my question ("does anyone have an example of liberal rudeness?"), they could point to some rude, hateful commentary. But they failed to see it on their own part!
When they engaged in name-calling, word-twisting and death threats, it was all in the name of fun, or to demonstrate that they DON'T respect a particular person (me, in this case), or to "call a spade a spade." But when others (ie, liberals) engage in the same behavior, it is horrible and disgusting.
Why is that? Why are we blind to our own inconsistencies sometimes?
If you visit Wordsmith's blog, I'd caution against commenting. It'll only be met by attack, if my experience is any indicator.
Not that I mind being thus attacked. This isn't about them "hurting my feelings." I don't know these people and their rudeness and threats mean nothing to me. It's just an interesting sociological field trip into humanity's own inhumanity to humanity, if you're interested.
49 comments:
Beams and motes, man. Pots and kettles. Sinners and sinners.
I'd be damn careful over at Pastor Timothy's place if'n I's you, BTW.
Peace and Grace to Timothy and his peeps. But Lawsy, be careful around 'em.
Wow! I just read the post and thread. I think Mike of Mike's America must've been hittin' the bottle. Or somebody whupped him upside the head with one.
Mike'd crucify the Son of God himself, that peace-loving, humble-living, non-nationalistic, poor-lovin' leper outhanging-with freak. Jesus, I mean. Not Mike.
But, maybe not. It's been done.
I think of myself as progressive rather than liberal, but I know I've been rude a few times--usually when frustrated. I think the folks at ultra-political liberal blogs, like Daily Kos, are often rude. And I know some very polite conservatives, such as the folks over at the group blog, A Conservative Blog for Peace, and some others.
The conservative journalist/pundit George Will is usually polite--and thoughtful. One has to get up early and have one's ducks in a row to take on Will.
But, on the whole, I do find conservatives--or, at least, religious and political reactionaries (more extreme than mere "conservatives," though they love the conservative label) far more rude than liberals or progressives. One possible reason is that it is part of liberal and progressive convictions that one could be wrong, that one doesn't have all the answers and that one's political or religious opponent may have something to teach. By contrast, it is part of the Right's creed that they DO have all the answers and that their opponents are "enemies of truth."
(The extremist rhetoric found at some Daily Kos type blogs sounds to me, for that reason, as very illiberal. It is neither humble, nor correctable, nor tolerant. That's scary.)
Dan, I went to the site and read the comments. You went there to pick a fight and when after sooooo many comments, you got one then you get some comments that you don't like. It was your provocation that brought that on and that is how you operate, go somewhere, act innocent, bring up your pet topic and then when they get tired of you, you get ugly and accuse them of getting ugly. My advice would be to stay at your own site with your pet topics.
Mom, I think 1., you're wrong, and 2., Dan has become YOUR pet project. You seem tog o out of your ay anymopre to criticize Dan for ... being .. critical.
Pots and kettles, motes and beams.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience. In general, I try to visit only blogs where the main blogger is respectful of others, but there are always the commenters. The first thing I thought of was Daily Kos, as a shining example of rude liberal bloggers who hopes Bush gets assassinated. Like Michael, I would say I am guilty of rudeness as well ( I haven't noticed it with Michael, at least, no more than myself).
I would sort of agree with Michael, in that conservatives can hold their political beliefs as paramount as their religious beliefs, and in that sense, it is very difficult to question their political beliefs. Theoretically, the same could hold true for liberals, but whether or not that actually happens I don't know.
In general though, the question of which side has more rude people, well, it's not a question we should spend too much time pursuing.
One thing too, is that, for me anyway, it is easier to pick up on rude liberals as opposed to rude conservatives, because conservatives tend to agree with me more, so it is less likely they will say something rude to me, whereas it is the opposite case with liberals. Since I tend to focus on how people treat me, rather than how they treat others (which is self-centered, I know) my evaluation may be biased.
I guess it may seem that Dan is my pet project and in a way, he is. He professes to be a Christian but loves to go to their sites and bring up a subject or get involved in one already in progress and I have read his same old, same old arguments time and time again. If he was truly seeking, he would have arrived by now.
Something else that interests me is why Dan chose a fungus, to talk about this particular issue? Is there an inference by choosing that?
I would really like to see Dan get his questions answered, but many have tried, so it appears that he instead wants to convince people he is right and as a Christian, our best source is the Bible.
If we choose other sources over the Bible, are we false prophets?
You know, Mom2, I was just thinking that I need a pet project myself... shall I love you the way you love Dan? Not being a Christian and all, I'm just wondering if it's an open opportunity. I'd hate to muscle in on a private party.
"If he was truly seeking, he would have arrived by now." You know, you sound exactly like the Mormons that came to my door yesterday. "If you read The Book Of Mormon with a Pure Heart, the Lord will tell you it's true." Jeepers, will someone ship me an Electric Monk?!
