That woman is terrifying. I applaud the others for keeping with it for so long, as it's nice to see logical Americans to counterbalance the few who decide on the more extremist viewpoints, though I wonder if it might be time to give up. She's made it clear she doesn't want to hear it.
Gray,
Wow! And I thought Eric on my blog was a nut-job. Kudos to you, man. I would not have been nearly as patient or civil with Sandie.
Dugg and Stumbled,
Sherri
Hi Shea,
I agree that the conversation should end. My posting this here was, in part, a way for me to end my participation in it.
The other reason for my posting this were my sincere questions that came from it. We've all seen the videos from the McCain/Palin campaign rallies: people shouting "terrorist" and "kill him." We've heard Michelle Bachmann's call for the press to investigate Congress to expose "anti-American" sentiment.
I realize these are, as McCain says, "fringe" movements, but I have to wonder how large this fringe movement is.
Hi Sherri,
Does Eric denounce people for being "unpatriotic"? If so, send me a link to a good example of his replies. I'm trying to figure out how prevalent this type of thinking is.
People who think like Sandie are not going to be convinced. I couldn't read the whole exchange (too painful), but it is always good to be reminded of this mindset, which is probably more common than I realize.
Depressing.
On a more positive note, I don't think Sandie's side will win. This time.
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for your comments. And I believe you're right: Sandie's side of this election is not likely going to win.
But what does it mean for a percentage of the population to be paranoid of its own national leaders and fellow citizens? I imagine, if the population were high enough, that's how civil wars get started. I'm just grateful this perspective is too "fringe" for that.
Greetings Gray,
Even if this insane woman does not have the mental capacity to understand what I caring effort it was on your part to try and reason with her...I do. I have to admit I don't put any effort into people like her anymore.
Sorry to say but some people just refused be cured of their fear and hate addictions. Pawns, to be forever used by people with no ethics and no mercy for their sad afflictions of hate and fear.
kim
I'm not sure I agree with your search, Gray, as I am extremely doubtful that the fringe actually exists. If you parse her unpatriotic comments they appear to be nothing more than racism with a more acceptable tag. Unpatriotic is a word we can all agree is bad, right? Plus, it has more syllables and sounds more intelligent than any of the slurs for blacks. This seems like specious argument, but it is not; the appearance of intelligence is extremely important in order to effectively degrade someone else.
I copied some of my favorite lines of hers and used parallelism to find what she was trying to say or just commented on them in general - sometimes it looks like I'm poking fun and I am, but it also fixes gaps in her logic:
Now these two idiots with their "Poor pitiful me I'm black" attitude wants to come in and run for office that neither are qualified to go anywhere near...because of their attitudes (and being black).
Which makes me wonder, Gray, cross between black and white? See you don't even know WHO you are how can you possibly have an intelligent comment when you are confused as to that! (This is just an interesting one that highlights how much color matters to her)
I have lived among black, both good and bad. I can tell you for a fact that the bad are bad to the bone and want nothing more than to destroy our Nation. When people with this mentality get into places of authority, they destroy everything they touch. (Logically, Obama must be one of the bad blacks, who, if you look at her earlier reference to them, was the sort to turn elite frats into drug distribution centers. Now, since this is logical and therefore true, I am going to buy all my drugs from the Harvard Law Review - all that Finding Authority and Bluebook Citation must be much easier on a speedball.)
I can only imagine the family bar-b-ques that Barak and Michelle will have! (since they are bad blacks and therefore have no class)
The fact that Michelle has to "discuss" her blackness says she is still angry over OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE. (because she is a black and not an American)
I can go on, and it is fun, but its becoming a distraction from my point.
There is no fringe anti-patriotic issue. There is a mainstream racism issue, as was expected. Yet, racism can not be expressed openly, so it must be repressed and expressed implicitly. Particularly since people feel guilty (whether through internal or external means) for racism. It will be expressed through a variety of means depending on the expresser. A small group of them have chosen unpatriotic; others have chosen socialist. Irregardless the repression leads to expression by other means that can be used to attack the same target.
Which brings up a fascinating question - what would they call McCain if he was black?
Gray--
Kudos to you on how you handled the situation. You were calm and rational throughout.
~m
Gary,
Or should I say, Gray, as in the aliens?!? I believe all of the politicians are up to know good with the space men, and I have proof from a very reliable source that I just found about a minute ago:
http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/ast...ns/
aliens9.html
Also there is DOCUMENTED proof of Bush wielding the one of ring of power here:
http://
masteroftheuniverse.blogs...01_archive.html
this is all verifiable because it's on the internet and so it must be true.
Also, all hobbits must die.
Thanks to all of you for your comments. Let me just say a couple of things to clarify my discussion with Sandie.
