I suppose that not everyone on the left is part of this new culture of hate and despair, but they seem complacent and willing to be swept along and let others think for them and tell them to 'hate the chimp' and it all seems reasonable to them because it's being said in terms they find appealing. They never question and are encouraged not to think for themselves or acknowledge facts which contradict their assumptions. And if you try to help them or to explain things to them or dare to disagree or debate on rational terms, you become the target of the hate machine and all their fury focuses and you become one with the people they have dehumanized in their minds and reduced to 'chimps' and 'cunts' and 'smirks' and 'shrubs' - just another victim to feed the hunger of their all consuming self-righteous monstrousness.
So I guess I should go write another barbeque review, because I never met a pork rib that hated me for no reason.
Dave
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JELIEL
Sorry for not reading the entire article but comments like these abound on both sides. Some posters are kids others are just immature.
But also it's universal balance. The more to the right the right goes, the more to the left the left will go. The more agressive one side gets, so will the other..
2 - Dave Nalle
These aren't kids, Jeliel. One of them is a columist for the NYT ferchrissakes writing on his personal blog. This isn't immaturity, it's insane hatred and it makes me sick. And frankly, I don't see anything near this level of hatred coming from the right - even when Clinton was in office there was nothing like this sick stuff coming from even the most extreme right people.
Dave
3 - You have No Self Awareness
So your defense is, "How could they say those mean things?" Nothing about the vile actions of W or the twistedly evil and insensitive rantings of his mother. Just "That's mean."
You're as deluded as they are.
4 - kittygogo
Oh yes and all of the repos comments here and elsewhere are full of so much love for mankind, it just makes me want to weep with the joy of it all.
We have just faced a tragedy and crime against humanity that has scaled no other in our lifetime. At the end of this, more people have probably been killed by sheer ineptidute than any other event in ours or any other lifetime.
I have seen many posters go on and on about who is to blame. So other people have an opinion, they are pissed, this is America and the internet, it's hard for us to vent anonymously, not go and get a shotgun and kill Barbra Bush (can you kill androids with guns?). Please don't tell me that I couldn't perume some right-wing site and find the same type of hateful postings. Please spare us the high and mighty. People are pissed, they are venting - do you really think a hard-core leftie gives a shit about your deluded "facts" anyways? They are probably about as interested in jumping on your bandwagon as you are jumping on theirs.
5 - kittygogo
sorry bout the typos, my cats on my keys. They both think Barbara is less a cunt than a pussy.
6 - Dave Nalle
Kitty, you make my point for me. This wasn't a crime against humanity, it was a natural disaster. And everyone regardless of political persuasion wanted and tried to help out. Why can't you put the blame and hate aside for even a minute?
>>Please spare us the high and mighty. People are pissed, they are venting - do you really think a hard-core leftie gives a shit about your deluded "facts" anyways?<<
No, they're clearly not interested in facts of any kind. Facts tend not to support pure unreasoning hatred.
Dave
7 - John A. Conley
Dave, this isn't hatred, it is anger rising to the top. Granted, some go over the top and I am not defending them. But people called Abbie Hoffman full of hate, how does he look now? I don't want to get into a full political debate with you here, but people are very frustated with what they see going on. If it calls for strong language to express strong views, so be it. And that goes for both sides. Not pointing fingers here but the right has done more than fair share of the same. Whatever (legal) median people use to express their views, I support.
8 - kittygogo
and you make my point about deluded facts. We all saw what happened there, everyone else, all over the world saw it. If watching innocent people starve to death in a modern American city on TV, while help is a car drive away (3 college kids got in and rescued people, no problem, drove in all the way to the city) is not a crime against humanity, please tell me what is?
9 - Dave Nalle
John, there's a big difference between righteous anger and the dehumanizing personal attacks which characterize the current left. The contrast is obvious.
Kitty. No one starves to death in 3 days. And what I see in the efforts to blame bush is not a desire to find who was responsible in any logical way, but people seeing in this tragedy an opportunity to do poltiical damage and taking it. I find that reprehensible.
Dave
10 - kittygogo
oh sorry mr. facts. OK, got beaten to death. better?
11 - Dave Nalle
You think that being in a superdome for 3 days turns most people into rapists and murderers?
Well, maybe it does - since the good people who were there eventually started beating the child rapists and murderers to death.
Dave
12 - Eric Berlin
...I suppose that not everyone on the left is part of this new culture of hate and despair.
