Of course. That is your considered opinion. I am just saying that you don’t have to call me a halfwit because I don’t agree.
Not only do I not change my position, I become less likely to do so. Personal attacks make me dig in, not reconsider my position.
While I don’t agree with the tactic it certainly has been successfully employed. But my point was more on the demonization of the followers of a candidate, not the candidate him/herself. If you tell me that Candidate X is the worst sort of philanthropist and was in fact once a practicing thespian, then perhaps I will reexamine my support of candidate X. But if you say that by supporting candidate Y it is clear that I have a mental or social disease, it will make me think that you are an inconsiderate putz and worst a vicious liar. The only people it seems this tactic might affect are people who vote based on what other people think of them. “Gee, I’d better not vote for Bush or people will think I’m an idiot.” Or, “Well, if I vote for Kerry people will obviously see me as a heartless commie”.
I find that the O.J. Simpson trial provides a handy-dandy analogy for a lot of siuations.
The people who thought O.J. was innocent:
A) Were stupid.
B) Demonized their opponents.
C) Were motivated in large part by a sense of shared identity.
D) Gave credence to a lot of ridiculous distortions and crackpot theories.
And yet they won!
The polls right now tell us that the election is 50/50. So about 50% (the side that disagrees with you) of the population right now is either deluded, stupid, or evil. Or perhaps they’re just people who have a different viewpoint.
Now me, I’d go with “different viewpoint.” Others, apparently, want to go with “deluded, stupid or evil.” For FIFTY PERCENT of the damned country.
Oh, sure, I know some of you are going to say, “They’re not all evil—some of them are misinformed!” Well, yeah, some of them. But that still leaves a lot of the country that are “deluded, stupid or evil.” That doesn’t wash with me.
yosemite, in this thread, you said
So, based on someone’s beliefs/actions, your estimation of them has been lowered “Big Time”. If they continue these actions or bring up even more extreme opinions, won’t your estimation of them be lowered even more?
Can’t this process continue for years and years, until you think very lowly of these people, until you think so lowly of them that you won’t pay attention to anything they say on anything?
Well, can’t you see that this can happen on the massive/national level? That is, one side is dumbfounded that the other can believe in such crap and its opinion of people on the other side is lowered. Then, the other side falls for some cheap rhetoric and fails to display any critical analysis of the propaganda it hears, and your opinion of them is lowered further. And if this continues for years and years, your opinion of the other side becomes so low you start questioning their intelligence or motives.
So, yosemite if your opinion of some posters can be lowered “Big Time” by some things they believe, why can’t this happen at a larger scale?
No, I certainly cannot. And wow—way to take my rather obvious points and twist them into something else entirely, huh?
I am absoutely dumbfounded that you could take my personal observation about the behavior of a group of individuals on a message board (and some I’ve met in real life) and somehow make that fit for FIFTY PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE NATION.
We’re not talking political opinions here, we’re talking about behavior and attitude. The shrieking, hysterical, “demonizing” behavior I’ve seen here from certain individuals has definitely been been enough for me to lose respect for them. It’s on an individual-by-individual basis.
However, if someone has a belief that I find off the wall, I can still have some respect for them if they don’t behave like a JACKASS about it. It’s the “jackass” part that’s losing my respect, not the particular political viewpoint.
If a whole lot of people have a viewpoint or political view that I find puzzling or bizarre (and more than a few do), I just shake my head and suspend my disbelief, but I don’t just automatically assume that they are all mentally ill or mind-numbingly stupid. It can’t possibly add up. I meet way too many people in my day-to-day activities, and I know for a fact that 50% of them are not mentally ill or so stupid. So, I just figure that something else is going on, some other factor, and I go on my merry way without getting all smug and making statements that basically mean: “FIFTY PERCENT of the entire country (which are almost all people I’ve never met) is stupid/evil/deluded because they don’t agree with me.” That’s just ludicrous.
FIFTY PERCENT of them? Half of them? Half of a very huge, very populated nation? Seriously? You know that they’re ALL stupid or evil? Really?
Could you give me a cite for this. My impression was that the 9/11 commission did not deal directly with this issue. And, I am pretty sure that the Senate or House investigation on the intelligence failure specifically put off addressing this issue until after the election.
Well, it was established well before Iraq that Bush was a liar. He has lied and misled as his major instrument of enacting policy. All politicians use spin and distortion, but Bush has taken it to new levels.
