|
I find it odd when people take my accusations and turn them back on me without even comprehending why they were levied in the first place and with no regard as to how they might or might not apply to me.
When I correctly accused the Tea Party to having hatred as their commonality, regarding their social issues, I did so not as an emotional reaction or as an insult, but as an observation; my accusation was a judgment based on evidence. When, in turn, I'm accused of hatred without an evidence upon which to base that judgment, all it tells me is I'm talking to a wall, a party of simple reaction and no ability to self reflect. It's basically the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument.
Now that I have all the information I need—the Tea Party's official social issues according to their own websites are functionally identical to those of the right and the GOP, when you speak to actual Tea Party members, their stances on social issues are identical and even right of the GOP, those social issues all revolve around hatred or a lack of acceptance of either people or reality (read: anti-intellectualism leads to fear which leads to hatred, duh), and when confronted, Tea Partiers and their advocates don't have a solid logical or legal foundation for said social beliefs—I feel like the conversation is over.
I feel like the conversation is over. I feel like if the conversation taking place continues, it will do nothing but devolve into what it was before Jazz jumped in the leaf pile. It's going to be trolling and flame-baiting and eventually it will force the moderation staff to overreact and there will be 'vacations'. The question is this: can we change the conversation, please? Can we get to a topic that won't end in people shouting at their monitors?
|