While I've gotten tired of the constant citing of Saul Alinsky here on FR, primarily because I don't think those doing the citing really, truly "get" what they're advocating, this is yet another example of Alinsky's holding the opposition to their own book of rules.
It's constant, it's interspersed throughout the dialogue, and it's meant to do two things: make hardcore leftists who comprise the majority of Rhodes' audience hate conservatives all the more because in their twisted perception it's hypocracy, and to make the rare conservative listening in doubt one of their own, due to turning their own supposed biases against those they're presumed to support. It's a two-edged sword.
Rhodes no doubt actually does consider herself a strong, pro-gay rights supporter. Why should she worry about flinging nasty stereotypes like so much poo, when (insert protected group here) themselves do it all the time?
It's constant, it's interspersed throughout the dialogue, and it's meant to do two things: make hardcore leftists who comprise the majority of Rhodes' audience hate conservatives all the more because in their twisted perception it's hypocracy, and to make the rare conservative listening in doubt one of their own, due to turning their own supposed biases against those they're presumed to support. It's a two-edged sword.
Good explanation.
The funny thing is, though, that at least her call screener was capable of being embarrassed by this language.
I called in quite often. (Never much problem getting through, btw, unlike with those national call-in radio talk shows people actually listen to.) But I was NEVER allowed on air. Of course that wouldn't have done. Key to the effectiveness of Alinsky tactics is that they not be exposed and explained to the audience.
I was always wanting to do just that, of course. Not explicitly, but implicitly. I wanted to ask Rhodes why all the "homophobic" language. I wanted to ask why she was so prejudiced against Arabs. (During the time I was listening she was railing regularly against the Dubai Ports deal.) I wanted to ask if she thought it was really appropriate for a white woman to hurl racial epithets like "uncle tom" at black people on national radio. Etc.
Like I say, the call screener would never let me on air, but he would usually, oh so earnestly, "explain" (without ever, of course, really explaining) how -- oh, no, no, no -- Rhodes wasn't homophobic or anti-Arab at all! And so I'd argue with the guy:
"But Dubai Ports World has an excellent and well establish reputation. Their ports are consistently the best run, and the most secure, worldwide. If this deal falls through, the ports will instead by run by some American insurance company. Does Randi really think an insurance company can do a better job than proven specialists? What? Just because they're WHITE GUYS!?"
And so on. The screener would tie himself up in knots trying to answer in some P.C. fashion, while not contradicting his boss. I'd sometimes keep him on the line for 10 or 15 minutes. He might even answer another call and then come back to talk to me. Then I'd embarrass him about trying to run his own talk show on the side. LOL! It was fun.
Not trying to imply I'm a great debater. I'm not particularly. Nor is every leftist as big a patsy as this call screener was. But, there are two ways you can often enough trip up a leftist.
One is by, as Rush so often says, refusing to accept their premises. The other -- possibly not quite as effective, but far more fun -- is by accepting their premises, while rejecting the double standards which invariably accompany them. Or, to put it differently, stubbornly treating them as if their ostensible (but always phony) motivations and principles were genuine and sincere.