perhaps liberalism is indeed a mental disorder
posted by CS | 12:23 PM 
Steve Malzberg details the (unfortunately not particularly) shocking assertions made by Bill Maher recently on one of his shows. read this exchange between Maher and guest Christopher Hitchens:
yes! i am glad to see someone point out the fact that Hitler, oft forcibly aligned with those on the right of the political spectrum, was in fact an extremist in a vein similar to modern leftists, in his authoritarian top-down dogmas re: environmentalism, animal rights, health and whatnot.
back to Maher - i am not one to be quick to label dialogue "hate speech", but can someone explain to me precisely how this is not hateful? Maher seems to be justifying Michael Savage's position that liberalism is a mental disorder; Maher has been descending ever further into the angry abyss of futile loathing.
(then again, Savage himself has said quite a few things i'd consider hateful. but that's just me - i'm thenthitive like that.)
After the photo display, the host was taken to task by guest Christopher Hitchens, who decided he was going to make an attempt to defend the president: "It must be to his credit he got Laura Bush to marry him. She's an absolutely extraordinary woman."
But Hitchens was interrupted by Maher who blurted out: "Oh, come on. That's like Hitler's dog loved him. That is the silliest reason. ..."
At that point Hitchens jumped in: "I think tomorrow you might be sorry you said that. Laura Bush is very gentle and talented."
...
Maher then said, "That's not what I'm saying, of course she is, but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous."
Hitchens then said of Laura: "She got him to give up the booze, and he owes her for that. I think it's nasty to be mean to Laura Bush."
Of course Maher denied that he was. Instead he claimed that he was directing his meanness in the direction of the president. But Hitchens wasn't amused: "You're being ungallant about Laura Bush, you've compared her to Hitler's dog. I'm not going to sit here and listen to that."
Then Hitchens added this closing shot on the issue: "Hitler was everything you want. Hitler was a teetotaler, a vegetarian and a non-smoker."
yes! i am glad to see someone point out the fact that Hitler, oft forcibly aligned with those on the right of the political spectrum, was in fact an extremist in a vein similar to modern leftists, in his authoritarian top-down dogmas re: environmentalism, animal rights, health and whatnot.
back to Maher - i am not one to be quick to label dialogue "hate speech", but can someone explain to me precisely how this is not hateful? Maher seems to be justifying Michael Savage's position that liberalism is a mental disorder; Maher has been descending ever further into the angry abyss of futile loathing.
(then again, Savage himself has said quite a few things i'd consider hateful. but that's just me - i'm thenthitive like that.)
2 Comments:
I saw this article earlier today as well, and it shows such the double standard today that liberals are excused in saying things of this nature with hardly a blink, but if a Republican/conservative/etc. said it, they would be roasted in the media and the call for firing would begin.
This comment by Maher is particularly scary: "but the idea that we somehow humanize any person because somebody else loves them is ridiculous." Is he implying that he denies human qualities to someone he hates, regardless of if they're loved by others? That's a dangerous position...
Perhaps you are right about the mental disorder--it should be added to Axis II diagnoses: Liberal Personality Disorder.
spoken like a true mental health professional! ;-)
well, that's Savage's assertion - not mine - that liberalism is a mental disorder. it's a cute saying for those of us on the right, but they seem fighting words, with little chance of winning converts. and there's a good point in that phrase... "winning converts"... my desire to see leftists rightists is motivated by a deeply-seated conviction that they are causing themselves, their families, and their society grievous injury with the actions based upon their thinking. it's far more that than a desire to see more members on "my team". shoot - i can't even figure out what "my team" is! ;-)
but back to that point (liberalism as a mental disorder): it does appear to me that the actions of liberals do not always (or often, in the case of many) square with the core of their ideology, which to me would seem a tell-tale sign of delusion or denial - which could be termed a form of insanity, though i don't pretend to be fully versed in the terminology of the DSM-MCXVIII.
not that "conservatives" hold to the core of their ideology very well today - which is precisely what has me so irked (and having written the 5th part of a series entitled "drunken sailors"). conservatism is innately more difficult than liberalism, for it entails firmly believing (and living) the desirous, but difficult lesson (which should be) learned in childhood: sometimes "no" is the correct answer, no matter how hard an answer it may be.
such is why i love the comment of "Cavalier" i quoted in part 5: "With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?" one could as easily add, "with conservatives like this, who needs liberals?"
Post a Comment
<< Home