You have to wonder if right-wingers will ever get it: Difference isn't a threat.

[kpete]

"Difference isn't a threat"
by mcjoan
Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 06:20:04 PM PDT

You have to wonder if right-wingers will ever get it: Difference isn't a threat.

They were mewling like wounded hyenas this weekend after some of us pointed out that there was a direct connection between the irresponsible fearmongering in which they've been indulging since Barack Obama was elected and Saturday's tragedy in Pittsburgh.

...............................


This is a familiar refrain that comes up every time anyone raises a socially damning issue like this one: We're trying to oppress them, to silence their voices, by pointing out how morally and ethically bankrupt they are.

Actually, we're just pointing out how bankrupt they are. No one here has said anything about silencing their voices -- we just want them to face up to the consequences of their irresponsible rhetoric. It's called culpability: They obviously are not criminally culpable, nor likely even civilly culpable. But they are morally and ethically culpable.

We do have serious differences of opinion here. We strongly believe that there's a clear, common-sense connection between the paranoiac fearmongering that has passed for right-wing rhetoric since well before Obama's election (and has become acute since) and violence like that in Pittsburgh, or in Knoxville: horrifying tragedies, in which the sources of the criminal's unambiguous motives are that very same hysterical fearmongering -- whether it's about the evil socialists, stinking immigrants, or conspiring gun-grabbers who've taken over the country since Election Day.

http://crooksandliars.com/node/27180
via:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/6/717184/-Difference-isnt-a-threat

[BlooInBloo]

1. Ironically enough: to them, that's the very *definition* of "threat".

[Kievan Rus]

2. Conservatism is a straight male WASP only movement

The modern social conservative movement is nothing more than a front group for white, heterosexual, able-bodied, Anglo Protestant men. Nearly all of their pundits fit the description; they do have a few token blacks, women, Roman Catholics and Jews...but nearly all are straight male WASPs. And anything that promotes anything that isn't straight male WASP (i.e. feminism, black studies, Hispanic immigration, Islam, GLBT) is the enemy by default.

[virgogal]

5. Straight male Wasps like Bill Clinton,Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman?

You are stereotyping.

[Kievan Rus]

7. The difference

Straight male WASPs that are liberal (and even moderate) believe in tolerance and extending rights and responsibilities to others, such as women, blacks, Hispanics, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, disabled people and GLBT persons.

Straight male WASPs that are socially conservative (does not necessarily include economic or national defense conservatives) want all the social power for their class and lament the fact that straight male WASPs don't run everything anymore like they did back in the good ol' days. This is a reason why I think so many of these people are upset about Obama being President.

[nomorenomore08]

8. Yeah, most economic conservatives just hate the poor.

:evilgrin: J/K

[Mithreal]

11. Poverty is infectious, dontcha know. nt

[noiretextatique]

13. aka the dominant, white male cultural paradigm

i concur.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. "Difference isn't a threat." Interesting point.

Too bad the GOP cannot perceive distinctions.

[elleng]

4. For many, historically (and genetically?) difference itself IS a threat.

.

[sam sarrha]

6. "Conservatives" are unfortunately Born that way.. it isn't a Choice, they lack... >Links.>

'Fluidity in their thinking, QUITE POSSIBLY /obviously/ because of Organic physical deficiencies in essential cognitive structures of their brain.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+cognitive+brain+differences+liberals+Conservatives&btnG=Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=liberal+brain+differences&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

my personal view of this subject..if we cant legislate out the Phenomenological IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY http://bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl?alpha=1
"snip...ON LAW OF OLIGARCHY First defined by German sociologist Robert Michels (1876-1936), this refers to the inherent tendency of all complex organizations, including radical or socialist political parties and labour unions, to develop a ruling clique of leaders with interests in the organization itself rather than in its official aims. These leaders, Michels argued, came to desire leadership and its status and rewards more than any commitment to goals. Inevitably, their influence was conservative, seeking to preserve and enhance the organization and not to endanger it by any radical action. Michels based his argument on the simple observation that day-to-day running of a complex organization by its mass membership was impossible. Therefore, professional full-time leadership and direction was required. In theory the leaders of the organization were subject to control by the mass membership, through delegate conferences and membership voting, but, in reality, the leaders were in the dominant position. They possessed the experience and expertise in running the organization, they came to control the means of communication within the organization and they monopolized the public status of representing the organization. It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective counterweight to this professional, entrenched, leadership. Michels also argued that these inherent organizational tendencies were strengthened by a mass psychology of leadership dependency, he felt that people had a basic psychological need to be led. ...snip"

then we must consider that.. they may need to be put in walled Reservations and prevented from breeding, it's the only way to humanely deal with them. we are all Doomed if they are left to continue to FUCK everything up and profit from it, they are bad enough alone.. but thru the Iron Law of Oligarchy only the truly and severely mentally ill take over the organization. but the end product is that they are obsessive compulsive sociopaths and some psychopathic and all out of control." :shrug:

they have totally messed up the 21st Century.. they have proven beyond ANY DOUBT their ideology is a complete failure, AGAIN. THEIR TORTURING MURDERIOUS GENOCIDAL ASSAULT ON on central and south america during Reagan/Bu$h/Kissinger/Milton Friedman should have told the world what were, but we allowed them to rewrite history ane get away with murdering and torturing to death 250,000 people..declared Genocide by the UN. and we are allowing them to do it again by validating them in Obama's government and ignoring their horific NEW CRIMES

[gratuitous]

9. It isn't just the right wing, though

You can get the argument right here that holding the dominant voices of the Right Wing accountable for their words and their pervasive effect is censorship.

[Mithreal]

10. People here are against holding RWers "morally and ethically culpable"?

Weird if true.

[Toucano]

12. We need to open "re-education camps" they're so afraid of!

That would be ironic, wouldn't it.

Lock up some of the enemies of peace for a change.

[donheld]

14. They don't want to get it

They love their ignorance.