Claudia SChiffer the RACIST!

[kimmy]

Seal's facial scars are a result of a childhood illness, not any sort of baboonery.

-k

[Jack Weber]

Seal's facial scars are a result of a childhood illness, not any sort of baboonery.

-k

Somebody here is full of copious amounts of douchebaggery,however!!!

kimmy,is calling someone a douchebag in front of a female sexist?

[kimmy]

kimmy,is calling someone a douchebag in front of a female sexist?

It's been over 3 hours since the phrase "douchebag" was uttered in my presence!

-k

[Jack Weber]

It's been over 3 hours since the phrase "douchebag" was uttered in my presence!

-k

Did you hit him,or was it a female who uttered the phrase?

[kimmy]

Did you hit him,or was it a female who uttered the phrase?

I work with a construction crew 40 hours a week. Foul language doesn't worry me too much.

-k

{also, the guy really *was* a douchebag.}

[Jack Weber]

I work with a construction crew 40 hours a week. Foul language doesn't worry me too much.

-k

{also, the guy really *was* a douchebag.}

*was* a douchebag?

What has happened to him so that he's not a douchebag now?

[Guest TrueMetis]

*was* a douchebag?

What has happened to him so that he's not a douchebag now?

Kimmy's killing douchebags.

Edited June 9, 2010 by TrueMetis

[kimmy]

*was* a douchebag?

What has happened to him so that he's not a douchebag now?

He's probably still a douchebag. I'll update you tomorrow.

-k

[bloodyminded]

They do tend to side with the underdog,even if the underdog is ...well...scum...

As someone who probably roughly fits in with the "far left," I'm willing to reluctantly concede some truth to this. But (predictably) I have a few points to make:

First of all, myself, and any number of leftists, are not so much socialists as believers in socialist amelioration of capitalism's harsher effects. And since virtually everybody, with vanishingly rare exceptions, has the same outlook, there's nothing more than an argument about the degree of socialist aspects to the economy.

As for Marxism: I'm certainly not a Marxist, and I believe fewer and fewer people are. I don't believe in the concept anyway: a "Marxist," a "Randian," a "Hayekian," a "Straussian," or what have you. I don't believe we should be thinking about socioeconomic factors or theories, and then ponder what the "Great Man" would have to say about it. Being a Marxist, or any other Thinker-ist, is automatically stultifying and restrictive. I'm not doubting his influence, nor the influence of any great thinker, but I see no reason to be a follower.

If I were a philosopher, and I thought that people would be naming their very intellectual and moral ideals after me, I would be forced to hunt them down and murder them for their servility and lack of judgement.

As for siding with the underdog: sure, this is not uncommon, and it can lead one into ill-conceived support for people who deserve a more critical eye.

However, the trouble with the majority of the Left-bashing that goes on, is that the bashers--whether right-wingers, "moderates," (a self-serving, usually inaccurate term) or soft liberals--tend to be blind to their own monumental doctrinal weaknesses and intellectual paucities.

For example, not a few generally thoughtful, intelligent moderates and liberals, who tend to be pretty cautious about any number of ideas, will suddenly become jaw-droppingly stupid when certain topics arise: say, Canada's foreign policy, or American Cold War foreign policy.

Thoughtfulness is banished with the wave of a hand, or with the mere utterance of words like "Terrorism" or "The Cold War."

So when certain discussions arise--say, Reagan's terrorist wars in Latin America, or Canada's reaping of financial rewards from the Vietnam War--the far Left position, a few rhetorical flourishes aside, actually becomes objectively more "moderate" and reasoned than does the view of the "moderates."

I'll be specific, and so will use comparatively well-known examples (in the hopes that I don't need to supply a hundred pages of background just to make the point clear):

When the Reagan admnistration was battling the Nicaragua Sandanistas, the United states was the Bad Guy in that conflict. The Sandanistas were no princes of peace, that's for sure, but their actions paled in comparison to those of the U.S.: so much so that to compare the two is kind of an obscenity. The US support for the Contras was support for a terrorist militia. The Contras behaved worse--by any standard you wish to use--than do Hamas. So if Hamas is bad, the Contras were worse.

The measurements I'm using for this judgement are the number of murders and general terror of the civilian population, not exactly a "radical left" argument. But further, the Contras used rape, torture, kidnappings, and destruction of villages, and so on, as part of their strategy.

