Letters to the Editor
-
Goooood thinking
"Hey, they do it. So the charge doesn't stick to us." Got that too.
Am sorry to say that no, right-wing talk radio does not become shrill when incorrect ideas are floated.
There is indeed a difference. Check out the right-wing scene sometime. That is the reason that they're taking over America: their debate skills are sharper, precisely because they wish to debate, rather than to suppress.
Keep telling yourself that, though. Through the next four Presidential elections, after which the Supreme Court will be handing down a predominance of 7-2 and 8-1 decisions. :- )
-
Ha ha DrDetekto
He writes:
Check those knee-jerk right-wing blogs and you will find authors saying many things not liked by the dittoheads.
(Say) Ann Coulter will be found writing that George W. Bush is a sellout, or that Mitt Romney is a fake, or that Fox News / Bill O'Reilly are hypocrites.
What you will NOT find is a dreary pile of poisonous ad hominems, demanding shrilly that we not listen to the author, every time said author writes something the readers don't like.
First of all, Ann Coulter's administrators delete posts and ban members who don't drink the kool-aid. They also make it so that the forum stops working as well for you if they don't like what you say. Here on Salon anyone is allowed to post what they want (within very generous limits).
Secondly, Salon isn't a "blog," like Ann's site is, as much as you rightwingnuts would like to tag it as such. It's intended to be a political magazine. That's sort of why we tend to reject Camille treating it as her blog.
Thirdly, most of the attacks on Paglia are on substance, they're not ad-hominem. Perhaps you should look up ad-hominem in the dictionary. Literally, it means "to man," as opposed to, "to argument". It's not an ad-hominem attack to point out that Paglia's ad-hominem attack on Al Gore was substance free meaningless drivel. She doesn't tell us why global warming is a myth, what scientific sources she derives that opinion from, what specifically she takes issue with in Gore's message or his movie. She merely asserts that he's "chief propogandist," and that the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree global warming is a problem that we're causing are "hysterical".
-
Not to pick nits with CP but...
Rather than being the problem, Secular Humanism's roots are as a non-religous way of respecting the idea of the divine in each individual. It is an extremely freee form Libretarianism, the philosophy of every person for themself, which tends to disregard the impact one's actions might have on the rest of society, IMO, that's the culprit.
However one labels it, the philosphy of "Me first!", is a nightmarish development in the culture of humankind. From George Bush and Dick Chenny to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, it's all the same narcisistic, unholy mess.
From the Council for Secular Humanism:
"Secular Humanism is a way of thinking and living that aims to bring out the best in people so that all people can have the best in life. Secular humanists reject supernatural and authoritarian beliefs. They affirm that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation."
http://www.secularhumanism.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
-
Camille's column
Paglia really is a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in flashy wrapping paper.
Intellectuals ask Paglia for a shred of evidence for any of her claims, which is silly, because this is an opinion column. So let the woman have her opinions.
Progressives disagree with her, and some shrilly, because they feel she advocates for causes one could view as anti-antithetical to progressive.
And the right likes to bring up my fellow Democrats' reaction to paglia as "evidence" of our intolerance. Sure. When we call Paglia "unholy" or "inhuman" for her views, and threaten to lock her up and throw away the key, (oh, and when we waterboard her, take away her right to habeas corpus, and threaten to render her to Uzbekistan so we can lock her in a freezing room and hit her), then you can call us intolerant.
Compared to that, calling someone "stupid" or "uninformed" or "republican" is pretty tame in comparison. Well, maybe not calling them Republican...that's pretty low.
-
@drdetekto - What????
The right-wing scene is taking over America? No. Just corporations with right wingers at the helm, because the neocon agendistas care about their own bank accounts more than democracy.
But check out the latest national polls and you'll find that most Americans do not agree with "the conservative" or right-wing agenda. (Hence, the lack of excitement over the GOP Prez nominees).
-
Didn't take long to apply the label :- )
This is the issue:
as much as you rightwingnuts would like to tag it as such.
Knowing nothing about me other than three brief remarks that you read, you felt it was long past time to whip out the label, plaster it on, and dismiss anything you (don't) see in the future from me.
But the sneer is *reflexive* in these left-wing thought arenas. Having very little to go on, you resort to intellectual contempt and a "stop here, read no further" mindset ... before a discussion even *begins.*
When we hate so implacably those different than us, and when we rule out the possibility that even a *single* dissenter could have a *single* thing to say worth considering ...
We make 2-D cartoon caricatures of those who are different than us.
And that overconfidence most assuredly does not lead to a toning of our intellectual muscles.
You sneer long enough, your face will get stuck that way. :- )
-
Does the compulsively save all her toenail clippings also?
"According to my records, I saw that film 11 times in theaters in Pennsylvania and New Jersey between May and October of that year. Those were the days!"
Wheee!
-
@ drdetekto
I think you must be intentionally mischaracterizing what I was saying, because I never said that the fact that right wingers do the same things is any excuse for the left when they do that. As far as I can tell, your best debating tactic is to mischaracterize what someone said and then dismiss it with a sarcastic, "got that too." Forgive me if I'm not impressed by the sharpness of your debate skills.
If you think that right-wing talk radio does not become shrill when "incorrect" ideas are floated, then Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mike Gallagher, and Michael Savage are not part of the right-wing talk radio universe. Some of these people even make direct or veiled threats against people who disagree with them.
It's very difficult to argue with anyone who does not approach a discussion in good faith. In general, I find that political ideologues of any stripe are so convinced that they already have the answer to everything that it's impossible for them to change their mind about anything.
:-)