…which is in fine display here*, in a post that sought out to address Charles Blow’s rather puerile race-baiting (using a rebuttal process that was infinitely more thorough than the original race-baiting). I was planning to explain, quite thoroughly, why it’s a waste of time to convince the Activist Left to be polite to the Right; but fortunately, a commenter of his did it for me.
Those people were not “minstrels” they were uncle Toms. The tea-b[*]ggers are just a sad group of old, white, rich, malcontent republicans who hate blacks, hispanics, asians, the middle class and the poor and hate the fact that we have a black president. When they howl “TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!” they mean to take it back from the minorities. Luckily the middle class and the poor far outnumber the tea-b[*]ggers so they will have little effect in November.
Conor, Conor, Conor. The Activist Left hates us. They will continue to hate us until we break and lick their boots. It’s their freaking victory condition. We’re in a war to the knife, made all the more psychologically vicious because there’s no physical violence involved.
Accept that.
Moe Lane
*H/T Instapundit, who does not need to have things explained to him.
Some translation, projection and comments.
“Those people … they were uncle Toms.”
The nerve for a black to leave the leftist/victum plantations and not act to sterotype! Race traitor!
” The tea-b[*]ggers are just a sad group
Guilty. We dress badly. No bling, no GQ hanging around the house.
” of old, white, rich, “
Age, race discrimiantion and class warfare in three words.
malcontent republicans( sic ) who hate blacks., hispanics, asians, the middle class and the poor…”
Well, don’t worry then. Teabaggers will have no popular support. Relax. Sleep.
If the left are the good guys they claim to be, why can’t I just be left alone? It’s not like I’m asking for anything from them.
“They will continue to hate us until we break and lick their boots.”
And afterwards, as well.
“War… made all the more psychologically vicious because there’s no physical violence involved.”
Oh? Ask Gladney.
Don’t confuse the loudest group with the most numerous. Yes, this guy is a fairly typical online liberal nutcase. However, “typical online liberal nutcases” make up a fairly small percentage of the population. We may be fighting them, but we are fighting for influence over the much larger less ideological middle.
There’s nothing wrong with the strategy of taking the high road, remaining reasonable while your opponent froths at the mouth because we are not trying to convince our opponents.
Civility in response to intellectual dishonesty makes the dishonesty appear to have legitimacy, when it does not.
This is one reason why the less ideological middle has tolerated Progressive governance … our past civility has unwittingly given it a veneer of respectability in their eyes, making it appear as a morally-equivalent alternative to the conservative/traditional principles we support … especially when the raw emotional appeal (as opposed to the rotten substance) of the Progressive worldview as “fairness” (when it is anything but) is added to the mix.
Our civility has also allowed the Progressives to frame the debate in their terms … and they, being ends-justify-the-means relativists, have no problem exploiting our civility to promote shallow and/or dishonest analysis in support of their agenda.
Civility in response to intellectual dishonesty is counterproductive if your objective is to defend liberty
It would be very interesting to talk with that commentor on Nov. 3…
…because there’s no physical violence involved.
Mostly.
To MarkD:
Friend, you are asking for something – you are asking to be left alone. This cannot be tolerated. All must be inside the society; all must be part of the whole. Otherwise the worker bees will ask why they cannot be left alone. Society, the society the left wants, would collapse.
You are a dangerous enemy to the left. God bless you.
?“typical online liberal nutcases” make up a fairly small percentage of the population”
Poll Questions:
– Did GW Bush steal the 2000 election?
– Was 9/11 a Government conspiracy?
– Is the CIA hiding bin Laden?
– Do “tea baggers” want to repeal the 13th Amendment?
It is no, unfortunately, a “tiny” minority of Americans who answer “Yes” to at least one of these questions and almost all of them self-identify as Democrats. Worse, the Democrat Party doesn’t condemn them for saying so. If anything they send them fund-raising letters. Remember that Michael Moore got a box-seat at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
The obvious retort, “Well, Republicans do it, too!” doesn’t wash. There is little as nutty on the right as on the left and certainly nothing embraced by a significant portion of the rightwing base. Twice as many people self-identify as conservatives than liberals and when you dig down into the responses of the “moderates” their positions are far closer to the right then the left. They just aren’t as noisy about it as the conservatives (at least until recently). The “nutjob right” are extremely few compared to the “nutjob left” and generally not embraced or sought out by the party.
Start asking poll questions about evolution and you’ll find massive numbers of people on the right who are just as nuts as anything you’ll find on the left. Not all craziness is explicitly political.
Yes. And this is why I’ve advised that the appropriate response is to call a bigot a bigot. The commenter quoted satisfies the definition. Why hold back? Out of politeness? Why? To not be drawn into name-calling? I don’t see how it is name-calling if the label is a truthful and accurate description. Hurtful? To whom other than the one to whom it appropriately applies.
Misogyny, homophobia, race-baiting: all can be appropriately and accurately assigned to those who author or utter such as the commenter has written. Only when this becomes the standard response, delivered without emotion or apology, particularly by the most public among us, can this commenter and kin be seen for the intellectual frauds they truly are and dismissed accordingly.
“Start asking poll questions about evolution and you’ll find massive numbers of people on the right who are just as nuts as anything you’ll find on the left. ”
What does anyone’s take on evolution matter in the political sphere? Barring a Soviet-style law mandating that Lysenkoism is the TRVTH, that someone is poorly educated about evolution is immaterial to me or anyone else.
In contrast, lefties actually appear to believe the anthropogenic climate change crap, and want to force the rest of us to live accordingly.
The basic fact that nobody mentions is that life itself is full of difficulties even for the most privileged of us. Minorities should get over the idea that all their woes will be solved by more government intervention on their behalf. True equality won’t solve all their problems, just make them more like everybody else’s. They should be thinking about what will happen when it is their wealth that is being spread among someone less successful than themselves.
Obama’s statement that “At some point, you’ve made enough money,” should be very disturbing to minority ethnic groups, because he implies that he and other politicians should be the ones who decide when we have made enough, and that decision will be made for the purpose of buying votes.