Friday, January 25, 2008
Shimaguni
Before the Internet, the average liberal or social democrat was largely insulated, on a day-to-day basis, from the kinds of views represented by Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. Similarly, unless we sought out rightwing magazines we were insulated to a large extent from commentators like Goldberg, Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter. Now we can see them minute-to-minute and it’s obvious that the idea of treating them as part of a legitimate discussion is absurd.
Moreover, where it was once possible to treat occasional public manifestations of Freeperism as aberrations, it’s now obvious that this is how the Republican base really thinks. So, any Republican advocate or politician, no matter how superficially reasonable, must be regarded as either someone who shares Freeper/LGF views or someone who is willing to exploit the holders of such views in the pursuit of a personal or class interest.
Look, I've been a critic of Sunstein myself, but this is as pure an example of echo chamber thought as I've seen in a long time. It reminds me of the "objectively pro-whatever" argument in different attire. Or perhaps 'failure to denounce'.
Perhaps I'll have to reconsider Sunstein's point.
P.S. Or Quiggin is kidding, as suggested in the comments.
Labels: partisan schmucks
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Jan 25, 05:55:00 PM:
"it’s obvious that the idea of treating them as part of a legitimate discussion is absurd."
=
"Those who disagree with me shouldn't be listened to."
Did no one ever teach this person about civic discourse? I mean, maybe (maybe) you can get away with saying this about a specific idea like "let's reinstitue slavery" but for general discussions? This is a shameful thing to write.
By 
Andrew Hofer, at
Sat Jan 26, 01:02:00 PM:
Taken seriously, his point would be that the entire Republican edifice is akin to reinstituting slavery.
He goes further than that - anyone who identifies as a Republican is associated with this edifice, as a whole, and is therefore not worthy of legitimate discussion (he modified his language here to those providing any support to Republicans).
So it is a pretty clear statement of identity politics as well.
The mind boggles.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jan 26, 08:36:00 PM:
Anon quoted "it’s obvious that the idea of treating them as part of a legitimate discussion is absurd." That becomes easier to understand when you know the word "obvious" to liberals, means "something I can't make a coherent argument for, but everyone I know agrees with."
Liberalism is a social, not an intellectual phenomenon.
By Noumenon, at
Sun Jan 27, 12:41:00 AM:
He just proves Sunstein's point. How does he know that Goldberg has a book, that LGF exists, etc? Because those are the conservative sites you see links to when you only read liberal blogs. If the Internet were fulfilling its promise he would know about a wider sample of conservatives like Ross Douthat and the Evangelical Outpost.
