Recently, on KROQ, they interviewed the guys from Flobots about their song "Handlebars". Turns out, this is one of those songs that's got everyone lining up to either love it or hate it, without a lot of middle ground. And a lot of those that don't like it, don't like it because of the politics and a perceived 'attack' on the president. (The guys from Flobots acknowledge they assumed people would think that, but that their real intent with the lyrics, especially the last verse, was a far more general 'this is the way of politics' sort of statement, and not an indictment of any one man or administration.)
In an article in Entertainment Weekly last week on the director of the upcoming film "Stop-Loss," the article refers to a recent screening of the trailer which was greeted with "reflexive hisses." Apparently the mere notion of a Hollywood film about Iraq is enough to generate hate within an audience.
So when did we become a nation of intolerant assholes?
Why is it now that no one can make any kind of political expression without someone falling over themselves in red-faced invective, telling you to 'shut the f up!' (If you're famous, that gets modified to 'shut up and sing' or 'shut up and act'.) How have we all become so narrow-minded?
Are we dealing with the fallout from Bush's arrogance, and his cohorts "I don't give a rat's ass what you people think" attitudes?
Is it simply that there are so many polarizing issues out there: the war, abortion, the environment, to name a few?
(As an aside, how the hell can keeping our air breathable, water drinkable and land arable be a polarizing issue? And how likely is it that, if anyone's actually reading this blog, I get some a-hole telling me to shut up about the environment, probably with an appropriate liberal-bashing epithet attached.)
Obviously the 60's counter-culture movement, and its antithetical "America Love It or Leave It" factions show that this isn't really a new notion, so maybe it's just the ease with which this invective can be expressed. Any yahoo with time on his hands and inclination can start a blog, and if they've got the time and dedication, they can get people reading it. And to keep people coming back, they're going to have to be controversial, since who's coming back to read someone's thoughts when you're left thinking 'yeah, maybe you've got a point.' Let's face it… no one's reading Ann Coulter for her pithy observations or erudite writings. They read her because she hates godless liberals, "faggots" and 9/11 widows that don't mourn appropriately.
Maybe we're all just looking for, and encouraging, intolerant behavior.
Maybe we haven't BECOME intolerant assholes. Maybe we always have been… we're just 'better' at showing it now.
In an article in Entertainment Weekly last week on the director of the upcoming film "Stop-Loss," the article refers to a recent screening of the trailer which was greeted with "reflexive hisses." Apparently the mere notion of a Hollywood film about Iraq is enough to generate hate within an audience.
So when did we become a nation of intolerant assholes?
Why is it now that no one can make any kind of political expression without someone falling over themselves in red-faced invective, telling you to 'shut the f up!' (If you're famous, that gets modified to 'shut up and sing' or 'shut up and act'.) How have we all become so narrow-minded?
Are we dealing with the fallout from Bush's arrogance, and his cohorts "I don't give a rat's ass what you people think" attitudes?
Is it simply that there are so many polarizing issues out there: the war, abortion, the environment, to name a few?
(As an aside, how the hell can keeping our air breathable, water drinkable and land arable be a polarizing issue? And how likely is it that, if anyone's actually reading this blog, I get some a-hole telling me to shut up about the environment, probably with an appropriate liberal-bashing epithet attached.)
Obviously the 60's counter-culture movement, and its antithetical "America Love It or Leave It" factions show that this isn't really a new notion, so maybe it's just the ease with which this invective can be expressed. Any yahoo with time on his hands and inclination can start a blog, and if they've got the time and dedication, they can get people reading it. And to keep people coming back, they're going to have to be controversial, since who's coming back to read someone's thoughts when you're left thinking 'yeah, maybe you've got a point.' Let's face it… no one's reading Ann Coulter for her pithy observations or erudite writings. They read her because she hates godless liberals, "faggots" and 9/11 widows that don't mourn appropriately.
Maybe we're all just looking for, and encouraging, intolerant behavior.
Maybe we haven't BECOME intolerant assholes. Maybe we always have been… we're just 'better' at showing it now.
Comments
No one on ANY side seems to want to find middle ground anymore.
I don't know if it's ego, intolerance, impatience, or what. It also has to do with the labelling of things in our society. When you label, then everything associated with that label now has to fit into a narrow definition.
Some examples I can think of with my own positions:
Why can't I support a message of abstinence AND want to promote safe sex?
