Interestingly, some of it has already trickled down to our little community as well, for within hours of the eBook’s publication, we are treated to the following comment, #8900, by one of the BC "regulars:"
The pro-life movement needs to look at what actually decreases abortion, rather than seeking to ban it (if their true aim is to save babies, which is rather doubtful). Banning does nothing to decrease abortion. Access to birth control and a strong social safety net for poor and single mothers does.
Take it for what it’s worth, but it’s a fairly levelheaded statement, considering the commenter is a no-nonsense liberal who is known for shooting from the hip. One could almost detect here touches of Mr. Huckabee’s genuine concern for the lives of both the expectant mother and the unborn child if it weren’t for the parenthetical disclaimer: “if their [i.e., the pro-life movement’s] true aim is to save babies, which is rather doubtful.”
Now, why would a commenter who goes by the name of “zingzing,” an odd moniker if there ever was one, visit sites such as “Unnecessary Pap Smears” and weigh in on a discussion concerning women’s reproductive organs, a dubious medical practice, and its possible connection to the rising incidence of cervical cancer? This question needn’t concern us here. Lest you wonder, no, he is not an OB/GYN the last time I checked; besides, I’ve always taken her to be a member of the opposite sex but hey, this is internet, so one never really knows! Be that as it may, it’s almost axiomatic that no thoughtful resolution of the abortion question is going to issue from glib pronouncements of gloating liberals like our zingzing here but only from heartrending deliberations of humbled conservatives such as Mike Huckabee and friends.
For our second example, let’s turn our attention to the subject of demographics, another hotly debated topic of late; this time, however, with an idea of providing a plausible explanation of the 2012 election results. Just as in the first instance, there is no shortage of divergent opinions here, which, too, is reflected in our microcosm. Without further ado, then, let me cite one such comment, #11, from “The New America” thread. Unlike the first-cited comment, however, this one, in spite of having been characterized by another self-styled liberal, “Igor” by name, as “the usual lamentation of racists” (see comment #12), has all the makings of sound thinking . . . yes, you’ve guessed it, because it’s from the mouth of a thoughtful conservative:
Demographers have proclaimed for some time now that the country was moving toward a population in which no one ethnic group will be the majority; many have mentioned 2035 as the date this process would culminate.
I think we saw the process gather velocity with this election, which boiled down to the people of color forming a coalition under the Democratic banner (although with a fairly good-sized contingent of whites joining them), while the Republicans, almost 100% lily white, formed the opposition. I take away from the result of this election that white folks have finally lost their position (as a group – individuals will prevail for a few more years) of power, authority and privilege in the USA. I believe that never again will whites dominate the rest of American society to the degree they have until now. Yes, there will be seeming returns to the old structure; white presidents will still get elected (but less and less frequently and they will face Congresses of increasing non-white membership), but the overall trend will be fewer and fewer whites in positions of power in the coming years.
Since most of the non-whites are and will be Latino (they already outnumber the African Americans for example), if you don't already speak Spanish, learn it. From this event on, this process will only accelerate; as the news circulates in Latin America, ever larger groups of immigrants will begin to arrive, swelling the ranks of the Latinos to a point where much of the country will mirror Miami and South Florida, where almost every position of power and authority, from politics, to business to law enforcement is already held by a Latino/a these days.
Again, I refer the reader to the relevant segment of the Mike Huckabee show (see the link above), in which the discussants speak of the Republican party of yore, circa 1950, as the party that championed the values of “the great American middle class”; of its heartland, its composition, its greatest strength, as consisting of the rank and file, “the people who were holding hammers and saws in their hands and working with their hand tools” and, in so doing, “shared in the general growth of the nation”; of the opportunities which used to abound but which abound no longer.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy
I have finished page 3, Roger. I like where that page has ended, very astute point. I will return again to finish tomorrow.
2 - Cindy
Roger,
I think you need to write where people are capable of comprehending what you write.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Or where he can be persuaded not to repel half his potential audience by insulting them before he even starts.
4 - roger nowosielski
I didn't realize I was being so dense, Cindy. You got through page 3, so where is the difficulty now? Anyways, I'll call tomorrow.
5 - roger nowosielski
zing never comments on my stuff anyway. I thought given him a push and shove might do the trick. But there is no reason for you to feel slighted.
