From London: God Help America

[Sonnet]

THE MIRROR NEWSPAPER FROM LONDON ENGLAND

GOD HELP AMERICA Nov 4 2004

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

THEY say that in life you get what you deserve. Well, today America has deservedly got a lawless cowboy to lead them further into carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world.

This once-great country has pulled up its drawbridge for another four years and stuck a finger up to the billions of us forced to share the same air. And in doing so, it has shown itself to be a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation.

This should have been the day when Americans finally answered their critics by raising their eyes from their own sidewalks and looking outward towards the rest of humanity.

And for a few hours early yesterday, when the exit polls predicted a John Kerry victory, it seemed they had.

But then the horrible, inevitable truth hit home. They had somehow managed to re-elect the most devious, blinkered and reckless leader ever put before them. The Yellow Rogue of Texas.

A self-serving, dim-witted, draft-dodging, gung-ho little rich boy, whose idea of courage is to yell: "I feel good," as he unleashes an awesome fury which slaughters 100,000 innocents for no other reason than greed and vanity.

A dangerous chameleon, his charming exterior provides cover for a power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves whose goal is to increase America's grip on the world's economies and natural resources.

And in foolishly backing him, Americans have given the go-ahead for more unilateral pre-emptive strikes, more world instability and most probably another 9/11.

Why else do you think bin Laden was so happy to scare them to the polls, then made no attempt to scupper the outcome?

There's only one headline in town today, folks: "It Was Osama Wot Won It."

And soon he'll expect pay-back. Well, he can't allow Bush to have his folks whoopin' and a-hollerin' without his own getting a share of the fun, can he?

Heck, guys, I hope you're feeling proud today.

To the tens of millions who voted for John Kerry, my commiserations.

To the overwhelming majority of you who didn't, I simply ask: Have you learnt nothing? Do you despise your own image that much?

Do you care so little about the world beyond your shores? How could you do this to yourselves?

How appalling must one man's record at home and abroad be for you to reject him?

Kerry wasn't the best presidential candidate the Democrats have ever fielded (and he did deserve a kicking for that "reporting for doo-dee" moment), but at least he understood the complexity of the world outside America, and domestic disgraces like the 45 million of his fellow citizens without health cover.

He would have done something to make that country fairer and re-connected it with the wider world.

Instead America chose a man without morals or vision. An economic incompetent who inherited a $2billion surplus from Clinton, gave it in tax cuts to the rich and turned the US into the world's largest debtor nation.

A man who sneers at the rights of other nations. Who has withdrawn from international treaties on the environment and chemical weapons.

A man who flattens sovereign states then hands the rebuilding contracts to his own billionaire party backers.

A man who promotes trade protectionism and backs an Israeli government which continually flouts UN resolutions.

America has chosen a menacingly immature buffoon who likened the pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to a Wild West, Wanted Dead or Alive man-hunt and, during the Afghanistan war, kept a baseball scorecard in his drawer, notching up hits when news came through of enemy deaths.

A RADICAL Christian fanatic who decided the world was made up of the forces of good and evil, who invented a war on terror, and thus as author of it, believed he had the right to set the rules of engagement.

Which translates to telling his troops to do what the hell they want to the bad guys. As he has at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and countless towns across Iraq.

You have to feel sorry for the millions of Yanks in the big cities like New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco who voted to kick him out.

These are the sophisticated side of the electorate who recognise a gibbon when they see one.

As for the ones who put him in, across the Bible Belt and the South, us outsiders can only feel pity.

Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets.

The self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".

You probably won't be surprised to learn of would-be Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn who, on Tuesday, promised to ban abortion and execute any doctors who carried them out.

He also told voters that lesbianism is so rampant in the state's schools that girls were being sent to toilets on their own. Not that any principal could be found to back him up.

These are the people who hijack the word patriot and liken compassion to child-molesting. And they are unknowingly bin Laden's chief recruiting officers.

Al-Qaeda's existence is fuelled by the outpourings of America's Christian right. Bush is its commander-in-chief. And he and bin Laden need each other to survive.

Both need to play Lex Luther to each others' Superman with their own fanatical people. Maybe that's why the mightiest military machine ever assembled has failed to catch the world's most wanted man.

Or is the reason simply that America is incompetent? That behind the bluff they are frightened and clueless, which is why they've stayed with the devil they know.

VISITORS from another planet watching this election would surely not credit the amateurism.

The queues for hours to register a tick; the 17,000 lawyers needed to ensure there was no cheating; the $1.2bn wasted by parties trying to discredit the enemy; the allegations of fraud, intimidation and dirty tricks; the exit polls which were so wildly inaccurate; an Electoral College voting system that makes the Eurovision Song Contest look like a beacon of democracy and efficiency; and the delays and the legal wrangles in announcing the victor.

Yet America would have us believe theirs is the finest democracy in the world. Well, that fine democracy has got the man it deserved. George W Bush.

But is America safer today without Kerry in charge? A man who overnight would have given back to the UN some credibility and authority. Who would have worked out the best way to undo the Iraq mess without fear of losing face.

Instead, the questions facing America today are - how many more thousands of their sons will die as Iraq descends into a new Vietnam? And how many more Vietnams are on the horizon now they have given Bush the mandate to go after Iran, Syria, North Korea or Cuba...?

Today is a sad day for the world, but it's even sadder for the millions of intelligent Americans embarrassed by a gung-ho leader and backed by a banal electorate, half of whom still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Yanks had the chance to show the world a better way this week, instead they made a thuggish cowboy ride off into the sunset bathed in glory.

And in doing so it brought Armageddon that little bit closer and re-christened their beloved nation The Home Of The Knave and the Land Of The Freak.

God Help America. :(

[Petra]

Got a link?


Thanks. :)



The Mirror is generally thought of as a tabloid rag, like News of the World - Fleet Street muck, as they say. At this juncture, though, I agree with the sentiments of the author to a large degree. I can only hope that the administration, the PNAC, the whole damned caboodle, is exposed across the world in reputable newspapers, tabloid trash journals, documentaries, the internet, and word of mouth, for the fucking evil that it is. Maybe then the pulpit and it's faithful will also recognise how they have been played like a fiddle for political gain and the greed of a few.

:(

[Cool Hand]

Regardless with how much of the underlying substance of the claims made in this editorial piece one might be in agreement with or find persuasive, I cannot stand this sort of angry, hateful, and hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's shameful that some people who are supposed to be critical thinkers would embrace this irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric lock, stock, and barrel, without giving due consideration to its reeking of bias, hatred, and venom.

We should be criticizing and rejecting this sort of hatred, not embracing it. A calmer, cooler, analysis of the substantive issues is much more appropriate and much more persuasive as well.

In principle, I see little difference in this kind of nonsense and the kind of nonsense that ultra-conservative talk radio hosts spew each day. The only difference is from which side of the aisle it comes.

Cool Hand

[Corona688]

Regardless with how much of the underlying substance of the claims made in this editorial piece one might be in agreement with or find persuasive, I cannot stand this sort of angry, hateful, and hyperbolic rhetoric. Hyperbolic? To the best of my knowledge, the facts in the article appear true. The opinions are strongly stated, but that is not a crime. If you see bits that are wrong, go ahead and educate me.

[Cool Hand]

Regardless with how much of the underlying substance of the claims made in this editorial piece one might be in agreement with or find persuasive, I cannot stand this sort of angry, hateful, and hyperbolic rhetoric. Hyperbolic? To the best of my knowledge, the facts in the article appear true. The opinions are strongly stated, but that is not a crime. If you see bits that are wrong, go ahead and educate me.

The only incontravertible fact in the whole article is that Kerry did not win the election. The rest is editorializing. Editorializing is not stating facts.

I have no problem with editorializing. I do have a problem with doing so in such hateful, derisive terms. That's part of the point of my criticism. The other part is that articles like this get posted to or referred to with some frequency here, and too often they get tacit approval or agreement from posters, without much critical thought into how the article might be biased and lose much or nearly all of its credibility. Journalism without credibility is just ink spots on a page.

I'm not going to go into a tedious, point by point dissection of this piece. It isn't worthy of it. Look at it yourself and try to judge whether any of the facts alleged might actually be hard, cold, objective truth, or whether some or most of them are spun so as to support the writer's claims that the world is fucked because the U.S. re-elected its own President. One example: the writer's invocation of Armageddon. Seriously?

I'm not going to do your work for you. I claimed I didn't like it and that it's filled with hateful, hyperbolic rhetoric. I can give you an example or two of each, but I'm not going to dissect it in detail.

Cool Hand

[livius drusus]

Eh, it's yellow press, virtually indistinguishable from the Hearst bluster of an earlier age. I find it amusing, sometimes chilling (see "Remember the Maine"), as history, melodramatic, sometimes a downright appeal to hysteria, as current events.

Accuracy isn't even really an issue with this kind of piece, is it? The measure of success is not how keen an interpretation of the facts it offers, but rather how emotionally effective it is in its rabid speechifying.

On that scale, I'm going to have to give it a 5 just because there's a lot of unoriginal material there.

[D. Scarlatti]

It's Bush's conservative "Christian" supporters that are looking forward with enthusiasm to Armageddon, obviously not that columnist, whoever it is. I suspect that was the point of the reference.

[Sonnet]

It's shameful that some people who are supposed to be critical thinkers would embrace this irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric lock, stock, and barrel, without giving due consideration to its reeking of bias, hatred, and venom.

Lock, stock and barrel? I posted this as an example of how some others in the world see us and what happened on Election Tuesday. I give all of those things due consideration - but I think that things like this deserve the same consideration as barometers of the mood of our global neighbors.

Also, it's nice to vent, and none of us from either side of the aisle owe it to anyone to keep those petty, partisan feelings to ourselves, unless we happen to work in politics. There are plenty of us who waited and wished and hoped and voted and worked for Kerry or against Bush or however you want to characterize it because we feel things very similar to the sentiments expressed in this article.

[livius drusus]

It's Bush's conservative "Christian" supporters that are looking forward with enthusiasm to Armageddon, obviously not that columnist, whoever it is. I suspect that was the point of the reference.

Did you mean this part, Scarlatti?

Yanks had the chance to show the world a better way this week, instead they made a thuggish cowboy ride off into the sunset bathed in glory.

And in doing so it brought Armageddon that little bit closer and re-christened their beloved nation The Home Of The Knave and the Land Of The Freak.

That looks to me like the columnist is suggesting that the election of Bush will hasten the end of the world and he seems quite unhappy about it. I don't see how that could be interpreted as a reference to Rapture Ready Bush voters looking forward to Armageddon with enthusiasm.

[D. Scarlatti]

Yes. I don't see why the stereotypical European secularist would invoke by title the battle foreseen in Revelation unless she/he had in mind the administration's fundamentalist base and its beliefs.

Cool Hand thinks it's a bit over the top, but a lot of people in this country (including, notably, Bush's spiritual antecedent Ronald Reagan) believe it's an inevitable historical occurrence. Anyway, that's the subtext I get from it.

[livius drusus]

Oh well, subtextually perhaps, but the text itself seems more of a standard hyperbolic metaphor to me: you yanks have doomed yourselves and the world kind of thing.

[D. Scarlatti]

To me the harshest accusation is "lawless cowboy." But Bush's PR machine has taken pains to present him as the wood-chopping, brush-clearing, Carhartt-wearing Texan, and at least one federal judge has made reference to the administration's "lawlessness":

U.S. Judge Halts War-Crime Trial at Guantánamo (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/politics/09gitmo.html?hp&ex=1100062800&en=ef8ed60281cb7cb4&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

"[Justice Department spokesman Mark] Corallo said, 'By conferring protected legal status under the Geneva Conventions on members of Al Qaeda, the judge has put terrorism on the same legal footing as legitimate methods of waging war.'"

I'm not an America hater by any means, but it's difficult not to see the irony in that statement.

[Goliath]

I'm not going to go into a tedious, point by point dissection of this piece.

So here you go spouting out all of this venom about how horrible this article is, but yet you adamantly refuse to back up even a single claim that you've made?

How predictable.

[livius drusus]

I think we should focus on responding to the OP or points raised about it instead of making the thread about the deficiencies we might perceive in some individual participant. We've had more than enough of the latter around here lately.

[HelenM]

That's about what I'd expect from The Mirror.

Helen

[Cool Hand]

Oh well, subtextually perhaps, but the text itself seems more of a standard hyperbolic metaphor to me: you yanks have doomed yourselves and the world kind of thing.

That's exactly how I read it. Armageddon is a fairly standard metaphor invoked by writers or speakers, secular or not, to refer to a doomsday. "Nuclear armageddon" was a common phrase used in journalism throughout the Cold War.

I don't think the writer meant to draw directly from the language of the Christian fundamentalist. Nowhere else in the piece does he do so, and I really don't think it's a reasonable inference from the whole piece or from the context in which he used it that he meant it as anything more than as a standard metaphor for destroying the world. As such, it is indeed hyperbolic. As I said, that's just one example.

Cool Hand

[Godless Dave]

Gotta disagree with you again, Cool Hand.

Bush and his supporters deserve our hate. As to this kind of rhetoric being ineffective, it has been enourmously effective for many Republicans since 1994. John McCain tried to play nice and he lost. John Kerry tried to play nice and he lost*.


*Unless the voting machines in Florida and Ohio were hacked, in which case Kerry still lost by not investigating the situation more.

[Godless Dave]

And now I'll analyze the opinion piece itself:

A self-serving, dim-witted, draft-dodging, gung-ho little rich boy, whose idea of courage is to yell: "I feel good," as he unleashes an awesome fury which slaughters 100,000 innocents for no other reason than greed and vanity.

True.

A dangerous chameleon, his charming exterior provides cover for a power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves whose goal is to increase America's grip on the world's economies and natural resources.
True.

And in foolishly backing him, Americans have given the go-ahead for more unilateral pre-emptive strikes, more world instability and most probably another 9/11.
True.

Instead America chose a man without morals or vision. An economic incompetent who inherited a $2billion surplus from Clinton, gave it in tax cuts to the rich and turned the US into the world's largest debtor nation.
True

A man who sneers at the rights of other nations. Who has withdrawn from international treaties on the environment and chemical weapons.
True

A man who flattens sovereign states then hands the rebuilding contracts to his own billionaire party backers.
True.

A man who promotes trade protectionism and backs an Israeli government which continually flouts UN resolutions.
Half true.

America has chosen a menacingly immature buffoon who likened the pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to a Wild West, Wanted Dead or Alive man-hunt and, during the Afghanistan war, kept a baseball scorecard in his drawer, notching up hits when news came through of enemy deaths.
Dangerously true.