...there's a big difference between righteous anger and the dehumanizing personal attacks which characterize the current left.
It's just plain wrong to take these statements and hail them as a mantra of "the culture of the left."
The majority of the statements you mention are fringe-left people commenting on blogs.
Do you really want me / someone to dig up statements by the right?
Surely you know how easy that would be.
This leads to my point: what's your point? There's always going to be anger from the far right and left. It doesn't reflect the views of the vast majority of people.
Or the vast majority of the "culture of the left," whatever that means.
13 - KIttygogo
BTW: if you believe it so reprehensible finding opportunity to use this as political damage, why are you in full message mode with blame the local government? In fact, why are you making any kind of political commentary whatsoever?
14 - Eric Berlin
It's ironic that "don't politicize" is in itself a political ploy, isn't it?
Don't think that Bush invented it, thuogh. It's an old one.
15 - John A. Conley
"...there's a big difference between righteous anger and the dehumanizing personal attacks which characterize the current left."
Excuse me? This is not personal attacks. This is frustration over public policy and a clear right wing agenda that is doing nothing for middle and lower class Americans.
In response to your reply to Kitty, people may not die from starvation in 3 days but diabetics die after 3 days without insulin. As for everyone else, even if they had a full meal the day before the hurricane, when they are told by officals to go a specific place and they would treated and cared for there, and not given food, water, and medical supplies, it is nothing short of negligence, if not manslaughter. A article you might intresting I came upon tonight is this.
16 - Dave Nalle
>>It's just plain wrong to take these statements and hail them as a mantra of "the culture of the left."
The majority of the statements you mention are fringe-left people commenting on blogs. <<
I believe I did say that they weren't the only opinions out there on the left, but they are more and more strident and most on the left just go along with them.
>>Do you really want me / someone to dig up statements by the right?
Surely you know how easy that would be.<<
Sure, go ahead. I'm sure there are some. It doesn't seem to be as pervasive or as vicious - not even on FreeRepublic where there are a pack of real asses.
>>This leads to my point: what's your point? There's always going to be anger from the far right and left. It doesn't reflect the views of the vast majority of people.<<
My point is that I think it's infecting more and more of the left. Otherwise reasonable people are taking these peopel seriously. Krugman and Floyd are NYT columnists and they're not alone.
Dave
17 - Eric Berlin
Personally, I think that Krugman's been right on the money of late, as he usually is, particularly on matters of economics.
There are people on this site you easily match the level of discouse you present above. If you can't take it for granted that there's more-or-less the same level of vitriol on the extremes of both sides (with one party in majority control of all branches, by the way) it's hard to even go further in discussing this with you.
18 - Eric Berlin
Meant to say "...who easily match" above.
19 - Bob A. Booey
This is such cheap, manipulative drivel.
If you really want to take the worst, most vicious, most idiotic comments from both sides in the wake of tragedy, that's not going to reflect too well on all the "black people are inferior n**gers and deserve it" and "you're a goddamn commie pussy" posts in the last few days either.
Frankly, Dave, for someone who's so intent on portraying themselves as a conservative intellectual (especially as a former teacher), I'd think this would be beneath you. When you were a teacher, did you focus on the very worst examples of students with disciplinary and academic problems in describing your classes as a whole?
People who call others "cunt" (hi, RJ) and "shit" aren't "the Left" or even political. They're angry, bitter people whose "politics" are only a veneer for their rage and frustration. They swear and get angry because they can't argue.
Speaking of which, Dave, the fact that you'd just make this an excuse to beat up on easy targets and pick the worst strawmen to represent "the Left" makes me think that your politics is what I've always suspected: a removed, even inhumanly hateful and outraged (but ultimately directionless) mind turned against all manner of phantom targets representing "the Left" which have nothing really to do with any reality. You're fairly smart and intelligent, but reason and objectivity have no role in your idea of political discourse, from what I've seen. You may use big words like I do and do some research, but your ultimate conclusions and gut emotions betray you as just as much a slave to your passions as the people you hate so much.
These people aren't even involved in politics. You've worked in real politics and presumably are familiar with campaigns where whisper campaigns and slanderous rumors go way beyond "shrub" and "chimp." Neither you nor the President are political naifs, Pollyannas who are shocked at how ugly people can be because of how sweet and loving you are.
