?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The hate industry of the right - The Fucking Bluebird of Goddamn Happiness [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Zoethe

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The hate industry of the right [Mar. 19th, 2010|02:08 pm]
Zoethe
Occasionally I make the mistake of clicking through to a "conservative" blog. This act generally fills me with terror, particularly if I make the further mistake of reading the comments, which are generally filled with even more hatred and vitriol than that expressed by the commentator.

In this case, my mistake led to Dan Riehl, who posits that Senator Harry Reid's wife should be euthanized. Mrs. Reid was in a terrible car accident and broke her back and neck. So Riehl and his followers drag out both the Death Panel and Abortion straw men to hoot with glee over this woman's misfortune.

Now, no matter what one thinks that Sen. Reid, in a time of personal crisis a human being puts aside differences and expresses sympathy. But not Riehl, and not his ecstatic followers.

The bunch of them claim some sort of moral superiority because they are pro-life. But when you read further into their pro-life claims, their only interest seems to be in fetuses. The health of babies and children? Not their lookout; they only want to make sure they get born. Their approach to this is to attack things like the health care bill with the false claim that it will subsidize elective abortions, and that Democrats actually want to increase the number of abortions. It's tough to debate against their rhetoric, because silly things like facts don't interest them at all. Try to argue with them and they will simply call you a Leftist soldier-hater (even if you were a soldier (in comments)) or dismiss you as a pawn of the left without even dealing with your points.

They adamantly do not want health care reform passed, and when asked about the health and welfare of the babies that would be born if they could stop abortion, the answer is generally, "not our problem." Basically, they want to take away women's reproductive choice without any consideration of the consequences to the children born to women who don't want them.

This isn't about life. This is about punishing women for their having autonomy and making their own choices about their bodies. Most of them do not give a damn about the children, only about making darned sure that a woman who has the temerity to enjoy sex gets what's coming to her.

Those people make me sick. And it's frightening and disgusting that, because they rejoice and gloat in being hateful and unreasonable, they get to be a voice.

I know that most conservatives are caring people who struggle with moral questions and have empathy. That they are thoughtful, respectful people who think issues through and come to different conclusions than I. I have lots of conservative friends whose opinions I value, even if I don't agree with all of them, because they are trying to address problems that they recognize as difficult.

But, like terrorists, the loud-mouthed, hate-filled minority are the ones who make the news and drag the agenda. They are vicious, intentionally hurtful, and, yes, terrifying. It's pathetic that they are the voice drowning out debate.
LinkReply

Comments:
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[User Picture]From: audacian
2010-03-19 06:13 pm (UTC)
"This isn't about life. This is about punishing women for their having autonomy and making her own choices about her body. Most of them do not give a damn about the children, only about making darned sure that a woman who has the temerity to enjoy sex gets what's coming to her. "

QFT.

:(
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 06:19 pm (UTC)
Unfortunately, bad quote for bad grammar. Fixed, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: anivair
2010-03-19 06:29 pm (UTC)
I often have trouble when people say that the right's issue is about punishing women (or any similar argument). it gets made a lot, and I'm not sure it's true. it sort of implies a conscious effort on their part to dominate women and keep them powerless.

And while that may b the end result, I don't think it's their thinking. I doubt they have back room meetings where they say "We have GOT to do something about these women!"

What I think is that their argument ... almost all of them, are based on religion. And yes, their religion objectifies and dismisses women, taking away their rights across the board and treating them as baby making machines owned by their husbands.

But I think that the fault here is the faith that these people are raised with, not their politics.

And that is not to say that the problem is "Christianity". the problem is that many people follow a broken faith that has become about a few key things (namely fighting abortion, hating gay people, and being terrified of sex). In fact, those three things can be distilled down into one thing. the religious right is terrified of sex. They were raised to believe that sex is *bad* and *naughty* and that they were wicked for wanting to do it.

What we are seeing in our country right now is the logical end result of thousands of years of sexual repression. Of teaching generation after generation that they are innately evil, innately wicked, and that the things that make our very life possible are evil things to be avoided, rarely thought of, and never talked about. They have turned a blind eye to sex for over two thousand years and as a result anything that touches on that subject is something they can never think about with a rational mind.

It's not about hurting women. it's about controlling people via controlling sex. That's what it's always been about with the church.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 06:40 pm (UTC)
You're just a tool of the right, and you don't even realize it. Why do you hate women so much?