The United States trained them; armed them; funded them (sometimes illegally...the only aspect most people seem to remember, as if "lawful" terrorism, rape, torture, and mass slaughter aren't quite as serious as pissing off Congress). U.S. officials knew what the Contras were doing, and they supported it.

(And this is aside from direct illegal US action against Nicaragua: mining the harbours, trying to disrupt elections, and so on: they were cited by the UN for international aggression: that's THE supreme international crime. But since the US has an oversexed influence on the UN, all they had to was to veto their own denunciation. It's a perfect system for a rogue state.)

Ok, I'm not just ranting for fun, but actually have said all this to get to my main point:

If you have this discussion with some moderate or liberal (forget the right wing, as they'll simply throw tantrums and start raving on subjects like this, especially since Reagan is Jesus)...but with the self-styled modrates and liberals, they will usually try to defend the US position here.

To defend the use of terrorism far worse than the terrorism they pretend to get so exercised about.

One method is to summon the term "Cold War." This is a talismanic term, with terrific magic. Just say it, mention the Soviets, and suddenly terrorizing civilian populations, supporting mass murder through funding and sly diplomatic means, is "unfortunate" and "no one wants civilians to suffer, but...." and so on and so forth.

OK, we've all heard these conventional pieties, so presumably I don't have to list them.

And here's the kicker: when shown to know virtually nothing about the acts that they are reflexively defending, they will seek a pathetic refuge: "but international relations are very complicated; there are a hundred different factors to consider, and you can't lay all the blame on the United States" (or Israel; or Canada; or the UK....note the list? Note who belongs and who by implication doesn't?).

The thing is, when talking about Hamas, or Iran, or the Soviets, or any Official Enemy...suddenly, we're to understand, the world isn't complex; international relations aren't complicated; and there can be no justification for terrorism and the murder of innocents.

WE can be forgiven for terrorism and the murder of innocents.

THEY cannot.

This is practically a Universal.

And it is, by definition, a display of moral relativism and moral cowardice.

So it's pretty clear that it is not actions or ideas which are good or bad: it's the agent. Period. Full stop.

Things are automatically different when one of the great Western powers are the agents of destruction.

WE can't be that bad...because we are Good. QED. Even when we behave worse than the enemies we condemn...we have good reason. They have no reason, but we do.

How any thoughtful liberal or moderate can think this way amazes me; the level of indoctrination is staggering. The cowardice is astonishing. Orwell was writing about us every bit as much as he was writing about the Soviet tyranny. And we are the same now as we were in 1949.

------------

So yes, while much of the Left will, not always correctly, quite naturally gravitate towards support for the underdog...the moderates and liberals will quite naturtally gravitate, with thoughtless reflexivity, towards support for the powerful and wealthy.

In other words, I agree with your critique, and with Kimmy's; but in the larger sense, this only puts leftists in the exact same position as the liberals and moderates. They're every bit as bad. Every bit.

The only difference is that Leftists don't expend a lot of energy in mocking and deriding the "naive and childish" moderates and liberals (and they ARE naive and childish); whereas the latter really enjoys mocking the Left, even when the Left is rational and the Moderates are obedient quislings.

[Oleg Bach]

They do tend to side with the underdog,even if the underdog is ...well...scum...

TOLERATION can become a self indulgent disease and a detriment to your own well being...I have to toss out this liberal creep once in a while - He was raised by a very liberal feminist mother who traveled the world documenting things on film... her son is a creep - and has the habit of disrupting my household - my son - calls me a racist because his bad boy friend is in fact from a race of creeps - He put on a charitable concert that I played at - and I found out that he and his buddy stole the money ..so I don't want this type of race in my house - call me a racist is you want - but this rotten young man is a newly created race that spawns out of extreme liberalism.

[Argus]

As for siding with the underdog: sure, this is not uncommon, and it can lead one into ill-conceived support for people who deserve a more critical eye.

Like the Palestinians, you mean?

The US support for the Contras was support for a terrorist militia. The Contras behaved worse--by any standard you wish to use--than do Hamas. So if Hamas is bad, the Contras were worse.

Don't equate the inability to slaughter people by the trainload with a moral superiority.

If Hamas could figure out a way to kill millions of Israelis they'd do it. They are not any better than the Contras.

