For clarification, there are posts I don't see because they are posted by people on my ignore list. I tend to ignore people who are exceptionally vitriolic.
Also, lisarea's right. This isn't knee-jerk. Unlike people who hated Hilary Clinton when she was first lady*, we have a reason for our fury. I just started another thread about that.
*When she was first lady, there was no reason to be vitriolic about her. Now that she's a senator I'm sure you can find several reasons to get angry with that bitch.
For clarification, there are posts I don't see because they are posted by people on my ignore list. I tend to ignore people who are exceptionally vitriolic.
Yeah, I know.... I'm one of them.
The irony is, Godless Dave is most consistantly the poster with whom I agree the most, including every post in this thread (yes, including the statement about Hilary).
OK, I'm willing to go with that. It's reasoned, and not a knee-jerk response. I wish more political criticism here would look like yours immediately above, and not like your OP and the mutual back-slapping "aren't we superior?" bullshit responses that tended to follow it (not all of them were, and in particular I think Clutch Munny and lisarea gave thoughtful and funny responses).
I've mentioned it here before -- although it's been quite some time -- but I think too often the posters here are not aware of just how hostile an atmosphere we create here at FF to expressing ideas which might be dissenting from our own politically. This board is very skewed to the left. There's nothing wrong with that by itself, but the vitriol so many of us display towards anyone associated with the right, or even sometimes the center, is disproportionate, unwarranted, and not very critical. I don't like it one bit.
I see your point, CH. I dare say no one here wants to make you like material such as that contained in my OP or material that you consider "backslapping 'aren't we superior' bullshit." If by "skewed to the left" you mean anti-Bush, your assessment of FF's general leaning is certainly correct. But while calling Karen Hughes a bed-wetting idiot, etc. is undeniably vitriolic, I fail to see how it qualfies as "vitriol . . . towards anyone associated with the right." It's certainly insulting to Hughes, which is exactly what I intended. The term "Rebitchlifuck" can reasonably be deemed insulting to Republicans in general, but Republicans -- particularly the ones currently running the show in Washinton -- are neither conservative* nor the be-all and end-all of "the right."
*Don't take my word for it. Ask alphamale; he'll tell ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand
The [Hughes insults in the OP] are not, nor do they reflect any critical thinking on the part of the speaker.
Of course insults aren't critical thinking. So what? They obviously weren't intended as such. And while they may or may not reflect critical thinking, depending upon how you want to define that word, please rest assured they're the direct result of much critical thinking about the Bush administration in general and about Karen Hughes in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eldar
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharonDee
vm, I think I love you.
So, what are you so afraid of?
She's afraid that she's not sure of
A love there is no cure for
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
I'll be charitable and allow that many of the negative opinions and epithets expressed in the OP are simply of the common type to be found in op-ed political pieces. The parts in bold are not, nor do they reflect any critical thinking on the part of the speaker.
Actually, I can assure you that they do. Now, they may not cite that critical thinking, but they are absolutely based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion.
Read my post immediately above again. I'm referring to the parts from the OP that I quoted in bold. How those kind of playground insults can be based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion is beyond me. Perhaps I should repeat the third grade.
Quote:
I can assure you those are not kneejerk reactions or the product of some kind of party-line talking points.
Vitriolic? Yes. Righteous outrage? Yes. Uninformed and kneejerk? Absolutely not.
I do recognize that you don't really have any way of knowing what sort of reasoning is behind the outrage, but to assume that there simply is none is presumptuous.
I sense bias. Outrage is appropriate under certain circumstances. It isn't here. We are talking about a gaffe. At most, in the light most favorable to the critics of Ms. Hughes, we are talking about an appointed government official without much power pushing her religious agenda and misrepresenting what the Constitution says to the press. If that is the case, should you be upset with her? Sure. Outraged? No. Save that for more egregious behavior from someone more influential.
You cheapen righteous indignation and outrage by effusing it so indiscriminantly. Wolf!
CH
__________________
"Well, yeah, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."
