Erin I KNOW this article makes generalizations (about liberals too). What writing about politics doesn't?! But this one I don't see as particularly divisive; indeed, it's much more aggressive towards Democrats than Republicans--he is basically saying that in politics, liberals ignore three-fifths of what it means to be human. The opening paragraphs' stereotypes are decimated by the remainder of the article, which I think YOU missed :o)
I hate that you take these posts as personal attacks, because they aren't meant to be, probably not by the authors and certainly not by me. If the core ideas they present make you uncomfortable, that is good insofar as the discomfort helps you consider your axioms as well as theirs--but your language makes it look like you get wrapped up in thinking they're trying and failing to make a portrait of you or me via the parties we may associate ourselves with. Both authors would agree with you that applying group stereotypes to individuals is utterly unfair (Fyfe has done so many times very strongly, as is his wont). But in this case you are applying generalizations to yourself (that is not fair, but not their fault--nowhere do they claim that the trends or generalities under inspection are true of ALL group members; that is your interpolation) and found them wanting (unsurprisingly). If we set that aside, what is so absolute or divisive about this article? I honestly don't see much of anything.
Maybe I'm missing it because of the dispassionate language this guy uses (c.f. Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly?) I think your comparing me to such hateful ueber-conservatives is unjustified and uncalled-for. There is no hateful language in the writings I choose to repost, nor is there censorship; nobody gets called a pinhead for her beliefs or has his comments deleted because they disagree with the original poster or with me.
I would be happy to read anything on the topic that you can suggest. It would be delightful to find materials that will help me grow and understand.
I hate that you take these posts as personal attacks, because they aren't meant to be, probably not by the authors and certainly not by me. If the core ideas they present make you uncomfortable, that is good insofar as the discomfort helps you consider your axioms as well as theirs--but your language makes it look like you get wrapped up in thinking they're trying and failing to make a portrait of you or me via the parties we may associate ourselves with. Both authors would agree with you that applying group stereotypes to individuals is utterly unfair (Fyfe has done so many times very strongly, as is his wont). But in this case you are applying generalizations to yourself (that is not fair, but not their fault--nowhere do they claim that the trends or generalities under inspection are true of ALL group members; that is your interpolation) and found them wanting (unsurprisingly). If we set that aside, what is so absolute or divisive about this article? I honestly don't see much of anything.
Maybe I'm missing it because of the dispassionate language this guy uses (c.f. Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly?) I think your comparing me to such hateful ueber-conservatives is unjustified and uncalled-for. There is no hateful language in the writings I choose to repost, nor is there censorship; nobody gets called a pinhead for her beliefs or has his comments deleted because they disagree with the original poster or with me.
I would be happy to read anything on the topic that you can suggest. It would be delightful to find materials that will help me grow and understand.
I am late for work. Maybe more later...
Reply
Leave a comment