Here's Your Chance to Hone Your Debate Skills (Please Participate)
In my previous post, I shared a reponse I sent to some emails I received from a Jewish New York Conservative who can't spell. I've quoted his response below—please read it, because I wan't your help responding to him as a unified front:
I am a Bronx born artist who was raised under theI'm not trying to pick on this guy; however, the things he is saying here (some of which I don't completely disagree with) are exactly the sorts of things we as progressives are going to be slapped with over the course of the next four years. For example, I feel like the right is going to try to steal the "intolerant" moniker from us. I don't think calling me "intolerant" for not supporting those who put so-called "traditional family values" above personal freedom even holds a candle to the intolerance of treating homosexuals as second class citizens.
government rule of a dominant poverty pimping inner City Democratic party.
it took awhile but i finally abandoned the elitist liberal ideology that was pounded into my brain by angry, liberal, not so comeptant NYC teachers.
I proudly joined "Democrats for Bush" and also "Artists for the GOP" After I switched parties.
For me, it was a right decision, I oppose government funding for the arts, I oppose the funding of NPR and PBS. Monies could be better used in other ways.
Since being more accepting of conservative groups, Judeo Christian organizations. I have found conservatives to be more tolerant, yes, more tolerant than liberals.
I do not hear name calling, or angry stereotypes and people who accept people of all types . They judge people on character rather than color,
As for being intolerant, I do not see that.
I see many liberal media outlets stereotyping honest, Christian people who choose to live a conservative lifestyle, with family values and are not the ones trying to ban art or freedom of speech.
It is a mature person tht makes the decision not to get an abortion. It is the year 2k5 and if one does not want to get pregnant. One can take many prcautions not to. Many a Liberal would then arfue , what about rape and abuse? it seems like it is the only time some libs acre about those issues. It was not an issue when Bill Clinton was accused by numerous women of sexual abuse.
When A Oregon Democratic Part Governor had an affair with an 8th grade girl. It was covered up until the statute of limitation was up.
While PBS and Dems joked about michael Jackson , An African American accused of sexual abuse.
PBS and Democratic Party Candidate John Kerry openly accepted convicted rapist Peter Yarrow of
Peter Paul and Mary. PBS even let Peter Yarrow hawk his cd's to arise money for PBS.
Peter Yarrow attempted to rape a 14 year old fan and was entenced to a federal prison and liberal Democrat Jimmy carter pardoned Peter Yarrow.
Democrats have refused to condemn Ted Kenendy for his behavior at Chappaquiddick. A Senator who should have stepped aside for his negligence that left a woman dead.
This is the values of some of the liberals in the party I left. I love nativity scenes in parks, and christmas trees. I love hearing kids saying "one nation under God" . I believe the CALu does not have A-CLU-E!
I love the USA and I thank the young men and women who put thier life on the line for me everyday.
The job the military has done in Iraq and in Afghanistan has been amazing. The doom and gloom liberal media tries to paint a bleak picture of Iraq. The truth is, there are no more mass graves
and Kurds are free to rule thier own destiny.
The UN oil for food program raped the Iraqi people while lining the pockets of French companies, French President Shiroc chose money over feeding the iraqi people.
It has been a long time since thsoe days in the bronx. I chose to listen rather than turn my back on an ideology.
I have seen the poverty pimping of America and how recently liberals ahve blamed the USA for every world problem.
The Liberal media has constantly attacked Israel , a small country in the Mid East for every problem that exists in the region.
The USA has also been attacked for its allaince with Israel. Anti Israel is just a more acceptable term than anti semitism.
terrorist attacks have taken place in over 50 countries. Many with little or no connection to Israel. Yet, the elitist liberal media tries to
blame the State of Israel.
They moan over US Troops torturing terrorists. But, are silent about the beheading of Jews/Americans. Ignore the murder of innocent Israeli Children or the growth of Anti Semitism in Europe.
I will continue to pursue the arts.
I know there are many other artists who are tired of the whinings and misinformation spread by the left.
a reformed Demo Krat!
So let's all respond in the comments—if he believes that we have nothing to spread but "whinings and misinformation," then let's give him the truth. Mister Reformed Demo Krat does not deserve to be insulted for his beliefs, but hopefully we can show him the difference between spouting talking points and presenting facts.
He does, however, deserve to be insulted for having such atrocious spelling and grammar skills while having his biography on a site called Author's Den.
This is the fight we're going to face for the next four years, everyone. Start practicing here and now.
(And for the record, I'm not being lazy. I'm going to post in the comments, too.)
10 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
(The above post was deleted only because I accidentally posted anonymously.)
