The Taliban in America

[iNow]

This one speaks for itself.

 

 

 

 

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Any ideas to improve the situation?

[Moontanman]

Very good comparison...

[CaptainPanic]

It's not a problem if you have some fundamentalists (taliban) in your parliament. However, when you only have two parties, and the fundamentalists find a way to practically hijack every discussion, and hold one of the two parties hostage, you certainly have a problem.

 

Somehow by remaining a part of the republicans, they have an immense power. And the moderate republicans cannot kick them out, because then they'd be certain to lose to the Democrats.

 

The root of the problem therefore is not the Tea Party, or the fact that you have some weird fundamentalists. The real root of the problem is the obsolete two-party system of the USA.

[akh]

When you look at what the GOP has done in several states to try to prevent voter turn out of people of a certain demographic, it is shocking. Just look at what they tried to do in Ohio. So not only has our democracy been hijacked by corporate dollars, but the Republican party is trying to fix the elections. Their sole goal is to limit Obama to one term at the expense of everything else. Liberty and democracy my ass. Not only do you have politicians from the far right (now the mainstream right) calling for armed revolution, there are people willing to carry it out.

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-19408479

 

 

 

We already know what side of the political fence these guys sit.

 

http://gawker.com/59...ntion-as-a-page

 

Whats the chance they claim to be "Christians" too?

Edited August 29, 2012 by akh

[iNow]

Can't win the vote, so turn to 2nd amendment remedies instead? Come on... really? (for those across the pond, the second amendment to the US constitution guarantees the right of US citizens to carry rocket launchers and assault rifles and stuff).

 

 

 

That's not just some random right wing blogger, either. It's a Senator. An elected US Senator...

[Phi for All]

Conservatism in the US has been on the rise since just after WWII, and I think we're seeing, at its apex, the Tea Party emerging as the most extremist arm of that movement. I think what started as a group that protested the taxing of non-diet soda in NY state as an unfair burden to those who don't abuse their carbonated beverage privileges has been commandeered by corporate concerns aimed at furthering models that offer the most profit while doing little to grow the economy. What used to be the backbone of the country, the commerce of ingenuity and prosperity to promote the general welfare, has been stripped of integrity and forced to pillage our national future in the name of profit disguised as freedom.

 

To borrow from the Firefly world, the corporate Reavers are wearing the flesh masks of those we thought we used to know, and if we don't stop them soon, they're going to rape us to death, eat us and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

[Moontanman]

Conservatism in the US has been on the rise since just after WWII, and I think we're seeing, at its apex, the Tea Party emerging as the most extremist arm of that movement. I think what started as a group that protested the taxing of non-diet soda in NY state as an unfair burden to those who don't abuse their carbonated beverage privileges has been commandeered by corporate concerns aimed at furthering models that offer the most profit while doing little to grow the economy. What used to be the backbone of the country, the commerce of ingenuity and prosperity to promote the general welfare, has been stripped of integrity and forced to pillage our national future in the name of profit disguised as freedom.

 

To borrow from the Firefly world, the corporate Reavers are wearing the flesh masks of those we thought we used to know, and if we don't stop them soon, they're going to rape us to death, eat us and sew our skins into their clothing. And if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

 

 

I know people think I'm beating a dead horse on this but I think that the unholy marriage of the conservative right and the religious right has been the undoing of the conservative movement as anything but a win at all costs and let the prophets flow free has become the platform of the Republicans.

 

 

This idea that one side is lying and we should lie so we can win and do what is right disturbs me in a very fundamental way. Once the lie becomes not the truth but a weapon to kill the truth because the truth will result in us losing.... I don't know, this is all very confusing for me and I think for many others. There is no longer a difference on what direction the country should go but which lie is easier to suck up.

 

Religion openly asserts that lying in the name of God is not just ok but necessary, politics is almost by definition the art of lying to convince others of the truth, the merger of these two is nothing short of a nightmare... 1984 anyone? Who lies the most? I am obviously biased but can anyone say that lying is not the back bone of politics? That twisting the truth and perverting reality is not the name of the game? Politics has become nothing but a scam a ponzi scheme, making money by convincing people to invest their money on the hope that will benefit but no one benefits but the politician and his real owners, politics has nothing to do with representing the people, being voted into office is a free ride to making money hand over fist. The fact that being elected to represent us in Washington immediately allows you to do things like insider trading that the rest of us mortals would be arrested for. This simple fact is enough to attract criminals like bees to honey.

 

Then you have the true believers... in every way as batshitcrazy as true believers in UFOs, Atlantis, Ancient Astronauts, Crystal Power and yes I'll say it... Religion... When an other wise sane and intelligent individual defends things his party says not because it's true or in anyway real but only because it's what he wants to believe. When these individuals ignore any and all evidence to the contrary when it is presented to them, when quite literally they will believe a lie instead of the truth simply because winning is all important and truth is meaningless what does that say about us as a society? As a people?

