Way to give him what-for, Greg.

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

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.

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.”

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.

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

Bingo.

>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.