It would be a hijack to post this there, so here’s a new thread. I’m more than a little tired of these conservative attempts at exposing all liberals for hypocrites by extremely disingenious generalizations of their philosophies and willfull misapplication of those generalizations to specific circumstances. These can all be reduced to the form, “You liberals are supposed to be ______, but you ______.”
Take, for example, SA’s statement here:
Many liberals argue for LEGAL and SOCIAL equality. None to my knowledge has argued that we are “all equal in terms of intelligence and ability.”
Another argument I often hear is that “liberals are supposed to be so tolerant, but they don’t tolerate [some kind of hateful/oppressive/stupid ideology].” Liberals argue for various kinds of tolerance, it’s true, but nobody to my knowledge has argued for moral and political ambivilence, which is what you’re really talking about. Conservatives want us to prove our tolerance by being uncritical of fatheadedness and evilness. But tolerance and ambivilence are not the same thing.
Then there’s the argument Michael Moore (or Soros, or some other wealthy liberal) is, in fact, wealthy, and that this somehow undermines their position. Liberals may support social equity. Certainly they oppose economic oppression. But many of us, me included, are basically capitalists. We got nothing against wealth, just against privilege.
We are liberals. We have an ideology of social and economic justice, but we give no pretense to being ascetic egalitarians possessed of Christlike love and understanding. Please knock it off with the exaggerated ideals we’re supposed to live up to just so you can prove we don’t live up to them.
Sorry about the missunderstanding. I thought you were complaining the OP was making straw men.
I think I’ll go back to GQ and GD it’s too complicated for me down here in the pit
Amen, cricetus! I couldn’t agree more. Especially the “so much for tolerance… :rolleyes:” in response to liberal criticism of, well, anything really. Makes me want to drive a fork through someone’s forehead. (How’s that for tolerance?)
To be fair, SA is one of the worst of our resident right-wingers about this. He regularly spews statements that can be grouped and paraphrased as, “I will imagine you engaging in some negative behavior, and then condemn you for it.” I’m not sure it’s fair to use him as a bad example with which to tarnish the rest of them.
Well, to be Devil’s Advocate here (or at least a minor demon’s advocate, in the case of SA), this is pretty strawmanesque.
The usual argument one hears is not that it is impermissable to critique “hateful” views, but that it is less than tolerant to refuse to allow them to be heard or to punish the holders of said views beyond criticism, ostracism or loud guffaws.
Of course, when the supposed champions of tolerance are people like David Horowitz, it is possible to get really really confused.
Remember? Harvard President? Controversial/dumb remarks on women in science?
Seems to be a fair sentiment among the faculty to boot him out, judging by the recent no-confidence vote. The argument could be made that that goes beyond “tolerance”.
And it is being made by various right-wing columnists who have adopted Summers as a sort of poster child.
OK. I thought you (or someone) would mention hate crimes, which is intolerance for mild form of terrorism. But the Harvard thing is a good example, since there was a pretty reactive treatment of some casual out-the-ass comments.
That’s fine, as long as it goes both ways. Which means Ward Churchill gets a pass too. Frankly, both of them said ridiculous things that embarrassed their universities. I don’t think either school should be forced to appear to condone their idiotic views. But one happens to say something that comes close to a conservative pet issue, and the other sounds like Noam Chomsky got drunk on cheap wine. Why should anyone get a pass on saying stupid things? And why does that only seem to apply when they say stupid things that Ann Coulter agrees with?
To return to the OP for a moment, he’s right: this tactic is ubiquitous and very, very tiresome. On another board I regularly communicate with someone who seems to lack the brainpower to make up an reply that doesnt’ so “If Liberals are so ______, how come nobody is/what about ______?” It’s not even an argument, it’s a distraction.
cricetus, your OP expresses a gripe that I have about some conservative posters when you say:
The quote from Starving Artist does, at first, appear to be a generalization of liberal philosophy – and not a particularly carefully worded one. (Sometimes that is a sign of a state of pissedness.) But I don’t think that his generalization was disingenious. Although SA and I frequently disagree on political issues, there is no doubt in my mind that he does see liberal philosophy as being one of compassion and a vision of equality and does not understand what he interprets to be lapses in this compassion.
Starving Artist, if I have misrepresented your viewpoint, just tell me to fork off.
“To be fair…I’m not sure it’s fair.” Now which is it, Cervaise? Anyway, let’s tarnish all of them. I’m in!
No, you are quite right. I would add though that to me liberal lapses in things they’ve always championed such as compassion, fairness, equality, and tolerance are not only things I don’t understand, but things which smack of hypocrisy. Yet in this thread and the one that spawned it, the attitude of the liberal contingent when confronted with these lapses seems to be “Yeah, what of it?”
This is one [of the many] reasons I think so highly of you. You work to have an open mind; you work to be fair; you work to see the other side; and you work to avoid stereotypes.
For this and innumerable other reasons, you da bomb!
(I’m sure I will be in for lots of criticism over what may or may not be perceived as my deficiencies in these same areas, but I wanted to go on record as to just a few of the reasons why I think so highly of you. You work to “walk the talk,” so to speak, moreso than anybody on these boards that I can think of. My regard for you is immense.)
See, I think there’s a big difference between Churchill and Summers. Summers is the head of the uni. He’s a dolt, but he’s a dolt who can affect the female student population. HE’s got a lot more power than Churchill, even if he is just as clueless.
My favorite thing about conservatives is that in many arguments, they bring up Teddy Kennedy. “Well, at least my guy didn’t kill somebody.” Yeah, so it’s okay for a conservative to do anything up to murder and they get a pass? Yeah, morals and all that. Nope, it’s what you can get away with.
