Of Labels, Libtards, Libertarians and Paulbots.

[20score]

Always battled with myself on whether I was more angry about the Iraq War, or the insulting lies that got us there. Same with destroying the environment. Is it worse to wipe out other species and set our own species on a course for extinction, or is the greater crime the fact that so many are too dumb or too weak to see/admit what’s happening?

Okay, it’s not really a battle - but the dumb and childish still irritate the hell out of me. Adults, at least a many of them, handle any reality they don’t care for, in a far worse manner than any eight year old that finds out there is no Santa Claus. And it’s not just the religious fanatics either; although they are the worst. Those who look down people who believe in the science of global warming, come to mind. Those who believe strongly their race or culture is superior to all others. Authoritarians and a good portion of those who fall for propaganda are some of the most resistant to facts and have the most infantile reactions when facing unpleasant truths.

What’s ironic, and also obvious, is that those who hold strong opinions that are contrary to the facts, are also unlikely to be able to defend those opinions in an honest debate. They don’t know enough. So they label people, name call and insult. “It’s like 10 degrees outside, libtard! So much for global warming!”

During the nation’s year long debate about health care in 2009, those who wanted to keep the status quo labeled those who were for a public option as communists, socialists and Nazis. Not knowing the definition to any of those terms, proven by the fact they were used interchangeably. They got angry, labeled people and insulted. This pattern returns again and again throughout history. Whenever their beliefs, religion, party, king, or morals are challenged, those resistant to reality have reacted badly.

The same thing is now happening with some on the left, and it’s hard to deny. If someone believes that a big-brother type government is really the best thing for the country and believes we should make sure the monitoring of everything we do continues forever… then convince us. Tell us all, calmly, that just being alive makes us a suspect. Prove to us that privacy has no place in a free country. Persuade us that the threat of terrorism - even though statistically dying from lightning is more likely – is a good enough reason to rid ourselves of the most basic rights we have.

Truth is, they can’t. If the people that are trashing Snowden and Greenwald had any case at all, they would bring it to the forefront. They have nothing, and I suspect on some level they realize that fact. That’s why the labels of libertarian and Paulbot are thrown around with no honest debate even attempted.

It’s either dishonesty, slow wits, or a childish aversion to facts.

[suede1]

1. Well done!

[20score]

13. Thanks!

[punkin87]

2. Hear hear!!!

[NuclearDem]

3. It's exactly why character assassination and ad hominem are classified as fallacies

It's a cheap shot. Unfortunately, it's a very effective cheap shot, depending on how strong the connotation of the label.

It's stupid because this is essentially how the word "fascist" has lost all meaning in the US; even people who legitimately point out fascist tendencies can't get past how the word has been misappropriated as a generic epithet for a policy or politician a group doesn't like.

[20score]

10. Exactly!

[Catherina]

4. That was a pleasure to read.

As Socrates put it, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser".

Rec'd

[20score]

14. Thanks Catherina!

[forestpath]

5. K&R

[backscatter712]

6. K&R! I don't understand why Skinner allows the character-assassination here.

Any decent liberal would absolutely condemn this McCarthyist shit.

[rhett o rick]

32. I think Skinner is allowing the DU community to decide. Use the ignore feature for

those that only want to disrupt.

[CakeGrrl]

7. Once again,

how about the labels

"neoliberal"
"Authoritarian"
"defender of the Surveillance State"

Are those also symptomatic of "dishonesty, slow wits, or a childish aversion to facts"? Or not? If not, why not?


By the way, there are plenty of people who have put forth their thoughts without using those labels and have been namecalled for daring to offer a dissenting opinion.

For example:

I think we need to have a debate about the level of surveillance that's 'acceptable' or 'necessary', and I also maintain that Snowden stole data deliberately and is evading the consequences simply because of a wish not to face them.

That statement has been met with the labels listed above.

[20score]

8. Because not all labels are inacurate or unfair.

The point is to be as informed and as objective as possible.

There is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with saying, "I think we need to have a debate about the level of surveillance that's 'acceptable' or 'necessary'..." but many things are, or at least should be, a given. One thing that should be a given is that total surveillance of all citizens should be off the table. Just like re-education camps and house-to-house searches. Directly after the 9-11 attacks the majority of the pundits were saying we should not give up freedom for security. And that was addressing proposals that that would extremely quaint by the standards of today. (Societies, just like an individual can go a little nuts. And I believe we are not only a shadow of what we could be, but have become a shadow of our former selves.)