The question about whether he lied about Iraq or merely misled is one that people can debate, I suppose, depending on your definition of lying.
Little did I know when I posted that last night that this issue would become a top story today.
The quote you made is from Blix reviewing the historical record. In this latest round of inspections, Iraq was on the whole being quite cooperative. In fact, the main objections of any sort that the inspectors had was that there were some WMD materials still unaccounted for. However, we now know that these were in fact destroyed, and I don’t think anything has come to light disputing the Iraqi claims that they just didn’t keep good documentation of this destruction.
And, yes, it is true that the fact that the intelligence was total shit does not necessarily exclude the possibility that Iraq might still have WMD. However, it seems to me that it does sort of undermine the argument that we have any reason to know that he does and certainly undermines the argument that we can’t allow the inspections to continue to try to find out.
Well, this seems to be more idle speculation than anything else. And, what exactly does this show? We still know for a fact that the sites were not well-guarded and that looters were able to get in. Whether they were organized looters or disorganized looters seem to matter rather little.
No, it was from his statement to the UN security council on January 27th 20 some odd days before the article to which you linked. He made much the same point later in Feburary.
Well, yes relative to how they behaved before. The question as always is whether or not they were being cooperative enough to withdraw our troops from the area.
Well, there was also some note of the fact that Iraq was not being forth coming with documentation they did have before any such destruction.
I’m afraid you’ll have to cite this for me.
I agree entirely, except for the last sentence. However, we are still left with a value judgement regarding the justification for war. You can certainly say that you belive the war was unjustified. But it is not accurate or even helpful to suggest that those who disagree with you are halfwits. Which is all this thread is about.
For the record, I note that you have not done this to the best of my recollection.
It simply brings the looting into context. Remember, the time during which the buildings in question were not being guarded was still during and immediately after the shooting war. I’d venture to say that defending positions, searching for pockets of resistence, and several other activities took precidence over guarding ministerial papers. But even if they had not, the fact that such places were so thouroughly cleaned out to me (while certainly not proof) is definately indicative of an active cleaning before we even entered the city.
jshore I appreciate your passion on this issue. But I am not entirely sure what your point is in this thread. Are you trying to say that believing Bush, or agreeing with his policies is so agregiously unreasonable that it is, in fact, ok to call those who do halfwits? I’m certain you are not trying to say this. But unless you are, I am not sure what point you are trying to make in this thread.
Does anyone actually believe that 50% of the population are stupid or evil?
I was merely trying to point out that just as some behavior lowers your opinion of other people, some other behavior can lower the opinion of others about a large segment of the population. But, this can’t mean that they consider 50% of the population to be stupid or evil, because that wouldn’t make sense. Having a low opinion of someone does not necessarily mean that you think they are either stupid or evil (sorry if I didn’t make that clear last time)
In ancient Rome, a large percentage of the population attended gladiator fights in the Collisseum. I personally have a very low opinion of those who saw the murder of others as entertainment. I don’t care how many people did this. Even if it was all of Rome, I still have a very low opinion of them. Does that mean that all Romans were stupid or evil? No.
Also, for me, I don’t personally have a low opinion of all Bush supporters. Just the ones that believe all the crap without critical analysis of what they hear. There are a lot of people who support Bush because they have their well-thought-out reasons, and I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with, and a low opinion of, is people who believe “Kerry will come get my guns and sell the U.S. to the U.N” and other such crap. I don’t care how many people believe these things, I can’t respect anyone who holds these beliefs.
If you read some of these “demonizing” threads and posts by certain people, yeah. You are kind of left with that impression. Oh, perhaps not the entire 50%. Perhaps more like 25%. That’s still a pretty staggering amount of people that they’ve never met.
But that wasn’t my point. I was talking about 50% (or perhaps “only” 25%) of the population, and how some people are seriously demonizing (as in “stupid/deluded/evil”) that percentage of the country. That was my entire point.
Of course I can’t prove it, but I doubt that every single person who attended those fights “enjoyed” it so much. Also, one has to take into account their cultural upbringing, what they felt was “expected” or “normal” and so forth. I don’t have much knowledge of the culture of the indivduals of ancient Rome, but it seems doubtful that all of the people filling the stadium seats had quite the mind-set that you (or most of us) assume they did.