How can you do something so good one minute like donate money to the Red Cross and post such divisive, hateful scorched-Eart political posts and opinions like "we shouldn't help Africa with food or HIV/AIDS assistance" BS the next? You undermine what moral credibility you have (and you gained respect from me to the extent I stood up for you) when you revert to stuff like this.
Dave, let's be honest for a second here. You thrive on hate and anger -- that's what makes you an interesting writer and commenter. But you know very well that the "evil" you're chasing and protesting against is as much in your own head as it is out there.
I see you write a lot about the things you hate, but what do you love? Let's see the opposite of hate from Dave Nalle -- I see a lot of comments about who's an idiot and who's lying and who's a traitor and who's distorting facts. I see very little about the things Dave Nalle believes in and values. I see very few hints that something like love, forgiveness or compassion is operative in Dave Nalle's "system" of viewing the world or politics. If you're going to go for the moral high ground and claim to be offended, you have to have some positive value that has been sullied. In other words, you have to believe in something other than a general kneejerk reaction to "socialism" and "bad government." For example, you go as far as to call this administration pathologically deceitful and even "schizophrenic," yet you ultimately conclude with its conclusions in almost every issue of importance and give them a moral pass.
The one issue I did think you had moral regard for that we agreed on, intervention in the genocide in Darfur, you now back off of.
What DO you believe in besides the stupidity of the Left and the moral error of vicious Internet folks? What do you believe is a moral good? What policies should we have (or not have) in American government that would be more moral and help others? If government's not the answer, then you can answer the same for society.
You have to realize that something like this, associating people with genuine disagreements about policy with the worst examples of Internet discourse, is NOT doing anything to help you achieve more reasonable discussions with the potential for agreement.
That is all.
20 - Bob A. Booey
Who the hell is "the Left" anyway?
And who do you stand with?
These are such sloppy emotional misgivings from a man who takes such care to point out the illogical views of others.
That is all.
21 - Bob A. Booey
Another thing. You have this visceral emotional reaction to Krugman and his polemics.
But everything you write is polemical itself. And Krugman's a way smarter version of Dave Nalle and BABsie who does WAY more research. You can disagree with some of his conclusions, but to attribute personal hatred to anyone who could possibly take a contrarian view says more about your psychology than theirs.
I don't hate Bush. I don't hate you. But I think you have vague hatreds against anyone who hates the things and people you never tell us you value. So who even knows where your outrage stems from?
I'd be remiss if I didn't remark on this:
"I can imagine them in their dank cellars lit only by the glow of a computer screen, resting their pale-fleshed, webbed and cankerous feet on the mangled entrails of their victims, smoothing their matted and patchy hair with hands dripping the blood of children, and flicking drool from slack lips on the lichenous walls as they gibber in time to their claws clacking on the keyboard to type out another message of hate."
Not only is this some of the worst writing I've seen from you (or almost anyone else on this site) to date, it could also accurately describe the way people might think of you (not knowing much beyond text) based on your dismissive attitude and the way you frame your positions, like this piece. Everything you write drips of fury and a lack of regard for the feelings and emotions of others. I'm not being a liberal hippie here and I'm pretty emotionless myself (we've already had this talk about our similar stylistic perceptions), but this post and your comments on the Cindy Sheehan topic make me think you're pretty paranoid and a little beyond reasonable debate yourself. Calm down, Dave :) You're smart, but you're losing your grip.
I have this problem too, but not everything is a political argument with two clearly defined, diametrically opposed sides that needs to be won at all costs. There are some things even Dave Nalle doesn't know and it's possible even someone other than Dave Nalle might have a valid moral or political point that you can agree on.
That is all.
22 - D.C.
The left is nothing but hate. Listen to national party chairman Dean "I HATE Republicans". Now tell me thats not hate.
23 - kittygogo
BAB, good one(s)! wOw.
24 - Bob A. Booey
I forgot to add that the troll entrail-smashing, baby-eating quote was deliciously Dungeons and Dragons-ish, Dave.
Once a 7th level elf wizard Dungeonmaster, always a 7th level elf wizard Dungeonmaster, I suppose.
That is all.
25 - Dave Nalle
>>This is such cheap, manipulative drivel.<<
It's an emotional reaction, Babs. I saw a bunch of stuff online today that made me feel sick, so I wrote about it. Don't you ever get sick of all the lies and hate? I get worn out pointlessly trying to counter it with facts and so I vented.
