quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
That's mostly because trying to figure out what the hell he's saying is a lot harder when you're reading it. He switches his pronouns several times in that bit. Am I "you" or am I "them"?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook: But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
Of course, this 22 second clip is likely to push our attempts at civility back a few notches, but it was worth it, because it scores some points against Glenn Beck. (Note the sarcasm.)
I thought he was making some sort of reference to zombies.
Also, dude, seriously, at what point is it totally kosher to be spouting nonsense about shooting people in the head? I mean, my interpretation is possibly the most favorable for Glenn Beck, and even then- it's just more of him calling people zombies and masses of the great unwashed- it's like OSC calling people the "leftaliban," and all that other crap. Everybody knows it's an appeal to violent imagery because these are visceral images. It's easy. It's pathetic, but easy.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when Glenn Beck is actually asking (even if this is a literal, not figurative in any way) democrats to shoot violent communist revolutionaries in the head before they shoot first, it doesn't quite hit the same chord.
That's mostly because trying to figure out what the hell he's saying is a lot harder when you're reading it. He switches his pronouns several times in that bit. Am I "you" or am I "them"?
This is so typical of him- it's impossible often times for me to follow the thread of his rants because of the constant pronoun shifting. I think it's, if not deliberate, certainly effective at neutralizing the actual logical side of the argument in order to get at the raw emotional impact of the words. That's what he's about anyway- it hardly matters *whom* he is referring to. That's the same sort of breathless disregard for precision that Palin is known for, and it seriously bothers me when I listen to either of them. It often seems to me as if the sheer need to get at the impact of each sentence allows them to be rather free with how it actually gets formed- to point, for both of them really, that the sentence sometimes ends up making no sense at all.
And, come to think, it's an interesting feature because it establishes a purely "of-the-moment" emotional context for *everything* that Beck says. He can pretty much always claim to be taken out of context when he says inflammatory thigns (which is a bait and trap move pioneered long ago, and not by him), but for him, it's actually rather hard to establish context for *anything* he says, because nothing every really makes a whole hell of a lot of sense unless you are actually watching his show (and even when I've tried, the constant rhetorical shorthand and spiraling self-references repel me).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Expanding the clip into his entire rant doesn't abate the nature of his alarmist, paranoid rhetoric. It keeps it (or improves upon it, even!) as a perfect example of that stuff what conservatives should be ashamed of. Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know? I don't need the rhetoric to be "nice". I would like it to be non-violent. They can call us fools or saps if they need to, just not talk about shooting us.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if in common political discourse we refer to "blowing" the opposition "out of the water," and then some office holder is literally blown out of the water by a bomb aboard their ship they are sailing in, we can no longer use that metaphor either--suddenly the metaphor has become too extreme to use.
Or suppose that some office holder is on vacation in the tropics, falls overboard and gets eaten by Barracudas. Would that mean then that Sarah Palin would have to apologize to the world for ever having had the nickname as a basketball player, "Sarah Barracuda?"
I think if we are not careful, we will wind up stripping all metaphors from our language, and we will be left with talking like milktoast doofuses, with no color in our language at all.
[ January 21, 2011, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a positive news note, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords has left UMC and is being taken to the hospital in Houston where she will begin a lengthy rehab program. It was reported yesterday that she was able to stand, with assistance. She looked out the window. Surely she has shown she has considerable motor control.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just had an amusing thought. Suppose, as we hope, Rep. Giffords recovers sufficiently so that she can resume her seat in Congress, and then runs for re-election again in 2012. Who would dare to run against her? I think the GOP and anyone else should pretty much concede that seat.
By the way, did anyone notice that news report that the UMC trauma center was saved because of Rep. Giffords' recent efforts to preserve its funding? Had she not done that, she would not have survived. It was only because they could get her to the trauma center at UMC within a few minutes that doctors were able to resuscitate her in time.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if in common political discourse we refer to "blowing" the opposition "out of the water,"
I think it would be sufficient to just eliminate rhetoric invoking the predominant method of individual-on-individual violence and political assassination. Let's just stop using gun symbolism and see where we get.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I think it's a reference to the false equivalence created when people think that the predominant rhetoric of the right can be compared with isolated statements from the left. Of course *any* such language is counterproductive, but it really is coming predominantly from the right these days.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except of course when the Right complain that it's really the left who have a political monopoly on violent rhetoric...
IP: Logged |
quote:Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
That's actually not true.