A RADICAL Christian fanatic who decided the world was made up of the forces of good and evil, who invented a war on terror, and thus as author of it, believed he had the right to set the rules of engagement.
True

[Clutch Munny]

It's shameful that some people who are supposed to be critical thinkers would embrace this irresponsible, inflammatory rhetoric lock, stock, and barrel, without giving due consideration to its reeking of bias, hatred, and venom.

Who are you talking about?

On what basis do you make this charge?

What you seem to say here is grossly uncharitable, if directed locally, or of utterly opaque relevance if not.

Sonnet posted the article without comment. Did you consider that its interest consists primarily in showing what the punters overseas find acceptable to say about Bush, even within the Grand Alliance? Nobody said, "Now that's a well-argued piece that persuades without any strong rhetoric!" Indeed, lunachick immediately characterized the source as "a tabloid rag, like News of the World - Fleet Street muck, as they say", before issuing a qualified agreement with "the sentiments of the author".

See, this is what I meant about insults being more easily perceived inbound than outbound.

We should be criticizing and rejecting this sort of hatred, not embracing it. A calmer, cooler, analysis of the substantive issues is much more appropriate and much more persuasive as well.

Absolutely agreed, with the second part. As for the first... well, it's just not as obvious as you make out. Americans, say, who love their country and see Bush and his backers as doing (for all practical purposes) irreversible and serious harm to it -- harm that cashes out as shorter and worse lives for the very people that a decent government ought most to be concerned for -- are justified in hating him, if hate is ever justified. The question is not whether such strong emotion should be rejected; it's whether emotion should be used to bridge gaps in argumentation.

It should not. Any reason to think that this has happened should be raised, of course. But a sound argument with "Fuck you!" after every premise is still a sound argument.

Notice also that one manifestation of bias is to seize upon one aspect of a contrary view as a rationale for not confronting it seriously. I don't say that the article in question has some deep substance that's being overlooked. But once those little "Let's analyze your biases" cats are out of the hat, they do tend to run all around the house.

In principle, I see little difference in this kind of nonsense and the kind of nonsense that ultra-conservative talk radio hosts spew each day. The only difference is from which side of the aisle it comes.

In tone I see little difference. In principle, a major difference would be whether the substance of the complaints are true. This article is not worth the time, I agree. But that does not mean it doesn't express truths. Editorializing /= non-factual; the fact that this article is vented spleen does not mean that Bush is something other than a disaster. Nor does agreeing with its sentiments amount to accepting it uncritically, "lock, stock, and barrel, without giving due consideration to its reeking of bias, hatred, and venom".

[Corona688]

The only incontravertible fact in the whole article is that Kerry did not win the election. The rest is editorializing. Editorializing is not stating facts. Complete and total bullshit. There are a hell of a lot of facts in there, none of them pleasant. There is also a lot of editorializing, too. So what? Having an opinion is not a crime.

My beef is not with your opinion of the article, but with this: We should be criticizing and rejecting this sort of hatred, not embracing it. A calmer, cooler, analysis of the substantive issues is much more appropriate and much more persuasive as well. Criticism is great, go nuts. Hell, if you were to dissect and destroy it point-by-point I might start to agree with your reasons. But rejecting it because you don't like it's tone is a very poor reason to do so.

[livius drusus]

Well, it's not exactly a news article. It's an opinion piece. It seems to me that rejecting its overall tone is a perfectly valid position to take. It's not like it's jam-packed with facts and carefully supported argument. It's pretty much just a rant.

Even given that, however, I agree with Clutch's analysis above.

[Godless Dave]

IIRC, it does not claim to be anything other than an opinion piece.

I for one am getting pretty sick of being told - by fellow Democrats/liberals as well as conservatives - to tone it down. Being too toned down has been the Democratic party's biggest failing. When Bush was lying about WMDs there was barely a peep from Democratic politicians. One who did question Bush's veracity was condemned by Trent Lott. Someone entered a fantastic ad in MoveOn's first competition, basically on the "He lied, they died" theme. I passed it to a fellow liberal and they said it was "kind of harsh". Michael Moore is accused of "hating America". People who opposed the Iraq war were called unpatriotic. Senators who want to repeal certain provisions of the Patriot Act were accused by other Senators of aiding terrorists. Ashcroft said the same thing about attorneys who defended the civil rights of terrorist suspects.

It seems like conservatives are allowed to be angry, but liberals are not.

Yes, the Mirror editorial is outspoken and contemptuous. About fucking time. I only wish more editorials in American newspapers took the same approach.

[Corona688]

Well, it's not exactly a news article. It's an opinion piece. It seems to me that rejecting its overall tone is a perfectly valid position to take. Rejecting it's overall tone, sure. Rejecting the whole thing? Saying it contains one fact alone is even more hyperbolic than the worst insults in that article. Instead of stating why he thinks the whole article and nearly everything in it is wrong, he has simply stated it's not worth his time. Now there's a great case of proof by intimidation.

[livius drusus]

It certainly made my eyes glaze over, but that's because I'm the polar opposite of Dave on this score: I'm sick of all the hate hysteria I've seen and heard since the election, so when I see more of it I just tune it out.

I disagree that there is only one fact in it, and again, I think Clutch has made a fine argument rebutting Cool Hand's op in this thread, but I don't really consider the number of facts in the piece to be the point because the author is not attempting to make a factual argument.

[Corona688]

{edited to tone down... I've made my point, now I'll be nice.}

[Godless Dave]

I'm the polar opposite of Dave on this score: I'm sick of all the hate hysteria I've seen and heard since the election, so when I see more of it I just tune it out.

Whereas I'm sick of Democrats showing up at a gunfight armed only with flowers.

[livius drusus]

The Democrats are mired in their own DLC style of endless compromise and retreat. That has nothing to do with my position, which, as I've repeatedly stated, is considerably further left than the DP has ever been in my lifetime.

[Clutch Munny]

Lemme say directly, since I only intimated it earlier, that what interest the OP article has for me consists solely in what it says about the Mirror readership's attitude towards Bush. The Daily Mirror is a shitrag, but it's a shitrag of the jingoistic "Support Our Troops!" variety when that's what the punters will buy. Attacking Bush as a mindless invader/aggressor is tantamount to disowning the legitimacy of the Iraq war altogether, which might not be big news in the UK, but does represent a turnaround from the days when the Mirror would run this (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12188969&method=full&siteid=50143) sort of opinion column.

[wei yau]

It seems there's no escaping the topic of "tone", either in here or any other discussion about politics.

I'll tell you why I dislike the tone. It has nothing to do with hurt feelings, feelings of intimidation or "they started it first".

I dislilke the tone because it plays into the hands of the cynical political ideologues who use it to divide the populace. We all get so distracted over vitriolic rhetoric, that we completely forget to discuss the issues. Issues which are not simply abstract ideals, but real-life impacting matters. Issues that affect ourselves, our friends, families and even total strangers.

The lamentable state of political discourse in this country ensures that the two major parties get damn near exactly half of the populace in support. They don't have to discuss the issues, they don't have to put forth reasoned and rational policies. All they have to do is make you angry and scared and you'll vote for them. Both sides do this.

So, we'll vote because our ears are so filled with poison, we can't hear anything else. And they'll puruse their agendas in their own interest, the interests of their moneyed friends and the interests of the extremists on both sides (this last bit is done to ensure that the angry rhetoric continues).

We all fall for it, election cycle after election cycle. The winners get to sit smugly back, confident that they've been proven right. They do not see that the tables will turn eventually, as their margin of victory is not so great. The losers continue with whining and anger, satisfied with their own righteousness. Meanwhile, all of us continue to suffer because the act of governance has been trumped by election campaigning.

Our voices are heard only when raised to praise our candidate or shout-down the opponent. Once the election is decided, we are rendered mute by the resultant echo.

[Petra]

Lemme say directly, since I only intimated it earlier, that what interest the OP article has for me consists solely in what it says about the Mirror readership's attitude towards Bush. The Daily Mirror is a shitrag, but it's a shitrag of the jingoistic "Support Our Troops!" variety when that's what the punters will buy. Attacking Bush as a mindless invader/aggressor is tantamount to disowning the legitimacy of the Iraq war altogether, which might not be big news in the UK, but does represent a turnaround from the days when the Mirror would run this (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12188969&method=full&siteid=50143) sort of opinion column.


Thanks. The Mirror is a shitrag, always has been. Flip-flopping it's way into the blue collar British viscera with endless "We're not gonna take it" op-ed pieces and dressing the whole thing up in busty topless teens who dream of saving the world by growing up to be 'models'. Tabloids like that are all about spleen and cock.

I still agree with the sentiments of the author, though, and I agree with Godless Dave.

[Petra]

It seems there's no escaping the topic of "tone", either in here or any other discussion about politics.

Given how many violent deaths there have been in the last few years, and how the path is being cleared for America-style christofacism, I would find it somewhat chilling if we did avoid "tone".

I dislilke the tone because it plays into the hands of the cynical political ideologues who use it to divide the populace.Sorry, Eldar, but this isn't just about the US and how united or divided you are at home - it's about the whole world. We all get so distracted over vitriolic rhetoric, that we completely forget to discuss the issues. Issues which are not simply abstract ideals, but real-life impacting matters. Issues that affect ourselves, our friends, families and even total strangers.Even total strangers, huh? No shit. As I said this isn't about the left-right domestic drama being played out in some small town in buttfuck Texas or somewhere, this is bigger than that.

The lamentable state of political discourse in this country...

No offence, Eldar, but this is what can really drive me nuts about many Americans, and I appreciate it is not your fault; it's the way you've been raised and schooled; but you're still looking inward - within US borders and how awfully naughty you've all become in election campaigning an' shit. Sorry, but there is a whole world - replete with strangers - outside your borders. WE EXIST. And we have every right to be angry, and to express that anger. And hopefully, should the US continue on it's PNAC path, the rest of the world is not too busy discussing everything politely and academically amongst itself, but actually gets off it's ass and puts a stop to it!

[godfry n. glad]

I think we should focus on responding to the OP or points raised about it instead of making the thread about the deficiencies we might perceive in some individual participant. We've had more than enough of the latter around here lately.

I disagree. I think that anyone who consistantly espouses ignoring the failings of the Bush administration should be confronted for their actions.

Besides, cool, calm and collected dialogue of the nation's needs and direction did NOT get the current administration where they are today. No, they got their support from those who throw around loaded labels like "liberal elite" and "out of touch with Middle America."

godfry

"It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes."
- Josef Stalin

[HelenM]

No offence, Eldar, but this is what can really drive me nuts about many Americans, and I appreciate it is not your fault; it's the way you've been raised and schooled; but you're still looking inward - within US borders and how awfully naughty you've all become in election campaigning an' shit. Sorry, but there is a whole world - replete with strangers - outside your borders. WE EXIST. And we have every right to be angry, and to express that anger. And hopefully, should the US continue on it's PNAC path, the rest of the world is not too busy discussing everything politely and academically amongst itself, but actually gets off it's ass and puts a stop to it!

luna, I share your frustration that some Americans seem to forget there's a world out there.

However, I don't see reason to think Eldar is one of them, just because his topic was US politics (rather than world politics). :?

Helen

[livius drusus]

I don't recall anyone suggesting that The Mirror or lunachick or anyone not have the right to express anger. The question here is our reactions to it. Some find it compelling, others don't.

[Petra]

luna, I share your frustration that some Americans seem to forget there's a world out there.

However, I don't see reason to think Eldar is one of them, just because his topic was US politics (rather than world politics). :?

Helen

I'm not jumping on Eldar, honest. It's nothing personal. But I see it a lot in discussions here and elsewhere, that when discussing something that has become a major global issue (crisis?), Americans are still looking inward within their own borders and not outward where the rest of the world is. And unfortunately, internal US politics has repercussions on gloabl politics to a great degree right now, so are intertwined. But the major issue is "out here" in the greater world, not at home between red and blue. The fight is no longer between liberals and conservatives inside the US, the liberals already lost that one due to being too "nice". And now should the rest of the world lie down and let the neo-con's walk all over us just in case we get seen as not being very "nice", or being thought of as a bit uncouth?

[Petra]

I disagree. I think that anyone who consistantly espouses ignoring the failings of the Bush administration should be confronted for their actions.

Besides, cool, calm and collected dialogue of the nation's needs and direction did NOT get the current administration where they are today.

Agreed.

[livius drusus]

the liberals already lost that one due to being too "nice".

I disagree that liberals were even in the running and I disagree that "niceness" is the reason Kerry lost, but that's more of an argument for another thread.

And now should the rest of the world lie down and let the neo-con's walk all over us just in case we get seen as not being very "nice", or being thought of as a bit uncouth?

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Who exactly is saying that the rest of the world should lie down and let neo-cons walk all over them out of fear of being thought uncouth?

[Petra]

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Who exactly is saying that the rest of the world should lie down and let neo-cons walk all over them out of fear of being thought uncouth?

Well, no one, exactly. But in many ways it is implied by those who take offence at the tone of such articles as posted in the OP. We must always be cool, calm and collected, and argue things academically. No vicera.

I think that sometimes you gotta go with the vicera. Sometimes you have to fight and kick against the pricks. You have to get angry enough to stop them screwing you. eg, had the Bolsheviks stayed in the realm of the purely academic and minded it's "tone", Russia might still have a Tsar.

[trendkill]

I would like to see more domestic editorials with this tone. The US is divided. Now it just needs to realize it. Viscerally as well as intellectually.

[livius drusus]

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? Who exactly is saying that the rest of the world should lie down and let neo-cons walk all over them out of fear of being thought uncouth?

Well, no one, exactly. But in many ways it is implied by those who take offence at the tone of such articles as posted in the OP. We must always be cool, calm and collected, and argue things academically. No vicera.

I find the OP article crappy and I'm implying no such thing. Op-eds are not actions people or governments take to counter oppression; they're some dude's thoughts. I can think they're idiotic or poorly written or counterproductive for my priorities all I want and in no way am I undercutting the actions the rest of the world feels it must take in reaction to US policies.

I think that sometimes you gotta go with the vicera. Sometimes you have to fight and kick against the pricks. You have to get angry enough to stop them screwing you. eg, had the Bolsheviks stayed in the realm of the purely academic and minded it's "tone", Russia might still have a Tsar.

Are you suggesting the Bolshevik revolution is a fine example of a productive reaction to oppression? Given the Bolshevik skill at murdering and oppressing many of the same people the Tsar murdered and oppressed, it really doesn't seem like a particularly good instance.

I have no problem with visceral reactions. I have them at least twice daily myself. But I'm not going to applaud every time I see one like a toddler admiring his newfound ability to take a dump in the can. Should The Mirror write a gripping editorial that inspires the world to glorious revolution, then I'll stomp my feet with the best of them.

