I remember reading a book about thirty years ago – The Social History Of The Machine Gun, or something like that. It was a pseudo-academic treatise, adapted for some shred of popular market appeal, that talked about the social roots of fully-automatic weapons.
In one of the first chapters, they included the plans for an early, rudimentary multi-chambered cannon. It dated back to the 16th or 17th century, and had five or six chambers attached to a circular plate; the plate could be rotated to push the chambers up against the barrel for firing – sort of the anscestor of the Gatling Gun (or, for serious gun geeks, the multi-chambered Aden gun).
It had one extra feature noted in the plans; it used a traditional round chamber to fire round bullets “for use against Christians”, the plans noted (I’m paraphrasing). But if the troops were facing Moslem troops, the plate could be swapped out for one with chambers bored for square bullets (and no, I don’t recall any plans for square barrel bores), on the theory that square bullets would cause grislier wounds and do more damage. Of course, being Mohammedans, the extra cruelty was justified, at least to the inventor.
There’s nothing new, there, of course. A teacher of mine in high school – a Vietnam-era veteran who served in the US or Germany, if memory serves – recalled that one of the first things that the drill instructors did in basic training in wartime was to dehumanize the enemy; Vietnamese and Japanese and German humans became “Gooks” and “Japs” and “Krauts” and what-have-you. Because killing humans is hard – but pushing a bayonet into a hateful caricature is easy.
Of course, German society (like much of Europe) had a solid head-start in dehumanizing Jews. Hitler pushed things over the edge – but when it came to reducing a class of humans to untermenschen, he stood on the shoulders of giants. Hateful, loathsome giants.
For most people – normal, decent people, at any rate – the first step on the road to unspeakable hatred is the belief that somehow, your opponent is less worthy of the decency most of us afford to actual humans. And once you get past that, really, it’s a hop skip and jump to any ghastly horror you can imagine.
Emily from X Perspective is, by the way, a normal, decent person. But a recent posts shows some of the dehumanization that is swallowing the left in re Sarah Palin.
[Not following politics this week? GOP VP Candidate Sarah Palin’s 17-yr old daughter is pregnant. Which we’d ignore if Palin wasn’t adamantly anti-sex-ed and anti-abortion.]
I admit to a small amount of hypocrisy of my own here: in general, I believe we should leave the kids out of this election – it’s not the girl’s fault her mother is running for office. But this was just too spot-on not to share.
“We should leave kids out of politics – unless we really hate what their parents [supposedly] stand for?”
And then, all bets are off? Because decency is only for people who believe as “we” do?
And where’s Palin’s “hypocrisy?” She – and, we presume, her daughter and future son-in-law – are pro-life. And they’re following through on that belief. Perhaps that’s a form of logic impermeable by conservatives; either way, I’m just not seeing it.
Leave aside that the Juno analogy is completely off. It supports Palin’s, and the pro-lifers’, stances; the Juno character had the baby, which, by the way, pissed off the pro-abortion crowd to no end – especially here in the Twin Cities, from whence Juno screenwriter and last year’s Hottest Writer Ever, Diablo Cody, sprang a few years back; local “feminists” were in a aorta-busting froth that Ms. Cody didn’t have young Juno abort her “oops”, more or less as they are with Bristol and, for that matter, Sarah Palin. On whom, by the way, “feminists” have also bestowed dictatorial power over her daughter and her “reproductive choices”. But that’s just a sign of a photoshopper with no command of metaphor.
On the other hand, every time the left slags Palin and her family, there’s another struggling middle-class-or-lower family who realizes there’s somebody running for the White House who just plain gets it. And that translates into votes.
So by all means, photoshoppers; photoshop on!
I have seen the accusation of hypocrisy for Palin based on her daughter before on the net, but no one has every been able to tell me what makes her the hypocrite. If SHE were pregnant and had an abortion, then maybe, but I fail to see how it applies here. I look forward to peev enlightening me in 5000 words or more.
A related way to attack your opponent is to say they “lied”, vs had bad info or made a mistake. Or attack their motives. Say they are “in it to make money for their rich friends”.
You never debate the issue. You attack your opponents motives.
Kinda like how you all dehumanize the left/liberals, eh Mitch? I mean, AK talks about wanting to kill liberals – you don’t talk to issues, just build charicatures. Once again, it’s the do as I say, not as I do method of deflection. You happily engage in saying things like “Racism is a key tenet of the left,” but get incenced when the same tactic is used on you.
Pot=Kettle – Liberals certainly do lump all conservatives together, but we rarely preach the same ubiquitous, sneering contempt, and advocate for violence (implied mostly but not always – like you did when referring to how protesters in St. Paul should be handled). You seek to constantly attack your opponent on character grounds, on motives, claiming (falsely) a myriad of moronic things – like that liberals simply want to tax everyone into prosperity, that they are all lazy hypocrite latte sipping yuppies, etc.. talk about building charicatures, you’re the master – or at least the master parrot.
Buzz, FYI – she lectures others on family values, but seems to have missed out on looking after the affairs of her kid. That’s hypocrisy, like it or not, and it’s no charicature. Palin indicts herself, if shorthand exists to call her ‘Barbie Doll’ – well, bluntly, outside of the sneering conceit that flows so freely from her mouth she reminds me of Ann Coulter – who seems to have primary appeal because of her primary appeal – meaning she’s not hideous to look at, which is all you righties seem to be enraptured over. The cultish personality personified – she’s pretty – she likes guns and god (of a sort) – to hell with whether she’s a. honest or b. competent to take on the most powerful job in the world – have you seen how she looks in a bikini?!?
