How? How Can People Think Like This?
Jul. 25th, 2012 11:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertomI keep asking myself that question a lot.
There are many philosophical differences between the liberal/progressive side of things and the conservative side of things. Those of you who read this and are conservative realize, I hope, that generally I want the same thing as you: a better world. We just differ about the methods. Sometimes we differ about the interpretation of facts. But, we're on the same side, if not the same team.
(And a humungous Thank You to everyone who participated in the amazing gun thread from yesterday. You are all stellar, and I think and hope we all learned a lot and have new aspects to think about.)
But there are, bluntly, people on the conservative side of the debate who go overboard. Sometimes way overboard.
I'm not talking about everyday people; I'm not even talking about the loudmouths, the True Believers, the ones who comment on Yahoo or Red State or Free Republic. They're mostly just doing what they've been told -- hating, not understanding, fearing. They've been set up by the ones actually going overboard: the politicians, the pundits, the advisers. The ones with the megaphones and the money and the motives.
There is usually a false equivalency invoked whenever this comes up. Their side does it too, they say.
No. No, we don't. Not to the extent that it's done by the other side. Not anywhere near that.
This morning's case in point: James Taranto.
John Cole at Balloon Juice alerts us that Mr. Taranto, a commentator and feature editor at the Wall Street Journal, had this to say about the Aurora shootings:
At least three men threw themselves in front of their girlfriends to protect them, and died as James Holmes shot up the theater, and Taranto hopes the women were "worthy"?
Well, shit, Taranto, how do you judge such a thing? Any prospective brain surgeons or poets or Housewives Of The Year in that bunch? Nobel Prize winners or acclaimed actresses or NASCAR drivers? Bikini models, chefs, singer/songwriters, day care workers, anything? How do you judge, who judges, by what possible criteria do you judge whether or not someone is "worthy" to be protected from death? At that, protected by a lover or partner who gave their own life?
Unfortunately, I can glean an interp of what Taranto might mean by "worthy".
He hopes they put out.
"Sure hope you got some before you got shot up for her, man."
If there's another reasonable interpretation of his statement, I'd sure like to hear it.
Until then, the tags are what they are. And James Taranto is what he is.
There are many philosophical differences between the liberal/progressive side of things and the conservative side of things. Those of you who read this and are conservative realize, I hope, that generally I want the same thing as you: a better world. We just differ about the methods. Sometimes we differ about the interpretation of facts. But, we're on the same side, if not the same team.
(And a humungous Thank You to everyone who participated in the amazing gun thread from yesterday. You are all stellar, and I think and hope we all learned a lot and have new aspects to think about.)
But there are, bluntly, people on the conservative side of the debate who go overboard. Sometimes way overboard.
I'm not talking about everyday people; I'm not even talking about the loudmouths, the True Believers, the ones who comment on Yahoo or Red State or Free Republic. They're mostly just doing what they've been told -- hating, not understanding, fearing. They've been set up by the ones actually going overboard: the politicians, the pundits, the advisers. The ones with the megaphones and the money and the motives.
There is usually a false equivalency invoked whenever this comes up. Their side does it too, they say.
No. No, we don't. Not to the extent that it's done by the other side. Not anywhere near that.
This morning's case in point: James Taranto.
John Cole at Balloon Juice alerts us that Mr. Taranto, a commentator and feature editor at the Wall Street Journal, had this to say about the Aurora shootings:
I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.What. The Fucking. Fuck.
At least three men threw themselves in front of their girlfriends to protect them, and died as James Holmes shot up the theater, and Taranto hopes the women were "worthy"?
Well, shit, Taranto, how do you judge such a thing? Any prospective brain surgeons or poets or Housewives Of The Year in that bunch? Nobel Prize winners or acclaimed actresses or NASCAR drivers? Bikini models, chefs, singer/songwriters, day care workers, anything? How do you judge, who judges, by what possible criteria do you judge whether or not someone is "worthy" to be protected from death? At that, protected by a lover or partner who gave their own life?
Unfortunately, I can glean an interp of what Taranto might mean by "worthy".
He hopes they put out.
"Sure hope you got some before you got shot up for her, man."
If there's another reasonable interpretation of his statement, I'd sure like to hear it.
Until then, the tags are what they are. And James Taranto is what he is.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 05:09 pm (UTC)Those guys obviously thought so, and that is all that matters.
Well...
Date: 2012-07-26 08:45 am (UTC)were worthy. Because three
men decided that they were,
and that is whose opinion
mattered. Taranto's opinion
is irrelevant; he isn't any
of the heroes of the story.
Though you'd think with a
soul that tiny, he's be
ashamed to show it in public.