Defending Chavez? Defending Ahmadinejad? Are DUers insane?

[jpgray]

No they aren't. Is the defensive behavior sometimes over the top and rather forgiving in a way we wouldn't apply to our own leaders? Absolutely. So what to think of this? It's not as bad as you might think, in my view. Let me explain.

To my way of thinking, any disingenuous argument is bad. I would imagine most here would agree. :D But when Bush et al describe Chavez or Ahmadinejad as wholly crazy totalitarian dictators in the Hitlerian mode, it's over the top and silly. When someone on the opposite side of the debate defends either leader as "not so bad," parsing and explaining away "careful" Holocaust denial, inhuman assaults on gay rights, or censorship of the opposition, that's also over the top and silly.

So moral equivalency, yeah? Just like on the news shows? Not at all, actually. Those who defend Ahmadinejad and Chavez are on the margins. Their opinions may be poorly reasoned and biased, but let's keep -effect- in mind. Such opinions coming from those on the margin aren't influencing policy. When the biased, poorly reasoned opinion comes from major policy makers and most of the news media, that's incredibly dangerous. So while both extremes of the Chavez or Ahmadinejad debate are guilty of facile reasoning, sophistry and politically-motivated bias, it's a lot scarier when it comes from those who can actually -act out- their crazy opinions in policy. And this causes a reaction in those who oppose such policy, and in some it creates the need to explain away or defend all aspects of those leaders under attack, even the indefensible aspects. Because the stakes are very high.

It would be great if everyone would just apply a fair standard based on complete reasoning. Bush would never behave so belligerently towards Chavez or Ahmadinejad, given his support for Musharraf or Abdullah. And Ahmadinejad or Chavez defenders would never defend their behavior if it came from their own leaders. When faced with the dilemma of two sides making bad arguments, I have to say the one that can't enact their crazy logic in policy is more forgivable. The side whose goal is to prevent destabilization and war also seems more forgivable to me.

So neither argument is great, but the crazy view coming from those in power is by far the more dangerous. A crazy view in reaction to that seems less evil, in my view.

[EFerrari]

1. These comparisons are so over the top, I can't even respond to them.

Really, people, read something.

[Whisp]

15. no fricken kidding, read something other than what Bush and his friends

publish.
I really cannot believe how absolutely stupid some smart people can be.

[Richardo]

2. So it IS a trick question...

:D

I kid.

As usual, your opinion is well-thought-out and eminently logical. So much so, it persuades even me to give the Chavez and Ahmadinejhad apologists among us a bit more leeway. A bit.

I think in many cases they are applying the (in my view very dangerous) maxim regarding 'the enemy of my enemy' - the same aphorism that gets otherwise reasonable DUers (and Democratic candidates) supporting Ron Paul.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is MY enemy too.

[jpgray]

4. Well, more forgivable doesn't mean good or great

:D I definitely see what you mean. And I think there's sort of an "argument inertia," where if one side of the debate sees the other side blurring the truth and being disingenuous, a sort of "fight fire with fire" mentality comes into play. People want to make use of all the tricks available, and if your opponent seemingly gets traction with some rhetorical trick, it's hard not to reach for it. I know I've made some retaliatory insults on these boards quite a bit after I felt insulted.

:dunce:

[Guaranteed]

3. "It would be great if everyone would just apply a fair standard based on complete reasoning."

YES!!!!!!!

More than that, I think you have to ACTUALLY hold everyone to that standard.

[Chicanery]

5. You should be MUCH more worried about the crazies in power...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

[jpgray]

6. Yep.

[Robbien]

7. No need to defend Chavez. Championing more like it.

The only people getting excitable at DU are those who jump into Chavez threads spouting all the Fauxnews and MSM propaganda.

This is just another baiter thread spouting O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Tweety memes that Chavez is soooooo very bad that he is equal to a very evil mooooslim.

[jpgray]

8. Could you be more specific? What in my thread seems baiting to you?

[Robbien]

12. what isn't

Starting with the childish name calling and irresponsible name linking in the thread title.

Your post is full of vapid bias

First supporters are not supporters, to you & Fauxnews/Rush they are defenders
Second supporters are not sane, to you & CNN/O'Rielly they are insane
Third supporters are not normal, to you and freepers they are marginal
Fourth supporters are not rational thinking, to you they are poorly reasoned and biased

then I just stopped reading. Your post was exactly the same kind of post I read at Little Green Footballs and Redstate. Freeperville folks would stand up and cheer you on.

