Another Liberal analyzes gun ownership....puh-leeze...

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Here's yet another reason why I just can't take folks who claim to be "blue state Liberals" seriously.

They are so far down their own little postmodern, politically-correct rabbit hole as to be totally unable to recognize their own ridiculousness.

Short version....a blue-state urban liberal turns undercover rural red-state conservative as part of a "hilarious" anthropological experiment.....Oh yes, we've NEVER seen this condescending, oops, I mean innovative approach used before....:rolleyes:

This is at the heart of the divide I see all around me.

If a blue-state urban liberal investigates rural red-state gun-owning America in this fashion, it's "hilarious" and worthy of both a book and a newspaper interview piece.

If a rural, red-state gun-owning conservative did the exact same thing, and went "undercover" say in San Francisco or Minneapolis and wrote about it, it would be received as further proof of such folk having very quaint, out-of-date, closed-minded worldviews, and probably presented as a satire to point out the simple, closed-mindedness of such quaint, amusing red-staters.

But, here's the link, and the gun ownership analysis from this "experiment."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2003285612_johnmoe03.html


: You also fired guns at a local range. Two questions: Why are guns conservative, and why is "shoot someone in the face" almost ALWAYS funny?

A: Because the vice president shot someone in the face! [Chuckling.] That's why that phrase is funny. And the fact that the guy didn't die — which makes you wonder, how do you get shot in the face and be like 80 and not die?

I think they might represent power. And I think they're conservative because of that libertarian appeal. Not only do you have a right to freely roam this country and travel the interstate highway system, you have this killing power, this shooting power, and you're not going to have big government to control you doing that — that'll mean lower taxes — and then you just assume those rights and responsibilities at the same time.

Q: Conservatives revere our Constitution, you found. So why is the Second Amendment untouchable while the First, Fourth and others are looking like Swiss cheese?

A: That gets into the difference between conservative and Republican. Jonah Goldberg of The National Review said, "I'm very proud to be a conservative, I'm not proud to be a Republican."

And I think the conservative belief as it was articulated to me was, "Look, if you believe in the First Amendment, Lefty McLiberal — How's your latte? — and if you want that untouched, then the Second should be untouched and the Fourth should be untouched as well. And you shouldn't have to quarter soldiers in your house if you don't really want to.

Q: I hate quartering soldiers in my house!

A: I know! It's a drag. "Soldiers can you pick up those towels please?" But that's where I think a lot of conservatives are breaking away from the Republicans, because conservatives as I understood them are very interested in sacred texts — the Bible, the Constitution. These things are locked down.
 
Q: You found the most Bush-friendly town also to be the friendliest?

A: In this little town, Rexburg, Idaho, which had voted for Bush at 92 percent — the highest rate I could find anywhere in the country — people were just so nice.

So then I thought, what are some of the more friendly towns I've been in? And they were like rural Montana, rural Arizona, these really small places that are really conservative places. OK, where have people been the biggest jerks to me? Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, safely blue state kind of regions. So it was a little dissonant. Also everyone has seven babies in Rexburg, Idaho.
Click to expand...

Just a coincidence, of course.
 
Lighten up, Francis.

He didn't slam guns or say anything about the children. He just gave his opinion on what he thought the appeal was. And in doing so, he hit on some points that a lot of people here would espouse. He's clearly not firearms savvy and doesn't act like he is. His opinion is just of an outsider looking in and he doesn't pretend to be anything else or to try to tell anyone how to behave.

This us vs. them liberal/conservative thing is so childish. This guy sounds to me like just the kind of person who could be swayed by some responsible fun shooting. As are a lot of people I think until they get turned off by people yelling arguments and silly names at them.
 
Yeah, there's a lot of silliness, and a whiff of condescencion, there, but once you get past that to the idea that he's at least a little open to exploring what's what and figuring out why it is, it's not _that_ bad.

I note that he GOT the link between rights and responsibilities, and isn't asserting that we're knuckle draggers who want to tote guns because we can, and shoot the place up on Saturday night.

Maybe he'll follow his new found cognitive dissonance, to see where it leads, or not.
 
Sorry, DirtyBrad....how silly of me.

How silly of me becoming tired of being seen as merely fodder for the "hilarious" anthropological experiments of the morally, intellectually, and ethically superior urbane, sophisticated blue-state liberals.

How typically red-state reactionary and close-minded of me to take offense of any kind.

Of course, the only reason any urbane, sophisticated blue-state liberal would deign to actually touch a gun, or actually visit a backwoods, fundie hell-hole like rural Idaho would be to obtain research material for a humorous anthropological experiment that would result in a book.

That's exactly why it's newsworthy and bookworthy any time such an advanced, nuanced, sophisticate like John Moe goes slumming amongst us gun-owning red-state fundies.........I suppose for the next book, John Moe will go live amongst a relatively more-advanced anthropological curiousity, probably some stone-age hunter-gatherer group in the remotest Orinoco River basin?

:rolleyes:

hillbilly
 
I agree with Hillbilly.

