Tuesday, December 31, 2013

SADDEST TRUEST CONSERVATIVE COMMENT EVER?


I don't often report on off site interaction with RWNJs. I've done a little lately as it seems to have reached a new peak, or nadir I suppose would be a more appropriate word, for truly bewildering stupidity and hate. I hope this is kosher. If not, I'm sure someone will let me know. There is a larger reason for posting this tale of futility of course.
At the end of a very long and typically unproductive Facebook 'conversation' during which all I did was ask a simple question over and over I received the response quoted below. (no scrolling down! spoilers! you must read the setup first.)
The long thread was in response a the posting of the Carl Sagan clip where he warns of 'charlatans, religious or political' taking advantage of anti-science attitudes to take and abuse power.
Ironically the Upworthy posting of the clip had been shared by an Ayn Rand worshiping former roommate of mine calling him 'prophetic' about a charlatan coming along.
http://www.upworthy.com/...
Knowing he thought Ayn Rand and her pseudo-science (which is exactly the kind of thing Sagan is warning about) so brilliant and intelligent and finding his posting the clip both funny and outrageously ironic (and knowing already the answer) I asked who he thought the 'charlatan' was. He never answered his own post.
However, one friend of his jumped in and repeatedly told me to 'fuck off' as I repeatedly asked him to tell me who he thought it was. He also repeatedly told others who showed up not to talk to me, 'he's one of them.' He went from that level of 'civility' to saying things like 'I'm too busy right now giving your old lady anal to answer. This is a man of my own age, 60 years old. A successful business man according to his Facebook page.
It was unlike any other RW responses I ever experienced. It took on a surreal quality, as it continued on and on. The stonewalling was a new and perplexing phenomenon, not the curses and hatred although that went to new levels of absurdity.
They are usually more than eager to regurgitate the RW talking points.
Please realize I'd said nothing at all yet of my own views. Nor attacked any of them or their views which they hadn't dared share yet.
Finally one seemingly nice and reasonable man was at least willing to talk, while the friend I mentioned before literally 'begged' him not to engage with me.
He volunteered somewhat proudly, that the 'charlatan' was, obviously, and as I already knew they'd say, Barack Obama.
Then he asked me who I thought 'he' was.
I thanked him for finally offering his answer, and answered with a list of possibilities, suggesting the usual suspects.
Ted Cruz? Sarah Palin? Jim Inhofe? Louie Gohmert? Paul Ryan? The Koch Brothers? So many to choose from...Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Bryan Fischer, James Dobson? so many charlatans conning the uneducated and uninformed...
Of all of them IMHO Limbaugh would be the biggest, most powerful, most blatant, and most dangerous, he has the biggest following and tells the most outrageous lies, and they all believe him without question or 'healthy skepticism.' Actually so proud of their knee-jerk unquestioning acceptance of his pronouncements that they call themselves 'ditto-heads.' Even the political and religious charlatans mentioned have to pay homage to him and can't cross him without paying a stiff price.
The so called "Religious Right" itself is a very clear example of what Sagan is talking about. A mass of people refusing any scientific knowledge or facts, without any skepticism at all, in fact denigrating it, instead elevating 'faith' and 'beliefs' above critical thinking or even observation of quantifiable reality, and relying solely on their leaders guidance to tell them how to vote. A recipe for disaster in a 'free' country.
That is the entire and full extent of my answer or 'rant.'
His responses:
(to the others in the thread who'd I'd blocked after the abuse reached intolerable levels)
Stan was off the charts. I read his rants and really didn't know half of what he was ranting about. Guys like that throw around many words to try to impress the reader. ZZZZZZ!
and then to me:
Stan, you might be a nice guy but I do not intend on trying to read your rants to figure out your beliefs and forecasts unless you condense it into a short sentence or two without all the fluff.
How do you respond to that? To someone basically admitting to you that they are too stupid, too slow and dim-witted, and too incurious to bother to try and figure out what you said?
Can I make it simpler? Am I too pointy headed to communicate at his level? I don't know. I'm just stunned. Just sitting here stunned and feeling hopeless once again.

TAGS

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)