Comments on: On Roger Simon & the Lost Idealism of the Angry Left http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/01/on-roger-simon-the-lost-idealism-of-the-angry-left/ The Internet home for American gay conservatives. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:11:18 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 By: DoorHold http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/01/on-roger-simon-the-lost-idealism-of-the-angry-left/comment-page-1/#comment-379296 DoorHold Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:39:03 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=9234#comment-379296 "[accusatios of self-loating is] a pretty prejudiced attitude toward minorities as it assumes individual members of those groups can’t think for themselves." True, but the wording isn't strong enough to describe just how cowardly and hateful that accusation (among others) really is. It is RACIST STEREOTYPING, and not in the "I disagree with that guy so he's a racist" way that's so overused by the left it's become meaningless whenever they use the term, but in the "I deeply and truly believe that a person's ethnic background determines AND LIMITS who and what they are and can be," kind of way. The fact that it's racism will never occur to anyone on the left as they are attributing "good" qualities to the ethnic group in question, "They think like me, or they should, and everything I believe is correct, therefore 'we' are both good and just." Disparaging a person, singled out by their ethnicity, for disagreeing isn't "racism," it's concern, or at least pointing out that, there must be something wrong with them. In other words, they are disparaging people, singled out by their ethnicity, because they do not fit the racist stereotype these people have in their heads! It's sickening. “[accusatios of self-loating is] a pretty prejudiced attitude toward minorities as it assumes individual members of those groups can’t think for themselves.”

True, but the wording isn’t strong enough to describe just how cowardly and hateful that accusation (among others) really is.

It is RACIST STEREOTYPING, and not in the “I disagree with that guy so he’s a racist” way that’s so overused by the left it’s become meaningless whenever they use the term, but in the “I deeply and truly believe that a person’s ethnic background determines AND LIMITS who and what they are and can be,” kind of way.

The fact that it’s racism will never occur to anyone on the left as they are attributing “good” qualities to the ethnic group in question, “They think like me, or they should, and everything I believe is correct, therefore ‘we’ are both good and just.”

Disparaging a person, singled out by their ethnicity, for disagreeing isn’t “racism,” it’s concern, or at least pointing out that, there must be something wrong with them.

In other words, they are disparaging people, singled out by their ethnicity, because they do not fit the racist stereotype these people have in their heads! It’s sickening.

]]> By: ILoveCapitalism http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/01/on-roger-simon-the-lost-idealism-of-the-angry-left/comment-page-1/#comment-378808 ILoveCapitalism Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:17:39 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=9234#comment-378808 (^^ Phrased in that way, because I do credit the 60s generation for being *partly* right in resisting their Vietnam military service. Thanks to Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, Vietnam was a horribly bungled war, with a U.S. death toll far higher than it needed to be... and, not coincidentally, it was a war fought with a draft. Drafts are immoral. If a war can't be fought with a volunteer military, it shouldn't be fought. Drafts are worth resisting. WW2 had a draft, but its draft was very likely unnecessary: men were volunteering en masse. Contrary to myth, the goal of the Vietnam War was noble and right, as much as WW2 was. But the execution of it was wrong, including its having a draft. It took a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon, to end both the Vietnam War and the draft; he did the right things, there.) (^^ Phrased in that way, because I do credit the 60s generation for being *partly* right in resisting their Vietnam military service. Thanks to Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, Vietnam was a horribly bungled war, with a U.S. death toll far higher than it needed to be… and, not coincidentally, it was a war fought with a draft. Drafts are immoral. If a war can’t be fought with a volunteer military, it shouldn’t be fought. Drafts are worth resisting. WW2 had a draft, but its draft was very likely unnecessary: men were volunteering en masse. Contrary to myth, the goal of the Vietnam War was noble and right, as much as WW2 was. But the execution of it was wrong, including its having a draft. It took a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon, to end both the Vietnam War and the draft; he did the right things, there.)

]]> By: ILoveCapitalism http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/01/on-roger-simon-the-lost-idealism-of-the-angry-left/comment-page-1/#comment-378806 ILoveCapitalism Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:11:52 +0000 http://www.gaypatriot.net/?p=9234#comment-378806 <blockquote>the anger of the conservative-hating left.... lost idealism in the wake of the attacks of 9/11: [Simon] ...in those slow motion moments when the 767s crashed into the World Trade Center, everything switched around. The cool guys in school were no longer the cool guys...</blockquote>Can we make this even more pointed? 9-11 made the *military* guys "the cool guys". And the enraged Left has been trying to take it back ever since. Hence their constant moral preening; their over-the-top insistence that their new, dorky and woefully incompetent Dear Leader is cool; etc. A huge part of the modern American Left is about anti-military values. Look at where the "Sixties" hippie generation began - the generation who now control the media and make it serve the Democratic far Left. They wanted to avoid military service. And to rationalize their own avoidance of military service. Secretly fearing or knowing themselves to be only partly right^^ at best, they are driven (by their stance) to denigrate military service per se. They desperately *need* to believe that military service is (a) unnecessary; (b) stupid - i.e., only stupid people would or could do it; and (c) psychotic - i.e., profoundly wrong, and something that only psychos do and that turns you into a psycho, if you do it. 9-11 exposed all that as false. And so they've been trying to return/lull themselves back into a 9-10 mentality, ever since. All of their military and foreign policy discourse, for the last 6-7 years, has been structured around that goal.

the anger of the conservative-hating left…. lost idealism in the wake of the attacks of 9/11:

[Simon] …in those slow motion moments when the 767s crashed into the World Trade Center, everything switched around. The cool guys in school were no longer the cool guys…

Can we make this even more pointed? 9-11 made the *military* guys “the cool guys”. And the enraged Left has been trying to take it back ever since. Hence their constant moral preening; their over-the-top insistence that their new, dorky and woefully incompetent Dear Leader is cool; etc.

A huge part of the modern American Left is about anti-military values. Look at where the “Sixties” hippie generation began – the generation who now control the media and make it serve the Democratic far Left. They wanted to avoid military service. And to rationalize their own avoidance of military service. Secretly fearing or knowing themselves to be only partly right^^ at best, they are driven (by their stance) to denigrate military service per se. They desperately *need* to believe that military service is (a) unnecessary; (b) stupid – i.e., only stupid people would or could do it; and (c) psychotic – i.e., profoundly wrong, and something that only psychos do and that turns you into a psycho, if you do it. 9-11 exposed all that as false. And so they’ve been trying to return/lull themselves back into a 9-10 mentality, ever since. All of their military and foreign policy discourse, for the last 6-7 years, has been structured around that goal.

]]>