YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD IT FUCKING WHERE?

[roadrunnertwice]

Via alicublog, I find, through a post on a local blog that just got overrun by that disingenuous coward Lileks's thuggish commenters, that the RNC has picked our dear Twin Cities for their 2008 convention. That's right: the party of torture has picked MY darling blue city for their quad-yearly orgy of fearmongering, lies, and 9/11 pornography.

I'm too angry to say much more about this. But believe me, you'll be hearing more anon.

Comments

[coldjones.livejournal.com]

Lileks is indeed a tool. For him to pretend that that picture represents some kind of low-water mark for cibil discourse on the one hand while at the same time sneering at virtually everything liberals do and rationalizing any and all conservative positions... Gah. My sympathies.

[roadrunnertwice]

Lileks is a weird duck. And I'm surprised and impressed at how good a job Amanda Marcotte's done at reading him, considering how Texan she is and how quintessentially Minnesotan his brand of weird seems to be.

[froborr.livejournal.com]

I hate the Republicans as much as the next guy, but seriously, chill. They're people, too. Let them have their party (in both senses of the word). It's not like they're going to give you cooties.

[boopsce.livejournal.com]

Hate to say it Nick, but I agree. I mean, it's not like we're Sunnis and Shiites. *wink*

[roadrunnertwice]

The Administration and Congressional Republicans are talking, unironically, about suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. Of course we're Sunnis and Shiites. That shit isn't even from the same planet as I am.

I care about civility a lot. I care a lot about being reasonable. I don't feel much compulsion to be civil or reasonable in the face of genuine villainy. The appropriate response to outrageous behavior is outrage.

Jon has done a good job of convincing me that Republicans on the local level can actually mean well and do well, though I'll still tend to disagree with 'em on core issues. But the RNC is nothing but foul.

They've a right to assemble here, same as anyone else. I reserve the right to be out in the street showing the nation what Minneapolis really thinks of them. If I've disappointed you two, I'm sorry. I refuse to play nice with the party of torture, those most civil and reasonable of dudes.

[froborr.livejournal.com]

Be out in the street! Protest! But make it about issues, about argument, about politics, not about "fuck the RNC".

Look, it's either a debate, or a war. If it's a war, acting outraged and angry is worthless; the only way to win is with violence. If it's a debate, acting outraged and angry is again worthless; the only way to win is with superior arguments -- superior reason.

[roadrunnertwice]

In point of fact, it is neither. And I'm not quite sure where where you're getting "acting outraged and angry is worthless."

"Hope has two daughters, anger and courage. They are both lovely." (attributed to St. Augustine)

I treasure my fury. I want to share it. Why? Because it's the only thing that can keep me going in the face of what is, by all reasonable standards, the end of our nation. Because knowing that there are other people as furious as me keeps my fury running, keeps me from giving up entirely. Because once the debate has already ended (and it has), it's a language that can still talk to people. The ones we need to turn over to our side, the ones who are just duped and not actually evil? They've been carefully and lengthily trained to see reasoned debate as weakness. The basic prerequisite for communicating with these people is a demonstration of guts and faith.

The ideas are already out there. What is needed is to stand up for them.

That's all I got tonight. Like I said. More anon.

[froborr.livejournal.com]

If somebody doesn't agree with the reason you're angry already, your anger will only prove (in their mind) that you are crazy. Passion can be persuasive, but anger is merely threatening, and nobody will be persuaded by a threat unless it's backed up by force. That's what I mean.

The Republicans are the party of certainty and uniformity. Make it a contest of "guts and faith", and they win, guaranteed. They have more faith than we ever can, because we are the party of diversity, ambiguity, and complexity. In other words, the party of reality. Our only chance is to raise the level of discourse so that our advantages can come into play. Putting slogans on t-shirts is not going to accomplish that. Nothing that fits on a sign is going to accomplish that.

[roadrunnertwice]

Wow, you're that willing to cede even the concept of moral certainty to the other side?

Torture is wrong, now and forever and everywhere. There's nothing diverse, ambiguous, or complex about it. Nothing they've got can match that. Nothing they've got can stand up against that. Except I'm not seeing our people get up there on the Senate floor and make a glory-or-(political)-death stand for it, because everyone's too busy being so damn reasonable. But hey, it's working great so far, isn't it?

Also, I suspect we don't share the same definition of "anger."

[froborr.livejournal.com]

Yes, I am. "Moral certainty" is a particularly pervasive and destructive form of arrogance. Not only is it saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong"; it's saying "I'm right and everyone else is evil." How far from that is "Everybody who disagrees with me should be punished"?

I suspect we don't share the definition, no. Mine: Anger is a response to the difference between one's desires and reality, characterized by adrenaline and the desire to do violence or cause injury (not necessarily the same thing).

See, the main goal of anger is to hurt the Republicans. I don't care about hurting them, I just want to save this country. If that requires letting the Bushites go free for their crimes, so be it. It it requires letting them walk off with their ill-gotten gains, so be it. If we can save the country and get a solid attempt running to save the environment, I'm happy.