03.07.06
Posted in politics, philosophy at 1:18 pm by Brandon
So, it would seem that not everyone agrees with my last post. Jacke, it seems, takes issue with my treatment of free speech, patriotism, and moving to China. Here’s an excerpt:
I don’t know, is it just me or does it seem like Brandon, in his attempt to accept freedom of speech and revel in the free exchange of opinion, is also attempting to demonize someone for exercizing his or her own freedom of speech by suggesting that he move to China!? Brandon wants to be able to say whatever he wants (again) but doesn’t seem to appreciate others saying what they want in return. Brandon doesn’t want it to be suggested he is less than patriotic because he doesn’t approve of every single thing that goes on in America (as if that would ever happen) but when someone suggests he move, he, in turn, accuses the person of trying to create a totalitarian regime!? Oh, my!
Honestly, I’m really only posting this here so that someone with “Jacke-translating-ability” can help me out with what the hell she’s trying to argue.
As far as I can ascertain the argument goes like this:
Brandon’s a hypocrite because…
- On the one hand he wants free speech.
- On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.
- He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.
- He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about.
I think I was pretty clear about my thoughts regarding my reasoning about the moving out of the country thing. It seems that most people here got it, but I could be wrong.
I defend, under the first amendment, your right to tell me to move to China (or take a jump of the empire state building, or whatever else). However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the second I take you to task about your comments that I only want first amendment protection for me. It just means I think you’re fucking wrong, and that you’re an ungrateful, ignorant prick.
I defend anyone’s (including my own) right to be an ungrateful, ignorant asshole, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like you. And, it certainly doesn’t mean that I can’t call you out, especially when I think that you’re doing a gigantic disservice to our women and men in uniform.
I wonder what it is about some conservatives that makes them think they’ve got a corner on patriotism. It’s like pointing out their hypocrisy is going for the jugular, but when the tables are turned and it’s a liberal who you’re telling that they’re not quite what the US has in mind when it thinks of the term “citizen”, well, that’s just par for the course.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism, Liberalism
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/07/a-liberal-patriot/trackback/
Posted in politics, philosophy at 1:18 pm by Brandon
So, it would seem that not everyone agrees with my last post. Jacke, it seems, takes issue with my treatment of free speech, patriotism, and moving to China. Here’s an excerpt:
I don’t know, is it just me or does it seem like Brandon, in his attempt to accept freedom of speech and revel in the free exchange of opinion, is also attempting to demonize someone for exercizing his or her own freedom of speech by suggesting that he move to China!? Brandon wants to be able to say whatever he wants (again) but doesn’t seem to appreciate others saying what they want in return. Brandon doesn’t want it to be suggested he is less than patriotic because he doesn’t approve of every single thing that goes on in America (as if that would ever happen) but when someone suggests he move, he, in turn, accuses the person of trying to create a totalitarian regime!? Oh, my!
Honestly, I’m really only posting this here so that someone with “Jacke-translating-ability” can help me out with what the hell she’s trying to argue.
As far as I can ascertain the argument goes like this:
Brandon’s a hypocrite because…
- On the one hand he wants free speech.
- On the other hand, he doesn’t want to let conservatives have free speech.
- He displays this by berating a person’s argument who told him to move the fuck to China.
- He should just let people say whatever they like, because that’s what freedom of speech is about.
I think I was pretty clear about my thoughts regarding my reasoning about the moving out of the country thing. It seems that most people here got it, but I could be wrong.
I defend, under the first amendment, your right to tell me to move to China (or take a jump of the empire state building, or whatever else). However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the second I take you to task about your comments that I only want first amendment protection for me. It just means I think you’re fucking wrong, and that you’re an ungrateful, ignorant prick.
I defend anyone’s (including my own) right to be an ungrateful, ignorant asshole, but that doesn’t mean that I have to like you. And, it certainly doesn’t mean that I can’t call you out, especially when I think that you’re doing a gigantic disservice to our women and men in uniform.
I wonder what it is about some conservatives that makes them think they’ve got a corner on patriotism. It’s like pointing out their hypocrisy is going for the jugular, but when the tables are turned and it’s a liberal who you’re telling that they’re not quite what the US has in mind when it thinks of the term “citizen”, well, that’s just par for the course.
Tags: Freedom Of Speech, Patriotism, Liberalism
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2006/03/07/a-liberal-patriot/trackback/
Tom said,
March 7, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Near as I can tell, conservatives are the least patriotic people in the US. I think that’s why they have to wave the flag so noisily, in the hope that people don’t notice that the substance of what they say is fundamentally unAmerican. For example, suggesting that people who criticize the government move to China. Personally, I think conservatives, especially religious conservatives, should all move to Iran so as to be closer to their ideological soulmates.
