Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Rule clarification, updated in my profile

Notice that in my profile I mention that all points of view are welcome. As frequent guests to this blog who have been here for a while know, I pride myself in that philosophy. Dear friends of mine here have disagreed with me on things varying from Terri Schiavo to the death penalty to voting rights of paroled felons. These disagreements have always been done civilly, and have based on sound reasoning. Well, I guess I should qualify the word “all”…geez, I sound like Bill Clinton wanting to know what “is” is!

A recent visitor here considers himself a liberal, and it’s clear that he is. However, during a recent discussion, he broke a rule (indirectly) of Netiquette that has been around in USENET newsgroups since 1990. This rule is called Godwin’s Law. The law is as follows:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Participants then ignore the perpetrator henceforth, unless or until they decide to acknowledge his/her existence. The perpetrator has showed a lack of coherent thought and critical thinking and has tried to inflame passion by using a gratuitous reference to universally accepted evil (which is funny, since liberals usually refuse to acknowledge good and evil, right and wrong…but I digress).

Well, the aforementioned liberal has been entertaining, but he recently violated Godwin’s Law, albeit indirectly. Instead of referring to ideological opponents as “Nazis”, he referred to them as “American Taliban.” So I added Leffingwell’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law, which basically extends the law (and its violation’s consequences) to include Taliban, al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, etc.

Basically, the individuals referenced by said liberal as “American Taliban” have not, to the best of MY knowledge, perpetrated acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction, and rhetorical overreaches like that are invalid and in poor taste.

If the reference or analogy uses Hitler/Nazis/Taliban/etc. in a way that does not compare personally, the analogy may be considered valid. Example:

Statment: “Bill Clinton was a good leader…look at the way he improved the economy!”
Reply: “Just because he improved the economy doesn’t make him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy.”

While I’m no fan of Clinton and could write a thesis on how he did nothing to or for the economy, I do not take the above reply to be comparing Clinton to Hitler. I take it to mean that improvement of the economy in and of itself does not a good leader make. Godwin’s Law was not violated. However, look at this example:

Statement: “Clinton did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda! He’s no better than Hitler!”
Statement: “Clinton is just like Saddam Hussein in that he had those women and children in Waco killed!”

While it is true that Clinton did nothing about Rwanda, Clinton did not personally order or approve of the genocide there. And while Clinton’s bumbling AG Janet Reno royally botched the handling of the Waco standoff, that was a ham-handed attempt to defuse a volatile situation. Deserving of elevated, passionate criticism? Abso-freakin’-lutely! Testaments to unadulterated evil? Uh…no. Such comparisons as above violate Godwin’s Law, and the piehole that uttered the nonsense would (and should) be ignored by everyone else.

So, while the offending liberal is still welcome to waste his time and post his drivel, he can count on getting no replies from me. I encourage my other readers here to also ignore him, but that’s up to you guys.

Advertisement

May 27, 2005 - Posted by | Uncategorized

5 Comments »

  1. OK. I’ll leave you alone in your echo chamber. It’s an easy copout though since your arguments can’t hold water. BTW, thought the Taliban are evil they didn’t perpetrate acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction.

    Comment by Steve Bremner | May 27, 2005

  2. First off…

    Johnny, your silence against Steve will only look like he and his ilk are possibly in the right, no matter how ridiculous many of his claims may be. Keep replying. When he makes a valid point, praise him as you have. When he’s ducked the question, (or point of the post), as he often does, take him to task for it.

    I have not posted in a few weeks, but have recently started reading this Blog again. (Lots of stuff going on.) I WANT to believe that Steve is a very good and logical person, but the posts, at times, show differently.

    Yes, he did use the “American Taliban” comment. (I believe, and truly so, called Leffingwell’s Corollary!) However, with you continually debating him, you expose said usages of the corollary and law.

    If I may bring a little bit of an olive branch here. (Although I fully know that I may burn said olive branch in other comments.) I have the feeling if we met Steve at some sort of social event, minus socio-political talk, we would tend to get together quite well.

    I can’t speak for Johnny, (but I think in a previous comment he also noted that you are intelligent.) I also think you are a thoughtful person, BUT as much as you think Johnny, (and as you will probably come to find me), as “Right Wing Idiots”, we care about many of the same things. The primary difference is that we are sick of being shut up by social pressure, and you don’t know how to deal with a majority, (not as ignorant as you want to believe), being against you.

    Thanks for the space,

    Tom

    Comment by ManicNole | May 27, 2005

  3. Tom,

    Welcome back, Brother!

    I hear what you’re saying, and you make good points, as usual. However, you’re operating under a delusion that I used to operate under, which is that Steve is capable of making valid points and carrying on an intelligent conversation.

    He seemed like he used to be able to do so, but the more I knocked his weak-ass softballs out of the park, the more he devolved in his abilities to debate logically. It’s kind of like today’s Democrats: the more they lose elections, the more whacked-out and venomous and devoid of ideas they become, resorting to invective lacking in substance (i.e. “American Taliban”). Steve B., alas, proves to be cut from that same cloth, and as such, it’s worse than talking to a wall. While I never embarked on changing his mind, I at least expected rational dialog. With the violation of Godwin’s Law (15 years old) and Leffingwell’s Corollary, rational dialog was abandoned.

    See, you vehemently disagreed with my take on the Schiavo thing, but you did so on a rational (yet passionate) basis. Our bud Steve H. disagreed with me on paroled felons voting and on the death penalty (especially for juveniles). As you can see, the three of us are still good friends who simply agreed to disagree. It’d be boring if you guys always agreed with me. That’s why liberal Steve B. was kind of a breath of fresh air…until he proved he was still in the minors and not ready to be activated to the big leagues yet. “American Taliban”, “the creep towards fascism”, etc., proved that he’s like every other liberal out there: feeling, but no thinking.

    I’m sure he does like to think I can be baited with a simple “Ha! I’m right, and you can’t face up to it, so you’re pulling this Godwin’s Law crap.” I personally don’t give a rat’s #ss what he thinks, since as previously stated, his vacuous inflammatory rhetorical overreaches prove that he cannot think. So if he wants to delude himself into thinking he is right or that he “won”, I sincerely don’t care.

    Think of this as turning your back to someone when they enter the room. They can say what they want, think what they want, but the fact is that no one is listening to them.

    I read your replies to this and other posts, and they are good indeed. Loved the FSU analogy with the Amnesty post! Well done! If you want to continue to reply to him (assuming he returns), that’s cool…no problems here. I simply refuse to do it.

    Comment by Jonathan | May 28, 2005

  4. Damn,I don’t come on a week or so and all hell breaks loose in Nazi, Gremany. Excuse me, in the Leffing World. I can’t believe Johnny, you resorted to defining is. Okay it’s not the definition of is but some rediculous on line rule which is common sense like the definition of is. Anybody who get’s his arguments ass beat as bad as what you did to this liberal, does not need further explination of the rules,he needs to be ignored, because he like, the Nazis,Commies, Sadam Hussain, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Musselini, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minn, Mao, Vlad the Impailer, Ivan the Terrable, Al Quada and the Talaban ;-) will never change his sorry ass belifs.

    Comment by Anonymous | May 29, 2005

  5. Wherein [art thou] good, but to taste sack and drink it? Wherein neat and cleanly, but to carve a capon and eat it? Wherein cunning, but in craft? Wherein crafty but in villainy? Wherein villainous, but in all things? Wherein worthy but in nothing?

    Taken from: Henry IV, part I

    Comment by Steve Bremner | June 2, 2005


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

« Previous | Next »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers