carno, go rent The People vs. Larry Flynt. Great movie.

edit: misspelled some shizzle

I hope you enjoy the burning sensation, Falwell.

One less idiot asshole makes this planet a little bit better.

You know....I've never had much use for Larry Flynt, I well remember the day he was shot as my mother and I were in "town" that day for a Dr's appt(I grew up in Lawrenceville), but I have to give him kudos for his statment

The man made his own hateful legacy. He can be buried in it.

I only hope some good can come from his passing. Perhaps his $200 million/year scam disguised as a church will finally lose its undue political influence.

How does thinking this guy is a hateful asshole equate with being anti-American groupthink?

I'm not sure which ever pissed me off more about the filthy bastard- the fact that he spat hate with every single breath his lungs could muster, or that he did it trying to claim it was God's Will.

Welcome to hell, asshole.

i was also wondering about the same matter that jj asked about above.
it makes no sense to me.

The world is a better place because of him... being dead. :)

I think if this were a compare and contrast thread you might have a point.

Do you think anyone in here will have kinder words for bin laden or sadr when they die? Do you really think falwell is america in the sense that those who you would deem "fashionably anti-american" see him as some sort of representation of american ideals instead of a representation of the perversion of religious ideals?

I guess i'm wondering if your commentary was specifically directed at this thread or not.

I'm still waiting for the quotes from Tinky Winky (the allegedly gay Teletubby).

tinky winky's quote:

TinkY WinkY TIIIINKY..wIIINNNNKKYYYYY


i think it translates to "rot in heck, you piece of poo"

teletubby cursing doesn't translate well.

hating is unjustifiable.

refusing to draw reasonable comparisons to a thing that is being described in an absolute way is unjustifiable.

I'm indicating he represents an American version of a religious fundamentalist leader and that any reasonable comparison with others of that category - worldwide - reveals him as quite harmless.


An overview of current reaction to his death makes it clear that there is a line of demarcation drawn by progressive thinkers, which may be described as groupthink.

If you are not willing to mention that certain political/emotional/intellectual positions are anti-American, that is your business. I wouldn't argue with you about this personally. I may, however continue to identify an anti-American bias in particular points of view. That is simply my opinion.

If that is your justification to what constitutes being anti-American, I expect you to acknowledge that Falwell sets the standard for anti-American bias.

The man hates the majority of this nation's citizens. This constitutes anyone not 'born-again'.
Then also, specifically: Homosexuals, liberals, civil rights activists, feminists, anyone who enjoys sexual commercial material, abortion supporters, the ACLU, scientists...
He spent a great deal of his life trying to repress african-americans, including calling Martin Luther King Jr. a political opportunist and phony.

Considering how... according to your definition at least, anti-american he was, perhaps it is VERY American to denounce this man and his legacy?

____
Also, regarding him being harmless compared to his counterparts in the muslim world. It's all a matter of power. Falwell always had it. He had the ear of 3 of the last 4 presidents of this country. He regularly held meetings with them and other prominent politicians in high office. Falwell never NEEDED to get violent. He had the 10th largest economy in the world (US Military) to be violent on his behalf.

Terrorism is the resort of the weak and powerless. Put Falwell and his religion in a mud shack among by the world's poorest, and put Osama as ally to the most powerful man and military in the world where Islamic culture dominates the world, and you would have seen a reversal of method.

It's all a matter of who has the power.

Superbelt, between us I think we have laid out some very clear territory.
I appreciate your well-formed response.
I have no further response of my own.

Remember, I do not think differences of opinion are amenable to alteration by the processes of debate, argumentation, or other so-called rational means.

I see humans as emotional creatures...

Wait no more:

""Oh dear, it's easy to say the wrong thing here," he said. "Tinky Winky sad whenever someone dies, but ..." He left it hanging there."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...tml?source=rss

i don't understand the relation of american / anti-american and groupthink. wouldn't any relation to a statement or series of statements be inherent linked to groupthink one way or the other? if the concern is some sort collectively decided upon reaction to all situations as being in step with, or directly contrary to a notion of nationalism and identifican as 'american,' then.... i don't get the criticism.

i'm leaving the discussion of logic and debate and opinions for another thread. that could be a serious threadjack, i think :)

like i said originally. I'm NEVER happy when someone dies, honestly. It's a life and i've always believed that life is precious.

for falwell, my only conflicting sense was that value of life coupled with my disgust for the man. He was American, I am American, most of the 'anti Americans' people label are indeed American. I don't like what my country does sometimes, i don't like what people in my country do sometimes, but we are all here, all Americans. I just think we can do a better job. Falwell, on the other hand, had the power to bring people together, and he did, but only those people who agreed with his stance and viewpoints.

