Politics as usual.

I agree with Ti.......I agree with Ti........Man I just can't say it.

0 Replies

First off, Thanks for joining in Blatham.

blatham wrote:

We make a mistake, or at least are in grave danger of making a mistake, if we begin with the uninspected assumption that this period of time is just like any other period of time in American politics - that there is nothing much going on in the present which we haven't seen before and therefore anyone getting excited is merely falling prey to some personal or group hysteria.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't get worked up over something you feel strongly about. What I see as a major issue is how you react (you in a general sense not a specific person) once you do get worked up.

Once you reach the level of not talking about issues reasonably and result to petty snipes and witty comebacks, you lose credibility in the eyes of the opposition and merely blend in with the other people yelling equally loud. I think this happens for a couple of reasons.

One is the person is immediately put on the defensive due to a perceived attack on themselves. Two, if you are already worked up in a frenzy about something, you tend to stop listening as well. Instead of reading responses and giving a well thought out counter, it tends to drop to the level of "That is BS. I'm right you're wrong." The line is drawn and both sides firmly entrenched in their own ideology at that point.

To use a real life example, is your (now I am talking about you specifically) intrusion on the Bush Supporters thread. People have asked that those adding to the thread are either a.) a bush supporter or b.) remain civil in their discussions and bring something more to add than anti-bush rhetoric. They have repeatedly asked you and ci to desist from posting anti-bush articles there due to the fact that it doesn't fit in with either qualification. Why do you refuse to grant them their request? At this point you are merely taking up bandwidth and annoying the participants of the thread with absolutely no civil discussion going on at all. You are accomplishing nothing.

Now there are plenty of other threads for you to post whatever you want. Many of the participants on the supporters thread read many of the other threads as well. Why don't you just post on these threads, or open up your own, where they can come to you to discuss whatever it is you want to discuss?

I guess the point I am trying to make is that you can not force somebody to change their minds. Jamming information down their throats does not work and in fact probably has the opposite effect of merely strengthening their resolve. Unless, of course, your intent is simply to annoy them.

blatham wrote:

A related or similar assumption, which prudence ought to tell us is potentially delusional and dangerously so, is that the American system of governance is so robust and so near perfection that nothing can go seriously wrong. One can find numerous quotes from earlier periods and other great nations which were based on similar assumptions. And then, the **** hit the fan. Anatol Lieven's recent book on American Nationalism is a bright and sobering look at such assumptions interview here

I don't think anybody here finds American politics "robust and so near perfection that nothing can go seriously wrong." In fact I think most people here find American politics over-bloated and full of corruption.

blatham wrote:

So two questions become paramount...is the MSM markedly or profoundly or even measurably biased towards the Democratic party and to Democratic ideology? Alterman's book addresses exactly this question. For example, if the thesis of pervasive liberal bias in the MSM were true, then one could predict, for example, that the preponderance of newspaper editorials would come out in support of Democratic presidential candidates. Yet over the last thirty years, the converse has actually been the case. If such a bias were so, then Democrat politicians would be relatively free from criticism and attack, and yet Alterman's research on how, for example, Clinton's presidency was covered shows that assumption of bias which would let Democrats off the hook to be false. There's much else in the book, carefully researched and richly cited, and I can recommend few books more than this one.

I feel that getting all of your information from one side is dangerous, but this explosion of news outlets isn't all bad. For every rightwing whacko site out there there is a left wing whacko site. Everyone has a blog and everyone pushes what agenda they want pushed. But they are also digging deeper and finding out information way ahead of the MSM. I think it is really forcing the MSM to start doing a bit more research and dig a bit deeper before they actually go live with information.

blatham wrote:

The second question...is this alternate conservative media actually engaged in such a singular (and even covert) purpose. On this question, Brock's book is particularly valuable. All (or something very close to all) of the major examples of this new conservative media are originated by or funded by a small group of very wealthy extreme conservative activists. They've been busy at this task for three decades. They've been effective. Like Ailes at Fox, they aren't interested in educating the public, but rather in forwarding what is truly a form of propaganda.

Of course, such a media machine is less dangerous when the party it supports is out of power. But when its favored party is in power, then it operates exactly as Goering's media machine, or Pravada in the USSR, or China's media operates...as a state propaganda organ.