I just emailed the guy to let him know that a thorough response was coming. Here's what I sent him:
-----
Thank you again for taking the time. I enjoy such debates, as they are the only way we can find a semblance of truth in our society. Though I disagree with a great deal of what you wrote, I don't completely disagree with all of it. For example, I have always thought that Ted Kennedy is kind of an ass.
I will prepare a proper response to your long email, and I'm soliciting input from friends, but the response will take some time. I prefer to back up my statements with facts and examples, and it will take some time to go through your email with the fine-toothed comb I believe it deserves. I don't want to just jerk my knee and say something that isn't helpful or specific.
Furthermore, much of what you have said typifies what I believe will be the majority of the debates I will have in the next four years. Your email will give me a chance to solidify my stances on such issues and craft my responses for when I face someone your viewpoints again.
To that end, there is one issue I would like to respond to now:
I believe it is a disingenuous distortion to call someone such as myself "intolerant" of the right. To say I'm intolerant, for example, because I do not support those who put so-called "traditional family values" above personal freedom does not even remotely compare to the intolerance of denying homosexuals the 1,000+ legal protections offered to married couples for no other reason than "tradition." The politicians you support have proposed adding the first language ever amended to the Constitution that would specifically discriminate against a group of people. I believe that amendment would be an enormous step backwards.
Are you saying that I'm more intolerant because I don't agree with the people who would prefer to force indiscriminately a traditional, even religious, construct into our society instead of giving two people of the same gender who are in love the same legal protections as a straight couple? How does that make ME the intolerant one? If anything, it makes me intolerant of intolerance.
Expect more from me later this week. Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Arlo Bryan Guthrie ;->
Well you certainly can't arfue with his claim that his teachers weren't very competent.
Ideology aside, there are many statements in Don's letter that would not withstand the objective, dispassionate, empirical alanysis of scientific investigation. Liberals call these kinds of statements incorrect. Forsooth:
Everybody makes fun of Michael Jackson, not just Democrats! Come on Don, it's the one thing we as a nation - nay, as a world - can agree on: that he's a boy-fucking clown. Don't try to divide us over this of all things!
"Elitist" is a slur affixed to liberals by conservatives. Liberals do not use this adjective to describe themselves, thus there is not a general consensus in favor of its accuracy and it should not be used. Really, ask me if I'm elitist. Go ahead, ask me.
True that the crimes of Neil Goldschmidt were covered up, but not because of his party affiliation. They were covered up because that's the way powerful people behave. This is a demonstrable, predictable scientific fact. Another unsurprising associated fact: Goldschmidt also had friends, journalists and polical allies that defended him by saying that while the charges were true, they were irrelevant because this was primarily a partisan attack. See? It's important to loosen your grip on any one ideology just enough to let everybody make you sick.
True: media stereotype conservatives and Christians. Also true: media stereotype everybody. If there were a TV show called Everybody Loves Donald Iarussi every character depiction would conform exactly to the biased and prejudicial preconceptions of what Donald Iarussi is like. Sort of Being John Malkovich but with more political emailing. Do you want to see anything other than this stereotype reinforced yet again? I don't, that's for sure!
We all want to see the number of abortions performed reduced. Seriously. We do. There are differing strategies about how to do this and it is not really a political question until somebody wants to criminalize the procedure. This is a mean-spirited and ineffectual strategy no matter how emotionally appealing you may find it. You may be interested to learn that, excepting a very vocal minority, legal abortion is generally settled as public health policy in our society. Don't believe the hype. Instead, try your hand at overturning the repeal on Prohibition. Talk about preventing unwanted pregnancies!
If elitist Republicans really supported our military, they would have the courage to ask us, the people, the populists, the progressives, the majority of well-intentionioned, responsible citizens to pony up the dough to properly equip our troops. Liberals want a strong and sane military and a strong and sane foreign policy. Elitist Republicans are too reckless to be trusted with building these things - the party of Wall Street has difficulty keeping even one eye on the real world.
Liberals moaning over US soldiers torturing terrorists? Sort of, but not really. More like screaming bloody murder over unthinkably viscious, systemic torture of anybody. If you want to complain about the general, world-wide revulsion over the Abu Ghraib photos, that's fine but it isn't supportive of the troops and it actually hurts our efforts in the War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism must be waged in a just and righteous fashion or it is lost entirely. This is why elitist Republicans, the party of Wall Street, cannot be trusted to manage this war. They regard symbols with greater reverence than principles, and your American troops pay the price. Progressives want to restore power in this country to the hands of the people, and we need your help.
You can't bring up Clinton and then tapdance around the truth: he raped that girl. Republicans failed to impeach because they're soft on crime.
Thanks, Arlo. This was good practice.
While Arlo gets out his fine-tooth comb in preparation for a point-by-point refutation, I'll just saunter over behind that hill over yon and disappear. With any luck, I'll reappear (in due time) in a location that will afford me the element of surprise.