(Wow, it's refreshing not to have to actually think!)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: custardfairy
2010-03-19 06:54 pm (UTC)
Most of them do not give a damn about the children, only about making darned sure that a woman who has the temerity to enjoy sex gets what's coming to her.

Or women who don't enjoy it. While some conservative folks will agree that MAYBE abortion as a result of rape would be allowable, most of them don't. Oh sure, it's unfortunate what happened to the woman, but even if they don't think she was somehow asking for it (short skirt? daring to jog in a park at sunset? not equipped with semi-automatic weapons?) she should still be saddled with the body-changing experiece of pregnancy. Then give the kid up for adoption, and pretend like there's never someone out there who may come looking for answers.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 07:04 pm (UTC)
Yes, women who get raped asked for it. No matter what the situation. And they should be punished for it.

I am nail-spitting furious.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: suzieboz
2010-03-19 07:07 pm (UTC)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/03/18/stupak_disrespects_nuns

This is what I was telling you about. There is zero respect for women it seems on any issue from Stupak and Co.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kmg_365
2010-03-19 08:08 pm (UTC)
I think Stupak needs to be introduced to the sister from The Blues Brothers! Break a yard stick over his head and whip out the pointer!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jeanniemac
2010-03-19 07:19 pm (UTC)
The problem is that the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement do not speak the same language. People that I have talked to that are pro-choice on don't care who has abortion. They just want to make sure that women's Constitutional rights as free human beings aren't violated. The Constitution is a secular document, Goddess willing, will always remain so. On the other hand you have the pro-life movement who feels that the Constitution should bow down to their religious beliefs, ie if the Constitution does not fit their religious beliefs, it should be changed. When told that this is a matter of Constitutionality, they simply do not understand the issue, because for them, God is running this country, not the Government.

If women are to maintain what freedoms we currently have in this society and possibly gain more, we must never, ever allow the pro-life movement to win.

And just to clarify things, in case folks ask, I don't think I would ever have an abortion. I hope that any child I conceive would be one I wanted to carry, planned for and was conceived of my own free will. But I NEVER want my government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body. That is a sign of totalitarianism and that is what we fought the Revolution to get away from. No matter what reason the pro-life movement gives for what they are doing, it comes down to the fact that they want a totalitarian theocracy and I don't.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wdomburg
2010-03-19 09:28 pm (UTC)
You illustrate your own point nicely. The point of the pro-life movement is that it isn't about you can do with your body, but rather about what you can do with your child's body.

The question of whether the unborn can be considered children, or if they can hold rights that are at odds with their mother can certainly be informed by religion, but that is not always the case. In the most recent polls by Gallup 31% of people with no religious identification considered themselves pro-life.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 08:37 pm (UTC)

Re: The hate industry of the right

I believe in debate, absolutely. But the notion that inflammatory remarks and bald lies serve as debate for some people is frustrating and unhelpful.

Alas, the appeal of extremism in place of considered thought leads to all kinds of fundamentalism.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: mightydoll
2010-03-19 08:00 pm (UTC)
I *love* the "don't have sex if you're not prepared to live with the consequences" argument. Damn, your kids are "consequences"? Glad you're not my parent.

Who wants to live their life out as some divine punishment, really?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dana3
2010-03-19 11:04 pm (UTC)
Yup, my kid was a consequence. Of my ex's unwillingness to actually pay for anything -- and the abortion had a time limit on it, and the midwife was willing to wait, so a kid there was. Still is, actually, although he's grown now.

If you don't get the concept of consequences, especially for sexual activity, then I'm glad *I'm* not your parent too. My kid knows better. Have a very nice day.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: daghain
2010-03-19 08:04 pm (UTC)
Right, left or otherwise, that post is despicable. I have never seen that blog before and will be glad to never see it again. I regret giving him traffic.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 08:41 pm (UTC)
I wouldn't deign to provide traffic if it weren't for the fact that this guy is far from alone. It's appalling that this guy, Limbaugh, Coulter and Beck draw so large an audience to their rhetoric of hate.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kmg_365
2010-03-19 08:07 pm (UTC)
But, like terrorists, the loud-mouthed, hate-filled minority are the ones who make the news and drag the agenda. They are vicious, intentionally hurtful, and, yes, terrifying. It's pathetic that they are the voice drowning out debate.

