Birdseye wrote:Absolutely ridiculous (not you Lothar, but those who say Bush is "evil"). I'm not a republican, and I'm unlikely to vote for Bush, but it annoys me when people claim he is evil. It's just silly, and erodes their credibility.
Yeah, kind of like Bush calling other whole countries "evil"
Hmm. An excellent example of erasing distinctions, Birdseye. If I might pick on you a moment (no offense, just this is something people do in general that frustrates me...)
You are drawing a parallel between the two--in each case, someone is calling something evil. Superficially, then, it would seem one ought to be as crazy as the other. But take a step back, here, for a moment. Is it always a mistake to call someone or something evil? It actually isn't. People can legitimately be evil, and be called evil. Most would call great villians of history--Hitler, for example--evil, and such a label would be justified. Some would call great villanous organizations in history evil, too--for example, Nazi Germany--and that label would be justified.
The sanity or insanity in calling something evil is in how much the label applies. If I call a man who's stalking and terrorizing a young woman evil, it's justified. If I call my opponent in an internet debate evil, it's just overblown rhetoric. If I call communist Russia evil because of how its people suffered, I have a point. If I call Canada evil because I don't particularly agree with them over the whole gay marriage thing, I'm off my rocker.
Now, you have a superficial connection between people who call Bush evil, and Bush who calls other countries evil. It's clever, because it forces the reader into an assumed dilemma--either calling something evil is crazy, in which case Bush was crazy, or else it's acceptable, in which case those who call Bush crazy are doing something acceptable. The falsehood lies in the fact that calling something evil is neither
always crazy or
always a simple respectable opinion. Instead, it's
sometimes crazy and
sometimes respectable. That is, it isn't an atomic action about which you can make a moral rule. (At least, not for most people).
The annoyance with people who call Bush evil isn't in the sheer fact of "calling something evil." Rather, it's in how out of sync with reality that claim seems. Sure, people don't like Bush. Some people disagree with his policies. But I don't think you have to look very hard to see that he's doing what
he thinks is right. Once you start going down the "stupid, evil, vile, embarrassing..." path, it starts to sound to me like you've lost your grip on reality. Oh, I know the world really does look that way to some people, but it's totally a clash with how it looks to me. I like Bush, and people who chant about how evil he is can't fathom that. So to my eyes, they appear not to be voicing a considered opinion, but rather to be drunk on partisan bitterness or rage or something.
Compare that to Bush calling Iran, North Korea, and Iraq evil. Are they? How do their people live? What are they accomplishing in the world? What does the country as a whole stand for and cause to happen? A judgement on the character of a country--and depending on how democratic the country is, it may really be a judgement on the character of its government--is about what the country works for and accomplishes: how much harm or good it does. I think it's pretty plain that Iraq under Saddam was doing a ton of harm, both to people and the world, when it could manage it. Though some would disagree, I think the label of 'evil' is fairly applied.
Not to get too hung up on the individual points--some people really do think Bush is evil, and some think North Korea isn't so bad. My point is, though, that the insanity (and ensuing reputation damage) in calling something evil isn't in the sheer fact of calling something evil, but rather in how fairly the label applies. When Bush called Iraq evil, people who disagreed would say, "Well... it's bad, yeah, but I don't think bad enough that we should *invade*. Inspections will keep him from getting big weapons to harm the surrounding nations, and if he hurts his own people badly enough, they'll just have an uprising..." On the other hand, when people call Bush evil, those opposing go, "WTF, dude? I understand you don't agree with his policies, but seriously, 'evil'? Get a grip!"
The point isn't just calling something evil--it's how evil the thing really is. To argue that calling North Korea evil is as crazy as calling Bush evil, you have to argue that North Korea has similar moral standing to Bush. I guess that's what you seem to be trying to do, but you get a o_0 from me for that, and I don't know how much sympathy that argument will find in others. The point is, though, that it isn't the simple statement, but rather the *object* of the statement, that is up for discussion. (Again, at least for most people. Tetrad and others who don't perceive evil in tradional ways get a free pass to object to the statement itself. But for the rest of us...)
That was a long off-topic rant, but it is a pet peeve of mine. I hate when people make superficial connections that erase moral distinctions. It's intentionally making yourself and everybody around you stupider, because the world is more favorable to your view when everyone thinks on that level. I don't know how serious you were Birds--it's just a one-liner (though the post you've made while I was writing this seems to indicate you really are serious)--but as a tactic, I really despise that. I cannot abide any argument that abuses the intelligence of the reader, however clever it might be. (And I know you're not just ignorant here--Lothar has explained the 'evil' line to you before, and I *know* you understood what he was saying. Even if you don't agree that North Korea's evil, surely you understand how others might reasonably think so.)
Lothar wrote:I did have a good long argument with my best friend over his considering Kerry a while back (though certainly not the sort of argument we'd stop being friends over -- we've had far bigger fights over video games.) He'd fallen for the "draft" lie that's been going around, and I had to correct him (with many links) and suggest he reconsider his vote. Last I heard, he's now considering Nader. Oh well, that's half a vote for Bush.