 

Once you get to thinking that god is on your side all bets are off and the religious right has embraced the religion of riches and the success of what used to be fringes are now mega churches where money is the goal and the meter used to determine success. When greed becomes good Christian values and the pursuit of money is openly worshiped combining that with capitalism unchained the next step is religion unchained and that rolls everything back to the middle ages with modern technology to back up that philosophy freedom will be a meaningless word but Tea Party will no longer have anything to do with cups...

 

To think this perversion of what it means to be an American started with taxes on diet soda at first seemed to be funny or at least ironic, I honestly didn't know how this perversion started, if it was some other country on some other planet it would be funny but it's us, the Reavers are coming, get your gun and shoot your self, it's the logical option....

[akh]

I am just so thoroughly disgusted with these politicians. Are they seriously trying to illicit civil war? What a bunch of dipsh*ts. There is no other way to describe them. These are the same people who point there fingers at certain areas of the word as examples of barbarism, incivility, and religious fananticism. Yet, under the slightest hardship, that absolutely pales in comparison to these other areas, they advocate armed revolution? Seriously, WTF?!

 

Are they suggesting that if everybody does not vote their way, we will end up like Syria? Talk about the epitome of fear mongering. I am willing to bet they will dive lower, before all this plays out.

 

The people that support these politicians either conveniently ignore what the politicians advocate, or they actually believe in the rhetoric. They are massing enough weapons to start a small war, building bomb shelters in their back yards, and not wanting see their "investments" in either go to waste. Do these people have any idea what actually happens in war?

 

There = their

 

Sorry, stupid typo on phone.

[ecoli]

This one speaks for itself.

 

 

 

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Any ideas to improve the situation?

 

A ridiculous analogy perpetrated, though not originated, by Alan Sorkin. For example, when have tea party members ever committed war crimes: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/02/news_flash_the_taliban_violate_human_rights.html

[iNow]

A ridiculous analogy perpetrated, though not originated, by Alan Sorkin. For example, when have tea party members ever committed war crimes:

I agree with the editors note... "While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction."

 

However, with that said, this is why I followed-up with the other video regarding 2nd Amendment Remedies. War crimes? No, sure, but the issue of violence is hardly out of the question here.

[ecoli]

I agree with the editors note... "While they have way too much in common, the actual Taliban uses political violence to achieve its ends and the Tea Party doesn’t — and that’s an important distinction."

The Boy scouts of america and the Hitler Youth were two organizations that 1) made up of young people 2) officially shunned homosexuals... but that doesn't make any comparison between the two in any way appropriate or useful. Unless of your goal isn't to make an apt comparison but to the poison the well by guilty association.

[John Cuthber]

A ridiculous analogy perpetrated, though not originated, by Alan Sorkin. For example, when have tea party members ever committed war crimes: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/02/news_flash_the_taliban_violate_human_rights.html

I don't know.

Are Bush or any of his cronies in the Tea Party?

If so there's a valid case for tea party members having been involved in war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

 

Sorry, did you think it was a rhetorical question?

[Phi for All]

The Boy scouts of america and the Hitler Youth were two organizations that 1) made up of young people 2) officially shunned homosexuals... but that doesn't make any comparison between the two in any way appropriate or useful. Unless of your goal isn't to make an apt comparison but to the poison the well by guilty association.

I think there are many valid comparisons between the Tea Party and the Taliban. Not in every sense, certainly, but both have a self-serving, historically inaccurate, fundamentalist interpretation of foundational law in their respective countries. The Taliban was used by Saudi and Pakistani militant-minded groups intent on control; the Tea Party has been taken over by the Koch Brothers and other corporate interests bent on control.

 

In light of Sen. Angle's remarks about "2nd amendment remedies", the biggest difference between the Tea Party and the Taliban seems to be that the Taliban was more interested in disarming their citizens rather than stirring them up to revolt. Maybe we're just a few Soviets away from a more apt comparison.

[iNow]

There's also a rather noteworthy distinction to be made about the philosophical underpinnings under which the tea party originated/began and what has ultimately manifested and morphed into today.

[padren]

If schadenfreude is the enjoyment obtained from the pain of others, there should be a word for the enjoyment obtained from the pain of those who have pained us - after suffering through Tea Party members constantly comparing Left-Of-Thems to Stalin and Hitler, seeing them labeled "The American Taliban" with all that entails (as in how we deal with Islamic extremists, versus political activists) it can feel like just deserts... but it is certainly not productive.

 

If we could write them off as extremists and never have to worry about them in politics it may offer a sense of relief from that specific pain, but these are people who are voting and (for better or worse) are part of the Union - we have to reconcile our differences well enough somehow that neither group feel like they are living in an occupied country.

