![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsSo, Martin Freeberg has followed his claim that "eliminationism is a phenomenon of the left" with a response to my essay, so it's time to give him a response to his response. This time he calls his article, "Eliminationism re-explored: they own it," and proceeds more or less where they left off.
Freeberg starts off with this claim: "As anyone who clicks through and reads my original work knows, I did offer a list of examples."
No, actually, he didn't. Here's what he wrote:
Note the list: it's meaningless. Not a single quote, not a single citation, not a single shred of evidence. Just vague "theys" and "thems." Freeberg does not, and probably cannot, cite a single quote by Randy Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Howard Dean, or anyone else to the effect that "the left wants the right destroyed."
I mean, the claim is ridiculous on its face: these people have owned the White House for the past eight years. They've had, if not control, at least complete veto authority over the Congress for the past twelve. You'd think that that would have caused enormous frustration with "the left," so much so that murderous impulses would be a dime a dozen. But Freeberg's accusations remain untethered to reality.
I'm also completely puzzled by Freeberg's attempt to hammer on the Boy Scouts issue. Case law is and always has been pretty damned clear about the use of government funds to subsidize the teaching of religious ideology. That's what the Boy Scouts were doing. As long as the Scouts continue to claim that their mission is divinely inspired and, as such, they must oppose the membership of American citizens who happen to be gay or atheist, they're likewise barred from taking government money.
If the Secular Scouts or Pagan Scouts had been denied federal funds, would Freeberg be quite so up in arms?
Really, I want to know how the Boy Scouts were made to feel "isolated" when, in fact, what the Supremes said is that the Boy Scouts must, like every one else, obey the law of the land. Freeberg doesn't want to address this. He doesn't seem to want to think about it. At best, he wants to retain a certain degree of exceptionalism. "We're special because... "
Freeberg then wants to have it both ways: He wants you to think that the Nazis (oh, he gets a Goodwin gold star) were "socialists" because that was in their name, when they were anything but: they didn't want the state to run the factories, they wanted powerful, centralized figures to run the factories along psuedo-capitalistic lines and rake in a significant portion in return for protection of those enterprises. That's facism. But he probably won't object to the claim that the "Trinity Church of Christ isn't Christian," despite their name. Look, the Nazis were anything but "Socialist"; it was a Nationist party, and it was a totalitarian ideology, but it was hardly what anyone then or now considered a "socialist" program.
Freeberg's free-floating continuation is just that: free-floating. He ends by saying that Orcinus' long line of quotes, which very clearly illustrate the mind-set of highly placed and highly visible citizens of the Right, were "nostalgic" and "amusing" and not to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right.
As for Freeberg, ah, SIWOTI. It exists only for my entertainment.
Freeberg starts off with this claim: "As anyone who clicks through and reads my original work knows, I did offer a list of examples."
No, actually, he didn't. Here's what he wrote:
Those groups, and many more, I've seen exposed to "complete suppression, exile and ejection, or extermination." "Unfit for participation in their vision of society." Earlier in the piece, the author further defines eliminationism as something that "cuts the target off from the community support it might normally enjoy and leaves them feeling even more isolated." Is it possible to jot down a more apt description for what has been done to the Boy Scouts?
Note the list: it's meaningless. Not a single quote, not a single citation, not a single shred of evidence. Just vague "theys" and "thems." Freeberg does not, and probably cannot, cite a single quote by Randy Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Stephanie Miller, Howard Dean, or anyone else to the effect that "the left wants the right destroyed."
I mean, the claim is ridiculous on its face: these people have owned the White House for the past eight years. They've had, if not control, at least complete veto authority over the Congress for the past twelve. You'd think that that would have caused enormous frustration with "the left," so much so that murderous impulses would be a dime a dozen. But Freeberg's accusations remain untethered to reality.
I'm also completely puzzled by Freeberg's attempt to hammer on the Boy Scouts issue. Case law is and always has been pretty damned clear about the use of government funds to subsidize the teaching of religious ideology. That's what the Boy Scouts were doing. As long as the Scouts continue to claim that their mission is divinely inspired and, as such, they must oppose the membership of American citizens who happen to be gay or atheist, they're likewise barred from taking government money.