Why can't I favor being eco-conscious AND want to drill in Alaska?
Why can't I can't I support freedom of religion AND still think it's ok to say "one nation under God", or have a cross on a city emblem?
Why can't I bash Bush AND still be conservative?
Why can't I criticize the handling of the war AND still believe we should stay?
BTW...I would have hissed Stop-Loss because it was a crappy movie.
And, this invective/hate/intolerance has been around since the 60's as you mention, but I think reached prevalence in the 80's. The left HATED Reagan. The 80's are still often referred to as the 'greedy 80's (whatever that means). The right HATED Clinton. And, now the left HATES Bush. Will the right hate Obama? I know Ed Schulz (a lefty radio guy) called McCain a warmonger yesterday. Really? Geez...a little over the top.
Why can't people who were very much against the war starting back off of their position and admit it is insane to suggest we just run out ASAP?
And why is it that a politician that changes his stand on something is instantly accused of being wishy-washy? Opinions SHOULD change, as the situation, or the information or learnings change. I'm more willing to listen to someone that's willing to consider both sides of an argument, and is able to change their opinion when they're given valid reason to change that opinion. So why can't we hold our elected officials to that same standard?
I've seen it expressed that the whole black/white thing is part of the Neo-Con movement, a tool of people like Karl Rove, to help divide people… engender that 'us vs. them' attitude that makes it possible to talk about red states vs. blue states, diss Left Coast Liberals, and dismiss the people living in 'flyover' states. Whether it's all Karl's fault, or he's just been really good at working it, we're suffering from it today. On the blog Strongly Worded Letter, there are several quotes from people celebrating the poor opening weekend for The Leatherheads, and blaming it on George Clooney's politics. Many of them come back to the 'shut up and act' BS I complain about, but I also 'enjoy' the several comments that refer to his "limited education" or "vapid intelligence". I'm not well versed on Clooney's education, and I'm doubting he falls into either category, but the hate in these comments is palpable.
On a similar note, there's an ad for McDonald's new iced coffees on the radio now and, at the tail end of the ad, there's a reference to not having to 'hold your nose in the air' to drink this coffee, since, apparently, preferring coffee with real flavor somehow makes you a pretentious, arrogant a-hole, and not nearly as good a person as the type that will buy their coffee at McDonald's. In this case, it's not the hate that's palpable, but some kind of class-conscious contempt that should be totally out of character for our supposedly all-inclusive American mindset, and yet is far too prevalent today.
I don't know why it's so difficult to find a middle ground any more.
I oppose the war in Iraq… I believe we were lied to about our reasons for going there, I think it's been a failure on virtually every level (except the relatively minor accomplishment—in historical terms—of removing Hussein from power), and there's little hope we'll make things better in the short term. But having said that, I cannot embrace the notion that we need to get out immediately.
Maybe that's not 'finding a middle ground' and more in the nature of understanding the responsibility of "cleaning up the mess you've made," but judging from the polls and surveys I've seen in my email in-box, I am not allowed, as a liberal democrat, to hold both those opinions. If I believe the war was wrong, then I must be in favor of getting out now, and it's just a matter of how many months we should allocate.
You SHOULD be able to bash Bush and still be a conservative, and I would hope that true conservatives would recognize that option. The problem is that neither party cares about these middle ground stances any more. We MUST take sides… "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem." It's moronic, reductive reasoning, but it seems to be what we're saddled with. And it frustrates, annoys and angers me.
Interesting comment about the ACLU. Just wondering what makes them "a worse organization" now. With an administration that's displayed such contempt for the Constitution, I've been more than a bit inclined to join, thinking that any group that's looking out for the Constitution's probably one I want to be a part of. (I would think that, considering the President's Oath of Office, in saner times that contempt would be a de facto argument for impeachment. Too bad we're not sane these days.)
They occassionally get a young lawyer in who will file a legit case. But, for the most part they have become completely corrupt. As any sort of influential organization tends to. Jefferson was right - you need to tear that shit down and rebuild in order to maintain integrity and forward-thinking.
Back at UCI, I was in a play that was written by an apparently very famous British anarchist, whose theory was that we'd become so completely corrupt that a nuclear, or otherwise apocalyptic, war was the only hope… burn it all down and start from scratch. As I remember, the play was not that great and our production less so, but I sometimes wonder if maybe he doesn't have a point. Gotta figure the cockroaches might just do better.