Elections are macro-incarnations of individual suasion, and it has been made abundantly clear that people can be persuaded by the skillful use of rhetoric. Among the rhetorical battles that the GOP waged in the last election, the most effective were those that sought to define the argument on their own terms. The specifics of the arguments themselves were passing irrelevant (i.e. what possible relevancy could John Kerry's whereabouts on Christmas day in 1968 have to anyone on the planet?).
The mechanism of media as influenced by the campaigns & the verities of the marketplace shaped the debate and, ultimately, the political outlooks of individuals themselves. The consternation of those who were interested in issues more substantive than Bush's syntax or Kerry's windsurfing was entirely misplaced. "Why isnt anyone paying attention to the selling of our National Forests?" we whinged. "Why won't anyone address the fact that the dollar is in a free-fall, the budget can't sustain our expenditures, and tax cuts will only make the situation worse?" we whined. People weren't paying attention because gay marriage, the ten commandments in school, and abortion had already defined the debate. The fiction of "character" won the day.
Recall how right-wingers and lefties alike bought into the notion that Kerry "didn't respond fast enough to the Swift Boat Vets". The presumption codified in that statement is that Kerry's defense was his problem. Nonsense. It was the offense that won. The left didn't define the debate. The left didn't own the issues.
If we're going to claw our way back in 2008, we need to exploit every opportunity to grab the reigns; not beat the dead horses of 2004. If the left wants to loose again, all we need to do is try to play catch-up in matters like religion, patriotism, and the "steadfast" use of force. You want to talk about God, guns & gays? Fine. Knock yourself out. I won't join in that conversation for that way lies nothing but rhetorical phantoms and stale platitudes.
Instead I offer the following questions to our incoming GOP politicians:
The President said that he disagrees with the Republican Party platform. He says he supports civil unions for homosexual couples. Where is the bill? When can we expect federal protection & full rights for civil unions? You want to argue that they're not appropriate? You'll lose. Bring it on.
Why aren't polluters being aggressively pursued by not just by the Environmental Protection Agency, but the U.S. Attorney General? The job descriptions are pretty clear. What's the excuse? Do you have one? It's inadequate.
How can the President and the Republican controlled Congress rebuild Social Security and make the tax cuts permanent without making our deficits and our debt unsustainable? I haven't heard an answer, only vote-getting rhetoric. Show me how it can happen or get ready to apologize to your constituents.
What next in Iraq? What are you going to do now that your utopian fantasy has played itself out and your grand dream of democratizing the Middle East has been utterly discredited? What does "finishing the job" mean to you exactly? Most of us have lost track of the reasons you gave for going over there, are you going to be a little more clear on how we're getting out? If not, you're finished.
How long do you think it'll take before the jobless and the destitute finally agree with you that outsourcing is good for the economy and therefore good for them? Seriously, how long will that take?
Where is the money coming from for the next disaster which we will inevitably face be it the next 9/11, hurricane, volcano, or insectivorous blight on farms. How secure is our ability to respond financially to such a crisis, given our $400 billion commitment to war or our continuing fetish with constricting tax revenues?
Now that everyone in world acknowledges Global Warming is not a fiction, when will you?
How about some answers? I'm waiting.
Bah. Agree with Kelly. Answering their questions, responding to the terms they set up--plays into their hands, allows only for constant defense. Let's look at the actual problems we're forgetting, and ask who the fuck's going to do something about that-- rather than waste time trying to impose logic and reason on dipshits.
For the record, i AM an elitist. But it has nothing to do with my politics--just whether or not you're a dipshit.
Don doesn't believe things because facts have given him knowledge. He believes things because he desperately wants to believe them. Self-delusion is selling nearly as well these days as yellow-ribbon magnets.
Somewhere along the way, Don was probably denied a federal grant for a some piece of shit he calls art, and blames the liberal, elistist government for that failure--overlooking the fact that what he produced was probably a flaming pile of crap.
While I wish you luck, Arlo, on your point by point defense, I can't get behind it.
Don is a dipshit.
Don't waste your time with dipshits.
Unless you're just going to make fun of him.
That, I support 110%.
Kelly, have you taken leave of your senses? While I loudly and enthusiastically agree with everything you said, it's obvious that you have surrendered any attempt to govern your thoughts with any discipline. Don clearly is unable to answer any of your smarty-pants, doom and gloom questions and, further, clearly impervious to the sinister workings of logic and reason. No, what is needed to wrest Don's mind from the power of the dark side is loud enthusiasm for his causes followed by a confusing and opposing prescription. There, you see how effective that was?
