Killing With Kindness
This is fun. Once of the things that comes along with writing about politics, as you can probably guess, is the occasional hate mail. I usually either ignore them or respond with something clever like “screw you”, but yesterday I got the urge to respond to one of these missives with an earnest attempt to have a discussion about the issue that enraged him. What I found so amusing about the exchange is how much the person I was arguing with would try to put words in my mouth. It was as if he wanted to have an argument with a liberal strawman, but couldn’t find one so he ranted against me instead.
The full email thread is in the extended entry, slightly edited for clarity, but with typos intact.
There is one thing for certain. I do not want my future and the future of my children and grandchildren, in the hands of idiots like you. You should be thankful for President Bush every day you have an opportunity to live in this Great Country! If you are not, then try some other country where this form of free speech would be appreciated. Got any ideas because I don’t! People like are making me angrier and angrier every day with your stupidity. You should be charged with treason. That is better than your trumped up charge of contempt which is exactly what I have for you!
- Erv
What post of mine prompted you to write this?
-greg
Maybe it was directed to the wrong person. I didn’t like the website period. I thought I was e-mailing the website. If not, I apologize.
-Erv
I figured as such. Since I operate TheTalentShow.org and write the vast majority of the content that appears there , I can only assume that you were responding to something I wrote. The question I have, however, is what in particular angered you enough to send me an email calling me an idiot and saying that I should be “charged with treason”. I’m not mad, but curious. I try to write in such a way to convince people to agree with me. If what I wrote had an opposite effect, I’d like to know where I erred so that I can do better in the future.
Thanks,
gregYour error is in trying to convince people of intelligence that President Bush is not trying to do the right thing for this Country and its people including you! You are part of the liberal left wing that is anti-Bush and to hell with our Country! You cannot write anything that will even come close to having someone who believes in the Capitalist form of government to agree with you. I was a Democrat when I was young because my parents were Democrats. That was before I could think for myself. Now, they too, are Republicans. People like you put our soldiers at risk and I could never be a party to something like that ever! Just so you will know, I have Doctors that are Muslims but they are afraid of the fanatics. Guess what? So am I and you should be happy that we are taking the fight to them. No need trying to make me think your way just like I will never get you to think my way. Ideology! By the way, that’s what the Islamic Fundamentalists have too that is so difficult to stop or change. Their ideology is worse than yours. At least you are not telling me I have to believe your way.
-Erv
I resent the implication that I don’t care about my country. The reason I’m so hard on Bush is because I’m unsure about his goals and concerned about his ability to achieve them. As opposed to what you’ve just written, I haven’t questioned the President’s motives, the merits of capitalism, or the severity of the threat of Islamofascism. The question that we face over the best way to keep this country safe is one that should be debated openly and honestly. Until both sides drop rhetoric like the kind that you’ve adopted (“People like you put our soldiers at risk”), there will never be a free exchange of ideas.
I can only assume that you agree with every aspect of the President’s agenda, think he’s executing this war flawlessly, and agree with the Administration’s use of torture as an interrogation tactic. These are all issues in which reasonable people can disagree, but since I’ve obviously earned your wrath, I’d love to see some concrete examples of views I hold that you find disagreeable and a rebuttal that explains why you think what I’ve written is wrong. Please don’t put words in my mouth and imply that my only motivation is hatred of the President. If you have a problem with me or the things I wrote, please provide concrete examples (quotes, links, etc.) and keep the hyperbole to a minimum.
- greg
Now that we are getting down to the facts, you are unsure and I am sure. Do I agree with the President on everything? Absolutely not! On the war to protect the citizens of the United States, including your stupid ass, yes! I suppose beheading of US Citizens is okay in your warped view of things? Have we stooped to that level. You probably think so. If it save the lives of innocent Americans, do whatever has to be done! That’s my view. If you are offended, too dam bad! Ervin Hagy
- Erv
By the way Greg, I am not one of your Bible thumping Conservatives that you Liberals like to brand as being fanatical. I just happen to believe in America and I support our President and our Troops. You cannot support the troops without supporting the Commander in Chief. To do otherwise supports the enemy. My brother served in Vietnam under a Democrat president. I did not protest because that would not have supported my brother. I know what I am saying because I have lived it! If I had been in charge, we would have won that dam war and 58,000
wonderful Americans would not have died in vain. I do not want to see that happen again and you shouldn’t either if you enjoy your freedom to write and say the stupid things you write. You said you were not angry, just trying to understand why I reacted the way I did. Maybe, just maybe, I have helped you understand.- Erv
I think you’ve boiled it down to the crux of the difference between your views and mine :
“You cannot support the troops without supporting the Commander in Chief. To do otherwise supports the enemy.”
I think dissent is an essential part of democracy. Should the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief shield him from all criticism or just criticism of the war? What do you make of the Legislature’s constitutional duty to act as a check and balance on the Executive branch? Would any dissent from the President’s views on behalf of the legislature be equally supportive of the enemy? It seems to me that strict loyalty to the powerful elite is a step towards despotism.
Out of curiosity, did you support Bill Clinton’s use of force in Bosnia, Sudan, and Kosovo?
-greg
Yes, I supported Bill Clinton and had a hell of a lot less information about what that was all about than we do about the war on terrorism. Because once again, we had soldiers in harms way. That’s the problem with you hypocrites. If its a Democrat,it okay, if its a Republican its not. Now mister, what do you say about that? I do not blindly suport anyone but I actually do vote for the person I think will do the bast job. If you next question is, “Have you ever voted for a Democrat?”, the answer is yes. And by the way, I would have supported Bill Clinton to an ever greater extent if he had gone after the terrorists when the World Trade Centers were bombed in 1992. He is the reason 9/11 happened. We did not show the resolve to go after the bastards! Sorry if that offends your sensitive little self too.
- Erv
Bill Clinton is the reason 9/11 happened? I blame Osama Bin Laden, which is why I opposed taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and going after Saddam Hussein. My decisions on whether or not to support the use of force in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, and Bonia were based on the supposed goals of each invasion and whether or not I felt the President in question would be able to accomplish those goals. I don’t blindly support Democrats and oppose Republicans, nor do I think Presidents automatically deserve our support.
