**Washoe **, you still give yourself *far *too much credit. You may think you have a good heart (most do) but the idea that anyone criticising you ought approach with deference is pathetic.
{{{{{group bear hug}}}}}
Exactly.
OK, now I think I get what y’all are saying. I made an irrational emotional outburst based on at least one erroneous statement of fact, and coupled it with an unnecessary personal attack on a person who at some point in time made a statement of fact which I believed was not true. Additionally, the statement that person made was only tangentially related to the issue, not directly related to it. What I did was something like this:
Let’s say I was watching Richard Gere being interviewed on a morning talk show on September 11, 2001. Mr. Gere makes a comment such as “it’s my understanding that Osama bin Laden is thought to be behind the events which occurred in New York this morning, but that has not been confirmed at this point.” I immediately get on an Internet message board and respond with “goddammit, you gerbil-felching Islamic pervert, hundreds of thousands of people died this morning when those three airplanes flew into the Sears Tower! How can you possibly say that OBL isn’t responsible?” Is that a pretty appropriate comparison to what I said? If it is, then what I said about Palin was pretty retarded.
Well it is not quite that bad and Richard Gere never did anything to deserve such derision other than be a bad actor. He never promoted an energy policy of Drill, Drill, Drill! while running for VP. But yes, you did something along those lines except at least Palin is part of the problem.
Good Luck,
Jim
Yup.
And with respect to tone… this message lacks any of the underlying “but I’m really right” that characterized earlier posts.
There’s no poster of any long standing here that hasn’t stepped in a mess of his or her own making, be it big or small. Being able to honestly mea culpa is of great value in such circumstances; thanks for doing that.
shrug when you demonstrate that Bob says one thing and Rob does something different, only a fool thinks it proves a case of hypocrisy. Intelligent people know it means that Bob and Rob are not 100% identical in each respect. Which one are you?
Find one person decrying the use of cunt as degrading, then go find that same person using the word cunt, and get back to us. Until you can do that, you’re just blowing the same old weak right-winger manufactured outrage. I hope you guys keep trying to use it as a substitute for actual ideas and policy in the next election too.
I agree with you, but we got past this a few days back. **FinnAgain **convinced **Starving Artist ** of the errors of his ways and I made the point you did earlier.
Polar bears have practiced cannibalism in the past. The stalking & hunting is new to me, though.
I absolutely hate the word cunt and I would be very happy if I never saw it in print or heard it spoken aloud again. I would be overjoyed if the use of that word would be banned forever on the SDMB.
Other than that, I’ve got nothing.
Curious, if you are serious, why did you just use it? I have avoided using it and unlike you apparently I don’t care to restrict others from using the word. If you are serious then that was a very strange post to me.
Well, sort of. And he does raise good points. The problem is that the response would be lengthy and convoluted, and after being away from the thread for a few days my commitment to wading through it has lessened.
However, I must point out that the behavior FinnAgain mentioned and that Cosmic Relief has just reiterated is quite commonplace among the board’s liberals, themselves. How often around here are the country’s conservatives and Republicans (and/or Christians) portrayed as being in lockstep with Rush Limbaugh and/or this or that errant or hypocritical politician or religious leader? A point I was going to make to Finn in this regard is that it’s obvious to everyone where Fox and conservative radio is coming from, and really those are the only outlets in which the right has a voice. The liberal message however, has been coming across for decades via the news and news magazines, prime time television programming (primarily sitcoms, in which any conservative is invariably portrayed as a dolt going all the way back to All In The Family), late night talk show hosts, entertainment magazines, celebrity comments and/or speeches), etc., etc. Since these messages appear to be of one mind, it’s easy to feel that they constitute the feelings of most of the country’s liberals in general.
So in other words, while the conservative message comes from a clear and well-defined corporate source with obvious intent, the liberal message appears to come directly from the populace at large. So while Finn is correct in that this or that liberal poster may be as unlikely to follow what appears to be the liberal line as is a conservative to follow the line put forth by Limbaugh, Fox, etc., the public impression created over the last forty years is that liberalism is pretty much of the same mind.
Further, and like I’ve said before, liberal/conservative generalities are necessary in order to have any kind of conversation. This board is full of broad-brush generalities about conservatives and it is rare indeed that anyone around here says anything about it. Regretfully, I came to a parting of the ways with EddyTeddyFreddy over this very issue. She began to take offense at my criticism of liberals in general and seemed to feel I should phrase things in such a way as to exempt her, yet she herself never uttered a peep that I ever saw toward any broad-brush criticism or characterization of conservatives…even going so far on occasion to post ‘hell, yeah’ types of comments in response to them.
So in other words, to a certain extent what’s good for the goose is good for the gander and I don’t think it’s anymore unreasonable for me to speak in generalities about liberal ideology than it is for so many of the liberal posters around here to speak in general terms regarding conservative ideology.
(And like I said above, these generalities are necessary in order to have a dialog at all. How could anyone ever complain about or challenge (or promote, for that matter) anything about liberal/conservative ideology if they always had to limit their comments to what some specific person has said or done? It’s totally unworkable.)