 

 

We should soundly reject the methods of deception, distortion, fear mongering, bigotry, intolerance, etc when any group uses them and we should notice when a group uses them notoriously - but that has to go farther than just nullifying their political impact. It's not just the people they are electing it's the people electing them who are clearly upset, frightened, and considerably angry. Whether or not they can articulate it well or even if their fears are played on and built upon for political gain, they are still freaked out and clearly won't get any useful answers from their usual sources.

 

All I can see happening from labeling them "The American Taliban" is it will reinforce further "us vs. them" thinking and further alienate them from the mainstream. The more they are isolated from the rest of us, the more they depend on reactionaries, mega church ministers, and anyone else still willing to talk to them.

 

I can't see that being helpful.

[iNow]

I understand the point you're making, padren, but I think you're mistaken in assuming that folks like me just apply the label and move on. There have been several years of attempts at reason, open and transparent dialog, and rational honest debate... The vast majority of which as fallen on deaf ears. It's reminiscent of the arguments with folks who remain willfully ignorant against the truth of evolution or climate change. At some point, rational reasonable discourse has been exhausted, and you just use rhetorical shorthand by calling them "creationists" or "deniers."

 

I also think it's a bit naive to assume that folks like me are in the wrong for using simplified comparisons when labels are par for the course among those with whom we disagree. They are quite content to equate the term liberal with evil, and to freely mix it with terms like idiot, stupid, and moron. My newsfeed on FB gets littered with a shit ton of exactly that type of propaganda each and every night.

 

Frankly, I think the comparison to the Taliban is apt. Here are the characteristics shared in the video that preceded the suggestion that the Tea Party in its current form should be called what it is... The American Taliban.

 

Ideological purity

Compromise as weakness

A fundamentalist belief in scriptural literalism

Denying science

Unmoved by facts

Undeterred by new information

A hostile fear of progress

A demonization of education

A need to control women’s bodies

Severe xenophobia

Tribal mentality

Intolerance of dissent

A pathological hatred of the US government

 

You can disagree with me for using a simplified label or shorthand comparison to make this point, but the validity of the point remains quite robust and it needs to be shared... It needs to be shouted from the mountaintops to anyone who will listen... and it needs to be repeated until we are able to take our country back from the extremist crazy people who by comparison would make Ronald Reagan look like a patchouli burning, mushroom eating, blacklight poster hanging free love hippie.

[padren]

I understand the point you're making, padren, but I think you're mistaken in assuming that folks like me just apply the label and move on. There have been several years of attempts at reason, open and transparent dialog, and rational honest debate... The vast majority of which as fallen on deaf ears. It's reminiscent of the arguments with folks who remain willfully ignorant against the truth of evolution or climate change. At some point, rational reasonable discourse has been exhausted, and you just use rhetorical shorthand by calling them "creationists" or "deniers."

That's fine and all, but what do you actually "do" with them? What do you do when you've made several years of attempts at reason, open and transparent dialog, and rational honest debate with the homeless alcoholics that show up at ERs around the country?

 

If we can't "reason" with them, should we just say "well all reasonable discourse has been exhausted" and let them continue to ring up about a million a year per person until they eventually die young?

 

I find the idea that we can just "shun" these people until they get bootstrappy enough to teach themselves rational thinking skills is as out of touch as expecting homeless people with alcohol addictions to get bootstrappy and shape up on their own.

 

Of course I don't think they should have the political clout they do or that their irrationality should be indulged - but it's even more irresponsible to ignore them.

 

I also think it's a bit naive to assume that folks like me are in the wrong for using simplified comparisons when labels are par for the course among those with whom we disagree. They are quite content to equate the term liberal with evil, and to freely mix it with terms like idiot, stupid, and moron. My newsfeed on FB gets littered with a shit ton of exactly that type of propaganda each and every night.

Since when is it okay to lower the bar to the standards of our opponents?

 

Isn't that exactly how that faction started justifying torture, water boarding and the suspension of due process for any person suspected of those sorts of crimes?

 

Frankly, I think the comparison to the Taliban is apt. Here are the characteristics shared in the video that preceded the suggestion that the Tea Party in its current form should be called what it is... The American Taliban.

I agree it's more or less apt, but I also think it's counter-productive and can only lead to further isolation and radicalization of these people.

 

You aren't going to "shame them" into seeing how horrible they are by applying such labels, you'll only reinforce their view of how much liberals blindly hate all things wholesome and American and Godly and how utterly shameless they are, and how all the "super church pastors" etc were right all along about how liberals want them isolated, reeducated or eradicated.

