Yes. I agree with you.
Bleeding-heart liberal checking in to agree with you. It’s why I’ll read “Prickly City” while ignoring that asinine duck.
This is wrong. Oakminster gave us this thoughts. And then found support for them in the dictionary. You have the sequence of events reversed.
Except that sanctioning people with which you hold differing opinions in these manners:
goes well beyond anything that could be charitably called “vigorous disagreement.” Your proposition for dealing with those folks is removal of first amendment rights. Sounds remarkably like extreme intolerance to me.
It’s not about the fucking cartoon. If all the OP did was rant about the cartoon, I wouldn’t have posted anything. He made a bigoted statement, and pretty much called for most conservatives to be sent to what sounds very much like concentration camps. I called him on it. Simple as that.
I do take great amusement in how certain posters are jumping through hoops trying to defend the OP. Also find it interesting how so many seem to assume I’m a conservative. Have you read my other postings here? I haven’t really taken very many conservative positions. I’ve got a thread in Great Debates questioning what “conservative” means. Got another in the same forum defending an art teacher who may lose her teaching certification for posing for nude pictures. I’ve also questioned the justification for invading Iraq, and called George W. Bush the Antichrist.
I call em as I see em. In the OP’s overly broad and unsupportable statement, I see a bigot.
Perhaps then you shouldn’t have implied in posts #11 and #14, for example, that you would engage in such a debate if you felt it would be fruitful. If your intention was solely to call out a flaw in the OP, you shouldn’t have suggested otherwise. Now it appears that you are unable to respond to the issues and are merely trying to dance your way out of a debate.
Isn’t it a bit like “stop digging” when you realize you’re in a pretty big hole? Perhaps the first step would be to understand what Al Gore’s position really is, rather than reading a comic strip and thinking you know. Check out http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/ to see what he does suggest.
However, what would you suggest would be the problem if millions of people became carbon neutral? Are you saying that if we can’t have millions be “carbon negative” we shouldn’t do anything at all?
I, for one, was just trying to defend a perfectly good word from being twisted into uselessness by applying it to circumstances in which is simply doesn’t belong. Calling someone a “bigot” for making fun of a political opinion is just stupid, and trivializes all the instances of real bigotry out there.
What does being “carbon negative” look like anyway? Is there really such a thing?
It’s a comic strip. It’s not meant to accurately represent and analyze the merits and problems of Gore’s position. You realize that, right?
And I have no idea what would happen if millions of people became carbon neutral. Global warming is something I have no real knowledge of and I don’t care much about. I was just trying to explain what the strip was trying to say.
Okay. What word would you suggest Oakminster use in place of bigot? 'Cuz all the elements necessary to bigotry seem to be explict in the OP. I think you’re just objecting to the dilution of the concept of bigotry that’s inherent in applying it over a political opinion - and probably rightfully so. I can get behind that if there’s a more precise term, or concept, which applies here.
“Stupid” is perfectly acceptable, I think.
My problem with using “bigotry” in this context is that it implies that one cannot legitimatly criticize a political philosophy at all. “All conservatives are war-mongering idiots,” is a dumb, inaccurate, over-generalization, but there are legitimate criticisms one could make about conservatism as a whole. Such criticisms are not possible for subjects that are traditionally associated with being the target of “bigotry,” such as race, gender, nationality, or (to a somewhat lesser extent) religion. There are good reasons to think that conservatism, as a political philosophy, is a bad idea. (The same, naturally, applies to liberalism, or any other point on the political compass.) One can express that in rational terms, or excessive, inflammatory terms, but the basic idea in both cases is that being conservative is a valid characteristic to criticize. There are no rational reasons to think that “being black” is a bad idea. It’s not a concept that is possible to express in terms that aren’t inflammatory.
I mean, going by the strict dictionary definition, if I say, “I hate the new Star Wars movies and anyone who likes them is an idiot,” I’m being a bigot. But using the word that puts someone whining about a movie with laser swords on the same moral plane as membership in the Klan is frankly ridiculous.
And, because I just can’t let things like this go, I’d still like to hear Oakminster explain how “conservatism” isn’t an opinion.
I, for one, welcome our new silicon-based overlords.
What he said.
That’s an excellent and eloquent summation of the point. And I think this is something that conservatives who make the same claim that Oakminster is making recognize - they’re using a term, “bigotry”, that normally refers to absolutely illegitimate “criticism” and attempted to carry that connotation over to attach it to criticism on inherently legitimate grounds. It’s not just that it dilutes the term - it’s that the use of the term is a deliberate attempt to attach a negative connotation to criticism of conservatism, a connotation that is logically nonsensical in that new context.
It’s not to say that I agree with Brain Wreck’s statement. It’s just that it’s nothing akin to “bigotry”, and calling it that strikes me as a very deliberate falsehood.
I agree with your second paragraph - which I’ve not quoted. And perhaps “stupid,” would be acceptable. But only if the OP had stopped with a mere criticism. He went much farther. He advocated sequestering the great mass of conservatives; removing them from society. He also advocated removal of their right to free speech. Idiotic and stupid would be pretty good descriptors of the ideas in the comic. But there’s more than that to the OP; a lot more. And I think it is that, which was rightly castigated by Oakminster.
I don’t think he was seriously proposing either of those activities. Struck me more as being in the vein of hyperbole, and ont a legitimate public policy proposal. But even if he were using it as a campaign platform, I’d still hesitate from calling it bigotry. A dictator who quashes free speech and imprisons his political adversaries to solidate his own power can be called any number of things, but bigoted is not necessarily one of them. He’d be doing bad things, certainly, and bigotry is a bad thing, but not all bad things are bigotry, and bigotry is not all bad things.
“He advocated”, my ass. I just provided my immediate gut reaction. I did say it was a gut reaction. I did put it in disclamatory language. I did think there would be one or two morons who would misinterpret it even after that. And hey, there you are.
It kind of scares me that anything that isn’t in lockstep with the Bush administration gets perceived a moderate. But any strip that conflates gay marriage with bestiality is pretty far to the right.
I hope pit bulls rape your mother.
But, hey, that’s just a gut reaction. Hope you don’t misinterpret it.
Here’s me giving a shit: :rolleyes:
See? It’s the priniciple of perspective and reading comprehension, applied for your edification. Try to learn from it.
Pit bulls can’t commit rape, dumb-ass! Just like they can’t get involved in insider trading. Because they’re fucking dogs. Try to think before you post. There’s a lad.
Although I’m no expert, it seems unlikely that someone could be “carbon negative.” I put that out there to ask, if it is bad to be “carbon neutral,” what would be the alternatives. I would imagine that in reality, one may be carbon neutral or may contribute some net positive amount of polution. I still can’t fathom what problem the strip, Captain America, Oakminster or anyone else would have with attempts to be carbon neutral.
It reminds me a little of the conservatives attempts to mock Gore a few years back when he said something about the internal combustion engine being inefficient. Isn’t it a no-brainer that (a) the internal combustion engine isn’t maximally efficient? It generates a relatively large amount of undesired heat, no?
and (b) We would benefit greatly from any technological improvements to this type of engine or some replacement?
Yet the conservatives thought this was another statement worthy of mockery, and did seem to get some traction from it at the time.
Bigotry or no, conservatives come up with some seriously stupid shit on a regular basis.
we could benefit from any improvements to the efficiency of the internal combusion engine