Suaup

As each day passes I'm more and more interested in the arrogance of pro-war absolutist Conservatives in America. Now, I'm not talking about your normal shifting American who switches between right-wing and left-wing depending on what the trend is, I'm talking about the Rush Limbaugh, FOX News watching pro-war patriots who go to Anti-War protests to harass "liberals." Generally, there's little point in debating them. At recent peace vigils I've Observed both sides from an objective standpoint. Here's a break down of the different groups at a recent anti-war vigil.

Anti-war liberals (80% of the peace crowd): Generally well educated, college graduates. Very well spoken, patient and calm. Showed a willingness to debate anyone who challenged them, shrugged off insults and verbal attacks with a smile, had valid arguments and even criticized the 'dumb liberals' for weak anti-war arguments. Age range 18 - 75

Anti-America liberals (20% of the peace crowd) : Generally college students and younger. Decently well spoken, cited bad sources such as Indymedia or a anti-war flyer with no sources for their arguments, ran off with wild conspiracies, and held up pointless signs such as "My Bush is Better than Bush." This is the anarchist crowd that gives the peace movement a bad name. Age range 15 - 22

On the other side of the street was the Pro-War conservatives. These people could not debate outside of repeating and regurgitating the arguments they heard on FOX, Rush Limbaugh, or directly from President Bush's speech. They had little interest in independent verification, critical thought, legitimate sources, or rational debate. These are normal Americans, fairly successful people, almost none had attended college. In fact, there was a great hostility towards "academics" as a liberal institution. Age range 16 - 40.

Now it's important to say these people don't represent all Pro-War Americans and Conservatives. There are MANY intelligent, highly educated conservatives that support the war and do believe in critical thought. I am just focusing on those who attended this protest.


The vigil itself was interesting. The anti-war people were very peaceful on one side of the road. They stayed on the sidewalk at the intersection holding signs, and engaging in debate with Americans passing by. I spoke with many of them and found the first group was very well educated and intelligent. They regularly took part in debates, and were against the policies of the Bush Administration. They had sources on them to cite their arguments, and were skilled in making their points.

The Pro-Wars were highly racist and unwilling to debate. They had a mega phone and were insulting the anti-war crowd as they walked by. "F-ing Chink, Go back to China you liberal faggot." Anyone who wasn't American was abused with all sorts of racial slurs. People driving by also yelled insults at the anti-war crowd all day. Common insults were "You liberal faggot, GO BACK TO FRANCE."

As the day went on, the anti-war crowd tried to talk with the Pro-War people. One of the conversations went like this..

Anti-War: You're a Christian, so am I. What do you think Jesus would do to the Iraqis?
Pro-War: He'd bomb them.
Anti-War: How can you claim to be a Christi..
Pro-War: Shut up Liberal, You are not a true Christian. Jesus believes in helping those who can't help themselves. Ever hear of an Eye for an eye?
Anti-war: But they haven't done anything..
Pro-War: The people of Iraq have been suffering under evil itself. Jesus supports President Bush who is a true Christian. That's enough for me.
Anti-War: How do you know Jesus supports the President?
Pro-War: Because President Bush is the most important man on this planet, it makes sense that Jesus would talk to him over us.
Anti-War: Here's my bible, show me where it says this.
Pro-War: Go away liberal, you're a whiner. If you hate America so much go live in France.

The debates were like this all day. Eventually the pro-war people did get violent, I was punched in the stomach by one of them for suggesting they wait for independent verification when FOX ran a banner saying a Chemical Weapons plant had been found.

Generally, nothing was accomplished by the peace movement. Some people honked but overall there was a total and complete hostility towards them by normal Americans. I should mention, the police arrested the anti-war protestors for getting hit by the pro-war people on several occasions. That's why I didn't pursue getting punched in the stomach.

There's little point to this but I needed to rant as it's been bothering me lately. It seems the trendy thing to do is to abuse those who dissent against the Bush Administration.

jman0904

Pigboy is an accurate reflection of what's wrong with a lot of America.
As I've said before:
"Fans of Rush Limbaugh use his show much like a drunk person uses a lamp post; Not for illumination, but for support"

Personally I am sickened by all the anti anti-war proponents who do nothing but make wild claims relating to how "The invisible cloud being is on our side!" and "go back to France you liberal homosexual cheese eating idiots!"
When confronted with their own blatent ignorance and lack of factual evidence, the resort verbal and physical assault as if those were acceptable means to proving how right they are.
Of course, half the time they skip the whole "argue/debate" part and get straight to the racial slurs and start swinging.

