Wicked are the righteous
Starting at the 8:30 mark, Sam Seder explains why you should vote for the one-less-concentration-camp candidate, and why righteousness is a terrible thing.
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 11:32 AM
Friday, June 15, 2012
Starting at the 8:30 mark, Sam Seder explains why you should vote for the one-less-concentration-camp candidate, and why righteousness is a terrible thing.
Order an AE T-shirt, now in stock! Union-made, 100% cotton white shirt. $25+s/h. US orders only. Look great, support my blogging, and have interesting discussions with the TSA!
12 Comments:
I should have put on my head vise before watching that.
Other than that, I'm pretty much at a loss for words...
I'm not sure what's worse: the hysterical concentration camp hypothetical, or how Seder answered it like a Good German. Considering the dude was born into a Jewish family, you think that choice of words would give him just a little discomfort instead of arguing that he'd rather go for the fewer concentration camps option instead of fighting to destroy them all?
At the risk of re-breaking Godwin's Law, it's like he is arguing that voting for Pierre Laval is necessary to stop the Nazis in France, instead of supporting the nonsensical, doomed-to-fail resistance of Charles duGaulle.
The entire Air America line-up turned out to be Obots, with Maddow even becoming the Obot Queen. I used to listen to Seder and thought he was great, now he sounds completely insane. But I reject the idea that Obama would build fewer concentration camps anyway. He's not the lesser evil, he's the more effective evil.
It seems to me that President Obama just makes evil bipartisan and therefore not a subject of discussion in the United States. He doesn't take options "off the table." Rather, he neither confirms nor denies the existence of anything called a table.
@Johnny Objection! Mike Malloy was part of the Air America line up. He's no Obot.
I do often see Malloy defended as a non-Obot, but I was listening to him the summer of '08 when he did become one. Malloy had started getting very critical of Obama, and his wife Cathy (who produces the show in their home studio) liked to tease him about it. Then an Obama fan on Huffington Post wrote an article accusing Malloy of being racist.
He ended the week ranting and raving about Obama, and then the following Monday he had made a 180 and was furious at Obama's critics. It was like Cathy had placed an Obot pod next to his bed. I'm sure she told him he better start drinking the kool-aid because their family business depended on it.
I stopped listening shortly after but I know in 2009 he started becoming more critical again. But last I heard he is supporting Obama for reelection, however grudgingly. Which makes any objections he's raised about him nothing more than kabuki.
I think the hypothetical is a fair one though obviously hyperbolic. Sometimes extreme hypos are good way to test theories and principles. The problem with Seder's response to the hypothetical is that it confuses the choice between 9 and 10 concentration camps with the choice to cast a single vote for one candidate or the other (and hilariously he invokes "math" while doing so.
If I was given a choice to single-handedly place Obama or Romney in the WH, the lesser-of-two evil approach would suddenly become somewhat mandatory and morally more defensible. But to cast a single vote which gets watered down by your state and the electoral college in general which is something that mathematically is completely impossible to determine an election is very different and takes on a much bigger component of principle than practicality.
I think voting the lesser-of-two-evils is a respectable approach *on election day.* But until that day we should be demanding our leaders do more of what we want.
It's remarkable and sickening how quickly any discussion/criticism of an Obama decision reverts to a question of whom one will vote for in 12, 8, 6 months. Who cares?
I think voting the lesser-of-two-evils is a respectable approach *on election day.* But until that day we should be demanding our leaders do more of what we want.
If they know you're going to vote for them on election day anyway why should they care what you want?
Re: Obama supposedly supporting Obama
http://youtu.be/cSmyttfYZZM
Er rather that should be
Re: Malloy supporting Obama
http://youtu.be/cSmyttfYZZM
Thanks for the Malloy link. At least for now, he's staked out a position clearly outside the pool, so rare for anyone with a decent-sized following.
So this is the vaunted American democracy circa 2012, where we talk of voting for less concentration camps. Any sensible person in the world would run not walk from ever having such a system of government (and the whole rotten politico-economic order that supports it!).
And it's apparently what Sedar would do to prevent the holocast, why he'd *VOTE* for less concentration camps! He would not tell people a minute before midnight to try to turn the tide by any means possible but hey get a "vote for less concentration camps" bumper sticker! (now there's an idea) Democracy of such a sort accomplishes what? Legitimates mass murder and smears everyone with a little blood as part of it's initiation ritual? Give me Stalin (and St Paul :)) at least people in dictatorships are not fooled about the nature of the system.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home