« Single Issue Voters and the Puritopian Will | Main | My Weekend Amusement »

May 03, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d65569e2016305231448970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Response Concerning The Universalizing Of Single Issue Voting.:

Comments

Turner

This is slightly off-topic and may not be of general interest, but I've come up with a statement of my position on gay rights, including gay marriage, on my campaign website -- it's on the Issues page.

To me, the issue is petty simple. And people who don't like my position on it wouldn't vote for me anyhow.

The website is www.turnerforsenatedistrict36.com.

CharleyCarp

One can fairly claim to be affected by issues that define what kind of society we have, even if we're not physically impacted: I don't have to have been waterboarded to think that the people that waterboarded people ought to be criminally charged for having done so. And to feel 'directly affected' by the stubborn refusal of the President to do that which is within his power to lead our society from what it is to what it ought to be.


Wulfgar

Richard, thanks for the comment. I've added your site to the sidebar.

Charley, you make a good point, one I attempted less well since my focus was on other things. Just because GBLT marriage rights don't affect me materially doesn't mean that the greater issues of equality don't either. My point is that whether or not something affects me materially has nothing to do with what principles I endorse, support and tally for my vote.

My point to the previous post, clarified here, is that no one else has anything but hypocritical will in telling me what that support should be or what it should mean. Probably being slightly meaner than I should be, I categorize those people as little different than Gary Marbut.

larry kurtz

Thank you for that clarification, Rob: it hurts my feelings when people with whom we have mutual respect clash on such emotional issues.

It is this interested party's view that AG Bullock has punted on Montana's wishes in upholding medical cannabis, too, as he compacts his perspective to attract more centrist voters.

Best wishes to you. Please reconcile with those of us drifting farther and farther to the left lane.

Wulfgar

Larry, I'm farther to the left than you may think. That would be the result of a concerted crusade of 'serve my will or be silent' on the part of others who just don't think I agree with them enough.

My time remains incredibly limited, but one thing I do intend to address soon is the ridiculous idea of voting for the 'lesser of two evils'. Just as a tease, doesn't that mean that whoever speaks such drivel is the arbiter of what is "evil"?

There will likely be no reconciliation with the Puritopians. That actually hurts my feelings too. But the blogs have always had a "Stand your Ground" law, and I've no intention of backing off what I think is right. (Okay, so it's not so much a law as it is an innate feature of the venue, born of the first amendment.)

Bullock has punted on next to nothing that Schweitzer hasn't already kicked down the field. But Bullock doesn't have Brian's charisma, so the punting becomes ever more apparent.

lizard

you're a bully, wuffy, who tries to play the victim role whenever possible. you're also very good at labeling people who you have problems with, and you've had a problem with most of the contributors at 4&20 for awhile now.

you usually did not argue in good faith. maybe that's because you are self-defined by your EXCLAMATION MARK!!!

one thing I've learned from interacting with you is how effective the trollish tool of flame-baiting to derail comment threads can be. when I was a newbie who didn't know any better, I played straight into your little games.

no one benefits, though, from that level of discourse.

Wulfgar

Lizard, I don't go to other people's webistes just to tell them how awful they are as human beings. I don't make up fables about how others have threatened me, then tell all my friends so I can look important and sympathetic while trying hard to hide the fact I'd done such a thing. Those would apparently be 'progressive' principles I don't share. So let's just say that you and I have pretty huge disagreement about what being a bully is.

Of course you don't think I 'argue in good faith'. That's because you don't. As I've stated many times, that's the standard Puritopian response to anyone who disagrees with their current outrage.

If there's something I've learned in my interactions with you, 'Lizard' it's the reason why the phrase "reality based community" has fallen out of favor with the self-obsessed champions of apostolic progressivism. His a hint, Liz, no one benefits from crusades divorced from reality. In fact, a lot of people usually end up hurt by such.

lizard

don't put words in my mouth.

I called you a bully. to be specific, you have a bullying online persona. I do not think you are an awful human being. I don't really know you, but I've become very familiar with how you choose to operate online.

I think it's very interesting you assume there is an innate feature of blogs comparable to a "stand your ground" law. does that mean when you feel threatened by other perspectives that challenge your basic political assumptions, you feel justified in virtually shooting them dead?

that makes sense. but it doesn't have to be that way. humans write blogs, and makes comments, and humans have choices. we even get to form our own realities, because Reality doesn't exist, only billions of little subjective realities.

ladybug, now mahmet, recently made this comment at Piece of Mind:

"I don’t share reality. Only one per person, please. Try as one might, sharing another’s gets confusing fast. Be content we all even care about it at all. Rare these days."

I like that. do you like that Rob? or does that come from a commenter you categorize as part of the emoprog blogosphere, or whatever label you're currently using. I don't know. that's part of your reality, which is your choice to make.

so go ahead and keep standing your ground, Rob. you've got valid concerns about the short-term consequences of the political nihilism I sometimes express, and there are still plenty of people who are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy that's blowing up women and children in places like Pakistan and Yemen to make us safe from terrorists.

keep the base where you protect your reality well defended, Rob. these are crazy times. we could all be very wrong about a lot of things.

