The "H" Word
I have to say, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing "democrats" and "liberals" consistently linked to "hate" by the conservative posters on these boards.
I think it's time to put this out in the open in its own thread and maybe we can set some ground rules.
The idea that, by opposing the Bush administrations policies one is filled with "hate" is name calling at its silliest. I realize that it has become something of a talking point amongst the conservative punditry, but I don't see any reason why it has to be continuously evoked here. The idea that to oppose Bush's policies means I "hate America" or "support terrorism" is more than silly, it is the kind of ad hom bullshit that one would think would get moderated.
And I don't accept that conservative posters are talking about an abstract group so they are free to carry on. It is entirely obvious that these constant accusations of treason and hatred are to be applied to anyone here that comes across as liberal.
And please, let's not play the "you're one too" game. There is no lack of distaste, even disgust, for Bush and conservatism here, but I don't see some mutually agreed upon and constantly referenced characterization of the Repubs by something as deadly serious as treason and support of terror.
Perhaps it would be OK if I started referring to Scott, A Greer, Commom Man, et al as child molesting republicans? It makes exactly as much sense as the "hateful" democrat label. How about if every liberal poster here did the same, and constantly, and attributed much of the strategies of the republican party and its champions on these boards to the working out of a pathological need to fuck children.
But gosh, that would so....ugly, don't you think? So how about we just agree that everybody here more or less thinks well of our country and wishes her to prosper and wants to see terrorists captured and imprisoned and does not wish to see his friends or neighbors killed by same, and that disliking the Bush administration is not the result of some character defect that compels one to hate indiscriminately.
Because that is very obviously true.
Right?
I think it's time to put this out in the open in its own thread and maybe we can set some ground rules.
The idea that, by opposing the Bush administrations policies one is filled with "hate" is name calling at its silliest. I realize that it has become something of a talking point amongst the conservative punditry, but I don't see any reason why it has to be continuously evoked here. The idea that to oppose Bush's policies means I "hate America" or "support terrorism" is more than silly, it is the kind of ad hom bullshit that one would think would get moderated.
And I don't accept that conservative posters are talking about an abstract group so they are free to carry on. It is entirely obvious that these constant accusations of treason and hatred are to be applied to anyone here that comes across as liberal.
And please, let's not play the "you're one too" game. There is no lack of distaste, even disgust, for Bush and conservatism here, but I don't see some mutually agreed upon and constantly referenced characterization of the Repubs by something as deadly serious as treason and support of terror.
Perhaps it would be OK if I started referring to Scott, A Greer, Commom Man, et al as child molesting republicans? It makes exactly as much sense as the "hateful" democrat label. How about if every liberal poster here did the same, and constantly, and attributed much of the strategies of the republican party and its champions on these boards to the working out of a pathological need to fuck children.
But gosh, that would so....ugly, don't you think? So how about we just agree that everybody here more or less thinks well of our country and wishes her to prosper and wants to see terrorists captured and imprisoned and does not wish to see his friends or neighbors killed by same, and that disliking the Bush administration is not the result of some character defect that compels one to hate indiscriminately.
Because that is very obviously true.
Right?
Comments
I think of tonton saying "I hate Patricia Heaton" because of her political views, and then saying it's not okay to "hate" in another thread.
I don't think of people "hating America." That's too vague and not even worth discussing.
Originally posted by Eugene
When I think of "hate" and the members of this board, I think of the insipid comments in the Reagan threads. You can call me out on this when Clinton dies in 30 years or so, but I don't think the conservative right of this board would be so bold.
I think of tonton saying "I hate Patricia Heaton" because of her political views, and then saying it's not okay to "hate" in another thread.
I don't think of people "hating America." That's too vague and not even worth discussing.
Huh.
So in your mind, thinking and speaking ill of Reagan because of specific things he did as president is more disquieting than "liberals hate america".
Perhaps you have missed the point of the thread.
Originally posted by addabox
Huh.
So in your mind, thinking and speaking ill of Reagan because of specific things he did as president is more disquieting than "liberals hate america".
Perhaps you have missed the point of the thread.
Adda, you are just seeing a bit of your own double standard. When people speak ill or Reagan it is "criticism." When people speak ill of leftists, it is "hate."
Simply put do you think there are groups of Republicans with wine and champaign sitting cooled waiting for Clinton to die so they can toast his trip to hell?
I have no doubt there are people who display hateful behavior from the right. Michael Savage is a name I have often heard associated with hatefulness. However from my experience leftists often portray conservatives as being hateful. You've watched me get pissed at people here who would portray me (even in a joking manner) as hating women. I take hatefulness seriously enough that for me the joke is just never funny. But there is a never ending association by the left of portraying the right as racist, sexist, facist and harming others to acquire whatever it is they have.
