Filtering through the worst material on the most popular left-wing websites is a disturbing experience.
Surfing through the far left-wing's blogs and websites, it was difficult to decide what was worse: the prevalence of profanity and sex talk, or the extreme political views. It wasn't clear whether the vulgar content was produced by the websites themselves or spammers since much of it didn't sound any different than typical x-rated email spam. Because it would be inappropriate to discuss indecent material, this will be a censored look at the worst non-indecent content currently featured on these sites. Their alexa rankings are included to indicate their popularity – these represent the most popular websites and blogs on the left.
The Village Voice (ranked 5,971 on alexa) is celebrating its 50th anniversary, featuring content too profane on its home page to include here. The tenth link down on The Democratic Underground (ranked 4,122 on alexa) is entitled "This is a perverted sex thread." Clicking on it reveals profanity, what a surprise.
The second article featured on The Progressive (ranked 67,247 on alexa), by Will Durst, isn't much better. It begins, "I am so sick and tired of these lying, thieving, holier-than-thou, rightwing, cruel, crude, rude, gauche, coarse, crass, cocky, corrupt, dishonest, debauched, degenerate, dissolute, swaggering, lawyer shooting . . . EVIL, cretinous, slime buckets in the Bush Administration that I could spit." The rest of the article consists of more ad homonym attacks. The title of the article is "Impeachment? No. Impalement!" The piece concludes, "Upon the sharp and righteous sword of the people's justice. Make it a curtain rod. Because it would hurt more." This is the best the left has to offer?
The Daily Kos, probably the most popular left-wing blog on the internet (ranked 1,818 on alexa), features a link to "Marriage: Who Needs It" on its home page. Great reason not to date a leftist. Another article praises European nations and Canada for condemning religious criticism of homosexual activity as hate speech and making it illegal. Proof that the far left doesn't really support free speech, regardless of its criticism of the right on this issue.
Buzz Flash (ranked 11,090 on alexa) features a link to "The Bush Administration's Policies on Plan B Made me Get an Abortion I Didn't Want." Apparently Bush is no longer just responsible for global warming, starving children, and the actions of evil dictators, but anything else people can think of, the more ironic and creative the better.
Salon (ranked 660 on alexa) charges to read its articles, so fortunately most of the general public surfing the internet won't have access to them. Amusingly enough, there are ads from Google on Salon.com's website for the Republican National Committee and bushbumperstickers.com. The Nation (ranked 8,907 on alexa) also charges readers to read its articles, but the cartoon "20,000,000 Chavez fans can't be wrong " is free. Well of course, just like Chavez's philosophy, whatever communists dictate must be free is free.
Left-wing conspiracy theories are alive and well. The Grudge Report defends the 20th 9-11 hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui, calling his prosecution a kangaroo show trial. "How could one bad guy with a plastic knife commandeer an airline full of hysterical passengers?" Apparently, the government conspired to plan 9-11 since "the real hijackers of Sept 11th, 2001 are alive and well in Washington; still serving their fatcat friends and doing a bang-up job of it." Similarly, Indymedia (ranked 2,360 by alexa) has a link on its home page to "Evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job."
The Liberal Oasis features "GET ABORTION" in its right column, as if "getting abortion" is as all-American as the "Get Milk" ad campaign. The link goes to the National Network of Abortion Funds, which features the picture of a girl who looks about 13 years old.
The socially conscious Utne Reader (ranked 128,371 on alexa) features a "hugging saint" from India who is "healing the world one hug at a time." The Bradblog describes the host of MSNBC's "The Situation," Tucker Carlson, as having "the attention span and intellectual of a 3-year old (and that may be an insult to 3-year olds)." Ah, the old "if you can't refute their argument then personally attack their intelligence."
In an interesting twist, Steven Laffoley writing for Common Dreams (ranked 4,536 on alexa) defends the Marines who shot the Iraqi children in Haditha, in an article entitled "Blame is for God and Little Children." He argues that we can't blame anyone for anything because we're all guilty of sin. Based on this logic, it's not clear how any sort of penal system could be justified. At least he's consistent.
On Arianna Huffington's Huffingtonpost (ranked 1,237 on alexa), R.J. Eskow describes Campus Crusade for Christ as "Evangighouls" and "exultant as vampires in a blood bank" because of their concern for children in Iraq. Apparently on the left-wing scale of moral relativity, it's nobler to leave Iraqi children to their deaths under Saddam Hussein than to show concern for their souls. Mozilla is advertising its Firefox browser on Huffingtonpost. Does this mean Mozilla supports left-wing causes? It wasn't listed on buyblue.org, the website that ranks companies according to how much they contribute to left or right wing causes.
And finally, Moveon.org (ranked 10,349 on alexa) declares on its home page that it is joining forces with the Christian Coalition in the fight to protect internet freedom. Who knew?
Okay, this is why I don’t really read leftist websites very often.
But, in the interest of fairness, shouldn’t an article like this be done about conservative websites? Some of us conservatives can be just a cruel and childish as the leftists from what I’ve seen.
Before anyone makes an assumption, yes, I’m conservative. A Reagan conservative, thank you. I just try not to look at everything from only one side.
The author is right, of course. I regularly visit some of these left wing websites in the vain hope of obtaining a refutation of conservative thought. Instead there is vile obscenity, personal attacks, and crude parody of the most vapid sort.
This must be a deliberate strategy of the Left, as far as I can tell. Conservatives don’t even belong at the table as far as leftists are concerned. So why should they be answered? There is no point in refuting an argument from a person who is a bigot, a homophobe, or an extremist. So, deny the legitimacy of the conservative perspective and you don’t even have to bother with a response. Simple.
