Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
The bile is strong
Published on March 21, 2004 By Draginol In Democrat

http://www.rightwingnews.com/archives/week_2004_03_14.PHP#001868

The hatred towards George Bush and Republicans in general has certainly increased since the 2000 election. I visit a lot of websites during the week and while I see a lot of idealogues on the right, there is no right-wing equivalent to Democratic-underground.

Even here on JoeUser, the tolerenace for the right by those on the left seems to be problematic, at best. I have seen people argue that this site is right-wing. Why? It's pretty easy to demonstrate that as being false. Just look at the top 20 blog sites on this site (right of page) and you'll see that there are more that are left of center than right of center.

Here's an excerpt John Hawkins found on Democratic underground:

SCRUBDASHRUB: OK, this is juvenile but this is how fed up I am. I need to watch it because I don't want to wind up getting shot, but I was driving to work and some idiot drove by me on the expressway whose license plate read 1GOP1 (I might add, he was driving completely arrogantly (no signalling, etc...typically of the party he's so proud of).

I waited until he got far enough ahead of me and promptly flipped him the one finger salute, then gave him three fingers to spell "W" and the thumbs down symbol.

Jack @ss...

boobooday: "Don't get shot. But really, he deserved it. It's like smoking. We have to make it socially unacceptable to be a Republican.

That's what they tried to do to the word "liberal." Time to ATTACK BACK!!"

nicecakes: Sure thing. Time to go beyond politics and get personal to start a new civil war! After enough victories we will be the only party and one party rule will rool!

MadProphetMargin: "That's not juvenile. Juvenile would have meant following him to a gas station, and "improving" his license plates when he went in to pay.

Try this one: On a Friday, after working hours, put a crack & peel sign on your local republican headquarter's (8.5X11 crack & peel inkjet paper is available at any major office supply company) front door. Have the sign read "Whites only - Blacks please use rear entrance."

With any luck, it will remain up until Monday. For additional fun, call the local papers and complain about what you "just saw".

MPM,
Master election prankster."

lastknowngood: "Call DMV with tag # and get his address then send off for some gay porn to be shipped to his house. Just one of my little evil ideas to use on arrogant christens and prudes."

Now, maybe this kind of hatred and vitriol exists on the right but I can't find it. This isn't some lone kook here, this is several people all wanting to do harm to someone simply because his license plate has the words GOP on it (which may or may not have anything to do with being a Republican).

This is the kind of intolerance Bakerstreet made note of in his article http://bakerstreet.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=10659 .

 

 


Comments (Page 4)
on Mar 24, 2004

Actually, the kind of pranks you describe are exactly the same thing as condemning homosexuality.

And you were a lawyer? Not agreeing with homosexual behavior is equivalent to vandalizing someone's car? Or vandalizing someone's store?

on Mar 24, 2004
"Oh sheesh. Calling someone a homophobe isn't attacking their right to freedom of expression. Calling someone a homophobe doesn't mean you think he has no right to speak, it just means that you find what he says or does distasteful. There's a huge and obvious difference."

vincible: so calling someone who disagrees with homosexuality a 'homophobe' isn't persecution, but saying that homosexuality is wrong is "intolerant". On one hand name-calling is abusive and seeks to intimidate others, and on the other it is just good natured debate?

What do you consider the difference to be between "fagot" and "homophobe"? I say one in school you get suspended, you say the other and you are an "intellectual".

"Homophobe" is even more disparaging, since the word "fagot" doesn't really mean anything but homosexual, right? Homophobe implies that the person has a mental illness or is somehow bigotted.
on Mar 24, 2004
I said it was going to be my last post on the subject, but let me interject something in my own defense.

Brad, the acts you have quoted at the top were "suggested pranks" and not actual. This from the guy who in a different post condemned liberals for wanting to ban "hateful thoughts". These guys you talk about are nut jobs, and not members of the rank and file. If they claim otherwise they should be taken no more seriously than the KKK members who think they speak for all conservatives.

Cheers
on Mar 24, 2004
Besides, you quote from something called the "Democratic Underground". If it were from the DCCC's, or the DNC's, or John Kerry's websites, and I don't just mean put up as a response in the forums there, then you would have a case.

While Clinton was going through his Monica scandal, plenty of Republicans spoke about how Evil Bill and the Democrats were. I've got some pamphlets around from my Oklahoma days that talk about how democrats and Bill Clinton in particular were going to the devil.

Should I take those seriously Brad? I don't, I didn't, and you shouldn't with this crap you've dug up.

Hate speech is universal, the only way to end it is to be more polite ourselves, and I regret to say that this article is probably the worst thing you've done to help with that effort.

Cheers
on Mar 25, 2004
I wasn't aware that Baker was such an accomplished linguist. But I'm quite disappointed with his style, because he doesn't seem to be saying anything new, he's just arguing that liberals say things that might resemble things that they disapprove of. I could explain why we see a difference between 'fag' and 'homophobe', and I could run that argument on many levels, but I don't think it would settle his conviction that liberals are hypocrites, a conviction I certainly don't share for most conservatives. I don't agree with their values, but I understand them.

Baker, I will say I find it queer that you feel so offended by the term 'homophobe' with its scientific intellectual pretensions. I believe that the term is fairly accurate, because I believe that there is a basic element of fear behind all disapproval, hatred, and contempt that people experience. From reading your posts I think that you fear the liberal wrecking ball, the machine of 'progressive' culture, economics, and academia that is tearing apart the traditional moral order with the voracity of a grizzly. I think you're worried about what it might do to society. Am I correct?

\
on Mar 25, 2004
The word "homophobia" itself is a subjective term implying that there is something wrong with people who refuse to be accepting of homosexuality. If you have a deeply held religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, you are branded a homophobe. Freedom of religion? Freedom of speech? How liberal is it to tell people that they can't believe or express their distaste with something, no matter what it is?


Perhaps you missed this paragraph in my previous post. Or does it fail to address the "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" issues you bring up?

"Calling someone a homophobe isn't attacking their right to freedom of expression. Calling someone a homophobe doesn't mean you think he has no right to speak, it just means that you find what he says or does distasteful."

Just because you wish someone wouldn't speak, just because you criticize their speech, just because you think what they say is incorrect, doesn't mean you're denying them the right to speak. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

What do you consider the difference to be between "fagot" and "homophobe"? I say one in school you get suspended, you say the other and you are an "intellectual".

"Homophobe" is even more disparaging, since the word "fagot" doesn't really mean anything but homosexual, right? Homophobe implies that the person has a mental illness or is somehow bigotted.


So by that logic, "nigger" or "kike" isn't as bad as "racist," since all they mean are "black" and "Jew"? Interesting. I must disagree with that. If you continue with this I would like your opinion on "kike" and "nigger" versus "racist."

One argument: words acquire power because of their history. Words like "kike" and "nigger" and, yes, "faggot." were used partly to dehumanize people, to justify denying them their rights, to justify beatings and murders. Thus we as a society condemn the use of these words. People have been killed for being "faggots." No one's been killed for being a "homophobe."
on Apr 14, 2004
Free Republic.

Really, need I say more?
on Jul 09, 2004
Draginol uses idiotic strawmen to support his view--no true liberal would behave that way. Rather, they would honestly take issue with such matters as Cheney stubbornly insisting that WMD exist and Al Qaeda connection with Saddam; not to mention the legitimate argument that Bush was monomaniacal in his push for war, a la Captain Ahab. 
on Jul 09, 2004
stevendedalus came unto the tomb and they said unto him "stevendedalus, by this time the blog stinketh: for it hath been dead three months."

...and stevendedalus cried with a loud voice "Old Discussion, Come Forth!!"

And the discussion that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and its face was bound about with a napkin.

Alas, it still stinketh...


on Jun 27, 2006
It's all gop to me when one deliberately singles out radical stupidity and attempts to give it ideological identity. Ann Coulter is not a conservative but a free-wheeling rubber mouth, second only to Rush. The editors of the Times according to a rightwinger should be tried for treason--not exactly a conservative posture.
Meta
Views
» 3961
Comments
» 55
Category
Sponsored Links