“Riley - you're a ‘pathetic lying pigheaded ignorant bigot’”
The above was a most recent post to me on facebook from someone whom I do not know. The individual was someone I thought I could “converse” with via facebook postings.
It was not to be.
The original posting was a link to an article titled (in FB’s social reader) In Defense of Rush Limbaugh while the original title was “Condemnation of Rush Limbaugh Shows Our Hypocrisy” which I read. I found said article to make a number of valid points, but recommended Mark Steyn’s The Fluke Charade as a companion piece of writing that I found to be more objective.
This suggestion was not well received as the reply to my posting was one where it was stated “Rush had no business make those remarks about Ms Fluke” and then complained Rush's apology to Ms. Fluke was "sandwiched between McCarthyesque smears of her "femmernism" and "node sympathies to gays, lesbians, and -- eewwwww -- transvesterites."
I wondered (in print) what he meant when he said “Rush had no business making those remarks?” After all, if he was referring to Rush’s characterization of Ms. Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” I would agree Rush used poor taste and was out of line – even boorish.
Instead he defended Ms. Fluke as a well-informed third year law student. Then the name calling began when he stated, “the smear campaign really only works for the slenderly-educated cretinous bigots Limbaugh appeals to.”
I had been found out. Rush appeals to me, and for that I was now labeled as a “slenderly-educated cretinous bigot.” Wow.
Since he was a self-identified liberal, I replied I was surprised how long it had taken for the name calling to begin. I know, I know, I shouldn’t have replied that way, but I have often heard how liberals resort to name calling instead of replying with actual facts and arguments that I did not resist plus I was surprised it had taken so long.
I also noted Ms. Fluke “enrolled with the express intent to attack Georgetown's religious views on employer provided health insurance. Among the changes she seeks is coverage of “gender reassignment” surgeries.” Stating these facts turned out to be very offensive. How offensive you ask?
Offensive enough get this reply where the liberal now “take[s] a wild guess – you have “issues” with transgender?? .. that’s a pity ..”
What was I to say? Here is what I said, “You missed the point – in its entirety.”
Have you ever been called “Sherlock” with a negative connotation? I was and then provided with the following question, “when you close your eyes at night, do all the voices in your head keep talking??” Then came an absolutely astonishing remark, “even Iranians are cool with SRS” which is sex reassignment surgery. This was an incredibly naive remark as I discovered when checking to see if he was right.
He was right. Sort of as SRS is “the Iranian government’s “solution for homosexuality.” If “solution for homosexuality” sounds a bit like the “final solution” for Jews to you, you are not far off. There are a “number of stories of Iranian gay men who feel [fear] transitioning is the only way to avoid further persecution, jail and/or execution.” (Source Wikipedia)
Then actual humor set in as he reminded me “NEWS FLASH (from the 21st century: .. the Earth is round ... the Earth revolves around the sun .. ketchup is not a vegetable .. The Pope is not our sovereign king ..” Me? I chose not to reply.
Liberals can be terribly conflicted as when they name call, but try not to at the same time as his next comment reflected his conflict. “Riley -- the question is not whether you're an ignorant bigot .. the question is simply whether you can use that information for positive personal growth .. i'm rooting for you .. break the chains that bind and free your mind, instead ..”
Since I stuck to my guns he has quit rooting for me and I remaine in his mind an ignorant bigot.
This is what it is like to converse with many liberals – not all. But little if anything is done to restrain those like “my name caller” herein.
I decided to fight back (gently) and posted two links, both from Don Colacho’s Aphorisms. The first was number 2,962 “Unlimited gullibility is required to be able to believe that any social condition can be improved in any other way than slowly, gradually, and involuntarily.” I assume that did not set well with a liberal who wants things changed NOW. The second, number 115, went this way, “The prejudices of other ages are incomprehensible to us when our own blind us.”
I admit it. I am a Don Colacho fan and am certainly aware that I have my own blind spots and I appreciate Colacho’s aphorisms almost always coupled with his faith.
Of course the liberal fully understood (not) both aphorisms and asked, “which one of those quotes would rationalize your championing Limbaugh's contempt for women, or do you need to turn to the Pope for that level of inspiration??”