Wulfgar

You really should learn to use the language, lizard. Being pugnacious is not being a bully. I've never carried a banner of "agree with me or face my wrath". As I've clarified, many many times, that would more be your schtick. As I've also clarified many many times, I have no patience for willful stupidity, nor have I encountered any moral code that demands it, (save Conservatism). That's one of the reasons why people such as yourself react with hostility when I use their own words against what they claim. My behavior online is pugnacious. To claim that you don't think what you just blatantly accused me of? Yeah, that would be willfully stupid.

I think it's very interesting you assume there is an innate feature of blogs comparable to a "stand your ground" law. does that mean when you feel threatened by other perspectives that challenge your basic political assumptions, you feel justified in virtually shooting them dead?

No, Lizard. What it means is that there is no 'blogic' law that says I have to 'play nice'. I rarely, if ever, feel threatened by 'other perspectives', and find it ridiculous when people do. In my little reality, I only feel threatened by others actions or potential actions, not by words on a screen.

"I don’t share reality. Only one per person, please. Try as one might, sharing another’s gets confusing fast. Be content we all even care about it at all. Rare these days."

I like that. do you like that Rob?

Whether I like it or not only matters if it was meant as propaganda and I received it as such. What is pertinent to rational discussion is whether or not I agree with it. I don't. I spent too much time studying Immanuel Kant to believe that subjective reality defines all we can know. I have a great empathy for existential thought and have often called myself a Marxist existentialist. But post-modernist solipsism is anti-biological at best, and a denial of moral responsibility at worst. Are you certain that a debate over ontology is one you want to call?

so go ahead and keep standing your ground, Rob

Why, Thank you. Now that I have your permission, I think I will.

you've got valid concerns about the short-term consequences of the political nihilism I sometimes express, and there are still plenty of people who are willing to hold their nose and vote for the guy that's blowing up women and children in places like Pakistan and Yemen to make us safe from terrorists.

That may be the first time you've ever admitted such, though you had to do so in a 'bullying' manner. After laying out that trope, kindly don't ever tell me again how I argue in 'bad faith'. For the record, I've suggested that many on the left were engaging in political nihilism well before you wrote a post stating such. The Internet didn't begin with your involvement; you get that, right? It may take bringing down the system to get to a result where America is no longer an imperial power. It may also make us slaves to other imperial powers. And more to my concerns, it won't be because of the mewling cries of non-violence coming from 'progressives'. Bringing down 'the system' is revolutionary. I mean that with all it implies. Political nihilism does not have "short term consequences", Lizard. I find myself unsurprised that a) you don't realize that, and b), you've no will to discuss it with one so 'bullying' as me.

these are crazy times. we could all be very wrong about a lot of things.

That might be the first and only thing you and I can agree on.

lizard

political nihilism would include those who don't vote because they don't see the point. that's a hefty part of the population, Rob. and why do you think that is? it's because they see plenty of evidence of voting not really mattering in their lives. politicians quack nice sounding rhetoric for votes, then act in accordance to demands of those who can fan them with the biggest wads of cash. that's the system your practical bludgeon is swinging for.

I perceive you as being a bully, Rob. that's the word I will continue to use to describe you. you can use a different word, but that's your reality. kind of like how you celebrate being IN! YOUR! FACE!

that's very aggressive, Rob, some may even say threatening. but that's how you choose to be seen. a snarling wolf. you didn't choose the picture of a Pug. no, you want your snarl to be big and intimidating.

like I said, when I was a newbie I played in to the tactics I noticed you didn't deny using. I know now to be more weary. luckily this blog stuff doesn't really matter much.

I look forward to you having more time to share your very interesting insights into the minds of those you enjoy snarling at.

meow.

Wulfgar
I perceive you as being a bully, Rob. that's the word I will continue to use to describe you. you can use a different word, but that's your reality. kind of like how you celebrate being IN! YOUR! FACE!

For a poet, you have a piss poor understanding of sarcasm and/or irony, don't you?

political nihilism would include those who don't vote because they don't see the point. that's a hefty part of the population, Rob.

Prove it. You wrote:

According to one definition of nihilism, that means I’m wondering if conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility.

Are those two actually similar? Do either have the efficacy you claim? Do you have anything that states that this kind and degree of public will is possible, or more to the point, desirable? Anything? No? I certainly didn't think so. The ultimately important question is this: What will does your version of nihilism serve? But don't blame me. I voted for Kodos, right?

that's very aggressive, Rob, some may even say threatening

As I wrote, you'd best get a grip.

Wulfgar

And I do notice that the liar who claims I threatened her, as well as the self-important drama queen, send you to do their dirty work. Good on you, Lizard. Oh wait, they didn't send you? You're just dumb enough to accept their lies while claiming I am a bully when you can't show it?