Until then, I'll reserve the right to call hysteria hysteria whether it's recommending bloody revenge for 9/11 like in the piece Clutch linked to, or calling my neighbors names for having the temerity to live in a red state.

[viscousmemories]

I'm as sick of the hate rhetoric as Cool Hand and livius, but I also agree that Clutch's analysis was very good.

In response to some of the other comments I've seen in this thread IMO "they started it" is a piss-poor excuse for embracing the unethical tactics of your opponent, and once you choose that path you have forfeited the moral high-ground you presumably occupied. Why exactly is it okay to be a self-righteous, reactionary hatemonger as long as the target of your scorn is Republicans and not gays? You wouldn't self-identify in those terms? Well I doubt Fred Phelps would either.

Now just to correct a misconception that a couple others have taken up:

Complete and total bullshit. There are a hell of a lot of facts in there, none of them pleasant. There is also a lot of editorializing, too. So what? Having an opinion is not a crime.
He didn't say there weren't a lot of facts in there so your response is a strawman. He said (emphasis mine):
The only incontravertible fact in the whole article is that Kerry did not win the election. The rest is editorializing. Editorializing is not stating facts.
Can anyone produce any unquestionable evidence proving any of the other allegations in that editorial, or are some of us mistaking our opinion for the objective truth again?

[Petra]

Are you suggesting the Bolshevik revolution is a fine example of a productive reaction to oppression? Given the Bolshevik skill at murdering and oppressing many of the same people the Tsar murdered and oppressed, it really doesn't seem like a particularly good instance.

True. It was a crappy example, just the first one that came to mind when I thought of violent revolution. I would personally prefer a quiet or velvet revolution of some sort, but that seems unlikely given the course.

My point remains though; polite academics will not affect change wrt the PNAC and US Foreign Policy. It just doesn't have the kind of clout that means much to these people.

[wei yau]

I did not take offense to any of lunachick's response. I did not see it as an attack. I saw it as justified anger towards a post that can be seen as selfish Americanism.

By and large, I found myself agreeing with her. If my post was America-centric, it is simply because I was discussing the tone of political discourse here in the States. I did not mean to diminish the impact that our actions as American voters has on the world-at-large. I certainly did not mean to dismiss the very grave concerns that non-Americans have regarding the current administration.

I'm very much aware of the repercussions of America's actions throughout the world. I focused on American politics because I believe the change has to come from within the nation's borders. This does not mean that we should not pay attention to the very real and reasonable concerns of other nations. But, ultimately, the choice is ours.

Believe me when I tell you that I am angry. I am angry that half of my countrymen subscribe to a foreign policy that I find morally reprehensible and completely unrealistic. It is naive and overly simplistic.

I don't disagree with the tone because I think the anger behind it is not valid. I disagree with the tone because I'm realizing that no one can hear for all the shouting.

[livius drusus]

My point remains though; polite academics will not affect change wrt the PNAC and US Foreign Policy. It just doesn't have the kind of clout that means much to these people.

Neither do Mirror editorials, or any editorials at all, frankly, unless they come from people already on the inside, and those editorials are unlikely to espouse a point of view you embrace.

[Petra]

Why exactly is it okay to be a self-righteous, reactionary hatemonger as long as the target of your scorn is Republicans and not gays?

Oh, I dunno. How many illegal wars have US Gays started? How many people have been blown to bits to further an international gay agenda?

[Petra]

My point remains though; polite academics will not affect change wrt the PNAC and US Foreign Policy. It just doesn't have the kind of clout that means much to these people.

Neither do Mirror editorials, or any editorials at all, frankly, unless they come from people already on the inside, and those editorials are unlikely to espouse a point of view you embrace.

But the editorials do have an effect on the readership of that - and I use the term loosely - "newspaper".

It sends a ripple into the streets. It encourages action in place of cafe chit-chat. I think we need more action and less cafe chit chat at this point in history. I just don't know what action to take - but outrage at the present situation is a good start, imo.

[viscousmemories]

Why exactly is it okay to be a self-righteous, reactionary hatemonger as long as the target of your scorn is Republicans and not gays?
Oh, I dunno. How many illegal wars have US Gays started? How many people have been blown to bits to further an international gay agenda?
So you have nothing against self-righteous, reactionary hatemongering as long as the person doing it shares your values? Don't you think Phelps feels exactly the same way?

[livius drusus]

But the editorials do have an effect on the readership of that - and I use the term loosely - "newspaper".

It sends a ripple into the streets. It encourages action in place of cafe chit-chat.

They do? I can see them affecting the readership's perspective or opinion of situation x, but encouraging action instead of discussion? That seems like a big leap to me. What makes you think angry editorials encourage readers to take action?

I think we need more action and less cafe chit chat at this point in history. I just don't know what action to take - but outrage at the present situation is a good start, imo.

Outrage and rage are not synonymous. I have plenty of the former.

[Petra]

I did not take offense to any of lunachick's response. I did not see it as an attack.

Thanks. :)

It wasn't an attack on you, personally - I like you! But it is frustration at how small and insignificant the rest of the world can appear to many Americans. But I went to high school in the US for a while, and appreciate that you just aren't taught to think about the rest of world. (Well, you weren't back in the late 70's, anyway).

[livius drusus]

I wasn't taught to think about America at all. In fact, I never had an American history class until college.

[Petra]

Why exactly is it okay to be a self-righteous, reactionary hatemonger as long as the target of your scorn is Republicans and not gays?
Oh, I dunno. How many illegal wars have US Gays started? How many people have been blown to bits to further an international gay agenda?
So you have nothing against self-righteous, reactionary hatemongering as long as the person doing it shares your values? Don't you think Phelps feels exactly the same way?

You've lost me.

If innocent people were being blown to bits to further an international gay agenda, and illegal wars were being started in their name, then yes, I would be full of "self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering" for that group also.

[Cool Hand]

Choose your story lead in.

1) Brazil defeats Britain 4-3 for World Cup title.

(just the facts)

2) It was a sad day for British football fans, as the best team South America could field barely squeaked by to dash Britain's hopes for another World Cup title.

(based on facts, with some pro-British slant)

3) In an outrageous miscarriage of justice, today the cheating Brazilians stole the World Cup title from Britain, offending decent football fans the world over, and causing the nation to mourn more than it has since the bombing of London by the Nazis, who, not so incidentally, are still hiding in Brazil.

(still based on facts, but now contains mean-spirited anti-Brazilian and pro-British rhetoric that may or may not distort what actually happened on the field)

4) Stinking, lazy coffee bean picking, jungle dwelling, illiterate, sewage impaired, Carnivale obsessed, Ipanema worshipping, Nazi harboring fuckheads lied and cheated their way into the World Cup finals, and then stole a sure victory from Britain's clearly superior young lads, and may have murdered countless defenseless pregnant women, knocked over wheelchair bound invalids, and pissed on terrified, young virginal girls in the process. Not only that, but they picked their noses and flung their boogers towards Her Royal Highness, the Queen. Before the game even started, the fuckers bribed all the football officials, shortened our goalposts, smeared coffee grounds on the ball, and poured oil in front of Britain's goal. We never should have let the smelly ingrates onto our shores in the first place. We could have spared everyone the trouble of this Holocaust by killing them all (wouldn't the world be a better place for it?) during their trans-Atlantic voyage. One well aimed surface to air missile with the words "Brazilian Airlines" stenciled on it would have spared us this horrific tragedy. The nation now mourns its not having the good sense to blast them out of the sky while it had the chance. The planet may never recover.

(Still may have some basis in fact, but it's hard to tell what it is)

Yeah, OK, I was over the top in 4), and more so than the Mirror's piece is, but maybe not by much.

Is that really the kind of rhetoric we want to see more of, or should we perhaps try to be cooler and more level headed about it?

That's entirely up to each individual, I suppose. I don't like 3) and 4). I wish no one else wanted to see it here. That's all.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

I wasn't taught to think about America at all. In fact, I never had an American history class until college.

In history, I was taught American history and in Geography I was taught American geography. Bear in mind, this is freshman and sophomore years in high school. In NZ, we learned about Africa, India, the US, the MidEast, and the Far East in history and geography (and "social studies"). My experience in the US was totally white America wrt my education. I was at school there from 1977 -1979. The high school curriculum in the US may have changed since then.

[godfry n. glad]

He didn't say there weren't a lot of facts in there so your response is a strawman. He said (emphasis mine):
The only incontravertible fact in the whole article is that Kerry did not win the election. The rest is editorializing. Editorializing is not stating facts.


Well... Just to clarify, your emphasis clearly makes his statement so much rhetorical piffle. It is NOT "incontravertible". It's unlikely, but not incontravertible. His usage is hyperbole....is that why you emphasized it?

godfry

[Petra]

<snip>

Sorry, CH, this isn't a ballgame.

[wei yau]

Being the child of immigrants (no, I'm not preparing a campaign speech) and growing up in New York City, I had no choice but to learn about the larger world. It was in my face on a daily basis. An interesting thing I've heard is that although America has a large immigrant population, this does not result in a more global perspective. The opposite actually happens because immigrants tend to discard their heritage and embrace an "American" identity.

I think that America figures more prominently in the opinions of non-Americans because of our dominance. Like it or not, America does dominate the world in many circles...from culture to economics to politics. It stands to reason that non-Americans would have very strong opinions about our actions. I think that dominance also isolates Americans from appreciating the impact we have on the world.

I do agree that many Americans do not learn about the world. I used to think it was an artifact of being such a large nation with the Atlantic and Pacific serving as borders. However, with the advent of global communications and, especially, the Internet, I think this rationale is no longer valid.

[godfry n. glad]

Choose your story lead in.

1) Brazil defeats Britain 4-3 for World Cup title.

(just the facts)

2) It was a sad day for British football fans, as the best team South America could field barely squeaked by to dash Britain's hopes for another World Cup title.

(based on facts, with some pro-British slant)

3) In an outrageous miscarriage of justice, today the cheating Brazilians stole the World Cup title from Britain, offending decent football fans the world over, and causing the nation to mourn more than it has since the bombing of London by the Nazis, who, not so incidentally, are still hiding in Brazil.

(still based on facts, but now contains mean-spirited anti-Brazilian and pro-British rhetoric that may or may not distort what actually happened on the field)

4) Stinking, lazy coffee bean picking, jungle dwelling, illiterate, sewage impaired, Carnivale obsessed, Ipanema worshipping, Nazi harboring fuckheads lied and cheated their way into the World Cup finals, and then stole a sure victory from Britain's clearly superior young lads, and may have murdered countless defenseless pregnant women, knocked over wheelchair bound invalids, and pissed on terrified, young virginal girls in the process. Not only that, but they picked their noses and flung their boogers towards Her Royal Highness, the Queen. Before the game even started, the fuckers bribed all the football officials, shortened our goalposts, smeared coffee grounds on the ball, and poured oil in front of Britain's goal. We never should have let the smelly ingrates onto our shores in the first place. We could have spared everyone the trouble of this Holocaust by killing them all (wouldn't the world be a better place for it?) during their trans-Atlantic voyage. One well aimed surface to air missile with the words "Brazilian Airlines" stenciled on it would have spared us this horrific tragedy. The nation now mourns its not having the good sense to blast them out of the sky while it had the chance. The planet may never recover.

(Still may have some basis in fact, but it's hard to tell what it is)

Yeah, OK, I was over the top in 4), and more so than the Mirror's piece is, but maybe not by much.

Is that really the kind of rhetoric we want to see more of, or should we perhaps try to be cooler and more level headed about it?

That's entirely up to each individual, I suppose. I don't like 3) and 4). I wish no one else wanted to see it here. That's all.

Cool Hand


Faulty analogy. There is no comparison.

Piss poor closing argument, counsellor.

godfry

[Petra]

However, with the advent of global communications and, especially, the Internet, I think this rationale is no longer valid.

Yes! Thank goodness for the internet. It is helping to open up many Amercans to the rest of us. That is a great, great thing. :)

[Cool Hand]

Now just to correct a misconception that a couple others have taken up:

Complete and total bullshit. There are a hell of a lot of facts in there, none of them pleasant. There is also a lot of editorializing, too. So what? Having an opinion is not a crime.He didn't say there weren't a lot of facts in there so your response is a strawman. He said (emphasis mine):
The only incontravertible fact in the whole article is that Kerry did not win the election. The rest is editorializing. Editorializing is not stating facts.Can anyone produce any unquestionable evidence proving any of the other allegations in that editorial, or are some of us mistaking our opinion for the objective truth again?
Thanks for doing clearing that up, VM. I thought about doing it myself, but I don't think it would have meant much coming from me. Thanks also for reading me as well as you do. I try to write what I mean, but sometimes I'm not as clear as I'd like to be. It's tiresome for me to see words put in my mouth and to try to answer all of it. Sometimes I'd rather just throw up my hands and forget it.

Cool Hand

[Cool Hand]

<snip>
Sorry, CH, this isn't a ballgame.
Nor was my point about ballgames, Lunachick. It was about inflammatory editorializing.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

I thought about doing it myself, but I don't think it would have meant much coming from me. Thanks also for reading me as well as you do. I try to write what I mean, but sometimes I'm not as clear as I'd like to be. It's tiresome for me to see words put in my mouth and to try to answer all of it. Sometimes I'd rather just throw up my hands and forget it.

Cool Hand

:D We all feel like that often. I know I do. And I'm a crap debater too, which doesn't help any!

I like you, Cool Hand. I don't agree with you often - we walk separate paths - but I like you.

We are all living in what seems to be the New Age of Frustration, Exasperation, Anger and Despair. It's been in the cauldron cooking for a good fifty years or more. Where to from here?

[Petra]

<snip>
Sorry, CH, this isn't a ballgame.
Nor was my point about ballgames, Lunachick. It was about inflammatory editorializing.

Cool Hand


Yes, but one opinion piece is written in the internbational news section and the other is wriiten on the sports pages.

:shrug:


Anyway, I better go grab some breakfast and have a shower and all that. I promised to help a friend with some work that she has to do that's become a bit overwhelming for her. Gotta run. :wave:

[trendkill]

-double post-

[trendkill]

So you have nothing against self-righteous, reactionary hatemongering as long as the person doing it shares your values? Don't you think Phelps feels exactly the same way?

No, that doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will. You can't accuse people of being bigoted against bigotry. When you tolerate intolerance, you are not actually being tolerant, you are simply condoning intolerance. If you want to advocate tolerance, then condoning intolerance would contradict your goals.

[godfry n. glad]

Nor was my point about ballgames, Lunachick. It was about inflammatory editorializing.

Cool Hand


Oh...Like you don't engage in such things.

I'm not impressed.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

You've lost me.

