Most of what I would say to this is what goodbadgirl says.
I agree with your #1-3: sure, congratulations to us for not being crazy violent assholes. Inasmuch as it's possible to pick out two general sides on this, it's true that the worst of the worst are on one side.
But I think you're attacking a straw man. You didn't read Obama's speech, right? I did. What's "pretty deeply offensive" to me is that you can't look past the flippant caricature of "oh, it's all about holding hands and singing Kumbaya" -- that because you don't think he expressed enough anger, you would not just discount the importance of the individual true and admirable things he's saying, but actually distort them to mean something totally different. It's especially weird because in your last paragraph, you are totally agreeing with him-- but in the rest of what you wrote, you seem to be outraged that anyone would even suggest that there could be reasonable human beings on that side, or that you might have common ground with them.
Look, I agree that Obama is not a fiery progressive. And he may indeed have a unrealistically generous picture of what motivates the right wing (although I think that's really unlikely at this point, given how openly they've let their hate flags fly during the campaign and ever since). And it may be trite to say that we're all in this together and have to find common ground, but that's what he said -- that the country as a whole has to become able to live together -- not that it's up to pro-choice people to compromise their beliefs and accommodate the liars and thugs on the right. And his other main point was, even for people who are not crazy and violent, it can be incredibly hard to get past anger and mistrust, because it's always tempting to see people as a caricature of what we hate and ignore what they're actually saying as an individual. Which is exactly what you're doing now.
I mean, how on earth could you write such a passionate rant based on "a description" of Obama's speech, and not even read it? Here's the example you attacked in #4: "a gay activist and an anti-gay Christian who work together to reduce HIV". Yeah, Obama sure is naive to think that's how life works! Except no, what he said was that in real life, those two don't work together-- the divide is too great, so if there was anything they could've helped each other with, it doesn't happen. He doesn't say that that's the gay activist's fault. He doesn't say anything about the leaders of any national organizations. He doesn't say anything else about it. He just says the situation sucks and we all need to be strong and have open hearts. Is that the only thing anyone ever needs to say about it? Of course not. Is it a naive, unhelpful, or offensive thing to say? Fuck no.
If my brother tries to steal the cookies and Mom says "Look, everyone has to be fair and not steal the cookies," it's natural for me to want to yell "But it's only HIM who tried to steal the cookies! Don't tell ME to be fair!!" Natural but dumb. It's not about whether I get enough credit for doing the right thing, it's about whether we can actually keep the cookie jar from getting broken. If you think Obama is, say, holding back law enforcement from protecting clinic workers, then that sure would be bad and he should answer for it. But that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about, and I don't know what principle it is you're defending here, except a desire for more angry words.
no subject
I agree with your #1-3: sure, congratulations to us for not being crazy violent assholes. Inasmuch as it's possible to pick out two general sides on this, it's true that the worst of the worst are on one side.
But I think you're attacking a straw man. You didn't read Obama's speech, right? I did. What's "pretty deeply offensive" to me is that you can't look past the flippant caricature of "oh, it's all about holding hands and singing Kumbaya" -- that because you don't think he expressed enough anger, you would not just discount the importance of the individual true and admirable things he's saying, but actually distort them to mean something totally different. It's especially weird because in your last paragraph, you are totally agreeing with him-- but in the rest of what you wrote, you seem to be outraged that anyone would even suggest that there could be reasonable human beings on that side, or that you might have common ground with them.
Look, I agree that Obama is not a fiery progressive. And he may indeed have a unrealistically generous picture of what motivates the right wing (although I think that's really unlikely at this point, given how openly they've let their hate flags fly during the campaign and ever since). And it may be trite to say that we're all in this together and have to find common ground, but that's what he said -- that the country as a whole has to become able to live together -- not that it's up to pro-choice people to compromise their beliefs and accommodate the liars and thugs on the right. And his other main point was, even for people who are not crazy and violent, it can be incredibly hard to get past anger and mistrust, because it's always tempting to see people as a caricature of what we hate and ignore what they're actually saying as an individual. Which is exactly what you're doing now.
I mean, how on earth could you write such a passionate rant based on "a description" of Obama's speech, and not even read it? Here's the example you attacked in #4: "a gay activist and an anti-gay Christian who work together to reduce HIV". Yeah, Obama sure is naive to think that's how life works! Except no, what he said was that in real life, those two don't work together-- the divide is too great, so if there was anything they could've helped each other with, it doesn't happen. He doesn't say that that's the gay activist's fault. He doesn't say anything about the leaders of any national organizations. He doesn't say anything else about it. He just says the situation sucks and we all need to be strong and have open hearts. Is that the only thing anyone ever needs to say about it? Of course not. Is it a naive, unhelpful, or offensive thing to say? Fuck no.
If my brother tries to steal the cookies and Mom says "Look, everyone has to be fair and not steal the cookies," it's natural for me to want to yell "But it's only HIM who tried to steal the cookies! Don't tell ME to be fair!!" Natural but dumb. It's not about whether I get enough credit for doing the right thing, it's about whether we can actually keep the cookie jar from getting broken. If you think Obama is, say, holding back law enforcement from protecting clinic workers, then that sure would be bad and he should answer for it. But that doesn't seem to be what you're talking about, and I don't know what principle it is you're defending here, except a desire for more angry words.