When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left. (It would be like the fringe elements on the right, the Neo Nazis or KKK pieces of crap.) We're not talking regular, everyday liberal politicians.
Glenn Beck's TV show always comes off as disjointed and confusing, which is why I avoid it. If I want to get a real feel for what he's talking about, I listen to him on the radio.
Plus, I'm too cheap to pay for cable TV.
I don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says or believes, but I consider all attempts to paint his as someone who's trying to promote violence as unjust.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Geraine, if the conclusion you reach about what someone else is saying is actually in and of itself a straw man, perhaps you ought to consider whether or not you've looked at the most likely options for what it is they're saying.
That sounds like I shot, but it's not, because when I read your posts, while I often disagree with you, I very often think you're coming at a discussion in good faith. No, I'm not saying 'liberals are the only ones who can complain'. I'm saying that when liberals complain about Beck (big conservative mouthpiece) using his enormous pulpit to talk about capping people, I'd bet a blade of grass to a mountain of gold that there will be more than a few conservatives saying something that can be boiled down to, "But liberals...!"
Nothing in that remark in the slightest justifies liberal commentators, Geraine. All it does is express exasperation and contempt for the attitude 'they do it, so it's OK if we do it,' which you're indirectly exhibiting right now.
However, MattP is right: in terms of how much press such language is getting, who it's coming from, and how much credibility it has, no one can say with a straight face that the teeter totter is balanced right now. Show me your liberal-leaning commentators with the audience of your Becks and Limbaughs (I won't drop the P-bomb) who talk about shooting zombies in the head, for example, and do so so often.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by FoolishTook:
quote:Expand the context a bit further. Anyone that has been paying any attention to Beck knows that the communists he's referring to are Obama, his advisors, members of the Democratic party, and many of their supporters.
That's actually not true.
When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left. (It would be like the fringe elements on the right, the Neo Nazis or KKK pieces of crap.) We're not talking regular, everyday liberal politicians.
Glenn Beck's TV show always comes off as disjointed and confusing, which is why I avoid it. If I want to get a real feel for what he's talking about, I listen to him on the radio.
Plus, I'm too cheap to pay for cable TV.
I don't agree with everything Glenn Beck says or believes, but I consider all attempts to paint his as someone who's trying to promote violence as unjust.
A quick look at Conservapedia would disprove this notion.
IP: Logged |
posted
Not finding the points you're referring to, Blayne. Which part is untrue? That Glenn Beck is not trying to promote violence? Or that Glenn Beck was not referring to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi when he used the statement "shoot them in the head?"
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Specifically: "When he's referring to dangerous, violent leftist revolutionary communists, he's not referring to Barack Obama, but a fringe element of the liberal left."
Conservative pundists almost certainly are in fact referring to President Barack Obama and his administration as being Communist or Fascist etc etc.
IP: Logged |
quote:I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
Geraine, if the conclusion you reach about what someone else is saying is actually in and of itself a straw man, perhaps you ought to consider whether or not you've looked at the most likely options for what it is they're saying.
That sounds like I shot, but it's not, because when I read your posts, while I often disagree with you, I very often think you're coming at a discussion in good faith. No, I'm not saying 'liberals are the only ones who can complain'. I'm saying that when liberals complain about Beck (big conservative mouthpiece) using his enormous pulpit to talk about capping people, I'd bet a blade of grass to a mountain of gold that there will be more than a few conservatives saying something that can be boiled down to, "But liberals...!"
Nothing in that remark in the slightest justifies liberal commentators, Geraine. All it does is express exasperation and contempt for the attitude 'they do it, so it's OK if we do it,' which you're indirectly exhibiting right now.
However, MattP is right: in terms of how much press such language is getting, who it's coming from, and how much credibility it has, no one can say with a straight face that the teeter totter is balanced right now. Show me your liberal-leaning commentators with the audience of your Becks and Limbaughs (I won't drop the P-bomb) who talk about shooting zombies in the head, for example, and do so so often.
Fair enough. I misunderstood you and for that I apologize.
I would agree with you that there are no liberal commentators that have that have the audience that Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Savage have.
I think it is interesting that Liberal Commentators haven't done so well on radio or television. I don't know why that is. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levine, Beck, and Savage do really well on the Radio. Hannity, Beck, and O'Riley do well on Television. I can't stand to listen to any of them for a long period of time, though I do enjoy the history segments Beck sometimes has.