I'll be charitable and allow that many of the negative opinions and epithets expressed in the OP are simply of the common type to be found in op-ed political pieces. The parts in bold are not, nor do they reflect any critical thinking on the part of the speaker.
Actually, I can assure you that they do. Now, they may not cite that critical thinking, but they are absolutely based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion.
Read my post immediately above again. I'm referring to the parts from the OP that I quoted in bold. How those kind of playground insults can be based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion is beyond me. Perhaps I should repeat the third grade.
Quote:
I can assure you those are not kneejerk reactions or the product of some kind of party-line talking points.
Vitriolic? Yes. Righteous outrage? Yes. Uninformed and kneejerk? Absolutely not.
I do recognize that you don't really have any way of knowing what sort of reasoning is behind the outrage, but to assume that there simply is none is presumptuous.
I sense bias. Outrage is appropriate under certain circumstances. It isn't here. We are talking about a gaffe. At most, in the light most favorable to the critics of Ms. Hughes, we are talking about an appointed government official without much power pushing her religious agenda and misrepresenting what the Constitution says to the press. If that is the case, should you be upset with her? Sure. Outraged? No. Save that for more egregious behavior from someone more influential.
You cheapen righteous indignation and outrage by effusing it so indiscriminantly. Wolf!
CH
Look in the mirror, CH.
Talk about cheapen righteous indignation and outrage, try this on for size:
After I levelly responded to this deliberately provocative question, I posed my own dumb-ass question to you, about why you hated Americans so much you want them to die in a pointless and illicit war.
You never answered. Instead, you went ballistic with so much cheap indignation and outrage. YOU...Yes, YOU degraded the whole tenor of this thread, nobody else. If you want to sling mud, I'll answer volley for volley with you....This you don't seem to like. You want to throw mud, but you don't want get dirty or others to respond in kind.
I'm personally tired of all your immature whining. I thought you made some very enlightening statements in Sweetie's Harrassment thread, but you pissed all over them here.
Grow up and stop being so two-faced. It's why I don't trust you. This thread has just reinforced all that mistrust.
I see your point, CH. I dare say no one here wants to make you like material such as that contained in my OP or material that you consider "backslapping 'aren't we superior' bullshit." If by "skewed to the left" you mean anti-Bush, your assessment of FF's general leaning is certainly correct.
That's cool, and thanks for taking the time to respond to me. My assessment of the prevailing political culture at FF isn't the result of reading your OP alone. It is primarily grounded in my feelings and impressions left over from the intensity of discussions immediately preceding and immediately following last November's elections.
"Anti-Bush" is charitable. Rabid, Bush-hating and wishing dismemberment and disemboweling upon anyone who has ever failed to boo and hiss when they saw the President's face on TV was closer to it back then. I haven't really kept up with the forum's political culture much since, as I found it so distasteful then.
Quote:
But while calling Karen Hughes a bed-wetting idiot, etc. is undeniably vitriolic, I fail to see how it qualfies as "vitriol . . . towards anyone associated with the right."
I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to imply that you insulted me or anyone in the center or on the right in general by insulting Hughes. I wasn't insulted or offended personally at all. I can still find the brand of ferocity and rabidness of insult I too often see here to be distasteful nonetheless, and I do.
My point was that in discussions of political matters at FF, I see such intensity directed only at conservatives or Republicans. I cannot recall seeing any of it on FF directed at any persons of any other political stripe or persuasion. Please feel free to provide counterexamples. They would be a welcome change.
CH
__________________
"Well, yeah, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."
"Anti-Bush" is charitable. Rabid, Bush-hating and wishing dismemberment and disemboweling upon anyone who has ever failed to boo and hiss when they saw the President's face on TV was closer to it back then. I haven't really kept up with the forum's political culture much since, as I found it so distasteful then.
I fail to see what you find distasteful about that attitude. Bush is clearly a scumbag who deserves to spend the rest of his life in federal prison. I honestly don't understand what bothers you or anyone else about rabid Bush-hating.
