View Single Post
Old 10-26-2006, 10:45 AM   #39 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i have been hesitant to post to this thread for a number of reasons, not least of which is the complexity of the situation that it at its core and my sense of being unable to say anything meaningful about it.

another reason is that i do not really understand the main verbs that litter the conservative set responses: pride in particular, what it means in this context.
i do not see any necessarily linkage between "being proud" and being coherently supportive, unless the underlying assumption is that what is really required in such a situation is a kind of paternal blessing, which works under the assumption that there is something infantilizing about the situation in which host's stepson finds himself, and what is required to deal with it is the beneficient gesture of the paterfamilias. and maybe there is something infantilizing about it.
but playing into it seems useless, given the political divisions within this family, which is not concealed, is a part of conversation, is known to all players.
that on its own would seem to me to rule out any facile recourse to the discourse of "i am proud of you"--simply because it seems that it would be delivered as a message as already hollowed out.

i am proud...i approve of what you are doing...i approve of what you are doing in the context of a situation that i approve of...

how about saying what i assume from the op can be said and meant... something like: "i love you and i worry about you and how you are faring and i hope that you keep yourself safe and to stay safe you have to stay focussed on what you have to do."
something like that?

in the end, seaver's post 12 contains the same core, though still decorated with the discourse of pride, which i really dont think functional in this context. psychodad says a parallel thing above.


which brings me around to the main reason i hesitated to post here:

i think something about it is fundamentally unfair.

now i say this as someone who opposed the iraq debacle from the outset and who has been very vocal about that opposition, both here and elsewhere.

what seems to me unfair about it is the central question the op poses: which amounts to:

ok you assholes tell me something that i can believe in about this stupid, unnecessary, incoherent, politically motivated debacle of a "war on terror" that i can tell my stepson who, unlike you conservatives who post here from the safety of your homes or offices, is actually putting himself on the line for all this in real time.

what i do not understand is why any conservative would answer such a question and go much beyond what seaver said in post 12 (and psychodad's post directly above this one). to do so seems an act of almost mind-boggling presumption...

host posed questions that should have been unanswerable for you folks--you would have done better to have posted nothing, said nothing--or to object to the question itself--rather than walk directly into a self-evident trap--which you tried to bluster your way through using--well what?--half-baked reactionary memes mixed with an appalling refusal to remember that there is a human being behind the name host who is talking about a real problem that none of you are have to face.

how is this possible?
do you really think that the people who oppose you politically are thereby not deserving of simple respect as human beings?

it's funny--at the core of the new right's mythological "history" of vietnam there is the myth of the returning solder being spat upon by people who opposed the war in vietnam politically. it never happened, but no matter, it is a functional myth--which apparently has generated a kind of boneheaded sanctimoniousness amongst some conservatives that makes them feel justified in spitting on a human being they disagree with politically who posts something about an obviously complex personal situation....so the myth that the far right has taken for an allegory about the war in vietnam they now repeat in reverse. except they actually do it.
so it follows that there are dimensions of conservative ideology that function to dehumanize all who oppose it, if that ideology is taken as a total worldview.
nice demonstration, lads. i am sure that you did not set out to provide one, but you did. well played.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360