Why do you think these people do so well on TV and Radio? (That is not rhetorical question) I don't know the answer. It seems to me that liberal commentators do better on the internet and the blogosphere, while conservative commentators do better on TV and radio.
I almost never hear anything about Mike Malloy and some of the outrageous things he has said (Strangling Matt Drudge with entrails? Really?) but it makes sense that I haven't since he doesn't have a large audience.
At any rate, sorry for my accusatory tone in my last post.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I think it's a reference to the false equivalence created when people think that the predominant rhetoric of the right can be compared with isolated statements from the left. Of course *any* such language is counterproductive, but it really is coming predominantly from the right these days.
So, MattP, do you really, deep down, believe that predominantly liberals are wimps and wusses, and only conservatives have spines?
I see no other way to explain the peek you give us into your worldview when you say that the "predominant" rhetoric of the right is violence-based and extremist, and that whenever liberals exhibit this kind of talk, it is just "isolated" statements.
That is probably the way you want to believe things are. But perhap what we need is an actual survey that gives us some actual numbers of how many conservatives use combat-related metaphors, and how many liberals engage in extremist talk like charging conservatives with being Nazis. The way you perceive it may not be the way it actually is. When I consider the 100% false and vicious attacks that all the liberally-biased media have made against Sarah Palin, for example--not to mention how they have always loved to savage Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.--I see a much greater expression of vicious and unrestrained hatred, than anything witnessed in the majority of conservative voices.
Anything that encourages hatred encourages violence, and invites the unstable to take justice into their own hands--not just in the voting booth, but on the streets. Nothing does this more than telling lies about the person being targeted.
Anyone who has any extreme negative feelings about Sarah Palin, has gotten them from lies that have been told about her. Rush Limbaugh is most commonly denounced by people who have never or hardly ever heard his show. Likewise Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc.
I believe that most people who have critized Glenn Beck have watched or listened to only a small segment, maybe not even half an hour total. They justify this by saying they couldn't stand to watch or listen any more. But it is really because what he says is so contrary to their pre-programmed worldview, that it causes them consternation and confusion. They ask themselves, "How can this guy be right, when all my teachers taught me something different?"
There is nothing illogical or hard to follow in any of Glenn Beck's discourses, except to those who cannot stand to have their own views contradicted. Glenn Beck is quite articulate in presenting the conservative view. For that alone he is hated by those who just plain refuse to consider the conservative view fairly.
Beck always backs up his statements with evidence. He always challenges his listeners to do their own research, and verify what he says for themselves. He always admonishes people not to believe anything just because he says it, but to find out for themselves--don't just be content with the world view you may have long been comfortable with. Beck is an excellent teacher. Only the best encourage their students to surpass their teacher.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Here's my guess on the audience share question. The issue with liberal commentators and mainstream conservative commentators is the degree of nuance and technicality in the way they present their subject matter. Liberal commentators are obsessed with empirics, they want clear demonstrations of fact and will selectively report on subjects that appeal to their liberal leanings. What ends up happening is a liberal commentary feels more like a lecture than anything else, and that doesn't lend itself well to visual and audio forms of entertainment. Mainstream conservative commentators are also selective on what they report on, but the means by which they discuss issues is in stark contrast to liberal commentary. Mainstream conservative pundits are able to use rhetoric that manipulates (or "plays with", if you want a term with less baggage) their listener's emotions. They are willing to use hyperbole and drastic metaphor to insight fear of changes from traditional values. They instill nationalist pride in their listeners. They are funny, they're frightening, they're just, quite simply, entertaining. And people like that. I mean, I'm a liberal, but I'll admit that while I feel dirty for listening to the shows, I do find conservative talk radio to be far more entertaining than their liberal counterparts.
But when you switch the medium to text, it's harder to do oratorical demagoguery. You're expected to cite sources. You can link to other subjects, articles, and studies. The liberal lectures are bolstered by text-media for this reason, and conservative commentary is hampered. (Though conservatives have far better utilized social networking, I consider social networks and the blogosphere as two separate universes.)
I would like to point out that I'm not saying that conservatism as an ideology is devoid of intellectualism, I'm just saying that the mainstream commentary refuses to go any deeper than emotive talking points. I think there are some great conservative commentators who you'll never see get their own syndicated show because they just aren't entertaining enough. Most of the ones I've seen are at bloggingheads.