Baiter your name is jpgray

[jpgray]

14. The -first line- of the thread points out that DUers aren't crazy for defending either leader

Nowhere do I proclaim Chavez and Ahmadinejad to be equivalent, or directly comparable. They both engage in behavior that is at times unreasonably attacked -and- unreasonably defended. I pointed out how the defenders in this case are far more understandable and far less dangerous than the attackers. So a post in -support- of those defending Chavez or Ahmadinejad is seen as a baiting hate post to you? Nowhere do I say that Chavez and Ahamadinejad are wholly indefensible. Calling Ahamadinejad a dictator is patently false, and the ADL's attack on Chavez was disingenuous and based on unforgivably selective parsing.

Did you just not read it at all? Those who defend all these leaders' actions are not reasonable. Those who attack these leaders as being totalitarian pyschopaths in the Hitler mold are also not reasonable. The latter are more dangerous, because they are in favor of destabilization and belligerence, and they are in positions of power.

[Robbien]

16. You have got to be kidding

When our government is putting out a propaganda war and our MSM supports that propaganda war,

you want discussion on the issues to be sane and reasoned? Propaganda is not beaten back with sanity and reason, ask Kerry about his sane and reasoned response against with the Swiftboaters propaganda. It cannot be done.

[jpgray]

17. I disagree there. If the goal is noble, the means should be as well

I realize that few can live up to that standard, and that's why I don't have a huge problem with Chavez or Ahmadinejad defenders when they get a bit over the top in defense (such as trying to defend hosting a Holocaust denial conference, or censorship of opposition viewpoints, US-funded propaganda though they are). Their goal is to undermine a double standard of attacks on both leaders, which I -do- have a huge problem with, since it comes from those in power (Bush admin, the media, etc.). When they engage in disingenuous reasoning to promote an ideology of destabilization or hostility, that's extremely dangerous in a way that the defense of either leader simply is not. Because it can turn into policy.

[Robbien]

20. When the propaganda attack is not noble

but the victim plays sweet and nice, they are crushed. Again see Kerry/Swiftboaters.

No matter the goal of any foreign leader, if they are being played with by a superpower the foreign leader must use unconventional means to accomplish their ends.

If left alone to run their countries without superpower interference, I would then agree with you.

[Mr_Monday]

33. What is up with this?

No one here is watching fox news, unless they are EXTREMELY misinformed. Therefore, your insinuations are simply insults of no value. Please try to stop being so condescending towards those that disagree with you.

[hunter]

9. The firehose of bullshit we are suffering here comes from our own government.

The U.S. mainstream media is as unreal as any "True Story" cable television movie or "reality" show, but people are sucking it down and recycling it through their own assholes here.

And anyone who doesn't put up with that is immediately labeled as some sort of Chavez lover.

Clean politicians are a rare thing, and they tend to be shoved aside by the dirty ones or simply killed if they start to achieve something that mobilizes the common people against the current power structure.

Chavez knows the game, plays it well, and that's what's got our government blowing shit. It's a fascinating thing to watch.

I wish Venezuela well, and that the choices they make improve the lives of their majority; the people who previously lived in misery when the nation was the private cash cow of a cruel and or clueless minority.

Our own nation, wealthy as it is, is rank with the corruption of empire. We are going to have our own problems as this empire crumbles, and the propaganda tools and violence we see used against the Chavez government will inevitably be used against the people of the United States, to a much greater extent than they are used now against us.

There's a lot not to love about Chavez, but there are a few things to admire. If he breaks the system we have built to oppress Latin America, he will have accomplished something positive. Latin America needs a few more leaders who are not afraid to tell the United States to take a hike. We are not a force for good in the international arena, and many nations have solid reasons to despise us.

[jpgray]

10. To be clearer, this isn't wagging a finger at all Chavez defenders

There are charges that are defensible, such as the ADL's accusation of anti-Semitism based on his "the same people who hanged Jesus" speech. That the rest of the line included references to the betrayal of Bolivar, etc., it was pretty damn clear that it wasn't a Jew-hating reference. But not all his censorship of the opposition, for example, is easily explained away. Is it as bad as Bush says? Of course not.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. It's the "not as bad" argument carried to it's logical conclusion.

The various government leaders can always be held up against other government leaders as "not as bad". Is Bush "as bad" as Ahmadinijad or Chavez? Even events can be compared in the same way. Was the holocaust "as bad" as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or Dresden? Are bombs dropped from planes "as bad" as roadside bombs?

Are the people of Venezuela or Iran or Pakistan "as bad" as the Americans who elected Bush?