Unfortunately the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And the deranged squeaky wheel gets even more grease, and that grease is put on a continuous loop of coverage.

When I heard about Senator Reid's wife and daughter, my heart went out to him and to his family. Same as it did when the Lion of the Senate announced he had cancer. I don't agree with them politically, but these are people, man.

I'm not sure what can be done to change the tenor inside or outside of the beltway. W ran as a "uniter, not a divider." Obama said he would "change the tenor in Washington." We know how W fared, and politics seem to have become even more bitterly partisan over the past year. I don't fault President Obama for that - I'm not certain a single person can change this.

It is rather depressing.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 08:42 pm (UTC)
It's extremely depressing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wdomburg
2010-03-19 09:16 pm (UTC)
This is precisely why I avoid reading sites like DailyKos, Democratic Underground and Firedoglake. Even if pointing out the crazies on the other side might be satisfying on some level, talking about them is also a distraction from the real debate.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 09:41 pm (UTC)
All I can say is that those sites don't have nearly the visibility - can't remember the last time I saw a Daily Kos article on the front of Yahoo. But I agree that stupid rhetoric is not limited to one end of the spectrum.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
[User Picture]From: blacktapegrrl
2010-03-19 09:56 pm (UTC)
Allow me to quote the late, great George Carlin: Preborn, you're fine; pre-school, you're fucked.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 09:59 pm (UTC)
Sad that it's so true.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dana3
2010-03-19 11:15 pm (UTC)
I know that most conservatives are caring people who struggle with moral questions and have empathy. That they are thoughtful, respectful people who think issues through and come to different conclusions than I. I have lots of conservative friends whose opinions I value, even if I don't agree with all of them, because they are trying to address problems that they recognize as difficult.

I'd say "many conservatives", but otherwise agree with you line by line on this part. And also agree with your discouragement (or would that be disgust?) at the hate industry and the blowhards who populate it.

It was interesting to reunite with an old friend recently, to discover she had become staunchly (as in, party leadership) Republican. We sat and talked issues, and still found interest in the same issues -- we still both had consciences and brains -- we just reached different conclusions about how to best get there. ::grin:: Glad we each only have one vote! I'm also glad we're still friends, before during and after that conversation.

"... they rejoice and gloat in being hateful and unreasonable" indeed. It's not a party thing, it's a class and style thing. Which makes me wonder, actually -- since the same objections were raised and the same epithets were laid at the civil rights marchers, who are only on the side of the angels in the 20/20 rear-view mirror of history -- are we seeing another form of social Darwinism at work? Another 'cultural revolution', we don't need your steenking theenkers and civility? I hope not, but that does seem to be a parallel model.

Mrrrrrmph -- sorry I thought of it, now I have to go wash my brain out with soap.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-19 11:36 pm (UTC)
I think you are right. It's just appalling to watch when we're talking about getting kids health care.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: ccr1138
2010-03-20 03:10 am (UTC)
The big problem in these debates is the tendency of one side to demonize the other. You know I am pro-life, not because I hate sex or want to see women controlled (being a woman who loves sex, that would be incredibly stupid, eh?) but because I think it's wrong to kill a child simply because it's inconvenient. It's about the child's rights vs. the mother's rights, and IMO the mother loses. A child who is 2 days old can't be killed because the mother doesn't want it, so why should we allow it to be killed when it is -2 days old?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-20 03:32 am (UTC)
I agree with -2 days old. I agree that abortion once a fetus has reached viability should not be allowed.

I don't agree that a nonviable fetus is a person whose rights trump those of a woman. I think abortion is unfortunate and that we need to do more to decrease the need for it through better education and availability of birth control. But I don't think that a fetus is a person.

Abortion has been with us all along. It's only in the last century that it became a public issue at all.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: roniliquidity
2010-03-20 03:29 am (UTC)
Ugh, At least I now know Dan Riehl is scum and that will color any other time I may hear his name.

The post of his is disgusting. Both sides have their problems, but I never see this kind of hatred soaked inhuman glee and abundant misinformation from the left, or at least not from people with comparable visibility. Anecdotes about what some self important kid at a rally said hardly count. They might point out the irony of a situation, or horrible poetic justice, but the active hope of harm to even the most tangentially involved people isn't there. The right seems so much more vicious and alarming.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: zoethe
2010-03-20 03:35 am (UTC)
Read the comments if you really want to make yourself sick.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>