SS said:
Quote:Ann Coulter and David Letterman are not counterparts ... not even close.
That's surely a rational differentiation. (of course, earlier, both finn and tico described Ann as an entertainer, a claim which seems rather silly).
But there's something very interesting in this "counterpart" notion.
There are two relevant definitions for counterpart:
a - One that closely resembles another.
b - One that has the same functions and characteristics as another; a corresponding person or thing
That second definition commonly slips over (for anyone who thinks in black and white simplicities or dichotomies) into the assumption/insistence that if, say, Karl Rove smears and lies, then there will be a counterpart in the Dems who does it too, in the same way. Folks who think this way ususally do it quite unconsciously or unreflectively. If there is an Ann Coulter, there
must be someone like her (mirror image) supporting Dems. Maybe Frankin, maybe Moore...but someone will be over there who is like Ann.
But it is the defensive posture only for black/white thinkers...they support "a side" in some conflict and if you claim their side does bad thing X, then they pull out the "your side does it too". They simply believe it must be so, as if there is an inevitable axiom at work.
Yet that axiom somehow doesn't apply offensively, or where they perceive that the other party is guilty of something bad. Your side either will not have committed the act or they will be justified in their behavior and acts. There's no mirror image justification granted for the other side.
For example, f4f might have the idea that anything Hezbollah is guilty of, Israel must be too whereas, for cheerleaders on the 'other side', if Israel does anything bad, then Hamas will have done it as well. Usually worse.
This saves all the effort involved in study and in thinking carefully. And it spares one the discomfort of facing or acknowledging that one's party or favored "side" might be uniquely shitty.
