Saturday, January 14, 2006

Welcome, Leftists!

SWNID has noticed some comments recently posted expressing views somewhat to the left of the blogger. We are struck by this phenomenon, as any commenting on this blog has been unusual, much more so when the commenters are not personally known to the blogger (this is, after all, our little hobby, a means to commune with our peeps), and all the more so when the comments to not reflect the settled opinions of the blogger, who is, after all, seldom wrong.

But grateful for any comments made by actual human beings, we take this opportunity to welcome all members of the vast left-wing conspiracy, be they representatives of the Angry Left or of the Placid Left, if there is such a thing. We urge and encourage you to continue commenting during your sober moments, infrequent as they may be.

To demonstrate our goodwill, we make the following pledges:

We will not inquire about your sexual preferences, grooming habits, use of intoxicating or mood-altering substances, or dietary requirements. Not that it would do any good. No matter what you'd say, for all we know you could be one of the characters in the drawing at right.

We will not demean your favorite politicians or media outlets with silly puns (e.g., Barbara Boxershorts, New York Slimes). Such a practice is juvenile and insulting. We will instead from time to time offer sly nicknames (e.g., Teddy "Splash" Kennedy) or mottoes (e.g., MoveOn.org [motto: We haven't moved on since 1998]). This practice, while still insulting, is sophisticated, reminiscent as it is of Dave Barry's erudite subtlety.

We will not question your intelligence. We don't believe that the differences between conservatives and liberals are explaied by differences in intelligence. In the main, we believe that they are explained by differences in character. And since our character is superior, we are also constrained from openly questioning yours.

We will not complain of persecution, harassment, or personal offense for any remark directed against us. We will attempt the demeanor of Polycarp of Smyrna. It makes us look better and you look worse.

We will, however, delete your comments if they are of a sexual or scatological or patently profane nature. This is, after all, a family*-friendly site.

______________

*Explanation for leftists: families are what conservatives have instead of abortions.

7 comments:

? said...

Very interesting

JB in CA said...

So what's with the drawing? Are you implying that dogs are liberals?

From the other side said...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=troll

I am struck by your title and blog summary that you are clever, or at least intend to be seen as clever. :-)

It reminds me that those I vehemently disagree with may indeed be intelligent albeit misguided. Of course, mere misguidance is not in itself unforgivable, but where it leads to nastiness it is undesirable.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily wordy and arrogant. I do tend to take on the personality of those I converse with.

:-)

Anonymous said...

I had you in class and I really respected you as a leader in a faith that professed love and grace. But your comment about families and abortions made me think-1 in 4 women in the church have had an abortion. How do you think that post made all of those young women in your Gospells class who made a mistake feel about your idea of love and grace? They didn't sin against you-they sinned against God and I'm sure he's forgiven them. I thought you were different.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Well, anonymous, I don't know what someone who took a class with me and had had an abortion would think of this post. But would you recommend that one never suggest that abortion was sinful, for fear of arousing guilt in someone who had so sinned?

Sarcasm is dangerous stuff, and no one knows that better than I. However, I justify my use of it by the example of the prophets, whose poor imitator I am.

For what its worth, the very remark that you find troubling was most loudly applauded by an alumna who has, among other things, worked closely and widely in pregnancy crisis and abortion recovery.

"I thought you were different." How so? Others don't profess love and grace? Now I don't either?

Anonymous said...

Are you really suggesting that joke was put on there to convict people that abortion is a sin? Because I'm pretty sure that the fact that you called it sarcasm meant that you were making fun of it. Making fun of abortions-hilarious. Of course you don't know how a girl in your class would feel-why be patient, kind and thoughtful to avoid shaming those who are weaker in their faith (AKA-"different"-not different from other professors, different from other Christians who make people feel horrible about past sins that they know nothing about when they've already been forgiven) when you can be so darn funny? And-you are not a prophet. And I don't care how much abortion "recovery" your friend has done-its just plain mean. (And yeah, I know, you didn't say you were actually a prophet)

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

You said:
Are you really suggesting that joke was put on there to convict people that abortion is a sin?

I say:
I made the "joke" with the obvious assumption that anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention for 30 years knows that nearly all Bible-believing Christians and most political conservatives regard abortion as a moral wrong. You can hardly suggest that someone who had an abortion would be reading here for the first time the rude assertion that abortion is bad.

You say:
Because I'm pretty sure that the fact that you called it sarcasm meant that you were making fun of it.

I say:
Sarcasm is not the same as ridicule, though the two can be related. The object of our sarcasm was the political and moral views of the left.

Let's assume your scenario: a person who has had an abortion and is a Christian hears this discourse or one like it. You stipulate that this person is forgiven. I do too. So the reality that we both affirm is that this person understands that abortion is wrong and has accepted God's gracious forgiveness. So what is there that's offensive about a speech act that assumes the moral wrongness of abortion in such a person's presence?

In sum, you ask in the name of sensitivity that we treat abortion as the sin that cannot speak its name, different from lying, adultery, other forms of homocide, blasphemy, etc. While stipulating certain kinds of trauma that may be unique to the experience of abortion, we cannot agree that this sin deserves the silent treatment.

I suspect that the real cause of your dismay is that you just don't like satire at all, or at least when its object is something with which you identify, like the political left. If you're really concerned about women who've had abortions, why not target the policies that have encouraged them to have abortions for the last two generations?