Typical Right Wing Lies and Propaganda

[Guest guest]

These points are wrong, and wrong-minded. They are typical conformist

right-wing coercion. If " liberals " preach to the choir, what do

" conservatives " do?

 

To make that distinction demonstrates that this is nothing but bull

right off the bat. Singling out " liberals " is the lie.

 

Look at the obvious right-wing smear and sneer in the phrases " individual

behavior, free from guilt " . What in the living hell are they talking

about? Sounds to me like encoded xtian fundy accusation of sin.

 

The third point ends in a non-word. I presume they meant epiphany but the

fact that they are sub-literate about saying so underscores their

bible-thumping edumacation.

 

Now think about it -- if we don't tell EVERYONE that meat is bad for us,

how will anyone ever find out?

 

 

On Friday, November 7, 2003, at 07:24 AM,

wrote:

 

> Message: 10

> Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:38:59 -0000

> " dave " <dave4sale

> Liberal activism

>

> I was reading an article for class by a socilogist named Robert

> Merton who said that there were three big fallacies among many

> liberals (he was talking specifically about civil rights activists,

> but it can be applied generally to all liberal activists-

> environmentalists, feminists, animal rights, etc.) which limit their

> effectiveness in reducing prejudice/discrimination:

>

> (1) They tend to preach to the choir most of the time and seek like-

> minded people for mutual support.

> (2) Their continued association with like-minded liberals produces

> the illusion that their views are the consensus of our community at

> large.

> (3) They are content with our individual behavior, free from guilt,

> and thus see no need to do anything to fix society. It as if they

> feel that each individual must realize the error of their ways

> through personal aphiny.

>

> I was just wondering if members of this group think these claims are

> generally true (and if so have any suggestions to help deal with

> them). I think that he was at least partly right. yet if we go

> around telling people meat is bad... just look what usually happens.

> Even people who claim a love for animals but still eat meat become

> enraged.

>

The lights of stars that were extinguished ages ago still reach us. So it

is

with great men who died centuries ago, but still reach us with the

radiation of their personalities.

-Kahlil Gibran, poet and artist (1883-1931)

[Guest guest]

I agree completely, I typed that post in a hurry so I didn't

proofread it or really think about it. I think I portrayed this

theorist wrong however, or rather took what he said out of context...

because supposedly he is a liberal and is just criticizing his fellow

liberals.. the rest of his essay is fully in favor of civil rights.

But, anyway, yeah i think we have a civic duty to at least tell

people meat is bad for them.

 

, The Stewarts <stews9@c...>

wrote:

> These points are wrong, and wrong-minded. They are typical

conformist

> right-wing coercion. If " liberals " preach to the choir, what do

> " conservatives " do?

>

> To make that distinction demonstrates that this is nothing but bull

> right off the bat. Singling out " liberals " is the lie.

>

> Look at the obvious right-wing smear and sneer in the

phrases " individual

> behavior, free from guilt " . What in the living hell are they

talking

> about? Sounds to me like encoded xtian fundy accusation of sin.

>

> The third point ends in a non-word. I presume they meant epiphany

but the

> fact that they are sub-literate about saying so underscores their

> bible-thumping edumacation.

>

> Now think about it -- if we don't tell EVERYONE that meat is bad

for us,

> how will anyone ever find out?

 

>