Can't We All Get Along?

Many of my friends are liberals.  Although we love to play bridge together, negotiate real estate deals with one another, discuss the details of photography and so forth, when it comes to how to solve the world's ills, we are not on the same page.  Nevertheless, despite wondering how the other one could possibly hold some of the positions that they do, we still respect one another.  We may not understand why they believe as they do.  Yet, at the same time, we are certain that their goals must be worthy and their intentions decent, as they are good people.  Sometimes, we are even able to discuss these issues without World War III ensuing!

Yet, travel to some sites on the Internet, and real discussion is simply an impossibility. 

I don't remember exactly how I found Mahablog.  After the twin lefty debacles of Scott Brown and Citizens United at the Supreme Court, I decided to go see how my counterparts at Maha's blog were taking it.  Not well.  My one fairly benign comment (I thought) led to a new post by Maha, and a torrent of comments.

I truly hadn't come over to her blog to be nasty.  When it appeared that real conversation was unlikely, I decided to take my leave.  Still, when some of the people wanted me to continue to comment, I continued to leave several comments, both responding to what people asked of me, and stating a few more of my opinions on topics.  This comment by Maha, however, essentially was the beginning of the end.

Peg, you have no idea what you are talking about.

First, my understanding is that Planned Parenthood is not a corporation but a 501(c)(3), and if that is the case they are prohibited from “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.” However, they are allowed to engage in “voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner.” So Planned Parenthood is free to publicly discusses issues as long as they aren’t spending money to support one candidate over another. So if media are saying something they don’t like, the organization is free to speak back.

Let me reiterate something I frequently state here:  the number of topics on which I'm an expert are miniscule in contrast to those with which I am assuredly a non-expert.  And, only God knows how many mistakes I have made in my lifetime.  So, when Maha said "Planned Parenthood is not a corporation" I went and looked it up to see if that was correct.  It was not.  When I put up another comment abou tthis, with some additional commentary, Maha responded thus:

Thanks for showing your true colors — you know nothing but knee-jerk rightie propaganda, and you are not the least bit open to anything we say, because you’re so brainwashed you think you already know what we think. But you don’t.

I don’t have any more time to waste on you, since you are obviously (a) have a mind closed tighter than a bank vault, (b) not reading and responding to the arguments people are taking the time to present to you, and (c) dim. Good bye.

I went back to the post to which she was referring.  Had I made an error?  No.  Maha did write that Planned Parenthood was not a corporation.  It was she who made the error; not I.  If she were still allowing discussion, I would have pointed this out - and attemped to do so without rancor.  I also would have responded to some of her thoughts, like the one that I would be horrified to see vicious items about Sarah Palin in books and/or movies.  Well, yes; I never like to see things said about anyone that I think are not true.  Yet, in a million years, I'd prefer to protect anyone's right to say what they believe, be it members of Citizens United or Michael Moore or Oliver Stone or anyone, left or right, than to have censorship.  If Maha had allowed me to continue, I would have said this.

But she did not.  And then, as my friend Datechguy stated, I was banned like thousands at Little Green Footballs.  People continued to mock me and disparage me, and I was muzzled and unable to respond.

I'm a big believer that people ought to be able to do whatever they wish with their own blogs.  I believe in freedom.  If people don't like the blog, then they don't have to show up and read them. 

Still, I think it very sad when people have an attitude like Maha seems to have about the world.  As much as I disagree with some of the positions liberals take, I just cannot reason from that that millions of my fellow Americans are awful, stupid people.  They are not.  I may think that some are naive, or haven't been exposed to some of the experiences that conservatives and/or libertarians have, etc., etc.  But terrible people?  Nope.  And further - possible that I am wrong about some of my reasoning and my opinions?  Sure!  But if the discussion stops, how will anyone ever know?

