I was going to pass on this post by GayPatriot, but I just ran across it again, and it's just sooo GayPatriot.
A GP reader sent me this and I asked if I could reprint. It is a perfect example of how liberals preach and preach and preach the Gospel of Tolerance… but are the very last to actually practice it.
The "perfect example" of liberals and the "Gospel of Tolerance" involves the immature actions of two high schools girls who apparently are making a distinct effort to be fools. Apparently GayPatriot can't tell the difference between a high-school girl and an adult who disagrees with him, or feels comfortable casting all "liberals" as badly behaved adolescents. (Or maybe that just makes him feel better about something.) I would think that any adult would recognize that these are kids -- they don't necessarily know how to behave, and like as not they're acting out. But to oh! so seriously try to tie this to your political opponents as some kind of defining moment? Jeebus!
I was going to let it go because it's the kind of crap I've come to expect from GayPatriot -- shallow, nasty, and functionally blind. The post over there on William Jackson at the height of Abramoff/Coingate and a couple of other "business-as-usual" Republican scandals (you remember -- the one titled "The Democrats' Culture of Corruption") was the one that finished me off on that site. He's obviously not interested in any sort of rational discussion.
Frankly, although there are a couple of posters on that site who periodically show some signs of higher brain function, he's not one of them. I say that having been an off-and-on visitor for about a year now, and my frustration level just got to the point where I wrote the site off. I am, believe it or not, very much interested in dialogue with people who don't agree with me (frankly, sometimes here I feel like I'm preaching to the choir), because I don't understand where they're coming from as often as not. I do, however, get more than a little impatient with something on the order of GP's stock answers and knee-jerk condemnations -- usually based in cheap and desperately flawed arguments. It reminds me of nothing so much as Chris Crain calling me a "Democratic apologist." I'm still scratching my head over that one. It seems obvious that not only did he not read the post in question, he's read nothing else here at all. (I was just noting my labels -- for a Democratic apologist, I find it very strange that I've got labels for "PC blindness," "the totalitarian left," "liberal hypocrisy," and the like. Sure sounds like a dirty liberal to me.)
2 comments:
Chris Crain here:
OK Hunter, if I retract the "Democratic apologist" quip, can you please climb down off the cross? Your post was apologist, but you are not. Feel better? Now can we get to the substance?
I'm happy to hear you say you want "real dialogue," but then I'm not sure why you focused so much on two words of a much longer comment. Even in your comment in response to mine, you say, "To sit there and opine that [General Pace is] entitled to express his opinions (which itself is questionable) because the actual words he used conform to an immoral policy strikes me as more than a little disingenuous."
I wrote in my original posts and in my comment in response to yours that General Pace was WRONG to insert his personal views on morality into debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I "parsed his words" because I was pointing out that Hillary was adopting his same false distinction -- between homosexual "acts" and homosexuality -- even in her belated defense of us.
I suppose "real dialogue" is going to be a challenge if we can't even tell when we disagree; much less when we agree, eh?
Catching up --
Hadn't realized I was on a cross. Wondered why my back was hurting -- I thought I was spending too much time at the computer.
OK -- You think I miscontrued your post, I think you miscontrued mine. I'm not inclined to keep hashing it out, unless you feel there is some critical philosophical point to be made. I try to keep my compulsive behavior within bounds (not always successfully, as witness this blog).
Yes, I am interested in discussion, if we can get past the reflexive name-calling. (The cross remark was gratuitous.) There are people who in many regards are far to your right with whom I am able to have constructive dialogue because we've found some areas that we can take as areas for inquiry rather than dispute. (And there are some, admittedly, with whom I simply can't find an opening point.)
If you'll note the subhead on this blog, my concern is mainly the real bases that underly the sad bastard child that passes for public discourse in this country these days. The ironies are too glaring to pass up, and I'm allowed to be snarky -- it's my blog.
Post a Comment