On rare occasion I am able to engage a leftist in a polite debate, but even then it is difficult. Leftists seem to have trouble focusing on the topic. They remind me of the worst sort of religionists in their zeal to pursue their talking points.
Maybe this is the key. Everyone has a religion, and for leftists, big government is theirs. So those who make the mistake of challenging their perspective are not simply wrong, they’re evil. Anyone who disagrees with them is not worthy of debate, only derision. Conservatives are in effect subhuman, worthy only of derision.
Well the proves it. Glenn Beck is right- Liberalism is a mental illness.
It is impossible to debate the members of the far left because their views oppse the social norms to the extent of not
having common ground to argue upon. I am a member of the much maligned Christian Right. I just want us to hold
onto our moral heritage.
Giving face time to those so far gone is a waste of time on this website. Amazingly, I am now wasting my time in asking IC to prevent such jibberish in the future.
Guys, these aren’t clubs or ball teams or ethnicities: “liberals,” “conservatives.” Talking about people in this way is inane; it reminds me of junior high kids talking about “preps” or “geeks.” These aren’t real things, real identities, anymore than zodiac signs or Enneagram types. In the real world (outside of insular blog-land), people make decisions about these issues on a case by case basis, and don’t obsess about these words you seem so focused on.
David just demonstrated my point better than I could ever do. Rather than speak to the issues raised, he simply sidesteps the entire discussion by bringing up a tangental irrelevancy.
The whole point of the article and the subsequent discussion is how the Left deals with debate and demonizes those with whom they disagree. Inexplicably, David resents the descriptors “liberals” and “conservative” but has nothing to say about the primary point – that is, the Left’s use of obscene, profane, and sometimes, violent rhetoric.
So David, rather than obfuscating the issue, do you have anything to contribute (pro or con) to the points raised?
My hat’s off to M. Villiers-de-L’isle-Adam III. Maybe it was the years of Nazi occupation of Paris that gave him (or his gene pool) the stamina to slog through the left wing swill mall and still write about it with dignity. Thank you for your service. As for the comment re: Glenn Beck: Please! Let’s pray that the used car business picks up so that Glenn can return to his calling. Isn’t it obvious that with a representative of Conservatism like him, we are doomed?
Regrettable what we choose for inormation sources. Who cares what blogs post? For that matter, who cares what agenda driven media say? Does anyone other than kooks get their information from Air America or Rush Limbaugh? If there is a “culture war”, it’s the wacko left vs. the wacko right. The two extremes probably represent ten percent of the electorate. In the meantime, the poltiticans rally behind or pounce on these idiots. We’re seduced; believing that this crap is representative of normal people. We’re all played for fools. We have the government we elected. We have exactly what we deserve. As a voter, are you happy with the government you elected?
Greg in NY
Regarding Greg’s comment: once again a liberal flaunts his ignorance. There is a culture war, and it is not just involving 10% of the populace. It is a small portion of the populace (all of the left) trying to force the rest of us to accept their religion: socialism and atheism. There are more people involved in this war than just the fringe cuckoos on both sides. And belive me when I say we are fighting for our country and the right for everybody to worship as we see fit, both of which are under attack by, not the far left, but by all the left.
From the original article:
The rest of the article consists of more ad homonym attacks.
homo·nym
Etymology: Latin homonymum the same word used to denote different things, from Greek homomacrnymon, from neuter of homomacrnymos having the same name
1 c : one of two or more words spelled and pronounced alike but different in meaning (as pool of water and pool the game).
ad ho·mi·nem
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the man
1 : directed at or appealing to one’s hearer’s or reader’s personal feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect and reason
From Ron S.
Some of us conservatives can be just a cruel and childish as the leftists from what I’ve seen.I have to say this is VERY true. One of my biggest pet-peeves is referring to the “looks” of someone on the Left (“Hillary Clinton’s fat ankles!”"Nancy Pelosi looks like she’s due for another botox!”) as if their lack of attractiveness is somehow pertinent.Also, plays on names (“Klintoon.” “Hitlery.”) The only difference perhaps is one of degree. I do think that Leftists are far more nasty, but that’s just my take.
From Rich Sherlock
Conservatives don’t even belong at the table as far as leftists are concerned.No, we belong in concentration camps.
From Patrick O.
Glenn Beck is right- Liberalism is a mental illness.Actually, that’s Michael Savage.
From David
…don’t obsess about these words you seem so focused on.
By that standard, my mother was too “obsessive” when she washed my mouth out with soap after I tried out some new words I’d learned at school.
From Greg in NY
Does anyone other than kooks get their information from Air America or Rush Limbaugh?
Can’t say anything regarding Air America, as I’ve never listened to it. But Rush Limbaugh has always been a source of information as far as I’m concerned. There was a time, back in the pre-Internet days, when Limbaugh was literally the only alternative source of news from a conservative perspective. I did not then, and do not now always agree with his commentary and opinion, but he was in the forefront of bringing up topics of conversation that were at the same time IMPORTANT and NOT BEING DISCUSSED AT ALL IN THE MSM.I think your statement is rather absurd on the face of it.
The conservative right has grown up and become educated, while the intellectual left has devolved into something akin to jumior high name-calling.
Left or right, debate is needed and we can’t have that with childish tantrums.
Try again, David. The article is about the sewage spewed by leftist websites, and all you can do is to make an unsupported allegation by saying it is conservatives who are using divisive tactics?
Leftists are all about pitting people against each other for political gain. Poor vs. rich. Blacks vs. whites. The more division they can foment, the better. Why? Because if problems like racism or poverty were ever solved, they would be out of a job. That’s why the poverty rate is still around 12% after 40 years and trillions of dollars transferred from workers to non-workers. That’s why leftists never let us forget who has what skin color.
