This was going to be a comment on my previous post but I think it merits seperate consideration. I had a new insight that I would like to share with readers. As I have observered the increasingly hostile tone of some of the participants on the left, I often wondered how this style of debate could be helpful to their cause. Certainly discriminating readers would be less inclined to agree with a hostile and condescending responder than with a fair and thoughtful one. So what purpose does the hostility serve other than to create needless divisions?
EXACTLY! This is exactly the reason to behave in this manner. You see, the left needs conflict, real or imagined, to further their agenda. Theirs (at least the far left) is an us against them philosophy that thrives on conflict versus the cooperation that is valued by most people. So you see the left playing up conflict between whites and blacks, between rich and poor, gay and straight, worker and management, female and male etc... The left needs people to buy into these trumped up conflicts. They need to foment conflict where none exists. They need to villify their opponents. Conflict and vitriol are necessary to create the divisions that they need in order to advance their agenda. So the hatred from the far left makes perfect sense after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
"...Conflict and vitriol are necessary to create the divisions that they need in order to advance their agenda."
Assume that is true. Why is it that their more macro ideas and agenda require this type of approach? Is it becasue their plank flies in the face of common sense or common good? Has the state's redistribution of wealth gone so far as to contradict reason? Is their plank so far removed from individual rights and responsibilities that their approach has to be so destructive?
Funny how you write an article about how "the left" creates and thrives on conflict and an "us versus them" mentality. Um-- isn't your own piece creating conflict with the left and creating an "us versus them" situation?
Think about it.
Anon, I find your 7:58 post confusing so if you want a response please make it more coherent.
Anon 10:53, there is a difference between pointing out differences and creating conflict. If I point out some of the differences between my dog and your goldfish, am I necessarily creating conflict? Likewise, if I observe that the left thrives on conflict and divisions, am I causing conflict or merely sharing my observations? Now if the left doesn't have a tendency to sow division between races, gender, class, etc... please feel free to more accurately describe the left and tell me where I am wrong.
The man who runs this blog is blind to his own prejudices. ...and there is none so blind as they that refuse to see.
I guess if one does not think that your rationale is logical, they are branded an 'mewan'.
...and it seems that the 'right', in national politics, are the conflicted ones...what a joke!
From 7:58 am
In other words, why do they behave this way??
To the anonymous who wrote this:
"The man who runs this blog is blind to his own prejudices. ...and there is none so blind as they that refuse to see."
Wow do you sound like a total elitist know-it-all or what? Get over yourself.
There is a reason why I do not allow anonymous posts...
Amazing...you guys just do not see your own blind spots...incredible...Debate man included...
Fred, I am anonymous because I really detest dealing with folks like you in life...know-it-alls who have the answers to everything...
Denis, you're joking right?
The right is building bridges between gays and straights with anti mariage laws...in battle ground states.
You've never heard Rove talk about wedge issues?
They (the issues) generally involve race, class, religion,...
Anonymous you are clearly warped.
Tell me, why did the gay marraige ammendment fail in Wisconsin in a year when Democrats won everything?
Let me clue you in on something, DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT.
I know it does not fit your preconceived notion of your party, but it is just a fact.
It failed because a large number of democrats did not support it.
Must be lonely in your make believe land.
No, the reason is your are a coward, too chicken to put your name to your opinions.
You'll claim tolerance then throw out words like detest when you know nothing about me.
Get help with your hate problem, it will be your undoing.
No, I am not joking. Nor am I saying that politicians won't trump up issues that they think will garner them more votes. The gay marriage issue is a case in point. But it was not/is not conservatives who are playing up any conflict between gays and straight people. Gay activists are playing up the conflict. I don't think many people these days are hostile towards or filled with hatred of gays, though some no doubt are. But I think the majority of people do not want the definition of marriage (ie between man and woman) to be changed. This does not mean that straights hate gays or want to oppress them or anything of the sort. The issue was no doubt helpful in garnering votes though. But remember that conservatives/Republicans did not bring the issue of gay marriage to the political arena, gays and liberals did for the most part by pushing for gay marriage. And one method of getting what you want, if you are on the left, is to disparage those that disagree with you, while heaping praise and bestowing awards on your allies. An insecure person may find themselves drawn to a crowd that will validate their feelings, elevate their self esteem, provide a (false) sense of superiority etc... so long as you tow the party line that is. This helps explain the hypersensitivity of liberals, as has been abundantly evident on this site recently, because a rejection of liberal ideas is taken as a rejection of the liberal, seeing as their politics and their identities are so tightly intertwined.
Fred, welcome to the battlefield.
Real Debate is also doing a fantastic job of proving your point. Thank goodness he got whupped by an almost dead guy in his bid for alderman...A former bus driver beat Wisconsin's 4th most popular blog author!
Your loss should be a reality check for you Mr. Dooley, you're not as popular as your ego pronounces.
Mr. Real Debate - I assume that is you legal name as you dislike those that post anonymously. I have only posted once, the "You must be joking" one.
I'll assume your insults were for some one else...not that that make it right.
But to the issue - That is how wedge issues work a number of people who otherwise would have voted against Bush may have voted for him do to the referendum.
Denis -you are correct the ISSUE of gay right as been around for years. But is how the issue is used that we are talking about. Gays have been aggitaing to be INCLUDED not excluded. The referendums in battle ground states were to EXCLUDE gay from marrage. How is that not divisive? Were women who aggitated for the right to vote at the turn of the last century being devisive? Or did they just want to be treated like everyone else?
I also noticed how you did not object to Mr. Debate's insults...Only those that agree with out can use that tone?
This is my second and last post. You claim to want spirited debate but all I got was insults.
Yes I will read any response you post.
anon 3:12, did I insult you? I thought I simply answered your question about whether or not I was serious. Re Real Debate and his insults, if Fred had insulted me I would no doubt have responded. But I have yet to chide anyone for insulting anyone else on this site, so Fred did not get any preferential treatment from me. Generally speaking, I object to name calling, gratuitous insults etc... because it is wrong and because it is the weakest form of argument. That said, it can be so tempting and I have and no doubt will again fail to meet the standards that I set for myself.
Re the gay marriage issue, yes, gays wanted to be included while others wanted to retain the meaning of marriage, which, in virtually every society (if not all societies) has been defined as a union between one man and one women. By this definition gays are not excluded. A gay man can marry a woman just as a straight man may. Likewise, a gay woman is allowed to marry a man just as a heterosexual woman is allowed to marry a man. Gays and straights are not excluded. They have been, however, prevented from changing the definition of marriage. So gays are not being excluded. They have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as do heterosexual people. As such, the issue is quite different from the womans voting issue.
I am sorry that you will not be posting any more. I hope you will reconsider. If you do, I would urge you to choose a name and stick with it. It is quite possible that you were mistaken for another anon who has been somewhat problematic on this site.
I think 9:36 anon just gave a swift uppercut of reality to the chin of Mr Real Debate..."losing to an almost dead guy", must admit that was funny.
havent' seen him since that comment, interesting.
Gays and marriage, give me an issue to talk about that matters.
Post a Comment