-greg
Greg, we will get absolutely no where because we are firmly entrenched in our ideology. I know how I felt when my Brother was in harm’s way. Tears streamed down my face when he left for Vietnam. Have you ever had to live through that fear, knowing that your fellow Americans were providing encouragement and support to the enemy through their protesting of war with someone you loved very much in danger? I believe the answer to my question is “no.” If I am wrong tell me your experience. I am happy to listen. I have made some comments to you out of anger and I apologize for those comments. I paid $154.00 to have “Support President Bush and Our Troops!” in huge letters on my Explorer. That should tell you something about me and how I feel about our soldiers. The Democrats talk about bringing the soldiers home but you saw how the vote went when it came down to showing their true colors. Be mindful of that vote. I like you but I do not like your views. I believe you are a really nice guy because I have hammered you but you took it very well. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
By the way, my Brother was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. I am extremely proud of him. Obviously, I came very close to losing someone I love very much!
-Erv
It’s funny how quickly he went from “You should be charged with treason.” to “Happy Thanksgiving”.
With Thanksgiving a couple days away, are any of you looking forward to or dreading a political discussion with relatives?
65 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
My brother J. is the photographic negative of your new friend Erv: a philosopher of realpolitik who readily admits that the intelligence was cherry-picked red meat to feed to the red staters, so that the Ervs out there would get behind a war to secure our-oil-under-their-sand. Erv is obviously sincere in his belief that we are under attack and that “taking it to them” is the only way to keep his beloved America safe. For J., it was his portfolio under attack; with OBL’s ranks swelling year after year, Saudi Arabia could not hope to keep itself afloat as a monarchy and steadfast U.S. ally much longer, and Iraq’s oil under U.S. control was the best way to keep his white male American fortunes intact.
I love my brother, but I’m happy to be spending Thanksgiving with my wonderful inlaws.
Comment by slim — November 22, 2005 @ 3:58 pm
I love my hate mail. As the contact person for Feminists Against Censorship, I’ve had lots of mail from guys who are reacting entirely to the word “feminist” and haven’t paid much attention to what we’re actually about. Some of these show the usual signs of being from a semi-literate 14-year-old who just wants to talk dirty to women who he thinks will be shocked. But there was that one time when the guy started off insulting and set me up for a snappy come-back that he liked so much he immediately changed his tone. After a few exchanges he said, “I guess I’ve already ruined my chances with you, huh?”
Now, that’s gratifying.
My father died in 2000 and my mother died this summer, and my siblings aren’t speaking to each other, so there’s no point going home for any kind of “family dinner” stuff anymore. I did see my brother last month when I went home for a visit, but he and I are on the same page politically. Well, my sister is, too, but the idea with being in the same room with both of them at the same time is horrifying. Thank god I’m celebrating with friends here at home!
Comment by Avedon — November 22, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
Gee, $154 to have a pro-Bush message painted on his vehicle? That’s some real support of the troops, that is. Heaven knows the soldiers in Iraq couldn’t have used that money.
Comment by BrianD — November 22, 2005 @ 6:39 pm
You edited his for CLARITY?! Holy hell man, I’m sorry. I mean… wow.
Comment by Dr. 12 — November 22, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
I paid $154.00 to have “Support President Bush and Our Troops!” in huge letters on my Explorer. That should tell you something about me and how I feel about our soldiers.
I smell troll.
Comment by Hamilton Lovecraft — November 22, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
Perhaps the words “Support President Bush and Our Troops” should come as standard equipment on Explorers, Suburbans Hummers etc etc etc….
Comment by Kamachanda — November 22, 2005 @ 8:14 pm
I have some O’Reilly thumpers in my family. It is hard to keep a straight face when I hear O’Reilly’s Talking Points at the dinner table. Family reunions only benefit those that talk the loudest. It would be nice if we could just keep it “civil” and e-mail back and forth like you and Erv.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Comment by Ceres — November 22, 2005 @ 11:23 pm
I won’t be seeing my American family (which includes a sister, my mother, and her whole side of the family) at Thanksgiving or Christmas this year, but I spend last Christmas and an October family reunion in Texas. Both times, I was dreading what has become inevitable: a near-shouting match.
But the last two get-togethers – even with Bush-loving Texans, socialized-medicine-loving mountain dwellers from BC and Oregon, and me, an old-fashioned Ontario Tory, all in the same room with beer and whiskey – have been uneventful. Boring even.
It ends up that my mother and grandmother read the riot act to my more confrontational relations and just out-right banned any political discussion. And that’s just sad.
Comment by Kenneth Moyle — November 23, 2005 @ 8:21 am
I wonder how many soldiers’ families would pay $154 (or even more!) to get their loved one’s lives or limbs back.
If this isn’t a troll, the “Pimpin’ my Explorer for Bush” thing just makes me want to weep. My ribbon magnets are more patriotic than your ribbon magnets, and all that …
Still, if Erv feels that this is what amounts to “doing one’s part” in the war effort, it begins to make sense that he considers the mere voicing of dissent to be aiding and abetting the enemy. The threshold for supporting either side, in his view, is equally low.
Comment by Cindy — November 23, 2005 @ 8:26 am
A very enlightening exchange!
I’m very encouraged to see how Erv was changed from blinkered rage to giving valuable opinions and personal experiences just by meeting him with a willingness to talk.
Often those who have made up their minds on an issue seem stupid to those who disagree.
Erv started out seeming stupid, but soon shows that he is not. I doubt he will change is his support of Bush, but I hope he sets an example to other Bush supporters, that they must make sure their support is based on informed opinions.
Comment by Clive — November 23, 2005 @ 8:55 am
Uh, Clive… What informed opinions were those that Erv’s ideology is founded upon?
Or were you being sarcastic and I am simply stupid?