My point was that in discussions of political matters at FF, I see such intensity directed only at conservatives or Republicans. I cannot recall seeing any of it on FF directed at any persons of any other political stripe or persuasion.
Because at this point in history, Republican are in charge of Congress and the Presidency, and while they have been in power they have done some pretty destructive, unamerican things.
There is probably a post on here where I direct some intense anger at Democrats, particularly the DLC. I know I;ve said derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, and I called her a bitch right in this thread. Rather than look up some of my old threads I'll just say some more here: The DLC are a pack of fat cat assholes who are losing elections on purpose, Hillary Clinton is a pro-war carpetbagger, John Kerry is a coward and a sellout, and I'd like to see Joe Lieberman parachute into the Sunni Triangle, unarmed, with a target stapled to his chest. Does that make you feel better?
Once again, I'll point out that the vitriol here is not aimed at all Republicans and conservatives. It is aimed at members of the Bush administration and their supporters. They deserve it. Invading a country without provocation while using propaganda and curtailing civil liberties at home tends to provoke moral outrage.
As to this particular statement by Karen Hughes, it wasn't a gaffe. It was either a deliberate lie or astounding ignorance about the US Constitution. It comes after a long career of insulting and dishonest statements from Hughes. Had you never heard of her before this thread? She was Bush's press secretary when he was governor of Texas, and his communications director until 2002. She is one of Bush's closest advisors, helped draft the discredited 2003 State of the Union speech, and was involved in the smear campaign against Richard Clarke. She is by no means a minor player.
"Anti-Bush" is charitable. Rabid, Bush-hating and wishing dismemberment and disemboweling upon anyone who has ever failed to boo and hiss when they saw the President's face on TV was closer to it back then.
Well, thank goodness we don't have to read excessive hyperbole in your own commentary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Hand
It is excessive hyperbole that so often masquerades as commentary here, and too much of it does tend to be knee-jerk and less than critical.
See? This is what I don't get about you. You decry the rabid vitriolic tone that some of us when describing certain political elements. You clarified that you don't feel insulted by it, but you don't like it.
On the other hand, you've no problem with describing posters here as rabid, uncritical in their thinking and mindlessly vicious.
I don't get that, I really don't. As far as I can tell, you see the use of vitriolic language aimed at conservative elements as a detriment to the state of political discourse in this forum. How does castigating posters as being akin to mad dogs help elevate the level of discourse? How is that supposed to be helpful?
You don't want to talk politics here, that's fine. You don't find the atmosphere, that's fine, too. But, if you want it to change, then try changing it. If you just want to complain about it, that's okay also...but it ain't gonna change that way.
I think part of the disconnect comes from the fact that the OP (with whom I agree on this point) doesn't see it as a gaffe at all but, rather, part of a pattern. A certain subset of Republicans, and Ms. Hughes specifically, have a history of (dishonestly or innocently and ignorantly, I dunno, but I suspect the former) misrepresenting the role historically played by religion, specifically Chrsitianity, in American government. While this particular incident isn't particularly rage-worthy (although a case could be made that she does damage to our national reputation in the way she portrays us abroad), the collection of such statements, taken together, are extremely infuriating. Ms. Hughes may not have intended to use the exact (obviously incorrect) words that she did, but there's little doubt in my mind that she conveyed the precise message she wanted to convey.
So, yah...a gaffe is forgivable. A premeditated campaign to spread an erroneous message about my country is not. I think the misunderstanding comes in here when some of us see the former and some the latter.
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
Read my post immediately above again. I'm referring to the parts from the OP that I quoted in bold. How those kind of playground insults can be based on a foundation of reasoned and educated opinion is beyond me. Perhaps I should repeat the third grade.
Well. No insults there, eh?
The text you quoted, I have already granted, does not cite a reasoned and educated opinion, but it very much reflects one. It's not that fine a distinction, really, but you seem to be missing it.
