Damn Wiscos

Nov 16, 2004 04:18

I am so sick of listening to people, and being judge, and having to sit and quietly accept one sided propaganda as fact. I am sick of knowing a better, faster, easier way. I am sick of weak arguements or inconclusive ones given as absolutes. All of this exploded today into me defending Joe McCarthy in a room full of flamming pinkos.I need a ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

sean_langley November 16 2004, 05:26:46 UTC
flamming pinkos eh?

I think a room full of pink flamingos would be better.

*At the tone, the time will be 6:27 AM and 37 seconds*

*snore*

Reply

jamiesackett November 16 2004, 21:05:24 UTC
This is why I love you, my friend

Reply

quietlylost November 16 2004, 23:33:34 UTC
Yes... on that note... isn't "pinko" a little outdated?

And what exactly was your defense of Joe McCarthy? That he actually did some good? That he was a true patriot? Or did you not limit yourself to the witch hunts during the Red Scare?

Reply

jamiesackett November 17 2004, 12:51:33 UTC
pink·o
n. Slang pl. pink·os
A person who holds moderately leftist political views; a pink. (source dictionary.com)

So no on that count.

In this class the teacher used McCarthism in the context of anti-gay behavior. My objection was McCarthy was himself gay baited and his assistant (Roy Cohn) was on of the most prominant homosexuals of the era. The characterization of McCarthy as anti-gay was inaccurate.

The man was often assocaited with actions he had nothing to do with, including events that occured before he was even elected. He was a flammboyant anti-communist and with our individual centered history he gets credit for some things he simply was uninvolved with.

I encourage everyone to formulate their opinion of those things he did do. But I think everyone deserves to be defend from being assigned guilt for things that they did not do. You can't call it slander if the man is dead, but that doesn't make it right.

Reply

quietlylost November 17 2004, 21:11:53 UTC
I don't have time for a detailed response, but I am well aware of the definition of pinko. I still argue that it's outdated.

And I could also argue that Roy Cohn was himself anti-gay.

The bigger issue with McCarthy, though, is his poor eye for Communists, and his conviction in dealing with them. Anyway, gotta go!

Reply

jamiesackett November 18 2004, 02:26:13 UTC
Pinko was the most accurate word I could think of to describe the situation. You may think it was outdated, but it was appropriate and used correctly. Don't get fussy because John used to tease you with it. ;-D ( ... )

Reply

quietlylost November 18 2004, 08:48:04 UTC
There have been a lot of awful things done in the past in the name of national security. So I can still fault McCarthy for his zeal.

Last I had heard in my readings, McCarthy only found 2 people who were actual spies in his laundry list of alleged conspirators.

I'm perfectly fine with letting you support McCarthy for some or all of his policies and actions, but I won't join you on that boat.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

quietlylost November 19 2004, 18:58:38 UTC
If you don't wish to engage in intellectual discourse, then I suggest you disable comments on your journal entries. Allowing that function is an invitation for those of us who frequent your journal to engage in those conversations.

Reply

jamiesackett November 19 2004, 19:07:32 UTC
I never said I didn't want to engage in discussion. Your tone all along has been superior and frankly unwilling to accept any change in what you already know. I don't think you looked at any of the information I provided (based on your statements. Also, you have a genious for changing the subject and missing the point. I don't think at any point I have been unwilling to discuss this. In fact I think I have provided plenty of information to discuss and support for my arguements that you have been unwilling to acknowledge. Jeremy, if you don't want to look at things from another angle or consider information sources outside your norm that's fine, but don't stick your head in a turtle shell and then tell me I am unwilling to discuss things.

Reply

quietlylost November 19 2004, 21:48:14 UTC
I never said I was unwilling to accept other information. You also need to realize I don't have the time or desire to read up on the new found history of Joe McCarthy. While I do enjoy conversation, I don't care enough about arguing the point that I'm going to give you a term paper on it.

Reply

jamiesackett November 19 2004, 22:01:48 UTC
Who's avoiding discussion now? You started this path of conversation, not I, my friend.

Reply

jamiesackett November 19 2004, 13:16:47 UTC
I did not ask for your permission for my intellectual pursuits, nor did I insist you join me in them. I merely mentioned an incident in my life which you asked for elaboration on.

Also, I would encourage you to actually take a look at the information again if you wish to talk about it. Because you are either looking at sources that are all biased the same way or that are pre 1992.

The zealotry McCarthy was made the poster boy for was a dangerous force. However, my original arguement was not whether he was good, bad or somewhere in between. I simply said people should not be credited for acts they did not commit. Even if a person is bad, they have the right to be judge on what they have done and not what misinformation has made them out to be. McCarthy was a drunk and an asshole, but he was not a "homophobe".
(Reply to this)(Parent)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up
[]