 

You can disagree with me for using a simplified label or shorthand comparison to make this point, but the validity of the point remains quite robust and it needs to be shared... It needs to be shouted from the mountaintops to anyone who will listen... and it needs to be repeated until we are able to take our country back from the extremist crazy people who by comparison would make Ronald Reagan look like a patchouli burning, mushroom eating, blacklight poster hanging free love hippie.

 

It's not that it's any old label - using the label of what is effectively a terrorist organization says everything about how we regard them. I am not saying you are supporting drone strikes on the tea partiers, but as far as rhetoric goes I am very hesitant to label any American political group with such a charged label.

 

The Taliban isn't just a group of people who are wrong, they are a group who are so wrong that (according to contemporary foreign policy) they deserve no concessions, no due process, no negotiations, no civil rights, and no presumption of innocence if there's any suspicion of guilt even by association.

 

I'm still waiting for the day we can pull ourselves back from that sort of thinking, not looking towards how to bring that way of thinking into our domestic politics at home.

[overtone]

I agree it's more or less apt, but I also think it's counter-productive and can only lead to further isolation and radicalization of these people.

It's very important that these people be rhetorically isolated, and labeled, and held accountable for their behaviors (that is, publicly shamed), and thereby kept away from power as much as possible. It is not productive to treat them with respect, or bring them into political discussion on their terms, or allow their violence and ignorance and batshit fantasies to influence US politics any more than can be helped.

 

How many abortion clinics do you need to see firebombed, doctors assassinated, by Tea Party political supporters and allies? How many homosexual people run out of jobs and homes, shot, beaten to death, hung on barb wire fences? How many Tea Party spokesmen do you need to hear say - in public, on the official record - that we should restore the death penalty for political crimes, so that "liberals know they can be killed" (Ann Coulter)?

 

The Tea Party faction is violent, and always has been, to whatever extent they can get away with. There is nothing new here - this is the latest incarnation of the faction that once found its political representation in the Klu Klux Klan, and before that the Confederacy. Read the letters and manifestos of the intellectual supporters of Jefferson Davis's political movement, and you will find rhetoric and analysis that could be lifted almost verbatim and pasted into Tea Party rhetorical efforts today. They are a fact of American political life.

 

The Taliban isn't just a group of people who are wrong, they are a group who are so wrong that (according to contemporary foreign policy) they deserve no concessions, no due process, no negotiations, no civil rights, and no presumption of innocence if there's any suspicion of guilt even by association.

That isn't liberal foreign policy. That isn't standard American foreign policy. That is foreign policy we inherited from the last time the American Taliban got hold of some political power, and influenced US foreign policy according to their ideology and approach. You don't have to worry about labeling these folk "The American Taliban" costing them their rights, because they are the ones who would react like that to such a label.

 

You aren't going to "shame them" into seeing how horrible they are by applying such labels, you'll only reinforce their view of how much liberals blindly hate all things wholesome and American and Godly and how utterly shameless they are, and how all the "super church pastors" etc were right all along about how liberals want them isolated, reeducated or eradicated.

The effort to elicit self-awareness and adult political discourse from this faction is not only wasted, but dangerous - you cannot afford to grant respect and influence and power to these people. You must, as a public duty, mock and despise them, laugh at their nonsense and dismiss their lies without pretension of taking them seriously. Make them as much has possible pariahs, defensive, unsure of their reception among normal, decent folk. The last time these people got hold of real power, it took the Union Army four bloody years and the destruction of half the country to restore governance and sanity. The last time they even got close to the White House, defending their precious honor and reflexive cult of vengeance buried us in two land wars in Asia on the credit card and set the bankers in lordship over our economy ( they loves them the credit cards, also casinos). That should never be allowed to happen again. Edited October 16, 2012 by overtone

[padren]

It's very important that these people be rhetorically isolated, and labeled, and held accountable for their behaviors (that is, publicly shamed), and thereby kept away from power as much as possible.

How do you propose we effectively disenfranchise them then?

 

You could strip them of their rights to free speech, but that would only result in the same conversations happening outside of public view - other than stripping them of their right to vote, I am not sure they can be "kept away from power as much as possible" to any degree that has a serious impact.

 

It is not productive to treat them with respect, or bring them into political discussion on their terms, or allow their violence and ignorance and batshit fantasies to influence US politics any more than can be helped.

How do you determine "influence US politics any more than can be helped" and how do you decide what that amount is?

 

What qualifies a group as "not productive to treat with respect" and how do you qualify individuals as within those groups as not being worthy of respect?

 

This is all new territory for me, how are we supposed to ensure "the baddies" are disenfranchised within a democratic framework? I understand how it can work if we respect everyone, but if we have to label groups as too dangerous to respect as people there's a whole other level of democracy I just must have missed out on.

 

I agree with what you said about "political discussion on their terms" but it's a red herring - a discussion that isn't on equal terms it's more of a decree, really. I don't mean "equal credibility" as per the arguments within the discussion (weak arguments are always weaker than strong arguments, etc), but the discussion itself only suffers if it's on special terms for any specific side.

