Outraged At Being Portrayed As Outraged
There’s been quite the controversy over the Washington Post article “The Left, Online and Outraged”. My first reading of it certainly didn’t elicit the same response that it has from other lefty bloggers, many are pissed at the suggestion that we are all angry, raging, venom spewing, foul mouthed hate mongers. What do you expect, it’s the Washington Post? I usually try to refrain from blogging about blogging, but with all of the hoopla, I figured I might as well throw in my two cents. It’s Easter, who’ll actually read it, right?
So the Washington Post chose Mary Scott O’Connor and My Left Wing to profile instead of the myriad of left leaning blogs that are rational critiques of policy and meticulous accounts of scandal, crime and incompetence. And sure, by doing so the WaPo focuses their readers’ attention on only a small part of the blogisphere, one they frame as the radical extreme, but that makes for a much better story than wonky political analysis (a practice given up long ago at WaPo). It’s not as if the Washington Post is a bastion of real and reliable news, isn’t that why we make fun of them on a daily basis?
This was a personal profile and I think that the portrayal was an honest one. From what I can tell, Mary Scott doesn't appear to have the huge problems with it that others seem to. I also think that what she has to say, where she comes from, the honesty with which she puts forth her ideas, her history and herself, will be appealing to many WaPo readers and might even drive them to blogs for something more real, the news from the other side, if you will.
While I understand the frustration of many bloggers, who toil away each day doing serious and well put together work, I’m just not able to get all worked up about this one. Maybe the purpose of the story was to marginalize us, to make us seem unhinged and irrational, but beyond the fact that it won’t work long-term, why do we really care? Do we need or want the Washington Post to validate the work we do? And why take that frustration out on Mary Scott O’Connor? You may not like what she writes, you may even think that her rants reflect badly on your more tempered approach to blogging, but the great thing about the internet is that there’s room for all voices and there is no denying that My Left Wing appeals to a growing audience and perhaps anger is the first step in getting those readers activated.
The Smirking Chimp, also mentioned in the article, has many angry readers as well, this I have deduced from experience. I regularly get beat up by commenters there if I dare write an article suggesting that we are not doing enough to counter, in an effective way, the onslaught of bad legislation and bad policy coming out of DC, or that we must do a better job in framing our values for easy digestion by Middle America. I’ve decided that many of them are just looking for red meat to chew on. People are angry, and moving them to action is a challenge that MSOC has taken on with gusto, how dare we fault her for that?
There also seems to be this “well, who is she to be blogging?” mentality. Yes, there are many lawyers and policy analysts blogging for the left, but does that mean that the everyman(woman) has nothing to contribute to the dialogue? I, after all, am just the (liberal)girl next door, but I have an informed opinion and I like to think that I’m giving voice to others just like me, the same thing that Ms. O’Connor does. The “professionals” out there may not appreciate our views, but they certainly must deal with them. We may not be the ones that ultimately come up with the answers, but we can at least articulate the problems as we see them, a valuable service for those blowing in the wind trying to find direction.
And while I disagree with the Washington Post’s framing of My Left Wing as the radical extreme as well as their attempt to paint us all with the same brush, I am much more bothered by other lefty bloggers continuing the meme. Don’t we have every reason to be angry? And if we express that anger does that automatically mean we must be relegated to the fringe? There is a place for both, venting of the anger and a positive agenda that will help us move past it. If the Washington Post chooses to focus on the anger, that’s because focusing on the other creates an immediate problem for them. The “angry left” is easy to write off, they’ve been doing it for years, but the serious policy blogs create direct competition for them, is anyone surprised that they didn’t select one of those to profile? If you are, you’re just being silly and looking for validation from the one place you’ll never get it.
