reminder

Roque Nuevo in reply to Freddie says:

Where was the insult, according to you? I don’t find it anywhere, which is why I appealed to the “hurt pride” explanation. One’s pride can be hurt (or one can become “depressed” (Will dixit) if one realizes that one has been duped into a political movement under false pretenses. Tell me how I insulted anyone, and I’ll apologize right away. It’s not my intention to insult anyone…in contrast to yours.

I simply said that York’s point was clear to me all along, that is,

For many liberal activists, opposing the war was really about opposing George W. Bush.

I realize that you have a wealth of experience in the antiwar movement and certainly I do not want to attribute any such “partisan” motives to you, personally, or to Will, personally, or to anyone you know, personally, etc etc. York’s point is a generalization, which I find accurate, as a generalization.

You say that this is “objectively wrong.” Maybe, and maybe not. York has come up with some evidence to support his generalization, which is more than you have done.
Perhaps the word “partisan” is a wrong choice, since it implies the Red/Blue divide in the US. I think “political” would be more accurate. The antiwar movement was/is political in the sense that the movement is a way for it to achieve power over the state, etc etc., irrespective of the merits of the “antiwar” philosophy.

Finding that the antiwar movement is “political” in this sense may be what depressed Will (according to his post) since this implies that it was and is not motivated purely by humanitarian philosophy or whatever. It’s contaminated by politics.

I thing that Will is young enough to have been duped by such a movement, like a lot of people were and are. It’s nothing new, after all. But now, he may see more clearly, after he gets over his “depression.”

So, Where’s the insult?Report