I was just reading some of the vitriol posted in the right wing
echo, about the Chick Filet issue. That got me to thinking about
how the right wingers love to paint anyone not in their group as
liberals and smear them with much worse.

This led me to think about the conservatives who used to post in
Fido. People like Frank Scheidt, John Fitzgerald, Peter Brady,
and more I can't even remember any more. Frank was a devoted
conservative, even Bush supporter till the bitter end. Yet,
because he would not goose step with the right wingers they
pushed him out of right wing echos. Peter Brady was a hard core
conservative, and more intelligent than any right wingers I see
in Fido now, yet he was firmly dedicated to substantive debate
devoid of personal attack.

John Fitzgerald was another case entirely. He was perhaps the
most hard case conservative I have seen in Fido, but he was also
capable of reasonable consideration of other points of view.
John was also someone who would conduct decent, and friendly,
conversations with those they disagreed with.

All three of those were people I would like to sit down to
coffee with. Opposed to those you have the right wingers who are
left in Fidonet. They consider personal attack the normal mode
of conversation, smear perfectly acceptable, and find if
offensive if you show they have distorted or misquoted someone.

The right on Fido is no longer made up or conservative, but
right wingers who cannot accept that others not only have
legitimate views, but they can't deal with being proven wrong.
To them truth is a variable, not a constant, and it changes to
meet their point of view.

This is sad, but is also, I believe, a major factor in the
decline of Fidonet.

This is sad, and I have no idea how to recruit rational
conservatives to join the debate.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Patriotism is not sending others to fight and bleed and die.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 And Still Here. Join Us: www.DocsPl (1:123/140)

Hello Bob,

I was just reading some of the vitriol posted in the right wing
echo, about the Chick Filet issue. That got me to thinking about
how the right wingers love to paint anyone not in their group as
liberals and smear them with much worse.

Debate in this country has been getting more and more polarized,
leaving nobody in the middle. Rather than defining problems that
exist and seeking solutions, both sides are preferring to talk
AT one another. And if anybody from one side even suggests that
negotiations with the other side be initiated, that somebody is
branded as being a "traitor".

This led me to think about the conservatives who used to post in
Fido. People like Frank Scheidt, John Fitzgerald, Peter Brady,
and more I can't even remember any more. Frank was a devoted BK>conservative, even Bush supporter till the bitter end. Yet,
because he would not goose step with the right wingers they
pushed him out of right wing echos. Peter Brady was a hard core BK>conservative, and more intelligent than any right wingers I see
in Fido now, yet he was firmly dedicated to substantive debate
devoid of personal attack.

It used to be that politicians of all political stripes could
sit down together and have real discussions about real issues
that affect real people. And sometimes even work out real
solutions for those very real problems. But not today. Even
Ronald Reagan would be appalled at what he would find.

John Fitzgerald was another case entirely. He was perhaps the
most hard case conservative I have seen in Fido, but he was also
capable of reasonable consideration of other points of view.
John was also someone who would conduct decent, and friendly, BK>conversations with those they disagreed with.

There was one issue he was so adamant that he was right
about that he never even considered the possibility that he
could be wrong, even after being shown the evidence. But
I can agree with John's principle - argue a point as hard
a you can, staking your own case, even if others prove
that argument to be full of holes.

What is difficult for conservatives (and also liberals)
is to admit defeat after being shown clear and definitive
evidence that your argument has no merit. :)

All three of those were people I would like to sit down to
coffee with. Opposed to those you have the right wingers who are
left in Fidonet. They consider personal attack the normal mode
of conversation, smear perfectly acceptable, and find if
offensive if you show they have distorted or misquoted someone.

Ad hominem seems to be the rule of thumb in today's politics
in Congress. So why not in Fidonet, and everyplace else?

"If you want an argument, start a fight." - Irish proverb

The right on Fido is no longer made up or conservative, but
right wingers who cannot accept that others not only have
legitimate views, but they can't deal with being proven wrong.
To them truth is a variable, not a constant, and it changes to
meet their point of view.

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth!

This is sad, but is also, I believe, a major factor in the
decline of Fidonet.

Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those
walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it?
You? You, Lt. Klahn? I have a greater responsibility than
you can possibly fathom...

This is sad, and I have no idea how to recruit rational
conservatives to join the debate.

All we need are a few good men...

--Lee


* SLMR 2.1a * Hello, I am part number ||X||||X||X||X||

--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)