15
   

Language and Propaganda - an example

 
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:55 pm
@ehBeth,
I confess I find it impossible when discovering a new text form to not use it in such a manner. It's a Michelangelo/block of marble thing.
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:56 pm
@ehBeth,
I somehow missed the titles, a clue, eh?
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 06:59 pm
@ossobucotemp,
You'll have to turn to another, osso. I'm a modest fellow. Ask georgeob, he'll verify this.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 07:07 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

I confess I find it impossible when discovering a new text form to not use it in such a manner. It's a Michelangelo/block of marble thing....I'm a modest fellow.


Unlike Michelangelo himself, who was a kinda conceited bastard, eh?

“I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man.” (Marion Barry)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 07:09 pm
Osso
You could also check with layman. I have him on ignore but I can intuit that my modesty gives him a boner.
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 07:16 pm
@blatham,
I'll pass. I apparently missed some clue, not unusual. Ignore, per favore.
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Nov, 2016 08:32 pm
@blatham,
And thank you for changing how you post links. It wasn't a matter of trust with you, just a bad habit to form.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 03:56 am
@ossobucotemp,
Bethie had mentored me on the link thing and in discovering that I could label the link however I chose, it dawned on me that a little space for creativity had just opened up. So, for example, if I was adding a link to Breitbart, I might label it as "smelly monkey poop house".
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 03:57 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
And thank you for changing how you post links. It wasn't a matter of trust with you, just a bad habit to form.

You know I'd do anything for you, my love.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 04:43 am
Worthwhile column from Margaret Sullivan at the Post (smart lady, always worthwhile) on how she believes journalism must adapt for our new Trumpian/social media/post truth world. I'll just paste one bit because it clarifies something for me, that is, what the **** happened to Bob Woodward?!
Quote:
1. Throw out the access-vs.-accountability model. Who gets the next coveted scoop? Often it has been that reporter who has most skillfully played the access game — the one who has curried just enough favor with the powerful newsmaker to be smiled upon, without giving up basic credibility and integrity. That’s access journalism.

Accountability journalism, by contrast, is often performed off to the side, by those who don’t have to deal with the news provider on a regular basis. But with Trump, only those most willing to essentially, if unofficially, join the team themselves will get continued, dependable access. (Fox News’s Sean Hannity, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Bloomberg Politics’s Mark Halperin come to mind.)
Who's richer? Me or Berstein? Yeah, me.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 05:29 am
This is so morally repugnant. RNC spokesman Sean Spicer doubles down on Trump's claim about voter fraud and winning the popular vote "kind of catapulting the propaganda"
Really guys. Come on. Regardless of any simplistic ends-justify-means rationale, it must be transparently clear that forwarding such deceits does enormous damage to the civic structures and values of the US. Seeking to gain or maintain political power through the vehicle of purposefully making citizens stupider is the worst possible way to go. Can't we agree on this one, at least.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 10:56 am
@blatham,
Are you suggesting that there has been no selective access to favored media over the last eight years - and beyond?? That is truly ludicrous.

The media mandarins can be relied on to magnify their supposed importance in 'representing the American people to those in power'. and 'acting on their behalf' in exposing the presumed truth. The fact is they are in the communications business and they represent no one but themselves. Technology and media channels change over time, and it appears that Trump is more aware of those changes than are they.

The media figures doing the complaining now are precisely those who have shut out the political voices they didn't favor for well over a decade. The hypocrisy of their current complaints is breathtaking, as is Blatham's credulity for them.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 12:19 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

. The hypocrisy of their current complaints is breathtaking, as is Blatham's credulity for them.


If that's just a polite way of sayin that Blathy aint nuthin but a damn chump, George, then I agree.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 12:24 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:
a little space for creativity had just opened up


always a good thing Smile
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 12:48 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Osso
You could also check with layman. I have him on ignore but I can intuit that my modesty gives him a boner.


I don't have anyone on Ignore, though there are many here who disagree with me on numerous issues. I've considered it in a few cases, but finally refrained, for a quasi ethical reason: I believe that, particularly those of us who dish it out regularly, should hang around for the reactions they get. There's something fair and right about that, and something a bit "off" in not doing so.

