Liberals are so open-minded
December 27th, 2005My friend Roger is involved in a discussion over at Talk to Action, a liberal blog that claims to be Christian.
Notice how when Roger politely raises an issue to contribute to the discussion, he’s greeted with a rude “Do you agree with the stated purpose of this site?” by one of the site’s owners, who continues to badger Roger. The implication is clear — Roger will not be allowed to post if he doesn’t “agree with the stated purposes of this site.”
Now, what’s interesting is the site’s “terms of use” to which you must agree before registering. You can read them here. Unless I’m missing something, there’s nothing in the terms of use that requires you to “agree with the stated purpose of this site.” All you have to do is agree to the terms of use, which, strangely enough, state that the site wants to “encourage dialog and even sharp disagreement.”
Of course, as anyone with half a brain knows, liberals aren’t interested in encouraging dialogue and sharp disagreement. They claim to be open-minded, but that’s simply empty rhetoric that doesn’t manifest itself in reality. This discussion in which Roger tried to participate is proof.
I think there is a danger any time anyone lumps anyone else into a certain category and then assumes everyone in that category shares the same characteristics. (Personally, I think this applies to “liberals” and “conservatives” and just about everyone in-between!)
I mean, I know people who consider themselves to be liberal thinkers and those who are pretty much strictly conservative, but mostly, those are just labels. Sometimes they fit, sometimes they don’t. Heck, I don’t even know how I would classify myself; am I a conservative liberal, or someone who is liberally conservative? Am I a moderate? There are certainly things on both “sides” that I agree/disagree with; is it even possible to be ALL one way or the other??!
: )
That being said: I found it disturbing the way the Talk to Action discussion took that huge detour once Roger chimed in with something that merely pointed out another perspective. I can only assume the discussion had lost its “steam” and that the moderator who incessantly questioned Roger over the last few posts was trying, somehow, to keep it going in rather ridiculous fashion.
(Fortunately, here at timellsworth.com, we have a moderator who usually loses interest once the post count of any given thread reaches double digits!)
: )
Would someone please explain this seemingly contradictory statement?
“But the goal is to document and combat the abuses of the religious right, not to further the aims of one party or another. More generally, we are not in the business of choosing one approach to the problem over another.”
No we’re not partisan. We just ant to you shoot your gun in the same general direction that we are shooting.
I love this text from their guidlines:
“Do help us create a site culture that is conducive to creative thinking; thoughtful analysis; vigorous-but-civil debate; considered evaluation of tactics; and learning from both mistakes and victories. Do help us create a site culture of solidarity, of hope, and empowerment.”
Roger was correct; Frederick Clarkson broke this particular item when he attacked Roger. But I guess since he’s a “moderator”, he is exempt from following the guidelines.
If we are to truly dialogue our differences between Liberals and Conservatives, then we must be willing to listen and constructively voice our opinions. I will never take a Liberal nor Conservative seriously until they learn to converse in a mature fashion.
Or if they can’t watch “The Three Stooges” or “Bugs Bunny” without laughing hysterically.
Liberals can’t afford to allow anyone to bring up the facts. They argue from emotion, anecdotes and straw men. If that doesn’t work they move to personal attacks. This is standard procedure when one cannot defend one’s beliefs with the facts. Its the same reason evolutionists are so afraid of allowing their precious theory to be critically examined, it won’t hold up under scrutiny.
I’ve had too may experiences with the “tolerance” crowd. They are generally some of the most intolerant people around.
I went and perused the thread linked above. By the end, I could feel my blood pressure climbing upwards. All I could do was shake my head and walk away. There is not enough carefully crafted logic (no matter how calm and rationally shared) useful when speaking to the “full blooded” liberal mind. I learned ages ago that tolerance has been redefined as “a point of view aligned with all politically correct tenets of popular liberal thinking.”
!!pwweeeaaakkk!!
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen behavior like this, or even the second. There’s this thread (see comments made by Scott Lamb) and this thread (see my comments, under the name “Bubba”).
In both cases, Frederick Clarkson almost completely ignored the substance of the post and immediately asked the same question:
“In the course of registering as a user, you had to check off a box indicating that you agree with the purposes of this site.
“So let me ask you publicly. Do you agree with the purpose of this site?”
And:
“Thanks for the advice. When you registered as a user on this site, by checking off the box you indicated that you agree with the purposes of this site and the site guidelines. Do you?”
Frederick is doing his best to insure idealogical purity at that site. I’ll reiterate what I wrote in response: limiting this site’s purposes in this way runs the risk of groupthink. Unchallenged, a false but convenient assertion would become part of a narrative that resembles reality less and less. Unchallenged, a somewhat extreme assertion would encourage further extremism.
If they do not allow dissent, not in challenging their positions but MERELY in correcting false assertions and rebuking grossly excessive rhetoric, they’re dooming themselves to become a fever swamp of extremism and lunacy.
I think they have already entered the swamp. Shall we pray for the swamp to dry up?
Bubba,
>It is that spirit of learning that we seek to foster, as well as creating a culture oriented to appropriate action in response to our concerns.
In reading your interaction with Mr. Clarkson, more light is shed on what appears to be their goal. They are not seeking truth, but merely numbers: like-minded followers. Isn’t it ironic that the thread that they started about Teen Mania was to state concern about people getting “their marching orders”? In reality, by forcing the users of their site to resign any right to disagree with the Moderator, they result in creating the very thing they are concerned about. I guess that’s how the enemy works, he deceives us and takes us to places that we don’t want to go, and rarely do we even learn we’re there until it’s too late. When interacting with folks on sites like that, it’s frustrating to me as a lover of truth, but understandable as I can’t get mad at a blind man when he steps on my foot. I have to remember that, even though it still hurts when they step on my foot!
What an absolute joke. Mr. Frederick Clarkson has made it abundantly clear that he wants ABSOLUTELY NO differences of opinion on his site. As long as one agrees with his position everything’s hunky-dory. Otherwise, be ready for his standard “when you registered you checked box so-and-so” nonsense.
Bubba,
I saw your comments on the talk2action site regarding Bruce Prescott’s latest story about activist judges - and it was straight to the heart of the matter. As an observer of his comments, you deduced that Bruce is not a trustworthy source of information because: a) he either is careless with the facts and prone to error, or b) he knowingly posts inaccurate statements and passes them off as the truth.
Shortly after I read your comments, they were deleted from the site. Does Bruce think he is immune from such scrutiny? I don’t claim to be perfect, and I want to be corrected if I’m wrong - as do you, that’s why we have our websites open to debate where folks like Bruce, Fred Clarkson, and the others can come and debate with us and correct us as we seek truth. But that’s the issue, in my opinion: they are not interested in seeking truth, but rather working towards their own goals. I don’t expect lost people to understand spiritual things, but to deny the reality of inaccurate reporting, or to deny the reality of the numbers of youth hurting in our culture today (as they did in the Battle Cry thread) … is very troubling. It’s not as though Bruce has a target on his back and we are all firing at him for the heck of it, it’s just that we are concerned as to why a Christian is above honest rebuke. We don’t want to tear him down, but to build him up for whatever God has planned for him - and surely no one thinks that carelessness and deception are part of God’s plan, for God will never have us go against His word to be obedient to Him. With each turning away, Bruce is choosing to go further down a path of his own making.
I see this happen on liberal sites all the time, whether this one or democraticunderground and a hundred other left-wing sites, yet I’ve never been to any right-wing bulletin board or discussion site that has banned left-wingers trying to engage in civil debate.