Comments on: Moral Values

By: Bush2004

Bush2004 — Tue, 09 Nov 2004 02:51:13 +0000

Dont yall get it—religion is the opiate of the masses. Always has and always will be.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 18:39:52 +0000

Great, Mona. Now we know where you stand. No question about it. So how about addressing some questions of substance with me, instead of just chewing my ass? Who knows? If you can contain your rage, you might even succeed in changing my mind about a few things. I think, by now, that I've more than demonstrated my willingness to eat a shit sandwich in order to have the opportunity to have an open discussion with you. I've proposed a couple of theses over the past few days. They include the following:

That the "moral values" cited by many conservative voters in this election refer, not to their feelings about abortion, gay marriage, etc., but to their feelings about John Kerry.
That the ambiguity of the exit poll question that contained the "moral values" option was expressly designed by biased poll writers to produce the reaction it has.
That the religious affiliation of officers of the U.S. Government is not relevant to the concept of seperation of church and state.
That the divisiveness represented by this election season can only be improved through honest and respectful dialogue between individuals on the Left and the Right.
... and quite a few others.

You, Mona, have also advanced a few theses. Rather than risk misrepresenting them, I will quote a representative sample:

That’s what marketing and religion and political campaigning do. Trying to convert people. It’s not “the democratic process”... I don’t think campaigning for votes is the same as the “democratic process”...
When I speak of theocratic fundamentalist mindset I speak of people who want laws to be based on faith, rather than the common ethics and principles laws are based on in modern democracies. Theocracy also means “the belief in government by divine guidance”. Not necessarily clerics running the state, you know.
Usually the party that wins elections gets to run the country. The losers at least get to bitch about it and pretend their opposition can really matter.
... and a few others.

So we have some differences of opinion. Great! Why can't we talk about them? I'm willing to talk with you about any of these subjects... or any other, for that matter. You're already talking with me anyway... although I will admit that from here it feels more like you're talking at me. Yelling, actually. All I'm asking is that we focus the discussion a bit. What do you have to lose?

By: mona

mona — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:58:44 +0000

You don’t like my attitude toward the war? Fine. But it’s fair to point out that my own experience of war most likely qualifies me to hold such opinions in ways that your own life experience can’t even touch. So why not lighten up a little? About the carnage in Iraq, or about your “rock’n’roll!!” take on it? What kind of “qualified experienced opinion” was that? Or was it an example of civil, reasonable attitude? I’m that weird and polemical, because for my moral values, talking of wars like they were videogames is what’s considered offensive baseless drivel. It’s also considered extremely arrogant not just to infer or imply things people never wrote, all the while preaching from a soapbox about manners, but also to assume things about other people’s “life experience”, no less. But yeah, my life experience certainly doesn’t “touch” the sheer rock’n’roll fun aspect of things like suicide attacks and military bombings and city sieges and martial law. Of that much, you can be totally certain.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 15:45:45 +0000

Mona, since you label my Dark Ages etc. assertions as “straw men,” am I then to understand that you maintain that such sentiments do not exist? Or are you agreeing that they do, but that their existence is not relevant to the discussion? Or is there some third option I haven’t mentioned? While it may be personally satisfying to reject a thesis out of hand, I fail to see how it could be more satisfying than, say, refuting it. I’m bewildered that you don’t care about my vote. After all, a primary theme of this thread is dissatisfaction with the results of the recent election. It only stands to reason that the only way to avoid such dissatisfaction next time around is to change enough minds to affect the voting outcome. If you don’t care about a vote like mine—when I’m here turning myself inside out in an effort simply to hear your position, which is frankly a little difficult to distinguish from polemic at this point—then how do you propose to prevail next time around? Here’s what I think: I think you don’t trust me. I think you believe that my presence here is part of some elaborate ruse, some arcane Conservative game of “Gotcha!” It’s hard not to point out that, if it were, you’d be playing right into my hands right now. But it’s not.

No, for the nth time, I’m not interested in faking unity and all your pretences at being interested in real discussion when you’re constantly putting words in people’s mouths and implying and distorting and using ridiculous straw men about the Dark Ages and crap like that. What Unkle Kvetch said.

That is not the reasoned response of an educated person. You don’t like my attitude toward the war? Fine. But it’s fair to point out that my own experience of war most likely qualifies me to hold such opinions in ways that your own life experience can’t even touch. So why not lighten up a little? Your writing marks you as an educated person. Your attitude doesn’t mark you as a very pleasant one. I’ll say it again: I am interested in your reasoned opinions. I have spent a lot of time in this forum and elsewhere demonstrating my sincerity in this regard. You don’t owe me anything… but I’m sure you’re capable of reasoning superior to the baseless hostility and content-free drivel quoted above.

