Uncivilized discourse

I have to vent.

On Facebook this morning, a now-unfriended person paste-posted an image of what looks like a newspaper article outlining the deeply nefarious “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.  Even if I hadn’t read “Rules”—which I have—this artifact didn’t pass the too-outrageous-to-be-true test.

So I commented that it wasn’t true, linking to the Wikipedia article on “Rules” and the Snopes article debunking the artifact.  (I also uploaded the graphic to the left; this is now my standard response to these idiocies.)

Another commenter then commented on the original, “Good to know, may I repost?” AFTER I HAD ALREADY DEBUNKED IT—but this is not my first time observing a rightwing nutjob’s blindness to the facts right in front of him.

Here’s why I’m seething: the next time this exchange percolated through my newsfeed, the original poster HAD DELETED ALL MY LINKS, leaving only my comment that it wasn’t true. He then commented, “To all my liberal friends—gotcha!”

WTF, dude.  “Gotcha?”  You posted a lie, I discredited it as a lie, and you have concealed that.  You have not deleted the post, you have not acknowledged that you slipped up and allowed your rabid weasel-brain to get the better of you, you have deliberately spread a lie as the truth.  Son of a bitch.

This person—it almost goes without saying—a fine, upstanding Christian in this town.

As the article says, “The Useful Idiots have destroyed every nation in which they have seized power and control.  It is presently happening at an alarming rate in the U.S.”

2 thoughts on “Uncivilized discourse

  1. This is someone’s interpretation of Rule for Radicals applied to our current political state in the U.S. It is obviously over simplified and stretched to reach conclusions that fit conservative world views. Alinsky’s guide for effective activism to defeat the opposition is absolutely used by the Democratic Party to influence the country’s overall view of the Republican party with much success. The book highlights Saul’s understanding of how different group psychology is from the individual. One sheep can be difficult to herd but large groups can be guided easily using emotional manipulation techniques. The way we are viewed among our social peers overwhelms the critical thinking skills we might apply on our own. Your depiction here completely discounts the article as right wing propaganda without telling the whole story. You stated that you have read the book so you are aware that the tactics are being used to influence us dishonestly. These strategies are reprehensible and immoral even if you truly believe the end result is best for humanity. Wikipedia is a source to lead you to more credible information depending on the linked info but hardly credible to debunk anything on its own. Snopes shouldn’t be a reference at all and is quite biased in areas or just lacks depth of investigation in others. Thanks for taking time to read the view from someone outside the Left/Right political paradigm. Cheers!

  2. Thanks for the comment!

    Of course I discount the clipping as right wing propaganda: it is so clearly a lie that there is no other “interpretation” that can be made. As for the Democratic party’s using Alinksy’s strategies to defeat Republicans, I can only say I wish they would.

    I’m not sure why you say these tactics are reprehensible and immoral. They are merely tactics outlined by Alinsky for the powerless to loosen the grip of the powerful. That, in my book, makes them a great deal more moral than any pious shibboleths from either side of the aisle.

    And finally, whatever the merits of Snopes.com in general (and I have yet to see a valid rebuttal on any item I’ve checked), on this particular item they are completely accurate.

    My main point stands: the slimeball who smugly posted this lie and who deleted my comments calling him out—but leaving the lie—is a despicable toad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.