5 ms·

You certainly seem to like putting my words in my mouth (assuming that I don't think NPR can be manipulative as well) and also seem to be characturing me based

by gfodor 15y ago

You certainly seem to like putting my words in my mouth (assuming that I don't think NPR can be manipulative as well) and also seem to be characturing me based upon a few sentences on an internet message board. First, I'm a well-to-do European who loathes Americans and has no respect for history, now I am surely an arugula-munching socialist/communist sympathizer hippie. It's rather ironic you're painting me as somehow looking down upon people whom I disagree because I'm labeling them as a "conservative" (which, as I've stated, I'm not and I don't) when you are the one so quickly to label others. I use the word "liberal" loosely here, since I do have viewpoints that fall to the right of of mainstream liberalism, but you certainly seemed to jump on the chance to label me as yet another mental stereotype. Projecting much? If you have a problem with my argument as it relates to the original post of this thread, why not address it directly so we can all learn something, instead of us taking us so far afield with these personal attacks on these cartoonish strawmen that you are constructing? It's hard for me to take it personally since you are arguing with a figment of your imagination.

moldbug 15y ago
I didn't put the word horrible in your mouth. Nor did I make you suggest that American conservatives are deluded by dark, sinister forces which have cleverly led them to believe the evil things they believe. You were being patronizing, which is an easily recognizable form of contempt. I'm taking the same attitude toward you, in the perhaps vain hope that it might help you see how rude you're being. I'm also quite happy to classify you culturally as a function of your belief system, which is once again good for the gander. As it happens, I don't have a problem with either "torture" or gay marriage. However, because I have been exposed to plenty of perfectly intelligent arguments for waterboarding and against gay marriage, I can tell you haven't been. No, I would not recommend Fox News as an introduction to conservative thought - try Burke. Or better yet Maistre. And have some more arugula, preferably with the chevre. (Also, if you think there's a meaningful difference between American communism and "socialism" or "radicalism" or "progressivism" or "liberalism," I suggest the following exercise - pick an arbitrary NYT obituary of anyone over 80, ie anyone who was an adult in the '40s, and try to classify your subject as "communist," "socialist," "progressive" or "liberal." Unless you say that only a card-carrying CPUSA member can be a "communist," which is an abuse of the English language, you'll find no basis for any such distinction.)
- gfodor 15y ago
  I chose those two issues for a reason. Certainly there may be intelligent arguments for waterboarding or gay marriage, but they are few and far between those driven by emotions stirred up by the right wing media. And I don't think it's unfair to call these particular issues, as supported by mainstream conservative thought, horrible, since in the realm of torture you are going back against decades of international law and human decency, and in the case of criminalizing gay marriage you are basically carbon copying the discriminatory laws seen before the civil rights movement. Are you suggesting that just because people thought it was OK to ban interracial marriage just a mere few decades ago, it's unfair to claim that those views are horrible now? And yes, I've read Burke and other conservative thinkers of the past. If you think these viewpoints have anything to do with mainstream "conservatism" in America, I don't know what to tell you.
  - moldbug 15y ago
    Decades! ZOMG, decades. That's like, totally ancient. Can I stereotype you again? You've read a ten-page excerpt of Burke in your sophomore poli-sci reader. Like claiming to know all about Mexico because you once spent a week in Acapulco. The rest of the country being, of course, "horrible." Why risk Montezuma's revenge? Go read the Regicide Peace, cover to cover, then come back and talk about Burke: http://archive.org/details/thoughtsonprospe00burkiala http://archive.org/details/thoughtsonprospe00burkiala What was offensive about your post was not that you claimed certain views were "horrible," but that you assumed this position on the way to an entirely separate argument. Moreover, your approach to those who held these views was not to argue with them, but to patronize them. You even appeared touched by great and tender concern for the poor Fox News viewer - a concern which can't possibly be genuine, because we can only be genuinely concerned with those we actually know and interact with. If you knew and interacted with ordinary American conservatives while talking this way about them, you'd receive a swift punch in the nose or at least its digital equivalent. In short, you've seen the usual story about the "brogrammer" who talks about women as if there were no women in the room. s/women/conservatives. While I am not even slightly deluded as to the health of American "conservatism" (the scare quotes, for once, are entirely appropriate), I consider the importance of good manners all the greater when the victim doesn't have the iron fist of the EEOC in her back pocket.

by gfodor 15y ago

moldbug 15y ago

I didn't put the word horrible in your mouth. Nor did I make you suggest that American conservatives are deluded by dark, sinister forces which have cleverly led them to believe the evil things they believe. You were being patronizing, which is an easily recognizable form of contempt. I'm taking the same attitude toward you, in the perhaps vain hope that it might help you see how rude you're being. I'm also quite happy to classify you culturally as a function of your belief system, which is once again good for the gander. As it happens, I don't have a problem with either "torture" or gay marriage. However, because I have been exposed to plenty of perfectly intelligent arguments for waterboarding and against gay marriage, I can tell you haven't been. No, I would not recommend Fox News as an introduction to conservative thought - try Burke. Or better yet Maistre. And have some more arugula, preferably with the chevre. (Also, if you think there's a meaningful difference between American communism and "socialism" or "radicalism" or "progressivism" or "liberalism," I suggest the following exercise - pick an arbitrary NYT obituary of anyone over 80, ie anyone who was an adult in the '40s, and try to classify your subject as "communist," "socialist," "progressive" or "liberal." Unless you say that only a card-carrying CPUSA member can be a "communist," which is an abuse of the English language, you'll find no basis for any such distinction.)

gfodor 15y ago
I chose those two issues for a reason. Certainly there may be intelligent arguments for waterboarding or gay marriage, but they are few and far between those driven by emotions stirred up by the right wing media. And I don't think it's unfair to call these particular issues, as supported by mainstream conservative thought, horrible, since in the realm of torture you are going back against decades of international law and human decency, and in the case of criminalizing gay marriage you are basically carbon copying the discriminatory laws seen before the civil rights movement. Are you suggesting that just because people thought it was OK to ban interracial marriage just a mere few decades ago, it's unfair to claim that those views are horrible now? And yes, I've read Burke and other conservative thinkers of the past. If you think these viewpoints have anything to do with mainstream "conservatism" in America, I don't know what to tell you.
- moldbug 15y ago
  Decades! ZOMG, decades. That's like, totally ancient. Can I stereotype you again? You've read a ten-page excerpt of Burke in your sophomore poli-sci reader. Like claiming to know all about Mexico because you once spent a week in Acapulco. The rest of the country being, of course, "horrible." Why risk Montezuma's revenge? Go read the Regicide Peace, cover to cover, then come back and talk about Burke: http://archive.org/details/thoughtsonprospe00burkiala http://archive.org/details/thoughtsonprospe00burkiala What was offensive about your post was not that you claimed certain views were "horrible," but that you assumed this position on the way to an entirely separate argument. Moreover, your approach to those who held these views was not to argue with them, but to patronize them. You even appeared touched by great and tender concern for the poor Fox News viewer - a concern which can't possibly be genuine, because we can only be genuinely concerned with those we actually know and interact with. If you knew and interacted with ordinary American conservatives while talking this way about them, you'd receive a swift punch in the nose or at least its digital equivalent. In short, you've seen the usual story about the "brogrammer" who talks about women as if there were no women in the room. s/women/conservatives. While I am not even slightly deluded as to the health of American "conservatism" (the scare quotes, for once, are entirely appropriate), I consider the importance of good manners all the greater when the victim doesn't have the iron fist of the EEOC in her back pocket.