By: mona

mona — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 09:41:08 +0000

Yes, Jason, like I said already, I can despise the ideas of people I never met and therefore wouldn’t know if I’d despise as a whole as persons. We’re talking politics here and words are all people have to judge each other. I despise the fact you posted about the impending operation in Falluja in terms of “godspeed! rock’n’roll”. It’s even more despicable because you were actually in the military. If it was a kid saying that it would be just a silly thing. The fact you think being in the military allows you to be so juvenile about war is really, quite sad. More people are going to be killed on both sides and in between. Soldiers are being blown up and civilians killed and driven out of their homes. Oh I must be so bitter to get all serious and heavy on shit like that. But since that’s so FUNNY to you, and you think of it like a party or a rock concert, I have most definitely nothing to say to you on the matter. I think I wasted enough time already. No, for the nth time, I’m not interested in faking unity and all your pretences at being interested in real discussion when you’re constantly putting words in people’s mouths and implying and distorting and using ridiculous straw men about the Dark Ages and crap like that. What Unkle Kvetch said. No one owes you a reply and yet everyone’s been more than patient enough already. No, I never said I want you to vote for anyone in particular so please spare your “presumably” and “I assume”, I don’t care who you vote for and never said I did, and no, like I said already, I don’t think campaigning for votes is the same as the “democratic process”, which is not limited to elections and voter persuasion, and whose nature is outlined in constitutions and laws so it’s not a matter of my opinion and certainly nothing that can be condensed in one line. I’m not a lecturer and I’m not a politician or a campaigner. I’m quite happy to leave you to celebrate more carnage in Iraq, while pretending to be Mr Unity. By all means view that as unreasonable refusal of “dialogue” and “common ground”. Cheers.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 20:07:02 +0000

Seth, I've reviewed your links. Now kindly state your thesis, in vocabulary accessible to a jack-booted, fascist thug who's been asleep for the past 36 years. Sheesh. Bonus points if you state your thesis at Unity. Lots more points if you can do it respectfully. Mona, does this ring a bell?

Dear Mr 12 years of service... I don’t play nice to people I despise.... You’re the one rejoicing about killing as if it was a party.

Slightly out of context, I admit, but it does capture the flavor. Perhaps I misinterpreted your intent. Regarding the democratic process... convert was your word, Mona, not mine, and it's a pretty loaded one. I prefer convince... through reasoned debate. Now I'm honestly curious, though... what exactly is your concept of the democratic process? Presumably you'd like me to vote for a Democratic candidate in the 2008 election. If not by convincing me to do so, how are you going to get me to do it? Or are you suggesting that the process of procuring my vote and the concept of "democratic process" are not quite the same thing? Please explain. Mona, if you would consider posting your response at Unity, I'd be grateful. I created the Unity blog just yesterday, and its primary inspiration is the conversation you, me, Seth, and Kvetch have been having here over the past few days. I'm trying really hard to put my money where my mouth is, and I'd appreciate your support. Regarding the Gandolfini-Allawi connection... you know, you're right! Although I'm tempted to lump both photos into the old guy squinting category. Kvetch, here's a five-minute sample from Google. Click each link and do a page search on the indicated term:

We can argue about context and the relative influence of the speakers, but there's no denying that those and similar sentiments are on the street. Why are we arguing about this? You can't seriously suggest that only one side of the American Divide uses tactics that are nasty and unfair. My thesis is not that either side is blameless. Quite the contrary. Here's my thesis: None of us can control what comes out of the other guy's mouth... but we are each utterly responsible for what comes out of our own. So we each—you and me, Kvetch—have a responsibility to ensure that what comes out of our mouths is factual and fair. Now, if the foregoing is unintelligent or disrespectful, I apologize, and invite you to explain why. But are you telling me that you disagree with that thesis? And, if so, which part?

By: mona

mona — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:43:10 +0000

Look, guys: the essence of the democratic process is that we get our way by convincing other people that our way is better. That’s what marketing and religion and political campaigning do. Trying to convert people. It’s not “the democratic process”.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:03:52 +0000

Euch. Sunday morning, no coffee yet. This thread is longer than my… never mind. Please do me the favor of visiting http://thedeadhand.com/unity. More later.