Publish this same kind of condescending, insulting, stereotyped nonsense about any other identifiable group of people in the country, and there's a huge public outcry.

When Ann Coulter does it, she's vicious, mean-spirited, and held single-handedly responsible for the loss of civility in US society.

When a liberal does exactly the same kind of hatchet job against a different victim, it's humorous, witty, and urbane.
 
Oh no. Is all the whiny liberal laughter hurting your feelings? Has the constant mockery of your group started to wear you down and make you feel like a second-class citizen?

What do you care what people you consider as others think about you anyway?

You say that liberals are always making fun of the right or the red states and that Coulter is viewed as a demon when she does it. It must be tough to be in such a tiny minority where folks like her, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly can barely eke out a living mocking the liberals becaues no one's on their side.

What's the difference in what you're saying and me saying that I'm so tired of all the red states looking down on blue states as latte-drinking, Volvo driving, vegetarian reds? Poor me, I'm frustrated because every time one of my liberal authors pokes some fun at the conservatives, they're portrayed as effite, ivory-tower dwelling, condescending, snobs. Meanwhile, Coulter et al hit the best seller list every time they spit out another vitriolic, mean-spirited, racist, homophobic list of rhyming, catch-phrase idiocy.
 
Whats the problem here? He is just a lite hearted goof-ball who is open minded enough to try something new and hear what others have to say.

Would YOU move to 'Frisco, interview liberal college students, eat bark, and sit in on a hippie drum circle? Propbably not. :D
 
Ann Coulter IS mean spirited, condecending, nasty, irritating, etc.
Click to expand...
She is, too much so for my tastes...but the media reaction to her is WAY different than to Al Frankin, Michael Moore and this guy.

...folks like her, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly can barely eke out a living mocking the liberals becaues no one's on their side.
Click to expand...
O'Reilly doesn't make fun of Liberals at all (not that I've ever seen) he's not in the same category as the other 2. I'm assuming the "barely eke out a living" was sarcasm ue to the success of these 3.
 
My apologies if I lumped in Bill O'Reilly unfairly.

Yes, I was being sarcastic about the money. Friction and audacious statements seem to breed fame and success.

Poor liberals are trapped in a country whose policy is decided by the rubes in Ohio and Florida. Poor conservatives are forced to live with these snobby liberals and suffer their stranglehold on the media and their constant mocking. Poor Christians are being persecuted by scientists. Poor atheists are being screwed by the current church-and-state regime.

Am I in the majority or the minorty for wanting them all to shut the hell up?

God bless the country that can mock everyone equally. Let's all go to the range and relax. Hopefully they'll have both Pabst and soy milk half-caf lattes near by.
 
Pabst Blue Ribbon... :barf:


Make that a Bud, and I'm in. (P.S. There's a bar I used to frequent where they served both kinds of beer... Bud, and Bud Light.)
 
Sounded to me like the guy who wrote the book had his ideas changed. He thought he was going to find that Blue Staters fit his little stereotype perfectly, and found that to be wrong. The real jerk in this article is the interviewer. He's the typical liberal we all love to hate.
 
OK, where have people been the biggest jerks to me? Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Los Angeles, safely blue state kind of regions.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE insight into the mindset of nanny state statist liberals. They live in places where people are not naturally good to each other so they REQUIRE government to force everyone to play nice.

Out here in red state flyover country we play nice on our own and don't need the heavy hand of mama government, but that concept is alien to the majority of urbanite leftists.


Of course, the only reason any urbane, sophisticated blue-state liberal would deign to actually touch a gun, or actually visit a backwoods, fundie hell-hole like rural Idaho would be to obtain research material for a humorous anthropological experiment that would result in a book.
Click to expand...
Now you see why I absolutely HATE Garrison Keeler.
 
I don't have to move to Frisco to interview hippy students and sit in a circle to beat drums.

I'm a college instructor, and have been for 13 years, at five different colleges and universities in two different states.

As a gun owning faculty member, I am cultural diversity on just about any college campus I set foot on.

But that's the point I'm making.

When liberals write this sort of thing, they are being witty and urbane and humorous.

When conservatives write this sort of thing, they are being mean-spirited and snarky and reactionary.

hillbilly
 
Not if it's actually funny. Coulter is far from that. PJ O Rourke is a funny conservative writer, and well known in liberal circles for being so.
 
hillbilly, my apologies if I was unfairly tossing you into a convenient group. I know just what it's like to be diverse no matter where you go.

Don't you feel like what you're saying is entirely dependent on the audience? If you're liberal, you think making fun of the slack-jawed right is hilarious and that Ann Coulter is hell on heels. If you're conservative, you think the liberal smartasses are smarmy snobs and that Coulter deftly skewers them.

Do you think it's possible you think it's unfairly balanced because of your occupation? In my experience, colleges definitely tilt to the left, so maybe you're getting sick of hearing only one side of it. I'm sure I'm guilty of that as the only internet forums I really read are pro-gun. I get pretty tired of hearing the same old anti-liberal stuff over and over again.