Comment by Will — November 23, 2005 @ 9:32 am
Clive,
At what point exactly did Erv show himself to be not stupid? I just saw a hole being dug deeper and deeper and deeper. Talk about the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. Let’s give gingersnaps and gold stars to the red-staters when they stop calling us ‘terririst’ loving faggots. Geez. I’ve always like the Bill Hicks/Bill Maher stance myself. Politely but firmly espouse your beliefs, and tell em to fucking shove their airbrushed patriotism up their ass if they don’t like it. They’re called principles. You don’t have to apologize for them.
Comment by jchild — November 23, 2005 @ 9:53 am
I think it comes down to what people mean by “Patriotism”. I think for some like Erv it is something like “our country, right or wrong.” For others like myself it means “I want the best for my country, and I want my country to be the best it can.”
The discussion with Erv demonstrates just how hard it is to get past the defensiveness of Patriots of the first kind. They are on the defensive wary of any attack, fearful of enemies within and without. They might also realize that the position “right or wrong” is pretty indefensible, and yet.. that merely makes them cling every tighter. I hope that Erv and those like him might see the possibility of reasoned disagreement, but I am doubtful.
Comment by Steve — November 23, 2005 @ 10:04 am
All too often both “sides” are truly different sides of the same coin, each railing against the other with blind prejudice.
Perhaps Erv wasn’t convinced to change his position by the exchange but the mere fact that he was engaged as an intelligent human being rather than dismissed as “stupid” raises the level of dialog from the level of the schoolyard taunts and infantile bickering that masquerades as political discussion, starting with the teevee shout shows and working its way down through blogs and online forums to encounters on the street.
It’s not apologizing to treat someone with respect and politeness, even if they’re not being respectful or polite to you. It’s simply not sinking down to a level where the sound and fury manifestly signify nothing. What’s the point of telling someone to shove their patriotism? It only hardens their position and solidifies their prejudices.
In fact, I’d say that acting in a civil, not to mentions civilized, manner and discussing things, even with someone who is bent on nothing more than calling you names, is the very essence of what true liberalism and the progressive ideal are all about.
Comment by Steve — November 23, 2005 @ 10:24 am
To Erv’s credit he’s not entirely closed minded. My mom called off Tgiving this year. Too much politics. She says she was born Republican (there must be a gene), raised Republican, and that that’s the ”right” way to vote. My sis just says she votes that way to cancel my vote. End of discussion. Foolishly, my bro and I keep bringing up the incredible lies of this administration, and the consequences, in hopes of changing their votes. Closed minded people are the challenge. You CAN fool some of the people all of the time. Scarey. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving one and all! God bless those stuck in Iraq. Our people and the Iraqis.
Comment by bruce — November 23, 2005 @ 10:25 am
Comment by Concerned — November 23, 2005 @ 10:45 am
This year, just my wife and two daughters. No having to listen to right wing in-laws. I truly have something to give thanks for.
Comment by MoSkir — November 23, 2005 @ 11:08 am
I felt myself being strangely drawn into the exchange, I guess that is the best way to describe it, you had. When you cannot debate facts but talk in rhetoric and accusation it is very hard to have a “conversation” with someone. I can’t get over the strange idea of Democracy people have. I also can’t figure out how so many people were democrats and are now republican. I know it has to do with wedge issues, the god, gays and guns but it still boggles the mind that they think the party of cutting taxes to the rich, anti-labor, pro big business is somehow for them.
As for talking to relatives about politics I can honestly say almost every single one of them is and always has been against the Iraq invasion and against the Bush agenda. More so than ever. I only know of one cousin that is republican and for the war. Or I should say I assume he is for the war. I haven’t talked to him about it and quite frankly don’t want to. I like him but I know for a fact he is not as well informed as I am and does not keep up with current events and politics that much. Not that I am a genius or anything but I do try and find as much info as possible on the state of the world. Which gets quite depressing at times.
Comment by Scott — November 23, 2005 @ 11:26 am
So let me get this straight. Trying to stop soldiers from being needlessly killed is bad for the troops, and feeding them into an endless meat grinder because you can’t admit you made a mistake is good for the troops. The people who were right all along are to blame for the mistake they tried to prevent. When divisive policies lead to an unpopular war, the fault lies with the people, not the policymakers. Domestic dissent, not the presence of our occupying force, is what motivates insurgents.
The guy seems sincere, but his reasoning process is completely incoherent and dominated by shallow emotional symbology. His brother should never have been in Viet Nam in the first place, yet he’s angry at the anti-war Left. He says “if I’d been in charge, we would have won,” and is apparently serious. I mean, this may be a very nice guy, but if you want an example of why disasters like Bush keep happening in our democracy, look no further. Jesus wept.
Comment by CS Lewis Jr — November 23, 2005 @ 11:31 am
Something Erv wrote caused me particular pause – the line about his parents turning from Dem to Repub. I sat here thinking how depressing that would be, and how incredibly stressful the holidays would be had I not married a Dem with Dem college Professor parents, to perfectly match my Dem college professor parents. I know it’s kind of inbreeding, but I do sympathize with you folks out there who are bracing for what is likely to be a difficult few holiday debates. Keep the wine flowing……..
Comment by newbie — November 23, 2005 @ 11:42 am
I have a solution! Let’s all go over to Scott’s house for Thanksgiving. OK Scott?
Comment by bruce — November 23, 2005 @ 12:32 pm
I recently was visiting my sister, who is a southern Baptist conservative Republican. We avoided politics for the vast majority of our time together, as we were settling my late mother’s estate. At one point she made a comment about Cindy Sheehan’s arrest at a demonstration (calling her “that woman”), and I shot back as to how they arrested her before they were able to apprehend bin Laden. She right away snapped back with the line about how “Clinton blew it” when he supposedly had the chance to get Bin Laden, and I responded with “We had the whole army in Tora Bora and let him get away then.” At that point I realized that we both sounded like a couple of talking heads on some commentary program, and I shut up.
I never felt like I fit in with my family politically, but that’s okay. And your reader Erv sounds like someone who, like my sister, has swallowed the Faux News bullshit line whole, so it is not a debate so much a two monologs. Is it worth it to try to engage such a person? You showed a lot more patience than I would have.
Comment by birdhaus — November 23, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
I know more than a few “Erv’s”. They are really hard to deal with because they have preconceived ideas about what liberals/Democrats are like.
