blatham wrote:First, that there is a style of rhetoric which has evolved in voices from the 'right' which is unique in its anti-intellectualism (the prime examples being Rush and Coulter). I've seen this style, and the cliches which attend it, arrive on abuzz and here (and in other boards and letters to editors) and it is carbon-copy stuff, and deeply unreflective, and uses fallacies with the zest of a pitbull. It's Rupert Murdoch, rather than Walter Cronkite. Though voices on the 'left' can do this too, I am certain that if one could devise some criteria for analysing text to measure this, my perception would be validated.
I don't think it's possible to analize this. People are willing to overlook their own fallacies and that of ideological brothers and sisters.
If you qualify your statement with something like agression you could make a case for the right's nuts being more agressive IMO. But as to fallacy it's common enough and intentionally used enough that I don't think you can indict one side over the other.
Quote:Second, I do think we are running up against what I and deb point to...a reluctance to investigate negatives about the US presence in the world. And a very deep polarization within America which more than a few smart and experienced polical observers describe as more pronounced than they have witnessed in their lifetimes. It's a critical time, and I think we all intuitively understand that.
No qualm here. America is one of the most polarized nations on earth and these are polarized times. It's been going in that direction for years.
Quote:It's an open board, which has a lot of positives, but negatives too. One big fat negative seems related to what you point towards...a minority voice can be relegated to a closet, while out in the main room, so many voices are yelling about such different subjects that careful investigation is hobbled by the chaos.
It's the human condition, you are right. Disorderly conduct, though most agreeable in love-making, is a dilemma in many human affairs.
I hadn't meant to highlight the type of reaction so much as the simple group dynamics of being outnumbered.
Simply by being outnumbered one is disadvantaged. Even if everyone in the "hive" is unfailingly civil the newbie doesn't have the energy to address them all.
Because of the imbalance discussion can be thwarted, and there will be no dissent to discuss the issue with.