« Voting One's Conscience | Main Page | Gang Violence as Terrorism »

March 14, 2004
Projection At Its Best

A number of pundits--most recently and often Dave Neiwert--have pointed out the propensity many on the extreme right have for "projection"--accusing their opponents of things of which they themselves are guilty. It is a special flavor of hypocrisy that seems particularly prevalent in people like Rush Limbaugh, but this odious trait is not unique to the right.

Today, however, I was treated to an amazing display of projection over at Spatula City. In his first post on Friday, Spatula took a question from Bob Blount which asked:

It's been my experience over the past 20 years, in talking politics/philosophy with a LOT of people, that conservatives are at least 500 times more willing to accept reasoned disagreement than libs are. In other words, if there's something you and I disagree on, what happens is that sometimes we discuss it, sometimes we don't, but every time we either explicitly or implicitly agree to disagree, we both celebrate the fact that we live in a country where that's possible, and we move on to the next issue.

With libs, that almost NEVER happens. I'm having trouble thinking of even one example where I gave a lib my reasoned disagreement, and he gave me reasoned disagreement back. Instead, what I get back is exactly what we've learned to expect from libs: Hostility, hatred, intolerance, insults as to my motives, etc.

Conservatives seem to have no trouble with the very Jeffersonian idea that someone can disagree with you, and he can still be a good person with good motives who simply has reached different conclusions about a specific topic. To libs, OTOH, that sentence seems to be utterly inconceivable - and I chose that word with care because that's exactly what it is, they literally CANNOT conceive of it, the concept is unable to enter their consciousness.

So my question is the obvious one: Assuming that you've observed the same thing, why do you think that happens? I know what Sowell has written about it, and I know what I think about it, but I'd really like to know what YOU think about it.

Spatula then threw the question open to his readers, who opined in ways various and sundry about just why liberals are incapable of civil disagreement--of disagreeing with someone without demonizing them or impugning their motives. After reading through the 25+ comments there, I was struck by the similarities many of the theories shared with the opinions many of the left have of the right. You could've taken almost the entire comments thread, swapped "left" with "right" and "conservative" with "liberal", and it would've fit right in on Billmon or Alternet.

Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy in asking why liberals can't civilly disagree and insist on insulting and impugning the motivations of their opponents, and answering the question by insulting and impugning the motivations of liberals? Is this another case of right-wing projection, or did they really just not think this through?

Apparently Spatula didn't see the irony either, because he posted his answer today, and it simply must be read to be believed:

Satan has been called many things over the course of time: Father of Lies, Lord of Flies, the Ruler of this world, the Prince and Power of the Air, etc.

What he really is, though - besides a master of deception - is the ultimate hatemonger. Satan hates God, and all of his creations as well, and wants to see them all destroyed. And he is an expert at using his powers of influence to get the unwary to do just that - destroy God's creations...all people in general, and the Christians he despises in particular. And liberals who simply don't know any better are easily swayed to hatred by this old serpent, not really having any moral foundation against which to steel themselves. [...]

Thus (and here's where I come back around to the main point), when liberals look at Christians (and conservatives who generally line up with them), they see what Satan sees when he looks at Christ - the enemy. An enemy to be hated, despised, screamed at, spit on, bitch-slapped...you name it. Anything Satan can do to destroy Christians and the things in which they believe (as well as the other, non-Christian conservatives who generally agree with them), he'll do. That's why most of the time, libs and conservatives can't get along.

Shorter Spatula: liberals are incapable of civil and rational debate with those they disagree with, but that's only because they're pawns of Satan.

....

Right.

Not long ago, a conservative Christian read my blog and wrote to me to point out that not all conservatives and Christians are misguided, stupid, or evil. I was a bit puzzled by this, because I don't think they are, nor do I recall ever saying that. I appreciated the reminder in any case, as it's always nice to hear from people on the other side of the fence who are sane and rational--and I'd like to offer Spatula a similar reminder.

But I'm not sure it'll do any good. As far as I'm concerned, if someone truly believes that liberals are under the influence of mythical creatures who plot the destruction of humanity, I'm not sure there's much room to find common ground.

Posted by Catsy at 04:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Comments:

Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy in asking why liberals can't civilly disagree and insist on insulting and impugning the motivations of their opponents, and answering the question by insulting and impugning the motivations of liberals?


Does anyone else see that you were given the chance to back up your bullshit with evidence in the form of a link, and you refused, citing the lamest excuse in all of creation as your reason?

Grow up, dipshit.

Posted by: Lord Spatula I, K&T at March 17, 2004 11:45 AM

Umm...Lord Spatula, how is that not an insulting interrogative statement? It seems to me that if you're going to make an argument, you can leave the insults and epithets out of it, and make your statement that much stronger in the process.

The neatest piece of work I've ever read, pointing out every flaw in someone's actions was a piece that made every orifice in my body constrict. There was no profanity in this piece of work, nor was there any insulting, just true statements of fact. I suggest you try this method, as calling someone a 'dipshit' and maligning them isn't effective. It's a detraction from any possible validity of your own arguments.

Posted by: bayushi at March 17, 2004 03:16 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?