And I really fail to understand what's so noble about avoiding vitriol, overall. I could fill volumes with reasons to hate this administration. Yes, hate. Really, really hate. In many cases, I'd argue that hatred, insults, and vitriol are the appropriate response. To discuss such things in a reasonable tone implies that they're reasonable.
In fact, in many cases, the only reasonable and excusable response is outrage. You accused godfry of hating America earlier. Now, I don't know where that whole meme got coopted, but this administration is absolutely doing its level best to destroy this country, and those who defend the administration do so to the detriment of the principles on which it was founded.
So: Why do YOU hate America?
Quote:
I sense bias. Outrage is appropriate under certain circumstances. It isn't here. We are talking about a gaffe. At most, in the light most favorable to the critics of Ms. Hughes, we are talking about an appointed government official without much power pushing her religious agenda and misrepresenting what the Constitution says to the press. If that is the case, should you be upset with her? Sure. Outraged? No. Save that for more egregious behavior from someone more influential.
Bias? Hell, yes. I do it all for the booty. Never claimed otherwise.
And I'm really not sure where you draw the line as far as who is responsible for their actions and who isn't. Hughes is. And let's be clear about this: I do not accept your explanation that it was a simple gaffe. A gaffe, sure. But one based either on an egregious misunderstanding of what this country is supposed to stand for, or on a barely concealed desire to destroy it. Yes, destroy it.
Is she just following orders? A powerless minion? To some extent, sure. She's a grownup all the same, she is responsible for her actions, and while certainly there are others in positions of greater power than her, she is still accountable for herself and her own actions. And if she's just saying and doing as she's told, she's still responsible.
And frankly, I would expect better from a grade-schooler. I'm pissed that the woman has some a cushy appointed position in which she speaks for the nation. You know what her job is? To make us all look good. That's her whole job. She sucks at it, and those of us she's appointed to respresent should be pissed.
Please, please, please explain to me why it should be acceptable that this woman, who is tasked with representing the United States, is saying crap like this. Whether you believe it was an innocent slip of the tongue, a more sinister Freudian slip, or evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles the nation she officially represents, how do you excuse her saying something so stupid, so ignorant, and/or so profoundly Unamerican, in her official capacity, no less?
And briefly: Do you care to actually address any points? You started out actually talking about the content, but you've very quickly lapsed into some kind of meta-discussion of what you perceive others' motivations, personalities, and intelligence, and tone.
If you want to tell me I'm wrong, tell me what is wrong with the arguments I've made, not what's wrong with me personally. Why do you seem to be making such an effort to refocus attention onto the motivations and tone of the arguments, rather than the substance?
Quote:
You cheapen righteous indignation and outrage by effusing it so indiscriminantly. Wolf!
Yeah? Before this post, show me where I was so effusive with my outrage.
Or are you actually just conflating a whole bunch of other people who disagree with you?
... evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles the nation she officially represents, how do you excuse her saying something so stupid, so ignorant, and/or so profoundly Unamerican, in her official capacity, no less?
I already said as much early in page one, but CH said that wasn't his point ("and you know it").
godfry, that's the best thing you've said on this thread so far.
Cool Hand's "Why do you hate your country?" was an obvious attempt to provoke you into (pseudo-)confirming the claims he wished to make about rhetoric towards Republicans here. The best kick in the nads would have been to shrug it off. Sometimes hypocrisy shines through most clearly when given centre stage; paradoxically, screaming "Hypocrisy!" only draws negative attention to the guy doing the screaming.
I think part of the disconnect comes from the fact that the OP (with whom I agree on this point) doesn't see it as a gaffe at all but, rather, part of a pattern. A certain subset of Republicans, and Ms. Hughes specifically, have a history of (dishonestly or innocently and ignorantly, I dunno, but I suspect the former) misrepresenting the role historically played by religion, specifically Chrsitianity, in American government. While this particular incident isn't particularly rage-worthy (although a case could be made that she does damage to our national reputation in the way she portrays us abroad), the collection of such statements, taken together, are extremely infuriating. Ms. Hughes may not have intended to use the exact (obviously incorrect) words that she did, but there's little doubt in my mind that she conveyed the precise message she wanted to convey.