Wow, now that I've read the site and comments, I'm horrified both at the nastiness and at the lack of logic.
I never saw the degree of hate at Daily Kos that they claim is there, but, then, I quickly stopped going there because I dislike extremist rhetoric on the Left as much as on the Right. (Some of the claims made about Daily Kos make me suspicious of "urban myth." This site would not be as influential among mainstream Democrats if it cursed fallen soldiers, etc. After all, as I point out often, more Democrats in Congress have served in the military and have family members who have been in Afghanistan or Iraq than Republicans. That can be looked up. So, why would a "Netroots" site like Kos curse and dishonor soldiers, whatever he thought of the war?)
Of course what USED to be called the Left, i.e. Communism, was always very illiberal in ways that the soft left of Democratic Socialism was not. The hard Communist Left was a mirror image of the Fascist Right.
Chance, your point that conservatives (like yourself) would notice rude liberals and progressives faster and progressives and liberals would notice rude conservatives and reactionaries faster is right on track. It was also a point Dan tried to make himself--but that point was unanimously rejected on that site, even by the Wordsmith who was otherwise polite.
One thing I have noticed (Chance and Erudite Redneck are both exceptions, but Mom2 is a prime example) is that bloggers of whatever political or religious ideology who use pseudonyms are often far more extreme in their rhetoric than those who sign their names and have to take public responsibility for their online words.)
I've been having technical problems keeping me from commenting, but thanks for your thoughts, everyone.
Michael, site your example of what I said. I never curse, call names. I point out where I think you or your friends views are scripturally not in line. I notice that to disagree with you folks is termed "hateful".
It's your tone, darlin'. You say things like "He professes to be a Christian but..." Rawther nasty.
So you think just because you don't cuss that you've taken the moral high-ground? I'll have to remember that. As long as I don't cuss I can say anything I like and I'll still be a Very Nice Person. Just like Mom2.
Regarding Michael's preference for "real" names -
As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be using a pseudonym. In fact, you could be, for all I know.
The "real" people who have my blog address know who I am in spite of my online moniker. The "virtual" people interact with my words and thoughts, and my real name doesn't mean much to them. Or matter. It's not about me or you, it's about ideas.
There's also the concern about safety, and I often wonder if the people you identify on Dan's blog have given you their permission to publish their names.
Madcap said:
"So you think just because you don't cuss that you've taken the moral high-ground?"
On Wordsmith's blog, what he finally came out and said was that he was indicating that the liberal bloggers were more disrespectful because they cussed. I think it's the cussing that they're identifying as the Main Ingredient in being disrespectful.
And what I said there is that I'd much rather be cussed at than have my words twisted, which happens with alarming frequency with many conservatives (keeping in mind that I still think most conservatives I deal with ARE respectful) in the blogosphere.
For instance, right here today, mom2 said:
You went there to pick a fight and when after sooooo many comments, you got one then you get some comments that you don't like.
I went to pick a fight?? I thought I was respectfully answering the question that wordsmith put out there for all to answer, followed up by a polite question. Where was I picking a fight??
And "after sooo many comments" I was treated disrespectfully? I had posted three comments when the verbal onslaught began.
You see, this is what I think is interesting. I have every confidence that mom2 is a sweet and considerate person in real life. She is likely a church-going Christian and loving grandmother, just as she says she is.
And yet, she reads my comments and finds things in them that aren't there. She found in my answer and question that I was "looking for a fight." She states unequivocally that that's what I was doing, as if she knows me better than I do myself. And I'm not picking on mom2 here. I've seen this in multiple folk that I've dealt with.
"When you say that, Dan, what you're really saying is that you hate God," or "...what you're really saying is that you hate our soldiers and want them to die..."
Over and over again, people tell me I've said this horrible thing, when my actual quote doesn't support that. They're reading my words and "hearing" something else.
What's up with that? Do you think it's deliberate obfuscation or an internal synaptic misfire?
I believe the question of who's less respectful of others tends to be affected by one's own beliefs. The more "like me" a person seems, the less offensive I'm going to find them.
I find conservatives more offensive, for reasons already discussed here (the "religiousness" with which they hold their ideas, and their willingness to cast non-believers into the pit.) Of course, I'm biased in a different direction, so my words are worth little more than the electrons their printed with, as far as proof goes...
Some liberals are oftly rude & disrespectful. They tend to be more free with "bad" language & references to sex acts. Some conservatives seem less inhibited in disparaging their not so fellow man... In the same way that some churches preach that all who don't practice the faith as they teach it are damned, some cons see those who don't share their nationalism/politics/religion/??? as being somehow less worthy... Seldom will you find liberals talking about the "Muzzies," & even the whole changing of the party name ("demoncrats" democRATS") seems less common. (Again, this is just my observation. YMMV...)