>>If you really want to take the worst, most vicious, most idiotic comments from both sides in the wake of tragedy, that's not going to reflect too well on all the "black people are inferior n**gers and deserve it" and "you're a goddamn commie pussy" posts in the last few days either. <<
I see the kinds of comments you point out and the kind I pointed out as being fundamentally different. The ones you point out are stupid, racist and just plain wrong. They come from ignorance. But the comments I point out come from people who I think ought to know better and they come not from ignorance, but from hate. When you know better or should know better, yet let irrational hatred be your motivation, then you are malicious, and that's worse than ignorant.
>>Frankly, Dave, for someone who's so intent on portraying themselves as a conservative intellectual (especially as a former teacher), I'd think this would be beneath you.<<
I'm not a conservative intellectual. I'm not even a conservative as you would define them. I'm a moderate libertarian.
>> When you were a teacher, did you focus on the very worst examples of students with disciplinary and academic problems in describing your classes as a whole?<<
No, but if asked about the overall quality of the students I was getting in my classes I would certainly have talked about the worst examples in general terms. The situation isn't really comparable, however.
>>People who call others "cunt" (hi, RJ) and "shit" aren't "the Left" or even political. They're angry, bitter people whose "politics" are only a veneer for their rage and frustration. They swear and get angry because they can't argue.<<
I would tend to agree. But that's not what I'm talking about. There's a difference between frustrated swearing and name calling and institutionalized, organized hatred. It's the culture of hate where a whole body of people agree that Bush is an idiot and his mother is a bitch, and they take it as fact, which I object to.
>>Speaking of which, Dave, the fact that you'd just make this an excuse to beat up on easy targets and pick the worst strawmen to represent "the Left" <<
I went to 4 sites and picked the first comments I saw that were in the general category I was talking about. It wasn't at all difficult to do. I omitted those which were in agreement but less colorful. There were no moderate or reasoned comments to consider.
>>makes me think that your politics is what I've always suspected: a removed, even inhumanly hateful and outraged (but ultimately directionless) mind turned against all manner of phantom targets representing "the Left" which have nothing really to do with any reality. <<
Yes, well, you seem like a nice fellow and I'm sure you aren't beating your dog anymore too.
>>You're fairly smart and intelligent, but reason and objectivity have no role in your idea of political discourse, from what I've seen. <<
Reason is ALL there is for me. Objectivity is a more debatable concept. What pisses me off more than anything and consistently is when people go to emotion and irrationality when they could use reason.
>>You may use big words<<
I try to avoid too many big words.
>> like I do and do some research,<<
Some things require research, others require analysis.
>> but your ultimate conclusions and gut emotions betray you as just as much a slave to your passions as the people you hate so much.<<
Except that the target of my passion is those who are irrational. That does make a difference.
>>These people aren't even involved in politics. <<
No, but I think they are representative of a growing portion of the population who are being lead into a very dangerous and fanatical realm by the demagogues of the left. They are creating the army of unreasoning partisans you need to start a totalitarian revolution and these people have bought what they're selling.
>>You've worked in real politics and presumably are familiar with campaigns where whisper campaigns and slanderous rumors go way beyond "shrub" and "chimp." <<
Sure, we have classic examples of this here in Texas.
>>Neither you nor the President are political naifs, Pollyannas who are shocked at how ugly people can be because of how sweet and loving you are.<<
That's not what it's about. I'm not concerned about the rumor campaigns or the lies told by the professional liars. I'm concerned about the people who have become fanatical in their belief of a whole glorious construct of lies and hate which I see as the groundwork for something potentially enormously evil.
>>How can you do something so good one minute like donate money to the Red Cross and post such divisive, hateful scorched-Eart political posts and opinions like "we shouldn't help Africa with food or HIV/AIDS assistance" BS the next? You undermine what moral credibility you have (and you gained respect from me to the extent I stood up for you) when you revert to stuff like this.<<
Do you READ the articles I write? I mean actually read them? I didn't endorse not sending aid to Africa, I presented the views of an African economist who had some very good points to make about how aid fails and why it fails in Africa. That's not the same as a simplistic statement like 'cut off aid to africa'. I get the impression you skim the articles or just read the titles and don't actually get the substance of them.
What you seem to miss is that it is possible to care about people and still believe that the best way to help them in the long run is to help them help themselves. Disaster victims, those who are without other means in Louisiana or Darfur or wherever, do need our immediate help. But that does not mean that it is a good thing to create a situation where they are dependent on our support in the long term. That's not any better for them than letting them starve to death or live in chaos.