The Washington Post is no longer the paper of Woodward and Bernstein, it is the propaganda arm of the Bush administration. Of course they want to make us seem crazy, and I say, let ‘em, would they be going to all the trouble if they weren’t concerned? We all know how blogs work, increased readership comes from clicking around, and by directing their audience to My Left Wing, the other blogs will be found. If they want to help boost our readership, fine by me. I've received a nice bump on my site meter as a result, and I doubt that all of them are coming to laugh at the angry liberals. I think they're coming because they're curious, and that's a good thing.
posted by The (liberal)Girl Next Door @ 12:44 PM
19 Comments:
I've actually left some comments on some of Mary Scott O'Connor's Kos diaries telling her that she'd playing into the Republicans hands by being just as extreme and radical as them, and I generally get shouted down. This is the end result. She gets painted as the typical person on the left, and we all lose a little bit.
thehim -- Don't kid yourself: it doesn't matter if Mary ends every sentence with "GWB is a pedophile" or not. The Conservative Movement has been practicing branding everyone to the left of Joementum as radical hippy extremist for over a decade now. Don't you remember the campaign against that radical leftist Tom Daschle? I could counter by claiming that it's "your defeatist capitulation to their smear tactics that is playing in the Republicans' hands," but as you've indicated I'm sure you've heard it all before.
I find the reaction to the WP piece, and the controversy that LG refers to, a little surprising. The reaction because I first read the generally positive excitement about the piece, then when I read it I found that, yes, it was generally honest, but also very obviously a hit-piece for perpetuating that "angry left" cartoon stereotype. I mean, just look at that picture of Mary for chrissake. That's the real message of the piece.
But to blame that on Mary because of what she writes is simply ludicrous. You know at first I didn't have much to comment about the article because I tend not to read the profanity-laced rant fest blogs or comment threads -- they just don't do much for me -- so I don't have much room to speak on the WP's portrayal of them. But that doesn't mean I don't think they have their role to play in the spectrum of liberal political criticism. To think that every blogger should be a Digby or an Atrios or a Josh Marshall or a LGND is not only ridiculous, it's downright undemocratic.
And ultimately I agree w/ LG: the WP has already lost most of the credibility it used to have. The negative reaction will be fleeting; the potential benefit of the exposure incalculable.
Or, as Amanda says, to be outraged by outrageousness is after all a sane reaction, and "Kiss my ass" is a legitimate response.
Don’t we have every reason to be angry?
Thanks for that. I think the whole country has a reason to be angry, not just the left and/or Democrats. This is a sad time for this country.
Since when is "outraged" so terrible? Is it somehow wrong to feel such an emotion when the country has been dealt so many blows over the years? To me this seems like they are trying to find a description of us that would offend us- the way they use "liberal" as a slur. If they want to call me an "outraged liberal" I'm going to have to agree with them, because they're right. And I'm not ashamed of either term.
After the Ben Domenche fiasco I'm not at all surprised that WaPo came out against left bloggers. I was, in fact, expecting it. Afterall, it was the left blogosphere that made fools out of them- yet again.
TheHim--I didn't read it as she was typical, but I will agree that some will. I'm still not sure that being angry is the wrong reaction to what is happening in this country.
GeoCrackr--Nicely said. From "wimpy liberal" to "angry liberal" is a trade I can live with. We have to accept that are going to vilify us, we just have to refuse to help them do it.
Gratis--Yes, I too am an outraged liberal and like you, I accept both labels proudly.
I didn't read it as she was typical, but I will agree that some will. I'm still not sure that being angry is the wrong reaction to what is happening in this country.
I like to compare it 9/11. It was perfectly normal to be angry at 9/11, but it's not ok to let that anger allow yourself to be dragged down to the level of the Islamic extremist. Our administration did that and it was a mistake. We can't follow suit and sink to their level as well. This is the fundamental rule of dissent and defeating tyranny. You have to stand firm on your principles.
Mary Scott O'Connor is free to write whatever she wants, but my opinion is that the Washington Post chose her to profile because she exemplifies the stereotype that has given life to the Republican Party long past the point that they actually deserved it.
You cannot defeat an extremist movement with extremism. You can only beat it with moderation, even though it's risky for anyone with the courage to do so.
I find the reaction to the WP piece, and the controversy that LG refers to, a little surprising. The reaction because I first read the generally positive excitement about the piece, then when I read it I found that, yes, it was generally honest, but also very obviously a hit-piece for perpetuating that "angry left" cartoon stereotype. I mean, just look at that picture of Mary for chrissake. That's the real message of the piece.
But to blame that on Mary because of what she writes is simply ludicrous.
The problem is that Mary gives them the opportunity to portray her that way. Read this diary and tell me how that's not stooping to the level of Ann Coulter.