I actually came to that "anvil" chat via Mike's America (where I'm guessing mom2 might claim I go lookin' for trouble, jut as she claims Dan does). He & some of his buddies--though as Dan says, not Wordsmith--do tend to be a little "intense" in their evangalism of all things conservative & Republican, and have no qualms about letting you know how wrong you are if you don't share their zeal. (Oddly enough, one or two of them--Skye, for instance--claim to be Democrats, in the Zel Miller tradition. THAT boggles me.)
Mike tends to change the subject or call you a name (or both) when one gets too close to disturbing the force field of contradiction that guards his chewy Republican center. Reasoned discourse is not his strong suit.
Because I like to debate more than I like to just agree, I do tend to visit blogs & other sites where my views don't jibe with the majority. I have found some respectful cons, but not as many as would hope. (I think another part of it may be that people that don't have strong political opinions tend not to start political blogs...) I'm sure there are cons right now saying the same thing about liberals... It all depends on where one is coming from...
I must not go to the correct "liberal" blogs because by far, in my experience, the "conservative" bloggers I run across are the mean-spirited and disrespectful ones.>
This is one of the first posts by Dan over at that site. madcap, is he being judgmental or anything that you say I am? It takes courage to look at issues without bias.
What did I say you were? I said that what you say is nasty. Or do you mean a Very Nice Person? Do you mean you're not a Very Nice Person?
Personally, I'm definitely not a Very Nice Person, but knowing that is more than half the battle. (Hint, hint.) I'm also neither a conservative nor a liberal, not religious nor political, and I have no idea nor desire to categorize what God thinks on any particular issue. So, perhaps I'm the most "religious" and awestruck one after all. Or just the sassiest, hard to tell the two apart.
You bring out sharpest edge of my tongue, sweetheart. I suppose I should ignore your nonsense, but it's a little vice I can't seem to shake. You're my pet project, you know. It was a toss-up between you and Michael, and you're the lucky one!
It's not clear to me that this thread is dramatically more civil than the other one.
After Dan listed the insults hurled his way -- that he is "intellectually lazy" and "willfully ignorant" -- he engaged in name-calling himself. He called those bloggers hypocrites, called them disrespectful and hateful, and accused them of engaging in the worst sort of demagoguery.
Dan will say that he really believes these accusations are accurate, but he doesn't acknowledge that the bloggers over there might really think he's being willfully ignorant.
And later he accused his critics of being either evil or stupid, by asking whether they're guilty of deliberate obfuscation or an internal synaptic misfire.
After reading the comment thread in question, Erudite Redneck suggested that one of the commenters there might be drunk and would have crucified Christ.
Michael Westmoreland-White accused those posting at the thread of nastiness and illogic.
Madcap accused Mom2 of displaying a rather nasty tone, patronized her and implied that she really isn't a nice person.
Why are we blind to our own inconsistencies sometimes? That's probably a very good question.
Err, which Michael, Madcap? I've only encountered you once or twice and this is the first time I've ever received any direct comment. As far as I remember, I only visited your blog once or twice and was neither offended nor impressed--you were just discussing things I wasn't much interested in at the time. No big.
Have you ever visited my humble online abode? http://levellers.wordpress.com ? You'd be welcome even if I don't become a "pet project?" (????)
Now, about those people I've supposedly "outed" on Dan's blog? I cannot recall to what you are referring? I have never used anyone's name who uses a pseudonym, nor quoted anyone who hasn't published their opinions somewhere.
I don't think I've endangered anyone's life or safety. I do think it says alarming things about our society here in the good ol' USA that the reason you and so many other anonymous bloggers give for not using your real names is "security."
Are you really in fear of being attacked for free speech? God helps us all if tht's true--and if you have good reason for that fear.
Bubba, I think the tone was incredibly nasty. As for "illogical," since I have taught both formal logic and informal logic (critical thinking) on the collegiate level, I wasn't name calling but referring to real logical errors. Shall I go back to the site and gather examples and give them the labels that logicians use for such errors?
If folk are genuinely interested, I can do this, but it would be a waste of time if no one cares.
Dan pointed out several of the logical mistakes himself, to no avail.
Wordsmith is a good guy Dan. I saw what went on over there while it was happening. I didn't comment. What's the use? It would have just escalated the disrepect already going on.
America Mike is like an angry unbridled Pit Bull. He shamelessly attacked me once. Wordsmith valiantly came to my defense and I was very grateful to him for his kind words and support. I keep up with Wordsmith, simply because I respect him...he puts feet to his speak.
With regard to who is more rude..liberals or conservatives...I say both can be rude. I don't think one can hold a candle to the other. I know quite a few "peace activists" here in Houston. Some of them are extremely offensive. Quite frankly I don't see them as very peaceful even with each other.
I now work within my local church and denomination. They are easier to get along with and are serious about following the non-violent path of Jesus.
