The care and feeding of prejudice

[mickthinks]

Maybe we got off to a bad start. Maybe we can start again.

As Watser's video shows very powerfully, there are a lot of people who lie and get away with it. But if you are only concerned about the lies of those you hate, and if you swallow, eager and unthinking, the lies that feed your own prejudices, then I think you too are part of the problem of corrupt journalism and corrupt politics.

This seems to me to be one of the more important issues faced by 'Western democracy', yet in our postmodern world it is almost impossible to discuss successfully, because there are two near impenetrable barriers in the way.

The first is the "there's no absolute truth" block on all philosophical discussions of the problem. Any theoretical discussion of lies soon founders under the waves of epistemological doubt; if you can't say your truth is better than someone else's you can't talk about corruption at all.

A solution to this problem would be to show by practical examples how, in the real world, the philosophical problem is greatly exaggerated, and how easy it can be to see obvious lies being swallowed whole. The trouble is that this approach involves us talking to each other about actual lies we have actually swallowed, and that comes up against the second great barrier.

It is widely considered to be unconscionably offensive for one person to suggest to another's face that they might be prejudiced. Of course, people do this all the time, but only when they are already in conflict and are intending to be offensive. For someone to make this kind of suggestion in a previously good-tempered conversation is invariably taken as a declaration of hostility and the dialogue immediately either ceases or descends into flaming acrimony.

That is how postmodern relativism works; because we now agree that none of us can claim to be good, we are none of us allowed to discuss each others mistakes. In exchange for never making the claim to perfection, we are guaranteed to be treated as perfect.

Bollocks to that!

In the Bush-Bullies-Babies story, the bare facts according to Watser's link are;

• Bush said 'yeah, thanks'.
• The crowd laughed.
• The girl cried.
• Bush and his aids responded with sympathy.

The impression that Bush's response was sarcastic, and the suggestion that the response made the girl cry (not something else such as the laughing crowd), have been added by the journalists. And casting Bush's subsequent sympathy as 'backpeddling' was classic spin.

By the time Watser dubbed it 'letting out the inner asshole' the picture of prejudice feeding off media-spin is pretty complete, I think. Anyone disagree?

Mick

[beyelzu]

yeah, you seem to forget that morality aint subjective and i have yet to see anyone argue for genuine moral relativism around here.


rather morality is intersubjective and things like truth values and reality really arent.

and mick, godfry brought up bush's actions towards the washington press corp remember that?

what about the time he made fun of the blind reporters sunglasses and didnt even bother to apologize when told the guy was blind?

being flippant with a little girl is rude, if it were one incident i dont think people would all be call shrub an asshole, but it is one of many.

plus some of us, well i do at least, hate bush and think he is one of the worst presidents of all time having done more to role back personal freedom than any president ever with the possible exception of abraham lincoln. and unlike lincoln bush did it for little reason and he didnt offset diminishing freedom and growth of the federal government by freeing large numbers of slaves.

so yeah, worst president ever and an asshole.

and around here, you can say almost anything you want, there are a couple of rules but they are incredibly basic. nothing illegal, no giving out private info of another user, no spamming or flooding.

hell i even have a standby post for when i offend someone. (its the thread called of course i fucking offended you)

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

hell i even have a standby post for when i offend someone. (its the thread called of course i fucking offended you)

[Shelli]

.....

[erimir]

Why are you still on about that Bush story?

The original post was also about what he said at the opening of the new press room, where he was making jokes about how he doesn't give a shit about answering their questions.

Besides, we don't need to see Bush make girls cry to know that he's an asshole.

[mickthinks]

Hello erimir!

Why are you still on about that Bush story?

This thread is not about Bush or the story. It's about prejudice and the need to face up to it.

Mick

[Shelli]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

This seems to me to be one of the more important issues faced by 'Western democracy', yet in our postmodern world it is almost impossible to discuss successfully, because there are two near impenetrable barriers in the way.

Postmodernism is really about dismantling barriers, but keep digging.

The first is the "there's no absolute truth" block on all philosophical discussions of the problem.

Could you show us where "absolute truth" is? I can't find it on my map, although I can find Toledo. Do you have a more up-to-date map?

That is how postmodern relativism works; ...

Yeah, sure it is.

[mickthinks]

Hello David!

LOL! Only admins are allowed to argue as badly as that at TGL!

Mick

[Shelli]

hmm.. your ability to amuse me has dwindled, mick.

Time for you to go.

[Novowels]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

...yet in our postmodern world...
...That is how postmodern relativism works...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[mickthinks]

You may be right, Novowels. It's a side-issue though and if you really want to tackle me on it, may I ask you to open a new thread for it? You came to comment; care to respond?

Mick

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Could you show us where "absolute truth" is? I can't find it on my map, although I can find Toledo.

Absolute Truth is about 1.22 miles NE of Toledo, but you can't actually see it because it's currently covered by Lake Erie (much as the Garden of Eden is currently covered up by the Persian Gulf).

[Novowels]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You may be right, Novowels. It's a side-issue though and if you really want to tackle me on it, may I ask you to open a new thread for it?

I don't know that it's a side issue. However, I'm not really sure we could have a coherent discussion about postmodernism.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Absolute Truth is about 1.22 miles NE of Toledo, but you can't actually see it because it's currently covered by Lake Erie (much as the Garden of Eden is currently covered up by the Persian Gulf).

Godsdammit, well that explains it...

I've been searching the whole Red Sea for it

[davidm]

Oh, wait ... I was mixing up "Abosolute Truth, Ohio," with "Truth or Consequences, New Mexico."

[erimir]

They should have a town called Death and Taxes.

[mickthinks]

Thanks Novowels!

I'm not really sure we could have a coherent discussion about postmodernism.

You're probably right. Luckily, that doesn't stop us discussing the issue of prejudice.

By the time Watser dubbed the story 'letting out the inner asshole' the picture of prejudice feeding off media-spin is pretty complete, I think. Do you disagree?

Mick

Fucking christ, it's too early for this magic mushroom ride gone bad shit.

[Watser?]

hmm, I thought I had put this thread on ignore

thanks for reminding me

[Adora]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

That is how postmodern relativism works; because we now agree that none of us can claim to be good, we are none of us allowed to discuss each others mistakes.

No, it doesn't. Postmodernism encompasses various different kinds of relativism - cultural, moral, cognitive, aesthetic, etc etc. One can be a cultural relativist (stating that cultures are seperate and distinct from one another and not comparable but able to be applied as major factors in an individuals choices and behaviours) but still be a moral modernist (believing in concrete morals and ethics beyond the boundaries of human construction).

Of course, true relativism is self-criticising and thus acknowledges the interpretation that relativism itself, while being a useful tool for understanding the way people think about things, is, like all philosophies, a limited tool for its use in wider life experience, and shouldn't be abused by those who clearly have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Now go back and read what Novowels said, watch less Matrix, put down the first-year philosophy textbook, and step away from the keyboard.

[mickthinks]

Hello Adora!

You make some good points, but in such a gratuitously hostile way that it isn't worth trying to discuss them with you. Sorry!

Mick

[S.Vashti]

Excuse the interuption, but is English your first language? I ask because I am truly puzzled by your use of punctuation, it seems inappropriate to me, and I was wondering if it's because you seem to use punctuation in a manner similar to people whose first language is possibly Japanese.

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello Adora!

You make some good points, but in such a gratuitously hostile way that it isn't worth trying to discuss them with you. Sorry!

Mick

[mickthinks]

Hello Chris!

You want to talk about my punctuation.

Clutch wants to talk about my font sizes.

Maybe you two should get together and form a club?