Do "we the people" bear any responsibility for the state of the world by participating in the "not as bad" game of politics?

I, for one, see politics, politicians, leaders, and our desire to trust them and forgive them, as a root cause of most of the problems that plague our world.

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
Thomas Paine

"Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

[99th_Monkey]

13. Isn't this apples and oranges in a way? What I'd put up with as US leader isn't the same

as how I would judge a leader of another nation, esp. if the judgment is being made to justify meddling into the affairs
of another sovereign nation, and ESPECIALLY attacking or invading them.

[jpgray]

18. That's true. Expecting Iran and Venezuela to conform to our standards isn't completely fair

But despite the cultural inertia that promotes bigotry towards gays in Iran, I still say such bigotry is indefensible. Despite the very real threat Chavez faces from a US funded coup, I still say censorship of opposition voices that are -not- demonstrably engaged in treason is indefensible. Now you may disagree, but that's the way I think. I can't "prove" this opinion of mine to be correct, but that's where I'm coming from.

[99th_Monkey]

19. When the "opposition voices" espouse violent overthrow of elected officials

and work with foreign psy-ops and other nafarious thugs to unseat duly elected officials, then that's called
treason. In such cases, I feel Chavez has every right to not only censure them, but to deport them or jail
them. Please note that he has done neither of the latter two things yet.

Many are amazed that he hasn't, well, except for the US MSM which only focuses on hyping Chavez's
"dictatorial" tendencies, not the good he has done and is doing for the poorest of the poor in Venezuela.

[jpgray]

21. That's why I'm more sympathetic to over-the-top defenders than over-the-top provocateurs

[EFerrari]

24. Do you have any idea how presumptuous that statement is?

There is no suppression of opposing voices in Venezuela. The media is largely owned by the opposition. There is no suppression of public demonstration. The damn coup plotters are still walking around. Venezuela is much more tolerant of dissent THAN WE ARE.

What is indefensible is your assumption that somehow our "standards" are better than theirs. How stereotypically American.

[tkmorris]

22. "It would be great if everyone would just apply a fair standard.....

based on complete reasoning."

Yes it would, and it could start with you. Sadly, it didn't.

Your entire argument presupposes that your positions on the topics of Ahmadinejad and Chavez are the correct ones, and all others are by definition wrong. "Poorly reasoned and biased", I believe you said. You offer very little to support your positions, instead just tossing them out there as if it is obvious to the most casual observer that they are the one and only Truth® and that is therefore completely reasonable to begin the argument there.

It isn't. In fact it's more than a tad arrogant to suggest that it is.

[jpgray]

23. And the reasonable defense for murderous bigotry towards gays is what, exactly?

The reasonable defense for executive power consolidation and censorship of opposition voices without due process is what, exactly?

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'd like to hear why I am wrong, not just that I am.

[tkmorris]

25. No, you DON'T want to hear why you're wrong

You don't even allow for the possibility that you are. You instead set out to examine the psychology of those who do not see it the way you do.

You are arrogant, and wrong.

[jpgray]

31. Defend Ahmadinejad's policy towards gays. I'm ready to listen.

[EFerrari]

32. Wrong target. He has no power to set that policy, let alone change it. n/t

[EFerrari]

30. Press freedoms in Venezuela.

In late 2006, the Venezuelan government announced its decision not to renew the 20-year broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Though the television station will no longer operate on the open-access airwaves, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be permitted. Though the decision has faced criticism by those who claim it is a move to restrict press freedoms, most governments worldwide enjoy the constitutional right to regulate media licensing, including that of the U.S. RCTV’s non-renewal does not violate legal norms in Venezuela, nor does it significantly alter the balance of power in Venezuela's vociferous, opposition-affiliated and privately-owned media. The decision forms part of a larger policy program for democratizing Venezuela's airwaves.

http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/RCTV.htm

[mmonk]

26. It relates to hypocrisy I think.

Americans probably sound silly to much of the world when we talk about dictators and threats.

[cali]

27. I've come to the conclusion that there's only one reasonable

reaction to the Chavez wars on DU:

Lots and lots of :popcorn:

[SyntaxError]

28. I don't think Chavez compares to Ahmadinejad..

Chavez is far more loony and dangerous.



















Just kidding... It's opposite day in Jackassville.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. "I deplore what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

I deplore what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Attributed variously to Voltaire and to Evelyn Beatrice Hall


But ...

I'll defend to the death your right to say that, but I never said I'd listen to it!
- Tom Galloway