An alternative view on life, politics, and computers
A counter point
Published on January 1, 2005 By Calor In Democrat

Draginol wrote an essay outlining what he seems to think are misconceptions about conservatives. That's fine and good but there is no shortage of misconceptions about American liberals.

...let me count the ways...

Liberals like to spend other people's money. No, the difference is that liberals are just not nearly as money-conscious as conservatives. We make life choices that don't lead to material wealth. Just because we tend to choose careers that involve enriching our culture, teacher our children, and protecting the defenseless doesn't make us less valuable or have less of a say in society.

We simply believe that Americans are blessed to have had the good fortune of being born here. Ergo, we should express that appreciation by contributing to the society that provided us plenty.

Liberals are naive about the real world. No, the difference is that liberals aren't as cynical as conservatives about the world. Conservatives seem to be quick to throw up their hands and say "Well that's the way life is" and then proceed on the false assumption that you can't do anything to change the world. Liberals aren't naive, we just think that we should at least try to make the world a better place as our first resort rather than as a luxury item.

Liberals are "traitors". No, the difference is that we are less likely to make artificial distinctions between someone who was geographically born in the United States and someone who was born in another country. We are all human beings. That does mean we are usually less nationalistic but that doesn't mean we're traitors either. We don't judge people based on their race, sex, or nationality. As one famous liberal said, we should judge others by the content of their character.

War on Terror.  Yes, we "get it". But conservatives don't seem to want to understand or care why countries don't like us.  Go to Greece, visit the parthenon, and what do you see across the street? A McDonalds. Can you see how some people might feel like American culture is being shoved down their throats? Combine that with an almost giddy attitude about using military force around the world.

Iraq. Saddam didn't have WMDs. He wasn't any kind of imminent threat. Was it really necessary to invade? Saddam was a cruel and terrible man. There are lots of cruel and terrible men. 

In 1946, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb and was quite well aware of what a monster Stalin was. Would today's Neocon hawks have insisted that we nuke the USSR for the sake of
"regime change"? Some problems time takes care of on their own.

We went into Afghanistan and disrupted Al Qaeda. If we had stayed focused on that, we would have been safer today. Saddam could have been kept in a box on an almost indefinite basis. The Oil for food scandal and other leaks in the sanctions were not significant in the bigger scheme of things. We always had the option to go in later if we needed to - with a lot more international support. What we liberals wanted to know was why the rush? Why not finish Afghanistan first and then deal with Saddam at our leisure?

Civil Rights.  Conservatives seem to prefer to turn a blind eye and assume we're all on an equal footing. That's not true at all. Conservatives say they deal with the world as it is - except on the issue of race where they seem to want to pretend we live in racial harmony.  Affirmative action programs aren't perfect. No solution is perfect. But conservatives response to Affirmative action is to close their eyes and wish away the fact that minorities have it a lot tougher in this country than whites.

Conservatives may be better in their knowledge of history on average but that is not always a strength. They are often so rooted to the past that they cannot think outside the box. They don't seem to be willing to at least accept the possibility that we can improve as a species. Just because bad men did bad things in the past doesn't mean we have to do the same bad things today. Maybe that's why liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and conservatives are more likely to believe in creationism. We believe man can improve.


Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Jan 01, 2005
Come now, if I couldn't be an evil liberal, what sort of joy would I ever get out of life? Watching conservative blood pressures rise every time I open my mouth and speak makes me laugh long and hard.

We're evil. We're liberal. And, gosh, we're RIGHT. That's the worst.