If innocent people were being blown to bits to further an international gay agenda, and illegal wars were being started in their name, then yes, I would be full of "self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering" for that group also.
Okay well I believe self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering is a tool of fascism, used (often effectively) to dehumanize and villify ones ideological opponents. People like Fred Phelps infuriate me not only because he targets gays, but because he is a fascist. So as far as I'm concerned I can't embrace that behavior without becoming what I hate.

[viscousmemories]

Thanks for doing clearing that up, VM. I thought about doing it myself, but I don't think it would have meant much coming from me. Thanks also for reading me as well as you do. I try to write what I mean, but sometimes I'm not as clear as I'd like to be. It's tiresome for me to see words put in my mouth and to try to answer all of it. Sometimes I'd rather just throw up my hands and forget it.
My pleasure, Cool Hand. I considered not doing it myself in light of the reputation I'm getting for being your apologist, but fortunately I no longer care if I get picked last for dodgeball.

[Petra]

You've lost me.


If innocent people were being blown to bits to further an international gay agenda, and illegal wars were being started in their name, then yes, I would be full of "self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering" for that group also.
Okay well I believe self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering is a tool of fascism, used (often effectively) to dehumanize and villify ones ideological opponents. People like Fred Phelps infuriate me not only because he targets gays, but because he is a fascist. So as far as I'm concerned I can't embrace that behavior without becoming what I hate.

Once it moves into illegar war with bombs and blown up people everywhere, then it is rather beyond just "ideological", I think.

What you call "self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongering" I call "justifiable anger".

If you can bring Fred Phelps into it, I can bring in Iraqi insurgents: Do you think the Iraqi insurgency are being self-righteous, reactionary hate-mongers? What if members of that insurgency have relatives sitting in Abu Ghraib and their house and place of work have been blown to bits along with their wife, mother, brother, and a couple of their children?

[Adam]

They do? I can see them affecting the readership's perspective or opinion of situation x, but encouraging action instead of discussion? That seems like a big leap to me. What makes you think angry editorials encourage readers to take action?

Well, one example might be the number of people (and, no, I have no statistically viable sample, I'm basing this only on my own personal conversations with people here in my home red state) who seem swayed by the daily hatemongering of Rush Limbaugh and his kind. While I personally think the editorial in the OP was too over the top to be effective (in addition to offending my delicate sensibilities, particularly the bit that almost gloats over the 'fact' that we will likely experience more 9/11 style attacks), I also think there's something to the point that the leftin America, or even the sham of a leftist organization that pretends to be the Democratic Party, could do well with a bit more public outrage, a bit more unreasoned furor, and a bit more willingness to kick the other side when they're down. No, these things are not ideal, and they're theoreticlaly against most progressives' principles but, as has been said, there's a point at which you stop bringing flowers to a gunfight. Paul Krugman has pointed out that Kissinger's analysis of the Soviets as a revolutionary power that did not play by the normal rules of politics also applies very well to the Republican Party and its supporters today; they don't play fair, they don't observe the usual niceities, and they don't feel bound by traditional rules of conduct. Why should their opposition, if it doesn't want to get steamrolled?

Anyway, I think the more significant point of posting the essay is less for its content than to point out that, yes, there are people in the world who feel this way about us, based on the electoral decisions we communally make, that what we see as being "strong" and "free", others sometimes see as arrogance and bullying.

[Sonnet]

Anyway, I think the more significant point of posting the essay is less for its content than to point out that, yes, there are people in the world who feel this way about us, based on the electoral decisions we communally make, that what we see as being "strong" and "free", others sometimes see as arrogance and bullying.

:cheer:

[Cool Hand]

Anyway, I think the more significant point of posting the essay is less for its content than to point out that, yes, there are people in the world who feel this way about us, based on the electoral decisions we communally make, that what we see as being "strong" and "free", others sometimes see as arrogance and bullying.

:cheer:

OK, I get it. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

**************************

(This part is not directed at you specifically, Sonnet. It's my thinking aloud. Of course, anyone is free to respond or comment.)

I have to wonder if someone had posted without any explanatory remarks or comments some diatribe by Rush Limbaugh or someone else who spews nonsense from the right would there have been such assent or defending of the message as a whole here?

Would other posters have jumped on a poster who dared to say that it's hateful rhetoric?

Would some dismiss the objection as merely directed at the tone of the editorial?

Cool Hand

[Sonnet]

OK, I get it. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Hey, man. No problem. :wink:

(This part is not directed at you specifically, Sonnet. It's my thinking aloud. Of course, anyone is free to respond or comment.)

I have to wonder if someone had posted without any explanatory remarks or comments some diatribe by Rush Limbaugh or someone else who spews nonsense from the right would there have been such assent or defending of the message as a whole here?

Would other posters have jumped on a poster who dared to say that it's hateful rhetoric?

Would some dismiss the objection as merely directed at the tone of the editorial?

Good point. And I don't know.

I really enjoyed your World Cup analogy, btw. I howled. :yup:

[livius drusus]

Well, one example might be the number of people (and, no, I have no statistically viable sample, I'm basing this only on my own personal conversations with people here in my home red state) who seem swayed by the daily hatemongering of Rush Limbaugh and his kind.

I think that's pretty shaky analogywise, just because there's such a big difference between a single editorial in The Mirror and Limbaugh's hugely distributed, daily, 10 decades of hatemongering. It's not that I don't think rhetoric can convince people of things - I can write a sermon like you wouldn't believe - but I don't think angry newspaper editorials are more likely than discussion to lead directly to people taking action against injustice.

I also think there's something to the point that the leftin America, or even the sham of a leftist organization that pretends to be the Democratic Party, could do well with a bit more public outrage, a bit more unreasoned furor, and a bit more willingness to kick the other side when they're down.

<snip>

Why should their opposition, if it doesn't want to get steamrolled?

I don't disagree. Of course, in order to do that effectively, they would have to surgically remove the fence they've been riding for 20 years. The opposition has to want to oppose, is all, or all of this is moot.

Anyway, I think the more significant point of posting the essay is less for its content than to point out that, yes, there are people in the world who feel this way about us, based on the electoral decisions we communally make, that what we see as being "strong" and "free", others sometimes see as arrogance and bullying.

Fair enough. :yup:

[Cool Hand]

My pleasure, Cool Hand. I considered not doing it myself in light of the reputation I'm getting for being your apologist, but fortunately I no longer care if I get picked last for dodgeball.

Ha ha. Does that mean I get picked next to last, or that I don't get picked at all?

I suspect there aren't many people on my team. That's too bad. On political issues, I'm not advocating much other than toning down the mean-spirited, dehumanizing rhetoric and giving more consideration to the possibility that the prevailing wisdom here does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth, justice, and righteousness.

It's amazing how little I can say about my own politics and still have so many of the blanks filled in by posters who think I'm the enemy. Even more amazing is that most of the substance of my politics concerning social issues I've posted is likely very much in keeping with the prevailing views here. I've posted very little about my views regarding international relations.

I'm living a lesson in board politics and dynamics. You're right. It's similar to the one you and Liv saw somewhere else.

Cool Hand

[Petra]

I have to wonder if someone had posted without any explanatory remarks or comments some diatribe by Rush Limbaugh or someone else who spews nonsense from the right would there have been such assent or defending of the message as a whole here?

Would other posters have jumped on a poster who dared to say that it's hateful rhetoric?

Would some dismiss the objection as merely directed at the tone of the editorial?

Cool Hand

I would probably look to see if there are any facts contained in it, judged that; looked at the rhetoric and based on the facts would have used a sliding scale as to what degree I agreed or disagreed with the emotion/opinions expressed based on the facts and where it is coming from and taking us to.

If sweatshop workers are not heard or considered when they politely tell their industry overlords that their working conditions are atrocious and present good arguments as to why they are atrocious, don't you think they'll get some "justifiable anger" going and through that energy form a union and make a stand? Sometimes this can even cause a riot if the industry overlords still refuse to hear them and make amends. So I will listen to the emotional rhetoric on both sides, look at the facts of the matter, look at the human suffering, and...well, no doubt side with the workers and fight for justice and humanity.

If Hitler rants about how evil and terrible the Jews are and then goes on to mass murder them and steal all their material resources and someone else rants about how Hitler must be stopped because he is a very dangerous man- who should I listen to, where should my outrage be placed?

Rwanda happened because we weren't outraged enough, and didn't read and write angrily enough at what was occurring. While we all "discussed" it, nothing happened. Well, nothing except wholesale slaughter of course.

How much "nothing" are we prepared to accept while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?

[livius drusus]

How much "nothing" are we prepared to accept while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?

And what something are you generating with your outrage in this post, luna, while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"? Besides insulting my own beliefs in standard fragmentation of the left devour your own children mode, I mean.

[Cool Hand]

OK, I get it. Sorry for misunderstanding you.

Hey, man. No problem. :wink:

<snip>

I really enjoyed your World Cup analogy, btw. I howled. :yup:

Thanks for understanding, Sonnet, and for being cool enough to acknowledge my post.

(Psst. Sorry to pick nits too much, but I meant it to be a parody of the writing style. I'm not trying to draw too much of an analogy between football and politics. Oh, and I'm glad it made you laugh. *insert smilie here*)

Cool Hand

[edited for clarity and brevity]

[viscousmemories]

How much "nothing" are we prepared to accept while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?
If I had a nickel for everytime I've heard a politician use that rationale to cease diplomatic talks and start dropping bombs, I'd be Dick Cheney.

[maddog]

Anyway, I think the more significant point of posting the essay is less for its content than to point out that, yes, there are people in the world who feel this way about us, based on the electoral decisions we communally make, that what we see as being "strong" and "free", others sometimes see as arrogance and bullying.

:cheer:

OK, I get it. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
Yes, I think that really is the point -- we don't pay enough attention to how others view us. I think Americans are so insular, sometimes.

**************************

(This part is not directed at you specifically, Sonnet. It's my thinking aloud. Of course, anyone is free to respond or comment.)

I have to wonder if someone had posted without any explanatory remarks or comments some diatribe by Rush Limbaugh or someone else who spews nonsense from the right would there have been such assent or defending of the message as a whole here?

Would other posters have jumped on a poster who dared to say that it's hateful rhetoric?

Would some dismiss the objection as merely directed at the tone of the editorial?

Cool Hand
I think you make a good point. My own experiences with Rush are so viscerally negative, that I expect I'd react pretty strongly to something of his posted without comment. I think it helps considerably to say WHY something is being posted. It goes back to making people guess what you're thinking, which screws up so much in ordinary communication and ordinary relationships. Mind you, I DO think Rush "spews" and I DO think he's a "hatemonger." So I probably wouldn't have spent any time combing what he says for "facts," or saying, "look at the content, not the tone."
#55

[viscousmemories]

So you have nothing against self-righteous, reactionary hatemongering as long as the person doing it shares your values? Don't you think Phelps feels exactly the same way?

No, that doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will. You can't accuse people of being bigoted against bigotry. When you tolerate intolerance, you are not actually being tolerant, you are simply condoning intolerance. If you want to advocate tolerance, then condoning intolerance would contradict your goals.
I never suggested anyone was bigoted against bigotry. I understand that Phelps is a bigot and that being critical of Phelps' bigotry is not bigotry itself. My only point was that reactionary hate-mongering is in itself immoral, regardless of whether the person doing it believes they are morally righteous.

[Clutch Munny]

Isn't anyone else pleased as punch that the Politics forum here isn't full of threads discussing the general merits and demerits of libertarianism?

Bright side, folks, bright side. Silver lining. Half full.

[Petra]

How much "nothing" are we prepared to accept while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?

And what something are you generating with your outrage in this post, luna, while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?

Well, that's a good point, because I'm not doing anything.

So, in some ways, I must say mea culpa.

But I'm also someone who sympathises with the sentiments of the article's author in the OP.
I'm also someone who was involved in some riots regarding a visiting South African Rugby team when South Africa was still an apartheid state. The government wouldn't listen to us, and the nation was deeply divided over it. It took anger and action to be heard.
I was also in London at the time of the poll tax riots.

So, in many ways, when all else fails, I believe in anger and it's expression in combatting injustice and getting people riled enough up about something to really care.

[Petra]

Isn't anyone else pleased as punch that the Politics forum here isn't full of threads discussing the general merits and demerits of libertarianism?

Bright side, folks, bright side. Silver lining. Half full.

lol.

:giggle:

[livius drusus]

And what something are you generating with your outrage in this post, luna, while we are steamrolled into a Pax Americana a la neo-con in the interests of "progressive discourse"?

Well, that's a good point, because I'm not doing anything.

That's not what I asked, luna. I don't question your street action creds, nor am I suggesting you should be out there rioting right now in order to support your statements here.

What I am asking you is what exactly is your purpose here in this thread, on a discussion board dedicated solely to the sharing of words, where you have repeatedly sneered at the value of any kind of discourse other than infuriated. Because if your aim in denigrating my preferred approach of respectful, exploratory discussion while advocating only rage is to rile me up so that I "really care" then you are failing miserably. First because I am far likelier to simply withdraw from you, and second because I really care already.

But I'm also someone who sympathises with the sentiments of the article's author in the OP.

So do I, but do you really think I'm going to clap my hands and stomp my feet at some shit about how my friends and neighbors are "self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'"?

Winston Churchill that author ain't and I'm just not interested in sifting through masses of total horseshit like I just quoted, plus more bullshit sanctifying Kerry as if he was the messiah himself, brutally nailed to a cross of loserdom by the said self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks. No fuck that. It's crap and I'm calling it crap. If you think it'll do some good, I wish you all the luck in the world, but I'm sticking with what feels right to me, what squares with my priorities, my sense of justice. You belittle that at your own loss.

I'm also someone who was involved in some riots regarding a visiting South African Rugby team when South Africa was still an apartheid state. The government wouldn't listen to us, and the nation was deeply divided over it. It took anger and action to be heard.

It also took academics, students, historians, accountants, politicians, normal people who never protested a day in their lives, peacemakers, and Little Steven, among many, many other things.

So, in many ways, when all else fails, I believe in anger and it's expression in combatting injustice and getting people riled enough up about something to really care.

I'm not you, is all, so my methods differ from yours. Can you afford to lose what I bring to the table just because I think Mirror-style rhetoric sucks and I'm not even remotely interested in using FF as an angry propaganda dispensation site? Quite frankly, I don't think you can. Not the least because as it happens, I can write some pretty damn awesome inspirational rhetoric when I feel the occasion warrants.

So, unless you think splinters over methodology are effective activism, it seems to me that railing against - what is you called it? - oh yes, cafe chit-chat or being "nice" or "progressive discourse" or any of the pejorative terms you used for people putting their heads together and talking shit through in a venue where by definition the aim is to talk shit through, is highly counterproductive.

How many times do we have to read this book before we know that it ends in dislocation and perpetual loss? Can't you support me in my exploration just as I support you in your hitting your streets? All else hasn't failed yet. In fact, as far as I know, all else has never failed. Change comes from an infinite number of trajectories.

[godfry n. glad]

So do I, but do you really think I'm going to clap my hands and stomp my feet at some shit about how my friends and neighbors are "self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'"?



Well, liv, you forgot "doctor shootin', federal building bombin', faggot-baitin', cross-burnin', & lynchin'" in that list.

And... the next time one of 'em bombs a government building with thousands of innocents, including pre-school children, shall we come get you to talk to the perpetrators?

I think your method will be met with scoffs of "pointy-headed, liberal intellectual woolgathering chit-chat"...they'll encourage you to continue while they cut the ground out from under you. I suspect that we are dealing, in large part, with folks who think your approach is empty, useless and impotent.

I suppose you'll ask nicely for pencil and paper so you can write your engaging prose from some prison cell.

godfry

[livius drusus]

We'll see, godfry. Meanwhile you can take your generalizations and stick them up your ass because they are totally fucking wrong when it comes to the people I know, none of whom have bombed shit. There's some anger. Wow. I feel more active already. I bet I defeated a doctor-shooting lynch mob just from writing it.

Oh sure, my target was someone whose politics are basically the same as mine, but still, since anger = good and rational discourse = bad, it was definitely worth it. In the name of the cause, donchaknow.

[wei yau]

godfry, I think you response towards liv is a little unfair.

I read her post as describing the type of environment she'd like to see here in FF. We're just talking about things here. Out there is a different matter.

Frankly, I can't see what's wrong with talking about things in a rational and civil manner here. It'll most likely lead to better understanding and perhaps, even enlightenment. It seems most of us are on the same "side". The angry rhetoric is preaching to the choir. I don't see the value in turning this place into an echo chamber.

Just because some of us would like to see calm and polite discussions here, does not mean that we aren't willing to fight the good fight out there. Personally, I'm hoping to learn something here to help me fight out there. But, angry and vitriolic rhetoric isn't teaching me anything I didn't know already.

[godfry n. glad]

No more unfair than her response to lunachick.

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

Several here have tried to point out that this approach is futile. I suppose if she wishes to continue her exercise in futility, then she can just save her "inspirational rhetoric" for when it's too damned late.

godfry

[wei yau]

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

And do you believe that by shouting really really loudly and using really really bad words would be more effective?

While many have convinced me that their anger is justified for very good reasons, no one has convinced me that shouting and stomping around actually helps things. Be mad, if you want. Demonize and demean your opponent...but, don't think it's actually useful. Don't think you're accomplishing anything....beyond whatever cathartic value you might derive.

Given this, I suggest that liv might not be the only one that has another think coming.

[viscousmemories]

No more unfair than her response to lunachick.

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

Several here have tried to point out that this approach is futile. I suppose if she wishes to continue her exercise in futility, then she can just save her "inspirational rhetoric" for when it's too damned late.

godfry
If you aren't interested in rational discourse, why are you wasting your time posting on an Internet discussion board devoted to it? Why don't you go out and do something you consider useful?

[godfry n. glad]

No more unfair than her response to lunachick.

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

Several here have tried to point out that this approach is futile. I suppose if she wishes to continue her exercise in futility, then she can just save her "inspirational rhetoric" for when it's too damned late.

godfry
If you aren't interested in rational discourse, why are you wasting your time posting on an Internet discussion board devoted to it? Why don't you go out and do something you consider useful?

So it's now "rational discourse" instead of "think what you like, and say what you think"? Hey, vm, it's time to change the misleading advertising on this site.

As for going out and doing something, I do every fucking day. How about you? Or, do you just sit here and intellectually masturbate?

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

And do you believe that by shouting really really loudly and using really really bad words would be more effective?

While many have convinced me that their anger is justified for very good reasons, no one has convinced me that shouting and stomping around actually helps things. Be mad, if you want. Demonize and demean your opponent...but, don't think it's actually useful. Don't think you're accomplishing anything....beyond whatever cathartic value you might derive.

Given this, I suggest that liv might not be the only one that has another think coming.

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance. "Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.

godfry

[beyelzu]

Isn't anyone else pleased as punch that the Politics forum here isn't full of threads discussing the general merits and demerits of libertarianism?

Bright side, folks, bright side. Silver lining. Half full.
I think those conversations can be done in solitaire, they seem to involve little actual discourse and mostly are just masturbatory bullshit.


and I have engaged in quite a few of them in my time.

[viscousmemories]

So it's now "rational discourse" instead of "think what you like, and say what you think"? Hey, vm, it's time to change the misleading advertising on this site.
You seem to have confused the catchphrase at the top of the page with our entire forum philosophy. It isn't as simple as that, though. If you read the "Introduction to the Freethought Forum" in the Watering Hole you can get a broader idea of what our intentions for this site were. For the record there is nothing in there about providing a platform for hateful propaganda.

As for going out and doing something, I do every fucking day. How about you? Or, do you just sit here and intellectually masturbate?
You missed the point. The purpose of this site is to encourage rational discourse. I'm sorry if you hadn't realized that previously, but it is. If you are not interested in rational discourse, then you are wasting your time here.

[viscousmemories]

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance. "Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.

godfry
When livius and I were setting up this forum we contemplated what we could do to minimize the impact of any reactionary extremists taking advantage of our committment to free expression to promote hateful propaganda. But I have to admit we were expecting white supremacists or gay-bashers, not people who presumably cherish the same values we do.

I honestly don't understand how someone who values freethought could endorse fascism. The two seem mutually exclusive to me. But I assure you that I will personally fight your brand of self-righteous fundamentalism as vigorously as any other. The value I give freethought isn't expendable, whatever the end goal.

[wei yau]

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance. "Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.


You've given me a lot to think about, thank you.

This post echoes ideas I found in the Frontline program, "The Persuaders". The use of language to maniuplate the opinions of people is something I hadn't usually considered. In this program, the issue of the estate tax was spotlighted. Until the GOP-persuaders changed the term to "death tax", it was a non-issue amongst voters. Most saw the word "estate" as implying wealthy. However, when changed to "death", they all understood the issue. They know that while they might not all be rich, they will all certainly die. And upon death, they don't want their money taken by the government. The change in wording completely obfuscates the fact that the estate tax is not applied to all. Instead, it does target the wealthier. So, the original term was closer to the truth, but the revised term was more manipulative.

Where does this leave us? Shall we abandon reasoned analysis of the issue in favor of emotionally manipulative language simply to garner more support? What is the value of that support if it results from stirring people up instead of getting them to understand the issues?

In another thread, I mentioned that sometimes I feel as though I have to sacrifice morals for the sake of practicality. I feel that this can be a similar situation.

[livius drusus]

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance.

I agree. One of the big problems I've had with pretty much every Democratic candidate is how in their keeness to appeal to some nebulous middle ground while extracting cash from the usual sources, they've avoided taking a genuine stand on issues like corporate greed and manipulation of government, civil rights abuses, dehumanized foreign policy and a million other such things.

"Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.

See, this is what I don't get. Just who exactly are you hollering at here at FF? Nobody here as far as I know is a government functionary of any kind, nor are most people here likely to be in disagreement over the substance of your positions. What do you gain by calling me delusional?

I agree that emotional appeals and incendiary language can reach people in ways that more staid approaches cannot - lisarea's post here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=19745&postcount=39), for instance, is a brilliant example of how to put emotion to work to reclaim a moral highground that should never have been lost - but why does it therefore follow that unless we're making emotional appeals and using incendiary language here in a tiny internet forum with an overwhelmingly leftist population, we're part of the problem and to be jeered at?

[beyelzu]

If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.

And do you believe that by shouting really really loudly and using really really bad words would be more effective?

While many have convinced me that their anger is justified for very good reasons, no one has convinced me that shouting and stomping around actually helps things. Be mad, if you want. Demonize and demean your opponent...but, don't think it's actually useful. Don't think you're accomplishing anything....beyond whatever cathartic value you might derive.

Given this, I suggest that liv might not be the only one that has another think coming.

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance. "Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.

godfry


I wake up each day and say, "today, I wont be a dipshit."

I refuse to be as bad as fucktards like rush and coulter.

I refuse to deal in half truths and untrue generalizations.

I refuse to demonize people for no fucking reason.

and while I dont always measure up to my standards, I fucking try


and so should you.

[viscousmemories]

The irony of course being that eldar and livius provide an example of the rational discursive approach I'm advocating while I engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Oh well, just because my practice is a piss-poor sample doesn't mean the strategy is flawed.

Oops, cross-posted with Beyelzu. That's pretty much the essence of my view too, Bey. I can't embrace the tactics of my ideological opponents in defense of my values, when opposition to their tactics is one of those values.

[beyelzu]

The irony of course being that eldar and livius provide an example of the rational discursive approach I'm advocating while I engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Oh well, just because my practice is a piss-poor sample doesn't mean the strategy is flawed.

Oops, cross-posted with Beyelzu. That's pretty much the essence of my view too, Bey. I can't embrace the tactics of my ideological opponents in defense of my values, when opposition to their tactics is one of those values.
I agree, I dont think I could handle it if the left argued for shit using the tactics of hannity, savage, et al.

It would be particularly troublesome for me as I am a little l libertarian and one primary difference between the modern left and right is that discourse favors the left. If this wasnt true, I dont know if I would actually have a political preference at all.

[godfry n. glad]

I wake up each day and say, "today, I wont be a dipshit."

I refuse to be as bad as fucktards like rush and coulter.

I refuse to deal in half truths and untrue generalizations.

I refuse to demonize people for no fucking reason.

and while I dont always measure up to my standards, I fucking try


and so should you.

And for your efforts, they will consider you a dipshit fucktard who, if he has anything to say, it's nothing but half-truths and untrue generalizations. You will be demonized for the simple fucking reason that you know too many big words and/or don't assume the appropriately reverent attitude at the mention of Dumbya's name.

godfry

[beyelzu]

I wake up each day and say, "today, I wont be a dipshit."

I refuse to be as bad as fucktards like rush and coulter.

I refuse to deal in half truths and untrue generalizations.

I refuse to demonize people for no fucking reason.

and while I dont always measure up to my standards, I fucking try


and so should you.

And for your efforts, they will consider you a dipshit fucktard who, if he has anything to say, it's nothing but half-truths and untrue generalizations. You will be demonized for the simple fucking reason that you know too many big words and/or don't assume the appropriately reverent attitude at the mention of Dumbya's name.

godfry


that may be so, but as I know morality is intersubjective and not objective, I do a great many things for no other reason than I know that it is the right thing to do.

[maddog]

Godfry,
I agree with eldar -- much to think about. To put my position on the line with a handy label, I am a liberal (American style). I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I do want to talk with others who hold the same basic opinions as I do about important issues -- those are the ones I want to have civil discourse with so that we can figure out, for our purposes, WTF to do. The place for NOT having mere "civil discourse," because it's been proven ineffective, is "out there" in the political world. People don't seem to be interested in nuance or difficulty. They like sound-bites and bumperstickers, even if those sound-bites and bumperstickers are misleading, or worse, just plain wrong/lies. So, yeah, I want to DO something to counter the Republican effectiveness in framing issues, coopting vocabulary, and so on. I think it will take mental toughness and steadfastness. I'm not sure what's going to be effective. I don't want to have rancorous fights with my comrades. I want to work cooperatively with them and figure out what we have to do to take back our rightful place as patriots.

I think liberals are, for right now, in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't position. If we are angry, we're dismissed as nutjobs. If we aren't angry, we're dismissed as wimps. I HATE HATE HATE that point-and-laugh thing that seems to sway so many people to demonize, demean, dehumanize, ridicule, discount and marginalize anyone who isn't toeing the neo-con line. How can we say what WE WANT to say and have it mean something for the sound-bite generation?
#58

[wei yau]

And for your efforts, they will consider you a dipshit fucktard who, if he has anything to say, it's nothing but half-truths and untrue generalizations. You will be demonized for the simple fucking reason that you know too many big words and/or don't assume the appropriately reverent attitude at the mention of Dumbya's name.


Here's an experiment. Listen to the right-wing talk radio. Pay attention to how they demonize the liberals. Let their angry rhetoric and hateful mischaracterizations of the left wash over you. You hate America. You are treasonous. You are without morals. You are a limp-wristed, intellectual with your head crammed up your ivory tower ass and lack any connection with the real people of America's heartland.

Once you've had enough, think about whether or not they've convinced you. Are you a Republican now? Are you a Christian extremist now? Do you support Bush?

If not, then turn the radio back on, it must take more time to work. And if you keep the radio on forever and you still haven't converted...then I submit that perhaps your premise is flawed. Perhaps fighting fire with fire does not work. Perhaps anger and vitriol only serves to deepen the divide and does nothing to make the changes you want.

Now, if you say the reason it doesn't work is because you're smarter than their target audience. Well, I'll accept that for now...but, then I'll have to challenge you to use your greater intelligence to wage a better battle than they have.

[godfry n. glad]

Godfry,
I agree with eldar -- much to think about. To put my position on the line with a handy label, I am a liberal (American style). I don't expect everyone to agree with me. But I do want to talk with others who hold the same basic opinions as I do about important issues -- those are the ones I want to have civil discourse with so that we can figure out, for our purposes, WTF to do. The place for NOT having mere "civil discourse," because it's been proven ineffective, is "out there" in the political world. People don't seem to be interested in nuance or difficulty. They like sound-bites and bumperstickers, even if those sound-bites and bumperstickers are misleading, or worse, just plain wrong/lies. So, yeah, I want to DO something to counter the Republican effectiveness in framing issues, coopting vocabulary, and so on. I think it will take mental toughness and steadfastness. I'm not sure what's going to be effective. I don't want to have rancorous fights with my comrades. I want to work cooperatively with them and figure out what we have to do to take back our rightful place as patriots.

I think liberals are, for right now, in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't position. If we are angry, we're dismissed as nutjobs. If we aren't angry, we're dismissed as wimps. I HATE HATE HATE that point-and-laugh thing that seems to sway so many people to demonize, demean, dehumanize, ridicule, discount and marginalize anyone who isn't toeing the neo-con line. How can we say what WE WANT to say and have it mean something for the sound-bite generation?
#57

Okay... Thanks, Maddog. I agree.

My anger and frustration is waning. I may have misinterpreted what others have been trying to say. I still think that there is a need for venting before one can see straight to analyze the situation and think clearly about next steps. I still think that if you think anybody's going to unseat the present political mindset, they're going to have to get down in the trenches and make an emotional case for why people should be looking toward a change, rather than more of the same ol' shit.

