(no subject)

[technoir]

So I suppose I should post this as it have been the subject of much argument.

What has happened to civility in our discourses? At what point did it become okay for people to be called un-American for questioning our government? When did it become okay to call those who want to peruse safety with out restraint fascists? Is it okay to say someone is like Hitler to make some sort of political point? I will not understand, nor will I ever understand why some people feel it is okay to be uncivil if people don’t agree with you. I am a strong critic of the current trends in our administration. I may even go so far as to say they are dumb things to do. I will however try and make my points in logic and passionate argument. I will endeavor to avoid directly insulting people who believe in those policies. You know what, that does not make me any less strident in my beliefs. It merely means I have the capability to make the argument civil. These are not baby killing monsters. These are men and women who believe in their cause and that these measures they are pursuing are needed. I disagree with them. I will express that with letters and debate. I will express it with my votes.

I have a number of friends who are conservative. I don’t believe them deluded or foolish. I believe them perhaps to be wrong on points because of certain points I will gladly talk with them about. I trust most of them will treat me with the same respect.

The whole demonizing of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum thing is just a waste. It convinces no one except the people who already agree with you. In the opposite people who may have been willing to listen to you tune you out because you have started to use the language to indicate you’re on the extreme. It is no better for a liberal to use the language of anger and fear than it is for a conservative. You only prove yourself the same and indisguishable from the people you oppose.

And why is it people want to do this in the end. Are people so frustrated that no one sees the way they do? That seems a likely explanation for why Bush and his fellows do it though I don’t know. Is it a stroke to the ego that you can prove yourself strong in your opinions, so strong you don’t care who you offend? Well I am sure that is a motivator for at least some.

I myself prefer to look to our better angels and say that while I strongly disagree with someone I will not be reduced to schoolyard name-calling. I believe in the notion that discussion and action are better gauges of our national character than name-calling and mudslinging.

Comments

Re: and on and on....

[technoir.livejournal.com]

as to a workable definition of Facism I will quote Wikipedia.

"Although the broadest definitions of fascism may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed, most theorists see important distinctions to be made. Fascism in Italy arose in the 1920s as a mixture of syndicalist notions with an anti-materialist theory of the state; the latter had already been linked to an extreme nationalism. Fascism in many ways seems to have been clearly developed as a reaction against Communism and Marxism, both in a philosophic and political sense, although it opposed democratic capitalist economics along with socialism, Marxism, and liberal democracy. It viewed the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect collective and individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. It tended to reject the Marxist notion of social classes and universally dismissed the concept of class conflict, replacing it instead with the struggle between races, and the struggle of the youth versus their elders. This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic; in the examples given, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Hannah Arendt classed Italian fascism as an ordinary authoritarian ideology, and included only Stalinism and Nazism as totalitarians.[2]"

As to weather there were any items in that that the bush administration resembles, well there are a couple. But overall it hs not been any where that level of issue.

As to the humor issue. Well if it was presneted as humor then it is humor. Perhaps in poor taste but that is fine. But if it is presented as a part of say a impassioned plea to stand against the legislation then it is ill used and poor judegement. He does not resemble Hitler or even Mousalini. He has made made some mistakes to be sure. but if you are making a plea to get those mistakes changed you dont bandy terms like that around.I mean you can but it is dumb. People tune out the nutjobs usually. And that is what it appears as, the ravings of left wing wacko rather than a man(or woman) concerned about the changes going on. We hit the roof when the president or his men accuse us of being "unamerican", "Against the troops", or "supporting the terrorist." But people want to do the same because Bush did it first. That seems petty and lacking in any real style, substance or character.

I agree that I wish we were talking this over in a waffle house. I love a good debate.