If the Secular Scouts or Pagan Scouts had been denied federal funds, would Freeberg be quite so up in arms?
Really, I want to know how the Boy Scouts were made to feel "isolated" when, in fact, what the Supremes said is that the Boy Scouts must, like every one else, obey the law of the land. Freeberg doesn't want to address this. He doesn't seem to want to think about it. At best, he wants to retain a certain degree of exceptionalism. "We're special because... "
Freeberg then wants to have it both ways: He wants you to think that the Nazis (oh, he gets a Goodwin gold star) were "socialists" because that was in their name, when they were anything but: they didn't want the state to run the factories, they wanted powerful, centralized figures to run the factories along psuedo-capitalistic lines and rake in a significant portion in return for protection of those enterprises. That's facism. But he probably won't object to the claim that the "Trinity Church of Christ isn't Christian," despite their name. Look, the Nazis were anything but "Socialist"; it was a Nationist party, and it was a totalitarian ideology, but it was hardly what anyone then or now considered a "socialist" program.
Freeberg's free-floating continuation is just that: free-floating. He ends by saying that Orcinus' long line of quotes, which very clearly illustrate the mind-set of highly placed and highly visible citizens of the Right, were "nostalgic" and "amusing" and not to be taken seriously.
Yeah, right.
As for Freeberg, ah, SIWOTI. It exists only for my entertainment.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Eliminationism upon the Eliminationists
Date: 2008-08-05 09:01 pm (UTC)ideaphile says "The fact that this Freeberg guy can't really support his position doesn't mean you're right..." It is logical sloppiness for him to so breezily conflate "can't" with "won't," but other than that he has a solid argument; what he's trying to tell you is exactly what I would have said, if I thought you were ready to hear it. The collectivist organization has a whole different way of practicing eliminationism, as I understand eliminationism. It has to. The union declares a strike; management refuses to meet the terms of the strike; management offers to hire scabs, and I offer my services as a scab. The union, at that point, has to break my kneecaps (as they did...and unions are leftists). They have no choice. If word gets out that this kind of transaction can go forward, it undercuts the collective bargaining process, and collective bargaining is what unions are all about.
On the flip-side, if I'm a right-winger and I'm smoking a cigarette in my own home, and some left-winger breaks in and says "you aren't allowed to smoke in you're home, you're going to have to put that out" and I say "DIE, hippie!", that's simply expressing a sentiment all individuals are going to want to similarly express if they have a love of freedom and liberty. Whether I follow through on it is another matter. But I've got a feeling, judging by Orcinus' examples, that I don't have to do this in order for him to count it in his list. The shotgun need not come out and go boom. Simply saying "die hippie" is another hash mark, another right-winger practicing eliminationism. I know the double standard is there. I mean, Ann Coulter said in the middle of her statement that she was making a joke. Orcinus went ahead and counted that.
So here's my question to you. When I build my list of left-winger eliminationist rhetoric, can I count jokes? How about threats, without following through? How about condescending speech, designed to belittle and intimidate people from expressing opinions unfavored -- to cast "a chill effect on free speech" as the cliche goes?
Over on my blog, I've considered the possibility that all these ambiguities are ultimately provided an answer situationally specific, consistently favorable to your "side." In other words, the chill effect situation -- counts as eliminationist rhetoric when a conservative does it, not when a liberal does it.
I've not seen anyone seriously state anything to the contrary. Therefore, I presume that is how it works. Like I said...you guys invented the term, and you're going to insist on owning it. If you didn't have that ultimatum in mind, I wouldn't have stirred your cackles so much simply by pointing out my personal experience is different.
But it's true that collectivists simply can't co-exist with individually-minded people. By means of threats of force, actual force, or softer social stigma -- the collectivist enclave has to wield some kind of weapon to bring everyone into line. It's always been that way. Individuals...not so much. We're all about turning our thermostats to 72' without President Obama getting in our faces about it.
Oh, and I'm not in league with the Rev. Nor did I say I was in league with whoever committed this act of arson. I simply pointed out, here we have two eliminationists going at it with each other, thereby making it a logical possibility that one side or the other could lock down a monopoly on this. You should have read that more critically.