 

How many abortion clinics do you need to see firebombed, doctors assassinated, by Tea Party political supporters and allies?

How many do I need to see for what to happen, exactly?

 

Is there a magic number where I get to abandon my responsibilities and concerns for what happens when a large segment of the population is ostracized and disenfranchised?

 

 

How many homosexual people run out of jobs and homes, shot, beaten to death, hung on barb wire fences? How many Tea Party spokesmen do you need to hear say - in public, on the official record - that we should restore the death penalty for political crimes, so that "liberals know they can be killed" (Ann Coulter)?

You tell me what the magic number is before I am supposed to start living by a "guilt by association" policy, because all those things you listed are indeed horrible things. I just don't understand why it justifies the very tactics that we condemn them for using.

 

The Tea Party faction is violent, and always has been, to whatever extent they can get away with. There is nothing new here - this is the latest incarnation of the faction that once found its political representation in the Klu Klux Klan, and before that the Confederacy. Read the letters and manifestos of the intellectual supporters of Jefferson Davis's political movement, and you will find rhetoric and analysis that could be lifted almost verbatim and pasted into Tea Party rhetorical efforts today. They are a fact of American political life.

I'm sure it all does fit just fine, but so do Rorschach prints. It's not that I am assuming you're wrong in your comparison, it's that even if I drew the same conclusions as you it would still be just as subjective and worthless regardless of my conclusion. The only concrete thing you can really nail down is what people do, and what they say - not who they sound like, and who they act like.

 

If they are bad enough people that you would compare them to other bad people - and if the comparisons are valid - their actual actions should be condemnable entirely on their own lack of merits... without having to compare them to other evils.

 

That isn't liberal foreign policy. That isn't standard American foreign policy. That is foreign policy we inherited from the last time the American Taliban got hold of some political power, and influenced US foreign policy according to their ideology and approach.

If that's the case, why do you want to apply that policy to the Americans that scare you?

 

You don't have to worry about labeling these folk "The American Taliban" costing them their rights, because they are the ones who would react like that to such a label.

Thanks for the assurance (I hate worrying) but I have no idea what "because they are the ones who would react like that to such a label" means... can you clarify that statement please?

 

The effort to elicit self-awareness and adult political discourse from this faction is not only wasted, but dangerous - you cannot afford to grant respect and influence and power to these people.

This is a very dire warning here, do you mind if I ask... based on what?

 

You realize that regardless of what we do, or who we talk to, they will still have power and influence and capabilities at local and state levels, the only difference is the more socially and politically isolated they become, the more cult-like and fervent they behave.

 

You must, as a public duty, mock and despise them, laugh at their nonsense and dismiss their lies without pretension of taking them seriously.

I must?

How am I supposed to tell which ones I'm supposed to mock?

Do I just assume that everyone that "says retarded stuff I think is retarded" is a tea partier?

 

What's the policy on collateral damage? There are some libertarians out there that hate the tea party, but have some pretty whacky ideas.

 

Make them as much has possible pariahs, defensive, unsure of their reception among normal, decent folk.

I am pretty sure the "normal, decent folk" are capable of critical independent thought on their own, otherwise you wouldn't have used that qualifier and they'd be labeled as Tea Partiers already.

 

The last time these people got hold of real power, it took the Union Army four bloody years and the destruction of half the country to restore governance and sanity. The last time they even got close to the White House, defending their precious honor and reflexive cult of vengeance buried us in two land wars in Asia on the credit card and set the bankers in lordship over our economy ( they loves them the credit cards, also casinos). That should never be allowed to happen again.

As horrifying as the idea of a "Tea Party White House" is, your capacity for dramatic hyperbole actually distracts from the genuine threats TP policies would result in.

 

The way you are writing about these guys, it sounds like the only thing that prevented Joe McCarthy from being a True American Hero was that he went after commies instead of confederates.

 

Your whole post reads just like the same sort of screed the Tea Party espouse - with all the you musts, you can'ts, and doom for anyone silly enough to regard the opposition as human beings, let alone citizens.

[overtone]

This is a very dire warning here, do you mind if I ask... based on what?

Based on what I referenced above, in that post you are replying to - unread? - or if you need more, what has happened to the country every single time that faction has got itself some power - the last two hundred years of American history, the Reagan and W administrations, what exactly is obscure to you?

How do you propose we effectively disenfranchise them then?

Disenfranchise? Moi? No.

Is there a magic number where I get to abandon my responsibilities and concerns for what happens when a large segment of the population is ostracized and disenfranchised?