By: mona

mona — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:32:09 +0000

No, Jason, I didn't say I despise you and I didn't "reject" you (?) and actually I don't even remember you asking me for an opinion on your personality or me expressing anything such. Yeah, I don't know you. Yeah, I'm sure you're a terribly nice guy and love gardening and playing with the kids and all. On the other hand, I may be a serial killer and you wouldn't know that either. But anyways. I'm talking of the ideas of the people I was referring to. I may despise your ideas, too, if they concide with those. Wow, eh, what a horrible thing to do. Because the people whose political ideas I despise are really always so characteristically polite and nice and so understanding about people who have a different worldview. Amazing I didn't notice and literally thought they'd bring back the Dark Ages and put all leftists in iron maidens in deep torture dungeons, yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what I wrote. It'd all be easier if only there was one party, one ideology, one religion. No really! Anyway, for something entirely different: I just noticed Iyad Allawi looks remarkably like James Gandolfini a.k.a. Tony Soprano. Or, and older James Gandolfini. Especially the eyes! It's uncanny. They have the same look. Compare: Gandolfini giving the Soprano look Allawi giving the Allawi look Isn't that cute?

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:33:04 +0000

Let’s ignore morality for a bit. Jason. Let’s talk history. Run down for me the history of US involvement in the Middle East. Talk to me about Mohammed Mosadegh and the CIA. Tell us the history of Savak. Persuade me that you know anything about the relationship of the US government to Saddam Hussein before the first war in 91, (and before the Iran Iraq war.) Then explain to me if you will the reasons why the Bush led Pentagon brigade did not blow it in Fallujah the first time around. Explain to me why there were always plenty of troops on hand. Tell me why the Marines who watched the election night broadcast in a pizza parlor near 29 Palms were getting shitfaced cursing the fucking tv screen! Before you were a Marine trained to follow orders, you were a citizen of the United States, a representative democracy, trained, one hopes, to ask questions. You’ve proven your loyalty to your masters, but you have not done the same for the Republic, nor I am afraid to your brothers in arms. Please do so now. ps. You’e still avoided explaining this S.A., Beer Hall Butch thing you’ve got going on. Isn’t fascism, even in its soft core variety, a form of snobbery? Dear?

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:51:43 +0000

Here are a few examples of the most awful things that folks on the other side can think of to say. We face: A return to the Inquisition. A rehash of the Crusades. A return to witch-burning. A return of the Dark Ages. According to whom, Jason? Who said those things, in what context? I gave you specifics, I named names and contexts, and you’re giving me utterly unsubstantiated claims about “folks on the other side.” Spare me the noble sentiments about how hard you’ve been working to make this a productive conversation. If you want an intelligent, mutually respectful exchange of ideas, you have a funny way of showing it.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:56:52 +0000

That's too bad, guys... because I'm trying really hard to have an intelligent conversation with you. Can't you see this this is precisely my point? Like it or not, we—those of us who voted for the current administration, and those of us who voted against—are stuck with one another. We live in a very big house, but it's still the same house. I'm bewildered. I have no doubt that many of you feel very upset, for example, when you perceive that Israel's leadership has once again failed to honor the latest peace process... yet here I am, making genuine overtures for dialogue, and you reject me out of hand. And we aren't even shooting at each other. Mona, if you despise me, that's too bad. You've never met me, and I'm actually a fairly nice guy. My ideals are quite a bit more liberal than you give me credit for... in fact, this year is the first time I have ever voted for a Republican candidate. Your rejection of me seems to fly in the face of every principle of liberalism. Uncle Kvetch. You said:

Now, when you can come up with something roughly comparable to, say, a United States Senator comparing my partner’s and my private sexual relations to “man-on-dog,” or someone comparing our relationship to the murder of 6 million Jews, I’ll be more than willing to consider that maybe Christians really are “maligned” in this country. If you can’t, maybe you’re the one who needs to “knock it off.”

I now understand that, with this passage, you were asking me to provide a comparable example of how Christians are maligned in America. I missed it the first time around. Forgive me. Kvetch... in all honesty, I can't. Not to the same degree. But—to be fair—that's because the examples you gave are the most awful things that the people who said them could think of to say. Here are a few examples of the most awful things that folks on the other side can think of to say. We face:

A return to the Inquisition.
A rehash of the Crusades.
A return to witch-burning.
A return of the Dark Ages.

