Well, This Is Sad

Richard Floyd and David Fowler are confused about why their violent, vile bigoted rhetoric is being met with hostility. Fowler actually says, “The unfortunate thing in our culture is that we’re getting to the point where oftentimes we can’t say anything without it becoming uncivil and getting off the merits of the discussion.”

Fowler, everything you say is uncivil and little of it has any merit.

It’s high time everyone just treated you like this was so, rather than playing nice hoping that you’d treat them nicely in return.

Honestly, it’s Floyd and Fowler who make you realize just how revolutionary something like “Treat others as you’d like to be treated” is. These dumb jackasses are literally braying in alarm that they’re actually being treated how they treat everyone else.

Did they think that Jesus just issued that dictate for fun?

Hint: No.

It’s basically a law of human nature that people will treat you how they see you can be treated. And one of the ways they learn how you think you can be treated is to see how you treat others. Run around talking shit about everyone you think you’re better than and eventually the people who think they’re better than you are going to talk some shit about you.



7 thoughts on “Well, This Is Sad

  1. This reminds me of something I read in Corey Burke’s “The Reactionary Mind” about Antonin Scalia. If I’m paraphrasing somewhat accurately, Robin submits that an unrepentant, reactionary asshole like Scalia only gets away with his schtick because of the liberal tendency to grant a respectful hearing to all views, even ones that are apparently false or deliberately disingenuous.

    I hear this kind of shit fairly regularly at my workplace; you have these right-wing reactionary knuckleheads who’ve for so long been cashing their liberal socialist paychecks (and enjoying the liberal socialist bennies) and complaining for just as long about the nigger-loving liberal pinko world they’re forced to live in. Part of why they keep on whining and carping is because they’re rarely challenged on their bullshit. I’ve seen how fast they retreat when they are challenged. It’s actually quite fun to do so.

  2. This is basically just another manifestation of what I talked about in yesterday’s angry Republican post. Really it’s just a reflection of conservative anger at having lost the culture wars. Hey David Fowler: You lost. You can’t say mean stuff about people who are different from you and not have it strike a wrong chord. Maybe you could do that 50 years ago but you can’t do it now. No, not even here in the South. Especially not here. So just zip it. Call it political correctness or the gay agenda or secular values or whatever you want but the reality is, American culture has changed and you and your small cluster of defenders got left behind. Sucks to be you.

    I always find it funny that people like this scream “free speech! free speech!” whenever they get criticized for the hateful things that come out of their mouths. They don’t even know what it means. Richard Floyd says he wants to “stomp a mudhole” in a person and he’s not thrown in the gulag for it, he’s out there walking around uttering his nonsense as a free man. But he IS getting criticized for it. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.

  3. Sam! I’m glad to see you back around.

    And, on the one hand, I completely agree with what you’re saying and that these jackasses do get away with their schtick because they are never called on it by people they respect and rarely called on it by people they don’t.

    But I think the problem is not easily boiled down to a “liberal tendency” because, from my perspective, it appears that this problem permeates our culture, even among the vast majority of us who are not really political.

    Having suffered through many, many feminist blog wars and having considered “whiteness” as a thing–I have to say that I am actually leaning toward believing that this is a way whiteness as an ethnicity works.

    We are socialized to believe that silence is only politeness and that it can also be and is read as disapproval that’s not going to be a problem. “Well, i don’t like it, but fine.”

    To back up a little, it gets back for me, to the idea that being white in our society is to be trained to believe that someone like you should always be leading the parade. Yes, gender and age play into it. If there’s a white man to lead the parade, white women will fall into the second line. But if there’s no white man to play grand marshal, white women are trained to go stick ourselves up at the head of whatever.

    Seriously, look at how many blog fights can be boiled down to a white person floundering saying “Just tell me where you want me to lead the group! I’m open. I’m listening.” while other people (of all ethnicities and genders) say “Get out of the way and let someone else up front” and the disconnect that happens because the white person cannot imagine not being at front.

    And a whole lot of the rest of us are trained–not to lead unless there’s no better white person to do it, but not to challenge the idea that a white guy should be up front.

    If a person can’t see that that’s how she’s been socialized, it can be very difficult to even begin to address it.

    And these guys–whiteness isn’t a thing for them. It’s just the default. It’s the neutral to which everyone should aspire if they want to be “real Americans.”

    This means they’ve surrounded themselves with trusted friends who also believe some white guy should be shouting the orders. So, any dissent that comes from within is usually read not as “I need to think about what I’m doing” but as a challenge to their leadership by someone else who wants it.

    And dissent that comes from without–“you have no right to be bossing”–is perceived as craziness. Of course he has a right to be bossing. That’s his birthright.

    And yes, sometimes that maps onto political leanings, but I’d argue that it’s wider-spread than that and it’s sure easy enough for people of all political persuasions (and none) to get caught up in it.

  4. I just can’t get past his saying, “I never said anything about violence.” It’s just so demonstrably untrue, I can only shake my head.

  5. I’m with RachelW. And to follow it up with “I just said what I would personally do” indicates that he even knows specifically what statement people are calling violent.

    All the rest of what is being said here is true, but I am just perplexed how somebody can sit there and say ‘I never said that thing I said, I just said that thing I said and I meant it!’ It’s mind-boggling.

  6. He’s just using John Ragan’s premises: I haven’t actually stomped anyone, just thought about it, but thinking about it doesn’t count, and therefor I am not really a stomping sort of person. And since I’m not a stomping sort of person, what I said was just rhetorical and hyperbolic and not to be taken seriously. So I wasn’t really talking about violence, because I haven’t actually (yet) been violent.

    See, doublethink is easy!

  7. I think nm’s interpretation is probably mostly right, but I think there’s probably also an element of “violence? how can it be violence when we’re talking about sub-humans? ‘Stomping’ a deviant is just pest control.”

Comments are closed.