Cry Me a River
I cannot bear it when people will not stand behind their convictions. Seriously, I have more respect for the Westborough Baptist Church than I do for some pussy-footer who quakes at the very thought of backing up his or her opinion. Shit, even if they ain’t got facts they can at least have irrational prejudice. They just need to OWN that irrational prejudice instead of pretending it is something it's not. I’ll still tear a strip off their ass, but I will at least see them as vertebrates and give them kudos for that.
Thus, I come to that dreaded wee beastie – the Far Right Whinger (FRW).
The FRW is the person who mistakes the first amendment as a “freedom from consequences” clause in the constitution. They don’t understand that they cannot be put in jail for hate-speech, but the rest of us can call them twatwaffles to our hearts content when they do it. They see criticism of any stripe as “oppression” and resistance to their separatist/racist/sexist rhetoric as “intolerance”. Then there are the billionaires, like the Koch brothers, who are getting their nipples in all kind of a twist over the fact the obscene amounts of money they dump into the political system isn’t being kept secret from the rabble. The Koch brothers want to know why they cannot buy a politician anymore without all this fuss. They are upset that the word is on the street because it means the peons are less likely to vote for the candidates the Koch brothers want them to vote for. Who gave these poor people voting rights, anyway?
The worst part is that the FRWs want the facts about their own political beliefs to be ignored if it “sounds bad”. Not just “stop using pejorative adjectives I see what you are doing there” (that would be a valid argument); they don’t want the truth told in clear langue if clear language makes them look like a big ol’ pile of douchenozzles. They don’t want to change their opinion; they want you to pretend their opinion isn’t based on bullshit.
For example, a text book on social work had the audacity to tell the truth about presidential policies and to explain a very famous sociological theory on classism. The textbook said, “Reagan…ascribed to women ‘primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency”. Worse, when describing the difference between liberal and conservative viewpoints the book mentioned that conservatives “‘tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity.’”
First, FRW patron saint Ronald Ragan was not a strong advocate for women, agreed with the Eagle Forum that domestic life was inherent and natural in most women, and his appointees were indeed a sausage fest with very few women to be found amongst them. Thus, the textbook is telling what us academic types like to call the truth. Secondly, it is a well know via multiple studies in multiple disciplines that conservatives see the word and human nature negatively while liberals view humanity as essentially decent with a few bad apples that should not be used to spoil the bunch. This is why conservatives call liberals “bleeding-hearts” and “do-gooder” in such sneering tones, and why liberals call conservatives “greedy” and “heartless” with such earnest indignation. Again, we are faced with a textbook reiterating something that is true.
Moreover, as Wonkette was good enough to point out:
“Heaven knows, we have never seen a Fox News report that suggested that people are essentially lazy or corrupt — except of course, every time Fox discusses food stamp recipients. And how could anyone think that conservatives take a pessimistic view of human nature, unless of course they read conservative Christian textbooks that emphasize “man’s sin nature” and the impossibility of human reason to ever make the world better?”
What the conservatives needed to do is OWN their viewpoint. They should have said, “there was a limited pool of female candidates in Regan’s era and he would not promote just to prove a lack of sexism”. They should have dug their heels in and maintained that humans ARE essentially bastards and sited a few hundred news stories to back them up. It is not hard to find incidents of human beings being utter asshats, you know.
Instead, the FRWs threw a temper tantrum over the textbook. A lay down on the floor and kick your heels hissy fit “about how conservatives, despite their belief in being rugged individuals, are in fact the greatest victims of all at liberal colleges.” Yes, they are victimized with facts. Facts have a well-known liberal bias, just like reality.
The FRWs at Fox News also lost their collective shit over the fact the book talked about Herbert J. Gans and his famous sociological theory that the rich like having a poor underclass to do the crap-work for them. The Fox News team didn’t challenge the theory as much as they yelped and yawped about the fact it was in a textbook about social work and while the professor did not teach it, the professor did not denounce it in class. If you provide theories and don’t denounce things that imply the rich can collectively be dickbags, you are clearly oppressing conservatives. Wonkette noticed this oppression; there wasn’t even a single solitary chapter on “Social Work and Services for Butthurt Conservatives”.
Poor widdle conservatives, accused of having a conservative political ideology. *sniffle*