As for the attacks on Snowden and Greenwald. They are mostly untrue and can be proven as such. But even more important - just like in almost all attacks on whistleblowers - they are a distraction. The only agent to go to jail for torture was a CIA agent that blew the whistle on torture. The attacks are for one reason only. To distract the citizens from what's important. And what's important is the illegal spying, corporations with governmental powers, money in government and the leaders who have broken laws and abused our trust.

[CakeGrrl]

11. So it appears that your bottom line

on labels is "they're OK if I think they apply to you".

If you feel that your or another's assessment of someone as "authoritarian" or "neo-liberal" or "childish" or "lazy" is valid, then another person is equally entitled to make the assessment of Snowden or Greenwald as "Libertarian", or to hold the opinion that their motives are not the purest or most noble.

It sounds to me that you feel justified and entitled to your labels, but prefer that those who disagree not employ theirs. To harbor the fear that daring to render a dissenting opinion about Snowden or Greenwald is a distraction seems to be another way of stifling criticism with which you disagree.

As to your dialogue regarding surveillance, one thing that needs to happen on a large scale is to agree on 'operational definitions'. People have to agree to define concepts such as "total surveillance" or else they're going to continue talking over or past one another.

I have seen claims here that "the U.S. is spying on us". What does that mean? Where is the proof? Warrants are required to collect data on an individual after first meeting several criteria that the monitoring is justified. That was in the documentation that was "leaked". Yet there seems to be this mass freakout that the government/President Obama essentially has a spy camera mounted in your bedroom.

I don't see anything but assumptions based on speculation in much of the back and forth on the boards. And at the end of the day, people in cyberspace can 'debate' inasmuch as they can agree to the terms (much luck needed there), but the dialogue needs to occur on a far larger scale with a far larger audience.

[20score]

12. Not what i'm saying or implying.

I'm saying it's okay to use labels that can be backed up with facts. I've been reading Greenwald for years and know the 'libertarian' label is ridiculous, as his past writings prove. If you're not one of the people who are using the distract and attack methods, then this isn't directed at you.


That we are being spied on all the time is not up for debate. It's a fact. How we get them to pull back is what needs to be debated.

Here's one program you may not be familiar with:

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/License-plate-readers-tracking-cars-4622476.php

Now it's back to work.

[ProSense]

18. You missed a developing label

"It's skeevy to me, the way authoritarians get giddy over stories like this...It was almost like they were experiencing sexual arousal when they talked about dissidents or prisoners being abused or killed."


"They do sound giddy when discussing Snowden being catured or killed. Gleeful even. Perhaps some kind of sexual-sadism?"

[rhett o rick]

34. I dont disagree with everything you say. We need to define terms like "spying".

It appears that someone is collecting data (we are not sure how much) on millions of Americans. And we get distracted by the argument whether it is spying, surveillance, or something else. It doesnt matter what it's called, do we want that or not?

You used the argument that warrants are required for collecting data on Americans. That is not true at all. Phone companies collect data, Google collects data, and lots of corporations are collecting data without warrants or any oversight. Maybe that's ok and maybe not. We need to discuss without worrying about whether it reflects badly on the President. I also think that someone, like Booz-Allen is compiling the data and possible analyzing the data with no warrant and no oversight. I might be wrong but we need to decide if we want that and if it's happening. Clapper says that it's ok to have the data collected (and I believe analyzed) as long as the NSA doesnt access it with out a warrant.
Also, just because a warrant is required it doesnt mean that it's being adhered to. Having a stop sign doesnt prevent people from driving thru the intersection. Is the requirement for a warrant being enforced? If so how and by who?
Are the warrants being reviewed by the FISA courts with a view of oversight or just being rubber stamped? We need to investigate and correct if necessary.

We have a lot of questions that need to be answered and I personally dont like the character assassinations of whistle-blowers. IMO it is not the behavior of "politically liberal" people.

[think]

27. (in my opinion) You are correct about labels

Labeling sucks and yet I'm sure I'm guilty of it. I say that not to condone my behavior but rather to admit that I am that weak and succumb to it.