He could have been a MUCH better American if he'd simply kept his hate filled rhetoric out of the airwaves. I admit that he made me take an interest in things he was against, so maybe he did unite groups of people, but he united them against other groups of people who should not be fighting. In a time when Americans were distraught over the massive loss of life, does he call people together in love or to pray for families lost, or to just unite for the common good...No, he calls people together to lay blame at a group of Americans' feet. He did apologize for it, but i assure you, that apology did not get the airtime that the original speech did. He offended groups of Americans in a time when we needed a healing voice.

What's sad is that he COULD have been one of the most uniting figures in the 20th century, but he just couldn't get over his hatred of his fellow humans..

it's disgusting, immoral and unchristian.

and that's why i'm conflicted about his death.

Being thankful that this asshole is dead is anti-american?

No one is asking for anything to be debated- we're wondering how you made the leap in logic that lead you to believe that it's anti-american to hate that prick. His life of hateful rhetoric is hardly "american" in any way, so in what way are we being anti-american?

Call it groupthink if you want, I could care less... but what crazy leap of logic makes it anti-american to hate on him?

To me at least, Falwell was more a symbol of what is wrong with America than someone worth hating. I see my dislike for what he stood for as a manifestation of my love of this country rather than something Anti-American (whatever that actually means), and I would hope most Christians are relieved that his message has been silenced.

So then why did you bother to post? Was it just to lash out at some phantom anti-american groupthinking that wasn't really actually occuring?

Your participation can basically be summed up thusly: "All the haters are trendy sheep, but i don't want to talk about it." That's kind've lame if you ask me, though it does provide some insight into the basis for your belief that differences of opinion aren't amenable to alteration by the processes of debate, argumentation, or other so-called rational means. You certainly seem unwilling to participate in processes of debate, argumentation, or other so-called rational means, at least as far as this thread goes and if you don't participate using such means how could they possibly affect a change of opinion?

I thought all of Art's posts in this thread were extremely clear.

However, it seems that some people are reading aspects into them that just aren't there.

Part of the issue is that not everyone makes a goal of changing the way other people think. Some are more interested in sharing their thoughts and considering the thoughts of others.

After all, and this is just a way of restating something Art said, how often do you actually see people changing their mind based on "debate, argumentation, or other so-called rational means"?

Actually, i change my mind a lot in the context of debates, arguments and rational discussions. Perhaps not right away, but sometimes eventually. Often i am wrong and talking with other people who may happen to have a different perspective helps me evaluate my opinions and beliefs. It happens all of the time. There are certain things about the nature of the people involved in the discussion that might serve to limit the discussion's productivity, but really, i don't think it's all that rare outside of the politics board.

I think that the fact that a person believes that people don't change their minds via discussion speaks more about the nature of that person's ability to deal open mindedly with others than the abilities of humanity to adapt to new information presented in the context of discussion.

I thought all of ART's posts were crystal clear and reflected the same thing I said in my post in this thread. I debated this man's followers daily at one point, and they ALWAYS challenged me and made me think of things differently. What more could you hope for in a lively discussion? Yet I certainly never hated the man, nor wished his head chopped off, body burned, and "soul" sent to hell no matter how frustrated I got.

Ironic to read here how Falwell is reviled for trying to force everyone to think like him, but some contributors to this thread both 1) will only tolerate opinions similar to their own, and 2) bristle at the notion of groupthink.

ART is da man.

What are you talking about? Where did anyone say the only tolerable opinion is the one that is like their own?

I don't see this at all. Please point out to me which posts reflect an intolerance of differing opinions. What i see is people asking art for an explanation and him refusing to offer one because he doesn't think talking about his opinions is productive.

That makes two people who can't understand why anyone would question art. Please uber, warrrr, tell me what i've missed, because frankly i don't really see much insight at all. I see more a desire to somehow stick it to the people who don't care for falwell without actually defending falwell. Like somehow we should be thankful for all the things falwell did because, hey, at least he wasn't an islamic fundamentalist. If only we could get over our anti-american groupthinking long enough to see how great falwell actually was compared to other people with whom he shared certain characteristics. That's what i'm getting out of art's posts. Tell me what i'm missing because right now it seems like art is trying really half-assedly diss people for dissing on falwell despite the fact that if falwell had ever completely gotten his way art's way of life would be illegal.

art's posts were clear to the extent that the sentences were correct formally. but logically, they seemed arbitrary.

there are several ways to go about dismantling them, which i think you have to do in order to work out what is going on.
superbelt outlined one route----which i agree with---that addresses the contents of art's post itself.

there is a curious second level of problems, which would in the end simply bend art's statement back onto his own position: it is conventional wisdom---or was once--amongst a segment of conservativeland that there was some phantom called "PC" abroad in the land, the face of which was a kind of "anti-americanism" and basis of which was little more than fashion.