This technique was put to inspired use by Don's hero, Ronald Reagan, the greatest human being who ever lived. He said, for example, that it was okay to cut down trees because they pollute. This is silly. Today everybody knows, as Don will surely agree, that trees protect us from terrorists and clearcutting is very foolish indeed. At first you will find that maintaining this confabulation between true insight and false explanation to be very tiring. But stick with it. It will prove effective in the end. How do I know? Because with your own eyes you saw thousands of innocent people die on 9/11 when terrorists attacked our country and our way of life and everything that we stand for.
I can respond as a reformed conservative (I was a heavily Christian right-wing boy until the end of college) but I want to take time and thought for a good response. It's late and I'm sleepy. I'll post my response tomorrow.
I will first respond with 2 general constructs which I have formulated and, therefore, love deeply. Then I will digress.
First, tolerance vs. acceptance. "Teach tolerance" is bullshit. Republicans and conservatives are more tolerant? 1) No, they aren't even tolerant. 2) How would you feel if you were standing next to your best friend and a black person (African-American if you will, though I would then prefer Black West African American because it's more accurate) and your best friend said "I tolerate black people." I think I would either shrivel up or smack my best friend. Who tolerates people? I might tolerate stupid behavior but not a creed, race, or religion. What I do is accept. For example, homosexuality. I don't tolerate it. No one is boinking me in the ass so I don't have anything to tolerate. But, homosexuality is a form of love. Love is good. Love can build a family. Build trust and community and stability. Two guys love each other. Great. That's acceptance. They want to bring each other to orgasm. How is that any worse than two really fat people having sex? Picturing either isn't really my cup of tea. But if either couple can promote affection by their relationships, not only more power to them but more power to all of us. I accept that some people are socially conservative. I accept that some people take off all their clothes, paint their bodies silver, and parade around on Ken Kesey's farm. Fine. I don't have to do it. I accept different beliefs, behaviors, and lifestyles.
The thing about the right wing is that tolerance is the best they can do. They don't accept what they won't do themselves and they want to legislate their social views. Drugs, art funding, birth control, religion. They don't appreciate humanity. They don't value diversity. They are not accepting. I tolerate pain. Right wingers see all disagreement with their views as painful and tolerate that pain, at best.
Second, I got so tired of the term Liberal Democrat (what the hell does that mean anyway?) so I decided to come up with a counterlabel. Reckless Republican. Republicans, let's face it, are reckless. Reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of others. Shoot first, don't even ask questions later. Look at Reckless Republican economic policy. Trickled on is more like it. Foreign, for lack of a better word, policy. Reckless disregard for the diverse views of the international community. Reckless disregard for children produced by unwanted pregnancies. Reckless disregard for the poor and the needy.
I will no longer say or write Republican save that I have qualified the title with "Reckless." Try it and you may like it too. Reckless Republican. Rolls off the tongue.
As for the artist from the Bronx, his arguments are classically illogical. He uses ad hominem arguments, emotional appeals, logical fallacy, generalizations, and outright lies. What, Israel never does anything wrong? Only Democrats make fun of Michael Jackson? Neil Goldschmidt is the only politician to ever commit sex crimes? Not just some Christians are great people, a lot of them are. That's probably why the bad ones stick out like sore thumbs. I seem to remember this one Christian who was really popular till he was shot. Oh yeah, Martin Luther King.
Henry Kissinger is a Jew, so was Einstein, so was Jack Ruby, and Jonas Salk. What does that mean? It means that characterizing any member of a group by the actions of another is bigotry or even, dare I say, intolerance. Maybe "artist in the bronx" doesn't deserve a response. Some times a dog is just so sick the best thing to do is shoot it. Wait until you get an argument from someone intelligent and well spoken, then respond.
I talk to a lot of caring, thoughtful people with everyday jobs and unspectacular lives. And, not surprisingly, they sometimes make comments reflective of poor thinking on a particular subject. They often sound like our "artist." But I can talk to them face to face and respond to their comments. And they'll listen to me because I'm right there to talk to AND they know me well enough and respect me enough to listen to me. 9 times out of 10, they'll back off their position and/or admit it's not quite on the money. You'll never get to "artist's" mind because he's attacking from his bunker and he doesn't really want a response any more than a soldier wants a response to the grenade he just threw at the enemy.
Finally, I'm from Queens and Queens is way better than the Bronx so hurray for Queens and a "Bronx cheer" for the Bronx.
Before anyone gets too confused, I agree with exactly what Kelly and Temple are saying -- we have to frame the argument and stop letting them do it. However, we also have to run some defense, Temple, and head off the lies before they spread. We can and must do both. I take offense to being called intolerant, especially when the purpose of that word politically and socially is being distorted. I'm I'm not pulling my punches anymore, and I'm starting with this guy.
i am not worthy of all this attention...
who hear the lies told by
chappaquiddick ted kenendy in the "bawstin" globe the other day
Post a Comment
<< Home