The problem I have here is, it isn't just an alternative "conservative" media. There are plenty of liberal bloggers and liberal websites. For now, at least, the liberal media has put up Air America in response to conservative talk radio. Yes they have an agenda and yes they are pushing it with a purpose.

What do we do about it? We can't start regulating information that is broadcast. That is even more dangerous. We can't just start shutting down news sites. That also limits information and is equally dangerous. i think what we need is a population that actually cares. Right now the majority of the population doesn't give a damn. It is to much work to get both sides. It is to much work to get involved. It is to much work to actually care. So what do we do?

0 Replies

blatham & jp, good stuff guys !

one of the biggest bugs i have these days is the term mainstream media.

here's why;

every day of the week we get hit over the head with stuff like "clearly liberals are out of the mainstream"

and then, the same people rail against the "mainstream media".

it's complete double talk.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

blatham & jp, good stuff guys !

one of the biggest bugs i have these days is the term mainstream media.

here's why;

every day of the week we get hit over the head with stuff like "clearly liberals are out of the mainstream"

and then, the same people rail against the "mainstream media".

it's complete double talk.

Do you REALLY hate the acronym "MSM" then? Drives some libbies nuts, for some reason.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
We make a mistake, or at least are in grave danger of making a mistake, if we begin with the uninspected assumption that this period of time is just like any other period of time in American politics - that there is nothing much going on in the present which we haven't seen before and therefore anyone getting excited is merely falling prey to some personal or group hysteria.

jpin wrote:
I'm not saying that you shouldn't get worked up over something you feel strongly about. What I see as a major issue is how you react (you in a general sense not a specific person) once you do get worked up.

Once you reach the level of not talking about issues reasonably and result to petty snipes and witty comebacks, you lose credibility in the eyes of the opposition and merely blend in with the other people yelling equally loud. I think this happens for a couple of reasons.

One is the person is immediately put on the defensive due to a perceived attack on themselves. Two, if you are already worked up in a frenzy about something, you tend to stop listening as well. Instead of reading responses and giving a well thought out counter, it tends to drop to the level of "That is BS. I'm right you're wrong." The line is drawn and both sides firmly entrenched in their own ideology at that point.

I'm afraid your paragraphs don't really address the passage you've quoted from my post. That's forgiveable, as what I clearly imply there might look a tad extreme.

You make some assumptions which I no longer hold to be so, in this present climate of political discourse in the US. Specifically, that reasoned and dispassionate argument relying on careful presentation of evidence and logical consistency remain efficacious AND that equally careful and consistent moral persuasion will make much of a dent with a significant portion of the US electorate. I've come to believe, after several years of trying it the good old fashioned way, that assuming a Roberts Rules of Order/Marquis of Queensbury formula will be productive (meaning, much move that portion of the electorate) constitutes a childish and dangerous romanticism.

Quote:

blatham wrote:
A related or similar assumption, which prudence ought to tell us is potentially delusional and dangerously so, is that the American system of governance is so robust and so near perfection that nothing can go seriously wrong. One can find numerous quotes from earlier periods and other great nations which were based on similar assumptions. And then, the **** hit the fan. Anatol Lieven's recent book on American Nationalism is a bright and sobering look at such assumptions interview here

jpin wrote: I don't think anybody here finds American politics "robust and so near perfection that nothing can go seriously wrong." In fact I think most people here find American politics over-bloated and full of corruption.

Well, I'm afraid you are wrong. It's an argument I've had here many times. The faith-stance of defenders holds that the checks and balances and the constitution and the goodness of the American peoples' hearts will a provide firm and steady hand against the excesses that might, theoretically, lead the US to become a player on the international scene which is more harmful than helpful, or lead the US to become something its founders would have found unimaginably illiberal and authoritarian. There are elements of American mythology which, as was the case with the Brits and Germans and many others, prevent too many Americans from fathoming that they as a community might fukk up real bad.

jpin said:

Quote:

I feel that getting all of your information from one side is dangerous, but this explosion of news outlets isn't all bad. For every rightwing whacko site out there there is a left wing whacko site. Everyone has a blog and everyone pushes what agenda they want pushed. But they are also digging deeper and finding out information way ahead of the MSM. I think it is really forcing the MSM to start doing a bit more research and dig a bit deeper before they actually go live with information.

