Apparently, Pat Sajak has a blog and a rather interesting one at that. His latest post deals with why he has stopped arguing with liberals. If you have spent any amount of time arguing with extreme liberals, especially those on the far left, you will immediately understand Sajak’s frustration.
He writes:
Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.
Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.
Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.
The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)
Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).
When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.
In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.
The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.
HatTip: Catallarchy.
Hitlery anyone?
This is so ironic. (Do you wingers understand irony?) Anyway,
I feel exactly the same when talking to Wing Nuts. There must
be a message there somewhere, ehh?
Pat’s kind of a coward though. There is now contact info on his
site. So it seems he enjoys the one-way conversation. Typical.
Sorry, I meant there is no contact info on his site. Cowardly.
I’d love to have a conversation with you Henk. I’ll even allow you to pick the topic.
Have you seen Vanna White’s blog?
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. After the third time I got called “Traitor” or “Benedict Arnold” for daring to question the wisdom of the Iraq war (after supporting the action in Afghanistan) I lost sympathy for the tender feelings of conservatives.
JD Rhoades,
Your conversation with conservatives about the Iraq war reminds me of conversations conservatives have with liberals about minority issues. But in those conversations were not just called “Traitor” and “Benedict Arnold”, were also called “racist”.
The extremes on the Left AND Right make ridiculous statements all the time. That’s why they’re considered extreme.
Hacks from both sides love to take one person’s gibberish and use it to make broad simplistic accusations. It’s the cheap, lazy thing to do and provides plenty of “holier than thow” moments for people whose need to feel superior overrides their need to make a difference.
I agree Mr Chombo.
Lets talk guns.
Interestingly, some of his comments ring of Ann Coulter. Maybe he could be forgiven–as Ann Coulter surely could not be–for failing to realize that irrationality doesn’t favor any particular ideology. Zealots are zealots, people. As to the right wing chestnut about liberals demeaning the Holocaust through unsupportable comparisons, I’ve been hearing the exact same comparisons made regarding the Schiavo case. Check out, for example, Noonan’s op-ed in Thursdays Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110006460). I know hypocrisy is pretty much a dead concept online, but come on now. The winding road to Auschwitz?
Chombo: “the true thing is generally the extreme thing.” –Emma Goldman (I’m paraphrasing)
As for Sajak:
don’t you think it is a bit ridiculous that PAT SAJAK has a blog?!!?
He’s the host of WHEEL OF FORTUNE, for the sake of Christ.
I agree it seems a bit rediculous. Why are these Hollywood elites
always trying to push thier opinions on us?
Guns huh? I’m not too passionate about that topic, but I can talk guns. My favorite saying with regard to guns is, I’m paraphrasing here, “Trying to blame crime on guns is like trying to blame spoons for Rosie O’Donnel being overweight”.
Hello Chris,
You write, I know hypocrisy is pretty much a dead concept online, but come on now. The winding road to Auschwitz?
I happen to like that part of Noonans article. So much so, that I even used it as a quote of the day. But you must have not read her article carefully. She didn’t say that the Schiavo thing is the same as Aushwitz, but that it leads to it. On the other hand, (extreme) liberals often make the case that Bush is the same as Hitler, not that he leads to one. Subtle, but very important difference.
I just wondered what you owned. Antigue, New, Semi-Auto, Fully Auto, Bolt action, Lever Action, Slide action, long gun, handgun? What do you hunt? Shoot: Skeet, Trap, Sporting Clays, Range: Long range, intermediate, close range handgun. Big Bore, Small bore. You know guns.
Some liberals may compare Bush to Hitler in the sense that both are Facists.
Even within that comparison, they are both very different.
I don’t currently own a gun.
Pat Sajak? Geez.. at least the celebs on the left generally have talent….
You know why people whine about debating issues with liberals? Because they are being proven wrong and it makes them angry.
Its true. Whenever a liberal makes a valid point, the typical conservative response is to ignore the point that was just made, and instead attack the character of the liberal.
But thats ok, the rethugs just “jumped the shark” with this Shiavo thing, so hopefully people will react accordingly in ‘06…
Dang, I thought gun ownership was a requirement. There are similarities, not that are hard to miss. Uber-Patriotism, the use of Religion and propaganda. Co-mingling of Church, State and Corporations. Here’s a diffinition of Fascism. I know you’ll like the racist part. From my side of the fence, though this looks like where we’re headed.
Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Johnny Z,
You write, You know why people whine about debating issues with liberals? Because they are being proven wrong and it makes them angry.
Oh really? My experience has been the opposite. What you say me and you try to have a civil discussion on issues…I promise not to get angry if you prove me wrong, if you promise not to get angry if I prove you wrong. Game?
Henk,
I still think we are talking about two different things here and reducing definitions to levels that more suit our needs than mean what people really mean when they say them.
But I am willing to leave that up to the ‘everyday’ reader to decide.
Hey Man, you made that “Game” claim to me. I chose the subject you choked.
LOL. I am still willing to talk to you about it, you seemed to have went a different route.
But if I confused what you meant to say, let’s proceed. What is your disagreement with the conservative view of guns, and why?
I’ll pass on playing the “Game” , H.P.