Hehe. Y'all be sure to take your beta blockers before responding.
on Jan 01, 2005
think people are getting tired of all the venom being spewed against the US


I am sick and tired of all the venom being spewed against liberals
on Jan 01, 2005
I am sick and tired of all the venom being spewed against liberals


Where? In Blogs? Or in the mainstream media?
on Jan 01, 2005
Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech


Damn! I missed that part too!
on Jan 01, 2005
Sarah -

Please take no offense and please don't shy away from participating. Those who may disagree with your positions or opinions don't have to feel threatened to respond. Having read Draginol's original article and Calor's riposte, I can't see hatred in either one of them. Making a point strongly isn't the same thing as hate. Whether you personally are willing to acknowledge it or not, there is a greater tendency to focus hatred upon those who disagree with them among liberals (listened to a Michael Moore interview lately, or an Al Gore speech?) than among conservatives. Some of a conservative point of view who post often here can be a little pointed & testy, but the most truly hateful stuff has been from a few liberals.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Jan 01, 2005
Hey, Myrr -

Bit of wishful thinkin' goin' on there. I'll just assume it was tongue-in-cheek, like all your posts.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Jan 01, 2005

This article, while being fairly "anti-conservative" is much more thoughtful, and much less hateful.

Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech.

on Jan 01, 2005
Wow. I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech.


You learn something new every day, draginol. Conservatives are the masters of "hate" speech. Just consider the Republican Convention. That was a hate fest extraordinaire, typical of the conservative hate rhetoric that even you continue to verbalize. Problem is, you don't even realize you're doing it.

on Jan 01, 2005
I think it'd be wise to get the definition of "hate speech" right: Any words spoken against the Enlightened Liberals who deserve to have complete control of the entire world at the expense of them conservative hicks.
on Jan 01, 2005
Firstly, great article, it's great to see you back.

"using a historic man as an example of the modern archetype is ludicrous!"

Yet it's okay for Draginol to cite things like Republicans were more against slavery than the Democrats in order to claim that Republicans of today aren't racist?

"the wealthier conservatives will be the ones required to contribute the most, then yes, they do enjoy other people's money"

Well written, but sorry I spotted your subtle distortion. As I've said before, the large portion of liberals are not the working class and the unemployed but the middle middle class and upper middle class. I have no stats on this but this has always been my impression of the world and conservatives often like to take the piss out of this fact.

"Greece allowed McDonald's into Greece."

Conservatives seem to be under many false impressions about democracy. They seem to think for a start that because someone votes for a Government that they therefore agree with everything the Government did. Secondly, they think that once one Party wins an election, that their opponents should unite with the rest of the country and support everything the Party they didn't vote for does.

"There is no basis for their resentment other than their own choices, not ours."

This is simplistic and you quite clearly don't understand how this resentment manifests itself. Plenty of Australians eat Maccas and enjoy it. Does this mean that there aren't plenty of us frustrated by the fact that we can't find anything else to eat? I like to eat chips (our word for fat fries) made in independent fish n chip shops, because I think they do it better. But the way our society and economy are developing it is becoming harder and harder for such businesses to survive and so I would now have to travel for an hour to get those sorts of chips. It is not my choices, but the choices of a certain portion of my fellow Australians, but by no means the majority of them.

The FTA with the USA is likely to increase the amount of US TV on my screens and decrease the amount of Aussie TV. I happen to watch mainly Australian TV because I can relate to it better. But Friends is still the highest rating show and it's cheaper for our TV stations to buy your programs so they are less inclined to put money into making quality Australian TV. As a result, I watch less and less TV, but not everyone makes this choice and it pisses me off. Back to Maccas....just because a Government may allow them to go into forest areas in Africa, cut down trees to clear land for cattle, this does not mean that an African tribe who uses that land for their own survival is happy about it. I imagine they're unhappy about US culture being rammed down their throats.

"So when something is percieved as being "america's bad" they are very quick to take offense."

Without wanting to regurgitate an argument drmiller previously had at my blog, I've never understood this over-defensiveness by Americans. Many Americans have a very different sense of patriotism to other countries, it is a much more unquestioning notion of patriotism. In that previous argument we had, I was accused of hating America, so I listed all the things from US culture that I love (like rock n roll and email). But I do not think America is perfect and I'm not going to list everything I love about America every time I want to criticise soimething the US does.

