July 20, 2006
Questions
I have been thinking about the adverb "objectively."
Because you are opposed to the Iraq War, you are objectively pro-Saddam.
See how that works?
Logically accurate, but potent in our with-us-or-against-us post 9/11 world.
So I ask you...
Is it possible to vehemently disgree with and protest against Palestine Authority's treatment of gay people while at the same time continue to seek a reasonable and sane compromise in the Middle East?
Is it possible to sympathize with Israel's recent actions in the Middle East while at the same time criticize certain aspects of these actions, such as destruction of civilian infrastructre in the south of Lebanon?
Can I agree with half of this post and disagree with the other half?
Can I find both of these women absolutely, unquestionably, insane?
Or do taking these positions objectively make me racist, pro-terrorist, a bigot, anti-semitic, hell-bent?
sex offender madness in minnesota | i hate children | mapping the future of world population | amanda lapore's boob-scars! | craigslist: i need a pleasure slave
One of the oldest rhetorical tropes is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Much of American politics during the past 40 years has been based on this appeal; it's the secret of the Republican hegemony (except that it's not much of a secret).
So, objectively, no, in the real world we occupy today (as opposed to a rational world), it is not possible to take a nuanced stand on an issue. Either you're for me or you're against me: that's all people will hear.
That nonsense is part of Andy Sullivan's rhetorical gobbleygook that he uses whenever anyone has an opinion that might be complicated. This is a guy who has no problem with war--in a "objective" sense--but says that stem-cell research is immoral because those little things the size an amoeba threesom have potential life.
Posted by: ted at July 20, 2006 5:37 PM