Kinda like how you all dehumanize the left/liberals, eh Mitch?
Nope.
she lectures others on family values, but seems to have missed out on looking after the affairs of her kid.
You don’t have teenagers, do you? IIRC, your oldest is what – 12?
Get back to me in four or five years. You might learn something.
It’s not Palin was the chief editor at a college-run magazine, or anything.
Ugly rumors spread by the press & liberal blogs forced Palin to announce that her daughter was pregnant. The same press and liberal blogs tout Obama’s experience as the Harvard Law Review’s first black President as some sort of qualification for high office or proof of his genius.
Yet I have never met anyone who can tell me who was the President of the Harvard Law Review immediately before or after Obama. No one seems to know what Obama’s qualifications were for this position. And no one seems to know what he did as President of Harvard Law Review.
For all we know he never wrote or even edited a single article during his tenure. And the press has no interest in finding out.
You’d do a lot better if you weren’t so relentlessly ad hominem and categorical, Peev. I don’t know that all (whoever all might be) dehumanize the left/liberals. It’s easier to machine gun an advancing army of strawmen, I suppose, but geez it gets old.
And trust me on this – a lot of conservatives aren’t especially enamored of Ann Coulter – she’s counterproductive a lot of the time and there is hardly universal agreeement about her beauty.
And Sarah Palin isn’t even a bit like Coulter in any event. You’ll have to show us where Palin “lectures others on family values.” And if you think she “missed out on looking after the affairs of her kid,” you don’t know much about 17-year old kids.
Glad that you did admit that liberals do lump all conservatives together, though. That’s progress.
“Buzz, FYI – she lectures others on family values, but seems to have missed out on looking after the affairs of her kid. That’s hypocrisy, like it or not, and it’s no charicature. Palin indicts herself, if shorthand exists to call her ‘Barbie Doll’ -”
Oh, that’s absolute bullshit. You are telling me that if you are pro-life and do not lock your kid in the basement until they are 21 and married you are a hypocrite? Every time I think you top yourself in nonsensical logic, you prove me wrong. And Barbie Doll? So add to your many faults sexism? You just can’t imagine a pretty woman being competent in a mans field? Just out of curiosity, could you steer me to a link where she is lecturing others on family values?
“You happily engage in saying things like “Racism is a key tenet of the left”
Actually, that’s my conclusion. It’s based upon the undeniable, set in concrete, stone cold fact that the left is racist.
Questions? Problems?
Thought not. Now go sit by your dish, ya goof.
Ah, Peev claims liberals don’t advocate violence. There are tens of millions of dead people in the 20th century that might dispute that. If liberals hadn’t murdered them.
When is the last time a bunch of crazed conservatives wearing masks marched down the street starting fires and smashing windows?
Kermit, liberals don’t advocate violence. As long as you agree with them, of course.
Get back to me in four or five years. You might learn something.
Good grief, will he! He either had no testosterone or has a horrible memory. Any male who thinks you can control teenagers doesn’t remember being one.
My daughter (petulantly): “Why are you always suspicious about my boyfriends?”
Me: “Because I remember being a teenage boy.”
“…like that liberals simply want to tax everyone into prosperity…”
I’d like the list of liberals who are advocating cutting the overall tax rate. It’s certainly much shorter than a peevish comment.
“Ugly rumors spread by the press & liberal blogs forced Palin to announce that her daughter was pregnant.”
Yeah, cause there’s no way she could have said “That’s a family matter. I choose not to answer questions about my children.” Clearly she was forced to trot (“Trot” – that’ll be the deformed Palin child no. 6 with the withered conjoined twin) out her knocked-up daughter and drop-out, shotgun “fiancee” for their big engagement party on TV, live from St. Paul (talk about withered, conjoined twins!) Even you kooky faith-based types can’t believe the “engagement” survives past election day, can you?
It’s not prejudice and bigotry if Angryclown does it!
And your point is . . . ? What? That she should have responded to a rumor that her son was really her daughter’s son by stating that she wouldn’t answer questions about her children? That would have stopped the rumors cold, eh? Andrew Sullivan, the insane writer for the Atlantic, continues to demand medical proof that a 43 year old woman gave birth to a Downs Syndrome baby.
Our side gets the good lookin’, baby-lovin’ women, your side gets the deranged homos. I like the deal so far.
“Deranged Homos” is a rock band that HAS to happen.
“Yeah, cause there’s no way she could have said “That’s a family matter. I choose not to answer questions about my children.” ”
That would be an option if your side was sane and ok with leaving the children alone.
“”Trot” – that’ll be the deformed Palin child no. 6 with the withered conjoined twin”
Yeah. Pretty funny. Since the last one has downs syndrome. I get it.
Still better than clown syndrome I suppose.
Wow Buzz…on your 5000 word prediction:
…you were like lightning to Maligna’s thunder.
I am confused by the claims of hypocrisy. Even if Sarah Palin is anti-sex-ed and anti-abortion how doesBristol Palin being pregnant make Sarah Palin a hypocrite? Bristol is not Sarah. Bristol has free will. Even if Bristol had an abortion, Sarah would not be a hypocrite, unless Sarah supported and encouraged that decision.
Another’s actions can not make one a hypocrite. Only one’s own actions can make one a hypocrite.