I certainly have my short comings...

[rhett o rick]

9. Those that so avidly attack anyone that dares to question the government under Pres Obama have nothi

nothing. They can not argue an issue without resorting to namecalling and ridicule. The ROFL emoticon sums up their complete argument. If someone says that Michael Hastings accident looks suspicious, they react in harmony with, "It's not Obama's fault. It's not Obama's fault. He was a known drug user and heavy drinker that liked to drive fast into trees. Besides his girlfriend was a pole dancer." That's it. And if you suggest that the accident looked unusual, they claim you are bashing the president.

They cant discuss issues.

[20score]

15. They're embarrassing to the rest of us on the left.

[raouldukelives]

16. Just waiting for your either with us or with the terrorists. nt

[rhett o rick]

21. I will be glad to accommodate you. In a war there are only two sides. In this war there is the

1% Oligarchs and their minions against the rest of us. And for those that remain neutral, there is a special place in hell.

I hope that helps.

[raouldukelives]

22. I hear that loud and clear. One can invest in Wall St and help fund the 1% in its war.

Or one be a progressive who refuses to profit from others pain.

[quinnox]

17. its just typical and moronic guilt by association

the thinking goes like this - "Hmm, I know. I will post a million threads on a daily basis, a sort of campaign, about how evil and right wing conservative Ron/Rand Paul is, that way, some people will get the idea that if they oppose the NSA spying, that if so, they are agreeing with this right winger, and so they will be scared or embarrassed to do so. YAY ME!!"


And then some of these same folk complain about how bad the tone is at DU, meanwhile, they are throwing around terms like Paul-bots, ratfuckers and racists constantly. Riiiiiight. No hypocrisy there.

[bluedigger]

19. I'm getting pretty amused at all the defensiveness and counterargument on labeling.

If you aren't a Paulbot, quit taking offense. They exist, whether you like the term or not. If you are personally and unjustly accused, by all means, defend your honor. Otherwise, don't let the muddy water stain you when the car drives by, it just makes you look soiled. Maybe put a little distance between yourself and the mud puddle.

[20score]

20. The spying offends me.

And those who approve of it, or do nothing to stop it, also offend me.

[bluedigger]

24. No problem.

It offends me, too. But I'm also tired of ceding ground and letting the other side frame the argument every...damn...time.

Fuck Ron and Rand Paul!

[bobduca]

23. you are not using the official smiley

get with the program.

[bluedigger]

25. Nothing to excess.

[sabrina 1]

26. Perfectly stated:

If someone believes that a big-brother type government is really the best thing for the country and believes we should make sure the monitoring of everything we do continues forever… then convince us. Tell us all, calmly, that just being alive makes us a suspect. Prove to us that privacy has no place in a free country. Persuade us that the threat of terrorism - even though statistically dying from lightning is more likely – is a good enough reason to rid ourselves of the most basic rights we have.

They won't, they can't because that would truly reveal who they are so they hurl insults, labels and often outright lies instead.

Great OP, thank you.

[20score]

31. Thank you!

[Zorra]

28. Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists

is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

Ironically, this quote is the topic of another current thread right now.

[dtom67]

29. part of it is damage control...

From partisans loyal to the President. I ran afoul of these folks a few days ago ( the " hair on Fire " people) and got a little testy because it seemed I was awash in a sea of rabid partisans. You can imagine my chagrin when I was informed that I was blocked ( rightly ) from the Obama group. In my own defense, in scanning the latest threads, seeing a post that seemed to be ridiculing those who are concerned about the state of our Liberties drew my attention. I know the groups are clearly marked, but I did not realize I had wandered into the obama group. Obviously, I was in the one place that is all about Party Loyalty.
My bad.

Anyways, I would expect to see all kinds of spin on this issue. Mainly to protect the President. So, if you just wanna talk about the issue of spying, leave the President out of it.

[Laelth]

30. Well said. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[20score]

33. Have yet to see a reply supporting the

spying.

[geek tragedy]

35. the people comparing the Obama administration to Stalinist USSR deserve every

epithet thrown at them. The ones that aren't Paulbots are every bit as crazy as the Paulbots.

And they are here in numbers.