Supposedly we “hate America” and long to see a Godless, socialist one-world government put in place. When you try to tell them that we really don’t want that they don’t believe you because some talking head on Fox News or one of the wingnuts on talk radio said that we did. They believe everything morons like Rush, Hannity and O’Reilly say. (Sad but true.)
I do applaud Greg for being so patient with Erv. I wouldn’t have been able to. (I don’t deal with blatant stupidity very well.)
Comment by Rick — November 23, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
Is Erv unaware that the armed forces are looking for individuals to support the president’s war effort by actually going and fighting rather than blowing a lot of hot air? Because I’m pretty sure they would be willing to enlist a bonafide dipshit in the Army.
Comment by Beerzie Boy — November 23, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
Don’t knock the Godless, socialist one-world government I’m going to lead.
Comment by Kamachanda — November 23, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
See, people who don’t know how to express their tone of voice while writing or typing will always seem stupid to me.
It just doesn’t seem like they know how to communicate very well.
It must frustrate and/or intimidate them to no end when they read well written, polite, and patient responses.
It’s actually fun to go NPR (tone-wise) on someone when they’re trying to be Hannity.
Comment by Keir — November 23, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
Would this be our everloving Erv?
http://www.mddcpress.com/events/00sumconv.htm
(right side, about half way down)
God Bless.
Comment by davidt — November 23, 2005 @ 6:08 pm
My sister’s boyfriend comes from a Republican upbringing. Normally during holiday get togethers we would abstain from politics. To my surprise last night, he needed no prompting to exclaim his frustration with Bush and the Iraq war. Like a repentent sinner, he saw the light and could see what was really going on when he took the blinders off. I was amazed, he could not stop talking about how bad things have gotten for 2 whole hours. I literally could not get a word in edgewise (other to point out facts that back up his frustrations).
He was quick to note that he wasn’t automatically going to vote for a Democrat next time, and everyone replied “absolutely not”.
Comment by Kg Prophet — November 23, 2005 @ 7:17 pm
Uh oh. Us liberals better get out of their country. After all, it’s their land we’re just stinkin’ it up with our liberal mumbo jumbo.
Comment by Drew B — November 23, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
Each year, I’m invited to one or another of two seperate Thanksgiving dinners. In each case there is a unspoken agreement that political topics are out of bounds.
Each group has one or two Bush-loving, no-support-for-troops = treason; pro-life, maim-the -abortion-doctors; you-f*ing-hippie-throwback, manner of citizen. Each group is easily twenty or more persons in size, and most are moderate liberals to outspoken progressives. But, in deference to everyone’s sensibilities, we don’t mention yellowcake or five draft deferrals, Iraq or FEMA.
The conservicenti, if they had the chance, would argue in the same way Erv did when in full sail, and have in the past; there was a near-fistfight three years ago over that traitorous bitch, Jane Fonda — which led to the current ban.
I don’t mind, but it feels unnatural to self-censor in that way. Oh, well; pass Cheney’s Liver — I mean, the Cranberry sauce, please?
Comment by Nominal Chtulu — November 23, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
I’ve tried this before, and I know how hard it is to maintain civility when there are no actual arguments, just insults and talking points.
Last time someone emailed me directly instead of replying in the forum, well, I had a lot more fun than you did, but achieved absolutely nothing from it.
Comment by Railroad Stone — November 23, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
My wife’s extended family did a big switcheroo back in the 90s. When I met them, they were pretty laid back people with rather moderate political views. Then, over the years, they began to get really racist. Suddenly everything was ‘niggers this’ and ‘niggers that’ and then the next thing I know, they’re raging right-wing Clinton-hating Republicans.
They went from being somewhat ‘normal’ people to meme-spewing fountains of hatred running down the ‘talking points’ of the day. I have no idea what happened, but it was interesting in that it was pretty much one entire side of her family making the jump nearly at once.
I have no problem co-existing with those of differing political views – generally, I just steer clear of the topic. But more and more, these family members would go on left-hating diatribes at the slightest opportunity. It got pretty old pretty quick.
Needless to say, my wife and I don’t spend any time with them anymore. The holidays have never been better. :)
Comment by Rabbot — November 23, 2005 @ 8:57 pm
My brother-in-law is a libertarian, but he votes republican. He claims he does so because “governments can jail or kill you”. So why vote for the party that promoted the Patriot acts? In his case, I think it really boils down to guns. He loves his and doesn’t want anyone infringing on his right to have them.
My mother-in-law is a one issue voter, too. But for her it’s the estate tax. Never mind that the Democrats proposed keeping the tax but raising the amount over which tax is collected to $5 or 10 million. Or that she isn’t in the top 1% who will benefit from retiring the tax.
I make the occasional comment but generally we try to steer clear of sensitive issues.
Comment by bob — November 23, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
Actually, what was interesting to me was the emotional edge of his argument. He latched onto one part of your argument at the beginning of his reply, and held onto it for dear life. You could almost hear his voice going higher and more frantic with every word he wrote, until he suddenly turned around, decided it was ideological, not a matter of facts, and he could safely tune out without admitting he might be wrong.
And that was the interesting thing – throughout the argument, he *couldn’t* admit he might be wrong. He would say “Do I agree with the President on everything? Absolutely not!”, but he couldn’t actually follow up with anything that he disagreed with.
I had a friend here at work that was the same way – he was proud to be an ‘independent’, claimed to be disturbed when things like the outting of a CIA agent or the presidents making fun of a woman on death row were revealed, but he would insulate himself from them by assuming I was an idealogue and making sure he didn’t find out any more about it.
That is, he wanted to see himself as independent, but he didn’t want to chance being wrong. Ever.
Unfortunately, if you’re that scared of being wrong, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will be more than happy to make sure no contrary facts cross your horizons.
How do you talk to people that scared?
Comment by Jonnan — November 23, 2005 @ 9:41 pm
Jonnan –
That same mentality is prevalent in many areas of our society today. You see it in sports. You see it in product/brand loyalty. You see it in nearly every area of life that presents a choice.
