Heh. I stopped reading after she called everyone in the Midwest who voted for Bush ignorant. Ad Hominem attacks don't work for me. I understand her frustration, but you can't sum up the motivations of 59 million voters in 2 or 3 sentence sound bites.
I reread the article and still support what she wrote. I gathered that your objection was her use of the word ignorance in quotes like “The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.” I assert that this is dead on. Let's not confuse the word "ignorant" with "stupid." Take, for example, a guy I know who runs a heating/AC business in my home town. Running a business takes intelligence, and so does repairing air conditioners. He's not stupid, but he does not pay attention to the world outside his home town, he does not read critical analyses of his government, he thinks California and New York are full of "fags and liberals." When he receives a flyer from the NRA, he believes every word of it (without any personal research). I know other intelligent people like him that believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, or vote as their minister tells them. This results from ignorance. Voting against your economic interests and voting for someone who has had awful job performance because of a few "moral" issues happens out of ignorance. If I try to fix my air conditioner, my decision would be based in my ignorance of the complexities of such a task, and, as I called a smart guy to come pick up the pieces, I would no longer be ignorant. Karl Rove can scare people into voting for an inept bumbler like Bush because people don't want to here anything but black and white on issues. That is the result of ignorance. There is very little black and white in the big picture and the greys mean everything. Sure there are plenty of worldly thinkers in the midwest and there are plenty of midwesterners that voted for republicans because they’re sure it will save them money, but that wasn’t what swung this election. Ignorance, on a mass scale, swung this election.
I define ignorant as Webster's does : "Lacking education or knowledge." Sounds like stupid to me.
What arrogance, this person spouting off: "If you only knew what I knew, if you were only as smart as me, you would have voted Kerry". It's pretty ridiculous to summarize the motivations of 58 million people on "ignorant bloodlust". Please. It impies that the Democrats aren't to blame for their own campaign. No matter what you say to those unwashed masses, they will vote for the "ignorant bloodlust" of the GOP.
As a Libertarian, I supposed I could call all 113 million of them "ignorant". It's not an argument, it's Ad Hominem. A supposed PhD should know better, but she did go to Iowa State, so.......... :)
3 comments:
Heh. I stopped reading after she called everyone in the Midwest who voted for Bush ignorant. Ad Hominem attacks don't work for me. I understand her frustration, but you can't sum up the motivations of 59 million voters in 2 or 3 sentence sound bites.
I reread the article and still support what she wrote. I gathered that your objection was her use of the word ignorance in quotes like “The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.” I assert that this is dead on. Let's not confuse the word "ignorant" with "stupid." Take, for example, a guy I know who runs a heating/AC business in my home town. Running a business takes intelligence, and so does repairing air conditioners. He's not stupid, but he does not pay attention to the world outside his home town, he does not read critical analyses of his government, he thinks California and New York are full of "fags and liberals." When he receives a flyer from the NRA, he believes every word of it (without any personal research). I know other intelligent people like him that believe everything Rush Limbaugh says, or vote as their minister tells them. This results from ignorance. Voting against your economic interests and voting for someone who has had awful job performance because of a few "moral" issues happens out of ignorance. If I try to fix my air conditioner, my decision would be based in my ignorance of the complexities of such a task, and, as I called a smart guy to come pick up the pieces, I would no longer be ignorant. Karl Rove can scare people into voting for an inept bumbler like Bush because people don't want to here anything but black and white on issues. That is the result of ignorance. There is very little black and white in the big picture and the greys mean everything. Sure there are plenty of worldly thinkers in the midwest and there are plenty of midwesterners that voted for republicans because they’re sure it will save them money, but that wasn’t what swung this election. Ignorance, on a mass scale, swung this election.
I define ignorant as Webster's does : "Lacking education or knowledge." Sounds like stupid to me.
What arrogance, this person spouting off: "If you only knew what I knew, if you were only as smart as me, you would have voted Kerry". It's pretty ridiculous to summarize the motivations of 58 million people on "ignorant bloodlust". Please. It impies that the Democrats aren't to blame for their own campaign. No matter what you say to those unwashed masses, they will vote for the "ignorant bloodlust" of the GOP.
As a Libertarian, I supposed I could call all 113 million of them "ignorant". It's not an argument, it's Ad Hominem. A supposed PhD should know better, but she did go to Iowa State, so.......... :)
Post a Comment