I know when it is from. But, the point is the context in which he was discussing what you quoted was clearly the context of previous inspection regimes not the current one.
Well, the cite for the idea that these weapons were apparently destroyed would be the Duelfer Report. And, as I said, I don’t recall hearing anything in that report or elsewhere that they had turned up documentation of this destruction that if only they had presented to the inspectors would have cleared everything up. If you feel you have heard such a thing, you are welcome to provide a cite.
We’re not talking about guarding “ministerial papers”. We are talking about guarding potential WMD sites. And, well, if you think anything takes precedence over this to the point where this is not done, I ask, then why did we invade Iraq? Didn’t it have something to do with keeping WMD materials out of the hands of terrorists? And, now you are trying to tell me I should not be concerned if we did not try to do this because other things take precedence?!?! Do you see the disconnect here?
I only came into this thread because I saw people spreading the same tired defenses in regards to the Iraq War that need to be rebutted wherever they appear. I don’t care what the original subject of this thread was. Once people started spreading these notions about the war then I felt it necessary to take a stand against that. Fighting ignorance is first and foremost what the StraightDope is all about.
My views on the original subject of the thread are close to those of Polerius. I do suppose that intelligent and informed people can still support Bush although it seems that a lot of them seem to be having to contort themselves a lot, and adopt a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, in order to do so. I honestly don’t envy those of you who seem to be so bent on defending this administration. It would be sort of like me trying to tell Hillary Clinton what a great and loyal husband Bill is.
And, at any rate, I would like to point out that there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. It is clearly true, as the recent PIPA poll showed, that a large proportion…in fact a majority…of Bush supporters seem to be ignorant of some very basic facts. That doesn’t necessarily make them stupid. It takes a lot of time and effort to wade through the propaganda of this administration that the “liberal media” seems to have aided more than helped to dispel. But it does show how Bush’s support would likely be a lot less than it is if such ignorance were not so widespread among a segment of the population that seems to support him quite strongly.
Well, it is certainly possible that I misunderstood. I quoted this:
I take the “not even today” aside to mean that Sadam’s intransigence is ongoing, “even today”. Am I wrong on that?
But that is exactly my question. As I recall, the Duelfer Report did not turn up those weapons nor good evidence that they had been destroyed. You said that “we now know that these were in fact destroyed”. We know that they are not existant and the most likely explanation is that they were either lost or destroyed just as Iraq had claimed. I’m not sure that the Duelfer Report says that the weapons were “in fact” destroyed. That’s why I questioned you.
Ok, my bad, I thought we were talking about evidence of WMD rather than actual weapons themselves. The sites in Bagdad which were looted were government buildings. I don’t remember too many military depots in those reports. Perhaps we switched contexts without me looking.
Fair enough.
Well, that’s fair too. I think the same thing of your side. 
Of course.
I’ve not gone over that poll. But just as a first pass, it seems unlikely that evidence of ignorance is evidence that ignorance is what the support is based on. One might be tempted to trot out all sorts of polls showing the belief in very odd things by any number of groups and say the same thing.
First, let me say this:
Whatever I am interested in is of vital importance, right now, and for the rest of eternity. Your interests, insofar as they differ from mine, are ugly, ignoble and evidence of your flawed character.
Second, that was a joke. I think the pro-Bush people may be going through mental contortions just the way I was when I supported Clinton. Yeah, he pissed me off to no end and really undercut almost every good thing he did, but I kept holding my nose and supporting him because in my mind, when I added up all the pluses and minuses, I wanted him in office more than I wanted Bush Sr. or Dole. So, let’s give people credit for some intelligence and assume that they’re conflicted about a lot of issues but just feel that Bush is a little better than Kerry. And there are almost exactly as many people who are ending up thinking that Kerry’s a better choice. I don’t think anyone’s really thrilled with their candidate. I know I’m not; but I had to choose one of them.
Third, I think the real message of Bowling for Columbine was not that guns were bad, but that a culture so focused on fear and violence was apt to live in fear. And I blame the existence of 24-hour news networks (and the people such as myself who watch them). They don’t have anything interesting to say, so they make the divisions seem larger and more interesting. Two boring guys disagree about subtle macroeconomic approaches -> Boring. But wait! Taking one of their arguments out of context and bringing it to its extreme results in, "Medicare benefits cut! Seniors out on the street! What you need to know at the top of the hour!"
