GoRight's Golden Rule Diary
As many who frequent SC are aware, I have my own formulation and use of the Golden Rule. Basically, it works as follows:
- I openly assume that the Democrats and liberals are honorable people who would advise people to follow the Golden Rule as they fomulate and apply it. [1]
- I observe the way that Democrats and liberals treat others, and then I take them at their word and assume that they are treating others the way that they themselves wish to be treated.
- Being a honorable person myself, as much as it pains me at times to do so I find that I am honor bound to acqiesce to their "request by example" of how they want to be treated.
So, if one actively assumes that one's opponents are applying the Golden Rule as they formulate it then from our side the POV reverses and we have our formulation:
Do unto others as they have done unto you.
which we are honor bound to follow because that is what they would want if they were sincere in their use of their formulation of the Golden Rule.
The format will be that from time to time I will introduce a new topic for consideration as a first level comment below. We can then discussed the best possible examples of how the Democrats and liberals have acted relative to that topic and then the best way to accomodate them in response. They work hard on their political rhetoric and name calling, so we owe it to them to put at least as much effort in from our (Republican/conservative) side.
-----------------------------------------------
[1] "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you." is the classical formulation to which I refer. As honorable people who advocate the use of this rule, I can only assume that they likewise folloow and religiously apply this rule in all of their interactions with their political opponents.
- GoRight's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
TOPIC 1: What to call our President elect?
As can be seen in any number of left-wing blogs the Democrats and liberals like to come up with colorful names for the President. Some examples which they have used for President George W. Bush are:
Here is a pointer to one of the Democrat/liberal attempts at doing this same thing:
The floor is now open for suggestions for names for our President elect ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Here are some initial thoughts ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
wait for a good one...
You are trying to force it here. I suggest you wait for one to recommend itself naturally.
Dubya came from the need to disginguish Bush 41 from Bush 43.
Shrub is a pretty harmless play on his name (whereas emphasizing Hussein seems to take a much nastier tone).
Again, Chimp is pretty harmless, and I think it arose from a collection of photos of him and a chimp making similar facial expressions. I think that is also targeted at his anti-evolution constituency.
For Obama, maybe the easter island statues would be a good comparison, due to his long face and the fact that he is making climate change a high priority (manmade climate change may have destroyed the Easter Island society).
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Captain Spreader and the Obamanauts
Barry is okay if you want to emphasize his youth...but it's kinda moot now that he's been elected.
I dislike Obamanation because it (intentionally?) sounds like abomination...which is both nasty and makes you sound like a fringe nutcase who views Obama's election as some sort of desecration of the White House.
But I like the superhero/rockband image...so I suggest "Captain Spreader (of wealth) and the Obamanauts"
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
Barry and Obamanation.
Barry is just meant to be a term of disrespect. His proper title would be "President Barack Obama", obviously, so calling him something informal like Barry is just disrespectful. I see it as being on par with Shrub.
President Barry would be good because it emphasizes the disrespect.
Abbreviating President to P. also introduces another element of disrespect (i.e. not wanting to call him President) but has the added benefit of making his name sound like a rapper, P. Barry.
I don't particularly like any of these. Hopefully something better will come along.
Yes, Obamanation is intentionally meant to be reminiscent of abomination. I do like this one, although it should probably be used judiciously so that it retains its impact. Only when the link between Obamanation and abomination would be completely obvious.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My vote ;-)
I admit, I am guilty of the impropriety of calling President Bush "George." It is indeed a reflection of my opinion of his presidency, which is not high.
However, I have to point out that the majority of posters here do not routinely sink to the, er, less subtle forms of disrespect for the current president. As such, and in the interests of giving the new president some time to actually be president and demonstrate his competence or lack thereof, perhaps you would consider refraining from the more egregious examples in your list?
"Barack" would be okay. It communicates what you desire without bastardizing your discourse unduly. But the thought of seeing you write "P. Barry" for the next four years is just not setting right. It's too distracting ;-)
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
communal punishment
Your strategy seems to be to pick out the most extreme members of the other "group", and then apply that standard to the entire group. Even worse, some members of the group may disavow any association with other members.
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
I suppose this is an accurate account.
