WHAT ROUGH BEAST? America sits of the edge

perc

I really do like the way you are writing these days, and the care you are taking to talk with folks like lola or myself. I'm proud of you, old buddy.

But this is one of those periods where I figure that I ought to be reading and learning new ideas rather than arguing old ones.

There were, for sure, parts of this thread which were great fun and inspiring too. I'm sure you guys can do more of that.

Blatham

I try to be very careful with my words to people I respect such as Lola and yourself------any others who do no share a mutual respect, I will refuse to respond to.

I would plead with you to, instead of reading about new ideas which is commendable, please stay awhile and re examine the old ideas from a different perspective.

It's a great thread, Blatham, and you and Lola could have kept it going...

Present tense, Tartarin...........we can keep it going. It's a good topic.......one not repeated anywhere on this board.

Gonna have to bail and do some reefing, Lola.

Don't worry, Tartarin..........I've been a reefer for a long time.

The very coolest thing about teaching, or just sharing ideas and knowledge with others, is when one sees the eyes come alight. Some new idea, or some altered perspective suddenly allowing a confusion or intellectual dilemma to resolve. A revelation, the happiest of intellectual moments.

This stuff doesn't happen in the context of an oppositional game such as deeply partisan politics. It only happens when one is, with some dilligence and objectivity and humility, trying to understand something. When the game is oppositional, certain sorts of revelation will not be invited in, as they are contra-intentional - not letting the other guy win is what discussion becomes all about. Evidence becomes something not to be considered, but to be invalidated. Complexity and nuance are rejected in favor of simplicity and cliche and appeals to authority - it's a safer path.

So, what the **** are we doing? Practicing debating skills? How often is this all just like kids playing cowboys and indians..."I gotcha"..."Nah, you missed me".

You know, I think this stuff does happen in oppositional games, it's just not often admitted or even recognized at the time it happens. I'll bet that if you scroll through a sequence of one individual's posts over time, you'll see the influence we have on each other.

However, I believe (even more strongly, since joining A2K) that there's opposition and there's opposition. You could probably divide us into lots of different groupings, but the two groups I notice most are those who say either/or and those who don't. The former have the power to discourage and often destroy conversations among even the most accomodating.

I don't think there will be a worthwhile, lasting, in depth discussion until this either/or thing is dropped. There's no point going on talking with people who, when they are beginning to lose the argument, resort to either invoking Clinton or saying things like, Well, Pakistanis and Falkland Islanders are worse than we are...

You know Blatham the above statement provides some insight into your frustrations-------could it be that you see yourself as the teacher here in this environment? If that is the case we (the ignorant Americans) are the unwilling students. Could that account for some of your frustrations? Perhaps if you could find the humility to wear another hat (that of equal partner) for a moment ( I know this is unthinkable to you ) and allow some space for agreement on SOMETHING both sides might possibly stop forming ulcers??????????

That is the most insightful thing I have seen you say perception.

Blatham's frustrations are, in my opinion, not sourced from there being undiscussable topics here but simply because people don't always agree with him wholeheartedly.

Perception, don't pay any attention to Blatham, he's a sheep is sheep's clothing, but then as Adolph Hitler said "Universal education is the most corroding and disintergrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for it's own destruction."

I agree with Adolph ------Because sooner or later they turn into anarchists :wink:

so perception, I take it you think Hitler was a republican?

Percy agreees with Hitler. There's a surprise.

tart

I think we are talking about the same problem. Those instances where the either/or choices are portrayed as the only possible options (either American capitalism or Russian Communism, either for us or against us, etc) are the simplistic models, and their speakers are who usually resist nuance and complexity. I don't think it's a right/left issue (even right/left can be a crippling simplicity), but rather some varying ability to think independently or to cope with complexity and unpredictableness.

There's a lovely review in the last NY R of B on Didion's latest book where the reviewer quotes Didion's observations on the history of California (where Didion grew up) and how she sees it as an instance of American history, and America in the present...


It's an awareness, or a thesis, which would make a lot of sense to you or I or Lola or dys or nimh or pd, but I think george and timber and perc would reject it out of hand. For me, the adjectives 'ruthless', 'indifferent' and 'exploitive' describe our original interaction with the North American natives AND with the Middle East or Africa now. Cowboy movies of the forties or modern movies with brave caucasians besting arab-looking plane hijackers notwithstanding.

Didion is so valuable an observer because she is brave enough to investigate beneath the mythologies. That's usually not a comfortable journey, and that's surely why it is an invitation commonly refused.

One can quote, until one is blue in the fingers, Jefferson or Washington (eg, 1796, "overgrown military establishments [are] inauspicious to liberty") and get as a response..."it's not the case" or "everyone else is just as bad".

perc

Well, my time teaching constitutes a very very small fraction of my time on the other side of that equation.

Craven

Hard to know how to respond to you. It doesn't matter much to me if I sound pompous or pedantic. It does matter to me if I am so, that is, if I reject ideas or evidence simply because I don't presently hold them or because they threaten some thesis, of if I listen without due care. Figure you can pin any of those on me? I'm prepared for embarrassment, I think.

Blatham,

I'd not indict you for sounding pompous or pedantic, both are traits I do not mind in the least (probably becauseI am prone to them).

What I reference is the notion that "some things can't be discussed" here. While that's true (e.g. you can't discuss how to disseminate a virus and post source code for a virus) I don't think it applies to the topics you have in mind.

