Chanson (who is one of my favorite writers, although she also seems to be the jumping off point for many of my posts here) has a post titled "The Authoritarians,", where she mentions a book which talks about the religious right and their (broken) relationship with authority. I haven't read the book, I think I've heard the author speak on NPR, although I can't find any reference to it---perhaps I've heard John Dean speak about the author's research). Which is to say, I slightly remember being unimpressed, but I can't speak about the book, and I guess I'll just have to read it.

But what really bugged me about Chanson's post was her use of the word Teabaggers to describe...well, I don't really know who she was trying to describe. Maybe specifically the people at the protests, maybe the religious right, maybe just people who disagree with her (the last maybe is a cheap shot, sorry). She knows it's offensive, as is clear from the post she linked to at Main Street Plaza.

Later on in her post, she says, "...I'll bet many of you are thinking "Confirmation bias!!!" (Yep, I've been playing Internet long enough to anticipate your next move.)" But the truth is, the people who disagree with her enough to talk about confirmation bias stopped reading when she insulted them in the first line.

Which leads me to wonder, does she actually want to have a discussion with people she disagrees with, or does she just want to take cheap shots and dismiss them without having to listen to what they have to say? If it's the latter, it would work better if she would treat them with the respect she wants to be treated with---that seems pretty basic.

It also makes me think about name calling and the current cultural divide in America. In her mainstreet blog, she links to "Top 10 offensive signs in the teaparties", which are very offensive, but no one says that every sign was that offensive. But a few people offensively dismiss her views, and then she offensively dismisses their views (even people who disagree with the offensive signs) and so new people are brought into the cycle of name calling. This is not very clear, but it seems to me to be similar to the flame wars that were legendary on usenet, and to stem from the same source: it's a lot easier to disrespect an anonymous commentator than a real flesh and blood person...