Ferno wrote:Just as an offshoot, why did you interfere with your friend's choice on who to vote for Lothar?
Ferno, you almost made me shoot milk out my nose when I read this. Are you serious? You must be, because even this late in the thread you're still talking as though this bothered you. *sigh* I think this is a really silly idea. Here, let me explain.
There are competing values here. One is respect for opposing views, and the other is propagating truth. Both are valuable things, and neither entirely trumps the other. In an argument, total devotion to propagating truth makes a fanatic. It leads constant argument to exhaustion, and loses you friends. On the other hand, total devotion to respect for opposing views paralyzes argument. It leads to sappy, "you have your opinion, I have mine" discussion, in which we both clam up once we've discovered we disagree. Both of those extremes are bad--and indeed, I would say that an extreme respect for opposing views is no respect at all, and an extreme devotion to truth is not in the best interest of spreading truth.
How you judge where to balance the values is your call, of course--that's moral reasoning for you. But I think the most sensible thing to do is to engage in ruthless debate on the facts, engage in gentle dialogue on the interpretation, and allow total respect for other's values. It is appropriate to correct others' facts, and add facts to discussion, and agressively challenge things you think are distortions of facts. It is appropriate to explain the reasoning behind your interpretation of those facts and to gently challenge others' reasoning. And it is appropriate to respect others' views therafter as far as they are reasonable and understandable. A political discussion is part fact, part opinion, and part personal priorities. Agressively attack facts--things like, "There are WMD in Iraq." Fully respect personal values--things like, "I think war is a last-resport option only." Gently discuss interpretation--things like, "I think the non-existence of weapons means Iraq was never a threat." You may choose differently, but I think this makes the most sense in honoring both values.
That's exactly what Lothar described doing--correcting his friend's facts, and respecting his friend's later opinion (that still didn't match his). And yet you criticize this for lack of respect? That sure sounds crazy to me--it sounds to me like Lothar gave respect the weight it deserves, no more and no less. It sounds to me like you would have respect steamroll the whole discussion. Is that really wise?
Civic discourse is the lifeblood of a democracy, just as much so as competition is the lifeblood of a capitalist economy. Ideas need to compete and be argued about, so that the best ones can win--that's the whole idea behind the system. Get everyone talking, get everyone to understand everything, and agree on the facts and analysis--and let them vote on their personal value priorities, because people as a whole aren't going to be corrupt. If you 'respect' everyone so much that you never talk to them, you completely undercut the system: you make a whole bunch of well-meaning sheep with no power over the government because they don't know any more than what they are taught to believe.
I can't believe you really mean that. If I were to apply your own criticisms to you, I hope you'd laugh at me. I might say to you, "Ferno, why aren't you respecting Lothar's right to talk to his friend any way he wants?" and "Did you or did you not present the case for talking about politics? Or did you just present the one for respect?" Would you take me seriously if I said that? I sure hope not.
I hope I've misunderstood you and you have some principled distinctions here. As it stands it sounds to me like hypocracy and stupidity. It sounds like you just don't like the fact that Lothar convinced his friend not to vote for Kerry, and you want to shut him up in the name of respect--even though you won't do the same with him, and you haven't really thought through how much shutting people up in the name of respect kills any dialogue in the interest of seeking truth. Uncharitable as that sounds, that's how you seem. Maybe I'm wrong, though, because that seems awfully silly.
That was another off-topic rant, on another pet peeve: overvaluing a good moral principle. It is good, for example, to respect others' opinions. But when that respect is valued so highly that it starts trampling on respect for truth, others' free speech, or even your own moral actions... time to re-evaluate just how much you value it. Morals are about balancing competing values, not worshipping a single one at the expense of all others.
Aaaaanyway... to be on-topic...
I haven't had any serious breaks with friends or family over politics. I have a sister (and a husband, actually) that doesn't like war very much, while I am totally cool with it under the right circumstances. But my family isn't very political, really, so we don't talk about politics much, and when we do we're pretty gentle about it. Likewise, I'm pretty diplomatic toward the friends I talk to about politics--a necessary thing, really, since as an intelligent person with an attutude like "Bush is my hero" I'm a walking bomb, waiting to start explosive discussion. So I tread carefully, and sometimes avoid discussion entirely--and no, I haven't lost any friends over it.
I do agree that the culture is quite divided and angry. I sure wish it wasn't that way, and I do my best to bring understanding and build bridges wherever I go... but there's only so much I can do. (And only so much I know--politics isn't really something I'm an expert on, though I can fake it pretty well.) Ah well.
I honestly don't know how the landscape will change after the election. The way some people act now, I wonder if they'll just go postal if Bush wins. I hope not, though. I'm actually hoping for the left to re-invent itself and re-discover its more sensible roots, in that case. Maybe I'll get to find out.
. I mean, it's fine if you have a differing political opinion, but having an opinion based on pure hatred of the other candidate? Can we all say "moronic"?