Dan Lewis said,
March 7, 2006 at 2:03 pm
It’s not too hard to imagine steps 5 through 8 of the future course of this argument:
I am starting to buckle under the g-force of this argument.
wildwest said,
March 7, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Dan Lewis,
Isn’t that argument what R.D. Laing would call a “knot”? Try untying it.
Recovering said,
March 7, 2006 at 3:13 pm
For the record…not every conservative feels the way Jacke does. I don’t.
I also don’t think patriotism is hinged on political stands. I just think liberals tend to be socialists and I feel like liberals consider conservatives to be narrow minded and stuck in yesterday.
I also feel that liberals think government can take care of people better through handouts than by empowering the disadvantaged or the minority to succeed the old-fashioned way - through self-sufficiency.
Dan Lewis said,
March 7, 2006 at 4:01 pm
wildwest,
I wasn’t previously familiar with RD Laing, but that description seems quite appropriate.
http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=16848
If Brandon stops using his free speech to argue for his point of view of free speech, does it rip a hole in the fabric of the space-time continuum?
wildwest said,
March 7, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Recovering,
“I also feel that liberals think government can take care of people better through handouts than by empowering the disadvantaged or the minority to succeed the old-fashioned way - through self-sufficiency.”
Not this liberal.
Steve said,
March 7, 2006 at 4:04 pm
I wasn’t going to say anything, but I have to because I am confused. I honestly do not understand how Recovering got from an argument on free-speech to economic positions.
I am not sure about what Recovering means by “socialist,” but I would think that on the whole most liberals in the US are not “socialists” in the traditional definition. In general, socialism refers to the individual’s belief that the government should hold control of all “essential” industries within the nation.
Now, if we take an example of a liberal, say Brandon, then it becomes clear that Brandon’s distrust of the government would tend to indicate that he would not desire to have Washington, as the political entity that exists today, to wrest complete control from corporations and individuals. That would seem to give more power to a group whom the liberal, Brandon, already holds to be suspect in their use of the powers that they currently hold.
Second, there is a huge, glaring fallacy in Recovering’s argument, that of “empowering the disadvantaged or the minoritity [succeeding] the old fashioned way- through self-sufficiency.” I would love to be given some historical examples of people who have truly risen up by their bootstraps with out any dependence on someone else.
If we look at the biggest periods of minorities gaining the grasp of the middle class (a supposed indicator of social advancement), then we see the importance of the Civil War, WWI, and WWII in providing opportunities for the disadvantaged groups of the time in moving up because of their service in wars.
In these instances, the soliders were able, with the financing of the US Government, to buy businesses, go to school, or improve their social standing. This is a huge governmental set of programs, which many have and still do call “socialist”.
We must, however, also give credit to the many churches and social groups who have also contributed to the higher advancement of minorities. These organizations have worked tirelessly for at least 200 years to help those with drive to succeed. We see their importance in immigrant communities, the end of slavery, women’s rights and suffrage, the abolishment of the mistreatment of children as workers, and many different arenas of identity politics that continue to advance today.
As much as these private groups did not derive from the government, it is important to note that they were labelled as “socialist” and in many ways were. They were a community of people who made it their goal to make a difference in the lives of others who were less fortunate through social means.
Since you, Recovering, seem to discredit public and private groups’ efforts to change the situations of those who suffer from injustice, then I would welcome widespread examples of Americans who achieved success without any mode of sufficiency at all.
Finally, self-sufficiency is not an example that is given to the Church as a method to enrich each other’s lives. The call for Christians to come together as a community to enact God’s Kingdom on Earth cannot be made much clearer than it is throughout the Gospels and Paul’s epistles. Self-sufficiency smacks of pride and an individual’s disregard for their reliance on God for all things.
Joe said,
March 7, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Just chill out and smoke a bowl, brah >_>
Joe said,
March 7, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Tom,
If I’m not mistaken, you contradicted yourself. If that was intentional and meant to be “ironic” it was kind of pathetic. :-/ sorry
Joe said,
March 7, 2006 at 6:57 pm
Wait a minute–People seriously badmouth people in their blogs? Why not confront the person directly? You know they’re going to read it if they are aware you have a blog. And if they’re not, that’s pretty unfair and dramatic.
Brandon said,
March 7, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Joe, too much guinness? Just curious!
Joe said,
March 7, 2006 at 11:59 pm
No, I was supremely bored after work today. I had nothing to do. It was phenomonal and surreal at the same time. Plus I’m used to posting in a fast-paced forum where no one thinks about their posts, they just flame each other and act like complete idiots and it’s hilarious.