If you have this discussion with some moderate or liberal (forget the right wing, as they'll simply throw tantrums and start raving on subjects like this, especially since Reagan is Jesus)...

I think you're mixing up "the right wing" in places like Canada or the UK, with the religious right in the U.S.. There are precious few conservatives in Canada who swooned over Reagan, and even fewer who still do

One method is to summon the term "Cold War." This is a talismanic term, with terrific magic. Just say it, mention the Soviets, and suddenly terrorizing civilian populations, supporting mass murder through funding and sly diplomatic means, is "unfortunate" and "no one wants civilians to suffer, but...." and so on and so forth.

Indeed. Sometimes there are strategic considerations which require the immoral be accepted. As I said to you earlier, did you expect us to turn our back on the entire world outside NATO and simply ignore the Soviets' rising influence? Or perhaps we should have found some kind, gentle people to oppose the brutal Marxist guerrillas the Soviets backed?

The thing is, when talking about Hamas, or Iran, or the Soviets, or any Official Enemy...suddenly, we're to understand, the world isn't complex; international relations aren't complicated; and there can be no justification for terrorism and the murder of innocents.

If you want to compare the middle east to the cold war then we could say that the US is certainly backing the whiter knight than the Iranians are. But I don't think the situation is really analogous. The real villains here are the Arab nations which have perpetuated this sad, sorry spectacle for decades in order to provide an "other" for their captive populations to hate, instead of them. The entire population of the world has been taught to hate Israel, because, somehow or other Israel is responsible for all their ills. The Palestinians are simply pawns, used to help stir up continuing hatred towards Israel by people whose everyday behaviour is far worse than that of Israel.

The level of hypocrisy in the sight of countries like Syria and Iran and Libya denouncing Israeli human rights abuses is nauseating.

But... that does not excuse the terrorists. Men who meet and coldly and deliberately plan how they can get a retarded boy with a suicide pack into a pizzeria or market so he can blow up a bunch of kids cannot be described as anything else than evil.

WE can be forgiven for terrorism and the murder of innocents.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I don't think Reagan and his ilk ever had the imagination to actually see what their backing resulted in. All they ever saw were numbers, and numbers with a confusing degree of uncertainty.

What is fairly certain, however,is that, today, no existing western government would survive if it was proven to have knowingly participated in the organized, premeditated murder of innocent people. I mean, look at the fuss in Canada over allegations that some of the prisoners we took who were handed over to their own government were subsequently beaten.

On the other hand, Hamas, without question, deliberately plans and carries out attacks on innocent civilians, without remorse, regret or shame.

Things are automatically different when one of the great Western powers are the agents of destruction.

No, not especially. There is simply a degree of removal from the events, and thus a degree of removal from culpability. I don't know that any western country, even in the case of the Contras, actually sought to encourage the murder and rape of innocent civilians. I don't think even the Reaganites liked that sort of thing. I doubt that anyone in the administration thrust a victorious fist in the air upon hearing the Contras had killed a few dozen villagers somewhere.

But it's very easy to be black and white when you have no responsibilities. It's easy to turn your nose in the air and act noble when no one has tasked you with defending your people or figuring out how to counter your country's enemies.

The US and Soviets carried out a lot of war by proxy during the cold war era, supporting some very nasty people. And however nasty it became, we can all be grateful that they did it by proxy. Because we never had to suffer through it, and for that matter, the world remained intact, which it may well not have done had they confronted each other directly.

[bloodyminded]

Don't equate the inability to slaughter people by the trainload with a moral superiority.

If Hamas could figure out a way to kill millions of Israelis they'd do it. They are not any better than the Contras.

This may even be true.

But you are measuring speculation against objective reality, so objective reality wins out. And where, exactly, is Hamas' rape program?

Indeed. Sometimes there are strategic considerations which require the immoral be accepted. As I said to you earlier, did you expect us to turn our back on the entire world outside NATO and simply ignore the Soviets' rising influence? Or perhaps we should have found some kind, gentle people to oppose the brutal Marxist guerrillas the Soviets backed?

If you're trying to justify support for the Contras, you're going to find it difficult to find a sympethetic ear...except from the raving moral relativists and patriotic degenerates who will do so reflexively, unable to conceive of a Western government behaving without noble intentions.