They are already insular and cultish' date=' by their own hand, deliberately. You can't do anything about that: The core membership cannot be reached by argument, discussion, etc. And the point is to make that core as small a segment of the population as possible, by shame and mockery and disrespect in the full view of the undecided and noncommittal, by holding it in deserved, reasoned, open contempt.

 

Nobody is talking about disenfranchisement except you - and the Tea Party folks, of course, who are not only talking, but doing (vote suppression, etc). Ostracizing is the normal and expected, respectable, adult response to their kind of behavior. The magic number for such response is one, in the case of (for example) inviting Ann Coulter on to national TV and presenting her as some sort of respectable pundit or acceptable commentator. Are you advocating we all pretend that situation does not exist?

If that's the case, why do you want to apply that policy to the Americans that scare you?

I don't, and posted nothing that a reasonable person could honestly interpret as implying any such thing. So why the accusation?

As horrifying as the idea of a "Tea Party White House" is' date=' your capacity for dramatic hyperbole actually distracts from the genuine threats TP policies would result in. [/quote'] Nothing I posted was hyperbole of any kind. It was a simple, dispassionate recounting of some uncontroversial physical facts relevant to how the faction currently calling itself the Tea Party would be viewed, and responded to, by reasonable people with some sense of political consequence and societal self-preservation. That such a simple, undramatic recounting is somehow mistaken for drama and hyperbole points to a major problem we have in dealing with our little Taliban here - they ride on other people's courtesy, parasitise on customs of politeness and denial that they use to fog their nature and agenda.

Thanks for the assurance (I hate worrying) but I have no idea what "because they are the ones who would react like that to such a label" means... can you clarify that statement please?

Please. That kind of playing dumb is a waste of everyone's time.

 

Liberals and the like, decent Americans in the old school sense, do not deliberately and openly treat people as you described. So you don't have to worry about the bad effects of accurately labeling and describing the neo-Confederates in the US - the ones who would abuse them and revoke their rights and so forth in that fashion are they themselves.

Edited October 16, 2012 by overtone

[padren]

Based on what I referenced above, in that post you are replying to - unread? - or if you need more, what has happened to the country every single time that faction has got itself some power - the last two hundred years of American history, the Reagan and W administrations, what exactly is obscure to you?

I'll requote exactly what you said then:

 

The effort to elicit self-awareness and adult political discourse from this faction is not only wasted, but dangerous - you cannot afford to grant respect and influence and power to these people.

 

In your own words you claim that adult discourse with "this faction" is not only wasted, but dangerous.

 

That is an entirely different claim than simply saying "they've done horrible things with power" - which is all you seem to be able to say.

 

You are quite literally warning that it is dangerous to have a dialogue with them - that it's dangerous to acknowledge and respect them as human beings and citizens within our nation.

 

And what do you propose in the place of dialogue?

 

You must, as a public duty, mock and despise them, laugh at their nonsense and dismiss their lies without pretension of taking them seriously. Make them as much has possible pariahs, defensive, unsure of their reception among normal, decent folk.

 

Is that how you want to handle public discourse? Can you really say that you believe either that what American discourse needs is more vitriol and haughty bullshit intimidation tactics?

Secondarily, do you really believe that when "normal, decent folk" see someone like you mocking and deriding other American citizens that they'll actually respect you and your arguments more for it? It doesn't matter how justified you feel your reasons for throwing shit are - when you throw shit, even the people who generally agree with you no longer want to shake your hand.

 

 

 

Disenfranchise? Moi? No.

Of fucking please already - if you don't support a traditional, democratic dialogue because "their ideas are too dangerous" you are advocating the effective disenfranchisement of these people. You are the one who said it's dangerous to discuss their political views and goals in a democratic setting.

 

If you are going to advocate stripping people of their political power by means other than respectful democratic discourse you better have an answer as to how you are going to do it without merely succumbing to mob mentality.

 

When you advocate ganging up and shouting people down until they are too scared to talk to people you better have a good explanation as to how you feel this fits with American values, because you advocate a plan of action that succeeds not based on merit, but on how well a mob of people can shout down and intimidate others until they stop talking.

 

What is most maddening is you genuinely recognize that these tactics are wrong and unhealthy for a democracy - you actually and correctly criticize them for using these tactics - yet you advocate their use in this case. When you are asked to defend the intellectual integrity of this strategy you just list all the reasons why these people are scary.

 

Have you forgotten the last time we had this conversation already? The right wing would go on and on about how we couldn't even afford to give accused terrorists/enemy combatants any due process, any respect, or any regard as human beings, and every time they were asked to defend that policy they just reiterated how scary and dangerous those people are, and now you are doing the exact same thing.

 

They are already insular and cultish, by their own hand, deliberately.

So "they are already insular and cultish"

they "did it to themselves"

and "they did it to themselves deliberately"

 

So "they are already bad"

They "did it to themselves"

and "they did it on purpose"

 

I guess that means we can wash our hands of them just as easily as if they were drug addicts, or sick without insurance, or alcoholics - because that works just so well.