So unfortunately, I’ve pretty much come back to where I started. Liberals here are gonna claim hypocrisy when conservatives (government entities or politicians usually) don’t act in the way conservatism is thought to espouse, and I am likely to continue to claim hypocrisy when liberals don’t behave in the way all the public messages they’ve been putting out the last forty years have appeared to be telling us on the right how we should behave.
In closing, I have respect for you Finn and I’m sorry that I haven’t been able to change my view much here, but I just don’t see much in the way of a workable alternative.
How else would I have identified a word I hate had I not used it? I did italicize and bold it; I would have thought that would have been sufficient. Your post is even more strange to me. But I need to have the last word so don’t worry about it.
OK, I see your point and it is partially true but I see several holes in it to. To start with on All in the Family, Meathead might have been a collage smart liberal but a good chunk of the time he was shown to be as pigheaded and foolish as Archie. Now Archie was a bigot to boot but saying he was suppose to represent conservatives is pushing the point a bit and I doubt Meathead was the shining example that Liberal would have wanted. He started as literally a dirty hippy and progressed to someone that abandoned his wife and young child I believe for a student. Archie was an old fashion blue-collar worker that happened to lean conservative. I don’t think he was meant to be an example of conservatives but of bigots and old school sexists. I know you don’t mean to say that that is conservatism. So I don’t think Archie is a great example of conservatives being put upon.
As to Late Night talk show hosts, Letterman seems to lean a little left but is happy to skewer left or right and Leno leans right and is happy to lightly mock left or right. I think it is only SNL and The Daily Show/Colbert Report that really skew left. Carson sure as hell did not.
I guess MAS*H skewed anti-war but yet they made Charles the smartest person on the show which should have made up for Frank being the dumbest. Potter and Father Mulcahy were basically smart, honest, worthy of looking up to conservative characters.
I think most Sitcoms did not really lean left in obvious ways. Maude would probably be your best example. Much more so than All in the Family.
It’s amazing to me how liberals have so persecuted conservatives that conservative voices, why, they’re never heard anywhere. It’s been decades since a single conservative was seen on the street, and that was just a brief glimpse of a furtive form slinking from the now-moribund KofC.
Snopes has a whole page on whether conservatives really exist or are only urban legends. Rosie O’Donnell, Anti-Conservative Tsar for the Jane Fonda administration, says they really exist and are a terrible threat. She’s considering an orange alert to go into effect right before the Winter Solstice Funday.
S’okay, the ineluctable modality of my awesomeness is enough to comfort me 
However, let me suggest a workable alternative to your views.
On that front, you are correct. Go after hypocritical and/or bigoted people on this board to your heart’s content. I just got done (a day or two ago) flaming some idiot bigot who claimed that conservatives were “evil”. I’d do the same for someone who said the same thing about liberals. Or gays. Or straights. Or whites. Or blacks. Or…
But that’s the same logical problem as I pointed out earlier, it’s the fallacy of division. Simply for the record, I’d disagree that all those messages are coherent and without contradiction or significant divergence, but simply for the sake of argument let’s say that the Liberal Media Tzar personally ordered the content of each and every newspaper, TV show, movie, etc…
That still wouldn’t mean that people who self-identified as liberal actually subscribed to all, let alone most, of those Liberal Media beliefs. Remember, after all, that the average liberal-on-the-street is not part of the LM, nor do they directly influence the LM, nor do they have any option for redress of grievances against a message they feel doesn’t represent them other than, well, other than changing the channel (or booing in a movie theater if they’re rude bastards, I guess).
While it may be easy to ‘feel’ that the LM accurately reflects the feelings of the country’s liberals, you’d have to have actual scientific data in the form of a valid statistical study to conclude that. All you could conclude, given your premises, is that there exists general consensus amongst the LM, but you have no evidence that such a consensus exists amongst those who the LM might claim to represent.
“Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein.
Those sort of broad brush generalizations are probably much less helpful than harmful in many of the situations they’re employed. Due to the nature of the human mind, their habitual use also has an impact on perceptual and analytical patterns in those who use them.
If you don’t believe me, try the experiment in the comfort of your own nervous system. Start referring, for example to “self identified liberals who oppose the 2nd amendment and support abortion” and “self identified liberals who are life-long NRA members and support abortion” and “self identified liberals who are life-long NRA members and who oppose abortion on religious grounds” and…
Hell, even habitually adding “Some but not all” as a prefix to generalizations should have tangible cognitive/perceptual results.
Honestly, if after a month or so of regular use of language like that, you can report back that you’ve had no cognitive/perceptual shifts at all, I’ll eat my hat. Well, not my hat, but maybe some beef jerky that’s a bit too tough.
Deal? 
I know I already addressed this, but it’s important so I’ll do it again. In a nutshell: you are absolutely right, and it’s absolutely disgusting. We have a high percentage of out-and-out bigots who spew their hatred at Official SDMB Targets, be they conservatives or religious people or gun owners what have you.