I have no problem with the assertion that arguments or people are illogical, Michael. It's just that it does seem to me that this thread is displaying much of the precise behavior that Dan was criticizing.
And on the subject of illogic, you write this:
Some of the claims made about Daily Kos make me suspicious of "urban myth." This site would not be as influential among mainstream Democrats if it cursed fallen soldiers, etc. After all, as I point out often, more Democrats in Congress have served in the military and have family members who have been in Afghanistan or Iraq than Republicans. That can be looked up. So, why would a "Netroots" site like Kos curse and dishonor soldiers, whatever he thought of the war?
Markos Moulitsas really did say some very nasty things about the contractors who died in Iraq:
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
This is actually fairly well documented, so I would encourage you not to assume that the accusation is an urban legend simply because it doesn't strike you as logical.
And I don't see what's so unlikely about the Democratic mainstream (such as it is) not distancing itself from DailyKos.
Michael Moore has said similarly nasty things, and that didn't keep him from a place of prominence in the 2004 DNC. In the same convention, the party nominated a man who made a name for himself villifying the entire United States military, comparing our troops to the hordes of Genghis Kahn and accusing them of institutionalized war crimes. In 2005 he accused troops in Iraq of "terrorizing" women and children in the dead of night, and now Barack Obama recently suggested that all we're doing in Afghanistan is "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."
Markos' comment wasn't an aberration from what the mainstream Democratic leadership apparently believes.
If I may, I think part of the problem is generalizing about a whole group of people based on individual examples. It's no more factually correct to say "the folks at Daily Kos think..." than it is to say "the folks at Payne Hollow think...".
Markos has said some offensive things. And maybe an argument can be made that folks shouldn't use his site if his words offended them. While I might support that intellectually, I also feel that it'd be like not using my iMac over something Steve Jobs said. I can stand my moral ground, but while I do, I'm not affecting him much, and good information is passing me by...
Kos has all flavors of leftys on the site. Some are offensive, and others are perfectly reasonable & pleasant, both in terms of posters and commenters. My advice is, don't read those folks who offend you. If you see something that bugs you, speak up about it.
But the theory that Kos is a hate site because some posts (& more comments) might offend you, is not so accurate. The offensive person is the one who posts the offensive material. THAT person is to blame, not the whole site. (I mean, yeah, if you're constantly offended by Kos, perhaps it isn't the site for you; in fact, I wonder how many of the people who offer their opinions about it support the mission of the site in the first place... Methinks that the folks at FauxNews don't have the best interests of Kos at heart in the first place, which makes their sterling advice about what they should & shouldn't allow there a little suspect...
Without going into detail, some people hear different things than others in speeches & internet writings. While you're certain of what you heard, your certainty doesn't prove that is what the wo/man actually said, or meant. Not every insult & accusation is as real as you think it is...
Thanks for the comments, repsac3, and welcome to Payne Hollow. You make some fine points.
bubba said:
And later he accused his critics of being either evil or stupid, by asking whether they're guilty of deliberate obfuscation or an internal synaptic misfire.
Bubba, this would be another example of folk reading in to what I've said something that isn't there. I said they seem to be guilty of either deliberately twisting my words - which you've twisted to mean "evil," - or perhaps they're having a synaptic misfire - which you've taken to mean I'm calling them "stupid."
At least in this case, I'll own some ownership, the phrasing I used was not precise. But I did not in the real world call people either evil or stupid.
I was suggesting that perhaps they have twisted words deliberately to better make their point - very poor discussion skills to be sure, but not rising to the level of "evil," to me - or that they're not making sense of what they're reading so they're interpreting it to mean something that isn't there.
In that case, I was thinking more along the lines of confusion, not stupidity. As in the case where I point out that I'm a Bible-loving Christian who doesn't believe the Bible supports the notion of homosexuality-as-sin. I think there are some out there who can't conceive of such a critter, and it is confusing. They've never heard of a devoted Christian who supports gay marriage, so they hear me say that and they say, "You mean you're willing to set aside what the Bible says and accept gays because it makes you and them feel good."
No. I didn't say that. I said that I love the Bible, believe it, am a Christian and, after much prayer and study, came to a different conclusion.
So, bubba, all of that to say, I don't think you're stupid or evil, but rather you for some reason have twisted my words - my guess would be deliberately to better support your argument or out of confusion over my terminology and reasoning - making me say something that I didn't say. Yet again.
About this quote attributed to one of the writers at Daily Kos (it IS still a group blog, right?):
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly. That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
Now, that's a pretty good example of rudeness. I would never endorse any such cavalier treatment of the death of any human being. But it doesn't seem to be an example of being rude about the U.S. military (much less the ENTIRE U.S. military). The term "mercenaries" is seldom used, even as a slur, for U.S. soldiers. Rather, it refers to the civilian contractors (many of them ex-military) at such "private security companies" in Iraq as Titan, Blackhawk, and others who make huge sums of money doing military work with better equipment than our soldiers and, when they commit war crimes, answer to no one--unlike the military.