I think I would like to define the word “divisive” according to leftists. “Divisive” means disagreeing with a leftist. Since leftists are more compassionate, more intelligent, more sensitive, more generous than anyone else, anyone who disagrees with them must be an idiot or uniformed. Therefore, conservatives are automatically divisive.
WOW…He looked at a part of a couple of postings from some liberal sites and made the decision that its all foul language and unintellectual.
First, we all need a place to vent right? well, no days its messgaboards and forums. Forums/Websites constructed for the sharing of similar ideas and exchaning points-of-view. So, viewing those sites is strictly voluntary, no one is making goto them but apparently alot of you do…Its kind of like listening in on a conversation you wasnt invited to, in a way.
I see lots of unwillingness to come to the table and talk on these responses. Some are rather profane and completly over the top in the judgmental department.
Post# 1 is the most balanced, all the others are just a pompus and crass as a venting liberal. The words are just different but the meaning in them is the same.
Post#2 is a heep of misinformation, I dont know where they got their intel, must of been from Pre911 CIA info, but its a mess.
– 1st: we stay focued on the topic, but their is so much conservative corruption its difficult to keep it all in order at times
– 2nd: Rich states that “There is no point in refuting an argument from a person who is a bigot, a homophobe, or an extremist” Correct, thats why it is hard to talk to a conservative.
- 3rd : “Everyone has a religion, and for leftists, big government is theirs” You have lost your mind. Thats not true at all, where do you find this garbage?
- 4th: “Conservatives are in effect subhuman, worthy only of derision.” No, conservatives think of all miniorities as subhuman.
Post#3: Thanks Patrick…”Glenn Beck is right- Liberalism is a mental illness.
– Gleen Beck is a horrible commentator by the way. Liberalism is not the mental illness…conservative fundamentalism is.
“It is impossible to debate the members of the far left because their views oppse the social norms to the extent of not
having common ground to argue upon. I am a member of the much maligned Christian Right. I just want us to hold
onto our moral heritage.”
– The religion is not the problem, the extremist who practice it are..Things they do in their Gods name or for Jesus are done completly opposite of the writings..hate and persecution is what Jesus fought against, correct?
Post#5: 4.5stars
Post#6: Is kindly agreeing with Post 5 because he sees Post5 as a swing vote. This is clearly demonstrated in the last line of post6 where he still is encouraging post 5 to possibly agree with the retorical article..
Speaking of not liking disagreement and demonization, the Right is just as guilty and there is no denying that.
Post#8: Gregg, that Rocks man!!
Post#9: My, my, my….Is that mega-spin I see?? Why, I think it is. Dave is in DISAGREEMENT with Gregg over his post that bothsides are a mess, which is true.
Dave states that “It is a small portion of the populace (all of the left) trying to force the rest of us to accept their religion: socialism and atheism.”
- Now, the only ones force feeding their moral code down everyones throat is the Right. Women cant have abortions in any case, Gay people are subhuman and dont deserve equal rights, HVP vaccine would promote deviant sexual behavior so the FRC has tried to squalch it, etc…Feedom of religion means just that, Freedom to practice any religion you so choose if you choose to practice one. Its a 2 way street, it wasnt written in the constitution just for christians. Also note that the founding fathers were NOT christians:
“The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.
This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.”
Post#11: conservatives are just as childish as the rest of them. trying to put the party above the heep when in fact its a large contributor to the major problems we face in society today. Your party is not exempt, their is no way around it..This adminestration has be littered with scandel after scandel and yet there are attempts to brush them all under the rug…
Post#12: thanks for clearing that up.
Post#13: Dave, you need to sto spinning things because right now I am going to call you out on it.
1st: Venom is spit from conservative attack sites to liberal attack sites, they all play the game and conservatives againg, are no acception.
2nd: that entire second paragraph is rubbish. Everything in that paragraph is exactly what conservatives are doing, not liberals. Who gave the mega tax break to the rich and corperations? GWB.
You state that:
“the poverty rate is still around 12% after 40 years and trillions of dollars transferred from workers to non-workers.” = Crap
(Source: The federal register)
The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period.
Clinton:
22 million jobs created
Lowest unemployment rate in 30 years.
Increased minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15
Earned income tax credit for 15 million poorer working families
Poverty Rate: 11.3
Bush II:
Highest unemployment rate in nine years.
Opposes wage increase.
Tax cuts for the rich, increased audits for tax credits for working families.
Currently: 12.5
Bush I Poverty Rate: 11.9
Misinformation is what conservatives do best, they will twist things until they almost break to get what they want for their politcal gains and agendas like PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY..Which is a master plan of global diaster.
““If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote for the Democrats.” – Harry Truman
Poor R. West. In a running commentary that seems like it would never end, all he can do is spout left wing talking points without adding a single thing of substance. Plus, he manages to reinforce just about every leftist stereotype in the space of a few paragraphs. “- 2nd: Rich states that ‘There is no point in refuting an argument from a person who is a bigot, a homophobe, or an extremist’ Correct, thats why it is hard to talk to a conservative.” How funny! I wrote sarcastically, and West takes it at face value! West must really believe the vapid hate-speech spewed by these extremist websites he so eloquently defends (note to West, my use of the word “eloquently” is sarcasm).
West goes on to talk about morals being forced down his throat as if his advocating the opposite viewpoint is not doing the exact same thing with a different set of morals! I am beginning to think that his post is tongue in cheek.
About the Founders: Of the 150 or so men who put together this country, 3 were deists or agnostices. The rest were bible-thumping, extreme right wing, praying Christians. It might help West to go to the source materials rather than regurgitating leftist talking points.
As for the poverty rate, my statement that it “is still around 12% after 40 years and trillions of dollars transferred from workers to non-workers” means that 11.4% and 12.7% are both “around 12%.” In case West missed my point, the poverty rate is, yes, still around 12%, and for DECADES. Sorry, West, poverty is still there, so poverty programs have FAILED.