So, yah...a gaffe is forgivable. A premeditated campaign to spread an erroneous message about my country is not. I think the misunderstanding comes in here when some of us see the former and some the latter.
I think you hit the nail on the head, here, Adam.
#586
See, this is why I should just avoid political discussions entirely. Even when I do my level best to make what I think is the most self-evident, vanilla observation possible I run into someone who vehemently disagrees. I think I'll stick to blathering incoherently about philosophy, where I can be courteously ignored.
vm,
Contrary to what others have expressed, in my opinion, yours is the most sensible post in the whole thread. I should follow your advice and stay out of this section altogether. Unfortunately, to do so means I also have to stay out of law related topics.
Clutch Munny,
I disagree with you about many of the things you have said in this thread, but I choose not to respond to them. It's not that I don't respect you or your opinions, it's that there is a lot to respond to here, and I choose to respond to certain remarks and not others. I hope that you recognize that we all tend to do that to some degree or other, and for various reasons. I do agree with you that several posters made rational responses which I did not address directly. Chalk it up to a combination of volume of posts and points raised, my own weariness with the larger meta-issue I raised here (whether you agree that such an issue exists at FF or not), and that I really don't feel an obligation to respond to everything. I suspect you don't either, and that's every poster's prerogative of course, in my opinion.
Everyone else,
I apologize for my unnecessary remark to Godfry. He and I have a history here of unfortunate exchanges, and I had no business resurrecting it, particularly not in a thread that had nothing to do with him or me.
As for the claims of hypocrisy, I'm sorry, but I just don't see them on my part in this thread. I'm concerned about the disproportionate level of vitriol which in my opinion is common here at FF towards ....hell, I don't know, but it was evident in the OP. The insults in bold particularly stood out to me as somewhat representative of a loose pattern of posts here, scattered over the board's history, and that's what I was addressing. Does that mean I cannot be critical or even snide in political or meta-issue discussions in this thread without being hypocritical? If you think so, then we are indeed disconnecting and misunderstanding each other, and again, I suppose that provides me another good reason to refrain from commenting on political issues here. I called no one in this thread childish names, as did the OP called Karen Hughes. I don't see the hypocrisy in that regard. Also, I don't see how I could possibly have dragged the tenor of the OP down, as it was already at the level of playground insults from the first post. I did something to change the direction of it towards a meta-discussion, and that my doing so brought on even more vitriol and rhetoric in some of the subsequent posts (but not all or even most of course) was ironic to me. Hence, my attempt to end my participation with Q. E. D.
I did provoke Godfry deliberately, and I shouldn't have. I'm sorry for that.
CH
__________________
"Well, yeah, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."
I don't think you provoked godfry deliberately, I think you lashed out without thinking. That's cool, Cool Hand, we all do it one time or another. If you take umbrage at names directed at others, that's fine. Say so, explain why, but don't generalize or toss insults directed at posters (you did do that). The vitriol in this thread's OP wasn't aimed at you or any other member of this board as has been pointed out repeatedly.
Last edited by Dingfod; 10-29-2005 at 10:09 PM.
Reason: speeling corectshun
You still haven't explained why you find the comments about Karen Hughes so distasteful, or why you feel she doesn't deserve them.
In the meantime, I started another thread in this forum attempting to explain why I feel so much anger towards the Bush administration but without using any vitriol in the post itself. See if you can find it.
I disagree with you about many of the things you have said in this thread, but I choose not to respond to them.
Okay. I don't know how, since I haven't made "many" points in this thread. (Like, three, maybe four.) In any case, I wasn't making reference to my own posts when I called your "QED" a silly evasion. I had eldar's calm, clear and entirely reasonable observations in mind, if any specifically.
Re: Karen Hughes Teaches Constitutional Law
A republic, not an empire.
I think I'll stick to blathering incoherently about philosophy, where I can be courteously ignored.
Linear Mode