And ultimately I agree w/ LG: the WP has already lost most of the credibility it used to have. The negative reaction will be fleeting; the potential benefit of the exposure incalculable.
We all know the Washington Post has no credibility. It's pretty easy at this point to figure out that they have leadership who will bend over backwards to defend the GOP and excuse this administration. And I guarantee you that they profiled Maryscott O'Connor because she's a flame thrower and provides the illusion of moral equivalency between the left and the right.
And I guarantee you that they profiled Maryscott O'Connor because she's a flame thrower and provides the illusion of moral equivalency between the left and the right.
Yes, you're absolutely right...
The problem is that Mary gives them the opportunity to portray her that way.
That, however, is nonsense, and you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into that kind of "blame the victim" mentality. So what if Mary is "stooping to the level of Ann Coulter"? The problem isn't whether she is or isn't - the problem is that Ann Coulter gets feted by supposedly respectable television and print organizations and featured as a guest speaker at the same event as the vice-president of the United States, while Mary is portrayed as some irrational screamer for being infuriated at an infuriating situation, by those who should be her friends as well as her enemies.
Do you seriously not remember any of the last 14 years? I know you completely ignored it the first time, but I'll repeat myself: The Conservative Movement has been practicing branding everyone to the left of Joementum as radical hippy extremist for over a decade now. Don't you remember the campaign against that radical leftist Tom Daschle? I will add that you're not going to eliminate all of the rhetorical flame-throwers, and no matter how much you may try to marginalize them yourself the right-wing echo chamber is always going to be able to dig up a Ward Churchill to paint as "representive" of those crazy "liberal Democrats". You don't have to embrace them, but if you're trying to blame them for drawing the fire of a clearly broken system then you've got some serious persecution issues you've got to work out. Maybe a little scream therapy would do you some good.
I remember a response I read awhile back from a right-wing pundit who was challenged for not disavowing Ann Coulter's over-the-top rhetoric. He said he was tired of scooping Coulter's crap out of the conservative kitty litter box since she'd only come along and lay another steaming turd right behind him. Basically, he disavowed any responsibility for her. And I could see his point.
But on the other hand, maybe it is important to challenge extremist statements within our own ranks to protect our credibility. We can all be tarred with the same brush, and the stakes are so high.
Aside anything specific to My Left Wing, I think this argument is one over tactics that underscores a fundamental difference in liberal and conservative strategies. Conservative strategists -- Rove being their overlord -- have consciously bought into the notion that smears, innuendo, slime and outright lies are acceptable means of gaining power. Are we willing to do the same to wrest power from them?
I'm not pissed anybody or anything except that WA Post. They need their credibility brought down.
Geocrakr, you're still missing the point:
The Conservative Movement has been practicing branding everyone to the left of Joementum as radical hippy extremist for over a decade now.
Yes, it's an absurd stereotype. But Maryscott O'Connor HELPS THEM DO IT.
I will add that you're not going to eliminate all of the rhetorical flame-throwers, and no matter how much you may try to marginalize them yourself the right-wing echo chamber is always going to be able to dig up a Ward Churchill to paint as "representive" of those crazy "liberal Democrats".
Right, and I was upset with Ward Churchill for giving them the opening.
You don't have to embrace them, but if you're trying to blame them for drawing the fire of a clearly broken system then you've got some serious persecution issues you've got to work out. Maybe a little scream therapy would do you some good.
A little scream therapy? What is that supposed to mean? The problem with our society today is not that conservatism is winning out over liberalism. In fact, there practically nothing that's truly conservative about Bush Co. and his gang. The real struggle in our society today is between moderation and extremism, and when we indulge in our own extremist attitudes, we contribute to the problem - just as the Bush Administration's indulging in its extremist tendencies has contributed to the increase in Muslim extremism.
Believe me, I understand how much Ann Coulter was feted by the right and the media in this country. But the net result of her ascendancy was negative for both America and for the Republican Party, even though Ann Coulter convinced a lot of people that her indignation was righteous because brown people attacked us. If we respond to the Bush Administration in the same way, we will hurt this country and the progressive movement in exactly the same way.
thehim, I'm getting the point loud and clear: you're saying that being taken advantage of is the same thing as helping the perpetrators. And then you try to make your point by perpetuating the illusion that venting one's frustration at, say, actual treasonous actions not being responded to or even addressed as treasonous actions (to use the example of Mary's diary that you linked to) is the equivalent of saying that the only thing a mass murderer did wrong was that he murdered the wrong people.
