Media Criticism, Political Commentary

They Hate Us

46 Comments

They really, really hate us:

They think we are fools. They view our religion as superstition. They label our skepticism as ignorance and our patriotism as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and fattening.

Nothing is worse to a liberal than fat.

The liberal contempt for America is shining through.

President Obama called voters “whiners” in public. Heaven knows what he calls them in private.

Rubes.

46 thoughts on “They Hate Us”

  1. I can see why Obama and Kerry have contempt for the electorate. Obama and Kerry figure anyone who voted for them is a dummy. Ha Ha Ha.

    I think the same thing. Anyone who voted for Kerry and Obama IS a dummy. They’re too dumb to see through the lies that the Left has been telling for so long. They want to believe in a free lunch (and a pony!). They’re so convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority that they don’t realize just how ignorant they really are about the world.

  5. I know they hate me. Not only am I a clinger to my Bible and my guns, but I vote. Republican.

    And I contribute to Republicans, too.

    If they come after me for that, there are always the guns that I cling to, right?

    Go ahead and laugh at those of us who are armed and prepared to live unaided for a few months, or years…..If Barry gets his way, I’ll be around when a lot of people are off to the reeducation camps.

    If you think he wouldn’t, if he could? Think again, and look who he has surrounded himself with.

    I hope and pray for a better outcome, but I keep buying ammo.

    YMMV, and I wish it will. But I’m not counting my chickens just yet. There may still be an October Surprise that cancels the November Elections….or tries to.

  8. rickl – thanks for the links. There’s a nugget on Porretto’s “The Professionals Part 2: Do Not Feed Or Annoy” essay that I feel the need to share here:

    Which is why leftist trolls are such an important phenomenon.

    A naive rightist will wonder aloud “why they bother,” but will decline to consider that a leftist troll must have a reason for infesting a conservative forum and irritating its participants. After all, he’s unlikely to make converts. Yet the time and effort such trolls put into their intrusions is considerable, and there are a considerable number of them. Why?

    The answer is quite simple, once you’ve allowed yourself to ask the question: they seek to drive as many of us as possible out of the conversation, by sheer power of irritation. The more of us there are who take visible part in conversations on the Right, the more energized we’ll be, both individually and in aggregate; the fewer, the less. If a troll can “thin the herd” with his disruptions, he can dissipate some of the energy that propels us, thereby reducing our ultimate effectiveness at spreading the messages of Constitutionally limited government and American national sovereignty.

    So: how does a troll deduce that his slanders and tauntings are having the desired effect? Again quite simply: by the number of conservatives who elect to fence with him. The more responses and ripostes he garners, the more confident he’ll be that he’s helping to wear us out. And indeed, by deflecting us from strengthening one another’s convictions and passion for victory, that’s exactly what he’ll be doing.

    Some leftist trolls are dispatched by organizers to infest specific sites. Some are even paid for their labors. A few have admitted it in public. Reflect on that for a moment.

    Now I know why bob-1 and gerrib keep coming back …

  10. Bizarre. I don’t hate people simply for disagreeing with me politically (as evidence: I never post anything hateful here). I enjoy debate. In college, I sought out Republicans as housemates who would enjoy an argument, and in twenty five years since, I’ve continued the pattern in my friendships (many of my friends are from Eastern Europe who endured communism and became staunch conservatives when they came/escaped to the USA.) This particular website fascinates me, because it is populated by the people who used to hang out at sci.space and yet has a political tone. Against a lot of evidence, I keep thinking that people who do research on space related topics are likely to be smarter and more interesting than average, and it is fun to see how they’ve come to such different conclusions than me about politics even while they pursue the kind of research and/or the kind of advocacy regarding the space exploration and habitation that I think is so worthwhile.

  11. Anyway, don’t you think Porretto’s position “argument will wear us out, do not engage” is problematic? Argument is good for your brain. Groupthink will weaken your the foundations of your beliefs, while arguing for your beliefs (or arguing against them, just for the sake of an argument) will make your positions stronger.

  13. I’ve been saying this for years and I’m glad to see fellow conservatives finally getting it. When we treat Democrats as just the “rival crosstown team” who may differ from us on policy but are really good guys underneath, we are walking on a cliff edge in the dark.

    They are insane. Literally: they have some mental derangement, possibly a form of schizophrenia or clinical depression. A chemical imbalance preventing them from being content in the real world. They obsessively seek “change” in the (futile) hope it will end their unhappiness. Over time, that desire sours to a simple love of destruction.

    Unable to connect with other humans on any solid basis, the only emotion they really experience is blinding hatred, directed at everyone who doesn’t share their pathological need for change and destruction.

  14. “superstition” is those cute little quirks that you giggle about.. like worrying about black cats crossing your path or walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror.. or throwing salt over your shoulder when you spill it.

    Religion isn’t superstition.. it’s institutional and community enforced insanity.

  15. Trent, have a look at the etymology of the word, and you might change your opinon — religion is indeed connected with “superstition”. The first time I thought about it, I wondered if there was “sub-stition” as well — perhaps that what you’re expressing! And of course, Rand would just have plain old stition, since he is always sensible…. 🙂

    But that’s not the case. Here’s some excerpts from wikipedia:

    The etymology is from the classical Latin superstitio, literally “a standing over [in amazement]”, but other interpretations include an over-scrupulousness in religion or a “hold-over” from older beliefs . The word is attested in the 1st century BC, notably in Livy and Ovid, in the meaning of an unreasonable or excessive belief in fear or magic, especially foreign or fantastical ideas. Cicero, however, derives the term from the “superstitiosi” (“survivors”): parents indulging in excessive prayer and sacrifice hoping that their children would survive them to perform their necessary funeral rituals.[2] By the 1st century AD, it came to refer to “religious awe, sanctity; a religious rite” more generally.

    …


    To European medieval scholars the word was applied to any beliefs outside of or in opposition to Christianity; today it is applied to conceptions without foundation in, or in contravention of, scientific and logical knowledge.[5] Many extant western superstitions are said to have originated during the plagues that swept through Europe.[citation needed]

    …

    In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition.

  17. Bob-1 thanks for confirming atheism as a religion. Now, when Dawkins or Maher talk about superstition, I’ll know they are including themselves.

  18. Bill, could you elaborate? (I’m asking in a non-hateful way, of course.)
    Here’s a common take on it: an atheist could be defined as a person who believes there is no god, or a person who doesn’t believe a god exists. I think only the former case counts as a religious belief. And even in the former case, you’d want to be careful.

    For example, consider today’s news coverage of Gliese 581g. In the follwoing exchange, does either of the co-discoverers of Gliese 581g express a religious belief? Is Vogt being religious and/or superstitious when he expresses his personal view?

    ==
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/science/space/30planet.html?_r=1&ref=science

    Pressed during the news conference about the possibility of life on Gliese 581g, Dr. Vogt protested that he was an astronomer, not a biologist. Then he relented, saying that, speaking strictly personally, he believed that “the chances of life on this planet are almost 100 percent.”

    Asked the same question, Dr. Butler squirmed and said, “I like data.”

  19. Darkstar,

    I don’t believe you are being fair. Daveon, Gerrib, and Jim (of course, who can forget Jim!) tend to offer little more than amusement, but Bob-1 engages with ideas in a generally gracious manner. I don’t agree with him often, but there is no harm in that, and perhaps a lot of good. Perhaps you can show me otherwise, but I cannot remember seeing any commentary from Bob that I would characterize as disrespectful or hateful. He is not (to my way of thinking, at least) a troll…

    Just a thought

  20. Invoke me and I’ll come [insert Dr. Evil cackle here]. I wasn’t going to comment on this, but since y’all asked:

    1) I’m sure the liberal hate of fat is why the Weekly Standard had a fat Al Gore on the cover. (Picture of Jim Inhofe elevating the discourse of the Senate with said picture).

    2) In general, demonizing your opponents as evil and/or stupid may make you feel good, but it’s usually wrong and never helpful in a debate.

  21. Anyway, don’t you think Porretto’s position “argument will wear us out, do not engage” is problematic?

    Not at all. Legitimate discussion is a form of trade, and the goods are ideas. Verbally antagonizing other people is not, and is more akin to vandalism. Trolling as Porretto describes is simply the latter disguised as the former. His position is no more problematic than an admonition to avoid a physical altercation with, say, a douchebag walking down the street taunting people.

  22. Argument is good for your brain

    I thought something similar when reading the second installment. The distinction is reasonableness.

    While iron sharpens iron; do not cast your pearls before swine.

    It may be hard to tell by watching the actions of many that call themselves christians but the bible admonishes to use reason. The heart is treacherous.

  23. Legitimate discussion is a form of trade, and the goods are ideas. Verbally antagonizing other people is not, and is more akin to vandalism.

    I agree. However, there is a (significant imo) number of people who visit here and do not comment. Leaving stupid troll crap with no response may be leaving them with the opinion that said crap has value. Avoiding a physical altercation with a douchebag walking down the street is one thing. Informing him (and those nearby) of what he is is something else, and if done in a skilled manner, does not necessarily lower the level of discourse.

  25. Bob-1,you commented about members of one faith referring to members of another as engaging in superstitious behavior. Atheists do that all the time.

