Thursday, May 09, 2013

What Would Liberals Hate?

I've been planning on writing this post for a while, but have been procrastinating because I had too much buttsex going on in my life and I loved it. Now that I've had to take a little bit of a break from all that fornication, based on a little medical condition from which I must heal (and no, smartasses, it's not an STD), I figured now is as good a time as any to sit down and write it. (It's intestinal. I strained something. While having sex. Shut up.)

It's by mere coincidence (or is it???) that this portion of last night's Colbert Report kinda gave me the kick in the pants to really get to it. I'm glad I get to add it to the post:

The point about the lightbulbs is what gets me. It isn't surprising that people would choose the bulb that would last longer. What is surprising is that they would choose not to, to even make a financially bad choice, when they think it would help the environment. Do they hate the environment? No. At least I don't think they do. But it gets me thinking about a lot of choices Republicans and rightwing people make. How could people actively decide upon horrible things?

In recent debates we are asked questions that are relatively simple. Tin-foil hat conspiracy accusations and logic-twisting paradigm roller coasters are thrown into the debates to make it seem like none of the issues are that simple at all. But they really are simple:

  • Pollute or clean up the air/water/land?
  • Rule a woman's body against her will, or retain her freedom of choice?
  • Educate about the realities of sex, or keep kids ignorant and full of fear in an abstinence only ideal?

Some of the issues are so simple you shouldn't even ask them with a straight face without expecting to be put into a straight jacket:

  • Give guns to kids, or enforce at least some kind of reasonable gun regulation?
  • Find a more sustainable and clean energy source, or drill baby drill?
  • The Rachel Maddow Show, or Here Comes Honey Boo Boo?

Yet in each of them, it's not hard at all to know exactly how your rightwing relatives and friends will choose. What's hard is to understand why? Is it really what they believe? Or is it to spite liberals? Obviously it's to spite liberals. Right? Wrong. Conservatives actually desire to do what is right just like liberals do.

It's been said that in order to know where you're going you must first know your point of origin. Without such knowledge you've no reference point of beginning. You know, in space up is down and left is right and nothing is defined. So you must decide up before anything else makes sense to you.

The problem is that conservatives have only one such reference point from which to begin...

The end result usually has that exact effect on the rational person. It won't matter if what they realize the liberal would do is the very thing they'd have argued for before, it's absolutely wrong now. Should any of the rights ever be violated for anybody? Hell no! Cuz then they'll take our guns! First Amendment rights to worship how one chooses? Well not if it's a mosque! Wait, you just... NO I DIDN'T!

It's the reason Ann Coulter comes to the conclusions that she does. It's the reason you know that the most repulsive thing you can think of in any situation or issue will undoubtedly be argued the next day by Beck, Savage, and Doocy. Clearly the right thing to do would be to control fishing so we don't strip the oceans of our fish supply, right? Therefore screw you, hippies, I'll eat as much fish as I want and if they go extinct, well fuck 'em!

It's why if someone suggests you eat healthier and be good to your body you'll be told to keep your socialist hands off of their fries! Even if they'd just been scolding their own kids for not eating their vegetables. From then on they'll be made to eat all the freedom fries they can stand. What do doctors know anyway? (I've heard a thousand people make this case in the south, like they all get it from the same Borg implant)... one minute they tell you something's good for you, the next it's gonna give you cancer! Science doesn't, hasn't, and never will work like this, but it's something they insist must be true, because the alternative would be healthy eating, and that's what a liberal would do, and therefore it's WRONG!

This is why Obama must be wrong about everything. I'm not saying there aren't quite a few people who hate him for being black. I think in fact they were hoping to be the first to put forth a black guy so they could again use it as a talking point of Republican superiority like they do Lincoln. It's his liberalism that they hate. There's a lot of melanin not in his skin, but in his heart, and that makes their skin sizzle like a crucifix on the chest of a vampire. They need him to be wrong. The desperation of him being wrong is now greater than ever before, not because of his golden brown hue, but because of how badly their guy fucked everything up, and it made them look bad.

They need a Democrat to be worse. And so they're scraping at anything. Any mole hill must be made into a mountain. Any speck in his eye must be made into an entire redwood tree trunk big enough to build an ark that'll hold two of every species on the planet. And that means fighting for horrible things, like a pipeline that'll burst open (Hey, it'll make moose hornier) or defending worse things, like BP's responsibility in the Gulf spill (Leave BP alone! The fish will adapt to being stuck together like a popcorn ball!) or even forcing government enforced re-rape to women wanting abortion (If they don't wanna be probed they shouldn't have opened their legs!).

Everything must be the fault of a liberal. Even if they block liberals from everything, high five each other over having done so in the most disgusting and antidemocratic of ways, it has to be Obama's fault that it didn't happen and they must all chant how bad a leader he is for having failed. It's what they do to any and all liberals.

It's the very reason why, in the comments section of the NewsBusters article criticizing the very Colbert Report episode from which I just sampled, you will find exactly that kind of attack:

Magically it has to be her fault that she didn't win against someone that horrible, and has nothing to do with the fact South Carolina has as much chance of voting in a Democrat as they do discovering that the real use for a toothbrush is something other than cleaning their chainsaw. The absurdity is even pointed out in a New Orleans publication commenting on the absurdity of crediting God with Sanford's win:
The candidates are quick to give credit to God. According to Sanford, the Almighty intervened and put this "imperfect man" who was "saved by God's grace" back into office. Perhaps there's a less holy explanation. Partisanship is so strong that many people would rather support the scoundrel in their own party than a honest candidate from another.

I don't know what cures this condition, but I do want to leave you with a small scoop of hope. The reason I know the thought process of these people is... I used to be one of them. I grew up in the south. I watched it in action. It's not a fake phenomenon. It's actually happening in all their minds now.

But I stopped, because eventually I realized I was defending something so horrible that it was making the people around me look at me as a monster. Because I was being a monster. I was defending Bush and his war so hard that when terrorists beheaded Nick Berg on America's television screens, and his father was outraged at what this war had come to, I blamed Berg's father for it and suggested he was possibly a terrorist himself.

And then I realized I had no basis for having said it, and it shook my world to the core. Who the hell was I? What the hell was I doing? What just came out of my mouth?

I'm saddened by how bad it had to get before I woke up. I hope it's not true for the majority of them. But I fear it might be. What horror has to happen to wake them up? And is it worth the price?