By the way, maybe West can tell us why the poverty rate was 13.3% in 1997, when hero Clinton was still president?
It’s sad in a way to see someone react this way and still consider themselves as having made a slam dunk. Ignorance is bliss, as Cypher says in “The Matrix.”
Now this thread is funny- the article picks some inflamitory articles from left-wing blogs and posts the nasty things they said about conservatives, and the conservative posters here responded with just as silly statements about liberals.
People see what they want to see. The original poster did not see posts with valid points because he did not want to see the posts with valid points- he just wanted to feel superior.
I agree with the first poster here- that “Some of us conservatives can be just a cruel and childish as the leftists from what I’ve seen.”
And Liberals can (and most often are) able to have an intelectual discussion just fine, thank you.
And BTW- I’m a liberal on social issues, moderate on economic ones.
“Corrupt, decadent, debased.” – Roget’s Thesaurus. Irrelevant, David.
It is anti-intellectual to answer an argument with a one-word dismissal. If you can’t at least engage with a rejoinder that speaks to the topic at hand, then you should go back to your leftist blogs that don’t require thought, only clever catch phrases like “Bush is &%^ Hitler,” “Conservatives are *#%$ bigots and homophobes,” and “!@#@ Reagan was a dunce.”
However, if you wish to engage logic and reason, and employ thoughtful, considered opinions, this is the place to be, if you’re up to it.
David, you are a living example of my point. You simply dismiss all with with a one word response like “warped,” “effete” or “antiquated.” I am waiting breathlessly for you to actually make a counterpoint.
Surely you can actually defend your ideas rather than throw around verbs? And by the way, saying that conservatives belong in concentration camps is not a rebuttal, it’s just juvenile.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but to me the conservative perspective is as illegitimate as the Nazi or the Roman one.
I find it hard to talk reasonably to people who would hurt me and my family and many others, directly and indirectly. People who claim to be Christians while calling for the assassination of democratically elected leaders. Who invade other nations for no other reason than strategic gain. Who ignore or ridicule any science that doesn’t help them to build better rockets, tanks, planes or bombs. Who think the world is only 6000 years old. Who rig elections (it’s a fact) rather than simply try and convince the majority that they have the best candidate. And who deny that the amounts of CO2 we are unlocking from deep within the earth and letting out into our modern atmosphere is not causing a preventable change in the world’s climate.
I hate conservatives, I really do. I hate them for their genuinely delusional levels of stupidity, their arrogance and their aggression. I hate them because they obey and command rather than stand on their own two feet and think. I hate them because they put personal status above telling the truth. I hate them because a little bit of me and every human being is like them, but I have got the better of it, whereas they have not.
To me conservatives are criminals, plain and simple, and any benefits conservatism as a philosophy might have had have now been lost in a sea of extremism, polarized thinking and ideology. Conservatives project all their own worst qualities onto others without once stopping to think, could this be true of me also. Conservatism as a philosophy represents the ultimate in mental laziness, the switching off of all genuinely creative thinking in favor of a headlong rush back into the feudal past.
Conservatism in my view represents what physicists call entropy, the cold and dark slowing down of everything as it sinks back into lower forms of cohesion.
Conservatism represents fear and greed, and the smiling face of happy ignorance.
Conservatism’s greatest crime is its lack of ambition, and its unimaginative loyalty to what it supposes to be the ‘natural’ order.
Call me, and people like me, anything you like, but all I can say with any certainty is that I am a non-conservative, and that I will fight conservatism until my dying day, because that is what I believe it is to be a full human being, unafraid of ignorance and aggression, and willing to take responsibility for my part in the common good.
Take a breath, Max, and go have a beer. Once you’re done with it, come back and read your post. But read it with the word “gay,” or maybe “black,” instead of “conservative. Do you see how bigoted it sounds?
Bigotry comes from ignorance and manifests as hate. Your ignorance and hate of conservatism is on display for all to see. Would you like to retract your statements?
No, no retractions. I know what it might sound like. I think conservatism is the root of all bigotry, but I will leave it for people to decide for themselves if anything at all of what I am saying is valid. I am generalizing, and I would hope that is understood. I think killing tens of thousands of people for personal gain is evil, no two ways to cut it. I also think there is something seriously wrong with those who cast their vote for such criminals.
Instead of the words ‘Black’ or ‘Gay’, try substituting the words ‘fundamentalist’, ‘extremist’ or ‘fascist’ and see if that sits a little bit more easily with you.
My overall point was to demonstrate that free minded people, those still in touch with harsh reality, are angry and appalled at what is going on in their name. It’s criminal, immoral and needlessly destructive. It is also the logical outcome of conservative reasoning.
Perhaps hate is too strong a word if you insist on taking everything literally, though hate is what I sometimes feel. I am angry and frustrated at conservatism, I think conservative thinking lies at the root of all human conflict, no matter what the parties involved call themselves at the time. I hate it because a little bit of me is conservative, and I sometimes fall into these same traps. All this “I am higher up the food chain than you” garbage, all these notions of a natural hierarchy is what lies at the heart of human conflict, both in terms of those who believe in these ideas and those who rebel against them. It is animalistic thinking and has nothing to do with being a complete human being. We are not like other animals, we have a conscious intelligence, and we do not have to indulge our broader mammalian nature just because we can’t find our human one.
Everyone has a choice, and a responsibility to themselves and their fellow human beings.
I look down on nobody, or up to anybody either, no matter what my talents or gifts happen to be. Everybody has the same basic human rights. I do not fear loss of social status because I do not recognize that there is a ladder, a scale by which a person’s value is ultimately judged. I will always however point out when I think someone’s behavior is harmful or immoral, and I see this as one of my main responsibilities in life.
