@blatham,
blatham wrote:
Quote:The problem with it is that it would have fir our Declaration of independence quite nicely.
Well who could argue with that first sentence? Because I think we all know that you could, with ease, identify as thoroughly equal:
- Jeffersons words
- Lincoln at Gettysburg
- Trump's twitter compositions and campaign rhetoric
You are merely trying here to change the subject and obscure the evident truth of what I wrote. The self-serving, home-made "definition" of "totalitatian propaganda" provided in the opinion piece you pasted here could indeed have fit the Declaration of Independence. It was a bit of superficial sophistry masquerading as thoughtful analysis. There's no intellectual courage (or integrity) at all involved in defending that. I called you on it and now you are merely throwing a lot of Goriolla dust in the air.
blatham wrote:
Clearly, each man set out to accrue power and a voter base through serial untruths, bullying and humiliation of opponents, and the fomenting racial and religious animosities. Obviously, the Declaration itself and Lincoln's description of it were both driven by a need and strategy to accrue personal power and to squash any apparent opposition to that accrual of power. What could be more sensible than your analogy here.
This is merely childish exaggeration designed to obscure an empty argument. There was a good deal of racial animosity and intolerance towards religion out there before Trump came on the scene and a good deal of it came from his opponents. I agree that much of Trump's rhetorical technique was (apparently deliberately) offensive and bullying, but it was no worse than the slander, lies corruption and misuse of government power employed bu the Administration and the Clinton campaign in attempting to defeat him. Trump is indeed a vulgarian in an age that appears to value it, but he used it cleverly (if not admirably) to overcome far more entrenched, better funded and organized political forces than his own. It worked !
I note that one of your favorite techniques is a deceptive use of the 'reductio ad absurdem" - your problem here is that you alternately fail to make the logical connection and a case for inevitability or fail to note that (as in the case at hand) it also devastates the argument you are making. Nothing particularrly intellectual or courageous about that. .
blatham wrote:
Quote:A good example of an old and rather stale journalistic trick. Write your own convenient definition that fits something you wish to slander, and give it a bad label of your choice.
That's intellectually cowardly, george. With constructions such as that one, you permit yourself to discount any notion which leads to conclusions that don't match your partisan wishes. Another way that cowardice shows up is your refusal to work out specific definitions of such phenomena. I have asked you to join me in developing a definition of "propaganda" and you have refused, suggesting that I was demanding something untoward, perhaps unfairly setting you up in the manner of a prosecutor.
Your premise here is false. I merely pointed out the sophistry inherent in the journalistic trick your author employed. It could indeed have been used to "discount any notions which ldon't match the author wishes". I simply exposed the absurdity of his argument, and you here accuse me of doing the same thing. That is intellectual incompetence. My description of the journalistic trick being employed was entirely acurate and applicable, and I did not say or imply anything beyond that.