There's an example of such a faith-stance. But we aren't talking about blogs. We are talking about tv networks, about pervasive purchase of and control of radio bandwidth, of planned and purposive manipulation of media (top to bottom) with the singular goal of controlling discourse. Couldn't happen here? It has already.

jpin said:

Quote:

What do we do about it? We can't start regulating information that is broadcast. That is even more dangerous. We can't just start shutting down news sites. That also limits information and is equally dangerous. i think what we need is a population that actually cares. Right now the majority of the population doesn't give a damn. It is to much work to get both sides. It is to much work to get involved. It is to much work to actually care. So what do we do?

You have the population you have. They will care to the degree they feel safe or threatened (which is why Rove uses 'threat' with such effectiveness).

What else is there to do but to get as educated as one can, to forego the hopeful delusions, and shout.

You have a government now which has justified a regimen of pervasive torture - and against people many of whom are innocents. Torture. How do you balance that with calls for manners in discourse?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

You make some assumptions which I no longer hold to be so, in this present climate of political discourse in the US. Specifically, that reasoned and dispassionate argument relying on careful presentation of evidence and logical consistency remain efficacious AND that equally careful and consistent moral persuasion will make much of a dent with a significant portion of the US electorate. I've come to believe, after several years of trying it the good old fashioned way, that assuming a Roberts Rules of Order/Marquis of Queensbury formula will be productive (meaning, much move that portion of the electorate) constitutes a childish and dangerous romanticism.

<snip>

What else is there to do but to get as educated as one can, to forego the hopeful delusions, and shout.

You have a government now which has justified a regimen of pervasive torture - and against people many of whom are innocents. Torture. How do you balance that with calls for manners in discourse?

So that is your solution? To become the very thing you are rallying against? Yell it from the roof tops? Say it over and over again until it becomes true? Yell louder than your opponent?

Eventually people just stop listening.

blatham wrote:

Well, I'm afraid you are wrong. It's an argument I've had here many times. The faith-stance of defenders holds that the checks and balances and the constitution and the goodness of the American peoples' hearts will a provide firm and steady hand against the excesses that might, theoretically, lead the US to become a player on the international scene which is more harmful than helpful, or lead the US to become something its founders would have found unimaginably illiberal and authoritarian. There are elements of American mythology which, as was the case with the Brits and Germans and many others, prevent too many Americans from fathoming that they as a community might fukk up real bad.

i simply don't agree with this at all. Some people may think all is rosy, but the majority know that politics are crooked. Whether they care enough to do anything about it is the question.

blatham wrote:

There's an example of such a faith-stance. But we aren't talking about blogs. We are talking about tv networks, about pervasive purchase of and control of radio bandwidth, of planned and purposive manipulation of media (top to bottom) with the singular goal of controlling discourse. Couldn't happen here? It has already.

We're talking about all news sources. Blogs, tv, radio, writing... whatever. It all delivers information and it is all available to huge numbers of people.

What your not providing here is a solution to the problem. You can talk all you want about controlled networks and radio waves but what is the solution? Government controlled airwaves? I think not. No airwaves at all? Even worse.

Airwaves have to be controlled by somebody. I get the feeling you just don't like who they are controlled by at the moment.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
blatham & jp, good stuff guys !

one of the biggest bugs i have these days is the term mainstream media.

here's why;

every day of the week we get hit over the head with stuff like "clearly liberals are out of the mainstream"

and then, the same people rail against the "mainstream media".

it's complete double talk.

Do you REALLY hate the acronym "MSM" then? Drives some libbies nuts, for some reason.

not nearly as much as i hate the new, improved version; Lmsm...

it's utter nonsense speak, dude.

the mainstream media is out of the mainstream???

what kinda conservative moonbat logic is that ??

Shocked

0 Replies

jp

So it seems we disagree on a number of points.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

what kinda conservative moonbat logic is that ??

I dunno. But then I don't even know what LMSM is.