It isn’t enough to have taken a position, whether by voting or buying a product or rooting for a sports team – one must triumph over the other and the other has no reason to exist.
It’s competition taken to the extreme. My candidate may be a complete idiot, perhaps even cravenly insane, but he’s on MY TEAM. If you disparage that which I prefer, I should attack you without mercy. It’s very bizarre, and potentially frightening.
To extrapolate the escalation of this attitude takes us to a very scary place. If this happens, then holding an opinion becomes a matter of personal security. It’s the next step of evolution for those who would attack someone for ‘being’ something.
It must stem from a simplification of the discussion. This gentleman was enraged by the something on a web site – yet he couldn’t even recite what exacly angered him. He brandished buzz words and Fox News talking points as his weapons of choice. The gentle author of this web site responded calmly, rationally and with specifics. It certainly diffused the situation but it brought no solution.
The dumbing down of the discussion prods the emotions but does not engage the mind. It creates an environment for blind hostility to flourish.
You will note that the rabid response of the Right to facts or truth indicates a simple refusal to, if not fear to, be wrong. Of losing the game. To lose face.
It is a sad time for us in the reality-based community.
Comment by Rabbot — November 23, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
Folks: You have my genuine sympathy. My in-laws spout FOX and Rush and all those folks, think evolution is evil and all that. I don’t argue any more with them. Why? They’re not rational people. My parents (thank goodness) believe in actual debate, rational thought, etc. When you have a “discussion” with someone it assumes that the other person could persuade you about the correctness of their position. Or that you might find common ground in the middle. With most right-wingers, their idea of a “debate” has a starting point and end point of “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Under those parameters why waste your breath? I live in a world with lots of shades of gray. They live in a black and white world. Who do you think has a better grip on reality? No, I just try and persuade those who are rational and willing to hear opposing viewpoints. THOSE are the people that need to be convinced. Why waste your time with people who aren’t willing to listen?
Comment by T — November 24, 2005 @ 7:57 am
Again to Erv’s credit, he was at least willing to talk. Greg’s cool head, of course, helped too. Made it all possible. I’d love to hear his take on other important issues of the day, like global warming and evolution. You still with us Erv? I suspect he glazes over on subjects scientific. That wasn’t nice of me, was it? I’ll take that back. It was nice of Erv to stay with Greg as long as he did. I can’t get that far with most Repubs!
Comment by bruce — November 24, 2005 @ 8:04 am
I got invited to Thanksgiving Dinner by my neighbor, along with her parents and grandparents. Her father is a Reagan era Republican who has met G. W. Bush, but we get along fine. I invited him to play golf with me one time and he commented on the irony of a Clinton type Democratic liberal playing golf with a committed Republican. My take on this: as long as each side has a sense of humor, it can work. Without the ability to be self deprecating, not so much.
Comment by James Finkelstein — November 24, 2005 @ 9:07 am
posted by: James Finkelstein at November 24, 2005 09:07 AM
I invited him to play golf with me one time and he commented on the irony of a Clinton type Democratic liberal playing golf with a committed Republican.
Has it really come to this? Or is this long been a kind of normal in the States? It just seems strange that it would seem strange that adherents of two not-so-different political parties would play golf together.
Comment by Kenneth Moyle — November 24, 2005 @ 12:06 pm
It seems to me that it all comes down to some people wanting to believe the comfortable lie. The one that says: “None of this is your fault. You’re right; they’re wrong. Here, have a little money.”
And who are ‘they?’ Homosexuals. Liberals. Communists. People from New York. People from Los Angeles. Muslims. Terrorists. The French.Scientists. Intellectuals. Anyone whose last name is Clinton. It really doesn’t matter who it is, as long as it’s not us, or anyone like us. As long as you can convince a certain group that they don’t have to change a thing–in fact, if they actively campaign against progress–things will be ok.
And money…well, now, isn’t that nice? Doesn’t matter that there are others who are getting several hundred times more. Those are hardworking Americans. They deserve it.
And everything goes well, as long as the lie holds up. But now, the ramifications of the lie are starting to appear. And those people who have invested the most in the lie, are angry. And since they’ve built much of their world view on this lie, it’s hard for them to vent their anger on the liars. So, they close their eyes tighter, and curse those who are doing their best to expose the lie.
That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong
Comment by Balloon Pirate — November 24, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
kudos, greg….what you did is hard to do. and just for a little feel-good thanksgiving contrast, my parents were solid reagan republicans who have totally abandoned the republican party because of this administration and their lackeys in congress. it’s just a matter of intellectual honesty trumping fear…..fear of terror (what an odd and seemingly redundant concept!), fear of change, fear of being wrong, fear of not being in control. balloon pirate, i think your analysis is sound.
Comment by dave marley — November 24, 2005 @ 7:43 pm
Just the name Ervin Hagy says it all. That may sound mean but having seen countless Ervin diatribe clones I can only conclude Intelligent Design’s working in the people who breed and name these folks.
Comment by lesley — November 24, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell:
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/
Comment by me — November 25, 2005 @ 5:30 am
I have two Republican sisters. One who is fairly well-to-do and actually benefits from GOP policy. The other is disabled, gets Social Security benefits and still supports policies that would leave her in the street!
Family gatherings are a study in chilly silence. When the conversation veers toward politics things get tense. Snide little comments get made about treason. It amazing how the “Right” manages to slip in the knife of insult and hate so quickly.
Comment by johnny6644 — November 25, 2005 @ 7:11 am
In fact, I’d say that acting in a civil, not to mentions civilized, manner and discussing things, even with someone who is bent on nothing more than calling you names, is the very essence of what true liberalism and the progressive ideal are all about.
I think that exchange was certainly an excellent example of liberalism and why I don’t consider myself one. One definition of a liberal is someone so eager to see the other point of view that they lack convictions of their own and I can find none in your conversation with that idiot.
Comment by Ed Marshall — November 25, 2005 @ 8:16 am
Kudos for setting the example of something we will all have to be doing a lot of if we plan to take back the reins of power: Taking the abuse, confronting the strongly-held but hooribly-misinformed opinions, and hanging in there with our fellow citizens who have gone so hideously astray. Many of these folks are redeemable, if only we have the fortitude to stick with them.