  27. Oh, now I see. I thought you were referring to one of these two meanings: “To European medieval scholars the word was applied to any beliefs outside of or in opposition to Christianity; today it is applied to conceptions without foundation in, or in contravention of, scientific and logical knowledge.”

  28. Informing him (and those nearby) of what he is is something else, and if done in a skilled manner, does not necessarily lower the level of discourse.

    You are very afraid. I suggest you consult the bible. It will give you the courage you need to continue your hopeless and pathetic existence.s

  31. Bob, meaning one has been used long after medieval scholars. Explorers refered to the superstitions of natives indigenous peoples well into the last century.

  32. @ Titus: Legitimate discussion is a form of trade, and the goods are ideas. Verbally antagonizing other people is not, and is more akin to vandalism.

    I respectfully disagree. Socrates, for example, was famous for verbally antagonizing people, “trolling” them in the in the Agora (the Internet of its day). “I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me” [Plato, Apology, I 30e-31c].

  34. Anyway, enough giggling. The bit that is 100% wrong, at least for what motivates me is this one:

    …they seek to drive as many of us as possible out of the conversation, by sheer power of irritation.

    There’s a much simpler explanation why I, and many others do this to you.

    http://xkcd.com/386/

    To be fair, the only reason I swing by here is that from time to time Rand posts something interesting and insightful about space policy and when he’s on that topic, with the exception of a couple of subjects, I pretty much find myself agreeing with his analysis.

    The problem is that, at least for my eyes, some of the WRONG that gets posted here as fact needs to be poked at and made fun of, just in case somebody impressionable actually believes it.

  35. And the even funnier thing is, you can’t even comprehend why I find it so funny.

    It’s called sanity.

  36. By the way, I’ve not even posted here for weeks. I am happy to know that you think about me when I’m not around.

    And, now adieu – things to do…

    Oh, and seriously, if you guys are planning on going Galt, could you PLEASE hurry the F up. I would love to expand the business.

  38. Socrates, for example, was famous for verbally antagonizing people, “trolling” them in the in the Agora (the Internet of its day).

    The day Socrates pokes his head in, I shall reconsider, but so long as drive-by-sneering remains the status quo here, your point is speculative.

  40. 2) In general, demonizing your opponents as evil and/or stupid may make you feel good, but it’s usually wrong and never helpful in a debate.

    Good point, Mr. Gerrib. Perhaps someone should suggest to the President that he errs when he refers to the most-watched TV news channel in the U.S. as a “destructive force.”

  41. Socrates, for example, was famous for verbally antagonizing people, “trolling” them in the in the Agora (the Internet of its day).

    …and being responsible for the pathological narcissist Alcibiades and the brutal thug Critias.

  42. Good point, Mr. Gerrib. Perhaps someone should suggest to the President that he errs when he refers to the most-watched TV news channel in the U.S. as a “destructive force.”

    No, it’s perfectly acceptable for the President to deride Americans as bitter clingers because he’s on the Left. See, that’s why it’s called a double standard, get it? /sarc

  44. Mr. Gerrib, I apologize for misplacing a quote mark. CNN quoted Obama’s criticism of FOX News thus: “destructive to [America’s] long-term growth.”

  45. The “mentally deranged” argument has been used by the statist side of the spectrum as well. Remember the Soviet Union’s use of mental institutions as a way to incarcerate (and incapacitate) political opponents? Or reeducation camps?

    I have argued with people on both sides of the political spectrum before. You can usually find solid arguments to support either case. When you dig in deeper you usually find it was due to different personal experiences, or different lessons taken from a personal experience. What can also happen is that the same person may have seemingly conflicting opinions, if derived from first principles, on different subjects at the same time. In this case the person is making a pragmatic choice and merely going with what worked well for them in the past (or conversely by picking the alternative to what did not work for them at the time).

    I am a theist. Roman Catholic. Used to be agnostic. I usually support market social economic policies. Then again I am European so I would be considered a centrist here.

    I do not think there is anything wrong per se with either being religious or with being a patriot. The issue is with people who are selling religion and patriotism to turn you into a sheep for doing whatever they please even if it goes against the founding principles and practices of that group.

    People can believe in a common ideal and fight to defend it. But defending an ideal and attempting to spread it by force to people outside your group are different things. Then it stops being patriotism and turns into empire building. The islamofascists are already doing this. We need less of it, not more.

  46. Godzilla, which country are you from? Just idly curious — no agenda! In my experience, when people say they are European to Americans, it means they figure the Americans won’t know which country they are talking about… (“Moldova? Where’s that?!”)

Comments are closed.