Quote:
Originally Posted by Manx
Nah. The best way to combat stupidity is to let stupidity destroy itself.
I have only so far skimmed the article, but portions of it that I read are full of assumptions and heavy-handed distortions. If this is to be considered a valuable critique of the "left", I can only chuckle. It seems the underlying point of the article is that the "left" is somehow hypocritical. As if the "right" is not, and as if it is just this hypocrisy on the part of the "left" that produced the election result. That is nonsense. flstf is correct: the election is based on likability. Substance is ignored and if it is not, it is distorted into lies. The theoretical elimination of hypocrisy by either "side" is not going to change any of that. Particularly when one side is pointing to the other and exclaiming "You're a hypocrite!" It serves no purpose other than to continue to same old rhetoric.
|
The problem with this type of thinking is that it leads to condemning all opposing opinions as being rhetoric of the "other side" without looking at any inherent validity. This is part of the problem with American news and media in general: people only seek out opinions that agree with their own and assume anything else is an attack. Sure, the author is probably being a little condecending. But I believe many of those points to be valid, especially the U.N. section. If you are in a burning building, it's really irrelevant if Ann Coulter or Micheal Moore yells "Fire!", what's most important is dealing with the situation.