And eldar? I wouldn't be changed much by listening to right-wing talk radio, but you must admit that it has been an effective tool for changing, or maintaining, the opinions and attitudes of a significant number of folks who actually make the effort to cast a ballot. Or....do you deny that?

Whether it will change my mind is immaterial. Whether such changes enough minds is the question. Just because it doesn't work with me, doesn't mean it won't work with others...because, so far as I can see, it's made a difference in how the chit-chat of the left is perceived...which is as impotent, idle chatter, of no import, if not worse.

Don't answer it with something more effective and you'll still be sitting in the same hole two, four, six, eight or more years...even indefinitely...out into the future.

I personally think the war has been lost...at least for a good long time. I personally have very little hope for the United States. I personally would move out of the U.S., if that were a realistic possibility.

godfry

[godfry n. glad]

I wake up each day and say, "today, I wont be a dipshit."

I refuse to be as bad as fucktards like rush and coulter.

I refuse to deal in half truths and untrue generalizations.

I refuse to demonize people for no fucking reason.

and while I dont always measure up to my standards, I fucking try


and so should you.

And for your efforts, they will consider you a dipshit fucktard who, if he has anything to say, it's nothing but half-truths and untrue generalizations. You will be demonized for the simple fucking reason that you know too many big words and/or don't assume the appropriately reverent attitude at the mention of Dumbya's name.

godfry


that may be so, but as I know morality is intersubjective and not objective, I do a great many things for no other reason than I know that it is the right thing to do.

Well...goody... That'll make you a right impressive martyr.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

The place for NOT having mere "civil discourse," because it's been proven ineffective, is "out there" in the political world. People don't seem to be interested in nuance or difficulty. They like sound-bites and bumperstickers, even if those sound-bites and bumperstickers are misleading, or worse, just plain wrong/lies.
I agree that civil discourse doesn't seem to have the necessary mass appeal to be a very useful marketing tool, and that marketing strategy is an essential component of persuading others to your political views. So I think it's reasonable to conclude that the "political world" is not the place for it, even though I personally question whether it's possible to say with any certainty.

My main point has been that the FF (and I think everyone realizes this now, but just to clarify) is not the "political world" and I don't personally want it to be used as a platform for marketing anyone's political perspective. Because I think marketing requires an assumption of the rightness of a viewpoint a priori, and is therefore antithetical to 'freethought'.

The only disagreement I have with what you wrote above is with the notion that people in general aren't interested in nuance or difficulty, and prefer sound-bites and bumperstickers. I suspect it's more accurate to say that people generally don't understand politics well (much less economics, International affairs, etc.), don't know where to even begin sifting through the vast array of information sources to find reliable data, and are therefore alienated from the process and more susceptible to sound-bites and bumperstickers.

The former has too much of an air of moral and intellectual superiority to it for my taste, with a built-in assumption that the masses are simpletons who need us enlightened folks to corral and lead them, as opposed to acknowledging that it may just be that some people simply have different priorities than I do.

[wade-w]

Godfry, as I said on another thread much of my own personal political philosophy is ill defined. I am still working on it, and do not expect to be done any time soon, if ever.

I can guarantee you that your behavior on this forum makes me much less likely to listen to anything you might have to say. Nor will you ever convince me that fighting bigotry with more bigotry of your own is ever going to make a difference. Well, not a difference I want to see or have any part of, anyway. In the end, hatred is hatred, no matter the source, and I can't see how anything good can come of it.

I see no fundamental difference between David Duke and Louis Farrakhan; as far as I'm concerned a hatemonger is a hatemonger. I also see little difference between you and Rush Limbaugh. I don't pay attention to anything Limbaugh says, and if you employ the same tactics why should I pay any attention to you?

I get the impression that you are all for "say what you think" as long as the only people who actually speak up are those who agree with you. If we extend free speech only to those who say what we want to hear, how is that free speech? As far as the slogan on these forums goes, I think it is a catchy phrase, and I like the idea it represents. But, contrary to what a few people around here say, free thought is not synonymous with free speech, and I think the message is clear that this forum is about free thought. Certainly, you can't have one without the other, but vitriol and hate filled rhetoric in the face of ideas that are contrary to your own dogma do not in any way further the goal of free thought; they are, to my mind, antithetical to free thought. Free thought means thinking for yourself without regard to orthodox doctrine, not spitting on anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you. Your vitriolic attacks on anyone who asks for a degree of skepticism when investigating claims made by your side of the debate strikes me as evidence of someone who is wedded to a dogma, not a person who is interested in free thought, or even free speech.

[wade-w]

One other thing. Elections are not won by convincing the other side you are right. They are won by making sure that everyone that does agree with you votes. And that is where the Republicans far outshine the Democrats in the US. So all this talk about "we need to use their own tactics against them" is so much hogwash. The effect of the Rush Limbaughs of the world is not to change anyone's mind, but to galvanize the party faithful into getting out there and voting for their candidates.

[Petra]

What I am asking you is what exactly is your purpose here in this thread, on a discussion board dedicated solely to the sharing of words, where you have repeatedly sneered at the value of any kind of discourse other than infuriated. Repeatedly sneered? I don't repeatedly sneer, liv, I offer my opinion and question those I don't agree with. I DO NOT repeatedly sneer. And at "any kind of discourse other than infuriated"? You are wrong in assessing me again.

Now I am well aware that I can be guilty of hyperbole, but so can you be. Only your English major makes you that much slicker than me. Because if your aim in denigrating my preferred approach of respectful, exploratory discussion while advocating only rage is to rile me up so that I "really care" then you are failing miserably.My aim? To begin with, I initially said I agreed with the sentiments of the author in the OP to a large degree. To a large degree. That doesn't mean I agree with every word, or his choice of words, it means that I hear where he's coming from, and given my own research into the PNAC (which is basically the BushCo admin) I'm angry, too. I have also said that when all else fails, or you don't get heard, or something to that effect, that anger and angry action is valid and may sometimes be the only way to make a change. First because I am far likelier to simply withdraw from you,Whatever. I, too, withdraw from people with violent thoughts and tendencies - I also withdraw from those who smile sweetly while carrying a knife behind their back. and second because I really care already.Pleased to hear it.


So do I, but do you really think I'm going to clap my hands and stomp my feet at some shit about how my friends and neighbors are "self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'"? Liv. I said that I agreed with the sentiments of the author to a great degree. A great degree is not completely, agreeing with the sentiments doesn't always mean agreeing with the actual words used. Yes, the guy was over the top. But I understand why the guy is so angry. A good journalist the man is not - hell, he's possibly not even a good man - but he does reflect his readership and I do understand why they are feeling that way.

If you think it'll do some good, I wish you all the luck in the world, but I'm sticking with what feels right to me, what squares with my priorities, my sense of justice. You belittle that at your own loss.Once the topic moved away from being directly about the man's words and into wider territory, I have said that angry words and action can be catalyst to positive change that would have never come without it. You say I "belittle" - I'm belittleing nothing. I'm wondering at this jucture though if you think that anything anyone says that doesn't square with what feels right to you is belittling and sneering? Anyway, whatever - if you think I'm belittling and sneering, then you don't know me at all.

I'm also someone who was involved in some riots regarding a visiting South African Rugby team when South Africa was still an apartheid state. The government wouldn't listen to us, and the nation was deeply divided over it. It took anger and action to be heard.

It also took academics, students, historians, accountants, politicians, normal people who never protested a day in their lives, peacemakers, and Little Steven, among many, many other things.

No, I was talking about only the Sth African rugby tour and our ability to stop it in the end and send them home. It played a minute part in the bigger picture of stopping apartheid, but it was the riots that broke out in Hamilton that finally made Muldoon - our then PM send the team home and cancel the tour.

But yes, I agree with you. And I'm sure that in many places around the world, angry rhetoric and protest action caused the governments of those people to apply pressure on SA, too.

Now, who'll stop the PNAC? A part of me is thinking probably no one, we're fucked.

So, in many ways, when all else fails, I believe in anger and it's expression in combatting injustice and getting people riled enough up about something to really care.

I'm not you, is all, so my methods differ from yours. Can you afford to lose what I bring to the table just because I think Mirror-style rhetoric sucks and I'm not even remotely interested in using FF as an angry propaganda dispensation site? Quite frankly, I don't think you can. Not the least because as it happens, I can write some pretty damn awesome inspirational rhetoric when I feel the occasion warrants.
No, I can't - you know it, I know it, we all know it. But again you misjudge where I'm coming from - because I said..."when all else fails".

Yes, you can write some pretty damned inspirational rhetoric - your way with words is legendary round these parts - but will it reach a ditch digger who dropped out of school at 15? Unlikely. It's the gutter press that will reach him, with words of less than 3 syllables and no need to run for a dictionary ever line or two. So your inspirational rhetoric will only reach some of the people, too. Some will look at the first few lines and dismiss it as being liberal elitist. Different strokes for different folks. But, the only proof is in whether after all the words there is action. The Republicans were able to raise into action about 4 million extra voters on election day. Much of their rhetoric was more like the article in the OP than not.

So, unless you think splinters over methodology are effective activism, it seems to me that railing against - what is you called it? - oh yes, cafe chit-chat or being "nice" or "progressive discourse" or any of the pejorative terms you used for people putting their heads together and talking shit through in a venue where by definition the aim is to talk shit through, is highly counterproductive.

And talking I have been. Or are we becoming like the Republican forum at CF where we are only allowed to agree with each other?

Other than that - I was in a cafe on Friday and a very hip looking couple in about their late 20's were discussing sweatshop labour in Asia. Their style was very cafe chit chat - urbane and aware - yet one of them was wearing GAP and neither gave me the impression that they really cared beyond the gossip factor.

Now that is not to say that that is all that talking amounts to, by any means - I'm aware that it is not. But you have to admit it - there are a lot more talkers than there are do-ers - and the author in the OP may well be one of those, as I have become (shamefully) - but sometimes it really is angry words coupled with angry action that really gets the message out there enough to make a change.

Change comes from an infinite number of trajectories.I agree.

[livius drusus]

Hey luna, I think we're totally on the same page now. I definitely misinterpreted a couple (okay 3) of your comments as dismissive references to posts I'd made on other threads and have generally been on hair-trigger mode since the election seems to have placed me at such horrible odds even with people who share most of my political beliefs. I'm sorry for being so paranoid.

I don't have time right now to answer you in full, but I will later on this evening. Thanks, luna.

[Petra]

Hey luna, I think we're totally on the same page now. I definitely misinterpreted a couple (okay 3) of your comments as dismissive references to posts I'd made on other threads and have generally been on hair-trigger mode since the election seems to have placed me at such horrible odds even with people who share most of my political beliefs. I'm sorry for being so paranoid.

I don't have time right now to answer you in full, but I will later on this evening. Thanks, luna.

Hey, no problem.

I'm more sensitive than I like to let on, and it actually hurt me to think that you thought I was sneering at you and belittling you. Because I wasn't. Nor was I to anybody else here.

But I have some passionate opinions, too, and I've just seen how intelligent discourse can fail - look to John Kerry's loss in the elections. Yes, he lost by a small margin, but he also lost because the Repubs pulled out the angry rhetoric and that was what brought 4 million extra people out to vote for them. The people who write excellent articles in the news media are fobbed off as liberal elitists. That's gotta tell us something!

I've just read a further couple of posts, and have actually become confused as to the purpose of our discussion now. The way I see it, is that the OP article was posted to show us what people in London are thinking as expressed by the Mirror man. We discussed how effective or ineffective such rhetoric was, and looked at other modus operandi including more civil discourse, protest, and in extreme cases, rioting in the streets. I think they all have merit based on an assortment of variables.

But then I noticed that instead of talking about these things as part of discussing people, situations and tactics "out there" in the world, we are actually navel gazing about what we are doing and how we are speaking in here, at FF. I don't get it.

But anyway. Time for some breakfast and a coffee. Oh, shit...ahhh....lunch, and a coffee. :blush:

:wave:


One more thing, I don't hold grudges. I'm sure lisarea can attest to that - we've had our bitch fights, but she also knows I'm there for her if she needs me. I feel the same way about many of you. Dunno quite why I felt the need to tell you that, but I did. :shrug:

[maddog]

The only disagreement I have with what you wrote above is with the notion that people in general aren't interested in nuance or difficulty, and prefer sound-bites and bumperstickers. I suspect it's more accurate to say that people generally don't understand politics well (much less economics, International affairs, etc.), don't know where to even begin sifting through the vast array of information sources to find reliable data, and are therefore alienated from the process and more susceptible to sound-bites and bumperstickers.

The former has too much of an air of moral and intellectual superiority to it for my taste, with a built-in assumption that the masses are simpletons who need us enlightened folks to corral and lead them, as opposed to acknowledging that it may just be that some people simply have different priorities than I do.
Rrrrf! well, yah, but ah'm just a dog, an' a MAD one at that. Gggrrrf, rrrrfff, mrrfmf.#61

[Petra]

I think we're totally on the same page now. I definitely misinterpreted a couple (okay 3) of your comments as dismissive references to posts I'd made on other threads...

Just one thing. I missed this earlier - still had too much sleep in my eyes, I guess - so sorry for bringing it up now when we're all cool an' stuff, and it is not to suggest that we aren't all cool an' stuff, but honestly, I'm unsure of what other threads you are talking about and what the posts you made consisted of. Really, I miss lots and lots of threads as life has got more social around here, so please ask me directly if you think I'm obliquely referring to posts made in other threads, because chances are I haven't even read the thread in question. I'm sorry I gave you that impression, though. :(

[beyelzu]

I wake up each day and say, "today, I wont be a dipshit."

I refuse to be as bad as fucktards like rush and coulter.

I refuse to deal in half truths and untrue generalizations.

I refuse to demonize people for no fucking reason.

and while I dont always measure up to my standards, I fucking try


and so should you.

And for your efforts, they will consider you a dipshit fucktard who, if he has anything to say, it's nothing but half-truths and untrue generalizations. You will be demonized for the simple fucking reason that you know too many big words and/or don't assume the appropriately reverent attitude at the mention of Dumbya's name.

godfry


that may be so, but as I know morality is intersubjective and not objective, I do a great many things for no other reason than I know that it is the right thing to do.

Well...goody... That'll make you a right impressive martyr.

godfry
you know that is just too over the fucking top. If shrub starts rounding up atheists and/or liberals and imprisoning for no reason, I will be among the first to take to the hills and begin a guerilla war campaign.

but you see that isnt very fucking likely.


and if you are dont think doing the right thing is a good idea, then where the hell is your moral compass?

[Cool Hand]

When livius and I were setting up this forum we contemplated what we could do to minimize the impact of any reactionary extremists taking advantage of our committment to free expression to promote hateful propaganda. But I have to admit we were expecting white supremacists or gay-bashers, not people who presumably cherish the same values we do.

