General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsthoughts on the "lover/hater" meme
I thought the "hater" talking point to put down critics was stupid when the Bush administration did it (along with the corollary "lover" meme like "You're a Saddam lover," etc.), but when it survived to be used by defenders of the Obama administration, I was offended that they would not only talk to their own base like that, but that they wouldn't hire a new PR firm to do their shilling, or at least ask for some new glib put downs.
I just realized the other day though that I had heard this kind of talking point before.
When I was a kid, any white person seen as too friendly, sympathetic, tolerant, or just benignly neglectful toward blacks would be called a "n*****r lover." Maybe if you just didn't laugh at a racist joke.
It was racist and vaguely seemed to question people's loyalty to their own race, but most importantly, it was ugly and stupid.
People are often accused here of being "Obama haters," Putin or ISIS "lovers" or in the past, "lovers" of the now dead Hugo Chavez.
Can't we agree to leave this kind of childish, ugly rhetoric in the trash can of history along with Bull Connor and Jim Crow where it belongs?
Shouldn't there be something like Godwin's Law to shame those who use this in place of arguments or evidence?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Either you are with us or against us, binary thinking.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Often times when used in arguments currently it seems to be shorthand for "your argument is based on stupid emotions, while mine is based on logic and reason." Or that's how I often read it. "All rational people would be opposed to X or be in favor of Y but because you are an X-Lover or a Y-Hater you aren't with the norm."
I guess that's similar to how it was used back in the day too. Being a supporter of Civil Rights was for some in the south so obscene as to be insane.
Bryant
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)e.g. When arguing in favor of habeus corpus and due process of law, and against the Obama Administration denying those things to Anwar al-Awlaki when they executed him, the counter-argument is often that I'm "defending" (i.e. I "love" al-Awlaki. Or, of course, that I "hate" Obama.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Most name-calling does.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I thought it was started by Chamillionaire LOL
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And it's not DU's fault. It's a relatively small number of posters who use those rhetorical tricks to shut people up and dismiss them.
The sole purpose is to disrupt the discussion.
If it were up to me, it would be a hide-able offense.