Wednesday, May 25, 2016

The Disingenuousness Award

Another distinction between the left and the right is that you seldom find disingenuousness on the right (except for neocons, who are just leftists in disguise), but it's all over the place on the left. To be disingenuous is not to simply misunderstand, but to deliberately misunderstand, or, more accurately, toe pretend to misunderstand. You could also define it as being deliberately obtuse.

I ran into this yesterday, from a self-proclaimed liberal, who said overtly that I opposed Hillary because I hate women, and then went on to say that I oppose Obama because I hate Blacks. I countered that, if that was the case, what psychological defect in me caused my opposition to Bill Clinton. After all, he and I are both Rednecks. Well, he said, I just hate liberals. And that's not really true, either, because I oppose liberals, but don't hate them. I gave this guy the benefit of the doubt, and proclaim him disingenuous, because he can't really be so stupid as to come to those initial conclusions about women and Blacks.

Like I say, you get that from liberals all the time. You expect it. But I got the same thing from a self-proclaimed "libertarian" yesterday, too. It was in response to this post [link], but mainly, I think to the graphic, here, that went with it.


His response, believe it or not, went like this:

"Licenses don't confer identity. They are merely instruments of taxation. Are you advocating that there be licenses for gender and ethnicity?"

Since it's hard to imagine that a person could both read the text and come to such a conclusion, I have to assume deliberate obtuseness, or disingenuousness, in this case. And he's probably very pleased with himself for his ditzy snarkiness. 








So I awarded him: 


Again, with libertarians like that, who needs liberals?

No comments:

Post a Comment