For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
“Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause”
Written By : Morgan Freeberg

Blogger friend Phil has an open mind, and has been talking to some smart people.

Well I guess it came to a head with that liberal friend over on Facebook. I got a note from him yesterday basically saying why don’t we just talk about the things we have in common.

We’re not close, but we go way back. I don’t know why that makes a difference to me, but it does. Part of it is that I know he’s intelligent and I have hope that he’ll snap out of it. Which is one reason I challenged his constant dribble of links to articles telling everyone how stupid conservatives are. He says he posts them because he finds them “interesting” or “amusing”, and the gist of his message was, between the lines as my buddy in KC observed, “Stop Booing When All I Want is Applause“.

I said I would respect his wishes and basically stop countering his posts on his wall with my opinions. I’ll stand by that. I’m a man of my word.

But Morgan had a good point when I talked to him about it. He said in situations like that he just politely tells in a world where silence=consent and he does not consent — if they want his silence they need to post it somewhere where he can’t see or comment on it. Force them into the shadows for a change.

So … that dude’s granfathered in. Unless and until he breaks his own part of the bargain.

But … it goes against my Stop An Echo campaign. So I’ll need to watch my acquiescence in the future.

The left needs constant reassurance about following their agenda. I suppose they should need it; the rest of us have a track record of becoming disenchanted and revolted with it whenever we’re better informed about it. But that doesn’t explain all of their insatiable lust for more and more reassurance. Recently the current Defense Secretary said that “any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined.” That’s as much of a victory as they should ever want. That was the goal, after all.

But still the relentless campaign continues, like a juggernaut. At Thanksgiving, in the office, on Facebook, it’s always reminder-time. Bush stupid, Obama awesome, Palin a dimwit, Iraq a mistake.

Say a single word in rebuttal, and you’re the problem.

Well you know what? That’s the kind of double-standard that is effective only if the victim consents to it. Hence my comment to Phil about silence being consent. That’s what they expect, want, depend on. Chaos gets to babble away with whatever, it’s always the job of order to sit in respectful stewing silence.

Well, yeah. I don’t want to be a d*ck about it, but then again we’re talking about situations where the other person started the conversation. Which I notice is usually the case, especially with the Palin-is-a-dimwit conversations.

So yes, I have a reply. I think that’s fair — I do not consent. If they want to peel off with nonsense and struggle upward on their little social ladder, and not hear a single syllable of disagreement from anyone, it’s their job to keep the conversation out of my sight. They’re the ones who want it that way. They have to unfriend or unfollow me/us.

If they want a monologue instead of a dialogue, they have to say so. They have to admit that’s what they want. That their argument is too flimsy to withstand anything but obligatory agreement.

It’s called being stigmatized; being driven underground. And yes you’re damn right it’s high time it happened to them.

Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes.

0
  • Anonymous

    I lost a ‘progressive’ friend over this sort of thing as well. I’d post opposing viewpoints to his opinions on facebook.
    All he wanted was an echo, maybe some applause, or just enough disagreement over piddling details to convince himself he was the open-minded, healthy-discussion sort of person he thought he should be.
    I attempted to civilly debate him, which made me a ‘cock’, ‘douchebag’, ‘troll’, etc. After about a year of these insults (I didn’t expect anything better than emotional outbursts from, so it took me a while to call him on this sort of thing), I finally mentioned I’d had enough of his insults.

    This was the unforgivable sin, and he broke it off with me after that. In retrospect, I think he had been trying to bait me into an emotional re-action or insulting reply the entire time.
    He needed me to provide him an excuse to stop associating with me, one that would let him continue to lie to himself about what a great guy he was. Apparently ‘You keep insulting me, and it’s time to stop.’ was good enough.
    Upon reflection, it’s clear that he never had any confidence in his positions, he only thought (thinks) that those are the beliefs intelligent, compassionate people are supposed to have.
    It’s no wonder he withered when faced with my arguments, backed by my full confidence.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Russell-Kay/568298573 Russell Kay

      I’ve been been verbally assaulted over my positions. And assaulted meaning “the guy verbally attacked me personally” over it…and even worse, was really condescending over it. He also dodged every single argument I threw his way about *his* ideas.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve had a few friends from the past “de-friend” me as well, all libs. Maybe it’s because I have albums of myself from my tour in A-stan, and my profile quote is from Ronald Reagan? Oh well, I just go on, F-book friend counts mean everything to a lib, and I’m VERY picky about who I befriend!!!

  • Anonymous

    The left needs constant reassurance about following their agenda.

    Well of course it does. Modern progressivism (read statism), as an ideology, is nothing but a tangle of contradictions, evasions and deferrals of thought. Evidence, reason and judgement are ideological dangers to such a tangle. But, absent those, what is someone to rely on to know that they are right? The approval and reassurance of others is all they have.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Russell-Kay/568298573 Russell Kay

      so then why do “conservatives” compromise to this ideology so easily?

      • Anonymous

        Well, I kind of note it in my other comment. Social pressure can be a very powerful thing, especially if you don’t examine your premises. On any given issue, the particulars of an ideology will appear to someone who disagrees as wrong or misguided or naively well-intentioned. Who wants to slap someone down when, well, it’s so easy to meet them halfway? This is all the more true when one recognizes that politics is a social activity. And let’s not kid ourselves, how many of the contradictions, evasions and deferrals of thought have made their way to accepted dogma in popular culture? As such, they become premises left unquestioned that leave the right at a political disadvantage.

  • Anonymous

    It’s called being stigmatized; being driven underground. And yes you’re damn right it’s high time it happened to them.

    But stigmatizing and driving underground aren’t what you’re advocating. And they shouldn’t be. Stigmatizing and driving underground suggest a negation of argument, a refusal to engage ideas, by sneering, innuendo, and the use of social pressure to replace consensus with thought. That isn’t a game conservatives or libertarians are going to win. The statists have been at it too long and have perfected it to too much of an artform. But, as you note, the entire scheme hinges on one assumption, the consent of the victim. The substance of your argument seems to be to withdraw that consent, to address arguments with the best of your own consciousness without regard to the consequences to their feelings, to treat the sneers, innuendo and social pressure as an account long-overdrawn.
    But that doesn’t amount to stigmatizing. And it doesn’t amount to driving anyone underground. People of independent consciousness and goodwill have treated one another by such standards since the beginning of time. They don’t deal with one another by means of sneers, innuendo or social pressure to substitute another’s mind for your own. They rely on one another’s senses, reason and judgement to prove their point. But, when they do that, are they stigmatizing one another or driving one another underground? Of course not. They’re engaging one another on the standards of good sense and goodwill. There’s nothing to view as ruthless or underhanded in holding those standards out to be proud of.

  • http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

    This is a real problem. The left feels completely comfortable spewing their hate and misinformation and outright lies in every single conceivable forum, but should anyone disagree, question that, or set the record straight, they go nuts screaming and trying to shut you up.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”
Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth
Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers
The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation
The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans
Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders
Advertisement
User Info