this relied entirely on a fantasy construct built around the notion "PC" never comes up--not here, not there--it doesn't matter that there is no referent--it is a nice little conservative meme the sole functions of which are (a) to set out a Them against which and Us can constitute itself and from there (b) it provides an opportunity for conflating a reversion to conservative political positions with an act of Heroic Individualism. it doesn't matter that the positions being adopted via this act of Heroic Individualism are the same as those inculcated through the pseudo-history encountered in primary and secondary school and little more than that--that is not the point--the point is to valorize the Action of Standing Up (to a Phantom). it's easy peasy and if anything is a pure example of exactly what art claims it stands against--except that this particular ideological proposition address "individuals" and so on that basis it is possible to imagine that it stands over against "groupthink"--but its basis is just a logical inversion of how this Phantom PC was defined.

i dont have a particular stake in this thread: for myself, i found no particular linkage between falwell's politics and the fact of his death welling up inside me--i felt no sense of either hostility or its inverse coming together around it. i found the relation of his politics to his religious committments to be problematic, but they never surprised me given the position he came from. he invented nothing, was responsible for nothing insofar as that variant of protestant fundamentalism is concerned. he was an adequate spokesmodel for a politics i found and find repellent---but that did not lead me to find anything to gloat about in the fact that he died. they are separate from each other: what falwell accomplished as a public figure, as a signifier i oppose--but as a human being, i assume that he had a family, that he loved and was loved and as such no doubt his death effects a community---and as i did not know him, i had nothing to say about it.

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."
&
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals"

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening."


RIP ODB.

Filtherton, roachboy:

I'm kind of wary about this discussion. My thinking that Art's posts were clear doesn't mean that his thoughts are mine, or that I am empowered to speak on his behalf. I can, however, tell you how I interpreted his words.

In fact, Art's thoughts on the matter seem so clear that I'm having a hard time saying how I took them without simply restating them.

I read Art's posts as an observation that it is a curious thing that so many people in this thread are expressing such vigorous hatred for Jerry Falwell, or such obvious glee that he has died, given that among Fundamentalist leaders in general (globally) he was not close to being an extreme personage.

One interpretation of why this feeling and expression is centered on Falwell is that it is easier or more fashionable in some circles to criticize American personalities and institutions.

Whether or not these things are the case, this was the message that I understood quite clearly and consistently from Art's posts. It is also quite consistent with his views on a number of other topics.

_________________________________

Regarding the bit about not wanting to engage in debate, I do identify quite strongly with Art's position. While I often learn a lot from the discussion and presentation of ideas here, it seems that the more heated the debate is, the less productive the conversation is. That's why I try to focus my posts on asking questions or challenging others to clarify their views rather than beat them over the head with mine. I'm not always successful in this, but I do make the effort. I'm certainly in no position to argue with or comment on your experience Filtherton, other than to say that it doesn't really match my own.

uber, what i find interesting is the equivalence of 'groupthink' to 'anti-americanism.' frankly, that doesn't necessarily tie directly to art, although i do find it an interesting statement simply given his interests in media and marketing of ideas through culture. i think that might be an interesting thread topic all by itself, although it would depend on how it was positioned. does anti-american groupthink have any fundamental differences to american groupthink? can any reaction along these lines not fall into 'groupthink?'

before i burn in hell, let me explain that i'm not happy someone died, by any means, but i wasn't happy when saddam was hanged, either....

and no, i'm not comparing the two, i'm just saying, i'm never happy when someone dies.

..

Not a big Falwell fan myself, but America's telefundies make some others' fundies look like Gandhi.

Moral relativism and what constitutes a "good" American aside, Falwell's harm went far beyond his verbal bashing of one group or another. Christopher Hitchens addresses the issues he has with Falwell and his ilk on CNN.


Link

I was about to mention Hitchens

jeebus, is his death dead yet?

Witchcraftish though this is, it's the end of his story.:thumbsup:

Hitchens is good...I agree with a lot of the things he says about all forms of fundamentalism, especially islamic fundamentalism.

Fairly classless on the part of Hitchens. I'm disappointed, because I really liked that Sharpton/Hitchens debate that loquitur posted in another thread. Yeah, I get it, Falwell wasn't a good person. The trash talk still doesn't impress me.

Christopher is gloating, but I can understand it. Falwell was a horrible divisive human being who really came into power because of his efforts to keep darkie down. I do agree he was a huckster.

So, how about this analysis of his life instead?
It attempts to show the evolution of Falwell from a beginning as a segregationist who created the Moral Majority and delved into sexuality issues and abortion only after, and as a direct response to, the Federal Government having started removing tax exempt status from private universities like his and Bob Jones because of their continued segregationist activities.
linky dinky

I never understood the idea of "class" ... since when was one under duty to respect another person for simply having lived and died. The man was bad and deserves no kind words.