In short: The grand majority of people want to be entertained and not lectured. Mainstream conservative commentary is entertaining and inspiring, not intellectually challenging. Liberals lecture in their commentary and it's harder to find a wide audience.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Vadon, you dismiss conservatives as appealing to people just because they are more "entertaining," and appeal more to emotion. You too reveal your bias, because those things are not true. Conservatives are far better at producing evidence and citing sources than liberals, because nothing is as impressive as solid facts. Conservatives excell at encouraging people to study and investigate for themselves. This is what makes people who are willing to consider them fairly prefer the conservative voices--they are clearer and more convincing IN EVERY WAY. Because they are usually right, and most people can see it for themselves.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Despite the fact that despite being a Conservative you have been proven wrong in every topic of discussion since you've registered here or are you the exception that proves the rule?
I mean sure, conservatives love to cite sources, but its usually sources to THEMSELVES or to books written by THEMSELVES.
quote:Conservative pundists almost certainly are in fact referring to President Barack Obama and his administration as being Communist or Fascist etc etc.
But Glenn Beck, in this clip, is not referring to Barack Obama as a violent, communist revolutionary.
Vadon, I'd like to add that liberal commentary isn't really annoying because of the lecture nature of it, but--rather--because many liberal commentators come off as patronizing.
quote:I would like to point out that I'm not saying that conservatism as an ideology is devoid of intellectualism, I'm just saying that the mainstream commentary refuses to go any deeper than emotive talking points. I think there are some great conservative commentators who you'll never see get their own syndicated show because they just aren't entertaining enough. Most of the ones I've seen are at bloggingheads.
I don't disagree with this completely, but I've seen just as much cheap talk from liberal commentators. To see an actual, civil, well-thought-out debate between a well-versed conservative and liberal would be entertaining for me. And I honestly think most Americans are tired of political baby food.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
One other thing that's a major oversight from my last post. There are also about twice as many self-identifying conservatives in the United States as self-identifying liberals. So I'd wager that another reason there's a larger audience share for conservative commentators stems from the fact that we have more folks who are openly conservative. (The source I posted earlier in this thread.)
Ron:
I'm not sure why you think I'm "dismissing" conservatives for being entertaining and appealing to emotion. I'm saying that it's an effective persuasion strategy when it comes to entertainment-media (radio and television) and their audience share is evidence of it. I'm not dismissing mainstream conservative commentators for being entertaining, I'm criticizing liberal commentators for being boring.
I do say that the flash without substance doesn't convert as well into text-mediums (internet and newspapers) but I'm still not saying that conservatives are without their intellectual champions. I provided a link to a site (bloggingheads) with some impressive conservatives that give me food for thought in their opposition. Kristin Soltis and Reihan Salam spring to mind.
Seriously, I think that it's good to be able to appeal to folks' emotions. I'm trying to keep my judgements on conservatism and liberalism separate from my analysis on what brings viewers. Of course I'm biased, I openly state in my previous post that I'm liberal. But that's not a reason to immediately dismiss or misinterpret my post or its intent.
FoolishTook:
quote:Vadon, I'd like to add that liberal commentary isn't really annoying because of the lecture nature of it, but--rather--because many liberal commentators come off as patronizing.
That's fair. I can certainly understand disliking it for being patronizing, because let's face it, the mainstream liberal pundits are very patronizing.
So I guess that means liberal commentators are both boring and patronizing. No wonder we're not winning the marketshare. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, MattP, do you really, deep down, believe that predominantly liberals are wimps and wusses, and only conservatives have spines?
It's telling that you, a self-proclaimed Christian, equate someone else talking about (supposedly) violent rhetoric as that rhetoric being the 'strong' talk, and other talk being spineless and wussy.
Much like the bizarre point you made with me wherein gun ownership showed strength, and which strangely you haven't returned to since. I'm sure you can, for example, point to lots of scriptural reference backing up such worldviews.
But anyway.
quote:I see no other way to explain the peek you give us into your worldview when you say that the "predominant" rhetoric of the right is violence-based and extremist, and that whenever liberals exhibit this kind of talk, it is just "isolated" statements.
This is a lie. That's not what Matt said. You can read it that way if you like, and of course you will, and refuse to entertain any other notions, but what was said was that when violence-laced rhetoric is encountered, it comes these days predominantly from the right.
quote:...how many liberals engage in extremist talk like charging conservatives with being Nazis.
The irony here is that even though the accusation itself was incredibly stupid to have made, you're actually living up to it here by making this claim. Rep. Cohen didn't say conservatives are Nazis.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Fair enough. I misunderstood you and for that I apologize. "
This.