I'm seriously not sure where to go with that. I mean, that is really some twisted cause-and-effect/false equivalency parallel universe kind of reasoning, and yet I'm sure you see it as some kind of "moderate and reasonable" thinking.
Let me frame it like this: screaming for the police to help one defend oneself against a mugger is not the moral equivalent of screaming to egg the mugger on, and you claiming that if I didn't want to get mugged then I shouldn't have gone out in public is morally objectionable.
thehim, I'm getting the point loud and clear: you're saying that being taken advantage of is the same thing as helping the perpetrators.
No, I'm saying that putting yourself in a position to be taken advantage of is helping the perpetrators.
And then you try to make your point by perpetuating the illusion that venting one's frustration at, say, actual treasonous actions not being responded to or even addressed as treasonous actions (to use the example of Mary's diary that you linked to) is the equivalent of saying that the only thing a mass murderer did wrong was that he murdered the wrong people.
I'm sorry, but I simply do not buy the notion that the Bush Administration is motivated by undermining America. They are morons, they're crazy, and they're recklessly irresponsible, but they truly believe they are doing the right thing. I know that's scary, but it's the truth. They have certainly done things to hurt this country, but that alone is not treason. Have they gotten close with the Valerie Plame deal? You bet. But Ann Coulter has done the same thing with miniscule transgressions by Democrats in the past to paint all liberals as traitors, and MSOC shouldn't do the same.
Let me frame it like this: screaming for the police to help one defend oneself against a mugger is not the moral equivalent of screaming to egg the mugger on, and you claiming that if I didn't want to get mugged then I shouldn't have gone out in public is morally objectionable.
And I'll frame that in a way that actually pertains to what we're talking about:
screaming for the police to torture a mugger because you're angry is not the moral equivalent of screaming for the police to arrest the mugger and allow him a lawyer.
There are two different responses to being a victim, or being victimized. You can act coolly and rationally and appeal to people's hearts, or you can scream and yell and make irrational claims about the people victimizing you. The people who act coolly and rationally ALWAYS win in the end. See: Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc, etc, etc...
And I'll frame that in a way that actually pertains to what we're talking about:
screaming for the police to torture a mugger because you're angry is not the moral equivalent of screaming for the police to arrest the mugger and allow him a lawyer.
Actually, I'm going to respond to my own response to make it even more accurate to the point I'm trying to make:
screaming for the police to do whatever they want to a mugger because your anger leads you to believe he's evil and deserves it is not the moral equivalent of screaming for the police to arrest the mugger and allow him a lawyer.
No, I'm saying that putting yourself in a position to be taken advantage of is helping the perpetrators.
Okay, that's a subtle point, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. To get back to the mugging analogy (more on that in a minute), and at the risk of repeating myself yet again, claiming that if I didn't want to get mugged then I shouldn't have gone out in public really is morally objectionable. I mean, what exactly does "living in a free country" mean to you, anyway?
I'm sorry, but I simply do not buy the notion that the Bush Administration is motivated by undermining America.
Wha-wha-whaaaat? Where the fuck did that come from? Who is talking about ShrubCo's motivations? If you're refering to Mary's diary that you linked to, it is very apparent that she is talking about actions, specifically Congressional actions, specifically Congressional actions that can be demonstrably shown to go against the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Wait, let me check it again... nope, no mention whatsoever of the Bush Administration or their motivations in Mary's post.
But Ann Coulter has done the same thing with miniscule transgressions by Democrats in the past to paint all liberals as traitors, and MSOC shouldn't do the same.
Okay, this one is very simple, and I'm going to make a very simple statement that you should read two or three time, perhaps out loud to yourself. Ready?
They are not the same.
That's it! Doesn't that feel better? Whew! -- I feel better just saying it. I think I'll say it again.
They are not the same.
