The few, the proud, the brave
I've gotten kicked off a few chatrooms. Mostly conservative (or beyond): Stormfront, Ann Coulter's "official" board, linked from her on-line column, a spin-off of that board when Ms. Coulter decided to dump the moderators (followed by a defection of many of its members), Covert Conservatives (a tolerant bunch, to be sure), and I'm barely hanging on at another spin-off, Outcast Conservatives. (I also got kicked off the chatroom of the Society for Women in Philosophy, which is not all that conservative; I think one of the moderators didn't like the attitude I adopted when I pointed out with an example just how ridiculous one of the posts was. A long story.)
I like going there to see what people think. As at most chatrooms, there are some really smart and/or informed people, some sort of feeling their way through reality, some just there to find others with whom they agree, and some jerks. (Hence, as I've mentioned here, on one of the earlier boards, one guy kept offering to fly to anywhere in the US to fight me at a "dojo or gym" of my choice.)
The current batch of those tolerating me are really, really worried about William Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, and a few others who are less frequently mentioned in the mainstream media (this term seems to be media that these folks disagree with: hence Limbaugh and the WSJ op-ed page seems to be "non" mainstream, while FOX and especially FNC is sometimes mainstream, sometimes not, depending on what is being said.) They are also very concerned that Obama's birth certificate is illegitimate.
Recently I was told that if Obama is elected, America will change from what it was to something completely different. It seems to me that this is a tautology, in that whoever is elected will change America. Their point, however, is that Obama is the greatest threat to America ever posed; that he either embraces terrorists or is himself a terrorist, that he hates America, he especially hates white America (and Americans), that he has accomplished nothing, that he is a Socialist, or a Marxist, or a Communist, or all three (in spite of some conceptual incoherence this may generate.)
This comes from people who I actually respect (although they don't think I do). I don't agree with them on much, and some of them are a bit over-the-top. But I fear that they are being a bit hypocritical, in that some of them were absolutely adamant that Democrats were undermining America by being so critical of the President, and that he (W) deserved a great deal more respect because he was the President. I don't see this respect being afforded Obama if or when he is elected.
I also fear that in spite of both Obama and McCain saying warm fuzzy things about unity, working across ideological divisions, etc., that this group will be even more alienated than they were during the Clinton era, an attitude exacerbated by the relative weakness of those who would carry out their desires (the Bob Barrs, the Henry Hydes), as was done in bringing impeachment charges against Clinton.
I don't know how many Americans my fellow chatters represent. But sometimes I worry about a group of people (many with guns) being so full of vitriol and antipathy toward Obama, and what this tells us about various scenarios (political and otherwise) that may play out in the next few years. I hope I'm wrong. And given how often I am, that's some solace.
16 Comments:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
BR
I'm absolutely certain that you might be right.
On February 3rd, you wrote the following:
"The hatred this group has for Hillary Clinton has been developed and polished to a remarkable white-hot ferocity... If (when) Clinton has [a screw-up], I fear all hell will break loose, and we will have a repeat of her husband's impeachment, with her opponents having the advantage of experience...I don't want to spend four years going through that, or imagining what things won't get their due attention because of it...That is enough to look elsewhere, so I'm supporting Obama."
Now, you write:
“I also fear that…this group will be _even more_ [emphasis added] alienated than they were during the Clinton era…I don't know how many Americans my fellow chatters represent. But sometimes I worry about a group of people (many with guns) being so full of vitriol and antipathy toward Obama, and what this tells us about various scenarios (political and otherwise) that may play out in the next few years.”
It seems a little odd that the potential for vitriol (which you now admit would be even greater than in Clinton’s time) was enough to make you “look elsewhere” than at Hillary, yet somehow the identical argument, applied to Obama, fails to yield a similar response. I guess you really don't mind going through four years of "that" after all. Once again, (and at this point we’ve got to be getting into double digits), the lack of logic, the contradictions, and the double-standards are obvious to all but yourself.
Tortuous justification, please?
I know what's obvious to me...
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is funny how Republicans often demand respect but refuse to give it. The professor whose office is next to mine proudly displays her framed picture of W and has a McCain sign in her window. I'm just DYING to see if she'll put up a picture of Obama when he becomes president. She has said she displays W's pic b/c he's our president, but I can't see her being so respectful of the Democrats' choice. This alone might make her retire.
Well, Dr. Anonymous, I shall again offer you the chance to guest blog.
Why don't you take me up on it, and we can all learn your kind of logic, the cool kind?
I shall also point out that the last time I checked, Hillary Clinton is supporting Obama, having noticed that she lost to him. Weird how some of her supporters refuse to recognize it.
There is a difference between a government embroiled in political hatchet jobs and some private citizen shooting somebody.
I didn't want the former; I would hope most of us wouldn't want the latter. It's what William James might call a "distinction that makes a difference."
Of course, making distinctions, or suggesting that you have conflated two distinct phenomena, qualify in "anonymous logic" as entailing contradictions and double standards.
I'm still trying to figure out your earlier claim that Clinton and Ferraro are token identical, in that anything said about what is said about the other as well.
"Tortuous justification, please?"
Thank you.
Well, Dr. Anonymous, I shall again offer you the chance to guest blog.
Patsy Cline?!? Is that how you spell it?
Shiksa.
You were kicked of CC, or am I misreading your post?
CC seemed to have some quarrel among the moderators on how to interpret something I wrote, and whether I should apologize for it. What is weird is that I believe the guy who runs it agreed with me, at least on this issue (he doesn't, as a rule, agree with my on anything.)
I think they resolved it by banning me. While I weep silently into my pillow over this, I'm doing my best to carry on. One day at a time.
Shame. You were one of the best posters.
I don't know about one of the best. I think I contributed something that made the board more interesting.
Some folks like chatrooms where they can simply get their ideas confirmed. Right, Left, or otherwise.
That seems boring to me.
hermes belts for men
ugg boots uk
vera bradley outlet sale 2016
hogan shoes clearance
huarache shoes
skechers outlet store
yeezy boost 350
nike air huarache
kobe sneakers
cheap ralph lauren
gg
Post a Comment
<< Home