Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

20score

(4,769 posts)
Thu Jul 11, 2013, 03:54 PM Jul 2013

Of Labels, Libtards, Libertarians and Paulbots. [View all]

Always battled with myself on whether I was more angry about the Iraq War, or the insulting lies that got us there. Same with destroying the environment. Is it worse to wipe out other species and set our own species on a course for extinction, or is the greater crime the fact that so many are too dumb or too weak to see/admit what’s happening?

Okay, it’s not really a battle - but the dumb and childish still irritate the hell out of me. Adults, at least a many of them, handle any reality they don’t care for, in a far worse manner than any eight year old that finds out there is no Santa Claus. And it’s not just the religious fanatics either; although they are the worst. Those who look down people who believe in the science of global warming, come to mind. Those who believe strongly their race or culture is superior to all others. Authoritarians and a good portion of those who fall for propaganda are some of the most resistant to facts and have the most infantile reactions when facing unpleasant truths.

What’s ironic, and also obvious, is that those who hold strong opinions that are contrary to the facts, are also unlikely to be able to defend those opinions in an honest debate. They don’t know enough. So they label people, name call and insult. “It’s like 10 degrees outside, libtard! So much for global warming!”

During the nation’s year long debate about health care in 2009, those who wanted to keep the status quo labeled those who were for a public option as communists, socialists and Nazis. Not knowing the definition to any of those terms, proven by the fact they were used interchangeably. They got angry, labeled people and insulted. This pattern returns again and again throughout history. Whenever their beliefs, religion, party, king, or morals are challenged, those resistant to reality have reacted badly.

The same thing is now happening with some on the left, and it’s hard to deny. If someone believes that a big-brother type government is really the best thing for the country and believes we should make sure the monitoring of everything we do continues forever… then convince us. Tell us all, calmly, that just being alive makes us a suspect. Prove to us that privacy has no place in a free country. Persuade us that the threat of terrorism - even though statistically dying from lightning is more likely – is a good enough reason to rid ourselves of the most basic rights we have.

Truth is, they can’t. If the people that are trashing Snowden and Greenwald had any case at all, they would bring it to the forefront. They have nothing, and I suspect on some level they realize that fact. That’s why the labels of libertarian and Paulbot are thrown around with no honest debate even attempted.

It’s either dishonesty, slow wits, or a childish aversion to facts.

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well done! suede1 Jul 2013 #1
Thanks! 20score Jul 2013 #13
Hear hear!!! punkin87 Jul 2013 #2
It's exactly why character assassination and ad hominem are classified as fallacies NuclearDem Jul 2013 #3
Exactly! 20score Jul 2013 #10
That was a pleasure to read. Catherina Jul 2013 #4
Thanks Catherina! 20score Jul 2013 #14
K&R forestpath Jul 2013 #5
K&R! I don't understand why Skinner allows the character-assassination here. backscatter712 Jul 2013 #6
I think Skinner is allowing the DU community to decide. Use the ignore feature for rhett o rick Jul 2013 #32
Once again, CakeGrrl Jul 2013 #7
Because not all labels are inacurate or unfair. 20score Jul 2013 #8
So it appears that your bottom line CakeGrrl Jul 2013 #11
Not what i'm saying or implying. 20score Jul 2013 #12
You missed a developing label ProSense Jul 2013 #18
I dont disagree with everything you say. We need to define terms like "spying". rhett o rick Jul 2013 #34
(in my opinion) You are correct about labels think Jul 2013 #27
Those that so avidly attack anyone that dares to question the government under Pres Obama have nothi rhett o rick Jul 2013 #9
They're embarrassing to the rest of us on the left. 20score Jul 2013 #15
Just waiting for your either with us or with the terrorists. nt raouldukelives Jul 2013 #16
I will be glad to accommodate you. In a war there are only two sides. In this war there is the rhett o rick Jul 2013 #21
I hear that loud and clear. One can invest in Wall St and help fund the 1% in its war. raouldukelives Jul 2013 #22
its just typical and moronic guilt by association quinnox Jul 2013 #17
I'm getting pretty amused at all the defensiveness and counterargument on labeling. bluedigger Jul 2013 #19
The spying offends me. 20score Jul 2013 #20
No problem. bluedigger Jul 2013 #24
you are not using the official smiley bobduca Jul 2013 #23
Nothing to excess. bluedigger Jul 2013 #25
Perfectly stated: sabrina 1 Jul 2013 #26
Thank you! 20score Jul 2013 #31
Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists Zorra Jul 2013 #28
part of it is damage control... dtom67 Jul 2013 #29
Well said. k&r n/t Laelth Jul 2013 #30
Have yet to see a reply supporting the 20score Jul 2013 #33
the people comparing the Obama administration to Stalinist USSR deserve every geek tragedy Jul 2013 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Of Labels, Libtards, Libe...