I'm not terribly worried about violent metaphors. What bothers me is the constant reference to political opponents not as people with different opinions but as enemies of the state, traitors, anti-Americans who want to bring this country down. It is that nonstop demonization, coupled with violent rhetoric, that is the danger.
I don't want commentators overreacting if someone says "kill." I do want commentators who will attack arguments but not the person, who will seek the truth of a matter even if it doesn't match their party's chosen viewpoint, and, most of all, who can admit when they've made a mistake and own up to it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: What bothers me is the constant reference to political opponents not as people with different opinions but as enemies of the state, traitors, anti-Americans who want to bring this country down.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."--Samuel Johnson.
Conservative commentators/politicians who beat the patriotism drum are best thought of in that light. IMHO. The same for any liberals who do the same.
It's one thing when Rush Limbaugh pulls that patriotism stuff. He has no direct power. It's another one ENTIRELY when politicians who have control over the world's most powerful military do, maybe.
I'm seriously considering responding to every beat of the patiotism drum on Hatrack with that Samuel Johnson quote.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm seriously considering responding to every beat of the patiotism drum on Hatrack with that Samuel Johnson quote.
Yeah, responding to every stimulus in exactly the same way is usually a pretty bad idea too. But don't let that stop you from the pursuit of a pithy zinger.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
No, I think he's saying that liberals are the ones with the most right, on this score, to complain. They have more to complain about. It's entirely possible Geraine. Again, and as I have told you many times already, the breakdown is not either *exactly* even, or *totally* to one side. Nobody here has even once suggested that Liberals are the only ones who can complain. You keep projecting this as the argument against your false equivalencies because you don't want to accept the subtlety of conservatives just being more off base on this issue. Not the *only* ones, just *more.* Further, you are not willing to accept that this is being pointed out for more reason than simply keeping score or finger pointing.
quote: I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
I would like you to point out where anyone in this thread has vilified a conservative while dismissing the behavior of a liberal when the behavior was similar. You wrote "posting about," doubtless to save yourself from having to defend the implication that anyone has done this, because you don't actually think anyone has. But this way you get to make the suggestion without making the commitment. Hackey.
See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to reinforce, there's two things going on here which are direly repetitive and need to end.
1. false equivalence arguments - no, both sides are not equally guilty. they never are.
2. responding to a claim that one side is more guilty, more culpable, or bears more responsibility for a negative thing by saying 'how dare you claim that one side has a monopoly/commits 100% of/is totally at fault for ...'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
I think it's a little more simple than this. We talk about false equivalencies or who is more to blame, but I don't think any of that is at the core of the problem. I think the core of the problem is truth and who possesses it.
When Ron posted earlier, his post spoke to something greater, it spoke to what he had versus what his detractors possessed, because throughout that post his true claim was a claim that he possessed the truth and others were biased or hypocrites. There isn't a person in the world who likes to be told they are wrong, who likes to know that others are privy to a truth they are too biased or un-intelligent to understand, and that I think is the true nature of conservative versus liberal. Both sides claim that they are the arbiters of truth and if the other side would just listen or stop being dumb they would "get it", they would understand that the liberal or conservative view of the world is the correct one.
And in that, lies no false equivalency--both sides are the same. While conservatives may do it better, while they may be more entertaining and thus have more followers (which is where I agree with Vadon wholeheartedly), and while they may be higher up in the Republican food chain, the equivalency lies not in the potency of the message or the level of vitriol itself but in the nature of WHY each side fights as it does.
Each side claims to have truth and the other side hates them for it, and I think this thread is the perfect example.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahah, a passionate plea for the false equivalence.
But no, in fact, the base claim is simply indefensible. Conservatives and liberals think differently. As such they do not approach each other in the same ways. You are right in demonstrating that the points of conflict can be seen as a contiguous border of mutual opposition, however, the fact that two opposing sides have a common "battlefield" of ideas, does not make them equals in the ways that they behave, nor in their motivations. While there is conflict however, that conflict is not "battle." Conflict is not limited in nature to a strict view of opposing forces on a common plain.
