"Shut the F*ck Up Teabaggers"???

 

And we're the crazy ones.

Yesterday I stumbled upon a website called "STFU, Teabaggers", which is clever shorthand for "Shut The Fuck Up, Teabaggers". Impressive. This site is "dedicated to the ridiculousness of the tea party movement". It takes quotes and screen shots of online conversations from supposed tea party members and uses them to assert that the Tea Party is wholly racist, ignorant, and dangerous.

I was astonished to find that this site had a link to my blog post about the Chris Matthews "documentary" Rise of the New Right. Apparently I'm a crazy person for having my point of view. I responded to the anonymous author of the site with a post called "Blanket Bias" that he/she approved, and then gave his/her own lengthy rejoinder. My point was that its absurd to pigeonhole members of a national movement into a single disparaging category, despite what inflammatory posts you may find on the internet, because there is evidence to support an alternative perspective. It seems reasonable to me, but I was called "childish" by a person who runs a site called "Shut the fuck up teabaggers". How mature. Not sophomoric or myopic at all. I'll let you read the exchange yourself to form your own opinions. Feel free to comment.

June 18, 2010

Blanket Bias

This site certainly contains some disturbing remarks, and in some cases makes legitimate claims as to the state of our national, socio-racial-political division.

Nevertheless, I invite you to explore the idea that your generally applied, indiscriminately delivered vitriol, discounts the possibility that the Tea Party is not an ideological monolith, and comprises multifarious constituent elements.

I myself am black. I happen to believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government and individual liberty— some principles that have real merit.

There are racists everywhere in this country, not just in the Tea Party. I’m black. I know. But if used correctly, this movement has the potential to bring to light issues integral to the rebuilding of our nation.

Disagreement is fine. Parody is necessary and cathartic. I would just like to engage the viewers of this site in discussion. Some of you have already seen my blog because it was featured here yesterday in a link about Chris Matthews. Now, admittedly my headline was sensational. It was done intentionally to attract readers— in the same way that legitimate news outlets do routinely. (In fact you did the same by suggesting that I had called Chris Matthews a Communist, which I did not.) Nevertheless, I believe that the substance of my article was worthy for reasoned debate, as opposed to lambaste and offhanded lampoon.

Please visit my blog and leave comments to join in on an important discussion. I welcome that, because after all, this is America, and you’re free to disagree or debate me allllll day.

Thanks.

Orpheus

Blog: http://teapatriot.blogspot.com/
Facebook: Orpheus Patriot
Twitter: Suprpatriot2012

hey orpheus,

i appreciate you checking out the blog, and also what appears to be your vast appreciation for thesauruses. 

this blog is a platform for me to make fun of the tea party. the tea party at best is ridiculous. even if they make some good points, their motives are impure, their methods abrasive and cruel, and their respect for a country they claim to love more than others is marginal. their communist witch-hunting is embarrassing in these modern times, and their self-described patriotism is a hindrance. even if i did think any of their points are valid, the way in which they are presented by way of sloppily made signs hoisted from lawn chairs or angry limbaugh-esque blogs, i can’t respect the movement.

i don’t care if you’re black.  just because you are black and align yourself with the tea party does not mean that the tea party is not wholly racist. it is. of course there are exceptions. and black people can be fiscally conservative without being tea party members. furthermore, socially conservative minorities are just selfish jerks. 

i don’t believe in limited government. in fact i would say that limited government is exactly the opposite of what i believe in. therefore, i find the tea party’s basic principle to be faulty. i believe the government is for the people, and should help the people. i believe it should be a safety net which people can fall back on in times of need. 

the tea party is divided. it doesn’t know whether they do or don’t like minorities, whether they believe in abortion, whether they believe in gay marriage, and doesn’t even grasp the concept of the separation of church and state. i mean it doesn’t even know if it wants to blame BP or obama for the oil spill. a movement that wants to be taken seriously must establish cohesive ideals. a movement which cries about ‘we the people’ and ‘personal liberty’ seems to love telling people what to do in their private lives, how to live those lives, and will verbally behead people at the first sight of any kind of liberalism.  

even the most civil debates i have had with tea party members [of which there have been many] have ended with them calling me a ‘libtard’ or a communist, and telling me to kill myself or that i should have been aborted. this is not a movement of peace, but more or less is an army of fox news foot soldiers who will not listen to any reason. this group of particularly selfish, enraged individuals feels they are more entitled to what they want for america than any other group of people. they find themselves more important. i find no merit whatsoever in this movement, and have been given no reason to. 

your blog entry actually used the words ‘know thy enemy.’ you also refer to him as a loony leftist. you refer to MSNBC as facists, you’re right. not communists. but your blog is a heaping pile of bullshit with a candy bullshit topping, and there’s nothing you can do to sway me from that opinion. i mean you legitimately believe that someone exercising their first amendment right to speak out against the tea party infringes the tea party’s right to speak out against the liberal ‘elitists.’ oh my god, and you think that the tea party is ‘taking the country back.’ do you want to go back to when black people got shot for reading, or do you want to go back to when they were slaves? should we go back to treating women as objects or…? 

you say that we should not hide our political affiliations, yet your movement damns others who are more liberal than them. 

this cute little trend of conservatives making fun of liberals by changing their names to things like ‘obumma,’ ‘rachel madcow,’ and ‘keith blobermann’ is supremely childish. how can you honestly believe that people should take you seriously?

the hardball documentary wasn’t actually slanted. did you watch the whole thing? i went in expecting it to be incredibly agenda-heavy, but i actually found it to be more fact than opinion based. the part where they plugged maddow wasn’t great, but i’m not sure rand paul floundered that poorly on any other show, so they were pretty limited for that coverage. the tea party sees what it wants to see, and what they want to see is fault. even when obama says or does something good, the tea party complains about it. how do you expect the country to have a favorable view of a movement that is NEVER happy?

if any of my readers wish to go debate you on your blog, i urge them to do so. but asking me to do so seems silly. this blog is a satirical blog, and not one that asks for debate. though it feeds my ego like a hungry hungry hippo when i can school people, that’s not what this blog is for. it is just to highlight the craziness of the tea party. i rarely have to even make much commentary, because the things these people are willing to say in public forums speak for themselves. 

WORD.