 

News flash: People who are cultish can in fact become more or less cultish. What you are proposing would only make them more so. People who are insular can also become more insular, which would also further degrade American politics even further.

 

 

 

You can't do anything about that: The core membership cannot be reached by argument, discussion, etc. And the point is to make that core as small a segment of the population as possible, by shame and mockery and disrespect in the full view of the undecided and noncommittal, by holding it in deserved, reasoned, open contempt.

So you think you can bully these people into abandoning their beliefs? You must if you think this strategy will "shrink their core" but you give absolutely no basis for this belief. All you have given is anecdotes as to why it's not worth treating them with the same respect other citizens deserve, which all depend on guilt by association.

 

 

 

Nobody is talking about disenfranchisement except you - and the Tea Party folks, of course, who are not only talking, but doing (vote suppression, etc). Ostracizing is the normal and expected, respectable, adult response to their kind of behavior. The magic number for such response is one, in the case of (for example) inviting Ann Coulter on to national TV and presenting her as some sort of respectable pundit or acceptable commentator. Are you advocating we all pretend that situation does not exist?

I don't, and posted nothing that a reasonable person could honestly interpret as implying any such thing. So why the accusation?

Are you trying to invoke Poe's law or are you just that intellectually lazy?

 

Nobody is talking about disenfranchisement except me?

 

Are you fing kidding me? It's the only thing you've advocated in this entire thread FFS - read your own posts! There are only two ways to impact political change: Through improving consensus, or by overpowering the opposition enough to not require consensus.

If it was any other group you'd be up in arms but because these people are somehow beneath you and undeserving of your respect you advocate bullying.

 

What is most angering in my opinion, is not just the hate and bullying but that you actually seem to believe you can separate your actions from the results: "Disenfranchise? Moi? No. "

 

 

Nothing I posted was hyperbole of any kind. It was a simple, dispassionate recounting of some uncontroversial physical facts relevant to how the faction currently calling itself the Tea Party would be viewed, and responded to, by reasonable people with some sense of political consequence and societal self-preservation.

No.

Only in your head do those pieces fit together like that - and when you get to assign the labels, when you get to assign who's the "shadowy reincarnation of evils past" and when you get to decide when it's okay to abandon adult discourse and resort to bullying tactics then the conclusions you reach in your head are just as subjective as the conclusions drawn by tea partiers.

 

 

That such a simple, undramatic recounting is somehow mistaken for drama and hyperbole points to a major problem we have in dealing with our little Taliban here - they ride on other people's courtesy, parasitise on customs of politeness and denial that they use to fog their nature and agenda.

You know full well that you are using every dirty trick to paint a very diverse group of people with a single dirty brush. I don't care how justified you feel for doing it - feeling justified doesn't change what you are doing, just how you feel about it. It doesn't give you the right to make up your own version of reality.

 

Please. That kind of playing dumb is a waste of everyone's time.

 

Liberals and the like, decent Americans in the old school sense, do not deliberately and openly treat people as you described. So you don't have to worry about the bad effects of accurately labeling and describing the neo-Confederates in the US - the ones who would abuse them and revoke their rights and so forth in that fashion are they themselves.

I wasn't playing dumb, you posted word salad.

 

You have clarified yourself enough that I can at least understand what you seem to be trying to say:

 

If I read you right - you are saying we don't have to worry that "honest, old school liberals and the like" will follow your advice for bullying and deriding and ostracizing these people because they wouldn't do that to them.... only people like you and "me" would (since apparently we must, according to you) and of course the TPers themselves - hence they deserve it.

 

 

Honestly, forget about who "deserves" contempt and disrespect and hold yourself to a higher standard for your own bloody sake. If you genuinely believe you can decide when you can afford to be lazy in your thinking regarding other people, simply because "you" judge them to be inferior of respect for some reason - your arguments suffer, your thinking suffers, and your ability to rationally relate to the world around you suffers.

 

The last thing we need is more people doing that.... which sadly is the whole reason you propose it. If you can't see that I honestly don't know how to explain it any more precisely than I already have, it just sucks (IMO) that you'd abandon reason in favor of the textbook definition of demagoguery simply because... you are sick and tired of all the demagogs.

[iNow]

On a more measured note, I DO absolutely think it's important to ostracize (not disenfranchise) certain mindsets and beliefs.

 

Much like we do with racism. Much like we do with sexism. Much like we do with things like rape, child molestation, or even murder... Some things have no place in a rational society... no place in reasonable discourse... No place in a reality where we share evidence and facts equally as opposed to making up our own.