As to the original topic, I agree with TX1911 100%. This guy sounded very open-minded and not mean or overly slanted at all. The interviewer may have been a jerk, but the author spent not much time on guns and a lot of time saying that he thought drawing lines was simplistic and didn't give anyone enough credit.
 
My cheap shot aside, I read the article and here's the quote that really struck me:
But it's a really powerful thing to just shut up and listen to somebody who has ideas that are different than your own.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you post that part of the article, hillbilly?
 
Good lord. I just read a bit on Coulter's website. What Democrat ran over her dog as a child? Yikes. Also, eat a sandwich or something, sweetheart. Have dessert.
 
Snake Eyes, fair question you asked about why I didn't post that particular part of the article.

Here's my honest answer.

In the past few weeks, I've seen many, many threads shut down by Mods because the content of the thread wasn't specifically focused on firearms issues and firearms issues only.

I've had several of my threads shut down, even when I thought the content did apply, only to be let that no, it didn't apply.

I've seen even more threads by other folks shut down because of the same reasons.

I did not post that piece of the article because I was concerned if I posted the entire article, and not just the specific parts dealing specifically with firearms, that there was a good chance the thread would get locked.

That's exactly why.

And that's why I also linked the article, so folks could go read for themselves.

hillbilly
 
For how many jokes are made about LIEBRALS ( :rolleyes: ) around here, there sure are a lot of touchy individuals getting their panties in a bundle.
 
DirtyBrad, to be honest, I've had some time today to analyze what set me off about this article.

Yes. My occupation plays a big part of that. I am constantly surrounded by outlooks exactly like both this guy and the interviewer have.

I am constantly held up as "THE EXAMPLE" of the red-state, gun-owning curiousity.......Let me put it this way. I'm part of an ENGLISH department.

So I'm not just in higher education, I'm also in an English department.

If any part of universities lean heavily to the left, it's the Arts and Humanities folks, of which English is most definitely a part.

So yes, I reacted like I did in part because I've been "THE EXAMPLE" of the red-state gun owner since I started my freshman year back in 1988. I've been either a student or a faculty member (or both while in grad school) for the past 18 years.

But I still, at heart, reject the entire premise of the book.

This guy's entire premise is that gun-owning red-state conservatives are sooooooo alien, and soooo scary, and sooooo (to use a bit of English departmental jargon) "the other," that the only way to actually even begin to understand these alien, scary, weird folks is to construct an elaborate ruse and pose as one of them in their own remote, pimeval native habitats.

It's EXACTLY like some wildllife biologist putting himself inside a big rubber alligator so he can get close enough to actually study the real, actual scary, threatening, alien, dangerous alligators.

No matter if this guy came to some "enlightening" conclusions, it is his methodology that I really have a major problem with.

And lots of liberals and leftists who style themselves as witty, urbane, sophisticated, and oh-so-tolerant and accepting not only don't have any problems with his methodology, they actually applaud it and find it witty and humorous.

Oh those silly red-state gun-owning fundies--they smirk over their chilled glasses of Chardonnay--they had NO IDEA that such a witty, sophisticated, urbane liberal was POSING as one them in order to observe them in their native habitat.......Oh what interesting lessons we can learn from observing these primitive, literal-minded brutes in their own native habitat.

In fact, the very fact that a witty urbane sophisticated urban liberal could pass himself off as a conservative red-state rube just proves how witty, urbane and sophisticated we blue-state liberals are, and just how tolerant and accepting we are. We can even successfully pose like backwoods red-state fundies if we want to. Oh how open-minded and tolerant we really are (Which is a point actually made in the interview, near the end of the piece).

No matter what "enlightening" conclusions this guy came to, his methodology reveals utter contempt and condescension.

Imagine a middle-class white guy posing as an inner city poor black man to discover truths about inner-city poor blacks. Does anyone remember the controvery over that reality show that did exactly that with advanced movie makeup? Does anyone remember the public outcry over that show?

Imagine a straight guy posing as a gay man and revealing secret "truths" about the gay community like they were some sort of different species or somethng. There was a very controversial reality show on TV that did just this, was widely condemned by lots of liberals, and went away quietly and quickly.

Imagine a middle-class white guy posing as a Navajo and revealing secret "truths" about the Navajo.

Can you imagine the outcry that would (and did) happen over the three above examples?

Again, to be totally clear. This guy may have had an epiphany. He may have learned actual, real truths that startled him.

But I do have real problems with how he did that.

And I think the way he did that reveals a lot about a certain mindset that I've been exposed to over and over and over because of where I work.

hillbilly
 
hillbilly--

Thanks for the reasoned response (not that I expected any other kind). I agree with your point about thread content, and I also appreciate the link to the full article--something often overlooked.

I found the "gun" part of the article fairly nonsensical, but the references to conservatives commitment to the Constitution uplifting.

Frankly, as some one with left leaning tendencies myself, I sure wish the Democrats would realize that social programs and the Bill of Rights aren't mutually exclusive. (And, no, I don't want to argue about that!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top