But the tying of the Democrats/liberals into a single group is important here. It is designed to put pressure on those people on that side of the aisle who find this tpe of thing offensive to stand up and denounce it from within the group rather than selectively denouncing it from just their opponents.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I dunno
Liberals could merely be seeing you using names such as Hildebeast
to describe certain prominent Democrats, and merely be applying your Golden Rule to Republicans. It's hard to determine which side took the first cheap shot. But I generally stay away from the name-calling, so I'll defer to your expertise in the subject.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
You're gonna have to find something older than that ...
Shrub clearly predates October, 2007. In fact, a little googling turned up a reference which was actually published in a MSM source on April 30, 1999
.
When is the earliest reference you have from me for using "Hildebeast?"
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Slick Willie?
The derogatory use of the nickname "Slick Willie" certainly predates "Shrub". And "Tricky Dick" predates that, and so on.
When is the earliest reference you have of me using a derogatory nickname for anyone? I have a reference of you using Hildebeast from December 21 2004
.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
The fallacy here ...
is that I only respond to attacks from you personally. This is not the case. What makes you think that may use of Hildebeast was in response to anything you said personally? Sorry to let you down like this, skymutt, but you are not at the center of my world. :) Actually, you are way off to the left somewhere.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Look at the big ego on GoRight
He thinks that I think I'm the center of his world :-)
I'm merely trying to establish that at this point, your use of derogatory nicknames like Hildebeast is no longer a response to anything; it's just something that you do. Once you use this kind of low device for a number of years, you are simply just part of the problem. Your negativity and debasement of the discourse predates our first interaction and is all I and probably all of SwordsCrossed have seen of you.
At some point, you have to say that enough is enough. You can say I'm an a-hole if you want, I can take it, and I verge on a-holines sometimes. But I am not a 24/7/365 a-hole, and I don't use these kinds of nicknames very often and most of the time I do not use them at all. And yet it seems that you have no problem lumping me with everyone else who you perceive to be on the left in this and every other regard.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Why are you taking this so personally, skymutt?
Where have I ever sought to single you out specifically on this point? Where have I said "I am reacting here to skymutt's use of a derogatory nickname? I have always been talking generically about such things.
Hey, if you are one of the Democrats that takes the high road and doesn't engage in this type of thing, well then my comments are not directed at you. This should be obivious.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
"Quid pro quo with the benefit of the doubt"
That sounds almost like "Quid pro quo with the benefit of the doubt", which has been found to be a very effective strategy in simple, multi-round cooperation games.
Unfortunately, I don't see "benefit of the doubt" in your formulation.
Also, there is the problem of misinterpreting whether the other player is attempting to cooperate (be honest) or not....so I would suggest reapply "benefit of the doubt" on a regular basis (at least when there seems to be some chance of developing a mutually beneficial relationship)..
"You have seen how a man was made a slave; you shall see how a slave was made a man." --Frederick Douglas
*Scratching my head*
Are you saying that in a public forum [message board, park, library, etc] that you might want to be treated the same way the worst person in the group treats one other person?
Much like
Joe Schmo: Calls Bush "Bu$h" among other personal attacks
GR: Seems to advocate attacking Joe Schmo much in the same way.
Does GR want to be treated the same way Joe Schmo treats Bush?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Where have I advocated attacking Joe Schmo?
I am advocating treating Joe Schmo's candidate with the same level of respect that he treated ours. That's not the same thing as attacking Joe Schmo.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Technicality
That makes it clearer.
If everyone followed GR's Golden Rule on how to Treat Candidates.
Joe Schmo: Belittles Candidate A
GR: Belittles Candidate JS
Jane Schmo: Belittles Candidate GR [I assuming Jane would not be omniscient and know that GR was only belittling Joe's candidate because Joe belittled Candidate A]
John Q: Belittles Candidate JaS
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sorry, but it that was supposed to make it clear to me ...
it didn't. How does this show me attacking Joe Schmo in any way? How does this show ANYONE attacking Joe Schmo in any way?
Just to be clear, I am reacting to your statatement:
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Key
Candidate JS = The candidate that Joe Schmo supports
Candidate JaS = The candidate that Jane Schmo supports
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
LOL
I got that much.