"hitler in a box? Same man, different time. And he was gleefully killing millions."

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous comparison. Saddam was a bad man, but he had nothing on Hitler. The numbers do not in any way compare to Hitler's and liberals simply don't buy the idea that he was about to go trying to take over the world in the way the Nazis wanted to.

"And you don't think you find this anti-conservative article more thoughtful and less hateful because you're a liberal?"

True, but Draginol's article was longer and so he ended up spending a lot more time writing stuff where he'd forgotten what the original title was and just started liberal bashing instead.

"Just to set the record straight, Conservatives beleive that all men are created equal. And as such all should be given equal opportunity. "

This is not a contradiction, it is simply a differrnt way of saying the same thing. You believe all men are created equal. In the liberal's eyes, this is turning a blind eye to the inequality that minorities face from the start.

"just call them Aunt jemimas or Uncle Toms."

Using the label itself may not be very nice, but it doesn't take away the fact that liberals are quite often trying to stick up for some way to protect traditional black/Hispanic/whatever culture and the reason Powell and Rice succeed is because they simply don't care about that, they are happy to practise traditional Western culture.

"but the most truly hateful stuff has been from a few liberals."

And you don't think this perception is in any way swayed by your own political persuasion?

" I wasn't aware that conservative opinions now constituted "hate" speech."

Oh gimme a break Draginol. You spent half your article liberal-bashing, Calor spent a little less than half conservative-bashing, but your article was longer and thus contained more hate.
on Jan 01, 2005
Well written, but sorry I spotted your subtle distortion. As I've said before, the large portion of liberals are not the working class and the unemployed but the middle middle class and upper middle class. I have no stats on this but this has always been my impression of the world and conservatives often like to take the piss out of this fact.


So, you know it's true, but you have absolutely no evidence to support it, and because conservatives don't take your words at face value, they're taking the piss out of the fact?

Conservatives seem to be under many false impressions about democracy. They seem to think for a start that because someone votes for a Government that they therefore agree with everything the Government did. Secondly, they think that once one Party wins an election, that their opponents should unite with the rest of the country and support everything the Party they didn't vote for does.


What does that have to do with McDonald's being in Greece? If the Greeks didn't want a McDonald's there, it wouldn't be there. Do you think there'd be a McDonald's if nobody was going there? Why would McDonald's keep the franchise in Greece if it was making absolutely no money?

The FTA with the USA is likely to increase the amount of US TV on my screens and decrease the amount of Aussie TV. I happen to watch mainly Australian TV because I can relate to it better. But Friends is still the highest rating show and it's cheaper for our TV stations to buy your programs so they are less inclined to put money into making quality Australian TV. As a result, I watch less and less TV, but not everyone makes this choice and it pisses me off. Back to Maccas....just because a Government may allow them to go into forest areas in Africa, cut down trees to clear land for cattle, this does not mean that an African tribe who uses that land for their own survival is happy about it. I imagine they're unhappy about US culture being rammed down their throats.


Forcing people off land they own is much different than international trade. Don't blame the US for what you like failing. Blame the Australians for having different preferences. Believe me, I know how you feel. If I could, I'd force shows I don't like, such as The Sopranos, off the air.
Do you think that Australia would do so well if it had absolutely no exports? After all, it shouldn't be raping other nations with its corporations and culture.

Oh gimme a break Draginol. You spent half your article liberal-bashing, Calor spent a little less than half conservative-bashing, but your article was longer and thus contained more hate.


Your response is quite long. Therefore, it must be the most hateful response on here?
on Jan 01, 2005

Oh gimme a break Draginol. You spent half your article liberal-bashing, Calor spent a little less than half conservative-bashing, but your article was longer and thus contained more hate.

Let's accept your premise that my article "bashed" liberals. That's hate speech? That's "hateful"? 

