Comments on: Think I've been Exaggerating?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:46:00 +0000

I grant that you have more to fear from somene how believes you are evil than one who believes you are an imbecil.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:17:00 +0000

Who would you be more apt to call a criminal that needed to be put on trial? Those called belittled and degraded, or those called deceitful, manipulative and con-artists. Yeah, the character assassination can come in varying degrees, but how it is perceived can be a world of difference. I, for one, would rather be called stupid and retarded in front of my peers because of my ideology, than to be slandered to the level of a criminal mastermind. Both slams may get me riled up, but one has a greater affect to cause a witch hunt. Sure, it may not happen, but nevertheless, some careless words are more dangerous than others.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 05:04:00 +0000

But degrees matter. Let me ask you this: do you have more to fear from someone who thinks you're an imbecile, or someone who thinks you're evil and must be stopped at all costs? It matters. The anger I feel from people talking about me as if I'm stupid is not the chill I feel from reading this article.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:52:00 +0000

I agree that painting someone as evil is worse than painting them as disdainful and unworthy of thought, but only by degrees.
Lets put it this way. The statement from that guy about painting Republicans as evil made your blood boil. In a similar but less extreme way, Limbaugh and Coulter make my blood boil.
The Democratic message you note is don't listen to the Republicans, they're evil. The Republican message I note is don't listen to the Democrats they're idiotic to the point of amusement. Both ask us to ignore the messenger outright.
You feel Limbaugh's methods are bad for public discourse, where I feel they make me look around the room for things to break. His actions are more than impolite. They are a continuous attempt to belittle and degrade the image of Democrats as a whole.
You may feel I am off topic. I do not. In fact my point is exactly that we are talking about the same thing, in varying degrees.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:35:00 +0000

I would say that's why I listen to Prager instead of Limbaugh. However, the things you mention aren't exactly on topic since disdaining someone's ideas and being disrepectful, while bad for public discourse, is not the same as purposely painting a picture of them as evil people that should be feared, and teaching others to paint the same picture in order to get others to not listen to their ideas.
That's specifically what I'm talking about here, although I hear your concern about the mocking.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:18:00 +0000

So where would you all place within this spectrum the continuous character assassination of the “liberals” by Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extant Coulter? It is apparent to me that Rush wants to make liberals into a joke. His belittling and mocking is continuous. He discusses ideas, but his tone is an ongoing message that Liberals aren't even worth listening to, except as a source of amusement. I was hanging with a group that listened to him, they spoke in his same disdainful tone of liberals. So, while he may not be overtly saying we've got to assassinate liberal character en masse, he's doing it and encouraging others to do so by example.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:11:00 +0000

Mune, I think that's a plausible explanation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:48:00 +0000

There are some examples coming from the right. Most of them come under the general grouping of so and so is

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:18:00 +0000

Vicky, I haven't seen any Republican advocating this tactic of inducing fear and disrepect, but if any are, I am definitely against it! I agree with you strongly that Christians on both sides need to understand each other and not promote this sort of thing. I appreciate very much that you (and Bill and Tyler) take the time to read this blog and others in an effort to dialogue.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:12:00 +0000

Bill, it's possible that I'm speaking out of bias, but I don't think so. Just look at popular culture. I gave some examples last week of how conservatives are portrayed. I can't think of any similar examples coming from the opposite direction.
I also listen to liberal radio, and as I've reported in past posts, I often hear that the secret motives behind conservative positions are based on greed, selfishness, and hate. I don't hear about the “secret, bad motives” of liberals on conservative radio. I'm sure it probably happens, but not with the same frequency (or I would be hearing it).
Is it alternatively possible that you would expect to find something different and that it seems to you I have a bias because of your own bias of not wanting this to be true? This is very possible–especially if you don't read or listen to much political commentary, as you say. I've tried to offer many examples to back up what I've said.
I'm not saying at all that all Democrats do this, but many who currently have the public's eye and ear do. Maybe if more Republicans were involved in creating popular culture we'd see the same thing from them, but that's not the reality of the current situation.
Regardless of all the above, the point of this particular post was not my horror that someone attributed bad motives to someone else–I've heard that before. What makes this particular article so horrible is that it promotes this style as virtuous.