1) I attempted a rational discussion with Sandie because I believe that even irrational expressions of fear have more rational expressions that for whatever reason people can't access during certain moments.
Sandie identifies with "whiteness," and later in the discussion even goes so far as to challenge my existence in the "white" community that determines her identity. As Mrs. Gray argues, that community is a predominantly rhetorical construct. We speak its identity-bearing catch phrases to re-enforce our alignment with that community, or as Sandie argues, to hide our biological deviations from it. Sandie points out that I do not speak as though I were in that community, so as a result, rhetorically, I am not a member of it to the point that I might as well not have the biological components. From the perspective of her identity, my identity is in doubt.
For many, this election is about identity: Republican, conservative, white, American, anti-American, socialist, black, Hispanic, liberal, Democrat.... You have to, on the one hand, vote a certain way to secure your position in a rhetorically constructed community. On the other hand, you have to speak the certain phrases as "reasons" for your vote to ensure that identity. Even dismissive terms like "socialist" are attempts to stabilize identity in an election that, for some, has evoked confusion on the level of identity.
While I don't agree with all identity allegiances as a basis for voting decisions, I too vote at least in part on the basis of identity. In part, I vote in support of a post-Cold-War, post-racial, and post-party identity for this country. I see Obama's policies as better for stabilizing this country's economic and foreign-relations identity in global politics.
So I recognize that identity politics have a legitimate role in this election.
2) I did not interrogate Sandie's politics on the basis of "correcting" them. Instead, I wanted to understand beliefs that are "foreign" to me, and the only way to get a full impression of a belief is to see that belief justify itself in relation to what it doesn't readily take into consideration--for instance, how Sandie's beliefs can discredit black discomfort but not white discomfort when both discomforts derive from "our American heritage."
I do believe the political belief in "anti-American" Americans is a more dominant "fringe" belief than the press acknowledges. I do see that belief surface in my daily interactions with people here in NE Mississippi. Sandie's position is not merely her position. It's far more dominant than many of us realize, and it's important for those of us who don't agree with it to nonetheless understand it--before we blindly dismiss these people as readily as they want to dismiss us.
We are all Americans, and this is a democracy. While "our" side may w
I need clarification:
1. Is the anti-American belief a "cause" or an "effect"? i.e. is it inspired by something else, or is it original?
2. If so, what are the effects of either? i.e. can we create a test in order to watch its development and see if either one is true?
3. Either way, what are the effects of it? How will Obama's actions be treated differently if the "fringe" anti-Americanism is true due to (1) racism as a base cause and (2) anti-Americanism as a base cause?
4. What do they want? What are their policies? How do they feel about the Constitution?
Hi Elliot,
1. The Anti-American belief is an effect. The cause is a closed ideological system that approaches different beliefs as "foreign" to its own. In other words, the closed ideological system emphasizes difference. Rhetorically, it relies on contrast in order to define its own position.
2. There are many symptoms of closed ideological system: the use of the term "we" as a source of truth; on the one side, a refusal to acknowledge differences among the "we"; on the other side, a demonization of a "them"; the reference to opinion as Truth.... The list goes on and on. I'm sure you can see the pattern.
3. I think racism doesn't exist as a cause. People use racial indicators to suspect others of ideological differences. The more closed an ideological system is, the more racial indicators become important for identifying difference prior to ideological "contamination."
That being said, I'm most concerned about those who will see their government as a foreign body, as an invasion. While I believe that the majority of Obama haters will get over it, I want to know if the ones who won't will organize or mobilize in any non-political way. The level of anger and fear is currently uncontainable by politics: verbal and physical assaults are happening.
4. There are different groups out there that fit into this category of "ideologically closed system," so the political positions are not always consistent. I'll have to think more about this last question of yours.
I have encountered many "Sandy"s in my travels, and though I should be used to it by now, the abject illogic and hate expressed by these unthinking masses still amazes me.
I can't count the number of times I've been confronted by "Sandy"s who aren't even willing to explore the truth, or lack thereof, of what the believe to be "fact".
For them, sadly, truthiness trumps truth, and no persuasive effort, no matter how logical or empathic, will budge them.
People like Sandy tend to view politics as religion, and all who would challenge their beliefs as blasphemers. Dogma negates logic, and emotion trumps fact.
Liberals/Progressives/Independents (and some moderate republicans) tend to view politics as science, where dogma is replaced by hypothesis, and blind faith replaced with an earnest and constant reassessment of the things we believe to be true.
The earth will always be flat in Sandy's world, the sun forever revolving around the Earth, and anyone who challenges these beliefs damnable heretics.
People like Sandy serve as the rock-bed of the GOP's newly revised and expanded Southern Strategy, which relies on an emotional appeal to an irrational and tribal fear of The Other.
