Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ usmlrf
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer takes rank hypocrisy to new lows]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Arne, I do think the subsequent posts here have made some interesting headway in getting at the "authoritarian mindset," though mainly I see rehashing of the usual "can't deal with a chaotic, contradictory world" argument....
Not from me. I really don't care too much how Krauthammer (or Rove or Cheney or Gonzales or Yoo or Dubya or the sycophantic Jack) "rationalise" their nonsense, or whether they sleep at night. Whether they see the duplicity in their miasmatic emanations, or whether they just feel some vague unease, while following along their chosen paths like good soldiers, or whether they're just too fookin' stoopid to know they're clueless, they are still lost causes and a waste of good haemoglobin. I don't want to "deal with [their] chaotic, contradictory world", and fortunately, I don't have to, because theirs is in some other solar system. All I have to do is do whatever is in my power to inter their ideas and encase the cask with more concrete than was used on the reactor at Chernobyl, so that it never sees the light of day again.
... But, on a slightly separate topic, I do wonder who the "rest of the folks out there" or the "passers-by" are that we believe are going to affected by our or even GG's arguments....
The 90% of the people that don't post. And the many people that start coming to this blog as Glenn gains visibility, and gets mentioned on Olberman and such. People need the tools ... and the encouragement ... to fight. "Fight, fight, for the dying of the right...."
... I think Jack was well-meaning (though I maybe I missed his more aggressive posts),...
No. He was dishonest as the day is long.
... and my usual assumption is that every poster represents about 10 to 100 non-posters with similar viewpoints, so I figured that they might be the undecided passers-by and whatnot that you and GG seek to convince....
The ones that follow Jack are a lost cause. They're the 30% "dead-enders". If this is not completely obvious from what Dubya has done and the remaining hard core of Dubya supporters, I don't know what else will convince you.
... If not them, then who? (Not a rhetorical question.)
See above.
In any case, the "Clear now?" and "Spare me the..." tone aren't very productive for convincing anyone.
I'm making my position out to you as clear as I can. If you still have doubts, after this response, let me know, and maybe I'll try another tack.
Cheers,
-
@ usmlrf
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer takes rank hypocrisy to new lows]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... simultaneously making an argument (about CK) that only would change the minds of centrists, while at the same time attacking any centrist-seeming sentiment you see, is a bit perverse.
Where? Did I miss it?
FWIW, I think Glenn has attacked and demolished this "centrist" view, this popular meme with the chattering crowd that there's "two sides" and why can't we just split the difference (like on abortion ... or evolution and creationism).
Cheers,
-
@ usmlrf
[Read the article: Charles Krauthammer takes rank hypocrisy to new lows]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry that my words come across as calculated pleading. There seems a fine line here between counterproductive insults and a politeness which evidently can sound like calculation or "holier than thou" (someone else's term).
Some real flaming LWers have been accused of being "trolls" or plants here (or at UT) to disrupt the thread (disclaimer: not me). There do seem to be some quite strident people (you know, the kind that go on blogs and post), and everyone's got a different idea of what to do and how to do it. Ain't democracy wonderful? We don't have no Mighty Wurlitzer with one huge bass pipe, nosirree.
But, on a slightly separate topic, I do wonder who the "rest of the folks out there" or the "passers-by" are that we believe are going to affected by our or even GG's arguments.
[Arne]: The 90% of the people that don't post. And the many people that start coming to this blog as Glenn gains visibility, and gets mentioned on Olberman and such.
The thing is, most of those 90% already agree with our positions. People who wander in from Olberman may not have heard much about Krauthammer, but they are already leftists and just add him to their list of right-wing hypocrites. The "30% dead-enders" usually refers to the die-hard Bush supporters, and having seen the bile those folks spew, I'm pretty sure none of them are around here. Whether Jack is secretly one of them or not I can't know, but I doubt it.
(I can't resist) You don't know Jack.
In any case, the demographic I took to be the target of these debates was the center or center-left, people who might be tempted to give people like CK the benefit of the doubt, until GG spells out exactly how bad CK is....
Your point?
So it just seemed a bit perverse to attack exactly the people who might entertain any initial thoughts that CK wasn't utterly evil in this case....
Like who exactly? Jack???
... Independent of that, I guess, is the issue of understanding the psychology of CK, which I guess need not have any centrists as audience, since it's just folks on the left trying to understand the madness of the right. Again, though, inasmuch as I want to understand, it's not to defend it or to sow discord on the left, it's just because we have to understand radioactivity if we want to build a successful concrete containment facility, to use your metaphor.
No, we don't (not saying it's not worth it as an academic exercise). We just need to know how to counter the harmful effects.
Cheers,