Now, the comment is still very rude, but it expresses an anger that I know is shared by many, many military and ex-military personnel. So, the quote does not show blatant disrespect for the military of for America.
If obfuscation is deliberate, Dan, I think it would qualify as an immoral and therefore evil act: do you think that there are immoral acts that aren't evil? If that's the case, then you're quite right that I don't understand your terminology, and I may not be the only one.
My use of the word "stupid" may have been a bit over-the-top, but it still remains that you did question either the character or the intelligence of your critics, and you do so with me, now.
It suffices to say that I do believe that you're engaging in precisely the behavior you've just condemned. One of your critics theorized that you're "willfully ignorant," and you've now repeatedly theorized that your critics deliberately obfuscate. What's the difference in terms of civility?
Now, Michael.
I didn't say that Markos' quote was an instance of attacking the U.S military. You asked, "why would a "Netroots" site like Kos curse and dishonor soldiers, whatever he thought of the war?"
I gave the most notorious example of Kos cursing and dishonoring soldiers, and I was quite clear that those soldiers were "contractors."
My reference to villifying the "entire US military" was in regards to John Kerry's 1971 testimony before Congress, in which he accused the U.S. military of war crimes "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
My point was that a party that nominates a man like John Kerry and that puts Michael Moore in a prominent seat at their convention is not going to be all that outraged at Markos Moulitsas' comment.
But to answer your question, yes, DailyKos is a group blog, but so what? Are you going to argue that we can dismiss hateful blog entries from this group blog since each entry is written by a single person rather than a committee? That the only admissible evidence of incivility from a group blog is a post authored by the entire group?
And do you really not know who Markos Moulitsas is? He's not just "one of the writers" there, he's the founder: the "Kos" in DailyKos is reference to the last syllable of his first name.
The bottom line is, your dismissing the criticism of DailyKos as "urban myth" is baseless. Their outrageous comments have been well documented by people who are apparently far more familiar with their bile.
Ya know, this is a bit ridiculous, but here we go:
bubba said:
One of your critics theorized that you're "willfully ignorant," and you've now repeatedly theorized that your critics deliberately obfuscate. What's the difference in terms of civility?
The difference is, when I wrote, I politely responded to a question that was asked by the blogger in question. That's all. There was no context of anything but an honest answer.
It was disrespectful for folk to jump on that immediately and begin with questioning someone's intelligence or moral character when all I had done was respond to a question as they had done.
IF I had responded to wordsmith's question with an arrogant tone, "Why, it's OBVIOUS that it's conservatives that are the most rude! Anyone who doesn't see that is a moral goofball!" then that sort of response might be more justified.
But instead, it came from nowhere - there was no context for that sort of disrespect.
When I responded (eventually) by saying they were being hypocritical, it made sense in the context of what they had said. Since the post was on disrespect and they were being disrespectful, calling their actions hypocritical was not being disrespectful, just pointing out the reality of the situation.
And again, with you, using your example (or mom2's earlier) to point out the interesting phenomenon of folk reading one thing and "hearing" another was interesting to me and I pointed out.
In the context, there was nothing disrespectful about it. It was an observation of words spoken, not an attack upon the individuals involved. Context matters. Intent matters.
It was just an observation about respect, I think fair-minded folk can see a difference between my words and theirs (and that's not an attack, just another observation!)
And that's all I have to say about that.
Okay, I know that I said, "that's all," but here's an analogy that may help us sort through what we're talking about.
A blogger (who happens to be very unreligious) makes a post about how he thinks all religious people are hypocrites and the source of a great amount of evil in the world. He asks his readers (who mostly tend to agree with him) what they think.
They respond by saying they agree. "It's obvious that church folk are hypocrites!," "religious folk are the ones who get into fights and want to kill those who disagree with them," etc, etc.
Then, along comes one who meekly says, "I must be around the wrong religious folk. While they're not perfect, the religious folk I'm familiar with are kind and compassionate. Might I ask, do you have some quotes are references to the specific behaviors you're concerned about?"
Given the original question, and this dissenters comment and question, do you think it appropriate if that were followed up with, "Why! That smacks of religious arrogance, to me! To ask that sort of question suggests they must be willfully ignorant or perhaps he's just too lazy to search out the obvious answer himself!!"?
Rather, wouldn't such extreme criticisms be coming out of nowhere in that case? My imaginary fella DID NOT display religious arrogance. All he did was state what his experience was. And to ask what specific sorts of behavior they're talking about is not laziness nor willful ignorance, but just an attempt to discover the source of their concerns, right?