I think layman is a good guy. I certainly enjoyed his "Blues" thread. We apparently have similar outlooks on some issues and that, of course makes it easy for me. However apart from his advocacy of his own perspective - something we all do vigorously - I have seen no mean spiritness in him and no abuse of other posters. There are many far worse examples out there that we all read here every day.

layman
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 01:23 pm
@georgeob1,
Thanks for the kind words, George. Like you I would never ignore a poster just because they didn't agree with me. Often that is where you are most likely to learn something.

I might be tempted to ignore posters who just "spam" or who are routinely incoherent, but I would prefer to just skip over their posts. I have enough self-discipline to effectively "ignore" them without having a need for a machine to do it for me.

But even aside from all that, it's self-defeating. It may prevent you from understanding the context of posts being made in a thread in which you are participating.

Just my opinion, but I tend to view people who want to "ignore" others, and who are often anxious to publicly announce that they have done so in the hope of receiving "congratulations" from their homeys, as being hopelessly intolerant of dissenting opinions. Bigots, in short.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 01:41 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Just my opinion, but I tend to view people who want to "ignore" others, and who are often anxious to publicly announce that they have done so in the hope of receiving "congratulations" from their homeys, as being hopelessly intolerant of dissenting opinions. Bigots, in short.


Strange, I tend to view people who obnoxiously insist on calling people derogatory names (such as cheese-eaters) as being the same. You must realize of course (with your self reported high IQ) that doing so also is done in the hopes of receiving "congratulations" from their homeys, and effectively shuts down conversation, degrades the conversation, often irreparably and only serves to silence others...sort of like an offensive ignore button.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 01:52 pm
@maporsche,
Just a quick glance across the pages of the Politics forum reveals that "cheese-eaters" is one of the mildest of the many epithets one so frequently encounters. Indeed it has some obviously ironic andf light hearted overtones that, in my view, make it quite innocuous.

It's use is an imperfection, of which I, and many others of us here, have in good store.

Below the surface communications and mutual reinforcement among many faily obvious groups of like-minded "homeys" abound on these threads. It is a common phenominon indeed and very human. Hard to imagine a forum like these without it, and layman is by no means a leading pratitioner of it.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 02:00 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Just a quick glance across the pages of the Politics forum reveals that "cheese-eaters" is one of the mildest of the many epithets one so frequently encounters. Indeed it has some obviously ironic andf light hearted overtones that, in my view, make it quite innocuous.

It's use is an imperfection, of which I, and many others of us here, have in good store.

Below the surface communications and mutual reinforcement among many faily obvious groups of like-minded "homeys" abound on these threads. It is a common phenominon indeed and very human. Hard to imagine a forum like these without it, and layman is by no means a leading pratitioner of it.


Oh sure George. It's quite mild and I've of course seen worse. I may even have used worse (although I actively try not to). To criticize those who have other posters on ignore, or who use the thumbs down button as some how being obnoxious or unwelcome or whatever, while at the SAME time overtly doing arguably worse is quite humorous though.

I only responded to his post because his was the most recent hypocritical example that I've seen. It also made me laugh to see him complain when he's made a point to be offensive and seek out 'atta-boys'. He started his own little masturbatory thread about it.


That being said, I'd rather have users put others on ignore and use the thumbs down button on this forum than have us all sit here and try to make up some offensive names to call other posters you disagree with.

Wouldn't you?
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2016 02:12 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

That being said, I'd rather have users put others on ignore and use the thumbs down button on this forum than have us all sit here and try to make up some offensive names to call other posters you disagree with.

Wouldn't you?

I'm not so sure. I take real interest and satisfaction from the sometimes vigorous debates that occur here. I truly enjoy the give and take. I have learned from long experience to listen to those who disagree with me: it can occasionally expose my own ignorance or misunderstanding of issues. Even Blatham makes me rethink things and sometimes let go of half-thought out conclusions and mere prejudicial assumptions. I certainly don't tell him that because it might induce him into greater error.

Old Navy saying .. ' If you're headed for a cliff, the guy who tells you you're ******* up isn't necessarily your enemy, and the guy who keeps his mouth shut isn't really your friend'.

Finally I think there's something unseemly about the pervasive group think and anonomyous thumbing down of posts here. I generally ignore it, but I wouldn't encourage more of it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 08:58:18