MORE FROM LOFF56 ON PL'S LACK OF DECORUM & PREACHING TO THE CHOIR/PL RESPONDS WITH A REMINDER ABOUT GALILEO!

Here's LOFF56:

First of all, Kudos to you for the presidential fly swatter reference. I didn't see that one coming. LOL

Second: "Preaching to the choir"

I have two problems with this. First, if you are in fact intentionally "preaching to the choir" then I ask the obvious question that is bound up in that very adage, "what's the point"? The very phrase itself means that one is tied up in a futile exercise in teaching people something they already know. So, very simply: What's the point?

Second: I'm calling out your BS on this one anyway because I don't believe you actually are "preaching to the choir". Numerous times in your postings you've very adamantly asked people (directly and indirectly) to disagree with you or you've spoken directly to a group of people outside "the choir". There's a June 1st posting that's actually called, "PL's Challenge!"

Here's a quote from a relatively recent post that suggests that you're attempting to reach people way outside "the choir":

PL: I've already written and posted and reposted my article entitled "SAY IT: RACISM IS A PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER!" so many times that I will only link to it this time. But now I would like to get even more offensive to the baby souls who blindly love blind authority and live with intense fear of the Other: "SAY IT: BEING A COP IS A PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER!"

This is not "preaching to the choir" at all, this is directly engaging the "baby souls" as you call them. (And I'm not gonna' buy the argument that the directive, "SAY IT" is intended for us, "the choir". If it is, then you need to start paying serious attention to the syntax and clarity of your writing. In the context of what you've written here, you're asking the "baby souls" to "SAY IT!")

So again, I'm calling you out, you're not in fact "preaching to the choir" at all. Which I'm totally fine with! In fact, I think that's fantastic. From Luke Chapter 15: "...there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." So...

That brings me to my original point. Since you are (at least I believe you are) attempting to change people's minds and you agree that Obama is a great leader, why don't you act like him, and leave words like, "...retrogressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy, needy, prescription drug-filled, numbskull Deliverance hypocrites..." at the door?

To tie this in with anons comments as well. I have no problem with vigorously defending the truth. I think this is a major difference between the Obama administration and the Clinton administration, Obama has been much better at dispelling rumor, lies and what not than Clinton ever was. But discourse does matter. Two wrongs don't make a right. Words when strung together like this, "...retrogressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy, needy, prescription drug-filled, numbskull Deliverance hypocrites..." have a meaning that's larger than the individual definitions of all the parts. Even if individually all of it happens to be true, there is a definite insult that's synthesized by the collection of the out-of-context adjectives which is really just as un-helpful to the public discourse as the lies that these politicians spew in the first place.

And for those of us on the side of progress, leading by example is not a weakness or a fault. I believe it's an absolute necessity. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." How will we ever break the dreadful partisan cycle until one side decides to hold back their punches?

Defend the truth: YES, YES, YES!!!
Swat the actual lie: YES, YES, YES!!!
Destroy the liars: NO! NO! NO! Convert them!


Here's PL:

Okay, L56, I know you think my approach is counterproductive at times, even if you agree with some of the content of what I'm saying, but a few things in response to you here on this matter...

The purpose of preaching to the choir is to wake the choir up. After 28 years of nefarious and/or incompetent leadership in the White House, many people had fallen asleep or given up on government at that level, and needed to be awakened to the clarion call of consciousness that a new day was upon us. The outpouring in the 2008 election represented that awakening, but it is still so that the choir needs to be reminded of the resistance that still exists in screeching force against progressive change, so they don't fall back to sleep.

Likewise, I assure you that the people I'm referring to as "the Deliverance crowd" didn't and never will support a Barack Obama for the very reasons they themselves espouse through their riotous rhetoric, because they are not at all capable of embracing the kind of change his election represented. (Just ask some that you might know who all of a sudden have decided that they will never again vote for an incumbent! Hmm... who exactly would that incumbent be that they've actually decided 3 1/2 years in advance they will never vote for?!)

As far as my challenges to those immovable folks on this blog, I do admit to provoking that crowd, yes, but for the purposes of exposing their hypocrisy and Flintstonian thinking. I have no illusions whatsoever that they might change. Those that imprisoned Galileo because he supported Copernicus' discovery that the Earth revolved around the sun never changed their minds. Those who burned woman as witches never realized they were psychotic misogynists. And those who think Obama isn't American and might even be the anti-Christ aren't open to a new way.

We are undoubtedly evolving collectively, L56, and that is the source of my ultimate optimism. But some of that evolution is in the hands of time and takes place through attrition. As the (sorry) retrogressive, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, greedy, needy, prescription drug-filled, numbskull Deliverance hypocrites die out - and they are already shrinking dramatically in numbers - our evolution will proceed as it always has.

As always, thanks for your thoughtful comments!