Bubba, if you (and others) see those sorts of questions and comments as disrespectful and deserving of such a response, perhaps that helps illuminate some of our differences. I think the question and comment (my real one and my example) fair and polite and helpful. To disagree with someone's opinion is not to spit in another's face.
Given the assumptions made by you and mom2 here and by others over at wordsmith's, could it be that some of the problem is a basic communication issue? Would it behoove us NOT to assume that when someone says "A," NOT to assume they must also mean "B!"?
When I ask a question, would it behoove us not to assume that I'm looking for a fight? When I say that I wonder if they're deliberately obfuscating or if there's some internal disconnect, NOT to assume that I'm calling them evil or stupid?
Or, from the other side of things, when a conservative advocates war-as-solution, that they're not deliberately rejoicing in the chance to kill foreign babies? (Not that I think that happens much in real life - liberals accusing conservatives of such, but just as an example.)
Would it not make communication easier if we just assume the person meant exactly what they said and, if we're not clear on what they said, ask a clarifying question? That seems reasonable to me.
Dan, you're absolutely right that context and intent matters, but I do wonder why you're limiting the context of the discussion over there to that one thread: "when I wrote, I politely responded to a question that was asked by the blogger in question. That's all. There was no context of anything but an honest answer."
You've never posted comments there before? Those who rather quickly criticized you have absolutely no history with you? I find that hard to believe. If you have posted there before and previous discussions became heated, that fact rightfully belongs as part of the context.
And you're right to say that intent matters, but the problem is, you don't know with any real certainty the intent of your critics. "Intent matters" implies that your intent was pure and theirs was not, or at least that your intent was more noble than theirs.
But you cannot possibly know that, and you made a point to criticize Mom2 for drawing negative conclusions about your intent "as if she knows [you] better than [you] do [yourself]".
I for one cannot know your intent in posting over there beyond what you claim about your intent. I cannot claim to know for certain that you were commenting in that thread looking for a fight.
But I do know that the very first thing you wrote -- "I must not go to the correct 'liberal' blogs" -- can be plausibly read to be sarcastic, implying dishonesty on the part of those commenting there: you must not go to the right blogs can be read as questioning whether those blogs even exist.
You now ask:
Would it not make communication easier if we just assume the person meant exactly what they said and, if we're not clear on what they said, ask a clarifying question? That seems reasonable to me.
It seems reasonable to me, too. Have you asked the intent of the bloggers over there in responding to you the way they did? If not, what are you doing assuming that their intent was less noble than yours?
And have you considered asking them whether they considered this particular discussion separately from any previous discussion with you? It seems to me that at least some of them were already familiar with you, which undermines the idea that the context was that comment thread alone.
Thanks for clarifying, Bubba, but the clarification makes no sense. How is being disrespectful to mercenaries(contractors), disrespecting the military? I don't want to be rude about anyone's death, but contractors are not heroes by any definition--they're war profiteers. In every previous generation, we put such scum in jail, not made them rich with war.
How did John Kerry, a highly decorated veteran whose testimony in the Winter Soldier hearings helped end the horrible Vietnam War, disrespect the entire military? I wasn't happy with Kerry in '04 (though he was better than Bush), but this charge makes no sense.
Michael Moore is sometimes a bit outrageous in his gonzo approach to documentary films, but I have seen all of them and have not seen any disrespect for the military--disrespect for this war and for those who got us into it, yes. But Moore has always expressed the highest appreciation for the ordinary soldier, sailor, marine, or airman. That respect is part of his respect for the "little guy" throughout American society. Your description of his work seems delusional.
Michael, you asserted that you were suspicious of the criticisms of sites like DailyKos, that they were "urban myth," partially because it didn't make sense to you. I pointed out that the most prominent criticism ("Screw them") is well documented, and I explained the logic, that a party that would nominate a man who made a name for himself LYING ABOUT SYSTEMATIC WAR CRIMES would have no problem with the vitriol at DailyKos.
You agree that contractors are "scum" so I wouldn't imagine that you would see anything wrong with Markos' comments. But lots of people did, which is why he retracted them and apologized.
And John Kerry falsely accused the U.S. military of war crimes "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He slandered the entire military, and he has never apologized for having done so. It's hard to imagine how one could show the military less respect.
It's clear what your M.O. is with hate speech from the left: question whether it exists, and when someone demonstrates that it does, misconstrue his point and defend the remark.
Lovely.
I still manage to be impressed now and then by the depths of delusion to which people can sink in attempting to rationalize their hatred.
I got as far in that comment thread as "people who piss people off deserve to be insulted" and gave up on finding a glimmer of rational counterpoint there.
There's a double standard, pure and simple: "They" (whoever They may be) are wrong to be angry at us, therefore "They" are being rude. When "We" behave the same way, it's justified because "We" are in the right.
