Reasons for optimism

@georgeob1,

blatham wrote:

That this guy had such a high level of support from the modern right tells us much that's pretty frightening.

georgeob1 wrote:

I cartainly don't see anthing frightening in it.

If Blathy just wants to announce his "sky is falling" neurosis to the world, OK, that's his privilege. But his clear implication seems to be more along the lines of "I'm scared, and YOU should be, too!"

Why should everyone wring their hands and whimper like a child who says: "I'm afraid to dive off of the high dive, and YOU should be too." Has "being frightened" suddenly become fashionable, or something?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

We evidently agree that Cruz is, even on a good day, very hard to love, but you do appear to see a conspiracy under every Republican rock (or pebble).

I'm no fan of the Progressive movement in the Democrat party but I accept that they believe in what they advovcate and generally mean well.

Most people, my life experience tells me, mean well. Most people feel shame and regret when they hurt another. But "most" allows appropriate room for those who are somewhere south on the scale of normal to outright psychopath. Joe McCarthy was not a good guy. J Edgar Hoover was not a good guy. You know all the examples.

We understand that people such as these will inevitably turn up in the present (there's probably some ratio in any population of this sort of personality). But we tend to be reluctant to identify them, even given lots of clues, because they are unusual, often with charm and effective tricks to disguise intent, and because we don't want to get it wrong and do damage to someone undeserving of such an identification. I think Cruz is this sort of person. I think Trump is too.

What about groups of people? Obviously, a mob set to lynch a black person for being black manifests the thing we're talking about (or some facet of it) at least temporarily. The German soldiers lining up Jews on the edge of a large excavation and mowing them down likewise. Or the Hell's Angels. Etc. Or a group of men dragging a gay person behind a pickup truck because he's gay.

And groups or movements can believe and act destructively even where presuming what they are up to is for the betterment of others. This can be to varying degrees of destructiveness. I see movement conservatism in this manner. You tend to see progressives in this light. This might not be amenable to resolution.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Hey Blatham. I just made a discovery. If I just zip past Laymans bs it gives me me lots more time to read yours and other sane peoples posts.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

A worthwhile discovery. The ignore function is our friend.

1 Reply

@blatham,

I'm looking forward to silos. They're my retirement dream.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Silos? I presume you're not referring to the dairy farm sort as one would need a lot of Florient.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

And groups or movements can believe and act destructively even where presuming what they are up to is for the betterment of others. This can be to varying degrees of destructiveness. I see movement conservatism in this manner. You tend to see progressives in this light. This might not be amenable to resolution.

Perhaps that is real progress. There are both progressive and conservative long-standing movements in this country. Each has various core organizations, publications and action groups that rise, fade away and are relplaced by others, and which are inhabited by folks of varying committment, probably ranging from zealotry to serious committment and to perhaps passing inclinations. The focus and favorite issues of these movements change over time and with changing external circumstances. None of it is intrinsically bad, though the overdone applications of both modes of thought have produced bad results for many others.

The world, human behavior and the systems of commerce and governance we create are a good deal more complex, having far more variables than the relatively feeble theories with which we seek to describe and categorize them. With that ever present fact in mind, it is easy to recognize the minority of "true believers' - those of both groups who put theory and fixed ideas before the facts, who insist on imposing preconceived formulas on complex and often contradictory facts. They, with the fixed and unchanging lenses through which they view and interpret the events around them, are the enemy of thinking people.

We all do that to some extent, based on our own peceptions and iunderstanding of the relative significance of the highly variable contending forces driving our sociasl, political and economic environments. That's simply part of human experience. How many arguments and coinversations about the relative merits of socialism been marred by participants one of whom had Leninist, Soviet or Chavista like systems in mind while his interlocutor was thinking about a distilled abstract of the Swedish variant - and neither protagonist clearly expressing his assumptions or often even questioning the applicability of these very different things to the situation under consideration?. I believe that illustrates a large fraction of the discussions on these threads.

1 Reply

@blatham,

No - one of Robert's suggestions re the next generation of A2k. A cousin of FB's block.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

So you dream to live in an echo chamber where only your thoughts are brought up and agreed upon? weird.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Naw - the ideas/opinions aren't the issue for me.

