Um... wrong. Your elected officials never deserve your praise. The second you stop complaining and join in the cheerleading is the second democracy fails to function. Anyone who tells you different is an elitist apologist. End of story forever.
6 comments:
JerseyJeffersonian
said...
I was seriously waiting for her to pull out that old chestnut "Fucking Retards" to characterize those unable to reconcile themselves to the glory of The More Effective Evil. As to why we must slough off our sense of the acceptable, and reward odious behavior - with every prospect of more of the same - for this I saw no compelling argument advanced, merely a farago of the expected Obamabot nonsense.
"Calling someone "an asshole" counts as political analysis?"
No, but calling people 'rancid', 'dismal', 'flies' practicing 'voter suppression' simply because we don't think 'Obama is better than we have a right to expect' isn't analysis either.
Nuance? Really? First she calls the hard left 'flies'. Then she says they're 'rancid'. Then she goes on to accuse them of 'voter suppression' in swing states. She uses a tone that an intelligent 8-year old would find condescending. Laughably, this is all wrapped up in a 'why can't we get along' bow, which people like you are happy to parrot with equally hilarious results. Here's what: We can't get along. Fuck you and her. Just go to hell, you unprincipled, self-satisfied fakes.
(1) Calling someone "an asshole" counts as political analysis? Since you seem to think so, that explains ... (2) Your assumption that just bitching all the time will get anyone - including potential allies, not just businesses or government officials - to pay attention to you. If you are a constant, unrelenting complainer you simply give those "elected officials" an excuse to write you off as a malcontent (or worse). (3) So, the idea of how to assess success or failure will be beside the point precisely because you will be treated as an irrelevance and hence as not even playing the game of politics- in which success and failure are the (not exclusive, but) important criteria of assessment.
No, she didn't engage anyone's position, She basically went into full-fledged STFU mode that totally overwhelmed the few helpful things she tried to add to the conversation about the one-party system. She's fundamentally a much better writer than you would ever know from reading this one, and I hope that readers who unfortunately stumbled on this crap will put it out of their minds and go find some of the good stuff she's written in the past. (For instance: http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781560258285-4 )
She's not "cheerleading," she's giving a nuanced argument for how opponents of the current system can be more effective, make new allies, not drive people away with undiluted complaining.
Nuance, heard of that?
The thing is, she actually engages with and responds to your position. Try giving her the same courtesy. Saying "you're stupid, you're wrong" is not an argument.
6 comments:
I was seriously waiting for her to pull out that old chestnut "Fucking Retards" to characterize those unable to reconcile themselves to the glory of The More Effective Evil. As to why we must slough off our sense of the acceptable, and reward odious behavior - with every prospect of more of the same - for this I saw no compelling argument advanced, merely a farago of the expected Obamabot nonsense.
"Calling someone "an asshole" counts as political analysis?"
No, but calling people 'rancid', 'dismal', 'flies' practicing 'voter suppression' simply because we don't think 'Obama is better than we have a right to expect' isn't analysis either.
But then you wouldn't notice that would ya?
Nuance? Really? First she calls the hard left 'flies'. Then she says they're 'rancid'. Then she goes on to accuse them of 'voter suppression' in swing states. She uses a tone that an intelligent 8-year old would find condescending. Laughably, this is all wrapped up in a 'why can't we get along' bow, which people like you are happy to parrot with equally hilarious results. Here's what: We can't get along. Fuck you and her. Just go to hell, you unprincipled, self-satisfied fakes.
Jeffrey,
(1) Calling someone "an asshole" counts as political analysis? Since you seem to think so, that explains ...
(2) Your assumption that just bitching all the time will get anyone - including potential allies, not just businesses or government officials - to pay attention to you. If you are a constant, unrelenting complainer you simply give those "elected officials" an excuse to write you off as a malcontent (or worse).
(3) So, the idea of how to assess success or failure will be beside the point precisely because you will be treated as an irrelevance and hence as not even playing the game of politics- in which success and failure are the (not exclusive, but) important criteria of assessment.
No, she didn't engage anyone's position, She basically went into full-fledged STFU mode that totally overwhelmed the few helpful things she tried to add to the conversation about the one-party system. She's fundamentally a much better writer than you would ever know from reading this one, and I hope that readers who unfortunately stumbled on this crap will put it out of their minds and go find some of the good stuff she's written in the past. (For instance: http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781560258285-4 )
She's not "cheerleading," she's giving a nuanced argument for how opponents of the current system can be more effective, make new allies, not drive people away with undiluted complaining.
Nuance, heard of that?
The thing is, she actually engages with and responds to your position. Try giving her the same courtesy. Saying "you're stupid, you're wrong" is not an argument.
Post a Comment