Maha and her compatriots seem certain that they know best.  And - good for them; I must admit there are some issues on which my beliefs are very firm.  But, no matter how much and how deeply I believe, I never want censorship.  I always want to allow the other guy to respond, have his say - and continue the conversation.

"Can we all get along?" as Rodney King once asked plaintively?  Only some of us, I'm afraid.  Only some.

Comments

[LongHairedWeirdo]

I don't know or really care about judging right and wrong in a personal matter. But there are certain miscommunications I see that make me want to try to play translator.

Planned Parenthood is "a corporation." However, its political action is tightly constrained by virtue of its tax status. It has the ability to do certain things, but not the ability to do the sorts of things that, e.g., the SCOTUS said that Exxon-Mobil or IBM can do. Planned Parenthood was not given any additional freedom in CU vs FEC. Exxon-Mobil and IBM were.

You're right. Maha was wrong to say that Planned Parenthood is not a corporation - but they are still a far different entity than a for-profit corporation. And that's the more important thing.

"But why cut off conversation?" you might ask. Well, because there are a lot of intellectually dishonest people out there... people who would rather argue over whether or not Planned Parenthood is a corporation (as if that actually matters!) rather than accept that, corporation or not, they're not the kind of entity affected by CUvFEC, and discussing the over-riding issue.

It's a shame that this is the case - but if you converse with everyone, and assume good faith on the part of all people, you'll end up nibbled to death by ducks - and intellectually dishonest ducks, at that.

[Don]

Just one small thought. PP, or any similar organization, makes a "bargain" with the government. In exchange for non-profit charity status, it agrees to waive its ability to engage in lobbying and other political advocacy activities.

There is nothing to prevent PP from becoming a for-profit corporation, with all of the rights accorded under Citizens United. Apparently, PP believes that the benefits of tax-exempt status outweigh the benefits of political expression. So to say that they don't have the rights of an Exxon-Mobil is disingenuous. They have, in effect, chosen to waive those rights in exchange for tax benefits. No one forced them to be a 501 organization - that required affirmative filings by the corporation itself.

I would have to wager that E-M would gladly wish to have the ability to give up rights to political expression in exchange for tax-exempt status.

[ozonehole]

Hi,

I used to comment too at Mahablog. I left after Maha came up with the childish "Manichaeism Alert" icon. You can see it posted on the right side of her page. Or just look at this URL:

http://www.mahablog.com/images/manichaeism-icon.jpg

It's a picture of a person with an empty head. If you make a post that Maha doesn't agree with, she sticks this on your post to alert everyone, "Hey, this poster is an idiot."

Very childish. No, downright infantile. It's meant to intimidate and demean. I have not seen any other blog this spiteful, neither left nor right-wing. The icon says much more about Maha than it does about the presumed "idiot" who is posting.

It's too bad - I liked the Mahablog, enjoyed commenting. I'm willing to withstand criticism while defending my position. But meanness and childish nonsense is not worth my time.

The Internet is a big place, so I can go elsewhere to debate. I always treat my "opponents" (if that's what they should be called) with courtesy, even if I strongly disagree with them. To do any less is a sign of immaturity.

best regards,
Ozonehole

[Peg]

Thanks - everyone - for stopping by. Ozonehole, sadly, I have to agree with you. I don't know why she does this - only that she does.

And Longhaired - I was only "quibbling" about the legal status of Planned Parenthood because 1) Maha said I was not quoting her properly (I was) and 2) apparently this is one of the reasons she "banned" me.

I also noted that several people at Maha said that I hate liberals. Categorically, absolutely false. First of all, I actually share some beliefs that are considered "liberal" I am in favor of gay marriage and pro-choice, for instance.

But way beyond that, many of the people near and dear to me are quite liberal. Somehow - on both sides - we are able to accept and love those who see some issues differently than we do, and still cherish them.

So sorry to hear that your crowd cannot do this.

[RamonGustav]

I think you are not quite right and you should still studying the matter.

[Antivirus_man]

You write well will be waiting for your new publications.