Perhaps there are people on the right who attempt to link liberal types with say, the enemy of the war on terror. But I would rather be associated with being a male muslim, even a hateful male muslim any day of the week instead of constantly being called a racist, facist, sexist, oppressor of all people on this planet.
I'd take being called a terrorist over the latter any day of the week.
Nick
Edit: to also include the fact that all conservatives also hate the planet on which they live and work feverishly night and day to insure it is nothing but a burnt up, used up, polluted hunk of destroyed rock.
That's a lot of hate toward the right from the left.
Originally posted by trumptman
Edit: to also include the fact that all conservatives also hate the planet on which they live and work feverishly night and day to insure it is nothing but a burnt up, used up, polluted hunk of destroyed rock.
That's a lot of hate toward the right from the left.
The "H" word is usually just a strawman argument used, by definition, to argue against something the original argument never claimed. In the above example, Nick *imagines* that the charge against big polluters and others who favor business at the expense of the environment is that they "hate" the environment. In my experiences, most argue that such people are indifferent to the environment-- that is-- the interests of business simply trump the interests of the environment. I don't know too many that cut down the rain forests for the sake of cutting down the rain forests, after all.
Originally posted by Scott
When of course the real issue is Moore's hateful insults of the people of his country.
Please specify those hateful insults from Michael Moore towards the people of his country.
Originally posted by addabox
Huh.
So in your mind, thinking and speaking ill of Reagan because of specific things he did as president is more disquieting than "liberals hate america".
"Liberals hate America" is an obvious falsehood, in contrast to not being able to suspend hatred for a man's politics for one breath. I think the h-label has been misused, but I have witnessed plenty of flagrant examples of hatred in here...more from one posse vs the other.
I hate everyone and I hope they hate me.
Michael Moore at Home in 'Old Europe'
Originally posted by Eugene
"Liberals hate America" is an obvious falsehood, in contrast to not being able to suspend hatred for a man's politics for one breath. And somewhere in between a personality like Existence cannot separate the man from the policy.
I think the h-label has been misused, but I have witnessed plenty of flagrant examples of hatred in here.
I know what you're saying-- and I agree when you criticized tonton for saying something hypocritical and offensive (I don't remember exactly). But we didn't see that suspension you talk about-- we didn't see that anywhere. What we did see was a trumpeting of the man and his policies all over the news media. A lot of us acknowledged the passing of a man-- a president-- and his death would have inevitably led to a discussion about his policies. But some didn't-- and you're right-- that's losing perspective.
Originally posted by Scott
This is the common whine of the left. They think that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism. When a shit bag like Moore goes around europe insulting the people of his country with the worst language one can only assume he hates them. When this is pointed out all of a sudden Moore's "digital brownshirts" swoop in to claim that he's being called a hate monger because he opposes Bush. When of course the real issue is Moore's hateful insults of the people of his country. When the democrats post a anti-Bush add that feature Hitler and Bush we can only assume they hate Bush. But once again if you point then you are lambasted for attacking them for "criticizing" Bush.
Democrats did not post an anti-Bush ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Someone sent in such an ad to MoveOn.org in response to a competition, where it was quickly removed.
However, it has a new life as part of a Republican campaign called "rage and pessimism".
Did you actually set out to make my point for me?
Originally posted by Scott
This one's a little short on direct quotes but you get the gist.
Michael Moore at Home in 'Old Europe'
I read it and I guess I miss your point. Moore gets on stage, talks about how he disagrees with Bush's policies, makes a few jokes, the audience is entertained. How is that hateful of America? You do realize that America is not Bush and Bush is not America. Bush is a civil servant selected to manage one branch of the government.
Originally posted by Scott
This one's a little short on direct quotes but you get the gist.
Michael Moore at Home in 'Old Europe'
I do get the gist. He thinks Bush has made a bad job of Iraq and the war on terror. He suggests that Germany not dismantle its social safety net like America has done.
And that, to you, is going about Europe saying the most hateful things about "the people of America" in the worst language. It makes him a "shitbag".
Maybe I should have titled this thread "Scott and the H word".
Originally posted by Scott
This one's a little short on direct quotes but you get the gist.
Michael Moore at Home in 'Old Europe'
I thnk you can do better than that . . I mean literally.
In that article there is one "Anti-American" slogan: 'don't be like our country' . . .which, considering what the background of what he is reffering to is, IMO, good advice . . . the other Anti-American quote is the sampling of statistics about Americans and geography . . .