This type of behavior isn't exclusive to any group or philosophy. Yeah, you can find it on Daily Kos. You can find it at Little Green Footballs. You can find it at Democratic Underground and Free Republic.
I've argued in the past that there is a partisan (not to say philosophical) skew to this trend, but by no means does any group have a monopoly on this kind of thought. These are people, by and large, that identify with their chosen group as they would with a sports team: Victory is all that matters, the opposition can do no right, must be defeated at all costs. There is rarely a solid rational basis for wanting your team to destroy the other side; it's just fun to win, and it's even more fun if you can dehumanize and demonize the enemy.
What we mustn't do is take those examples as representative. That only serves to empower the thugs and marginalize the rational.
By the way, I came by because I found this interesting and thought you might want to post on it.
Dan stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this republican...
I agree that both Left and Right blogs have their rude extremists. For every DailyKos there is an Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller. But here's what's different: the Left establishment seems far more willing to embrace the aid of Kossacks and their ilk than the Right establishment is willing to embrace the foul-mouthed Darth Misha.
For example, Firedoglake was hired as a presidential campaign blogger. No Republican candidate has hired any equally foul or hate-filled equivalent.
Details? Links?
I'm just curious. As far as I know, "Firedoglake" is a website, not a person.
Yeah, but the whole guilt by association thing applies. This is now a Con blog, because Mom2 posted comments here. (or is it that Mom2 is now a liberal? I can never keep track...)
The point is, blogs are now defined by their weakest, nuttiest commenters, not by the whole, or even by those who own & run them.
Sure, Catastrophile. Firedoglake is a Leftist political blog of some import -- enough that John Edwards hired her as his official campaign blogger for a few weeks. In spite of her foul, nasty, hate-filled mouth (a few samples). Marcotte is also known for writing for the high-profile Leftist blog Pendagon, the site of many of her intemperate (to put it mildly) rants. Here are a few choice picks.
I don't have time to spell out all of the coziness between major Democratic leaders and the more loony Lefty bloggers, but you gotta wonder how John Kerry feels comfortable blogging at extremist site DailyKos. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Russ Feingold. Or Tom Vilsack.
I'm no Republican, so I have no desire to defend them, but when you see a major Republican leader guestblogging at the Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller, let me know. Then you can say that the Right has a problem.
Oh, a link to the Firedoglake blog. Content warning on these links, by the way.
iredoglake is a Leftist political blog of some import -- enough that John Edwards hired her as his official campaign blogger for a few weeks.
I must be uninformed, because I can find no record of that.
...but you gotta wonder how John Kerry feels comfortable blogging at extremist site DailyKos. Or Jimmy Carter. Or Russ Feingold. Or Tom Vilsack.
Not worried... They know better than to buy into the FauxNews talking points. This "Kos is an extremist site" meme isn't convincing anyone who bothers to read the postings at the place, and the BillO fans who are buying it wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances, anyway...
To the extent that a post (or more likely, a commenter) goes over the line, it's like Michael WienerSavage being on the same radio airwaves here in NY as BillO. I've only heard one of 'em regularly spout off about "ragheads," and I suspect there are few (even among the fans) who blame the other for it.
Guilt by association is kinda cheesy.
Yeesh...I only skimmed through this comment thread, as I only just now got around to visiting to see what you've been posting on.
First off, I'd like to thank Marty for her kind words. I'd also like to let her know that my medical waiver has not come through; that the last time I talked to my recruiter, she just said to be patient. But it's taking far too long. I'm beginning to think I should maybe "try again"; perhaps army reserve or even regular army. I don't know if that will mean I'd have to retake the ASVAB and go through all the procedures I already went through. Would I get the same results, and delay?
Anyway, I had moved on from the post (busy summer), and only would skim the back-and-forths, if even that between Mike and Dan (and repsac). I think the comments speak for themselves, and will leave it at that.
"Are conservative bloggers as rude/disrespectful as liberal bloggers?" which is, of course, starting off with a biased question. But then, I'm sure it was intended for an audience that largely agrees with him and was asked that way for the fun of ranting.
Dan, I phrased the question in this manner, because it was a direct post related to the video clip.
The circle of bloggers and commenters you keep are civil. Those like yourself are interested in civil discourse and debate.
But in my experience, I still see more liberals in the blogosphere like KEVron than like you. That in itself means nothing. It's anecdotal.
In the end, I think vitriol is not exclusive to any one side. It's not a "partisan" thing. I think the article I linked to in my blog post on "partisanship" is a very good read.
Incidentally,
I can engage in ad hominems myself, when it suits me. Usually, it's reserved for the KEVrons of the 'sphere.
And I may on rare occasion, let slip a profanity; but because I so sparingly ever cuss, I think it's far more effective when it happens.
Wordsmith, thanks so much for the update. I was wondering what was happening with you. I don't know how to answer your question. I am really surprised at how long this is taking. Maybe it's the national guard in your area. I don't think the regular army would be like that. They are practically begging for recruits.
