In the comments to the previous post, Jimbow8 quoted Tim Hardaway, easy runaway winner for Humanitarian of the Year, saying "You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known. I don't like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. ... I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."
First of all, I'm glad that Tim distinguishes being the United States from being in the world, since it shows that he is not part of the reality-based community, and thus a conservative. I've heard this topic being discussed in multiple forums, and one thing that radio show hosts try to do (to avoid alienating their audience), is say things like "I don't care whether you agree with him or not, I'm not here to argue right versus wrong." Well, I don't care if I alienate people who hate like this, so I'll tell you right here - if you agree with Tim, you are a moron. Hating a whole group of people for a genetic characteristic is just dumb. Hating someone because they're gay is like hating someone because they're black. Or a woman. Or Arabic.
Wait, I'm seeing a pattern here.
I find it interesting that conservatives like to hate those who are "different". Their worldview is so narrow that opening their lives up to people with different backgrounds, body parts, etc, scares them into hatred. Of course, this is because conservatism is about selfishness and power. "I want my share to increase, I want to only deal with the things I want to deal with, and perhaps most importantly, I don't want you to have something that I otherwise could have had. Those who do not have power are a threat to me, because they could take mine away. And that scares me, so I must fear them. Then I must hate them, because they are out to hurt me."
To a conservative, it's all about distributing a finite set of resources, and making sure that they get the biggest share they can. There's no sense of working together to grow the resources, so that more people can share more things. It's about the haves and the have-nots, and convincing the have-nots that the only way they can get more is to take from others (while those with more power take it right back). It's about creating images of Us vs. Them, so that when we take from someone else, especially that damned woman, or gay guy, or furriner, we're not taking from someone as important as we are. We're not taking from someone as human as we are. We're taking from someone who is lesser than us, somehow, someone who wants what is rightfully ours. Someone we can hate with impunity. Someone we can kill, and feel no sorrow.
And that's how you start a war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
of you have sat, and perhaps thought, with us!
1 comment:
While I agree with everything you say I would like to point out that there is a difference between "being conservative" and "being a conservative". The neocons have again co-opted a label to hide behind. They aren't "religious" they aren't "right", they aren't "conservative" and they bare very little resemblence to old school republicans.
Webster defines political conservatism as "disposition in politics to preserve what is established" which is obvious in direct contradiction to the republican "conservatives" of today.
Unfortunately there are no laws baring them from using what ever label they like. I'd prefer they label themselves "assholes" for clarity.
As for their use of hatred, that is the easiest way to focus a group of non-thinkers for a common cause.
Post a Comment