That David Brooks article that I linked to in the other thread has more quotes . . . it would come across as being a smear article that at least has some content to support it rather than two half-quotes.
Anyway here we are. NYT. And yea it is the Brooks article. Please refute it if you can.
All Hail Moore
Originally posted by trumptman
Adda, you are just seeing a bit of your own double standard. When people speak ill or Reagan it is "criticism." When people speak ill of leftists, it is "hate."
Simply put do you think there are groups of Republicans with wine and champaign sitting cooled waiting for Clinton to die so they can toast his trip to hell?
I have no doubt there are people who display hateful behavior from the right. Michael Savage is a name I have often heard associated with hatefulness. However from my experience leftists often portray conservatives as being hateful. You've watched me get pissed at people here who would portray me (even in a joking manner) as hating women. I take hatefulness seriously enough that for me the joke is just never funny. But there is a never ending association by the left of portraying the right as racist, sexist, facist and harming others to acquire whatever it is they have.
Perhaps there are people on the right who attempt to link liberal types with say, the enemy of the war on terror. But I would rather be associated with being a male muslim, even a hateful male muslim any day of the week instead of constantly being called a racist, facist, sexist, oppressor of all people on this planet.
I'd take being called a terrorist over the latter any day of the week.
Nick
Edit: to also include the fact that all conservatives also hate the planet on which they live and work feverishly night and day to insure it is nothing but a burnt up, used up, polluted hunk of destroyed rock.
That's a lot of hate toward the right from the left.
Perfectly reasonable points.
I agree that too often, the left defaults to "fascist/racist/sexist" tags that only serve to demonize.
However, my point is that the idea that the left "hates America", that it is "treasonous" is a different order of attack. I'll also say that while you might prefer to be called a "terrorist" over the usual insults, in a time of actual terrorism this is a pretty grave charge.
If you don't like being called a Nazi in 2004, how would you feel about being called one in 1943?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The "H" word is usually just a strawman argument used, by definition, to argue against something the original argument never claimed. In the above example, Nick *imagines* that the charge against big polluters and others who favor business at the expense of the environment is that they "hate" the environment. In my experiences, most argue that such people are indifferent to the environment-- that is-- the interests of business simply trump the interests of the environment. I don't know too many that cut down the rain forests for the sake of cutting down the rain forests, after all.
Obviously you haven't seen the "Mercury, it's what's for dinner" and also the ads that claim Bush is ADDING arsenic to the water.
Spinsanity
Gephardt has claimed Bush would allow "more arsenic" in drinking water on two other occasions. On April 29, 2001, he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that "There's almost been a daily drumbeat of changes in rules and regulations that really are obviously for special interests," including "allowing more arsenic in the water." More recently, he alleged in a June 17, 2003 letter to MoveOn.org members that Bush "sought to allow more arsenic in our drinking water."
Unfortunately, Gephardt is far from the only person to make this claim. Numerous Democratic politicians and liberal pundits repeated the accusation in March and April 2001 during the aftermath of the initial announcement. The Democratic National Committee even ran an ad in which a little girl asks, "May I please have some more arsenic in my water, Mommy?"
May I please have some more arsenic in my water.... yeah, I know it sounds like a strawman, but in this instance the weaker argument that I appear to be making up to knock down happens to be the real argument. Claiming Bush wants to feed you mercury and give you a nice glass or arsenic to wash it down with is the reality proposed in the ads.
Can you honestly give me another motivation someone would ascribe to Bush for wanting to give children arsenic besides, oh hate?
Nick
Originally posted by addabox
Perfectly reasonable points.
I agree that too often, the left defaults to "fascist/racist/sexist" tags that only serve to demonize.
However, my point is that the idea that the left "hates America", that it is "treasonous" is a different order of attack. I'll also say that while you might prefer to be called a "terrorist" over the usual insults, in a time of actual terrorism this is a pretty grave charge.
If you don't like being called a Nazi in 2004, how would you feel about being called one in 1943?
Well as you mentioned, it is something to be touchy about. I never claimed that one side was exempt or perfect. I just said that questioning ones patriotism to me seems much less a hateful act than question how one treats entire groups of people and the planet. Claiming you might not love say, America as much as you someone else could be very hurtful because you have a deep sense of nationalism. But is that hate? Do you really consider that, even when placed in the most hateful context to be the same as someone claiming you hate all women, everyone who is brown (Bush was linked with the dragging of James Byrd), old people (Bush was shown pushing an old woman off a cliff in a DNC ad), etc. Here is a nice one calling Bush a torturer. You know just to make sure the facism is associated with an entirely new modern day angle.
Nick