Now, on top of the fake divisions, there’s a war going on at election time (which hasn’t happened in 32 years), and there have been bad feelings festering for four years because of the unusual way the current president was chosen. So people are going all non-linear at the drop of a hat (or a commercial with wolves or ostriches). I personally know one person who’s cut off one of his friends because of their intended vote; it’s sick. Neither of the candidates is worthy of that reaction.
Okay; shot my wad. I’ll get off the soapbox now.
I’d like to suggest that this is most probably quite accurate.
I come to the whole vitriol issue from having spent quite a lot of time on the opposite side as you regarding Clinton. I was very quick to believe all sorts of things which now seem blatently silly.
The problem with the vitriol is that it becomes more important than the issues. The demonization allows one to see the other side as not worthy of listening to, and it allows one to see one’s own argument as not needing much research. A brief article in a newspaper is enough to confirm one’s suspicions. Never mind that the article is based on anonymous sources, contians a very small quote out of context, or perhaps is even based on incorrect information. It is simply not necessary to look further into one’s own evidence because the opposition are idiots anyway.
Well said that.
I think you should read the PIPA report. Its very interesting. You’ll find it shows a majority of Bush voters polled are ignorant about a lot of the undisputed facts about the Iraq war. Its a fine line between ignorant and stupid.
Yeah, maybe they’re just ignorant about important stuff like wars.
I think the Bush administration did everything they could not to lie… but they got so close so many times. Exagerating AQ-Saddam ties, inflating WMD production capabilities, cherry picking intel, etc… Also to say that everyone thought WMD existed is a half truth… no one thought those WMD were a threat. Its WWI vintage stuff… and can be produced elsewhere.
For example “Brazil has significant ability to produce WMD” is correct. Given a few years and wasting a lot of money we could in fact have nukes and chemical weapons… but yet we aren’t a threat to Bush. Practical no ?
So its easier just to say Bush lied… though “technically” its not accurate.
As for attacking the intelligence of Bushites… its hard not to overdo it. I’ve just read in Orkut an american saying that Kerry wants to slowly in his 2 terms and 2 terms by Edwards bring a socialist reform of the USA. Huh !? How do you debate with that ? Lula is a “socialist” and hasn’t made socialist reforms ! Imagine an american president with a republican congress ! I’d love to debate at some level with them… but so many are into wierdo notions…
The election is a week from today. The demonization will die down after that.
If Kerry wins.
Regards,
Shodan
Sometimes you don’t need to demonize the opposition… they do it for you. shrug
And just how many wars did Clinton, Hillary, Gore, Edwards, Albright, Kerry, and Tenet start in Iraq? Zero? It’s one thing to believe the WMDs existed. It’s quite another to start a war over it. We had inspectors on the ground and a no-fly zone in the air. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. Even if you believed WMDs existed, the proper course of action was to let the inspectors do their job.
I made this point elsewhere and Shodan ignored it, so i’ll say it again.
Everyone believed Saddam had something up his sleeve, some cache of weapons that he was hiding. Why else would he antagonize the UN and the US? You can’t say that Clinton didn’t think Saddam was hiding weapons–he said so, as did every Republican and Democrat who was involved with the Iraq situation.
But Bush didn’t say that he had suspicions that Saddam had WMDs–he said that he had proof. Bush sent Colin Powell to the UN with photos of what were ostensibly mobile chemical weapins labs and itemized lists of chemical and biological weapons that Bush said that he ** absolutely knew** Saddam had. Bush said that Saddam had bought uranium ore from Niger to use in an accelerated nuclear weapons prgram that Bush claimed was an imminent threat to the US. Bush claimed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and that an Iraqi official had met with Mohammed Atta in German, establishing a link between Saddam and 9/11
Bush lied. All the proof that he said he had was lies and deliberate fraud in order to goad the US into war with Iraq to oust Saddam.
But even then I wouldn’t be so mad. Although the US prides itself on nevr starting wars, to eliminate a tyrant like Saddam would be worth a small stain on our honor. Surely we would go into Iraq with a sufficient force to maintain law and order, help the Iraqis establish an interim government and show the populace the benefits of an alliance with the US?
But no, Bremer’s CPA set a record for incompetence , wasting time on minutiae like tariffs while ignoring the real problems besetting the Iraqis, like unemployment, broken infrastructure.
For all these reasons, Bush has show that he is unfit to hold another term as president.