Camels With Hammers
Philosophy, Ethics, Atheism, Nietzsche
and it comes from a long time conservative. It’s a terrific read.
Pretty good as far as it goes. However, it seems to be mostly one big tone troll: The problem isn’t that most of their icons spend most of their time lying through their teeth. It’s that they’ve become mean and nasty and disrespectful. He does manage to say something about the myriad conspiracy theories. However, his problem with Breitbart, for example, was his yelling at peaceful protesters, not his character assassination. Not terribly impressed.
Actually, no: the guy is citing several deliberate lies as the reason for his break up. Sure, he’s talking about Our Overused Saint Lady Civility: but the thing is, being civil includes not lying about your opponents.
Besides, tone is underated: tone is a tool: tone can be used to bully, to threaten, to terrify and ultimately to submit someone. In french, abuse of aggresive tone is called “terrorisme intellectuel” or “faire un coup à la Rabin” -Pulling a Rabin (Yitzhak)-: which is a way to say that abusive tone can be used as a way to tell someone “if you keep advocating this position we despise, we’ll start an hateful campain of character assassination so bad that it will convince some imbecile to take a gun and kill you”
But I admit it’s funny to see the guy confusig Zola and Robespierre (J’accuse was a denunciation of mass-produced hate and rage, not an endorsment of it)
Oh how nice that he noticed that a bunch of immoral manipulative liars are not so nice people. In other news today, Attila the Hun was not a feminist.
Maybe he is going for right wing street cred – “You see, I have totally doubted on many occasions that reducing green house gases would be worth the cost to our precious american economy, and AIDS is totally a gay disease, but the extremists still demonize me!” – Isn’t that a touching story – Well, it may be tailored to a certain target audience (dangerous right wing idiots), and he’s firmly in their camp from what I can see.
I’m not sure what the guy believes in. Just calling yourself a conservative, but not a nut job didn’t really mean much to me.
Conservatives in the past supported slavery, opposed women’s suffrage, supported Jim Crow laws, supported blue laws,
oppose(d) equal rights for women, and on and on.
I guess he isn’t one of “those” conservatives.
I saw that article and agreed with some of the commenters: this guy is whitewashing the past.
Ronald Reagan had no respect for truth, and he was constantly using racist dog-whistles. (As I recall, there’s a book written before the end of his presidency which documents lies he told, under the title “Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error”. It wasn’t even complete, yet it was already book length.) Neither did the first Bush. Both of them were surrounded by people who demonized political enemies. Newt Gingrich was so awful that even his fellow Republicans admitted that he was a disgrace, but up until he caused the politically toxic government shutdown they supported him.
Even if you ignore the elected officials, it isn’t as though right-wing media figures have shown a lot of respect for truth. Rush Limbaugh didn’t start broadcasting yesterday, nor did Anne Coulter. Even the so-called “intellectual” conservatives lie at the drop of a hat — William F. Buckley and George Will were constantly being debunked all through the ’80s and ’90s and seldom if ever printed retractions or apologies when caught in a lie.
As one of the commenters said: nothing has changed except that now the right wing is being more blunt about it. This guy helped us get to this state, he didn’t hold it back.
What was the last blog post you read here worth to you?
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.