Beyond that question, isn’t it fair to ask if it is possible to disagree with an issue without “hating” the other side, or being “phobic?” Yet that is the way too many issues have been defined over the last few years. We have heard terms like; homophone, Islamophobe, racist, xenophobe who knows maybe cheesephobe is next. All of these terms emerge to “describe” opposition to popularly held positions.
This trick only works for positions on the left however. Remember during the first years of the War in Iraq, we heard over and over that opposition to the war was “patriotic.” We were told the there could be no questioning of the patriotism of those who opposed the war but claimed to defend the troops. Yet nobody would have dared call those who opposed the war “armyphobes,” “Bushphobes” or “warphobes” such terminology would be silly. When there was a chorus of outrage at the tragedies within the Catholic Church were those who blamed the church at large Catholicphobes?
We all should understand that we can disagree with parts of Israeli policy without being anti-Semitic or a Judophobic, so why does such reasoning only go one way. .
It is simply. Many on the Left are not standing on a strong enough position to debate it. So when one has a weak position the easiest way to shut an issue down is with a superlative. It doesn’t matter if deeming an opponent as a hater phobic makes any real sense, but it does make the chance for actual debate or conversation virtually impossible.
So which side is being polarizing?
Comments (0)
Powered by !JoomlaComment 4.0 beta1






