The mother in me doesn't want you to get that medical waiver. I would be very sad indeed to see you go to Iraq. I get queasy just thinking about it. But I do appreciate very much your efforts to put feet to your speak and join up. If more like you would do that, then we would be able to spread the sacrifice around and it wouldn't be on so few shoulders.
Marty, thank you for caring.
I know most of the visitors here do not approve of the war; but certainly if the country was asked to make the necessary sacrifices, and we were in a war footing, the strains on our military and their families would be lessened. The load is being carried by the few; and I fear we just don't have the resources to do what's needed. It's too much to ask of our soldiers to be on so many deployments without rest and recuperation.
I'll figure out what my options might be. I do not know if I am prepared to make the total commitment to regular army, just yet. I am not yet so selfless. But I have been considering it.
Just thinking of leaving behind me, all the people I care about here....all the children I've worked with and watched growing up in the gym...makes me appreciate all the more what pains and sacrifices soldiers make to be away for so long from their families and hometowns. From seeing their kids grow up.
Repsac3 wrote:
I must be uninformed, because I can find no record of that.
Here you go.
Not worried... They know better than to buy into the FauxNews talking points. This "Kos is an extremist site" meme isn't convincing anyone who bothers to read the postings at the place, and the BillO fans who are buying it wouldn't vote for any Democrat under any circumstances, anyway...
DailyKos is an extremist site. Kos himself had no regrets about the savage torture and murder of American contractors in Iraq and responded simply "Screw 'em." Kos writers have justified terrorist attacks that deliberately target civilians, fantasized about the extermination of Israel, expressed open support for the terrorists in Iraq, and that the Holocaust wasn't so bad and was partially justified. If you can find right-wing sites so filled with garbage as Kos that feature major Republican leaders, let me know. Otherwise you have no case.
John...
Firedoglake is a Leftist political blog of some import -- enough that John Edwards hired her as his official campaign blogger for a few weeks.
I must be uninformed, because I can find no record of that.
It's the connection between Marcotte & FireDogLake I cannot find. I had gone to the link about this Amanda Marcotte person the first time you posted it. But she has her own blog, & isn't from FireDogLake.
As to your larger point, yes, she isn't someone I would hire for a campaign, but it has far more to do with her choice of words than extremism.
DailyKos is an extremist site.
As I said, you (& others that share your view) are welcome to believe that, based on whatever evidence you find convincing. Most folks who might vote for Democrats probably won't be swayed, because those that get beyond the talking points & read Kos regularly know that the vast majority of what's posted there doesn't match your few examples. (Some might even question whether your examples in fact say what you claim they do...)
As to whether I could find "major Republican leaders" on " right-wing sites so filled with garbage as Kos," I'm not even so sure I could find "major Republican leaders" on any sites at all. Democrats seem more willing to engage the public.
Maybe that's good, or maybe it's going to come back to bite 'em in the ass, as when they take part in sites or bloggers of which the right does not approve, but it certainly doesn't prove anything, considering the fact that only one side's playing. (It's like getting mad at a soccer team for getting their uniforms muddy during a game, & comparing them to a team that's sitting on the bench, waiting for the field.)
As I said, I think "offensive" & "who's worse" is in the eye of the beholder...
Personally, I find an attachment to the PNAC more offensive than most stuff written at Daily Kos (in my very limited exposure to the site - I don't care so much for it because of its tone and the immature "Other"-bashing of many of the commenters, so I rarely go there).
There is certainly some flaming going on there, but it is mostly of the grade-school "republicans stink" variety. But for some TRULY offensive-scary beliefs, look to the PNAC, or to those who blindly support the Oil Industry - and many from Team Bush hail from one or the other.
Repsac3, if these Kos posts don't prove Democratic engagement of the nastiest elements of the Left, hypohetically, what would constitute proof of that in your eyes?
John, I try to avoid talking in such sweeping generalizations about anyone. When Michael WienerSavage or Ann Hominym Coulter spew their nutty crap, I don't blame all Republicans for it, but save my criticism for them, and those who repeat their words as fact or give them a further platform from which to pontificate.
That said, when any of these writings make their way into the Democratic party platform, or are being mouthed or written by a large number of elected representitives or party officials, that would constitute proof of what are now nothing but silly slurs.
A few elected officials posting to the same blog as these individual nasty bloggers & commenters that've been cited recently ain't gonna cut it for me, and I suspect that most folks who have any chance of voting for a Democrat finds these spurrious charges based on specious evidence to be as silly & desperate looking as I do.
Hardcore Republicans, on the other hand, are lapping it up as further proof of what they already believe in their heart of hearts to be true.
And for the most part, we're all left where we started out, because there's just no there there, no matter how much O'Reilly & the echo chamber whines about it.
Post a Comment