It’s a rancid form of behavior and a bigoted form of thought and it deserves absolutely no quarter. It’s also an easy trap to fall into and I’m sure that, somewhere or another, I may be guilty of it myself. And I hope that if I am, someone has the guts to point it out to me so I can (hopefully) apologize and do some soul searching.
Well, other than that’s a tu quoque fallacy and, of course, you’re admittedly lowering yourself to a level you find objectionable and distasteful. You also then pretty much lose the ability to complain about other folks doing it.
Honestly, I can understand how pointing out hypocrisy is valuable. I can even understand how taking an opponent’s post and changing the word “conservative” to “liberal” can help demonstrate their bias and bigotry. But the action of descending to that level just means that, well, now you’re at that level!
If you really want to be a powerful example against the tide of bigoted filth, serve as an exemplar and an object lesson of how to conduct a political discussion without needing to use Us-Them bullshit bigotry. Otherwise, you’re reinforcing that pattern, not opposing it.
You sure? 
“I disagree with the view that the 2nd Amendment is valid in our day and age and believe strongly that we should begin a drive to add a new amendment to the Constitution which would nullify the 2nd. Candidates X and Y for Senate positions in my state support this position and I’d advise voters to support those candidates.”
“I agree with the belief that certain forms of insults and terminology can be sexist and offensive, and we should all do our best to avoid such uses so as to achieve a more harmonious society. Pundits Y and Z oppose this position and I’d advise listeners to write angry letters to their sponsors demanding that they stop advertising with them.”
“I believe that the federal (and state) government has no right to regulate what chemicals an adult does or does not put into their own body, as long as they harm nobody else in the process or aftermath. If someone wants to shoot heroin in the privacy or their own home and doesn’t get behind the wheel, it’s no more my business than if they want to eat McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The proposed laws B and C contradict this position, and I believe all Americans should write to their elected officials and urge them to vote “NO” on B and C.”
I come at this as someone who is neither a liberal, nor a conservative, but who agrees with some bits of both ‘groups’. I find that actually talking about the issues rather than reified generalizations helps. Immensely.
/$.02
I absolutely love the word ***cunt ***and I would be very happy if it ceased to be treated as extremely obscene, & we could speak it aloud again. I also like the monosyllabic character of dyke for female homosexuals, even though I know of at least two homophones for it, which is awkward.
[/hijack]
Nitpick: This was never part of the All in the Family storyline; it was planted in the exposition for the single-season spinoff series Gloria, to explain why the actor who had played Meathead didn’t appear in that series.
washoe: Might I suggest a very important, and helpful thing I have learned?
Apologies need to be short. Whenever an apology runs over two or at most three sentences, it is going to be perceived as rationalization, justification, or blame-shifting. And it not only perceived that way; it usually is.
“I was wrong and I’m sorry,” is a good place to start; it’s also a good place to stop.
YMMV
That’s not what I was complaining about. It is more or less fair to assume if someone says they’re liberal or conservative, you may hold certain assumptions in mind concerning their beliefs. Indeed, any conversation depends upon these assumptions, otherwise would have to submit a stack of position papers prior to any conversation.
My complaint is what (to me) seems like an exasperatingly common right-wing tactic. You engage a liberal, having some pre-existing assumption about them, and identify some belief or action that is inconsistent with the assumption. At that point, rather than discarding the assumption as incorrect or inapplicable in this specific case, you label that individual as a hypocrite for failing to comply with your assumptions, and then generalize that individual’s actions to all liberals as hypocrites. It’s wrong and it’s stupid.
At this point I’d expect you to come back with yet another tu quoque about “but liberals do this all the time”, and it’s at this point I have to call Bull. Shit. I’m not accepting your mythical liberal. I have seen liberals talk about individual conservatives in public positions proclaiming one moral belief and then acting out another, and asking how you can seriously believe that person’s sincerity (Larry Craig in the bathroom stall, Rush Limbaugh and his drug habit; for the sake of brevity I’ll keep it to them). I have seen people go after individual conservatives who themselves espouse directly conflicting opinion. This is fair and legitimate. It is not extrapolating one random individual’s (perceived) shortcoming and generalizing it to the entire group.
There’s also the bizarre notion that apparently bad behavior becomes legitimized in your mind if it’s done by people you disagree with. Since liberals are so wrong and you disagree with them so much, it’s OK to do the bad things you accuse them of. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Anything is easy to feel if you don’t think about it very much.
That public impression is actually something that has been intentionally constructed by conservative pundits to give people like you a unified target at which to direct your ire. It is also false.
Again, wrong. We’ll continue to claim hypocrisy hypocrisy when we see a person acting in a manner inconsistent from something he/she actually said. You will continue to claim hypocrisy when you see a person acting in a manner inconsistent with what some other unrelated person said. You will very likely continue not to understand the difference and rely on the defense of “everybody else does it”. Such is life.