To be clear (again) Limbaugh’s remarks were not appropriate when he called Ms. Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute,” but Rush’s comments do not compare with “comments from the misogynistic left that cannot be reprinted here and non-apologies from the same. I have actually read what has been said on both sides and their is no comparison.” That was pretty much my reply – including the misspelling – in defense of Rush. Also said that “while I admire many of the Catholic faith, I am not Catholic” and wondered where he got such an idea.
I should not have asked because I got an answer - another one of those answers.
“I just assumed you were pimpin for The Pope or at least his bishops on the no contraception nonsense .. not sure whether the Pope is a bigot about LGBT (i haven't really looked into that) .. i suppose that bigotry may simply be borne of good old-fashioned medieval ignorance ..” Notice the bigotry he has assigned to me is now coupled with ignorance.
Then we had a welcome interlude (from my perspective) when an independent more reasonable liberal interjected, “Way too much name calling, and personal byplay.”
He got shut down in a hurry. There was no attempt at reasonableness, instead there was this, “bigotry is ignorant by definition .. if Rush thinks that entitles him to demonize feminism and the LGBT community and Riley thinks that entitles him to defend Rush, it doesn't make the bigotry any less ignorant and i make no apologies whatsoever for pointing that out ..”
Then, while pointing out he has not suggested I nor Limbaugh should be denied equal protection under the law goes on and on about our ignorant bigotry. (I wondered how long that will last.) Of course this is while noting our bigotry comes from “deny[ing] legitimate healthcare benefits for women (and legaliz[ing] discrimination against the LGBT community).” It just never ends.
Our independent liberal had also asked the reasonable question about women’s views on the issues at hand which I took to be about the government telling businesses and institutions what and how healthcare insurance should be delivered. After stating why, imho, I thought Sandra Fluke to be a liar, I provided a link here about Obama’s drop in popularity which also showed a poll on the birth control debate.
Surprise – the majority of women in this country do not support Obama’s mandated healthcare and this is especially so for religious hospitals and institutions.
Also replied, “once the name calling begins, it only continues as [the liberal] is now calling me an "ignorant bigot" ... while stating deliberate falsehoods” about my position and repeated my conclusion that Ms. Fluke is a liar. I also provided a link here on why I believe Ms. Fluke is a liar.
This resulted in a question with a predetermined result where I was described as a pathological liar because I believe Mr. Fluke lied. He did this by asking, “what do you suppose the probability is that either (a) Ms Fluke lied to congress or (b) you and the conservative echo chamber seeking to discredit Ms Fluke are pathological liars?” Of course he takes this position because he is “a realist (vs. delusional).” Why he felt he had to state that after posing his self-evident (in his mind) question is beyond me.
Of course he mentions at length (MUCH IN CAPS) my (not his) obsession with “gender reassignment” and concludes I am a “lying pigheaded ignorant bigot” noting “the list of descriptors is a little longer here, as i have more information to work with now.” I have to admit it. I laughed – out loud – at that last, as I found it very humorous.
Of course he also somehow equated the New York Times poll, mentioned above, to a conservative poll and stated “i could care less whether a majority supports slavery .. it would still be wrong” when it was a majority of women in the United States that rejected Obama’s contraception mandates.
I decided on one more post and to then let him have the last word. He was not listening or reading with comprehension anyway - he is a true believer (see Eric Hoffer).
In my last post I made the point Ms. Fluke had not given sworn testimony, as he had posited, to a Congressional hearing. Instead she spoke to a panel of only democrats in a setting meant to appear as if it were a Congressional hearing. It was not. I also stated I still find Ms. Flukes stories to ring false.
I made the point I did not understand why he thought I was obsessed by gender reassignment issues as I had not discussed it. I thought he appeared obsessed with the issue – in some Goodwin Law version of his own making.
I ended with, “Cheers & Many Blessings.”
Recall my earlier, much earlier, comment when I noted, “Ms. Fluke “enrolled with the express intent to attack Georgetown's religious views on employer provided health insurance. Among the changes she seeks is coverage of “gender reassignment” surgeries.” He remembered. And that he considers obsessive somehow.
For not realizing that was obsessive somehow to him, he ends with the following for me, “Riley - you're a "pathetic lying pigheaded ignorant bigot."
For Rush, “i give him 3 weeks” for his show to last.
Gosh, that really hurt. Not. But it is all incredibly sad.
In reality, I should have simply spent more time in my Bible and chess studies and walking with my bride.