>>Dave, let's be honest for a second here. You thrive on hate and anger -- that's what makes you an interesting writer and commenter. But you know very well that the "evil" you're chasing and protesting against is as much in your own head as it is out there.<<
I thrive on confrontation and opposing illogic and deception. That's not quite the same thing as thriving on hate. You may not want to acknowledge it, but the evil I oppose really IS out there. It's in the exploitation of the poor blacks of New Orleans by the politicians who rode to power on their backs and then abandonned them. It's in the insidous efforts of James Dobson to back-door christianity into schools.
>>I see you write a lot about the things you hate,<<
This is the first time I've written about hate in a long time. And I didn't say anything about me hating, just about how the hate I see sickens me. Not the same thing.
>>but what do you love? <<
Freedom, truth and reason.
>>Let's see the opposite of hate from Dave Nalle<<
Read my articles then, Babs. None of them are inspired by hate.
>>-- I see a lot of comments about who's an idiot and who's lying and who's a traitor<<
Excuse me? Shoe me ONE time when I've called anyone a traitor. That's a cheap tactic I have never used.
>> and who's distorting facts. I see very little about the things Dave Nalle believes in and values. I see very few hints that something like love, forgiveness or compassion is operative in Dave Nalle's "system" of viewing the world or politics.<<
Most of those qualities you mention are personal and have very little to do with politics. I love my family, but they're private and I'm not posting about them. I love freedom, and if you can't see that in my postings then you're not reading very well. I have compassion for everyone who's oppressed, lied to and deluded. That's a major theme in my writing.
>> If you're going to go for the moral high ground and claim to be offended, you have to have some positive value that has been sullied. In other words, you have to believe in something other than a general kneejerk reaction to "socialism" and "bad government." For example, you go as far as to call this administration pathologically deceitful and even "schizophrenic," yet you ultimately conclude with its conclusions in almost every issue of importance and give them a moral pass.<<
Morality and politics don't go together. I don't expect morality from my leaders. I expect competence, effectiveness and success in achieving their stated goals. You cannot base national policy on morality and expect it to work. It needs to be pragmatic. I'd like my leaders to be moral people and to have a conscience, but they have to make decisions based on reasons first and morality second.
This emphasis on morality is exactly what makes the fanatical left indistinguishable from the fanatical right. I don't want leaders who are worry about the rights of fetuses OR the rights of snail darters. I want leaders who do what's best for the country first, and let individuals and their churches and activist groups deal with the moral issues.
>>The one issue I did think you had moral regard for that we agreed on, intervention in the genocide in Darfur, you now back off of.<<
When did I back off on it? I agree that Darfur is a problem where aid is appropriate. I do think the UN should take the initiative there, but they aren't doing so. I don't think it should take precedence over the situation in Louisiana or the War in Iraq. I do wonder why we can't free up more of our military to deal with a bit more than they are right now, however.
>>What DO you believe in besides the stupidity of the Left and the moral error of vicious Internet folks?<<
Good lord, when did I ever say the left was stupid? Their leaders are smart, and the followers fall into two classes, the ignorant and those willing to be seduced into error because they believe they are doing the right thing.
>> What do you believe is a moral good? What policies should we have (or not have) in American government that would be more moral and help others? If government's not the answer, then you can answer the same for society.<<
This is too complex to answer in its entirety here. I could lay out an entire governing agenda to answer this question. But again, in brief, morality should not be the primary motivation for government. Morality is a private, individual and social force. Governments deal in justice, not morality.
>>You have to realize that something like this, associating people with genuine disagreements about policy with the worst examples of Internet discourse, is NOT doing anything to help you achieve more reasonable discussions with the potential for agreement.<<
This article wasn't designed to provoke discussion so much as to maybe shock a few people who are sensible moderates into realizing what they're up against from the fanatics. I've done the same - and so have many others - about fanatics on the right. Very few people are willing to point out fanaticism on the left and expose it.
From your comments I conclude that what it comes down to is that I'm doing good when I agree with you and full of hate when I don't agree with you. I'm logical if it matches your logic, and emotional if it doesn't.
But the truth is that I apply the same logic and the same standards to everything and I'm entirely internally consistent. You just can't accept or even see it when it doesn't match your belief set. And I can see that it troubles you because you don't understand how someone could agree with you on one issue yet be just as strongly opposed on another issue.
Dave