As bad? I guess it depends on whether you're on the receiving end. Pretty powerful stuff, though, and no less untrue. Kvetch, please do not read this as an attempt to excuse the bad behavior of one side with the bad behavior of the other. It isn't. On the contrary, I am observing that, in a debate filled with these kinds of barbs, any kind of useful conclusion is impossible. You can't do anything about what comes out of the other guy's mouth, but you are utterly responsible for what comes out of your own. So make sure that you, at least, are telling a true and fair story. Because we have to start somewhere. I said nothing terrible about half-naked people at gay-pride parades. In fact, I pointed out that I have been a half-naked person at gey pride parades, and still am, most years. I tried to clarify this once already, but I obviously didn't do a good job, so I'll try again: If you're not gay... if you don't even realize that you know any gay people... homosexuality is a bit of a shock. It takes time to swallow. "We're here, we're queer" is a lot of fun, and probably necessary, but it is also—and quite deliberately!—provocative. So let's not be surprised when the folks we're trying to hit with a dash of reality actually respond as if they've been hit with something. My statement that you are determined to hate people you've never met was probably not fair... after all, I don't know you any better than Mona knows me. So I withdraw it, with apologies. Look, guys: the essence of the democratic process is that we get our way by convincing other people that our way is better. You can't do that if you only talk with people who already agree with you anyway. That's why I'm here: I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm going to make you work for it. I've taken a lot of cheap shots over the past few days, and I have tried to respond gracefully. I hope that stands as evidence of my willingness to play fair. Uncle Kvetch, I hope that works for you. It's as intelligent and coherent as I get.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:39:58 +0000

I have very little to add to what Mona and Seth have said. Jason, I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that it’s utterly impossible to have any kind of intelligent discussion with you. I asked you for an example of how “Christians” are so “maligned” in this country and you came back at me with Michael Moore saying terrible things about the Bush administration and half-naked people at gay pride parades, whatever the hell that has to do with my question. Then you tell me that I’m “absolutely determined to hate people I’ve never met,” based on what, I haven’t the foggiest idea. Your “exchanges” with Mona and Seth have been no more enlightening, and no less incoherent.

By: mona

mona — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:17:28 +0000

Dear Mr 12 years of service, I just don’t know how I can’t possibly continue to repeat what I wrote already as I don’t see a way of making it clearer. When I speak of people who hold extreme beliefs I speak of people who hold extreme beliefs only. I don’t have anything in common with those people. Literally, there’s an ocean between us. I do not despise religion. I have my own religious beliefs which are no one’s business but mine and G-d, if it exists. What I despise is the exploitation of religion for political nationalistic purposes. When I speak of theocratic fundamentalist mindset I speak of people who want laws to be based on faith, rather than the common ethics and principles laws are based on in modern democracies. Theocracy also means “the belief in government by divine guidance”. Not necessarily clerics running the state, you know. Politicians cynically pander to that mindset, of course they’re not going to turn the US into Iran. But that’s not to say everything is ok about that strategy. As for common ground, when there’s none, I’m not going to fake there is some. Why the hell should I? I can assure you I have no common ground with people like Rush Limbaugh. Just like I know I have no common ground with neonazis. I don’t play nice to people I despise. I don’t have to like everything that exists. Not everybody has to like my ideas. That’s how it works. You’re the one rejoicing about killing as if it was a party, and I’m supposed to go, hey, yeah, we’re on the same side after all? It’s absolutely ridiculous. This belief that the mere existence of terrorism should erase political, religious, ideological differences on how to deal with it and everything else in the world. I don’t live in Putin’s Russia. I do not even live in Bush’s America. Or in Fallujah, thankfully. I don’t think I’d have packed up and left just because the liberators want to give the “common ground” electorate a show of force. After they let terrorists infiltrate Iraq from every corner. Playing politics with people’s lives, how very holy. Go ahead and infer and imply from that whatever you want, let’s just say I’m an antiamerican terrorist supporter and save the trouble of more pointless posts. Have fun with the Fallujah celebrations! Godspeed you and rock and roll, whatever.

By: Jason G. Williscroft

Jason G. Williscroft — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 07:00:07 +0000

This thread is way out of hand. Mona, since I can't start a new thread here, and since you don't have a blog of your own, I have responded to you on mine. I'd love to continue the conversation there. Seth, you appear to have the right equipment. Your place or mine? ;) JC... You must have misunderstood me, because that isn't even remotely like anything I would say. Precisely which "differing viewpoint" is it that I'm equating with an act of terrorism?