Yeah. Good on you, Lizard. (What a putz.)

lizard

I'd best get a grip? or else what? kinda sounds like a threat.

low voter turn out hurts Democrats, which is why groups like ALEC promote state laws aimed at making voting more difficult.

GOP electoral success will make the social conditions even worse, which may make destruction even more desirable. yeah, I think there's a connection between not voting and political nihilism.

as for your second comment, my choice to engage you here is mine alone. and you're right, it is dirty work, but hey, someone's got to do it.

Wulfgar

No, Lizard, someone doesn't. That seems to be one of the fundamental things about blogs you really don't understand.

I never wrote that there was no connection between not-voting and political nihilism. I have asked, very often in the past and here again, why is your political nihilism desirable? Since you avoid the topic of it's efficacy, let me be blunt: who and how many must be martyred before you get what you want?

lizard

it's a figure of speech, blog master. when you get to talking shit on 4&20, I feel like someone should address your mewing. sometimes that someone is me.

and I've never said my political nihilism is desirable. I lament that at low points that's how I feel.

Wulfgar

Talking shit? Did she lie or did she not? Inquiring minds want to know?

Wulfgar

And you're still avoiding the question":

who and how many must be martyred before you get what you want?

lizard

I'm not getting involved with your spat with j-girl.

as to martyrs, there are already plenty who have died and suffered under the Obama administration.

over a thousand women and children have been killed with drone strikes.

3 US citizens have been killed with drone strikes.

a half dozen whistleblowers have been targeted under the Espionage Act.

over a million immigrants have been booted.

maybe your pragmatic approach to playing the political game will yield a few concessions from the bipartisan consensus that has impoverished this country over 3 decades.

or maybe, despite the good intentions of good people, the trend-lines won't change until the consensus is challenged from a locale outside this two party death grip.

Probably not unless his IQ has dropped a lot Mark Tokarski

Uh No. ~W

Wulfgar

Well, Liz, that's a start.

First, I don't think you understand the word "martyr". The dead you decry are not martyrs to us. They are victims. You may find that a small distinction. It's really not. So let me ask a question, in good faith. Do you seek symbols for a cause you support, or do you seek justice? I would be happy if you would elucidate.

Second, calling my understanding of our representation a 'political game' shows a misunderstanding of what Representative Democracy is all about. I've never considered it a game. I've called you a poor American because you thionk this is play. That you do so does more to explain why your outlook is so grim than it does to explain what I believe or where I come at the issues from. In truth, it's a rather dismissive style of Ad Hominem.

Third, what I've been asking remains unanswered. What makes you think the 'trend-lines' can be changed by challenge from "outside this two party death grip", what form will that take and what will be the consequences of such actions?

Those are honest responses and questions, Lizard. My confidence that you can or will respond to them with honesty remains very low.

lizard

I understand the distinction, and the martyrs being created by the administration only fuel the hatred of America.

but Democrats are too busy being super excited that their president can't be called a wuss (like you called me) because he isn't shy about killing people, even US citizens. ho-hum.

Democrats don't seem very capable of stepping back and asking themselves if drone-killing is actually good policy (hint: it's not). in fact, a drone strike just killed a woman and 4 or 5 kids. does that make us more safe from terrorists, or create more people who hate and despise us for good reason?

the term martyr is hyperbolic; I don't think anyone should have to suffer for an ideology. but I will say that if we as citizens continue to allow the two wings of the war party to operate with impunity, then we will be attacked again, and the global community will not see those who get killed as guiltless victims.

representative democracy? ok, if you say so. the main problem: money.

and what makes me think "trend-lines" can be changed by challenge from outside this two party death grip? it's called history, Rob. like the labor struggles and civil rights struggles that used direct action, boycotts, and civil disobedience to make political gains where cowardly political will barely existed.

that.

Ilikewoods

Sidelining everything but the topic. I really think Gay rights is a civil rights matter.

Some busybody people think, they should define how others want to love each other.... I think it is high time we silence those critics and legally give gays the same rights as others.

Is it a wedge issue? No, not any longer half the country by some polls, and higher in most others say the country is ready for this to end. That gays should be allowed equal privilege. I agree!

Is this the defining issue of the election?
No! No one in their right mind should focus on singular issues, there are so many problems the country needs dealt with now, like Jobs, taxes, healthcare, a crumbling infrastructure, our children's future education.....

But I gotta tell you, the GOP cant seem to walk and chew gum at the same time anymore. This is were ALEC and the KOCH brothers come in and give them issues to rail for!

Republicans have come to that impasse when they cant come together on anything without a corporate sponsor writing the bill! They are so paralyzed by social issues by the Teapublicans, they can no longer move forward.

Watching them tear down one of the last moderates in Richard Lugar today was Painful... but it shows me they have learned nothing in the last two years of sending TP folk to DC. People who represent them have done nothing but gum up the works and say "No".... and yet, two years of getting nothing done hasn't fazed the TP base at all.

We are in this now for the longer haul!

Ilikewoods

By the way my site is up as well!

Http://www.normaduffy.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad