Because, in the eyes of too many people across the spectrum, it comes down to the following dichotomy.
Either or, folks!
EITHER OR!
Must I choose?
Why?
Because activists on both “sides” want me to? Sorry, but that’s not enough.
Why I still hate the culture war
by
Tags:
Comments
21 responses to “Why I still hate the culture war”
Sarah (trailor court trash) palin is right its a free country the government can’t stop most people(but not all) from saying what they think! Ignorant southern white trash has that right too! What you don’t have is freedom from consequences from non government ask phil donahue keith oberman matin basher or radio talk show host mike malloy about that!
I don’t mind being asked to choose. I don’t mind being encouraged to choose.
What I oppose is being Forced to choose.
…because the Left does not recognize any fundamental right to be let alone. You’ll be forced to choose until you learn to choose correctly. Happy future!
Unfortunately we do have to choose.
I choose the guy on the right. He doesn’t want to be my nanny, he isn’t trying to make me into a feudal serf, and he has actually worked for a living. And if I decide to ignore him completely, I won’t incur a massive tax penalties or worse.
It is a false dichotomy. Most people are not like either of these media characters, and it is a gross oversimplification to demand (as many activists want) that people identify or side with with one or the other. Might as well demand that I “choose” between Michael Moore and Roy Moore.
It’s condescending to the point of disgusting.
I will say this, though. At least Phil Robertson is an actual person. The guy on the left is fictional: an actor whose name and/or actual philosophy I am unable to determine. Great “choice.”
This is all ginned up media manipulation, and I think people are being had. I refuse to buy into it simply because some self-important mouthpiece says I have to.
Eric, I think I understand your point of false dichotomy, but I also still see an important distinction between the two. One is expressing views that many others find objectionable (What is new here?) and the other is pushing government programs (forcing with power) that citizens find objectionable, but objectionable not only because they don’t like the programs but because the programs attack individual freedom, a founding principle, in favor of utilitarian concepts diminishing individual freedom and enshrining egalitarianism.
Don’t choose but don’t pretend there is no difference.
I have no problem analyzing ideologies, and I am less threatened by an opinion I disagree with than by Obamacare. Except I don’t think that’s what those demanding a choice mean.
In logic I should not have to choose something I don’t like, simply because something else is worse. Why are they posited as “alternatives” in the first place?
Come on. Religious anti-gay ideology or Obamacare? That’s not a logical choice at all. The issues are not related.
The problem is, people seem to want them to be related.
Might as well demand I “choose” between criminalized abortion and gun control.
BTW, the guy also said blacks were happy under segregation, and he had just as much right to say that.
It is important not to confuse the right to say something with agreeing with it. Another reason I am not comfortable being told I have to “choose” between Robertson and a fictional Obamacare supporter.
The whole thing strikes me as crazy.
I remember when a 21st Century philosopher was suggesting the wisdom of concentrating on the big issue of ObamaCare and not get diverted into less important side issues. I hope whiplash is covered under ObamaCare.
Obama is a fan of Duck Dynasty.
http://blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2013/12/20/president-obama-watches-duck-dynasty.aspx
I have never watched the show.
This sure is getting to be an interesting “choice.”
>Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”<
Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o42mdDox
Culture war: Ethan Krupp wears plaid and performs in an ad in an attempt by the government to get twenty somethings to behave in a certain way.
Phil Robertson, who plays himself on a cable TV reality show, expresses his own opinion on a subject. The government doesn’t pay any money for him to do so.
Thanks for the information about Krupp, Gringo!
I know appearances can be deceiving, but in my long life I have seen more Republicans who look like Krupp than I have Republicans who look like Robertson.
I don’t see either one as much of a poster boy for the causes they are said to represent.
[…] there’s the other member of the dichotomy. Turns out (thanks to commenter Gringo) that his name is Ethan Krupp. Here’s a video of the paid government stooge, promoting […]
From Daily Pundit
http://www.dailypundit.com/?p=80360
I’ll widen the available choices.
Drug war. Abortion. Gun control.
Where I get screwed (talk about sexual immorality) is that no electorally viable party really wants smaller government.
From Frank’s link:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s403x403/1521290_10151859893925954_2083787935_n.jpg
[…] Bill Quick and CV commenter Frank Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]
But that’s not the choice, Eric, and when you make it so, you just muddy your own thinking because, as you note, that choice doesn’t make any sense.
The choice here, as it is in most places across the great ideological divides of the third millenium, it between liberty and tyranny. In this case Robertson’s message isn’t at issue, it is his liberty to express it. And The Obamacare Spokesdroids represents a tyrannical government that can force you to buy stuff you don’t want or need.
I disagree with Robertson’s take on things, but he still represents the side I would support – liberty – over the tyranny I would, and do, not support.
Although if you put Phil Robertson in the White House, we might find him assaulting liberty just as vigorously as Barack Obama does – but from a different ideological perspective.
Bill, I am sure you know that I also think the choice is between liberty and tyranny. I just don’t see how this pair is the “choice” the country faces right now. I had barely heard of either of them before this week, and all of a sudden, I’m told they are profoundly reflective of the two Americas. All I know about Robertson is that he was fired for scolding the homos, and I defended his right to do that repeatedly. That does not mean I agree with him, and as to making him a poster boy for liberty, again, being anti-gay does not compute on that level. Plus, I don’t like people telling me that I have to “choose” one of these people as the America I want. Screw that. (Your contrast between Robertson and Ahmadinejad is far more apropropriate.)
Choice is an illusion!