I think conservatives are individuals who are half way to being fully developed, but refuse to go any further. I do not look down on them, anymore than I would look down on someone with a physical handicap, but I do think conservative thinking should be confronted at every opportunity, because the results of such delusion is very often disastrous. To me a conservative is someone who turns their back on their responsibilities, very often hurting themselves and a lot of other people unnecessarily in the process.
Well said, David. We are talking about differing political perspectives, it isn’t about good vs. evil.
However, let’s be clear what bigotry is. Roget’s Thesaurus gives these synonyms: Bias, dogmatism, fanaticism, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, partiality, provincialism, racism, sectarianism, sexism. Max’s statements are bigotry, plain and simple. He is taking a group of people and stereotyping them. His stereotypes are clearly based on misinformation and generalizations about people and what they believe.
Max believes the caricature of conservatives as promulgated by left wing groups whose main interest is to get back in power. They throw terms around like bigot, homophobe, and extremist like candy on a parade route.
Max sounds like he is afraid of conservatives, at least, afraid of what they will do to him. Fear is irrational, based on a lack of knowledge. Conservatism is only a political ideology.
Let’s see if I can help. Here’s what conservatives believe in a nutshell. Read it and tell me how it imperils life as we know it. Conservatives believe that what made America great is average people working hard and playing by the rules. Conservatism is rooted in the individual pursuing their private, legal interests without molestation by government. Conservatives believe in constitutionally limited government that allows people to pursue their dreams and goals. People do not serve government. Government is not the highest power, individuals are.
Conservatives believe it is wrong for government to take from one person and give it to another. In private circles, this would be theft. In government, it is theft by majority, which is still theft. Conservatives believe in personal compassion, because government by definition cannot be compassionate. Conservatives believe in giving of their hard earned money to those in need, and do so sacrificially. The difference between government programs for the needy and personal giving is choice. Conservatives are pro-choice when it comes to compassion. Government takes, wastes, and then gives, all according to its whim. Government has taken compassion from good people who want to help but don’t have as much resourses because of government.
Conservatives love varying points of view. Yes, even religious conservatives. It’s pretty seldom that conservatives would personally attack others of different viewpoints. Since it was a group of very conservative men who founded this nation, w must give them credit for laying the groundwork for tolerance. That’s part of the reason that there are so many ethnic groups and religious persuasions in America, because conservative people welcome diversity.
The funny thing is, as I re-read what I wrote here, I know that there are leftists out there who will start nattering about slavery, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials. You know, evil people will do evil things, and use about any excuse to do evil. Need I point out that Stalin as an atheist killed millions? Or Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge (Sp?) as an atheism-based philosophy also murdered millions? Should we then say that atheism is to blame? No, evil people are to blame, regardless of the excuses they use to justify their evil.
Bigotry and hatred come from ignorance. They are unhealthy expressions of fear based bad information. Like my grandmother used to say to me as a kid, “There are a lot of different people out there. Some are different colors, some talk in different languages. The only reason people hate them is because they do not know them.” She was a wise lady.
Max, get to know those with whom you disagree, and stop believing the caricature. You are so far off base on what conservatives believe.
Do you know why my viewpoint is not bigotry, because conservatism has a self-selected constituency, and it is demonstrably immoral. I am condemning a decision rather than some inherent trait. You can’t choose not to be a women, or black, or gay, or handicapped, or Arab, and there is indeed nothing inherently immoral with being any of these things. But you can chose not to be a conservative, and in my opinion conservative beliefs lead to unnecessary pain and suffering on many different levels, so there is a moral basis for my generalizations.
If you were disgusted by the actions of Al Qaeda in 2001, then you are not a bigot if you say you hate all supporters of fundamentalist Islam. Why, because it is a self-selecting group, and its methods and aims are clearly immoral ones. If you said you hated all Nazis during World War Two, including those who helped them, then the same thing applies.
I judge you all by the moral legitimacy of your actions and nothing else. If you voted for George W. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, then you share a degree of responsibility for what happened there. If you were simple unaware of what was being done in your name then I see you as falling down on another of your moral obligations, to be an informed and critical participant in our democratic system.
You see there is nothing immoral about being black or female or gay, but being a conservative is to a large degree a conscious choice, and it carries with it moral implications.
I really do not see how bigotry or dogma comes into it, I see conservatism as immoral, and anyone who adopts a conservative agenda (whether they call themselves conservative or not) as responsible for what follows.
Attack my motives if you like, label me and write me off, but for heavens sake look at the actual facts, look at all the arguments, and then turn on your brain and ask yourselves some hard questions. Sometimes we can hurt people with our ignorance, so it is up to us all to make sure our eyes are opened wide and seeing what’s actually there, rather than what we would like to be there. Judge the tree by its fruits.
A quick word for Rich Sherlock. I know conservatives do not think of themselves the way I think of them, I know you are all pretty nice to your immediate neighbors and love your friends and family. I know you think you are only doing what is best. What you are actually doing in my opinion is very harmful at times to your fellow human beings, needlessly so, and I am not just talking about the carnage of the war in Iraq (though that accounts for much of my venom at the moment). I think I know conservatism well. I grew up with a lot of conservatives (and I am not talking about my family here), and have had many long and ultimately fruitless conversations with people who I eventually come to realize are just repeating the tenants of conservative philosophy without being able to defend them with real evidence.
For instance, the broad notion that people are born bad and have to be made good through appropriate parenting. The idea that appropriate parenting involves painful physical punishment. The idea that government is a type of parent to its people and that some countries have parent like authority over other countries. The notion that there is a natural hierarchy and that equality is not only impossible to achieve but is immoral.