It’s sort of like (but not exactly like) addicts: if you can stay engaged, keep a kind and open heart and stay focused on the goal of bringing them back, you can save quite a few.
Comment by Setting the example — November 25, 2005 @ 8:17 am
our country, right or wrong
I always find it interesting to inform those who wave this one about (be they liberal or conservative) that this is merely a miselading extract from a longer quote from a speech by by German-born Civil War General, U.S. senator, Secretary of the Interior and Anti-Imperalist Leaguer Carl Schurz, to wit:
“My country, right or wrong – when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”
The quote actually comes from a very long and damning speech about American imperialism in the context of the occupation of the Phillipines.
Comment by Parallel Universe — November 25, 2005 @ 9:17 am
the funny thing about Erv’s brand of patriotism, is that it functions the same in any country, regardless of that country’s political ideology. If Erv had been a native filipino in the Phillipines in the 80s he would have been pro-Marcos all the way. If he was Serbian in the 90s, he’d be railing about what a raw deal Milisovec was getting. If he was Chilean in the 70s, he’d be spouting praise for Pinochet. Blind patriotism is a dangerous thing.
Comment by dAVE — November 25, 2005 @ 10:25 am
“My country, right or wrong – when right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right.”
I much prefer…
– GK Chesterton
Z.
Comment by Zwack — November 25, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
My country, right or wrong may have come from a speech against American imperialism, but it is a phrase that was adopted by the supporters of the war in the Phillipines. It is very apt to bring it up in the context of the discussion of the current war.
That you know the ultimate source of this phrase is praiseworthy, I guess, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t gained connotations outside its original meaning.
Comment by Biff Usually — November 25, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
Conservativism is all about fear. Fear of the new, fear of the strange, fear of discomfort, fear of loss, fear of death, fear of being wrong, fear of loss of control. In liberal philosophy there is room for everyone, regardless of opinions/positions. In conservative philosophy there is no room for the different. If it makes them uncomfortable/unhappy it must be minimized or eliminated. Hence the ease with which seemingly normal people were turned into fear driven hatemongers who wanted every muslim on Earth (and their Liberal enablers) destroyed, even though we are the “land of the free and home of the brave”. Even though the odds of Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom ever facing death or injury from the most virulent terror attack imaginable were nearly zero.
It’s like the spectacular jumbo jet crash that kills a few hundred people but occupies hours of news coverage, sends folks to hug their children and parents but the everyday risk of being maimed in a car crash are immensely higher, and is ignored for convenience sake and their is little to be doen about it. But they can send other peoples’ relatives off to some god forsaken land to kill those troublemakers and make them feel safe. They can buy a car magnet and a little flag and feel they are doing something, they are in control.
Comment by pseudolus — November 25, 2005 @ 6:24 pm
It would have been interesting to ask Erv if he ever envisioned a point in which the people could no longer support a war waged by a duly elected commander-in chief.
Lets consider a leader who takes over by less than conventional means, uses propaganda to skew public opinion, wages a war based on nationalism, allows torture by a few to escalate to the death of millions…
I know that throwing Hitler out there is incindeary, but the truth is no one wants their sons (or daughters) to go to war for the wrong reasons. The loss of life can be mitigated by knowing the reasons are just, but we cannot be silenced by fear into allowing something evil to go on in the name of patriotism, when it is anything but.
Comment by stc — November 25, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
In Nevada today:
At the supermarket. Wearing my “Spam” t-shirt – not a shirt regarding unwanted email; a t-shirt with a picture of a can of of Spam on it.
Sharp-faced buzz-cut late-20s ex-military-type eyeing me suspiciously. Comes over and says, “I don’t understand your shirt. What’s it supposed to mean?”
I just look at him. What is what supposed to mean?
“Is there a hidden meaning in that? I mean, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say with that shirt.”
What I’m trying to say is . . . uh, this is a can of Spam. It stands for SPiced hAM. It’s made by the Hormel Company in Austin, Minnesota. All the kids are talking about Spam – it’s like, the newest thing.
He stares at me uncomprehendingly with his head cocked to one side, like a curious puppy. And then, with the dawn of his realization that I have just utilized sarcasm on him, his expression changes, rather quickly, to that of fear and distrust – like my Spam t-shirt now somehow speaks to him of worrysome things. Like it’s code for … something … something subversive; maybe even un-American. He walks away, glaring at me over his shoulder several times as he heads toward the check-out with his 30-pak of beer.
He is wearing a t-shirt, too. It has an American Flag on the back – and a pair of praying hands. On the front it says:
“Real Men Love Jesus”
Comment by Spoon — November 25, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
So I bought a “support our troops” ribbon “modified” it with “vote kerry”, mostly because i find the presumption that supporting our troops is exclusively a republican perogative to be rather insulting. Alas, it did not provide the impatus for dialogue I thought it would, but did earn me a stern rebuke for parking my “white trash” (15y old) station wagon in front of a republican’s house in the toniest section of Pittsburgh. Oy, talk about reinforcing stereotypes …
Comment by j — November 25, 2005 @ 9:27 pm
Ed Marshall
Interestingly enough, it’s one of the things that does define liberal and conservative to me, in the exact same way, yet I consider it a good thing.
A conservative is, almost by definition, somebody that believes any change is going to be bad. Of course, to believe that, you have to believe that you already know all there is to know on (insert subject here), because if you don’t then there may be a way to improve it. Alternatively they may believe they know everything about the situation and know the one and only correct method of fixing it, but it’s still based in a belief in absolute knowledge of the issue.
A Liberal does not necessarily believe that change is good – but a liberal (and I will arrogantly assert, a REAL liberal) thinks we definitely don’t know everything about it, and need to *try* to improve the situation. Because of that, we have the advantage of homing in on a solution – we can try different stategies until one works.
Of course that looks to conservatives like a moral weakness. To keep trying different solutions obviously means we don’t believe in the solutions. Which of course, we don’t. We just don’t mind being wrong ten times if it means we’ve learned enough to try an eleventh line of attack on the problem.