The problem with viewing politics as a "battlefield" is exactly that- on a battlefield victory is a zero sum condition, and everybody fights to win, and one side generally gains an objective, and the other side doesn't. A battlefield, very much *unlike* a political argument, is bereft of politics. Tactics matter, strengths and weaknesses matter, but beliefs, inner-motivations and feelings don't. Battle is destructive, but politics can be constructive, and political conflicts are carried out with the aim of leading one's opponent not to stop all action or to retreat, but to act in a way that favor's one's own agenda. And these machinations are occurring from all sides, in continuous interchange. It's not a battle. It's a process. You describe a sort of zombie warfare- where each side seeks to turn the other completely to their camp, eliminating all opposition. But in order for that to happen, these two camps would have to be in a state of total war. They simply are not in that state. That state would be characterized by people shooting at each other. It happened once.
And if you look at it as a process, then the motivations and intentions of one "opposing side" and those of the other are very important. If one is motivated to win, then one is likewise less motivated to pursue an agenda for any other more constructive reason. If one is motivated only to defeat opposition or to stall forward momentum, then one is also necessarily less willing to be led, less willing to contribute constructively, and will be therefore less able to contribute to the process.
I do believe that your view of it is a common one, and one that is easy to justify, but that doesn't make it the right one. That many conservatives and many liberals also see it this way is a certainty- many in politics see it this way. But again, that doesn't come close to making it so. Because how the situation is viewed, and how people actually act are very different- that's exactly why a political campaign is *one* thing, and the term of service is entirely another. Campaigning is about winning, but politics and government are still about progress.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the value of using Ron Lambert as a representative of either or both sides has very little traction. Both sides may possess people like ron — wholly consumed by the Dunning–Kruger effect to the extent that they can't be rationally persuaded, only mitigated. That doesn't mean that both sides are like ron, or that he can be used as an example of something both sides are.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ahah, a passionate plea for the false equivalence.
But no, in fact, the base claim is simply indefensible. Conservatives and liberals think differently. As such they do not approach each other in the same ways. You are right in demonstrating that the points of conflict can be seen as a contiguous border of mutual opposition, however, the fact that two opposing sides have a common "battlefield" of ideas, does not make them equals in the ways that they behave, nor in their motivations. While there is conflict however, that conflict is not "battle." Conflict is not limited in nature to a strict view of opposing forces on a common plain.
The problem with viewing politics as a "battlefield" is exactly that- on a battlefield victory is a zero sum condition, and everybody fights to win, and one side generally gains an objective, and the other side doesn't. A battlefield, very much *unlike* a political argument, is bereft of politics. Tactics matter, strengths and weaknesses matter, but beliefs, inner-motivations and feelings don't. Battle is destructive, but politics can be constructive, and political conflicts are carried out with the aim of leading one's opponent not to stop all action or to retreat, but to act in a way that favor's one's own agenda. And these machinations are occurring from all sides, in continuous interchange. It's not a battle. It's a process. You describe a sort of zombie warfare- where each side seeks to turn the other completely to their camp, eliminating all opposition. But in order for that to happen, these two camps would have to be in a state of total war. They simply are not in that state. That state would be characterized by people shooting at each other. It happened once.
And if you look at it as a process, then the motivations and intentions of one "opposing side" and those of the other are very important. If one is motivated to win, then one is likewise less motivated to pursue an agenda for any other more constructive reason. If one is motivated only to defeat opposition or to stall forward momentum, then one is also necessarily less willing to be led, less willing to contribute constructively, and will be therefore less able to contribute to the process.
I do believe that your view of it is a common one, and one that is easy to justify, but that doesn't make it the right one. That many conservatives and many liberals also see it this way is a certainty- many in politics see it this way. But again, that doesn't come close to making it so. Because how the situation is viewed, and how people actually act are very different- that's exactly why a political campaign is *one* thing, and the term of service is entirely another. Campaigning is about winning, but politics and government are still about progress.
Well, I don't think it is a battlefield either, and I don't think that's what I argued but if it came off that way, then I certainly should have argued it differently. My apologies if my argument came off as something I did not intend.
You are correct that Conservatives and Liberals act and think differently, but my argument is not about how each group acts or whether one side is worse than the other (you may be correct that the vitriol from the right is much more intense but some democratic congressmen think republicans are Nazis and claim as such on the house floor so it's not exactly one sided) or whether one side's motivation is different from the other (which I think is true to an extent), it's about where it all begins and what it can be traced too.
For instance, take the debate over health care. One side of the aisle claimed that their truth was correct and that nothing else would be right, they claimed that they would vote against anyone who didn't see their view, and fought for a long time with passionate speeches to have the bill look as they wanted. To me, that was the liberal debate about the public option. Of course, the other side claimed their own truth and acted differently and was motivated differently, but in the end, both sides made compromise nearly impossible and claimed that their "truth" was the best. Was conservative vitriol worse? Maybe, but that's not the point.