Now I disagree with all of the above, completely, as much as it is possible to disagree with something. So you can see why for me arguing the finer points of government policy is like arguing about which is more effective, gas, or firing squad.
Max, you persist in your stereotyping. You make broad generalizations about people, and you get it so wrong. Everyone chooses their world view. The distinction between choice and genetics is artficial. It’s ok to discriminate against me because of the clothes I choose to wear or my hairstyle?
It’s scary to me that there are people like you out there who can rationalize and excuse their hatred towards a group of people.
And by the way, who are you to impose your morality on me or anyone else? Why is your morality superior to mine? Who are you to judge another person’s morality? You say, “You see there is nothing immoral about being black or female or gay, but being a conservative is to a large degree a conscious choice, and it carries with it moral implications.” On what basis do you decide what is moral, and how is it that you decide what is moral for me?
That’s the problem with leftists. Everything they say carries smug moral disapproval of anyone who disagrees with them. They don’t seem to have a problem in passing judgment on others, but anyone who disagrees with them does so to their own peril. “Demonstrably immoral.” What a convenient catch pharase to use. It requires no thought, no evidence, no reasoning. You sound like a religionist.
I’ve addressed the piece on Campus Crusade in more depth here.
Mr. Sherlock, did you even read what I wrote? If your clothes and your hairstyle caused unnecessary suffering then that would become a moral issue. I know this is a surreal example but I am just following your train of thought. And simply being offended by someone’s haircut doesn’t count.
The distinction between choice and genetics is a completely valid one. We can’t choose our genes, but we have a certain degree of conscious autonomy as individuals. Genes that occur naturally are not immoral, when a tiger kills a person for instance it is just being true to its nature. Human beings however are unique in the animal world, we have evolved a mechanism for overriding our genetic make up to some extent, our conscious mind. With consciousness comes responsibility and questions of morality, suddenly we can choose things that our genes would never choose for us. Therein lies the beauty of humanity, and the source of its cruelty also. Human consciousness is not a perfect thing, it is subject to all sorts of subtle influences, which is why it is up to all of us to be the best that we can be, and to help others to reach their full potential also.
Listen carefully, my anger towards conservatives didn’t just spring up out of thin air, I am judging you all by your actions. I judge Bush only by his actions and his demonstrably disingenuous words. I judge all those who voted for Bush in the same way. I didn’t just wake up one day and decide conservatism was immoral, it actually happened the other way around. I looked for the difference between right and wrong for myself, and then applied it to the world. It wasn’t some esoteric set of theories either, it just included a distaste for things like lying and murder, and the idea that the ends justify the means.
My basis for deciding whether something is moral or immoral is simple. Does it cause unnecessary suffering or does its seek to avoid the suffering of others as much as possible, bearing in mind that I consider all human beings to have an equal right to life and happiness, not just Americans. Also, do the goals involved seek to create the greatest possible good for everyone? This often involves some kind of compromise, though not always. As with everything in life a balance is called for between our own self-interest on one hand and the well being of others on the other. Conservatism it seems encourages no such balance.
Of course people make mistakes, and in those cases it comes down to whether the person, or persons, involved acted honestly. With regards to deciding a person’s honesty I think the maximum amount of evidence should always be acquired and deliberated over carefully.
Now, as an ethic all of this rests on the idea that the majority of people are born and grow up to be honest and peaceful, with occasional exceptions to the rule being corrupted in some way or another by their family or their culture, or both. People are born good, though they are not born fully formed, they need to be appropriately nurtured if they are going to become the best that they can possibly be. People need each other’s help occasionally in order to move forward, but I think they are also born with a natural desire to stand on their own two feet. People are also born with a sense of fair play, and a natural aversion to being taken advantage of by others.
Anything that is moral encourages the growth of a person or a group of people into being fully human, by which I mean honest, peaceful and creative. Anything that stifles such growth, or allows the growth of one person or group at the deliberate expense of another is in my view immoral.
Who here can honestly say that if they had been born in Iran in 1980 they wouldn’t have grown up supporting radical Islam, or had been a child in Nazi Germany wouldn’t have ended up thinking Jews were inferior to other human beings? We are all subject to such influences, though they are often a little subtler than the examples above.
Of course everyone has a choice ultimately, and I believe strongly that people should face the consequences of their actions, but people can be overwhelmed by their surroundings also and without really knowing it become a destructive influence. People can also be terribly abused as children and I have no doubt that early trauma or humiliation in childhood can lead to immoral behavior later in life, or else depression and weakness.
The fact is, that there is some solid ground here, and there are some shades of grey. But you know, we have a heart and a mind, and reason and empathy, and we should be able to look at any possible issue on its merits instead of constantly indulging polarized (either/or) logic, a typical conservative trait.
I don’t hate human beings, I hate what human beings can sometimes become, violent, ignorant, and yes, conservative.
What I think is moral, you may think is immoral, it all comes down to what you think human nature is. The difference between us is really just a difference in our view about what human beings really are. There is a lot of scientific evidence to support some of my views. This world was built primarily via co-operation, not competition, and most people are basically honest and non-violent no matter how liberal, conservative, violent, neglectful or indulgent their upbringing. There is good evidence to support all of this, though it is not yet completely conclusive. Which interpretation you pick I guess depends on your temperament, which to a large degree depends in turn on your personal experience.
Now I know what conservatism is, and liberalism is not its opposite, it is something else all together. Real liberalism is not a reaction to conservatism at all but represents instead a profoundly different worldview. What you guys so often incorrectly describe as liberal behavior is actually the indulgent rebellion of people who have on one level or other accepted the conservative view of the world. Genuine liberals, for want of a better phrase, do not validate the conservative view of human nature at all, and therefore do not fit conveniently into it.
I knew there was hope for you. This is the first post I have read from you where you actually have taken what someone has said and responded to it rationally and logically, rather than throw around cathc phrases and prejudice.
You did not answer a couple of my questions: Why is your morality superior to mine? Who are you to judge another person’s morality?
I will tell you why I ask. You obviously embrace a moral code. So do I, and it differs from yours. You hate me in part because of my moral code. Why do you think yours is superior to mine? And how are you different those you hate for their imposition of their morals when you do exactly the same thing with yours?
I have posted many angry but rational items on this site, perhaps this was just the first you have noticed. Try this one on for size.
A word about prejudice, the pre-judging of things. I am not pre-judging anything before the facts, I am judging things only after looking as deeply as I am able into all the available information. I may not post everything I have learned, basically because I have a life, but also because I think the knee-jerk pride you guys carry around in your pockets would prevent you from taking anything I say on face value in any case. So I leave it to you to have your consciences and curiosities occasionally pricked, in the hope that one of you will go off and do some politically neutral research of your own now and then, and do some thinking outside of the conservative box.
What’s more, I disagree with your most basic values. In fact I think they do harm to the world in many different ways.
For instance, I think the war on Iraq was an act of mass murder. I have good reasons for thinking this. As such it is hard for me to engage on equal terms with people whom I consider to whole-heartedly support murder. I would love to debate on friendlier terms the finer philosophical points of conservatism, it is just so hard to do when I feel like this is not a game anymore. Real people are being killed and maimed for the sake of an illegitimate and completely unconvincing agenda.
You posed some reasonable questions, perhaps that is why I answered with specifics in my previous post. If there were a competition between my ideas of what is moral and yours, how would the winner be decided? With empirical data, that’s how.
For instance, take child rearing. There are facts and figures detailing the effect on children of an authoritarian conservative upbringing versus a nurturing liberal one. It is a complex subject, I mean where the hell do I start. There has also been a wonderful amount of research done regarding the effect, or lack of effect of the death penalty. There is good evidence to support the fact that the threat of terrorist activity has actually increased as a result of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Etc, etc, etc. The world simply doesn’t work the way conservatives think it does, and increasingly they are turning there back on the research, the science and the empirical evidence that would demonstrate this fact.
The Neo-Cons seemed genuinely surprised that they were not greeted as liberators in Iraq. And why were they not treated like liberators, because the world does not work the way conservatives think it works. This is just one example, there are many. Middle America was appalled at Bush’s reaction to Katrina. Why didn’t they instead cheer as Bush very unsubtly applied his ideological stance that this should be a state issue, not a federal one? Why in fact did America boo the president for dragging his feet and for not taking FEMA seriously in the first place?
Look, forget the specifics for a second, I think my morality is superior to yours because I think it does less harm to the world in general, and I also believe that this can in theory, and often in practice, be demonstrated with many different types of empirical evidence. To really answer your question I guess it is ultimately an arbitary decision, if you really think the well being of your group is more important than anyone else’s then I guess nothing will convince you otherwise. Very often the reasoning and language used to support immoral ethical systems becomes habitually self-referential in character, and a sort of circular logic ensues. This is why empirical evidence becomes important, as does a commitment to objectivity. Mental health is often a factor in these things, and the Nazis in Europe 60 years ago were a good example of a group who voluntarily severed their link to a broader reality.
On the other hand, if like me you believe that the best way to behave (the one that brings the greatest long term benefits) is to perceive and negotiate a balance between your own interests and the well being of others, your own view point and the viewpoint of others, then equally you will not be swayed by overt appeals to your own self-interests, and to the seductive lure of circular, self-referential logic.
If you want the bottom line, I think the biggest mistake conservatives make is to think in polarized terms, if you are not a bully then you are going to become a victim, that sort of thing. It may surprise your Fox News conditioned minds to know that liberals believe strongly in defending themselves and defending the innocent. However, and this is a pivotal point, they do not see the world solely in terms of oppressed and oppressor.
You do not have to become a bad guy to effectively avoid becoming a victim, and so often people who are labeled ‘bad guys’ are just ordinary people like us who have legitimate concerns of their own. Very often people labeled as ‘bad guys’ are actually not out to fuel their own self-interests at the expense of ours, but are merely trying to stop us from doing exactly that to them. The Palestinian situation is a good example. Between Sept 2000 and Jan 2003 Palestinians killed 603 Israelis, a shocking figure until you find out that in the same time period Israelis killed 1596 Palestinians. Now who are really the bad guys, who’s right to life and happiness is more important? We know who our media labels as the bad guys, the Palestinians, but that perhaps says more about how American conservatives perceive their own self-interests.
Of course there will always be real psychopaths out there (like Adolph Hitler or Timothy Mcvay) who believe in death and destruction for its own sake. Each case has to be taken on its merits, but the one thing that never works is the blanket oppression of others in the name of freedom and security. It always backfires, just look and the British in Northern Ireland or the French in Algiers.
Liberal altruism is actually a form of indirect self-interest. Liberals believe they are better off when the fat of the land is shared around. They believe the happier and more secure people in general are then the happier and more secure they themselves will be. This is not a pipe dream as conservatives usually claim, but is in fact the way most communities work in reality. People help one another, they can’t help it, IT’S HUMAN NATURE.
Take social security and public education. If you support the idea that everybody should be given whatever help they need to be the best that they can be, and that people are born with a natural (genetically programmed) desire to stand on there own two feet, then to support universal education and health care becomes and moral imperative. It’s about the notion that supporting the universal good ultimately makes your own life more secure and happy. This of course in turns revolves around the idea that it is a moral responsibility that you treat yourself well as an individual, so as to ultimately be a more effective contributor to the whole. People who call this communism and are afraid of being assimilated into the collective must have a pretty weak sense of individuality to start with, not to mention indulging in the either/or logic that makes the required sense of balance involved seem precarious.
If on the other hand you see people as being born aggressive and lazy, then a strict whip will seem essential. Public education and health care will be seen as immoral because it ‘indulges’ people’s natural ‘laziness’ and before you know it you have a nation of people unable to contribute because they were written off before they began. Once again it is important to stress the semi obvious liberal belief that all people occasionally need other people’s help to be the best that they can be, and that this is a benefit to the community, not a threat.
Do you want to know the punch line? In their own communities conservatives often act like liberals, helping one another and seeing the interests of the community as an extension of their own. Go beyond a certain border though and conservatives for some reason start projecting all their own bad qualities onto outsiders, forgetting it seems that all human beings are pretty much alike.
Finally, there is one thing that should be pointed about so-called relative versus absolute values, as conservatives often become very belligerent about the idea of moderation. To use an often used metaphor, there are an infinite number of shades of grey between black and white, but it is worth remembering that black and white are actually included on that scale. For instance most genuine liberals see pre-meditated murder, including the death penalty, as a black and white issue, it is simply wrong. But remember black and white are included on the scale of grey shades. It is the people who seem to only use the black and white extremes while ignoring the various grays in-between who cause trouble in the name of absolute values, often acqusing liberals of ‘blowing in the wind’. A modest and realistic set of core values are strongly defended by genuine liberals, it is everything else that is up for debate and negotiation.
Problems begin however when certain groups of people elevate their direct self-interests above those of all other groups to the point of violence. Liberals have a hard time even being in the same room with such an ideology, and debate becomes very difficult indeed, if not impossible. Liberals of course believe in genuine self-defense, but this has nothing at all do with what is going on in Iraq at the moment, and after a while conservative exclamations start to sound like lunatic logic to most non-conservatives.
Do you know why I considered the invasion of Iraq to be a crime, an act of mass murder, because I do not see as legitimate the idea that we should pursue our own self interests exclusively at the expense of others, period. That is not to say that we should allow other people’s overt self-interests to swamp our own either, and this is where it is important to understand the folly of polarized thinking. It is rarely a case of our interests, or theirs, but not both. Not only is a balance possible most of the time, but it is something we all do every day of our lives. We all balance our direct self-interests against the needs of others. It is called co-operation, and everything that is good in our world was built on it. Even competition, when it stays within agreed rules and is not just a free for all, is actually a form of co-operation. In order to compete, you have to co-operate first.
The Geneva Convention is a good example of co-operation, as are the Nuremberg precedents.
Some people break the rules of course, in order to get a bigger slice of the cake, and it is the responsibility of all human beings to stop this from happening. This of course is what D-Day was partially about, and all the sacrifices made by the American people and others during World War Two. The ethic that motivated our people at that time, whether they knew it or not, was a liberal one, the desire to help others in need for no direct personal gain. I think a large number of Americans think they are doing the same thing now in terms of Iraq but have not actually been exposed to the facts. Liberal rhetoric about wanting to help the people of Iraq, together with wholesale fear mongering, has been used to manipulate our population by a group of hardcore conservatives up to no good.
D-Day needed to happen for the sake of human civilization, Iraq on the other hand was a war fought for economic and strategic gain. In the process American conservatives have broken both the Geneva Convention, and violated the Nuremberg precedents.
These facts alone should tell you all something.
One last word, I am not imposing my moral values onto anyone, I am expressing my opinion. Only people in positions of power can impose their views on the unwilling.
Since by your posts it is clear that you do not know what conservatives believe, your superior morality is founded on a false premise.
Beyond that, your claim to superior morality is troubling. Such claims are routinely made by the narrow-minded and the bigoted. Morality determined by empirical data is valueless, bacause the interpretation of the data requires moral judgments (good results vs. bad, makes people happy vs. sad, etc). Therefore, your moral system has to be in place before you can form your morality. Tell me how you do that, sir.
I guess I was wrong about you. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Good luck with your life, you’re gonna need it.
I know what conservatives say they believe, and maybe they actually swallow their own nonsense, I don’t know.
What I judge people on in the end are their actions, pure and simple.
Also, claims to moral superiority are perfectly reasonable. My moral system is superior to Charles Manson’s for instance, or Pol Pot’s. Rating the relative value of various moral systems is something human beings are able to do, it is essential in fact to our well being. Our large brain developed mainly to facilitate our living in extended social groups, with all the advantages associated. Judging the validity of various moral positions is in fact one of the things we have to do in order to ensure our well being.
The way you asses moral systems is by first finding the common ground in all human aspiration, and weeding out the small minority of aberrations. What I mean by that is that most human societies consider it immoral for someone to sexually liaise with their parents for instance. You look at the universal, or the almost universal, and you begin to extrapolate from there.
Of course this is assuming that rationality is both a human trait and of value to the human race, which you are correct, is a moral decision in itself.
Yes, that seems to be one of the defining characteristics between the left and the right. The facts about any given situation, for a leftist, are simply the way it is, whether they like it or not. The right however seems to feel that the facts are not as important as whether or not they meet their preconceived ideas on something. For instance, American History should teach the Cherry Tree story, the Bad Injun’ vs. Noble Custer version of history, not because its the truth, but because its patriotic. It makes us feel better about doing what we have, it can justify misdeeds we may need to do in the future, and therefore it is as valid as truth when it comes to educating our children. They will make things up as they go along, and not feel any guilt over telling lies to their children, to their voters as politicians, to their soldiers as Commanders , on and on it goes. This approach to facts looks much like that of persons suffer frequent “flights of fantasy” or cognitive disassociation, where the fact of ‘real’ reality is never a sure thing anyhow.