![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenWorse, you were the same color as the guy ranting at other people of a different color, so you obviously think the same things as he does. AKA The bad faith trash-talking shit that passes for Op-Ed on the New York Times.
Apparently, according to William Kristol, going some place often enough means that you agree with, support, endorce and perhaps even wish to enforce the dogma being spouted at you. I went to church for twenty years of my life. Clearly, I believe all the horseshit I heard there. (And I went to liberal church, and I still called bullshit.)
But it's not even that. It's not just the tar-me-with-the-same-brush-as-the-guy-who-I-know's-worst-ever-thoughts-on-any-subject-you-please hit job. It's bullshit like OMG Obama is ambitious! He's calculating! He dares to claim young people support him!
Listen you diseased taint: no one who dares run for the presidency of the most arrogant fucking nation on the planet lacks ambition. They're going to wield the largest metaphorical phallic object in the world, they're gonna have to want it pretty goddamned bad. I don't fault anyone for being ambitious. Nothing wrong with ambition so long as it leads you to strive and succeed fairly. (A guiding analogy: be a Severus Snape, not a Tom Riddle.) I don't see Barack Obama carrying a cross on his shoulder, saying "Woe is me, I have to try to be president!" It's not conceit to think you might be good enough for the presidency, nor duplicity, nor hubris. (Unless, like our current president, you routinely say that you're not only good enough, that GOD HIMSELF has ordained you and smiles on all that you do. THAT is ego right there.)
And this is just fucking disgusting:
Now I’m actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation.
You know what, you odorous pig? I DON'T WANT MY GENERATION OR ANY OTHER TO BE REFERENCED BY THE GREATEST TERRORIST ACT EVER PERPETRATED ON AMERICAN SOIL. Why should we be defined by that? The thinking that led to 9/11 dominating everything we say, hear, or do was forced on younger generations by the old. The ones who beat the drums for wars we haven't been able to finish (or, as is the case in Afghanistan, just sorta given up on) were the kids who missed out on any war prior. The kids aren't constantly monkeying with the rainbow alert system (works for wars AND gays!); they're posting to MySpace (or LJ!). They are the MySpace generation if anything.
In short: Go back to sucking the conservate nutsack, Willaim Kristol. You must be getting some crazy good contact highs from it.
Apparently, according to William Kristol, going some place often enough means that you agree with, support, endorce and perhaps even wish to enforce the dogma being spouted at you. I went to church for twenty years of my life. Clearly, I believe all the horseshit I heard there. (And I went to liberal church, and I still called bullshit.)
But it's not even that. It's not just the tar-me-with-the-same-brush-as-the-guy-who-I-know's-worst-ever-thoughts-on-any-subject-you-please hit job. It's bullshit like OMG Obama is ambitious! He's calculating! He dares to claim young people support him!
Listen you diseased taint: no one who dares run for the presidency of the most arrogant fucking nation on the planet lacks ambition. They're going to wield the largest metaphorical phallic object in the world, they're gonna have to want it pretty goddamned bad. I don't fault anyone for being ambitious. Nothing wrong with ambition so long as it leads you to strive and succeed fairly. (A guiding analogy: be a Severus Snape, not a Tom Riddle.) I don't see Barack Obama carrying a cross on his shoulder, saying "Woe is me, I have to try to be president!" It's not conceit to think you might be good enough for the presidency, nor duplicity, nor hubris. (Unless, like our current president, you routinely say that you're not only good enough, that GOD HIMSELF has ordained you and smiles on all that you do. THAT is ego right there.)
And this is just fucking disgusting:
Now I’m actually a believer in the next generation, which one might call the 9/11 generation.
You know what, you odorous pig? I DON'T WANT MY GENERATION OR ANY OTHER TO BE REFERENCED BY THE GREATEST TERRORIST ACT EVER PERPETRATED ON AMERICAN SOIL. Why should we be defined by that? The thinking that led to 9/11 dominating everything we say, hear, or do was forced on younger generations by the old. The ones who beat the drums for wars we haven't been able to finish (or, as is the case in Afghanistan, just sorta given up on) were the kids who missed out on any war prior. The kids aren't constantly monkeying with the rainbow alert system (works for wars AND gays!); they're posting to MySpace (or LJ!). They are the MySpace generation if anything.
In short: Go back to sucking the conservate nutsack, Willaim Kristol. You must be getting some crazy good contact highs from it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-17 07:40 pm (UTC)To make his point, Jonah Goldberg decided to redefine fascism to suit his own terms while simultaneously ignoring any contradictions inherent in the dictionary-defined word. I'm all for adapting vocabulary, but he's being dishonest and disingenuous about the word "fascism." The word he wanted to argue might have been "totalitarianism." However, that doesn't sound as condemningly hot-button as "fascism," and it's got too many syllables to be catchy. You can't implicitly call liberals Nazis (more on that below) by calling them totalitarians. Call them fascists, though, and suddenly there are pictures of eagles and red-white-black flags in the picture. As soon as you, for the sake of selling a book, attempt to corrode the English language, use words incorrectly, conveniently ignore a wealth of history pointing to incidences of conservative fascism, and blame some conservative fascism on liberals so as to remove the swastika points from one side and put them (unfairly) on the other, you've forfeited the right to call yourself an academic or to justify your work as such.
Passing off personal politics with selective, lying-by-omission or outright lying history goes further away on the bullshit to academic scale towards being anti-academic. Because he makes the argument in making his argument that any way you can redefine loaded terms is okay if it proves your point. (As opposed to using less charged, correct terms that already exist.) That's like having a vocabulary quiz and allowing the kids to make up their own answers. They'll get 100%, but they're completely wrong. If Jonah Goldberg submitted this thesis to a vetted, doctoral history professor, he'd get flunked out of school. (Which I'm sure he'd blame on the goddamned librul college conspiracy instead of his laughable disconnection from fact.)