When your truth is the only truth, when your opponents are nazi's or socialists or aren't born in this country or racists or hypocrites or biased or whatever, then you clearly cannot compromise with them and I find it difficult to believe that you could be civil. There is then, in my opinion, an equivalence on that level.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You realize of course that what gets said on the floor of the senate is not the political process? Because, believe me please, the dems didn´t enter into that process without having had a decades long debate about what an HC system might look like. And a lot of that debate was not over what everyone believed would be the perfect system, but over what could concievably be successfully passed in congress. The public option is not, was not and has never been seen as the perfect solution by the dems. A single payer system has ita advocates, but with the long understanding that such a bill would likely fail, at least in the court of public opinion. That´s politics. The compromises happened a long time before the bill got to the floor, and they kept on happening. Your perception of the process is not complete in that regard. You need to understand that the reason the bill eventually did pass, and the reason that the key provisions will not now be repealed, is that most of the senate was at least dimly aware that they were actually vitally necessary reforms. The ´pledge to America´ makes that quite clear in actual fact. Both parties actually *always* agreed on a number of key provisions. Making a public fight over it was one thing, but the process was still another.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I think the value of using Ron Lambert as a representative of either or both sides has very little traction. Both sides may possess people like ron — wholly consumed by the Dunning–Kruger effect to the extent that they can't be rationally persuaded, only mitigated. That doesn't mean that both sides are like ron, or that he can be used as an example of something both sides are.
This is a bit too far in the direction of calling another poster "too stupid to realize they are stupid." Please try to stick to the point that Ron's views are not representative of a group at large, by demonstrating where his views diverge, or through some other means.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it though. This goes beyond any individual view; Ron's methodology and method of interpreting and interacting with issues in a debate like this are what leave him unrepresentative of either side. You can't use him as a good example. People rely on the same sort of false representation when they pick out an egregious character who represents themselves as part of a movement and try to use him as a cardinal example of how the movement, at its core, operates. And it can be completely detached from the way that movement, by and large, operates.
The dunning-kruger effect — something which Ron is manifestly an excellent and strong example of — is also not 'too stupid to realize they are stupid,' it's more like 'too irrational to self-identify when they are wrong, so they have an image of themselves free of doubt in how right they are.' I have no reservations saying that this is true of Ron, to the extent of making him an obvious outlier, which is why he can't really be used as a pertinent example of how 'both sides are.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, you only reveal the completely egregious falsity of the strawman you have built of me. So now you call me stupid and lazy. Are you kidding? Can you really deceive yourself so greatly as to believe that?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In practically the same breath as talking about strawmen, you say I'm calling you stupid and lazy. Let's work hard to help you understand that if I'm calling you anything, it's greatly irrational.
And calling you irrational is pretty much the biggest gimme in the history of anyone in this forum.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Cue a complaint about, "But liberals..."
I have an issue with this. I may be misunderstanding you, but you are you trying to say liberals are the only ones that can complain?
No, I think he's saying that liberals are the ones with the most right, on this score, to complain. They have more to complain about. It's entirely possible Geraine. Again, and as I have told you many times already, the breakdown is not either *exactly* even, or *totally* to one side. Nobody here has even once suggested that Liberals are the only ones who can complain. You keep projecting this as the argument against your false equivalencies because you don't want to accept the subtlety of conservatives just being more off base on this issue. Not the *only* ones, just *more.* Further, you are not willing to accept that this is being pointed out for more reason than simply keeping score or finger pointing.
Ok Orincoro, I'm confused. You've stated that Conservatives have been guilty of more violent rhetoric, then complain that I seem to be keeping score. Does the amount or extent of violent rhetoric matter or not? If it does, then I would agree with you that Conservatives are guilty of more. If the amount does not matter however, then I ask again where your condemnation of liberal commentators is?
You can't have it both ways. You complain that I am keeping score, yet you say "Well conservatives are probably more guilty." Which one is it?
Vadon, I would probably agree with you. I never really listen to liberal commentators, though there have been a few that I don't mind. Alan Combs was fairly enjoyable to listen to. A few years ago I enjoyed Hannity, but can't stand him anymore. He just repeats the same thing over and over. Limbaugh is too full of himself. Savage is just a moron that thinks he is God's gift to mankind. Beck's TV show is good for the episodes in which he talks about history.
