Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 10:10:16 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

While I can find nothing that implies, to me, a direct insult to our men in uniform, I think I can see what happened. By insulting those who have an uncomplicated patriotism, it could easily be taken as an insult of those who find their vocation in defending the country. Nope, the "true patriots" was referring to some RW posters here whose vociferous patriotism was apparently running in inverse relationship to their intelligence. i.e., those who equate patriotism with the automatic denigration of anyone who points out that things might be done better... and continue by branding anyone who criticises their standpoint (of mindless jingoism) as a traitor. No insult implied, intended or reasonably to be inferred by anyone truly serving the US.

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 10:20:26 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"However, I think that his interpretation has some plausibility, depending upon how strong one takes the negative reference to "patriots" to be......." This strikes at the crux of human belongingness. During your hiatus as a Christian, you must have noticed that there are restrictions with each church or sect that defines who is a real this or that. This gets extended to who is a real Christian, which gets extended to who is a real believer, and ultimately to who's side God is on. This holds as well for other religious groups and for secular politics and other groups. So, the term "real patriot" is bound to bring out strong reactions that push you pull you in and out of inclusion. A definite sabor rattle to one of the strongest needs of the human condition.

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 10:39:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

By insulting those who have an uncomplicated patriotism, it could easily be taken as an insult of those who find their vocation in defending the country. I just love your choice of words": "uncomplicated patriotism." It's perfect. I see that Poet caused quite a stir by using the word, patriot, in quotes, to distinguish those of uncomplicated patriotism from other patriots. I have, from time to time, used the term "flag waver" for this type of patriot. I suppose "absolutist patriot" would also be descriptive, but "uncomplicated" has a kinder, although somewhat patronizing, spin. Whatever label we apply to this subset of patriot, I recognize them by their insistence that there is only one true way to demonstrate one's patriotism and that patriotism is measured by whether or no one wears a flag pin on one's lapel rather than whether one stands up for the founding principles of one's country and defends her against all enemies, internal and external. Webster defines patriot as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." There can certainly be different understandings of just what supports or undermines the interests of one's country. For the sake of definition, here's an example of something unpatriotic. <<Noam Chomsky, our own little Quisling, popped up in India to denounce the United States and describe the attacks on Afghanistan as "a bigger terrorist act than what happened on Sept. 11.">> Message 16683750 Labeling "unpatriotic" those who thoughtfully consider "root causes" as part of an effort to understand and design strategy against an enemy, those who question whether the term "coward" is the best way to describe that maniac SOB, Osama, or those who don't wear flag pins is more than just "uncomplicated." It is small minded. And perhaps a bit un-patriotic. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 11:32:58 AM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought of that very possibility on November 18-- and so questioned Christopher in detail as to whether that could be basis on which he was claiming that Poet had badmouthed our troops. In no prior or subsequent post of his did he claim it was the explanation for the fictional "scenario" he posted, and when I offered it myself as an explanation four days before you did, he did not assent to it. So you and I have both offered CH a psychological rationalization for his calumny, ie a moment of high emotion. But he has continued for days to reiterate the calumny, never once taking the opportunity to say, "What she did do was to say dissenters shouldn't be called traitors and to say that those who do that are not fine exemplars of patriotism, but I myself I feel that defending dissent was an attack on our young men. Even though Poet supports our military policy and troops." So, Neo, here is my post proposing your hypothesis to CH four days ago: Message 16677299 Neo, we both know that he has had plenty of opportunity to explain that that was what he meant by the scenario in which Poet dissed our "young men" and he rose to their defense, and that was what "started all this" between them. I have more to post to you on this subject! (Yay!) You will see I pretty much exhausted it, giving CH much opportunity to confess that it was his excuse for posting what he did about Poet. Yet only yesterday, he wrote "I am satisfied with the accuracy of my statements."

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 11:46:06 AM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Some things are so patently wrong that it strains credibility to deny the truth. Only those seeking comfort in moral cowardice, equivocation, or relativism can fool themselves into believing that white is black or wrong is right. Uncorroborated character assassination is unworthy of defense. Unfortunately, a good many good people chose to stand by, tolerate, and even encourage unmitigated lies rather than confront the ugly truth that one of our own was acting in contemptible disregard of the basic tenets of decency and civilized discourse. This thread had recently achieved an enviable reputation as a safe place to openly and enthusiastically exchange divergent opinions without a high degree of undue personal vilification. Those who remained silent as one angry little mean-spirited and vindictive person ripped apart the newly knitted fabric of mutual trust must bear equal responsibility for the destruction wrought. Apologists for this despicable behavior will undoubtedly come to rue the day that they stood in defense of the indefensible. Shame on you.

To: Neocon who wrote (38236)	11/22/2001 11:56:02 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Yesterday I wrote this to you, Neocon: "Actually, I don't think you should discontinue taking people to task for calling dissenters traitors. What is overlooked becomes accepted and what is accepted comes to seem normal. Once it is normal in America for dissent to be equated with treason.... The beautiful part of our country's story is over." I also wrote this to you: "I understand what you're saying, and am capable of also of "getting mad" at those who seem not to comprehend the crisis nature of our circumstance, the enormity of the crime against us and the magnitude of the continuing threat; but there is a similar feeling of 'perversity' in a situation seen even on SI, in which, in the United States of America, policy dissenters are called "traitors." It is not despicable, when there is a lot of that sort of thing going around, to restate the platitude that we have freedom of dissent, and that the dissenters are called American Citizens Exercising The Rights That Make Our Country America, not "traitors. I acknowledge that I hold as an article of faith that if we don't all think the same thoughts, we should not all speak with the same voice, and that what then emerges as policy will make us strongest longest. And I will also point out that there is a remarkable amount of solidarity in this country now. The dissenting voices are by no stretch of the most fevered imagination shouting fire in a crowded theater...." Message 16691227 So I ask Christopher now, and anyone else who cares to comment, whether I have cast aspersions on "our young men." Or has only Poet done that by expressing those views? Note again: CH has had four days and many invitations to state that what he meant was that Poet had cast aspersions on our troops only in the sense that she defended dissenters and questioned the quality of a patriotism that calls dissenters traitors. He has never done it. I've proposed it for him. You've proposed it for him. He has never assented to this explanation we proposed for him. All he has done for four days is to iterate and reiterate a calumny about her. He has also not accused me of casting aspersions on our "young men," though my position would appear to be identical with Poet's.