One of my guilty pleasures is lurking around Democratic Underground. I often go there when I need to feel intellectually superior (and my goal is met or exceeded each and every time I go there) or when I need a good laugh - DU is one of the unintentionally funniest sites there is on the web. Post-election, it has gotten even better, because now I can also go there to delight in the fact that the good people of america have rejected their agenda, and that, well, the DUers aren't handling it well. I mean they really aren't handling it well
In a topic called 'An Explanation Of A Vote For Kerry'
, DU reprints a letter making the rounds in which a New Yorker attempts to 'introduce' herself to the red-staters because 'I don't think we know each other'.
Sounds friendly enough!
Ah, but frequent DU readers know that the party line there ABSOLUTELY forbids any language or comments that even hint at accomodation with or comity towards republicans ('repugs' as they call them, short for 'repugnant', I am guessing? Does it get any classier than that?) So my first thought is, when does the required name-calling, invective and muddled thinking start?? Why, the very next paragraph, of course! Whew! And you thought the standards at 'ol DU were beginning to slip!
Our liberal writer states "You think I am some anti-American anarchist because I dislike George W. Bush. You think that I am immoral and anti-family, because I support women's reproductive freedom and gay rights. You think that I am dangerous, and even evil, because I do not abide by your religious beliefs."
Well no, I was thinking that you vote with your emotions and not with your head, and that you are unintentionally dangerous and maybe even evil for that very reason. I am quite sure that I could be wrong about her, but our writer is convinced that if I voted for Bush I must, therefore, be religious (and bigoted, or am I just being redundant here?)
I have neither the time nor space here to elucidate the 1,182 reasons why an atheist-libertarian-pro-choice-anti-death-penalty voter such as myself would choose to vote for Bush over the creeping mediocrity that is the democratic party. The point is, that the writer here makes some very crass assumptions about who the people are that voted for Bush. She must make these assumptions, because in her mind there simply cannot be
any reasons to vote for Bush that do not spring from the blackest, foulest places of the human heart.
But, speaking of the blackest foulest places of the human heart, the capper of this posting is this comment from 'angrydemocrat':
This letter says it all. It is sad and chilling but is is also so true. But I understand what she is saying because I get so angry to even see someone who voted for Bush much less have to speak to them. I try to avoid anyone that I know who voted for Bush because of all the anger and rage it brings out in me. All though I have had many encounters with these people and it ends up being such bitter ugly remarks that almost have come to blows a few times. Including some in my own family. I can't get over how stupid so many people could be. I don't know how to get over the anger to be honest with you I don't know that I can. It is best for me to avoid these people as if they are the enemy. Truth is if you come down to reality they are the enemy or they would have never done what they did.
I just found this appalling, and vile to its core. This person, who claims to be a 'democrat', believes that millions of fellow americans, who love democracy, the constitution and our republic every bit as much as she does, are 'enemies'. For this person, democracy is no longer possible, because the other side is not an opposing party, but an enemy. Do you work with your enemies to make a better world? No, you destroy them. I can only assume that this person would destroy the Bush voters, if she had the power to do so.
This person is either guilty of bad faith, or emotionally unstable. No rational reflective person could arrive at this disturbing place.
7:51 AM |