|
My hyperbole was meant to illustrate a point, that being personal choice and liability for the choice. I wish Olberman well. Unlike others, I see the political war for what it is and do not wish the participants harm or censure. You failed to notice I did not define the evil as anything other than ignorance. I did not say that people should not choose that evil, if they even buy the definition. For some in is inapplicable or irrelevant. I listen, on occasion, to Olberman, Maddow, the view, Matthews, and other left leaning views. I go to daily kos. I like to know what the enemy is up to, so to speak. But I fully support people making the choice to not listen to anything they don't want to listen to. They will suffer for their ignorance as a matter of course; mine is not to dictate the terms of their life. I have three points. One, say what you want and be embraced or ignored, knowing it is the full and free right of others to do so. Two, rhetoric is not sufficient cause for violence; there is an inclination in the personal philosophy and thought of the violent to act. Case in point is this guy from Tucson. He didn't listen to the rhetoric of the right. He acted on his own for his own goals, horrible as they were. My third point is that we should exercise the rights of democracy in all forms of liberty: say what you will and pay the price. Prefer truth over fallacy that is created to coerce and not inform, and by all means vote!! That is the way we put teeth into our arguments. It is all choice and personal responsibility for that choice. I can say whatever I want, but I will face banination, or critical review, such as your reply. Banination does not deny my right to voice my thoughts, it is the agreed to price to pay for airing my thoughts. Your critical reply inspires reflection and possible change in my philosophy. That is how it works. I do not want to live in an echo chamber where only my thoughts are reinforced. But I must have some core belief to traffic in the intellectual arena of discourse. Somewhere there is informed balance. A more perfect union looks very different to all involved.
Palin endures scorn by some and love by others simply because she is a symbol. Her symbolism is what causes fear on one hand and admiration on the other. Everyone says stupid shit, as I did describing Olberman. Palin is harmless because we have the choice to hear her, evaluate her speech and then ignore her. Olberman is harmless because I have the choice to do the same with him. You can read my post and ignore me. I am not harmed by it, and neither are you unless you simply dismiss it out of hand because I do not "look" like you do, philosophically and politically. We must learn and then stand. Standing cannot occur without either learning or assuming. We assume too much as a society. The cart is before the horse, and the goal is to tear down the straw man instead of elevating the real man. Those are my observations, anyhow.
__________________
"My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks
|