Sauron

I think you meant "pro-war", not anti-war.

Either that, or you're seriously reversed on the labels and their corresponding positions.

pariah

IMO, the anti-america croud you talked about is just as bad as the redneck pro-war croud. Theyre arguments are often worst, making outrageous claims with no basis (bush worst than hitler), having only one argument against war--and it is loss of human life, and also being quick to violence/insults. The WORST part about them (as a student...I am around the bastards all the time..."ooooh look at me I wear socks on my hands! anarchy!" :banghead: ) they don't even understand how our govt is supposed to work in the first place!!! They want anarchy or socialism, but when asked why, they can't tell you why it would be better than democracy/capitalism!!!


I can't believe a guy punched you! You bitchslapped the mofo right??

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

So you mean that arguments like that fact that we had no evidence to support any claims, that there are worse mass murderers out there, that every one in the world will get pissed off at us are completely untenable?

Riiiiiight.

Malachi151

This is just part of something I wrote to someone in a discussion we were having, but I felt like it would be usefull here too:

We are obviously living a huge culture of cultivated misinformation. I know that the issues at hand are one of education and knowledge, people are simply not honestly informed about the nature of the world and our society and our own history, and I feel like education is the key to everything. Education and understanding is the only thing that brings meaningful lasting results.

Getting people exposed to information and on the same page factually is the most important thing. For example its impossible for me to argue about politics with anyone almost because you can't discuss things with people that they are not aware of, or if they do not accept facts which are critical in forming an opinion. How can anyone discuss something if they are not properly informed on it? They can't, and so if someone like me tries to discuss American foreign policy with an average person its impossible because they are not knowledgeable of enough information, they have only heard one side of the story, and if you tell them the other sides they typically refuse to believe it.

And, it all goes back to what I see as forming worldview frameworks. Most Americans, IMO, especially younger Americans, have no real intellectual framework within which ideas can take shape, and within which facts fit, or which must be adjusted to accept new facts; they have no framework at all, just a vague collection of semi random ideas loosely tied together, and often not tied together at all, which makes people easily manipulated by not having a solid intellectual foundation of their own, and our society cultivates that condition.

Most people do not build a solid framework based on facts where each fact is part of a structure that creates a worldview, and in which no facts can be in contradiction. Most people simply have a loose collection of information in their head like a pile on the floor, and this is what allows people to hold contradicting views, or views that don't really make sense if taken together as a whole, and this is how I think most of our population exists.

Then you have people who do try to construct frameworks, and there are various levels of rigidity to their frameworks, and most often they do so using commonly accepted popular views as their starting point and then build off of that. So in this case you will see something like "The US is a land of the free and the home of the brave" as a start of a framework and then these people only accept information and only expose themselves to information that fits with the foundation. Other information that does not fit is simply discarded as wrong or bad, or insignificant, or just simply ignored. And of course it goes all the way to the extreme, which is religious fundamentalism.

These people are, IMO, the major basis of the conservatives and Republican party in the US.

Unfortunately the people with little or no framework are in many cases who makes up the liberals and Democratic party of the US.

And then there is a third basic type, which is people like myself, who build frameworks based on facts, and have no presuppositions. As such your framework has to be able to constantly change to accept new facts, which can be difficult for some people, having relatively flexible worldviews. These types of people throughout history often end up as dissidents and are typically progressives and would in most cases be seen as liberal also.

The biggest goal here, in my view, is to help shape a legitimate framework in the minds of those people who have none. Those that already have rigid conservative frameworks are somewhat hopeless IMO, but the people to be reached are those that don't have solid views, just a somewhat useless lump of ideas floating around in their head. This actually constitutes a lot of people, most IMO, even very intelligent people can fall into this category including professionals, politicians, etc. Anyone who can simultaneously hold opposing ideas in their head pretty much falls into this category, and that is most people.

jman0904

Double negative there chief.
I did it that way because more often the "pro-war" crowd is nothing but "anti" the the anti-war crowd. Most of the time they don't give a rats ass about the war, other than getting on the hate bandwagon.

Ab_Normal

Just out of curiosity, how were they picking out the non-Americans? Skin color and ethnic background? Were they asking to see green cards and citizenship papers?

Whatta buncha pukes.

jman0904

I think it was more a case of people who didn't fit their "ideal" American image.
I.e, Aryan Race for Hitlerites. Scary, eh?

pariah

Responding to me? No...those claims would be coming from the anti-war croud (which I am a part of...). I was specifically talking about the anarchist anti-american croud he mentioned.