Ironically, you illustrate another pet peeve conservatives have with liberals - melodrama.  Everything's hateful except actual hate. And everything's a "war" except actual wars. And of course, everything is a "crisis".

What conservatives see are liberals who attempt to snuff out any criticisms of their policies and ideology by accusing conservatives of engaging in "hate" or "racism" or "fascism" or "bigotry".  Rather than trying to debate or discuss an issue, liberals are the ones who "throw up their hands" and trivialize it with some bomb throwing language like "hatred".

I don't hate liberals or even their ideology. I do have a number of criticisms of it. Criticism isn't hate. It would be nice if liberals could learn the difference.

People who hijack planes to murder as many innocents as possible are hateful. That's hate.  Criticizing liberal tax policies is not.

on Jan 01, 2005
I think it'd be wise to get the definition of "hate speech" right: Any words spoken against the Enlightened Liberals who deserve to have complete control of the entire world at the expense of them conservative hicks.


A partial definition. A start.

That is speech intended to seriously frighten someone is a verbal assault that may be punished.
The function of hate speech is to create a “symbolic code for violence” which inflames the emotions of followers, denigrates the out-class and inflicts harm on the victims. Many victims of hate speech have very real fears that the speech will escalate into physical violence. (Draginol himself expressed these very fears in another thread)

Those who favor penalizing hate speech tend to take a more expansive definition of “hate crimes” than those who strongly support free speech. That is, they do not conceive of hate speech or hate crimes as a series of discrete acts, but instead view them as part of a continuum of bigotry and prejudice.




Please feel free to add to the definition.


on Jan 01, 2005
Draginol you've now resorted to a simple argument about semantics: What does hate mean? I've spent hours debating what it means to 'hate' a person, what it means to 'despise' them etc. So what? You come across as angry. Calor comes across as angry. It's probably partly to do with the fact that this is a written medium, but that's the perception.

"because conservatives don't take your words at face value, they're taking the piss out of the fact?"

Sorry, I didn't write that very well. What I meant was that conservatives have often made jokes to me about upper middle class brats who engage in champagne socialism. (My user name plays on the same joke, because I have a self-deprecatory style). I tend to agree with their joke. They are taking the piss outt of me.

"Believe me, I know how you feel. If I could, I'd force shows I don't like, such as The Sopranos, off the air."

See, I don't want to force Friends or anything off the air. I think the Simpsons is one of the wittiest programs ever. But I don't want less Australian content simply because it is cheaper to buy an American show that is a proven rater than it is to set up a new Australian TV show that may or may not work. But this is what happens under neo-con regimes (sorry, am I being melodramatic with that word? I'll say Government). Similarly, current economic policies make it harder for local fish n chip shops to survive. Maccas does not face such a problem. Maccas can afford to advertise, my local can't. You're right, Maccas is more financially viable than local fish n chips. But many of us want to eat chips, not fries. But we aren't getting the choice anymore.

"Ironically, you illustrate another pet peeve conservatives have with liberals - melodrama. Everything's hateful except actual hate. And everything's a "war" except actual wars. And of course, everything is a "crisis"."

Ironically, I've a similar pet peeve about conservatives. I call it sensationalism. (Poor people are "losers" for example, addicted people are 'junkies', aboriginal communities are 'rife with alcoholism', gay people are 'causing immorality', the Greens 'have no morals', pro-choicers 'have no morals', the list goes on). I guess this just means we bug each other because we don't agree with each other.

"Your response is quite long. Therefore, it must be the most hateful response on here?"

Probably. And?
on Jan 01, 2005

I tend to rely on common sense.

I am willing to put forth that a normal person with a basic level of common sense will agree that a discussion, even a "heated" discussion about tax policy or foreign policy does not rise to the level of "hatred".

Now, if you and other left leaning people consider hate to be a mere "semantics" issue then that really does explain a lot and why your foreign policy advice tends to lead to disaster.

6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last