I promise it’s not for a lack of debating skills on my part - I just am legitimately sickened by today’s typical conservative worldview and have absolutely no desire to discuss the intricacies of it with you.
Conservatives aren’t even “conservative” anymore - it’s a joke.
Look at the economy. Look at the tax cuts for the very rich. Does that look fiscally conservative to you?
Watch as the Republican House passes emergency legislation in an attempt to interfere with a private family decision - one that was already decided by the courts, no less. And then Bush, who couldn’t be bothered to cut short his (5,000th) vacation to speak on the Tsunami until days after the fact, gets out of bed in the middle of the night to sign the ridiculous and appalling piece of legislation. And that’s merely the *latest* outrage.
So what I’m saying is that by calling yourself a conservative, you are labelling yourself as someone who I have absolutley no interest in “debating” with.
I was continuing something else. My problem with the conservative view of guns is that there no sensible limits. Personally I own 25 or so guns. I buy sell trade collect at gun shows. I hunt. I shoot regularly at several different ranges and clubs. All the time I surrounded by mostly right leaning people. They talk no limits, but when some idiot shows up at a gun range swinging his weapon around, walking down range when others are shooting, they look at each other and shake thier heads. Everyone knows these guys shouldn’t have a gun. Or at gun shows folks will show up looking to buy from private sellers. Its obvious to everyone that they shouldn’t own a gun everyone shakes thier head, the guy moves on down the line will finds someone who will sell to them. Given hard examples most moderates know there should be limit. Look at the 50 cal. Barrett. Last weekend at a show there were armor piercing rounds, incendiary rounds. These things have an effective range of over a mile. I shoot long range. I know what its like, but my God why in the world do we need that kind of stuff floating around? Just explain that last little bit for me.
Jonny Z’s smarter than me. I’ll give you some time to think over my question while I start the Bar-BQ. I check in after the “Wheel.”
Hey Johnny,
I understand, I’ve definitely felt like that with regard to liberals at times in the past, no hard feelings. Maybe next time.
Hey Henk,
I see what you mean. Personally, I am no fan of assault weapons.
But I would say the same thing in reverse, conservatives see liberals as having no limit in their restrictions either. Just look at D.C. A law abiding citizen (I am assuiming, here) like yourself, would not be allowed to own any gun in the very liberal D.C. area.
I would say that ultimately, I agree much more with the conservative view than the liberal view. The fault is not the guns per se, but the person. So stop focusing primarily on guns, and focus more on the person. No ex-felons, no person who has had a history of anger, etc….should be allowed to own guns.
Hello Hispanicpundit:
Sorry to be late getting back. As I read you position, you’re saying if (extreme) liberals had all along been saying “Bush is on the way to being Hitler,” as opposed to “Bush is Hitler,” then all criticism could have been avoided. I simply can’t believe that would be the case. Muted, perhaps–but not silenced. And if not silenced then Noonan and others on the (extreme) right are still open to the charge of hypocrisy.
It doesn’t seem like good practice to assume commentators aren’t reading articles carefully. I’d suggest the distinction is somewhat subtle, but in any case not important. Hope this isn’t posted too late!
Hey Chris,
What I was saying is that fundamentally, slippery slope claims are much different than claims of two things being equal. Liberals say Bush is another Hitler, which is very similar to PETA comparing the killing of Chickens to the holocaust. The two things are on very different moral grounds, and to ignore that moral difference is insensitive, at best.
To make a slippery slope argument is fundamentally different. If (extreme) liberals would have said that the same philosophy that supports Bush would have lead to the support of Hitler, that would have been a completely different thing (I would have disagreed still, but atleast it’s more sensical). And yes, I do believe that it would have been taken more seriously.
It doesn’t seem like good practice to assume commentators aren’t reading articles carefully.
You’re correct, my bad. Sorry.
Hispanicpundit,
Conceptually, I think you’re absolutely correct. My concern is that in the often heated discussions and accusations that occur online and elsewhere the distinction you’re referring to is lost. In a moment of anger, one becomes as good as the other. To put it another way, you can have correctness in theory if I can have correctness in practice.
Anyway, I have no grounds to chastise you about the way you run your board. As long as there is a good discussion, right?
Hey Chris,
Hmmm. Good point. You may be right. In practice, both are sure to provoke anger…but, atleast with proper theory backing you up, you have a right to claim unjustified anger from your opponent.
Anyway, I have no grounds to chastise you about the way you run your board. As long as there is a good discussion, right?
That is primarily what I seek. I don’t want to preach to the choir, I am doing this primarily to learn. If I find out I am wrong I have no qualms with switching my position. I have done it plenty of times in the past.
You, and all liberals, are warmly welcome here anytime. Seriously.
I see this type of behavior in equal portions among those on the Right and Left. I think any form of extremely partisan behavior risks such bias. I prefer to stay away from the simple-minded partisan bickering and I honestly think about the issues at hand. But that’s just me.
I’m curious . . . just so I know what I’m dealing with here: What percentage of Liberals would you say actually believe that Bush is literally equal to Hitler?
What percentage of Liberals would you say actually believe that Bush is literally equal to Hitler?
I would guess a small amount…