Moonbeam, loving Budmanton and telling him that his allegation that Obama supppoters hate America is idiocy are not mutuall exclusive.
You equate the right assaulting the left and the left assaulting the right. Sometimes you're right, as when two gangs attack each other, and sometimes now, as in police vs. criminals.
You said the only problem involves love, and I have to disagree Around the same time that the Beatles expressed your view, 'All you need is love', John Kennedy was the left assaulting the right with his great speech to those in America who opposed his policies to change the laws alllowing rtacial diiscrimination. There was some commonality betwen their purposes, but without his efforts, the Beatles' lone claim would have done little to alleviate the problem and suffering of the targets of hate.
You can try to say his efforts were covered by their song just as you can try to say that my effort with Budmanton is covered by your prescription for more love, but you would continue to watch the song played in white-only restaurants and you would continue to see you posting your prescription in a nation run by the next George Bush.
You refer to my post as name-calling, and I disagree. IMO, name-calling is the generic name, or excessive pejorative - calling someone a 'jer' or worse, or the excess such as 'their post could better be written by a monkey' and such (if that's not the case). But my post IMO is akin to standing in a room of slavery supporters in Georgia 1850 and saying "you are all causing evil". It might be shocking, but it's the truth, and it's what's needed to say what needs to be said. It might do no good, but what would?
Oh, telling them stories to make them recognize their shared humanity with the slaves, and to broaden their love to include them and realize the harm?
Well, that would be nice if it worked. What if it doesn't? Is the statement that they are doing evil wrong? What if that helps them see the problem better? Why not both?
I've had too many conversations with people who don't care' about the injustice, and I recognize how often our power systems, just as with slsavery in 1850, allow the injustices to continue and for the perpetarators to continue it,, not to recognize that it can be difficult to get people to see a problem,a nd sometimes 'shocking' language, such as describing their position as evil or idiotic, might help to break through the blinders they are wearing, wherese lesser commentary serves a sort of 'enabling' role, pretending that there are just two points of view each legitimate, which leads to such positions as "you don't like slavery, so don't own any, but I do so I will, and we should not force our views on each other'; or 'you don't think Obama supporters hate America an I do, and those are each two equally valid points of view, as I contonue to vote for the next George Bush on that basis, and to publically express my view to try to convince others that Obama supporters hate America'.
John Kennedy's message was clear that the racism was wrong. He did not say the whoie issue was love, because while that may well have been a cause, many were not able to hear it or happy to love black peop;e from far away, 'separate but equal'. He did not refer to their view as being 'equally valid', but he rather called it, in effect, evil. Sometimes it was helpful to use softer words - 'a moral issue as old as the bible', and other times to use blunter words 'bigot' and 'racist'.
You may be right that calling idiocy idiocy is too blunt, and by vorollary that calling bigotry bigotry is too blnt, but I'm not yet convinced of that as much as I am that more is needed.
You say what you think is true (I presume), and I do the same. We're no more at odds than the Beatles preaching love and JFK preaching love another way.
I too am preaching love by opposing the blind hate of Budmanton's false claim about Obama supporters. That is not about a lack of love for him, but a lack of love by him.
As I look at your post, I have to ask, based on its wording, if you mistook the blunt language for 'name-calling', i.e., simply attacking Budmanton as an 'enemy.
I can easily understood how you could see it that way, but think it's an error. It's not unlike when I use the word "bigot" carefully, but some think it's "name-calling". Bigotry and idiotic views are real things that are real problems (i've been guilty of both at some point and can better recognize them for it), and I've yet to see the ideal cure for either, only attempts to cure them, that sometimes work.
IMO, sometimes love for Budmanton may inspire helping him with the comment that a view he holds is idiotic, to try to get him to recognize that. And love for those his vote hurts can further inspire the effort to challenge his behavior and the view that inspires his behavior.
Perhaps our issue has three questions:
1. Do we agree that Budmanton's view that Obama supporters generally if not always hate America is wrong, and harmful in how it affects voting?
2. Do we agree that doing nothing to respond to his post expressing that view may be less than ideal?
3. Can either of us say that one approach in particular is the only right approach in how to respond, so that other approaches are wrong simply because of that?
You clearly appreciate that when people have more love for other people such that they do not weant to have racist policies barring them from eating in the same restaurant, that that is bettter than the more hate-filled culture. But do you fully understand how to effect such a change, for example, how imposign the change by brute force literally at the point of a gun might lesd many hating people to change their views as they 'guet used to it' and evolve their views, in a way that discussing their hate would not bring change in decades?
My calling Budmanton's post idiocy is somewherein the middle, recognizing his difficulty to hear your message, yet stopping short of any mearues at the point of a gun.
IMO, it simply says it the way it is and in a way he *might* hear more. Ad might not, but there are others on the board too, and I think that opposing his wrong has benefit, too.
John Kennedy condemned the wrong of segregation not so much to change the views of racists directly at that momet, but to challenge the wrong and lay the groundwork for his taking action against it. And my post IMO has an importantly bliunt message which says that the attacks on Obama supporters as hating America, or John Kerry's amount of bleeding, or on Al Gore's saying he personally invented the internet, are not only wrong, but are so idiiotic as to be harmful to the democratic process to be much of the debate.
And I thnk the approach shows some promise. The response to the 'lipstick on a pig' attack was harsh enough to mostly nullify the harm of the false attacks more than the responses to the other examples did. George Bush would never have been elected in 2000 had the attack not had such a softer response.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
Facebook
Twitter