What I consider far more accurate a statement is that you are simply not getting the response you'd hoped for, be it agreement or at least the type of discussion you'd prefer. Upon consideration I should revise my earlier statement, I don't think you neccessarily want people to agree with you but a mizture of that and wanting the responses to be of a certain caliber.

It's something I understand, I give up on most of my threads because they don't in any way unfold in the way I had hoped.

But that's just the group dynamics, and I don't think it means the topic is "undiscussable".

My claim isn't pomposity on your part, but rather a strong will for the conversation to go a certain way. That's something I do not fault as I am frequently frustrated by discussions that do not come close to what I had hoped they would.

The rest of what I reference is my opinion that your desires in conversation and your actions within the group dynamics are contradictory. I don't think you want a sycophantic discussion but I allege that the group dynamics (of which you play a part) is such that polarization of the options between sycophantic discussion and dissent (which will inevitably have dissatisfactory moments) occurs.

In short, you already have a group of people who agree with you, you can find agreement there but you seem to wish to dicuss the notions with dissenters. That makes perfect sense, discussing differences is inherently more interesting than nodding in approval.

But my point is that I think the group dynamics here is being ignored. The imbalance of political opinion here is such that a hive-like response to dissent is given. Note: I reference "hive" here as simply being the group dynamics of outnumbering, not the "group think" use of the word.

When there is dissent some in the group you are a part of frequently derides and ridicules it. And as your ideology is in the majority on these forums the dissenters are faced with a frustration of their own. They would have to be indefatigable to adequately address the opinions that outnumber them.

So then what happens is that they simply try to touch on the discussions and move to friendly conversation when it is overwhelming. George seems to do this, he seems more willing to be a friendly conversationalist than address all of the points of contention.

That is unsatisfying to intellectual discussion but at the same time think of what the hive (I reference being outnumbered, not "group think") does to the outnumbered.

When a group has a overwhelming majority of one ideology a newcomer who differs is treated as an intruder. Since there are already few who represent the intruder's side of the aisle the intruder is often outnumbered and some will simply ridicule the intruder.

What this does is force the intruder into three general camps.

They can be indefatigable, and through knowledge that their opinion is poorly represented and upopular within the group become less concerned about civility.

They can simply react to the hive with contempt and flame.

Or they can simply try to be friendly and not try to be the devil's advocate for the hive (see George).

None of this is intellectually satisfying but untill you find a indefatigable and incredibly patient person who is willing to expend the energy of defending an outnumbered point of view with unfailing civility (in the face of sarcasm and insult at times) this is inevitable.

And for this reason efforts such as that by Tartarin to denigrate and drive off dissent (I know you once said that you have no idea where I got this opinion but I can quote Tartarin suggesting that they leave several times and once in which you agree with her) helps reinforce the hive group dynamics with dissenters inevitably playing the role of intruder, with the inevitable attempts to ward them off.

You'll note that newbies who are liberal stick around, while conservatives will usually give up of flame till they are unwelcome. Those who stay will not be able to engage the hive at every turn. And then they will be reviled for avoidance of the issues (when they simply do not have time to address all the people who outnumber them).

They can react by simply being unabashedly unapologetic about their opinions and avoid engaging each member of the hive, who wishes to spar. This is frustrating intellectually because "you think your way and I'll think mine" is not satisfying to someone who wants to engage.

Or they can simply be amiable and not contend each point of contention, as George does. He is unfailingly friendly, at the cost of engaging the issue. I think he will simply engage in friendly conversation at the cost of vigorous and outnumbered debate at times. While the good-naturedness he displays is admirable it's also intellectually dissatisfying.

In short, I'm saying that you seem to want to discuss these issues with people on the other side of the aisle (I say this because you clearly have people who agree with whom to discuss this but express dissatisfaction). And I am saying that the group dynamics that you defend and sometimes play a part makes that less likely.

People here want conservatives to debate with, but their ideology can be irritating (as liberal ideology is to them).

So as long as there is a "hive" approach due to the simple fact that they are outnumbered the desire to engage them is somewhat of a desire to have a whipping boy.

In short you have people kicking all the newbies out of the sandbox. It should be no surprise that you sometimes have nobody to play with except those who agree with you.

I avoid discussions with you because of some of the dynamics of your group. And I share your ideology. It should come as no surprise to you that those who are constitutionally opposed to your ideology do not engage your group. What do you expect? Among the group are those who treat all dissenting ideology with contempt, sarcasm and hostility.

Even if there were no such contempt there is the simple outnumbering to deal with. You guys won't have playmates because you drive them away by ignoring thr group dynamics and how it affects your desires.

craven

You don't disappoint...this is an absolutely fine and meaty post. I have a brother in town, and must rush off now to dinner. Please allow me to re-read and comment in the morning.

And that Craven is the most insightful piece I've ever seen from you.

Quote:
There was never just the golden dream of riches and bountiful nature, but always a scene of exploitation and false promises, indifference and ruthlessness, a kind of hollow core.

It doesn't matter that this quote is taken out of context -----it is without a doubt one of the most naive quotes imaginable and gives the impression that it was written by one who has never seen the outside of an artists loft in Manhattan.

It is as though America is the sole proprietor of the world of exploitation, false promises, indifference and ruthlessness.

We have never denied having a full share of faults just as Canada and every other nation has. We had a violent birth, followed by a violent existence up to this point and it's citizens have paid a heavy price emotionally. It has left many ugly scars but every time there was a need we stood up and were counted. I would contend that not many countries can equal that record and there is certainly no justification for the vile attitude shown us especially by Canada.