Last week I happened to come across a leftist’s link on Facebook, and this link was to an article which argued that the talking heads of the Right were responsible not only for Tiller’s death, but also for the murder of a guard at a Holocaust museum. It went on to blatantly suggest that Christians and their intolerant worldviews are responsible for the hate we see today, and that these talking heads and other hatemongers should be held accountable for the actions of unrelated assassins. As such, I felt the need to comment.
This conversation is important because it highlights some very common beliefs and “logical” stances of the Left, as well as double-standards and the appropriate responses to them. It’s highly recommended that the reader take the time to peruse the original article that spawned this conversation, and the reader should know that there was a final reply from the young, bigoted liberal I was talking to, but it was omitted because it basically involved backpeddling about his support for terrorists (!) and plenty of foul language.
As such, this is how you’re supposed to reply to liberals: turn the tables of tolerance around and call them the bigots (even though conservatives rarely use the word, because it implies that the user has a socially liberal set of values based on the eradication of religion and nationalism). Stick around for the end, in which I bring attention to his totalitarian–and ubiquitously applied–liberal style of debate, which utilizes concepts such as “hate” and “love” unfairly. I would also like to apologize in advance for his improper grammatical style and indiscernable logic. I have no control over these things.
ME: It takes monumental hypocrisy to actually take the time to pound out an article like that. First of all, if Christians and right-wingers are intolerant for “blatant bigotry” against Muslims after the terrorist attacks, then how do Michael Rowe’s statements against the whole of Christian conservatism not place him in the same category? It seems to me that his concern for dogmatic externalities only apply when considering the stances of the Right, which is unfair and completely illogical. Terrorist cells bomb something, and they’re acting alone. An abortionist gets shot, and he’s the result of Christians complaining.
This is the essence of hate speech: categorizing a religious group or political ideology for demonization, and blaming them for the random occurrences which they have nothing to actually do with. Either this man is completely incapable of understanding his own stances, or he’s just writing to piss off his own constituency, whom the Right could then–according to his logic–suggest were motivated to murder by Matthew Steele’s hate speech, whenever something goes wrong.
Furthermore, the writer actually believes that having membership with ANY religion is completely devoid of ideological statements. As if saying “I’m a Christian” isn’t implying a certain set of value stances, as well as a denial of other faiths. Claiming to be a Jew is in essence claiming that Jesus is a fake messiah. Should we just get rid of all religious statements so we can live in “peace?” I’d like to meet one religious person who doesn’t want anyone else to convert to their particular religion. Pssh.
MATTHEW: No, Terrorists bomb something because of western economic imperialism and a justified hatred for the America that we feed everyday. That you are surely feeding right now.
He is being intolerant of the intolerant.
He was commenting on the lack of professionalism, in that any reporter, with respect to what ever he was reporting on, would know not to name a person so explicitly while framing him as a murder. First of all few admirable reporters would spout so much illogical and fear based hate as it is.
Your ironic use of the word illogical is more apt is explaining the thinking that an individual would arrive to any of those values. Your analysis is superficial in that you generalize rather than criticize past the dichotomies of left and right, christian and not. You see different values, rather than looking deeper to what motivates them, such as fear vs compassion.
Look deeper. Your analysis is superficial in that you see the world in convenient little boxes.
The author breaks down these dichotomies that you are even speaking in. He gave admirable commentary on McCain in comparison with the racist counterparts in his party. He talked about republicans having values that seem to be based in logical theory (of course I think is just less obviously motivated by fear of). He was commenting on was as the drastic difference.
Also with respect to religion he also doesn’t demonize religion or Christianity specifically. Even talking about the Jewish and Muslim religion in a defensible way shows that he doesn’t dismiss religious people. Your very rhetoric of pitting Christians against Muslims is disturbing. Do ever question how being of the dominate race and class, the dominant gender, the dominant sexual orientation, a part of the dominant culture in the dominant country has an effect on you?
I appreciate it if you actually engaged and read the article, but your commentary showed no understanding of its actual content.
ME: Even more hilarious than your statement about Islamic terrorists only JUSTLY bombing targets due to western imperialism (which ignores numerous attacks on Buddhist monks in Thailand and beheadings of park rangers in India) is your statement about my dichotomous worldview, which you made right before dichotomizing the world into camps of hate and love. Thank you so much, guy from Donnie Darko.
If by “looking deeper” into people’s actions, you mean “ignoring their actions while imagining which emotions they’re acting upon,” that’s a waste of time. After all, if you’re taking a stance against “intolerance,” isn’t that out of “fear” of what another’s ideology doesn’t tolerate (the same thing Christians do to Islam)?
And who is tolerant? Only the people who allow the things that you prefer? Or only the non-Christians who allow the things you prefer? Because as far as I can tell, Christians are pretty tolerant toward your camp, permitting all kinds of things they consider to be abominations, even while you try to enforce total acceptance upon them. Islam? Not so much. Yet for some reason, you believe Islam to be some tolerant minority that doesn’t behead gays all around the world.
The double standard is maintained when you claim that talking heads speak on the basis of fear and hate for opposing someone who performs something they believe to be murder. Pardon me, but if Christians oppose a guy who is murdering (hate?) how is that any different than the terrorists you support in the Middle East (love?)? Is it because terrorists are fighting over territory that their murder for murder is acceptable in your eyes?
Sir, you must understand that you are engaging in hateful bigotry without even considering motivations due to anything other than from your own personal standpoint, a list of ethics you claim to not enforce, but can’t wait to label others according to. Your support for terrorism is even more disturbing, and I’m asking you not to agree with me on the other issues, but to place yourself in the category you claim only White Christians belong: that of an intolerant and hateful bigot. You blatantly deny the dignity of White Christians while claiming to be the sole proprietor of “love” and “logic.” Shame, sir. Immense shame upon you.
Last, but sincerely not least in importance, it must be brought to your attention that your style of argument is absolutely totalitarian and incapable of fostering logical sequence. Right off the bat–as many liberals tend to do–you define the terms of argument not by moral stance or behavioral tendency, but rather by indiscernable emotional qualities which you (and you alone) may arbitrarily assign. Your use of “hate” and “love” is just about the most obvious method used to apply this unfair and intellectually hindersome tactic.
It is impossible to argue with someone who determines your emotions for you, and then labels those assigned emotions “good” or “bad.” Surely you can see that arguing about subjective and postmodern emotional qualities–instead of standards–one cannot arrive at any other destination other than what the assigner of those emotions has determined, and this is unfair for both of us.
Unless the point of doing so is preventing an actual discussion.