Fun With Conservatives

Something I've not done much of in recent years is engage in debate with conservatives. My plan is to start doing that a lot more, particularly when someone goes after me directly. Like our first example, a guy whose name I'll let you figure out for yourself (don't want to promote him), who took umbrage at my recent post on Adam Hasner. A new wrinkle in this argument is that this guy actually is debating me via Twitter @ replies, which is a new one for me.

The gist of the post was that, well, State Rep. Adam Hasner is a hate-monger. My evidence? Three things:

1. He opposes Muslims lobbying the legislature.
2. He supports batshit-crazy anti-Muslim films obsession and The Third Jihad.
3. He was quoted as saying that he didn't care if innocent people were hurt as part of the backlash those films seeks to promote.

None of these are things that Hasner refutes or has every said he disagrees with. And, clearly, if you agree with these things, then you are a hate-monger. That point is not debateable.

My conservative critic doesn't care about things like facts or anything like that. He goes, instead, with the same old conservative arguments.

Youre so quick to paint a good man a hatemonger without fully understanding the man he criticizes. Read up on Mr Bedier.

I did paint Hasner as a hatemonger and that stands fully independently of whether or not Bedier is a terrorist or not. We have no evidence that Bedier is a terrorist. If we did, he'd have been prosecuted and convicted long ago. That hasn't happened. Why? That evidence doesn't exist. Besides, like my original post says, Hasner doesn't just oppose Bedier's rights to free speech and petition, he actively promotes hate-films like Obsession. Even if that weren't true, which is is, he has a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition. By definition, anyone with a 100% from the religious right is a hatemonger. There are no exceptions to this and no possible exceptions to this. The Christian Coalition is a hate group, pure and simple. Beyond that, Hasner hates workers (he's a union buster), he hates free and fair elections (he opposes publicly-financed elections) and he hates pretty much all Floridians (he's an anti-tax crusader). It's clear the amount of his hate knows no bounds, he just has a special hatred for Muslims.

I assume you have seen both award winning documentaries about radical islam, not all muslims. Radical Islam is a threat

Everyone agrees that radical Islam is a threat, just like radical Christianity is. Just like any radicals who promote violence are. And these "documentaries" (read: propaganda films) haven't won awards from any legitimate sources. Anyone can make up a series of awards and give them to anyone they wish. Heck, I've been voted into to halls of fame. I originally created both of them (although I had no hand in voting myself into them), so I don't tout them as proof of my quality as a person. One does not need to see propaganda and hate speech personally to know that it is such, particularly when there are numerous other reliable sources that tell the truth about these films. I have never seen one bit of propaganda from the Ku Klux Klan, yet I know they are wrong. I've only read one statement that Osama Bin Laden has put out, something from 1996, yet I know that everything he has sent out since then is hate-filled propaganda. Same thing with Obsession and anything from the same people. And anyone who defends those films is, by definition, a hate-monger.

Hasner is speaking out against Bedier's ties to radical Islam. Also, where did the "I don't care" quote came from?

He's actually speaking out against Bedier's rights to free speech and to petition the government for the redress of greivances, things protected in the First Amendment. And the "proof" of Bedier's ties to radical Islam is that he was the leader of a local branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. There's no evidence that this chapter had any ties to radical Islam and there's actually no evidence that the national CAIR organization has ties to radical Islam, either, beyond hearsay from right-wing critics.

Are you kidding me? You got the quote from a blog post by John Brown on Topix? You are a joke

No. Don't know who John Brown is, haven't visited Topix. When in doubt, though, fall back on the traditional conservative mode of attack -- ad hominem insults.

There is no evidence of this incident even occurring. Quit sipping the Kool-Aid my friend. It will lead you no where.

Of course there is evidence. There is an eye-witness account that no one denies happened. When it doubt, though, fall back on direct insults and aspersions about my intelligence.

He has neither denied it nor confirmed it, but using hearsay to smear someone is despicable and should not be the "key" to a post.

This isn't hearsay, this is direct witness testimony.

Here's a question. As a professor, would you allow a student to hinge their paper on an unverifiable source from a blog?

As a historian, I'd point out the obvious fact that almost all historical evidence is from unverifiable sources. Secondly, I'd point out that a blog is not a paper. Thirdly, I'd point out that blogs cite other blogs all the time. Fourthly, I'd mention that conservative blogs (and legislators) almost always rely upon such unverifiable sources (like say, when making a film like Obsession).

I'm complaining about a person who takes someone's opinion, and calls it fact. He doesn't need to deny such a ridiculous claim.

I didn't take someone's opinion and report it as a fact. I reported the fact that an eyewitness claimed something happened. And it is clear that conservatives frequently say nonsense like this at public events (see: Tramm Hudson, George Allen, etc.) and if Hasner doesn't want people to think he's a hate-monger, then he should respond to the claim. Especially when he promotes a movie that agrees with the claim that he's accused of making. And if he didn't make the claim, he should certainly repudiate it and tell us how he really feels about the innocent people who can and will be harmed by the promotion of such a horrible series of propaganda films.

As a professor, your posts are held by some to a certain academic standard. I guess they set the bar pretty low at TCC.

Complete and utter nonsense. There is no professional or ethical standard that applies here. Besides, any teacher I've ever had would allow someone to include eyewitness testimony as a bit of valid evidence in a paper (or a blog post). They would have a problem if an entire case was made on one bit of evidence, but that's not what I did. I said it was part of a pattern and provided other examples to support the claim. But, when in doubt, fall back on the old conservative argument of insulting not only me, but an entire educational institution.

The point of the whole thing is, of course, that this guy likes Hasner because both he and Hasner are conservatives. And he doesn't want to believe that conservatism promotes extreme viewpoints. But it does. And, by definition, conservatives are extremists. Hating people because of their religion or party or race is part and parcel of the conservative tradition in the United States and Hasner (and my commenter) proudly defend that tradition.