Hi PolitiGal1,
Chambliss's "other folks" is hillarous! Am I right to assume by your use of "Other" that you have a graduate degree in the humanities?
I think you've got something there in your distinction between politics as a religion and politics as a science. Now that the "politics" is almost over, what excites me the most about an Obama presidency is that "governance" will become a science.
Sandie is like so many other McCain supporters and rabid so-called "conservative" Republicans. She resorts to questioning others' patriotism, race, and dedication to the country. Ideas don't matter. It only matters that Obama isn't white and not Christian.
I've seen more than enough evidence to support the argument that:
A. The conservative movement in this country has been hi-jacked by a bunch of anti-intellectual rubes, who are more interested in their "side" having power than anything else--one only has to see the Republican Party as a prime example
B. The "southern" strategy of race-baiting politics is alive and well. A vote for Obama means a vote for the Negro, who will undoubtedly turn the Rose Garden into a watermelon patch, and will force all God-fearing Americans to convert to Islam.
Overall, the Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of evangelical morons, who have climbed in bed with the NeoConservative faction of Imperialists and jingoists who think that welfare sucks for the poor black, single mom, but it's okay to piss away billions of dollars per day in Iraq.
Hi Chris,
I think you're right. The Reagan coalition was made up of libertarians, neocons, and social conservatives. During the last eight years, the libertarians lost representation in the party, so they've been defecting. The social conservatives in very recent years have claimed that Bush paid them lipservice, won them over with phrases, but in the end didn't deliver the changes he promised. The only ones who were happy were the neocons. I don't think the neocons are even disconcerted by the economy, because they see wealth as coming from global domination. So long as America can secure its military dominance in the world, financial dominance will return.
Unlike Reagan, Bush didn't see it necessary to please all of his constituency. Instead, he chose to dumb down America with micro-marketing disinformation strategies, "with us or against us" reductive appeals to patriotism, and jingoism. As Scott McClellan said on the O'Reilly Factor but later recanted, the Bush administration found an alliance with Fox that enabled them to give Fox News their talking points and thereby keep its party literally on the same page. That was part of the dumbing down process.
When you look at those three groups, Sandie is likely an uneducated social conservative. You're right: the southern strategy has kept her and other uneducated social conservatives like her in bed with the neocons. She admits at one point in the conversation that she has doubts about McCain (in name because he has defended Obama's patriotism, but in actuality she likely doubts his religious commitment), but she's obviously going to the polls for him on Tuesday.
The libertarians have their own party, but the social conservatives don't. I wonder if they'll stay in the Republican party and try to duke it out with the necons, or if they'll finally venture into politics on their own.
Good points, Gray. I also want to make one other completely anecdotal observation: I'm a regular over at the Saints message board, and they have a political section for discussion.
And you would be shocked at some of the serious points and/or arguments some McCain supporters make.
"Omglol he's a Muslim"
"Omglol he's not a citizen"
"Omglol he's a socialist"
It's like the Republican Party is stuck on stupid with Bush.
Granted, I'm not completely enamored with Obama, being right of center on a lot of issues myself, but some of the garbage I've seen on the internet has me convinced that Troglodytes have taken over the Republican Party--and these are the ones who have computers.
Imagine the ones in the trailer parks smoking Winstons, swilling Shlitz, and oiling their shotguns while listening to Toby Keith?
Hell Yeah, mahn.
Hey Chris,
I think I have more in common with those "in the trailer parks smoking Winstons, swilling Shlitz, and oiling their shotguns" than most people realize. You just won't find me listening to Toby Keith!
One of my best friends (he posts here under the name "logos") is a libertarian. He's not the type of person who would accuse Obama of being a Muslim or even care if Obama were a Muslim. He's a national merit scholar, a lawyer, an author, a great chess player, and always an intellectual. But he finds shady, decontextualized quotations--like Obama's comments about blacks as 1/3 citizens in the Constitution, or his use of the words "spreading the wealth" to refer to the Clinton tax system--and turns those statements into an argument that Obama's going to shred the Constitution and turn us into a socialist nation.
There are non-racist and intelligent reasons behind some people's fears. And I'm on a mission to find those reasons--not just those reasons for disagreeing with an Obama presidency, but for fearing it.
But thus far, I just don't understand it. I understand why people would disagree with an Obama presidency, but I don't understand the rabid anger or fear. I read the arguments, but they're so horribly flimsy. As far as I see, they rely on slippery-slope arguments and other reductive forms of thinking. I keep thinking the problem might be my own blinders, the values that govern my own perspective. I keep trying to shift my values to understand these arguments, but in the end, the arguments never hold water. I just don't get the fear.
Commenting by HaloScan