I have no interest in having foghorn leghorn talking to me - and it gets weird when I get pm's asking why I'm not responding to someone who thinks we're friends just because we share opinions.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

How many arguments and coinversations about the relative merits of socialism been marred by participants one of whom had Leninist, Soviet or Chavista like systems in mind while his interlocutor was thinking about a distilled abstract of the Swedish variant - and neither protagonist clearly expressing his assumptions or often even questioning the applicability of these very different things to the situation under consideration?. I believe that illustrates a large fraction of the discussions on these threads.

This is precisely why I call for a few basic scholarly protocols whenever I'm engaged in a non-trivial discussion here or anywhere else where I contribute.
1) define terms carefully
2) lay out the thesis carefully
3) avoid fallacies and unreflected/univestigated cliches
4) provide links to data supporting claims
5) and finally, if the other person won't follow such basic and helpful discussion protocols, hit him in the face with a brick.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

This is precisely why I call for a few basic scholarly protocols whenever I'm engaged in a non-trivial discussion here or anywhere else where I contribute.
1) define terms carefully
2) lay out the thesis carefully
3) avoid fallacies and unreflected/univestigated cliches
4) provide links to data supporting claims
5) and finally, if the other person won't follow such basic and helpful discussion protocols, hit him in the face with a brick.

Heh, if you really think that you adhere to these procedures when making your claims in this thread, one can only remark that your capacity for self-deception is limitless.

1 Reply

Related to my post just above, here's a wonderful piece by Margaret Sullivan on a very long-running radio talk show that does it right. It's a fine read. I'll excerpt one small bit that matches what I just said above:

Quote:

Low-key, in-depth conversations with very little emphasis on politics?

A civil tone, with not a rant to be heard and no ego in sight? And this, on one of the longest-running shows on television?

...“Being an outlier in television right now is to focus on intellectually rigorous things,” Heffner said in an interview. “It’s a steep mountain to climb to compete with the culture of talking points.”

http://wapo.st/2fEmenf

To the degree that we each try to behave in this manner has the added benefit of showing those who won't as outliers. We need to be aghast at the rhetorical style of someone like Trump. He's not helping. He's making things worse.

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

We need to be aghast at the rhetorical style of someone like Trump. He's not helping. He's making things worse.

Certainly not to be compared to your rhetorical style, which, in glib, mind-reading fashion, unequivocally asserts that Trump's response to the recount attempt is a "lie" with "bad motives," eh? Just one example of many.

0 Replies

The dark ages are coming to an end. No matter how hard liberals try to derail his administration, Trump will be an excellent president.

Warren is a scary & nasty woman - #NeverWarren

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

I am going to ignore your nothing posts for two years. Than in 2018 after tRump has screwed all you conservative voters blind i am going ask you how things are going.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Suit yourself, it's still a free country for at least 4 more years.

1 Reply

@Frugal1,

I can think of far worse things than to be put on Ignore by Rabel. I don't use the feature for my own reasons, but the thought of him cutting off communication with me is rather pleasant. Count your blessings.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

blatham wrote:

This is precisely why I call for a few basic scholarly protocols whenever I'm engaged in a non-trivial discussion here or anywhere else where I contribute.
1) define terms carefully
2) lay out the thesis carefully
3) avoid fallacies and unreflected/univestigated cliches
4) provide links to data supporting claims
5) and finally, if the other person won't follow such basic and helpful discussion protocols, hit him in the face with a brick.

Heh, if you really think that you adhere to these procedures when making your claims in this thread, one can only remark that your capacity for self-deception is limitless.

He takes his self-appointed duty as Chief Bossypants incredibly seriously, but the rules he polices don't apply to him.

1 Reply

@Lash,

I got a good laugh out of "Chief bossypants". It's true. There are worse faults out there, but that one is indeed a bit wearing. None of us here, not me, and certainly not Blatham, meets the "sholarly " standards that Blatham pretends for himself when anyone has the temerity to challenge him. Indeed his posts consist mostly of the posted words of other commentators carefully selected for their opinions and biases, and with no effort whatever to present an alternative view. He puts it all in the imagined context of dark, evil conspiracies from the right, but dismisses out of hand the possibility of anything like that from the left. Propaganda comes to mind more often than scholarship.

In itself that is no worse than most of what we see here - indeed he is a good wordsmith and some of it is entertaining. However the pretense that he is somhow above all that is obviously false and a bit infuriating.

1 Reply

Reasons for optimism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know