I honestly don't understand how someone who values freethought could endorse fascism. The two seem mutually exclusive to me. But I assure you that I will personally fight your brand of self-righteous fundamentalism as vigorously as any other. The value I give freethought isn't expendable, whatever the end goal.

vm,

Man, if I could award you a Medal of Honor for your valiant stand I would. Not only do you possess a hell of a lot of moral courage, but you also have a tremendous amount of insight.

I'm very glad you and liv are charting the course for this board. It makes me feel safer on board. Without you two, I might have been tossed overboard. Hell, I might have even jumped. Jumped right into the dark, shark-infested waters. Willingly.

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

I believe that communicating with more than just "rational discourse" is necessary to get through to those people who can make a difference in the governance. "Rational discourse" has gotten us nowhere. We need to be dealing with more "imponderables" like emotional appeals and incendiary language. I say call the administration and the Republicans on every misstep. I say find a way to sow dissention within the ranks of the right-wing. Call a thief and thief. Call an idiot an idiot. Stop pussy-footing around in dealing with those thicker than yourself and start trying to address a significant portion in a language they can understand.

godfry
When livius and I were setting up this forum we contemplated what we could do to minimize the impact of any reactionary extremists taking advantage of our committment to free expression to promote hateful propaganda. But I have to admit we were expecting white supremacists or gay-bashers, not people who presumably cherish the same values we do.

I honestly don't understand how someone who values freethought could endorse fascism. The two seem mutually exclusive to me. But I assure you that I will personally fight your brand of self-righteous fundamentalism as vigorously as any other. The value I give freethought isn't expendable, whatever the end goal.

vm, why must you be such a fascist?

Or here's an idea: let's use that term with at least a whisper of good sense.

I reject the core of what godfry recommends here, which seems to be a large-scale turn towards incendiary rhetoric. But he rather clearly cashes this out in terms of uttering truths -- calling an idiot an idiot may be rude, but it hardly displays a fascist contempt for the truth.

Perhaps you failed to notice the shudder-quotes around "rational discourse", indicating, as shudder quotes typically do, gng's scepticism about the way the term is applied. Looks to me like he's impugning the persuasive virtues of civil discourse, for at least a lot of people. This might be right, might be wrong. But fascist? Fundamentalist? These are words that have meanings. And the funny thing about charges of self-righteousness is how easily they boomerang. Your plea for dialing back the rhetoric might carry more moral authority if it was couched in terms consistent with its content -- whether or not it would thereby fall on deaf ears, perhaps then confirming, in a weirdly self-referential way, godfry's thesis.

[viscousmemories]

Heh. These last two responses are like "Good Cop, Bad Cop".

Man, if I could award you a Medal of Honor for your valiant stand I would. Not only do you possess a hell of a lot of moral courage, but you also have a tremendous amount of insight.

Thanks Cool Hand, I genuinely appreciate the compliments. But as Clutch points out I don't deserve any medals for my behavior on this forum. For one thing I really should practice what I preach in general, but also - as one of the administrators here - I feel I have an obligation to be diplomatic that I too often fall short of.

vm, why must you be such a fascist?

Or here's an idea: let's use that term with at least a whisper of good sense.
I thought there was at least a whisper of good sense in my use of the word, but nevertheless I agree that my use of it was deliberately inflammatory - as I thought I acknowledged when I said (in a subsequent post):
The irony of course being that eldar and livius provide an example of the rational discursive approach I'm advocating while I engage in inflammatory rhetoric. Oh well, just because my practice is a piss-poor sample doesn't mean the strategy is flawed.

I reject the core of what godfry recommends here, which seems to be a large-scale turn towards incendiary rhetoric. But he rather clearly cashes this out in terms of uttering truths -- calling an idiot an idiot may be rude, but it hardly displays a fascist contempt for the truth.
Is "contempt for the truth" fundamental to fascism? I honestly don't know much about fascism, I admit I was primarily interested in the blunt force of the word when I used it. But I didn't just pull the word out of a hat. I was under the impression that using aggressive rhetoric to stifle dissent was fundamental to fascism, and that seemed to me to be what godfry was advocating.

Perhaps you failed to notice the shudder-quotes around "rational discourse", indicating, as shudder quotes typically do, gng's scepticism about the way the term is applied. Looks to me like he's impugning the persuasive virtues of civil discourse, for at least a lot of people.
I did notice the shudder-quotes, but since he introduced the term in this thread I didn't gather that he used them to express skepticism about how the term was being applied. In livius' response to lunachick, she extolled the virtues of "people putting their heads together and talking shit through in a venue where by definition the aim is to talk shit through". To which godfry replied:
If liv thinks that were going to solve anything here with rational discourse in regards to dealing with the current administration and their supporters, then I think she's got another think coming. That's a delusional approach.
So when I argued in defense of "rational discourse", I was referring to what liv had described. But yes, I do think "civil discourse" would be a more accurate phrase.

This might be right, might be wrong. But fascist? Fundamentalist? These are words that have meanings. And the funny thing about charges of self-righteousness is how easily they boomerang. Your plea for dialing back the rhetoric might carry more moral authority if it was couched in terms consistent with its content -- whether or not it would thereby fall on deaf ears, perhaps then confirming, in a weirdly self-referential way, godfry's thesis.
I've already conceded that you're right that my actions were hypocritical, and of course I know better than to try to spar with you on any philosophical matters... but in all sincerity and for my own edification, isn't this argument a tu quoque?

[Clutch Munny]

I've already conceded that you're right that my actions were hypocritical, and of course I know better than to try to spar with you on any philosophical matters... but in all sincerity and for my own edification, isn't this argument a tu quoque?

Good question. Yes, it's TQ, but non-fallacious. (A lot of procedural and evidential fallacies have non-fallacious instances as well -- ad hom and argument from lack of evidence, for example).

TQ is just a fallacy of irrelevance, when fallacious. But when the question under discussion is the appropriateness/utility/justifiability of some sort of communicative tone (call it T), then a T-toned claim that tone T vitiates the worth of an utterance is worthless if true.

[viscousmemories]

I've already conceded that you're right that my actions were hypocritical, and of course I know better than to try to spar with you on any philosophical matters... but in all sincerity and for my own edification, isn't this argument a tu quoque?

Good question. Yes, it's TQ, but non-fallacious. (A lot of procedural and evidential fallacies have non-fallacious instances as well -- ad hom and argument from lack of evidence, for example).

TQ is just a fallacy of irrelevance, when fallacious. But when the question under discussion is the appropriateness/utility/justifiability of some sort of communicative tone (call it T), then a T-toned claim that tone T vitiates the worth of an utterance is worthless if true.
Okay that makes sense, thanks Clutch.

While I have you here...

I did want to express - in the strongest possible terms - that I was objecting to A) using angry rhetoric to stifle dissent and B) rigid and intolerant self-righteousness. Fascist and fundamentalist, while admittedly hyperbolic, were the best abbreviations I could come up with. Can you think of any more accurate terms, would you favor clarity at the expense of force, or is there an alternative course that isn't occuring to me?

[Clutch Munny]

I did want to express - in the strongest possible terms - that I was objecting to A) using angry rhetoric to stifle dissent and B) rigid and intolerant self-righteousness. Fascist and fundamentalist, while admittedly hyperbolic, were the best abbreviations I could come up with. Can you think of any more accurate terms, would you favor clarity at the expense of force, or is there an alternative course that isn't occuring to me?

Well, I guess once you buy into the idea of using the strongest possible terms as abbreviations for ideas that would, if spelled out precisely, be more work for you and more demanding for your reader -- once you accept the method of hyperbolic rhetoric at the expense of less parseable accuracy -- then you've bought more than you might realize of what I saw gng selling.

Neither A nor B strikes me as an apt description of what was being recommended (eg, as opposed to using angry rhetoric to sway those who only seem reachable by angry rhetoric).

Personally? I disagree that all, or even the most obvious, non-angry-rhetorical options have been explored. If anything I'd say that liberal political organizations in the USA have erred on the side of underestimating the number of people who are sensitive to lucid and succinct explanations of fact. Kerry was never stronger, I thought, than when he made passing reference to the permanent military bases under construction in Iraq during one debate; that's an easily graspable nugget of insight, but was passed over in favour of bumper-sticker sloganeering about the number of lost jobs.

[viscousmemories]

Well, I guess once you buy into the idea of using the strongest possible terms as abbreviations for ideas that would, if spelled out precisely, be more work for you and more demanding for your reader -- once you accept the method of hyperbolic rhetoric at the expense of less parseable accuracy -- then you've bought more than you might realize of what I saw gng selling.
I'll be damned. Well that explains why I don't practice what I preach in that regard; obviously I haven't fully accepted and internalized the belief that civil discourse is the most effective course of action.

Neither A nor B strikes me as an apt description of what was being recommended (eg, as opposed to using angry rhetoric to sway those who only seem reachable by angry rhetoric).
You may be right about that. I interpreted his comments to be a broad generalization as well as specific to discussion here (eg. only angry rhetoric is an effective tool of communication here when it comes to dealing with Bush and his supporters). However your interpretation is more charitable and more likely.

Personally? I disagree that all, or even the most obvious, non-angry-rhetorical options have been explored. If anything I'd say that liberal political organizations in the USA have erred on the side of underestimating the number of people who are sensitive to lucid and succinct explanations of fact. Kerry was never stronger, I thought, than when he made passing reference to the permanent military bases under construction in Iraq during one debate; that's an easily graspable nugget of insight, but was passed over in favour of bumper-sticker sloganeering about the number of lost jobs.
I agree. I suspect a big part of the problem is the dearth of people as capable of lucid and succinct explanations of fact as you are. :)

[Clutch Munny]

I suspect a big part of the problem is the dearth of people as capable of lucid and succinct explanations of fact as you are. :)

You're trying to use flattery to get into my pants. That'll never work again -- er... that'll never work, I mean.

[Petra]

Ok, I'd like to put forward an hypothetical:

A nations resources are usurped by the kinds of practices in liv's Economic Hitman thread in the Current Events forum.

Then that nation finds itself with it's democratically elected leader ousted by the CIA, and a puppet dictator installed.

The people are virtually robbed and enslaved by the US, via economic hitmen and and the installation of a US-interests friendly dictator.


They have talked nicely about it; rational discourse among enlightened academics, thoughtful letters to the editor, well-stated op-ed pieces - right up until the news media was sold in a no-bid win for Rupert Murdoch and then disinformation and rightwing spin was put on everything. The few rich of the nation have their minds put at ease by high salaries and bribes, the poor are hungry and cannot affors to educate themselves or really have or do much of anything beyond working no less than a dozen hours a day.

The talking didn't work. The nation was still taken over, because all the talking with no action made it easy for the sharks and the rats to take what they want anyway.

What are the people of that nation to do? Just keep talking? Talk, talk, talk - politely, thoughtfully, intelligently - all wonderful stuff - but it didn't do jack shit to save their nation from the international liquidation sharks and the overthrow of their elected government or the installation of a disliked and distrusted CIA puppet. So what are they to do?

[Adam]

Yeah, I'm none too quick on the uptake. I just realized that I have a response hanging here.

I think that's pretty shaky analogywise, just because there's such a big difference between a single editorial in The Mirror and Limbaugh's hugely distributed, daily, 10 decades of hatemongering. It's not that I don't think rhetoric can convince people of things - I can write a sermon like you wouldn't believe - but I don't think angry newspaper editorials are more likely than discussion to lead directly to people taking action against injustice.

Well, I certainly agree that there's a difference between one rantish editorial and Limbaugh's daily dose of widely syndicated bile but, if every time someone on what we can, for the sake of argument, call the 'left' writes an angry piece heavy oh rhetoric but light on reason, the rest of the 'left' criticizes that person for their lack of interest in reasoned discourse, we're doomed to keep it that way, if it makes sense. When the 'right' publishes a piece like this, while there is always some level of disapproval, there's also a loud "Right on, brother!" in similar pieces, and the echo chamber amplifies it until yesterday's radical right wing screed is tomorrow's mainstream media story. It's quite possible that all we need are a few "Right on, brothers!"s from the 'left' over things like this to get the talking heads talking about how the self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' conservative elite is out of touch with Middle America. Yes, that's a bit of an exaggeration but I'm serious in suggesting that a little less self-censorship in the name of reasoned discourse might go a long way toward helping the 'left' gain a louder voice in the public discourse, much of which is not at all reasoned.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that this is the way to go. Hateful as I can be, I have a high level of personal discomfort at such irrational diatribes, and one of the principless that I consider 'progressive' is that the valuation of rational discourse over knee jerk reation and rhetoric. But...I don't know. Maybe I'm willing to compromise a bit on that principle if it means that I can better defend the rest of my principles from an unprincipled rhetorical onslaught from the 'right'. I keep telling my friends that I'm going to start up my own mirror image version of the Drudge Report where I can float unsubstantiated nonsense about Republicans and see what sticks. ;)


I don't disagree. Of course, in order to do that effectively, they would have to surgically remove the fence they've been riding for 20 years. The opposition has to want to oppose, is all, or all of this is moot.

I quite agree. It's hard to buy moral outrage at the infringement of X's right to Y when it's coming from a stuffed shirt that would have readily voted to rape X's mom on television if the political winds had been a bit different. This is why I personally supported Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries. He was a typical Democrat in many ways, but he actually had positions on issues. Most obviously, he was against the damned Iraq war when it was unpopular (or, as some would have it, even unpatriotic) to be against the Iraq war. The rest of them or, at least, the ones who supposedly had a chance to beat Bush? While Bush is out making cowboy talk about bringing Hussein to justice, and Cheney's out scaremongering about how we're going to be attacked by nuclear chainsaw wielding terrorists seven times before Tuesday unless we act RIGHT NOW, the Dems are trying desperately to get along with everyone, voting to allow Bush to go to war on the grounds that they supposedly trust him to be responsible about it, then arguing the minutea of spending bills to fund the damned adventure, then getting critical once it becomes clear that it was a bad idea. Fuck that. They need to fucking lead. Bush may be leading us in a dangerously insane direction, and I'll be the very first in line to argue that he is, but it's much easier to buy fiery rhetoric from your guy when his position isn't tailored to offend no one.

Bleh...

"I know that this is vitriol, no-solution spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don't you?" - R.E.M.

[davidm]

Perhaps, in evaluating the election, we should take our cue, both rhetorically and substantively, from America's Finest News Source. :news:

Nation's Poor Win Election for Nation's Rich (http://onion.com/news/index.php?issue=4045)

From the news article:

"My family's been suffering ever since I lost my job at the screen-door factory, and I haven't seen a doctor for well on four years now," said father of four Buddy Kaldrin of Eerie, CO. "Shit, I don't even remember what a dentist's chair looks like... Basically, I'd give up if it weren't for God's grace. So it's good to know we have a president who cares about religion, too."