0 Replies

Baltham you Old Canadian Cassandra!

I hope that wasn't mistaken as an incivility. I respect blatham's intelligence and eloquence, but his (repeated) dire prophecy of the end of American democracy at the hands of the vast Right-wing conspiracy is difficult to take seriously.

These may not be the best of times in American history, but they are certainly not the worst.

0 Replies

jp

I think it may be a mistake to judge the general state of political discourse in this country by what transpires in this forum.

I just finished Joel Garreau's Radical Evolution, and while it doesn't really speak to current political discourse, it does discuss (in passing) the sort of sense of community that can develop in cyber-forums like A2K.

Personally, I've always found quite odd the degree of connection that can arise between participants in these forums. While I tend to think it is a product of disassociation and isolation within the real world, I have to admit that something of an alternate community can develop in these forums. I think its important, however, to understand that whatever community can develop here, it is quite different from the communities which develop through more conventional interaction.

First of all, all of our communication is done without any physical connection to each other. Our conversations are conducted without the benefit of any sensory input as we don't see, hear or feel one another at any time during our engagement. To express emotion, some of us rely on font size and color, and even little facsimiles of human faces.

Secondly, we are, in the main, anonymous. Some members have actually physically met other members but this is, by far, the exception and not the rule. Instead we go by nome de plumes and are represented physically by postage stamp avatars that include cartoons, animals, celebrities and abstract shapes. How very few people actually use a photograph of themselves as their avatar. (Why these people do presents another fascinating question).

Finally, because of the first and second conditions, there is virtually no social price to pay for incivility or stupidity. A thread may get locked and in severe instances I guess some members have been expelled, but there are really no barriers to rudeness and vitriol. While I feel certain that there are a number of members who are as unpleasant or boorish in real life as they are in cyber-space, my guess is that most respond to social strictures within the physical communities they occupy.

At the same time, I don't think one can judge the general state of political discourse in this country by the Washington DC Political Theater. These people too live in a bizarre community without the restrictions with which most of us voluntarily comply. They too are something of cartoon versions of people.

Political discourse in this country has always been subject to strong emotions and narrow-mindedness. It seems to me, though, that the measure of our discourse is not pundits yelling at each other on TV, or the waves of hyperbole pouring out of Washington, or even the back and forth on A2K. Instead it is measured by whether or not there is unrest, fear and violence in the schools, workplaces and streets of the nation, and whether or not anything is actually getting done. By those measures, the discourse is OK.

0 Replies

Interesting take on the subject, Finn, and some very valid points I think.

0 Replies

You gotta be kidding! Lighten up whoever the hell did that.

0 Replies

What happened?

Anyway, some have a different view of the Galloway/Hitchens debate, blatham.

0 Replies

I mentioned something about finn's mom. But in this case, the moderator was right.

0 Replies

It looks like Mr Strassel will get many chances to repeat his editorial as Galloway goes about speaking his sinister piffle.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

It looks like Mr Strassel will get many chances to repeat his editorial as Galloway goes about speaking his sinister piffle.

That's Ms. Strassel to you.

0 Replies

Thank god! She finally got the ok on the operation!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I mentioned something about finn's mom. But in this case, the moderator was right.

Baltham!

My mother?

Look no further than your mirror to find the source of the coursening of our political discourse!

(Actually there's little you could say about my mother with which I would disagree [Other than, of course, aspersions about my genetic inheritence], but she is dead and so out of respect for the deceased, please refrain from insulting the departed soul - even if you have moderators following you to instantly clean up your vile filth)

You know, come to think of it maybe Karl Rove had something to do with her death. I'm going to have to start paying more attention to your educational postings.

0 Replies

Actually, there wasn't really anything in my Vile Filth about your mom. And in fact I had begun the VF with a warm greeting to you. The post was removed because I tossed in an old Saturday Night Live joke which, under the present administration, can be understood as a Threat To All That Is Brave and True. So I had no problem, once I understood the passage in question, with the foul murder of my post. I was initially pissed thinking it had been removed because of the little poetic touch where I had Barb Streisand smearing her menstral blood all over the walls of the Alamo. So, anyway, how's things?

0 Replies

Politics as usual.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know