 

I absolutely do think it's important to ostracize certain mindsets and beliefs, and that this process stems naturally from our evolution as pack animals. The extreme right wing that has taken control of what constitutes the modern group of elected US Republican party spokespeople and representatives (as a general rule) very much falls into that category, with only rare exception.

[overtone]

In your own words you claim that adult discourse with "this faction" is not only wasted' date=' but dangerous [/quote'] No. My words are that the effort to elicit such discourse from that faction is wasted and dangerous.

 

To the extent you can engage in reasonable dialogue, you are meeting independence and rejection of that faction. That should be encouraged, respected, etc.

 

That's an observation, from thirty years of experience. If you have a counterexample, from the recent political history of the US, let's see it.

You are quite literally warning that it is dangerous to have a dialogue with them - that it's dangerous to acknowledge and respect them as human beings and citizens within our nation.

Dialogue is fine - just don't expect adult political discourse from them' date=' and most importantly don't pretend they are engaging in it when they are not. And don't erode your own country's political world by treating what you do get as respectable politics - they're human beings, fine, they get all the rights of citizens etc, but they don't get respect for political views and public behaviors that are infantile, violent, corrosive, ignorant, vile, and corrupt fantasies inculcated by a massive propaganda campaign in the service of the wealthy and powerful corporate elite.

 

You are quite literally warning that it is dangerous to have a dialogue with them - that it's dangerous to acknowledge and respect them as human beings and citizens within our nation.

Acknowledging and respecting them as human beings is not the issue. The issue is granting respect to political views and behaviors that one cannot respect if they wish to maintain honest and reasonable political institutions.

 

You know full well that you are using every dirty trick to paint a very diverse group of people with a single dirty brush.

I use no tricks. None. And no one who is "diverse"' date=' who doesn't fit my description, is being painted by my brush - it's an explicit brush.

It doesn't give you the right to make up your own version of reality.

Find an example of my "version" that is not simply and physically accurate, first. Then instruct me on my rights.

You are the one who said it's dangerous to discuss their political views and goals in a democratic setting.

No. I said it's dangerous to grant them respect' date=' or pretend to be engaging in adult political discourse with their adherents. I'm in favor of discussing them - honestly, openly, in full and explicit recognition of what they are.

If I read you right - you are saying we don't have to worry that "honest, old school liberals and the like" will follow your advice for bullying and deriding and ostracizing these people because they wouldn't do that to them..

This will be the third time that I have been forced to point out to you that I said no such thing. I recommended that this faction be ostracized, laughed at, treated with contempt, by everyone - not just "liberals", but anyone with a sense of decency and adult political responsibility. What I said liberals would not do is deny civil rights, deny free speech, disenfranchise and abuse and oppress in the manner you pulled out of your ass to put into my posts.

 

So you think you can bully these people into abandoning their beliefs? You must if you think this strategy will "shrink their core" but you give absolutely no basis for this belief. All you have given is anecdotes as to why it's not worth treating them with the same respect other citizens deserve' date=' which all depend on guilt by association. [/quote'] No, as I have made clear all along I think expecting these people to abandon their beliefs, for any reason, is a waste of time. They never have, they never will. The fascist we have always with us, unto the end of the age. What we should do, in my opinion, is keep these beliefs from dominating the political arena and influencing policy any crowding out civil and reasonable discourse. We do that by denying them respect, consideration, repetition room on the airwaves, etc. We mock, shame, and sequester.

 

And I think it would shrink the core, yes - based on the observation that the opposite has expanded the core noticeably, within the past couple of decades.

 

If you are going to advocate stripping people of their political power by means other than respectful democratic discourse you better have an answer as to how you are going to do it without merely succumbing to mob mentality.

I am advocating enforcing respectful democratic political discourse, maintaining it, defending it from its enemies.

 

Allowing these people to take over the airwaves, by the pretense of respectful democratic discourse with people who are interested in no such thing, is succumbing to mob mentality - it's happened. That's what Fox News is, that's what the hate radio is, that's what's happened to the "news" analysis programs that run the likes of David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter out on stage week after week after week.

 

What is most maddening is you genuinely recognize that these tactics are wrong and unhealthy for a democracy - you actually and correctly criticize them for using these tactics - yet you advocate their use in this case. When you are asked to defend the intellectual integrity of this strategy you just list all the reasons why these people are scary.

Nothing you have posted resembles a request for - or an example of - intellectual integrity.

 

I do not, for example, "recognize" that the tactics I actually recommend - please quote, in the future, if listing them - are wrong or unhealthy for a democracy. I think they are absolutely necessary, and always have been.

 

This continual bait and switch you are running, between what I recommend - social pressure, shaming and ostracizing, recognizing the contemptible honestly and treating it as it should be treated by sane adults - and your accusatory nonsense about denying civil rights, denying free speech, treating the neo-Confederates as they treat foreigners they despise, has run long enough.