Kaldrin added: "That's why I always vote straight-ticket Republican, just like my daddy did, before he lost the farm and shot himself in the head, and just like his daddy did, before he died of black-lung disease in the company coal mines."

On the bright side, though, the resignation of Ashcroft means he won't be strategically covering up exposed "parts" of Justice Department statues any longer.

:david:

[viscousmemories]

The talking didn't work. The nation was still taken over, because all the talking with no action made it easy for the sharks and the rats to take what they want anyway.
What action should have been taken, and how could you figure that out without talking about it?

[Petra]

What action should have been taken, and how could you figure that out without talking about it?

Ironically, I'm still thinking about that.

[viscousmemories]

What action should have been taken, and how could you figure that out without talking about it?

Ironically, I'm still thinking about that.
Well FWIW, I wish I had an answer for you myself. It's just that too often I hear "enough talk, we need action!" followed by "anyone know where to get a truck filled with fertilizer?"

[Petra]

It's just that too often I hear "enough talk, we need action!" followed by "anyone know where to get a truck filled with fertilizer?"

It's another dilemma, isn't it?

Do you smile sweetly at your rapist, or do you fight back?

[Adam]

Oh, I meant to say this before. When I went back and reread the OP to cherry pick the gun-totin' sister-lovin' bit for my last post, I realized that, despite the tone, there's at least one bit of what I consider extremely insightful commentary in it:

Al-Qaeda's existence is fuelled by the outpourings of America's Christian right. Bush is its commander-in-chief. And he and bin Laden need each other to survive.

Both need to play Lex Luther to each others' Superman with their own fanatical people. Maybe that's why the mightiest military machine ever assembled has failed to catch the world's most wanted man.

I don't know about the insinuation at the end that Bush is intentionally not catching bin Laden so as not to lose his bestest bogeyman, but the fact that extremists on the other side use our actions to drum up the same sort of support we give our leaders when we're attacked is certainly something I wish more Americans would think about more often.

[Adam]

Perhaps, in evaluating the election, we should take our cue, both rhetorically and substantively, from America's Finest News Source.

Speaking of the Onion, I about gave myself an anyeurism laughing at this picture, captioned "Kerry Captures Bin Laden One Week Too Late":

http://www.theonion.com/images/410/image_article2654_160x128.jpg

[godfry n. glad]

It's just that too often I hear "enough talk, we need action!" followed by "anyone know where to get a truck filled with fertilizer?"

It's another dilemma, isn't it?

Do you smile sweetly at your rapist, or do you fight back?

I understand vm's point. And I keep wondering who is really the terrorist?

I'm not a proponent of violence. I rather suspect that much related to "power" is backed by the theat of violence. More of what I had in mind is a recent communique from Adbusters. I'm intrigued that someone actually cares to "rethink the Left" and create new memes. Anybody else familiar with the jammers?

Is where the real change needs to take place even in the ballot box? Or are we all mistakenly assuming that? There's Emma's Dictum: If votes had the power to change anything, they'd be illegal. If that's the case, what does have the power to change things and how can it be manipulated to our mutual benefit?

Maybe we need to seriously consider drawing lines and creating two new nations out of the one and then allow everybody two years to migrate to the other. Partition. Just like India and Pakistan...Wouldn't that be joyful?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

I understand vm's point. And I keep wondering who is really the terrorist?
I often wonder that myself.

I rather suspect that much related to "power" is backed by the theat of violence. More of what I had in mind is a recent communique from Adbusters. I'm intrigued that someone actually cares to "rethink the Left" and create new memes. Anybody else familiar with the jammers?
I am a bit. Unfortunately the first issue I bought had a bunch of angry letters to the editor about an allegedly anti-semitic article in a previous issue, which lead me to post this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=923) which resulted in my being pretty wary of AdBusters.

Is where the real change needs to take place even in the ballot box? Or are we all mistakenly assuming that?
I don't know, but I've always suspected not. That's why I've never voted. You folks (lisarea, specifically) convinced me to give it a try this time around, but I wasn't really sold on the value of it. I've always been a radical non-conformist, and as such have often pondered violent revolt. At the time of the Oklahoma bombing I respected their dedication to their beliefs despite their having targetted civilians, and I wasn't as appalled by their tactics as some were.

This is because I shared their anger and sadness about the massacre in Waco, and I accepted - as they did - that there was no legal recourse. So from my perspective the fact that McVeigh and company declared war on America and subsequently bombed a federal building wasn't substantially morally different from anything the American government does routinely. I don't think "terrorism" is a particularly meaningful word in that light.

There's Emma's Dictum: If votes had the power to change anything, they'd be illegal. If that's the case, what does have the power to change things and how can it be manipulated to our mutual benefit?
I would love to find an answer to that question. I fear the best we can hope for is baby-steps toward a better tomorrow, but as is painfully evident this comes at a cost and we have fairly good reason to believe the people we've elected to do the job are only looking out for their own best interests, which won't necessarily benefit us.

Maybe we need to seriously consider drawing lines and creating two new nations out of the one and then allow everybody two years to migrate to the other. Partition. Just like India and Pakistan...Wouldn't that be joyful.
Someone at SC linked to this site (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/) full of cool maps. The last one is who voted for whom by county and adjusted for population. It's a much more encouraging picture than the standard red/blue going around:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/cartlinear.png

[godfry n. glad]

I understand vm's point. And I keep wondering who is really the terrorist?
I often wonder that myself.

Have you ever managed to question anyone who throws around the "terrorist" label with regards to Islamists as to what they mean by the term or how they define it? I haven't had the opportunity, but I suspect that if one could get a coherent definition that the U.S., particularly U.S. foreign policy, would fall neatly into that definition.

I take it that we (being the U.S.) still have the world's largest nuclear arsenal...still active and targeted, presumably...is somehow NOT terrorism of the highest degree? That the U.S. has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world and continues to produce them somehow exempts us from being a purveyor of WMD? I just don't understand the perspective, I guess.


I rather suspect that much related to "power" is backed by the theat of violence. More of what I had in mind is a recent communique from Adbusters. I'm intrigued that someone actually cares to "rethink the Left" and create new memes. Anybody else familiar with the jammers?
I am a bit. Unfortunately the first issue I bought had a bunch of angry letters to the editor about an allegedly anti-semitic article in a previous issue, which lead me to post this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=923) which resulted in my being pretty wary of AdBusters.

Wary is great. I encourage it. I'm wary because their message is a might extreme for me. As was the message of the Oklahoma City bombers...What was I to learn from that other than I am not safe from my own fellow citizens? Or, that when extremists avenues for change are foreclosed, we all suffer? That message was not clear and thus, unlike you at the time, I had no such respect for the bombers. I still don't.

That's not to say that I don't think that violence is a valid response...I think it can be under certain circumstances. But I don't yet think we've reached those conditions; even though I do think we have made a step closer to those kinds of alternatives becoming reality. I'm just not sure what those conditions and circumstances are or should be.

My selecting the Adbusters folks was based upon my seeing something "constructive" being done. I do appreciate your link to the discussion thread with Doctor X, et al, regarding the potential "anti-Semitic" article. I, too, find it a strange thing to select out in terms of characteristics of high-profile members of the identified group, considering that almost every major social-intellectual movement in the United States has significant numbers of Jews in the ranks of their policy makers and leadership. I'd bet good money that there are such on the board that governs the Adbusters Foundation. And, in the campaigns of all the Democratic contenders. The reason I can see such is that Jews, as a group, give high status to education, intellectualism and community involvement and leadership.

Also... I'm rather curious as to why, when Islamic bashing occurs (and the whole situation with the Homeland Security and the "profiling" of travelers that is done) nobody screams about "anti-Semitism". The Arabic peoples are Semites, too. How is it that we always forget such?

Is where the real change needs to take place even in the ballot box? Or are we all mistakenly assuming that?
I don't know, but I've always suspected not. That's why I've never voted. You folks (lisarea, specifically) convinced me to give it a try this time around, but I wasn't really sold on the value of it. I've always been a radical non-conformist, and as such have often pondered violent revolt. At the time of the Oklahoma bombing I respected their dedication to their beliefs despite their having targetted civilians, and I wasn't as appalled by their tactics as some were.

This is because I shared their anger and sadness about the massacre in Waco, and I accepted - as they did - that there was no legal recourse. So from my perspective the fact that McVeigh and company declared war on America and subsequently bombed a federal building wasn't substantially morally different from anything the American government does routinely. I don't think "terrorism" is a particularly meaningful word in that light.

I can't agree with your assessment of the McVeigh response, but I agree that it was not morally different than anything the American government does routinely. Like invading sovereign nations on fabricated pretexts and in the absence of any act of war perpetrated against the U.S. The whole posturing of the American government over Iraq and the "war on terrorism" appears highly hypocritical to me. Am I missing something?

There's Emma's Dictum: If votes had the power to change anything, they'd be illegal. If that's the case, what does have the power to change things and how can it be manipulated to our mutual benefit?
I would love to find an answer to that question. I fear the best we can hope for is baby-steps toward a better tomorrow, but as is painfully evident this comes at a cost and we have fairly good reason to believe the people we've elected to do the job are only looking out for their own best interests, which won't necessarily benefit us.

Agreed. So.... Do "we", being those here on this board, have any role in what unfolds from this point on? How about critical assessment of all sides in the debate over national direction and foreign policy?


Maybe we need to seriously consider drawing lines and creating two new nations out of the one and then allow everybody two years to migrate to the other. Partition. Just like India and Pakistan...Wouldn't that be joyful.
Someone at SC linked to this site (http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/) full of cool maps. The last one is who voted for whom by county and adjusted for population. It's a much more encouraging picture than the standard red/blue going around:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/cartlinear.png

Kewl maps. From the adjusted maps, it certainly looks like an urban/rural split to me, but that's probably far too simplistic of a view.

So... I guess this is where I need to set out my apologies to liv, vm and beyelzu with regards to my intemperence in this thread. The same goes for all those who I offended inadvertantly. All I have to say for myself is that I have obvious hypersensitivity in regards to Bush and the neocon agenda. I still suspect them of cynical and illicit manipulation of election results. I lost my temper in my disappointment and depression. My apologies for my behavior. I shall attempt to be more temperate.

:qsigh:
godfry

[livius drusus]

Thank you, godfry, for a great post, for your apology, for fixing the quote tags, and for using putting the quote bubble above your name so it looks really cute. :hug:

[viscousmemories]

Have you ever managed to question anyone who throws around the "terrorist" label with regards to Islamists as to what they mean by the term or how they define it? I haven't had the opportunity, but I suspect that if one could get a coherent definition that the U.S., particularly U.S. foreign policy, would fall neatly into that definition.
We're talking about definitions of terrorism in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=21687#post21687) about Arafat's death.

I take it that we (being the U.S.) still have the world's largest nuclear arsenal...still active and targeted, presumably...is somehow NOT terrorism of the highest degree? That the U.S. has the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world and continues to produce them somehow exempts us from being a purveyor of WMD? I just don't understand the perspective, I guess.
I don't really understand it either, but I think it's founded on an inexplicable belief that we're trustworthy and others aren't.

Wary is great. I encourage it. I'm wary because their message is a might extreme for me. As was the message of the Oklahoma City bombers...What was I to learn from that other than I am not safe from my own fellow citizens? Or, that when extremists avenues for change are foreclosed, we all suffer? That message was not clear and thus, unlike you at the time, I had no such respect for the bombers. I still don't.
Well don't get me wrong, I don't have any respect for them now. But I like to think I am more "morally mature" - to coin a phrase - now. At the time, though, I respected what I saw as an expression of moral courage.

That's not to say that I don't think that violence is a valid response...I think it can be under certain circumstances. But I don't yet think we've reached those conditions; even though I do think we have made a step closer to those kinds of alternatives becoming reality. I'm just not sure what those conditions and circumstances are or should be.
Right. That's essentially what I meant. I didn't condone their action, but it made sense to me.

My selecting the Adbusters folks was based upon my seeing something "constructive" being done.
I agree that it's cool to see people making an active effort to effect positive change like that.

I do appreciate your link to the discussion thread with Doctor X, et al, regarding the potential "anti-Semitic" article. I, too, find it a strange thing to select out in terms of characteristics of high-profile members of the identified group, considering that almost every major social-intellectual movement in the United States has significant numbers of Jews in the ranks of their policy makers and leadership. I'd bet good money that there are such on the board that governs the Adbusters Foundation. And, in the campaigns of all the Democratic contenders. The reason I can see such is that Jews, as a group, give high status to education, intellectualism and community involvement and leadership.

Also... I'm rather curious as to why, when Islamic bashing occurs (and the whole situation with the Homeland Security and the "profiling" of travelers that is done) nobody screams about "anti-Semitism". The Arabic peoples are Semites, too. How is it that we always forget such?
I find the whole issue of anti-Semitism utterly confusing. First, most people don't even seem to agree on whether "Jewish" is a religious or ethnic demarcation. Second, as you say "Jews" aren't the only Semites. Third, so many people seem to staunchly believe that anti-Israel = anti-Jewish, which pretty much guarantees no acceptable criticism of a powerful and influential Nation in the Middle East without drawing fire from anti-racists. And on and on...

I can't agree with your assessment of the McVeigh response, but I agree that it was not morally different than anything the American government does routinely. Like invading sovereign nations on fabricated pretexts and in the absence of any act of war perpetrated against the U.S. The whole posturing of the American government over Iraq and the "war on terrorism" appears highly hypocritical to me. Am I missing something?
Right. As I said it's not that I think they did the right thing, but I understood it in context, and I don't think it was a fundamentally different action (morally) than what they were protesting.

Agreed. So.... Do "we", being those here on this board, have any role in what unfolds from this point on? How about critical assessment of all sides in the debate over national direction and foreign policy?
I definitely see that as a good start. Also we made the "Community Activism" forum specifically because we wanted to encourage people (like ourselves) to step beyond the talk and take action, and to provide a place for people who were interested in doing so to share resources and stories.

Kewl maps. From the adjusted maps, it certainly looks like an urban/rural split to me, but that's probably far too simplistic of a view.
Could be, could be. I've definitely heard variations on that theory bandied about.

So... I guess this is where I need to set out my apologies to liv, vm and beyelzu with regards to my intemperence in this thread. The same goes for all those who I offended inadvertantly. All I have to say for myself is that I have obvious hypersensitivity in regards to Bush and the neocon agenda. I still suspect them of cynical and illicit manipulation of election results. I lost my temper in my disappointment and depression. My apologies for my behavior. I shall attempt to be more temperate.
Thanks, godfry. I apologize as well for my abrasive tone. I understand where you're coming from.