peterwho wrote:I think the answer to the original question is that, in general, Conservatives were raised by their parents to be respectful. They were the kids in the class who raised their hand and waited their turn. They were the kids on the debate team.
On the other hand, Liberals were the ones who blurted out the answers in order to get attention. They were the ones who gave wonderfully creative speeches, full of emotion, with little substance. They were the kids in student government who promised "big changes" but got a pop machine installed in the cafeteria, instead.
Seriously? I don't know why I'm responding to the idiocy of above statement. But, as Voltaire said, "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."
Conservatives are by default respectful? Ann Coulter has books called Godlessness: The Church of Liberalism, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans, and How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). Rush Limbaugh called all Iraq War veterans who oppose the war "phony." Tucker Carlson made a complete ass of himself on CNN's "Crossfire" when Jon Stewart appeared. Et cetera.
Conservatives don't play on emotion? How many times does Bush justify the war in Iraq and the war on terror by saying that if we don't fight abroad, people here will die? How many times does the administration say that the suspension of habeas corpus and other fundamental civil liberties are necessary to make sure we don't have another terror attack? True or not, that's no more than telling people, "If you don't do what we say, you will die!" How many times do conservatives play the "Islamofascists hate our freedoms!" card? How many times has Rudy Guiliani played the 9/11 card?
You can't possibly claim that all conservatives are respectful of authority and are generally nice people because they all aren't. Conversely, you can't claim that all liberals are attention-seeking, gut-feeling people who hate America and authority.
Disruptors accomplish nothing beyond calling attention to themselves and blocking meaningful discourse. They are another factor in the polarization of opinion in our society.
What's the definition of meaningful discourse? How can we have meaningful discourse if nobody is willing to put issues on the table? I'm pretty sure nobody gave a damn about feminists until the radicals started burning bras and marching. Nobody cared about civil rights for minorities until a woman refused to give her seat up to a white man. Isn't getting kicked off a bus and arrested disruptive? Isn't the boycott of an entire mass transit system disruptive? Isn't that calling attention to oneself?
Modern example: the Writers' Guild of America is striking because they aren't being fairly compensated for new mediums of media distribution. Isn't that disruptive? And yet now here we are talking about it. We wouldn't be talking about race relations if Don Imus and Michael Richards thought before they opened their mouths, or if the Jena Six were not charged with murder for jumping a white kid (not saying they shouldn't have been charged with SOMETHING -- let's not get off topic here though).
If the definition of disruption is the state of being in which nobody speaks out against/for anything, then lack of disruption is what kills the public discourse. Without a catalyst, nobody will do anything. The big thing hurting the public discourse today is not disruption, it's apathy.
As to the topic at hand, my thoughts are summed up very nicely in the above, bolded statement.
In closing, let's examine the document that defines America:
Declaration of Independence wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If the advocation of overthrow of government when it is no longer "by the people, for the people" isn't disruption and calling attention to oneself, I don't know what is.