If you want to compare the middle east to the cold war then we could say that the US is certainly backing the whiter knight than the Iranians are. But I don't think the situation is really analogous.

I agree, every situation is different.

The entire population of the world has been taught to hate Israel, because, somehow or other Israel is responsible for all their ills.

This is a momentous conspiracy theory. Quite a radical one.

The level of hypocrisy in the sight of countries like Syria and Iran and Libya denouncing Israeli human rights abuses is nauseating.

No question about that. Absolutely. And so is the level of hypocrisy needed to say that the Western powers oppose terrorism. By definition, they do not.

But... that does not excuse the terrorists. Men who meet and coldly and deliberately plan how they can get a retarded boy with a suicide pack into a pizzeria or market so he can blow up a bunch of kids cannot be described as anything else than evil.

Yes, it's jaw-dropping. But raping mothers in front of their families, skewering babies on pikes and so on, is not a Necessary Evil, spawned by the Cold War and to be blamed on the Soviets. It's to be blamed on the perpetrators. Anmd that decidedly includes those who fund and arm the killers, and then provide diplomatic support...and continue to provide a type of sly propaganda defense of their actions:

There is simply a degree of removal from the events, and thus a degree of removal from culpability

So....we are aware of the atrocities, but the government supporting them was not. And when the massive numbers of eyewitness reports from ruined survivors of the atrocities became known, Reagan insisting that the Contras were "freedom fighters" was based on too-little information...which we knew but, somehow, they did not?

Sometimes. Sometimes not. I don't think Reagan and his ilk ever had the imagination to actually see what their backing resulted in. All they ever saw were numbers, and numbers with a confusing degree of uncertainty.

This is based on faith, and does not fit with everything we know.

What is fairly certain, however,is that, today, no existing western government would survive if it was proven to have knowingly participated in the organized, premeditated murder of innocent people.

Demonstrably untrue. Again: by definition.

On the other hand, Hamas, without question, deliberately plans and carries out attacks on innocent civilians, without remorse, regret or shame.

I have yet to hear the confession of any "regret or shame" over the matter cited here, or other (actually worse) Western culpabilities we have discussed elsewhere.

Zero.

No, not especially. There is simply a degree of removal from the events, and thus a degree of removal from culpability.

The hitman is guilty, but not the Don?

I don't know that any western country, even in the case of the Contras, actually sought to encourage the murder and rape of innocent civilians. I don't think even the Reaganites liked that sort of thing. I doubt that anyone in the administration thrust a victorious fist in the air upon hearing the Contras had killed a few dozen villagers somewhere.

I agree. "Like" has nothing to do with it; they simply couldn't care less.

So if you want to enter the moral argument that Hamas "liking" the murder of civilians is somehow worse than the most powerful country in the world simply not caring about the murder of civilians...well, it's interesting in an academic sense but is not of utmost importance to our argument. Stalin didn't care, either, and we don't wink and nod at that.

But it's very easy to be black and white when you have no responsibilities. It's easy to turn your nose in the air and act noble when no one has tasked you with defending your people or figuring out how to counter your country's enemies.

You don't think Hamas would make precisely the same argument?

Word for word, I'd wager.

And at any rate: please. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who DO "act noble" when they are anything but. In fact, you are strongly implying a nobility to the support for terrorism that I mentioned...as if supporting the Contras, or supporting Suharto, or supporting the S. African apartheid government, were all key matters in defending the world fromn Communism.

Do people still take that laughable, self-congratulatory asssessment seriously?

Like I said: summoning the phrase "Cold War" is not instant justification for every atrocity claimed to be about "fighting Soviet expansionism."

Let's make things perfectly clear, so that neither of us gets confused about the others' stance: I unilaterally oppose the use of terrorism. Period.

I'm not hearing the same condemnation from you.

The US and Soviets carried out a lot of war by proxy during the cold war era, supporting some very nasty people. And however nasty it became, we can all be grateful that they did it by proxy. Because we never had to suffer through it, and for that matter, the world remained intact, which it may well not have done had they confronted each other directly.

Again--and leaving aside the implied notion that the human beings suffering under the proxy wars are not as important as we are--you're taking it for granted that every proxy war was necessary. Since it's an extreme and so far undemonstrated claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

Edited June 14, 2010 by bloodyminded