Now, you apparently think they are the same. You may even want them to be the same, I don't know. But I can assure you, they are not. They are not the same in what they say, they are not the same in their motivations, they are not the same in their methods, and they are not the same in their effect. They are, in fact, not the same. That you think they are means that you have really bought into and internalized the conservative/corporate-media world view that tries to paint them as the same in that sort of "Republicans claim the Earth is flat, some Democrats disagree" false-equivalency kind of way -- that you are, in fact, no different from the WaPo in this respect. Now, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you may be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome, but in point of fact I don't really understand what your motivations are on this.
(S)creaming for the police to do whatever they want to a mugger because your anger leads you to believe he's evil and deserves it is not the moral equivalent of screaming for the police to arrest the mugger and allow him a lawyer.
Now making the mugger a victim in this scenario is an interesting twist -- exactly who is the mugger supposed to represent here? And who is the screamer and the police? It seems very obvious to me that in this version of the analogy, the Anne Coulters et al are the ones screaming for the torture option, while the Maryscotts et al are the ones screaming for justice. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
There are two different responses to being a victim, or being victimized.
Once again, an error resulting from that dichotomous world-view. Dead-Eye Dick's hunting trip fiasco should have proven to you that there are more than two options, that there is at least a third: apologize to the victimizer for getting in his way and causing such a ruckus. Hmmm, now of those three options (not claiming that they're the only three available, mind you), which one would you fall into...
Okay, that's a subtle point, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. To get back to the mugging analogy (more on that in a minute), and at the risk of repeating myself yet again, claiming that if I didn't want to get mugged then I shouldn't have gone out in public really is morally objectionable. I mean, what exactly does "living in a free country" mean to you, anyway?
That's a lovely paragraph, except that that analogy has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and I'm not even sure it has anything to do with what you've been talking about. It's irrelevant to everything I'm saying. I'm not saying that we should be quiet and just let the Bush Administration screw with us, I'm saying that there are SMART WAYS to fight back, and DUMB WAYS to fight back. Too often, MSOC chooses the DUMB WAY to fight back. Please take some time to read very carefully through that paragraph again so that we can stop talking past each other and get on the same page.
Wha-wha-whaaaat? Where the fuck did that come from? Who is talking about ShrubCo's motivations? If you're refering to Mary's diary that you linked to, it is very apparent that she is talking about actions, specifically Congressional actions, specifically Congressional actions that can be demonstrably shown to go against the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Wait, let me check it again... nope, no mention whatsoever of the Bush Administration or their motivations in Mary's post.
You're absolutely right, I should have said the Republican Party, not the Bush Administration. Otherwise, my point stands.
Now, you apparently think they are the same. You may even want them to be the same, I don't know. But I can assure you, they are not. They are not the same in what they say, they are not the same in their motivations, they are not the same in their methods, and they are not the same in their effect.
And this is still where I disagree. Any time you accuse someone of treason who is not guilty of treason, it is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it, and it doesn't matter how slimy, evil, or stupid the person is who is being accused. It's still wrong, and rational people know that.
That you think they are means that you have really bought into and internalized the conservative/corporate-media world view that tries to paint them as the same in that sort of "Republicans claim the Earth is flat, some Democrats disagree" false-equivalency kind of way -- that you are, in fact, no different from the WaPo in this respect.
No, and this is where you continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point. I'm not internalizing that worldview. I know it's bull. What I'm telling you is that the Washington Post is using MSOC to promote that worldview. I obviously don't believe that MSOC is as bad a person as Ann Coulter, but to the average person, MSOC allows herself to be served up to an uninformed public as the equivalent to Ann Coulter.
Now, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you may be suffering from some form of Stockholm syndrome, but in point of fact I don't really understand what your motivations are on this.
My motivations are simple. I'm someone who has studied history and knows that the most effective way to combat a fascist movement like the one we have is to stand firm on principles, appeal to reason and to be defiant, but not hysterical. MSOC does not agree with this. She believes (and this is a quote directly from one of her diaries) that "the louder we scream" the more action is taken. This is simply not correct, and history is the proof of that. Gandhi was not victorious by screaming and being hysterical. Martin Luther King did not change the minds of white America by chanting "black power" and screaming as loud as he could. He did it by appealing to the hearts of Americans.
I'll continue in the next comment...