Which of the example statements is an attack on Joe Schmo?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The 1st response was
The 1st response was wondering if the GR Golden Rule would end up with everyone attacking everyone else personally.
Then you clarified, for me, on what you meant.
The 2nd response was wondering if the GR Golden Rule would end up with everyone attacking every candidate out there.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Oh, now I see.
Yes, it may result in everyone attacking every candidate except their own, but you have to remember that this all started precisely because I am seeking to emulate the bahavior that I observe in the Democrats/liberals because of my fundamental assumption that they advocate and follow their formulation of the Golden Rule.
If they do then there is no problem with my attacking their candidates thus. If they don't, well that speaks for itself. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
As I have mentioned before
This formulation of the Golden Rule is pretty much the same as that set forth by Satanism.
I'm just sayin'.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm OK with that.
I'm not religious. :-P
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Another statement that would get you banned
...from the mainstream of the GOP. Yet you endorse their enforcement of rigid party discipline through purges. I find that to be an interesting disconnect. What did you think of the Liddy Dole godless commercial?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Even though I myself am not religious ...
I support the right of others to be so without prejudice. Unlike the Democrats and liberals who favor science (i.e. that subset that favors science), I favor science but without the dogmatic intolerance that they seem to practice. A dogmatic intolerance that borders on the religious in its own right, quite ironically in my view.
I try to live the American ideal of live and let live, but if I were religious I would definitely be a fan of the old testament where we have an eye for an eye. Hence my GoRight Golden Rule. To people who respect my rights, I respect theirs. That's my libertarian side. To people who attack my rights, I do my best to poke a stick in their eye (metaphorically speaking of course).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I favor science too
And I am a liberal Democrat by your definition. But I am not intolerant of religion at all-- show me where I have been. I know that that kind of intolerance exists on the left, and when I see it, I fight against it. So what have you done about the agents of intolerance on the right?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Where have I claimed that you personally are intolerant?
Again, skymutt, not evey statement I make is directed at specifically at you. :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Here
Since I count myself as one of "the Democrats and liberals who favor science", I find myself unambiguoulsy accused of "dogmatic intolerance" by your statement. I didn't claim that the statement was directed specifically at me. To take this to an extreme for the purpose of illustration, try saying "the black people are n----rs" with a black person around and see if it flies when you tell him/her that your statement wasn't directed specifically at them.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Meh.
It is time to toss you a bone.
Fine, I stand corrected, there are actually two categories within the group of "Democrats and liberals who favor science". Those that practice "dogmatic intolerance", and those that claim not too. We clearly have several of the former right here on SC, and at least 1 of the latter.
Better? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Hmmm
I am looking at this bone I have been tossed, and it appears to be more of a half bone upon closer inspection. Your statement seems to leave open the possibility that all Democrats practice "dogmatic intolerance" and that there are two categories amonngst them-- those that are openly intolerant, and those that claim (dishonestly) not to be intolerant.
A full bone would be this:
You wouldn't want to throw a mutt just half a bone, would you?
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
LOL. This is funny, skymutt.
Because I did actually carefully consider what I said here. The obvious text without thinking about it would have been your second one, which truly would have been the unqualified bone. But upon further reflection I wasn't really prepared to be quite that magnanimous.
But I have to disagree that I have given you half of a bone. To illustrate why let me recount the following joke:
I think the same is true of throwing bones as well. :)
Note, however, that there is a small problem with your assessment of the impications of my statement.
The fallacy in this logic is that my statement says nothing about the honesty of those who are claim to not be intolerant. They might be honest, or they might not, which is actually a valid characterization of the situation.
Isn't it funny, though, that it would occur to you that these claims of tolerance might be dishonest. Hmmm. :)
Here, I'll even throw in a second bone for free:
I hereby concede that you, skymutt, are one of the honest claim makers, rather than one of the dishonest ones.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
So, the previous bone throw was a... lie?
[skymutt snatches this bone quickly before GoRight can take it back]
:-)
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
A misreading of the language and faulty logic on your part ...
does not a lie on my part make. :)
Keep both of your bones either way.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree