Never wrestle with a pig, part XII
On this dark day -- the day our "New Enabling Act" became law -- I went back and read the column. I also Googled it, and found that it has been posted all over the Web. In most cases, alas, it seems to get as little discussion as it did at Raw Story. But at a place called "Conservative Underground," it attracted exactly the kind of intelligent, witty repartee one expects from such a site. To wit:
And lest you be tempted to conclude that these dismissive, "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" comments are not representative of the approach of more (seemingly) cogent conservatives, there's this:
RawStory? You're kidding right?
...
And at the end of the day...what you think is "intelligent debate"...is nothing more tha another steaming pile of Bu$h = Hitler moonbattery.
This isn't the echo chamber you're used to posting this crap in.
If you're gonna have people take your debates seriously...you better step your game up and post something intelligent.
...
It's nothing more than another steaming pile of "Bush = Hitler" bullshit.
No intellectual or other kind of value to it at all beyond that.
...
It's bullshit.
Piss off.
...
Is this supposed to make sense or mean anything?
...
Thanks, but I prefer things I read to make sense.
If you provide a snipet that is interesting and I want to read more, I will click on the link. That's the point of providing a snippet, to capture the readers attention. Once I saw the source I knew there was no point in clicking on the link.
...
Bush=hitler-liberal meme-lame as fuck and a lie. You may as well have used kitty kelly as a source.Just as credible. Second mistake.
And lest you be tempted to conclude that these dismissive, "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" comments are not representative of the approach of more (seemingly) cogent conservatives, there's this:
This story was written with the intention of targeting the "ignorant masses" who have little real knowledge of history or how it's played out. I, however, do and I can tell you that this "FISA Act = Enabling Act" comparison is an utter load of bullshit.Lovely.
First off, the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to utterly ignore the Reichstag in creating and passing laws. The FISA Act only confirms the already known fact that President Bush's warrantless wiretapping is completely legal. Congress has not, through this Act, allowed Bush to usurp their authority in any way. Strike one.
Second, the Enabling Act was created in wake of the Reichstag Fire and was created to help Hitler "combat the Communist invaders," a fictionalized enemy that Hitler played up anytime somebody doubted his authority. The FISA Act is meant to help stop terrorists both on our soil and well as abroad, a threat that is very real, as 9/11 should have already demonstrated. Strike two.
And third, the Enabling Act was meant by Hitler to allow himself to remove all opposition from the Reichstag, leaving the Nazi Party the only party in any position of power. Unless the Democrats are making a habit of calling up Bin Ladin on a regular basis, there's no way Bush could use the FISA Act to directly attack them or their leadership. Strike three.
That's three strikes and you're out, shithead. Go peddle your little trinkets somewhere else, where the people are more gullible. And if you're gonna argue, don't use somebody else's words in place of your own.
posted by bluememe at 10/17/2006
8 Comments:
And never cast your pearls before swine.
People like that are pretty far right – and not all conservatives are out there with them. Every one of those commenters has his or her opposite number with the real crunchy tree hugging ultra liberals, and perhaps those throwing rocks at G8 summits.
We don’t have to reach those people. If I have a point, that’s it. Know that they are a minority, just like we have our own militant liberals. So don’t sweat it. Keep on keepin’ on, man.
Oh, and take a look at the comments on a typical news story on Yahoo News - you'll get rabid opinon there, too, on both sides of typically politically neutral news stories.
Sheesh, you're never happy are you? First you say you want more comments so you know people are reading your work, then you don't want simply laudatory comments, but now you don't want critical comments either?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist taking the dig at you. I DO read your blog -- regularly -- and enjoy it greatly. Sometimes I even post a comment. . .so there!)
Doc:
I assume most of your comment is tongue in cheek, but at the risk of stating the obvious: I am thrilled if someone offers facts and/or logic that contradict me. (OK, maybe not exactly thrilled to be wrong, but happy to have a debate.)
The point I was trying to make was that the vitriol I highlighted does not fit that definition. The larger point is in a sense one of the central problems we face: logic and reality are to these folks as colors are to the blind. That problem causes the parallel echo chambers we now have in the blogosphere. There are very few places where actual dialogue takes place.
Yes, BlueMeme, all of my comment was tongue-in-cheek, except for the part in parentheses.
And you're right, there is very little dialogue taking place much of anywhere. I'm so glad you check out the righty blogs so I don't have to (not that I would, even if you didn't): there seems to be little there except ad hominem attacks and taunts that sound straight out of junior high school.
Actually, I rarely venture into the fever swamp, for the same reasons you don't. But every once in a while they talk about something I wrote, and my narcissistic Googling brings me to those noxious places.
The experience is both depressing and disconcerting.
All you can do is hope that, perhaps, the words gets through to someone who reads them (even if he or she doesn't make a comment to that effect). Perhaps all you've done is plant a seed that will require (and hopefully receive) nutrients and sunlight from other sources. {This Pollyanna view is often the only thing that keeps me -- and other psychologists -- plugging away at what looks, for all the world, like a losing battle.}
But it's much easier to "preach to the choir". I used to despair that this had little effect, but I've changed my mind about that. During this election cycle, I've focused on doing small things (like putting up yard signs for a state rep candidate, writing an article for a democratic newsletter, etc.), in addition to donating $$ to candidates and committees.
All of these things can be properly classified as preaching to the choir, but if it helps turn out the base for the midterm election, then it has the desired and required effect.
The incredible rise in vehement and vitriolic partisanship since 1994 suggests that there's little else one can do besides preach to the choir. Anything else is (as they say in the South) like trying to teach a pig to sing: it doesn't work and it just pisses off the pig.
I wish I could be more encouraging about the nature of political debate in the current climate, but I've seen it drive wedges in families (well, my husband's family anyway, since mine is uniformly very liberal) and introduce distrust and resentment among friends.
Yeechh! A love fest.
I keep hoping to see a reasoned discussion (that is: supported by FACTS and CLINICAL EVIDENCE) of how to determine:
1) What if anything will change the way of the world; and
2) How to go about implementing the results of that discussion (if the results indicate that something might work, which seems unlikely but what the hey)
Now if that seems like too large a challenge, can't you folks at least admit that you are each separately and independently indulging untested and untestable fantasies about how small steps might combine to make a modest difference toward an extremely unclear goal (but of course we all know it's a *good* goal and worth striving for, right?).
Puleez! How is that different from the wingnuts who don't respond to the facts you put out there for discussion? Fantasy is just fantasy. Own up to it. It's all dangerous and none of it gets the job done.
Isn't ANYONE willing to take responsibility for the contents of their own minds?
Who can say "THIS will work" and can prove that they know what they're talking about? Hellooo? Anybody home?
TA
Who can say "THIS will work" and can prove that they know what they're talking about?
Can you?
Post a Comment
<< Home