Recovering said,
March 8, 2006 at 9:01 am
Steve,
I agree with this. The church is where the “social work” should be. And we suck at it. But I think we suck at it in large part because we have abdicated (sp?) this role to government. When I say self sufficiency - I mean the role of the individual is to want to work hard - to whatever level he or she can. The church should do the rest.
As for the rest of the political stuff - we’ll probably never agree so I think further comment from me would be pointless. I was simply responding to Tom’s comment about patriotism being a partisan issue and I don’t think it is.
rick said,
March 8, 2006 at 10:11 am
The big lie is that these young kids are “defending” America by being over in Iraq. Just like they were defending “our country” for bt being in Vietnam.
They are not DEFENDING America, they are fighting a messed-up distorted politcal war.
Allison said,
March 8, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Thanks for saying that, Rick. Every time I hear people talk about our solders “defending” America — or our military complex described as the “Department of Defense,” for that matter — I roll my eyes.
What a screwed-up sense of boundaries to think that invading someone else’s sovereign territory = defending ours!
Was Saddam evil? Absolutely. Is it good he’s gone? Sure. Just don’t call it defense. Call it what it is/was, an invasion. This pretty much sums up how I see it.
wildwest said,
March 8, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Allison,
You got it.
Micah said,
March 9, 2006 at 10:40 pm
I read in Time magazine today that 85% of our troops say the main mission in Iraq is to retaliate for Saddam’s role in 9/11. Looks like the dept. of defense has done a great job of brainwashing our troops.
alex said,
March 10, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Yeah for socialism…
it’s too bad…socialism will never die…also too bad…socialism is an economic system lacking laissez faire (look it up).
Yeah for liberals…
Audrey said,
March 10, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Samuel Johnson famously said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” I won’t go so far to say all patriots are scoundrels, but we have a bunch of identifiable scoundrels who wrap themselves in the flag. Rush Limbaugh (when addicted to hillbilly heroin and apparently guilty of doctor-shopping for prescriptions) has fought vigorously for the privacy of his medical records. Bill O’Reilly is so confused about the truth and lies that his TV program ought rightly be called, “The No-Truth Zone.”
A President who believes that he is above the laws he is supposed to enforce. A Congress so spineless that it acts as an enabler for the President. A press corps that fears the President’s wrath so much that they don’t call him on even the most obvious lies. Nominal Christians who have confused the Kingdom of God with the Kingdom of George II.
I, for one, would favor a move to rename our so-called Department of Defense to Department of War. It’s what it is, so consider it my contribution to truth in gummint.
Audrey
jblog said,
March 10, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I dunno, Brandon, I wasn’t there so I didn’t hear the conversation, but maybe you misinterpreted the “go to china” remark.
Perhaps what the person was saying to you was “if you think things suck here — with all the evil, mean, nasty repression and stuff — perhaps you should take a trip to someplace where things are REALLY oppressive, like China. That might give you a different perspective on things.”
ninjanun said,
March 11, 2006 at 12:38 am
Audrey–If I’m remembering history correctly, the Department of Defense originally WAS called the Department of War. But it’s hard to justify such a big “War” budget when we’re not actually at war–and it’s hard to justify “War” when it’s not about defense.
Leighton said,
March 11, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Department of War (aka the War Office) was renamed United States Department of the Army in 1949 and was placed under the control of the newly-formed Department of Defense.
William Safire relates the anecdote that back when DoD was originally formed, it was going to be called the National Military Establishment. Someone’s wife, as the story goes, objected to her husband–”You can’t call it that!” “Why not?” “Look at the acronym, and say who you work for.” “I work for the NM–oh.”
Joe said,
March 11, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Well, anyway, the new appleseed cast album is awesome and everyone should get it.
Mary Angela said,
March 13, 2006 at 12:01 am
Now, I’m a pretty conservative (fairly older) Christian, but I have yet to find fault with anything Brandon has said on this issue.
And Steve, your beautiful. I am still laughing. Thanks, I was confused, too. You are oh so right on all counts.
And not trying to be totally off the topic, for myself I would add: Isn’t the beauty of a democratic republic that if you don’t like something about it, instead of leaving each of us has the ability to institute change through legislation? (By the way, whoever said that to you sounds like he/she is still thinking and operating on the playground level.)
God Bless.
MAC
wildwest said,
March 13, 2006 at 11:00 am
“Isn’t the beauty of a democratic republic that if you don’t like something about it, instead of leaving each of us has the ability to institute change through legislation?”
That’s what I always thought.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci said,
March 14, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Wow, fun conversation. Glad I came across your blog. Keep at it.
Peace,
Jamie