Now making the mugger a victim in this scenario is an interesting twist -- exactly who is the mugger supposed to represent here? And who is the screamer and the police? It seems very obvious to me that in this version of the analogy, the Anne Coulters et al are the ones screaming for the torture option, while the Maryscotts et al are the ones screaming for justice. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
In my analogy, the Republican Party is the mugger. MSOC is the one who believes that we can lie about the mugger and the police don't have to follow rules in order for justice to be carried out. I'm the one who believes that the best way to achieve justice is to recognize law and reason. Yes, it's a clunky analogy, but unlike what you've been saying, it actually pertains to what I've been talking about here (and yes, my earlier attempts at getting to this point were somewhat clunky and lame too).
Once again, an error resulting from that dichotomous world-view. Dead-Eye Dick's hunting trip fiasco should have proven to you that there are more than two options, that there is at least a third: apologize to the victimizer for getting in his way and causing such a ruckus. Hmmm, now of those three options (not claiming that they're the only three available, mind you), which one would you fall into...
If you think that what I'm saying is the equivalent of apologizing to the Washington Post, you're as off-base as a neocon who believes that by criticizing the Bush Administration, you're apologizing to the terrorists. That is the whole enchilada here. We cannot respond the Republican extremism the way that Republicans have responded to Islamic extremism. We only win by being moderate, rational, and adhering to the rule of law.
Okay, let's be clear about this. I understand perfectly what you think you're saying: you believe that there are effective and ineffective ways to combat the psuedo-fascism (to use David Niewert's description) that is the Conservative Movement as embodied by the modern Republican Party, and you believe that your "moderate, rational, rule-of-law" approach is the effective way while people who express their outrage are not only inneffective but are only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem you are having is that I also understand and am addressing what you are actually saying (without, perhaps, you understanding what it is you are actually saying), which is that everyone on the other side of your arbitrary line of "beyond here be extremists" are all no better than suicide bombers and "hysterical" men and women like Mary should all just keep their traps shut and leave important things like politickin to you sober fellas who know better (because, you know, that's worked so well for the Democratic Party for the last 30 years), with the subtext that anyone who sticks their neck out deserves to get their head lopped off. And, just so we "get on the same page" -- though I'm sorry it probably won't be your page -- my response to that is not only is it offensive, but it's also simplistic, reflecting a narrow and selective view of history and restistance movements, and, in the final analysis, wrong.
I understand perfectly what you think you're saying: you believe that there are effective and ineffective ways to combat the psuedo-fascism (to use David Niewert's description) that is the Conservative Movement as embodied by the modern Republican Party, and you believe that your "moderate, rational, rule-of-law" approach is the effective way while people who express their outrage are not only inneffective but are only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem you are having is that I also understand and am addressing what you are actually saying (without, perhaps, you understanding what it is you are actually saying), which is that everyone on the other side of your arbitrary line of "beyond here be extremists" are all no better than suicide bombers and "hysterical" men and women like Mary should all just keep their traps shut and leave important things like politickin to you sober fellas who know better (because, you know, that's worked so well for the Democratic Party for the last 30 years), with the subtext that anyone who sticks their neck out deserves to get their head lopped off.
No. What you think I'm saying IS what I'm actually saying. And what you claim I'm actually saying is an attempt to put words in my mouth, and I don't appreciate it. I do NOT believe that Maryscott O'Connor deserves to get her head lopped off. I don't believe that ANYBODY deserves to have their head chopped off. And for you to claim that that's what I'm saying is disingenuous and more than a little offensive.
As for comparing my position to the weak-willed history of the Democratic Party is similarly just as disingenuous. That's simply a false dichotomy that exists nowhere other than in your own head. Standing alongside Russ Feingold on censure, opposing war, opposing extreme Supreme Court justices, demanding that we do something about Darfur, and all the other good causes that Democrats are quiet about do not require screaming and lobbing false accusations. They require simple rational leadership. And Democrats are chicken. But the opposite of being chicken is not being hysterical, but that's what it appears that you've just said there.
And, just so we "get on the same page" -- though I'm sorry it probably won't be your page -- my response to that is not only is it offensive, but it's also simplistic, reflecting a narrow and selective view of history and restistance movements, and, in the final analysis, wrong.
Name one fascist movement that was stopped by people being hysterical, making false accusations of the fascists, and browbeating more moderate dissenters to WAKE THE FUCK UP and start screaming louder.
Post a Comment
<< Home