Which is of course why so many liberals are of a scientific viewpoint, and so many conservatives of a biblical viewpoint – Science doesn’t have truths per se – it has Theories, best approximations, continually narrowing hypothesis that can only survive the next test, not be proven. The Bible on the other hand is an absolute Truth. Not disprovable – TRUE. The argument among christians is not about the truth of the Bible – it’s about whether it’s absolute truth on a metaphysical level, or is an absolute word-for-word truth.
And of course, if you’ve been raised in *that* kind of environment, then to not have an absolute truth as an answer to a problem is terribly scary. A liberal may be risking ridicule to try the tenth attack on poverty. The fundamentalist conservative is risking his soul – because to try something else means he didn’t see the answers already in the Bible, the source for all Truths. If he can’t shoehorn it into that context (Much easier if you consider it a set of metaphysical truths than the word-for-word truth), then his link with god is at risk. Even if he’s ’simply’ a fiscal conservative, to try to improve the issue is to admit a lack in conservative fiscal policy that depends on it’s being complete in and of itself as a backbone to the policy.
And there’s the communications barrier. Conservatives can’t understand how liberals can risk their souls on solutions they aren’t sure are right unless we’re ammoral fools without convictions, Liberals don’t understand how conservatives can be so sure they’re right that they’ll skip a chance to improve the situation unless they’re immoral idiots that will never change.
We’re probably both wrong, if only because most people aren’t “Liberal” or “Conservative” but a mixture depending on the issue, our emotional attachment, how well we know it, where we get our news, etcetera etcetera etcetera.
Except Ed Marshall, who kicked off this long and winding chain of thought I’ve now subjected everyone else to. I agree Ed Marshall. If you can’t see the liberal convictions in the dialogue that started on this page, you’re definitely no liberal.
Jonnan
Comment by Jonnan — November 25, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
I’m sorry, I can’t see this exchange as being a good one, or one to be recommended or applauded.
>Now that we are getting down to the facts, you are unsure and I am sure.
This sums up Erv’s evolving position quite nicely. He attacks violently, when met with an attempt at reasonable dialogue, he sees this as a form of surrender by Greg. Greg is unsure, Greg does not know or appreciate the truth. Erv has the truth. Erv remains on the attack, in the same post, he continues to demonize Greg, referring to ‘warped view’ and ’stupid ass.’ He accuses Greg of supporting the enemy, or misrepresenting his views (projection or what!) and accuses him of saying ’stupid things.’ He ends with:
>Maybe, just maybe, I have helped you understand.
In short, Erv is taking Greg’s conciliatory approach and effort to communicate as evidence of both weakness and surrender. Erv never once backs away from any stand, he doesn’t even let up on the invective and insults.
Erv’s next post, wherein he acknowledges supporting Clinton in Bosnia, goes on to accuse Greg of being a hypocrite and effeminate. Erv somehow manages to blame Clinton for 9/11. At no point does he consider any culpability for Bush, and he blithely overlooks the ferocious Republican attacks upon Clinton over Bosnia and the Afghanistan strikes against Osama. There’s no sign of fairness here. Erv is simply on the attack, and never lets up.
Now, let’s look at Erv’s final post, which I’ll edit down a bit for clarity:
>Greg, we will get absolutely no where because we are firmly entrenched in our ideology.
Really? Erv is no longer willing to consider the discussion. He admits that he refuses to change his mind here. But having argued that Greg is unsure about his own position, and is incompetent and effeminate, Erv is at loose ends. He knows that he doesn’t have the rational skills or evidence to change Greg’s mind. His own certainty is resolute, but he fears he’s reached the limits of his ability. Thus, he wants to go home.
>I know how I felt when my Brother was in harm’s way.
Logic is not serving him, and in fact, he’s sensing traps there. His refuge is a retreat into sentiment and sentimentality. It’s all about feelings for Erv. No more talking about how Greg’s logic is warped and bizarre.
>Tears streamed down my face when he left for Vietnam.
A claim to authentic emotion, because authentic emotion is so much more ‘real’ than facts.
>Have you ever had to live through that fear…. your fellow Americans were providing encouragement and support to the enemy
Essentially, he’s projecting his attack on Greg backwards into Vietnam. It’s irrational and stupid, but there you have it. He accuses opponents of the Vietnam war of treason, just as he accuses opponents of Iraq.
Erv may not be rational, but he’s relentlessly consistent.
Note that here Erv is presenting himself as a victim. His hatred and anger is justified, because he is being attacked.
>I believe the answer to my question is “no.”
Here he asserts that Greg’s emotions are not authentic, and therefore not legitimate. Greg does not have the emotional truth. This, we are offered, is why Greg sides with the traitors.
> If I am wrong tell me your experience. I am happy to listen.
But actually, no he is not. Erv’s invitation to discussion is actually an effort to castrate the debate entirely. All that Greg is allowed to offer is emotional authenticity, if he has any. If he doesn’t, or lacks sufficient authenticity, Erv wins. If Greg somehow possesses authenticity, such as having been in Vietnam himself, Erv simply proceeds to the end and the treason conclusion. The conclusion is the same, treason, it is not dependent upon the course of the discussion.
>I have made some comments to you out of anger and I apologize for those comments.
Very nice. But as we’ll see, this is just Erv dishonestly seeking the moral high ground.
>I paid $154.00 to have “Support President Bush and Our Troops!” in huge letters on my Explorer. That should tell you something about me and how I feel about our soldiers.
Erv establishes that he is a swell guy.
>The Democrats talk about bringing the soldiers home but you saw how the vote went when it came down to showing their true colors. Be mindful of that vote.
So basically, all that Treason, Effeminate, Hypocrisy, stupidity stuff still goes.
>I like you but I do not like your views. I believe you are a really nice guy because I have hammered you but you took it very well. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Well, that’s praising with faint damnations isn’t it. Erv likes Greg because Greg sucked up all his abuse and didn’t give any back. Erv thinks Greg is a nice guy, but hates his views. Well, guess what, the only things that Erv knows about Greg are his views and the fact that Greg was willing to be abused and reviled. So Greg has won a friend by being a punching bag.