6 - Cindy
He wouldn't be insulting anyone who even half understood what he is saying. Alas, I think that isn't possible. Perhaps there is a conspiracy regarding cultural indoctrination!
7 - Cindy
No difficulty or criticism for/by me, Roger. I am speaking to the lack of commentary on an obviously astute article.
8 - Cindy
He necessarily repels his audience because they are blind.
9 - Cindy
They might wish to investigate that point. Instead of expecting to be fed their pablum.
10 - roger nowosielski
I have a different take on this, Cindy, at least different than Dreadful's. The way I see it, none are willing to admit the emperor is naked.
11 - Cindy
Which, in my own experience they are, no matter what the fuck you ask of them. They will not question their own beliefs.
12 - Cindy
None are capable, Roger. You do yourself a disservice in thinking them unwilling. They have never even tried.
13 - roger nowosielski
No, they're not incapable. Denial takes an effort, a conscious effort.
14 - Cindy
Most of my comments were directed to Dr. Dreadful. (Just for clarity.)
15 - Cindy
Roger,
I need to discuss two very important teachers of mine and why I think you are wrong. Call me.
In other words, "denial", as you call it, is only a denial of what someone else believes, and is ordinary. In fact, everything "normal" is ordinary.
If I might say, and you can quote me--"we made it all the fuck up."
16 - roger nowosielski
Planned to call you on Thanksgiving day anyway, rain or shine.
17 - Cindy
When you think about it you realize that we--the normal society are no less a cult than say, Scientology. So, what makes THIS cult (culture) more legitimate than that one? Not much--a legitimating governmental body.
The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
Okay, that is my basic argument. Call me tomorrow.
18 - roger nowosielski
Will do.
19 - Dr Dreadful
They will not question their own beliefs.
And what do you think "their" beliefs are?
20 - roger nowosielski
Don't fall for that trap, Cindy, Dreadful is taking things out of context. The correct reference is a set of beliefs implied by the subject article, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what you were referring to. If perchance he happens to disagree that these beliefs are a fair approximation of a typical liberal mindset, he is yet to voice his disagreement.
The onus is on him.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Whether the onus is on him or not, he feels the above exchange illustrates quite neatly why no-one else feels inclined to join the two of you in your echo chamber.
22 - roger nowosielski
Of course, not. You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
And echo chamber or no echo chamber, neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted, so perhaps you ought to get off your high horse.
23 - Zingzing
Roger, speaking of context, perhaps you'd like to think about why I said the phrase you highlight as so egregious. I follow comments more than articles usually, which is how i got here, so that explains why I'm okay not being an ob/gyn on that unnecessary pap thread (how many ob/gyns are on that thread?), so maybe I spelled it out better during that multi-thread conversation elsewhere, but there's a reason behind it. It's not just blindly battering the opposition, and I'd love to see if you even have a clue. (and if you seriously want to bash someone for taking things out of context as you just did doc, I suggest you do it under another, more fanciful name, because you've sullied the one you're using now with that shitstick.)
Cindy--did you notice how Roger used his supposed belief that I was female (which he's known not to be true for years, but he keeps on bringing up periodically) as a not-so-veiled insult? Every time I comment on women's issues and he's around, he does this kind of thing. I have no idea why. Maybe he's not as left as he thinks he is, or whatever you said.
Have a nice holiday.
24 - Christopher Rose
Surely the silver lining is the very fact that the Republicans lost?
If they had won, the USA would be facing a very bleak and bitter future...
25 - Dr Dreadful
You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)
Archie, misguided though he may be, is more than capable of holding his own in any argument. Warren is... well... a bit special. And if you think I confine my targets to those whose arguments can be easily demolished, then you haven't been paying much attention. (How is your navel these days, BTW?)
rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
I ask you, this time, what you think those presuppositions are.
neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted
I didn't say that I, personally, felt insulted. But there is some accusatory dialogue involving dark-coloured items commonly found in the kitchen on your part.
Cindy's #18 epitomises this nicely: The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
In other words, no matter what anyone says who doesn't happen to toe the line of Roger and Cindy's little clique, no matter how much variability their utterances may have from anyone else's, they can automatically be dismissed as brainwashed.
Now what does that pattern of behaviour remind me of? Oh, yes... a cult.