I’m sure if this friendship continues, this will remain the course of it. Greg will get to be a punching bag for a long time.
>By the way, my Brother was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. I am extremely proud of him. Obviously, I came very close to losing someone I love very much!
So it turns out, its all about Erv and what a great guy Erv is, notwithstanding his abuse.
This exchange for me illustrates the despicable qualities of American Right Wingers and American Liberals.
Erv is obviously a coward. He’s a draft dodger, or at the very least, someone who was happy to see his brother go to war, but couldn’t be bothered to do so himself. Erv in both Vietnam and Iraq confines himself to symbolic gestures that offer no risk and no cost to himself.
Ervi is a bully and a thug in that he opens with personal abuse and maintains that through the discussion. He proves himself irrational and unable and unwilling to reason logicaly. He reaches for cheap emotional theatrics. Erv is only interested in surrender, and to the extent that he is concilatory to Greg, it is because he sees Greg as unsure of his own opinions, weak and submissive.
Greg, on the other hand is a coward. He refuses to demand minimal respect our courtesy at any point. His approach is conciliatory to a fault. Greg is dishonest in that he refuses to follow through on his own points and logic, he refuses to challenge Erv’s assertions, or to require Erv to flow through on his own contradictions. He’s entirely prepared to allow Erv full rein to play his emotional games. Erv took Greg’s positions as surrender, and that’s actually not far off.
Comment by Den Valdron — November 26, 2005 @ 9:45 am
Rabbot has the thread just right: it’s the racism, stupid. To a correlation of 98.7%, those who still love the war on Iraq are anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-feminist, anti-everybody-not-like-them. The Bushbots in my family are the same people who tell stories about “those people” at Thanksgving dinner.
Comment by W Action — November 26, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
Erv took Greg’s positions as surrender, and that’s actually not far off.
Bingo.
Comment by Ed Marshall — November 27, 2005 @ 10:09 am
A while back, during the run-up to the election, I started posting on a right wing military cherrleading site called BillRoggio.com. My comments started off with the respectful tone that you used during your conversations with “Erv.”
I suggested shocking things like, “The Iraq war may end up costing us a trillion dollars,” and “wouldn’t we support our troops more if we brought the draft back?”
I was called every name in the book. One poster in particular told me that I was “nothing,” and that my posts obviously came from a bad relationship with my father, who probably left me and never loved me. Just the most personal, vile attacks possible.
Bill Roggio never called off the dogs. But he would repeatedly chasten me whenever I called anyone on their B.S.
I often asked myself why I bothered trying to communicate. To move past the rhetoric. And eventually I got tired of it and stopped. But I do feel that I learned from it. Like looking into the abyss…it horrifies you, but you learn from it.
I learned that there’s a lot of deep pain in this country. It’s real. Bush and Co. use it, manipulate it into hate, and wield it as a weapon. But it just inflicts so much more pain.
I enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks…
Jason
Comment by Jason M — November 27, 2005 @ 11:56 am
If you can’t see the liberal convictions in the dialogue that started on this page, you’re definitely no liberal.
What dialogue?
All I saw was someone bending over backwards to accomodate insane formulations (Erv would have won Vietnam (though he didn’t bother to go), his recycled fascist Stab In The Back Theory, Islamofascism is a serious concept, etc..) and still getting called a traitor who is “nice” at the end only because he didn’t respond in kind.
If that’s your answer for those folks you are really doomed and with good reason.
Comment by Ed Marshall — November 27, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
Well, that’s the definition used by right-wingers, yes. For everyone else, though, they skip everything in your definition after the word “that” and finish instead with “…that they are much more likely to accomplish the right thing rather than their preconceived convictions, right or wrong.”
Comment by Cyrus — November 28, 2005 @ 8:44 am
Stumbled on the blog today because of a cross post someone had made about a David Cross post of mine. Comments were closed on your post regarding the issue though so I decided to check out the rest of your blog.
Anyway, it’s an awesome blog. I’ve only read a couple posts, but the posts are interesting and the conversation (for left winged, tresonous liberals who hate the president, LOL). This has to be the most entertaining posts I’ve read in a long time. Really refreshing.
This sort of random hate mail is typical of people who don’t blog. They’re not used to having a voice or people listening to it. They’re often full of piss an viniger often seemingly trolling for negative response. It’s just pent up anger from screaming at the slack jawed yokels and staw men on episodes like Cross Fire on the TV. They’re just so used to noone listening or caring what they have to say. When you do respond or register their opinions and they realize there’s a real and intelligent human being on the other end of the line they usually come around really quick, not about their point of view, but they stop behaving like the world is made out of stereotypical straw men like they see on TV. Ironically they become stereotypical straw men themselves in response to the obtuse debate in media and telivision. You can just see the layers peel away in this conversation. It gives me hope that the world will evolve away from this “extremist”, “fundamentalist”, “right wing / left wing”, “jihadist”, bullshit. That constantly politicizes fucking everything. I’m sorry, but I acknowlege politics, but I don’t think what defines america right now is wether you’re a left wing anti-war commie or a right wing pro-war fascist. LOL at that. It’s a much richer and more granular and organic debate about individual human issues. I love that you peeled through the layers of this onion and the layers of B.S. just fall away. Fucking superb.
Anyway, this dude should start a blog. He obviously has some things to say. He’ll soon realize the rehtoric is unimportant and the differing perspectives rule the debate.
-Mike
Comment by mmeiser — November 28, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
It started off as a promising exchange, but I think the guy was either pulling your leg or is some kind of wingnut. If he isn’t it’s truly scary, the kind of mass mind control these right wing vitriolic radio hosts are perpetrating on a large section of the american public. Let’s hope these people only represent about 10% of the population, I fear that figure is higher.
Comment by Sean — November 28, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
Erv is lost at sea: Capitalism isn’t a form of government…at least it wasn’t till Bush II arrived on the scene.
Way to give him what-for, Greg.
Comment by jimmmm — November 29, 2005 @ 6:57 am
This site is very interesting. Great job. hot swingers and couples
Comment by swingers ads — December 15, 2005 @ 2:14 am