I have started to listen more to local talk radio than the big guys. Most of the time it is local talk, though at times they bring up state or national issues.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ok Orincoro, I'm confused. You've stated that Conservatives have been guilty of more violent rhetoric, then complain that I seem to be keeping score
No, I did not complain that you seem to be keeping score. I complained that you seemed to think this was a game involving winners and losers. Not the same thing. Keeping score is important. Understanding the nature of the outcomes is also important. Not the same thing.
quote: Does the amount or extent of violent rhetoric matter or not? If it does, then I would agree with you that Conservatives are guilty of more. If the amount does not matter however, then I ask again where your condemnation of liberal commentators is?
The amount certainly matters. Please point out to me where I ever gave you the impression that the amount doesn't matter. I very clearly in the post you quoted talk about how it matters very much. I have absolutely no recollection of ever once saying it didn't matter which side was doing it more. I think it does matter. I suspect you are thinking of someone else's words, because that has never been a part of my argument. That is not what I believe. I cannot, cannot, cannot be more clear on this.
quote: You complain that I am keeping score, yet you say "Well conservatives are probably more guilty." Which one is it?
Ok, this is going to be a continuous issue for you I can see. First of all, it is true that "keeping score" in the sense of a game or another win/lose conflict is not productive. That is why I wrote so much about why politics is not like war, it's a process. There will be no winners, and thus the "score" is very much a subjective thing to begin with.
However, this does on no account excuse the fact that one party misbehaves exceedingly more than the other in the regard which we have been discussing. So, as clear as I have tried to be, yet again, I will try to make it even more crystal clear for you: Nobody here has ever, ever claimed that either side is 100% guilty of anything or to blame for everything. However, the claim that both sides of this particular coin are therefore 100% complicit, and 100% equal in sharing the responsibility and the blame for the current political environment is *ridiculous*. The fact that the democrats are complicit in a democratic system which has been bogged down and sullied by the rhetoric of the right does not make that sullying their fault, nor their responsibility. It remains their mission to fix it, but they did not cause this to happen in their intentions, nor their actions. The Republicans really pretty much did. Not all of it, just most of it. Not too complicated really. But like an environmental disaster caused by somebody else- it's now everybody's problem and responsibility to fix. And while I would delve into the fact that I very much wish liberals had been more effective at putting a stop to this a *very* long time ago- I do not believe that makes them responsible for other people's bad behavior. Liberals and liberal policies have been very much unfair victims to the rhetoric of the right. I don't believe blaming the victim of such unfair treatment is appropriate in this case.
Regarding you. You didn't answer my challenge. I can't see myself arguing with you anymore unless you're willing to do that, and not wait another 4 days until you hope I've forgotten you ever made the ridiculous claim in the first place.
Here she is:
quote:
quote: quote: I'm trying to figure out if those posting about conservatives while justifying liberal commentators are just ignorant or hypocritical.
I would like you to point out where anyone in this thread has vilified a conservative while dismissing the behavior of a liberal when the behavior was similar. You wrote "posting about," doubtless to save yourself from having to defend the implication that anyone has done this, because you don't actually think anyone has. But this way you get to make the suggestion without making the commitment. Hackey.
See, people notice when you write defensively, leading with implications and skipping out on actual points of substance. And it causes them not to have much respect for you or your opinion.
quote:
You never answered, and I think the reason is that you know it never happened.
posted
You know, I've never known a bank robber to get out of jail on account of somebody else robbed more banks than he did.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, does your new found respect for civility mean you are going to apologize for all of the Bush comments? If McCain had won, and take a moment to honestly answer this, would you still be wanting this civility?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight- I think some of it depends on how it is used. I am not opposed to criticizing the opponent. I am opposed to saying kill those who disagree- even with a jk next it. Under Bush, I disagreed when Bush was booed while throwing out the first pitch at the world serious and I did defend McCain over using racist terms for those who tortured him. So, based on my past experiences, i think if McCain had won, i would still be wanting civility.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scholarette, I haven't known you to engage in anywhere near the same level of political rhetoric that Orincoro has.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Orincoro, does your new found respect for civility mean you are going to apologize for all of the Bush comments? If McCain had won, and take a moment to honestly answer this, would you still be wanting this civility?
ooooohkay... One, where do you see me talking a whole lot about my respect for civility? When do you even see me advocating civility? I advocate *against* ridiculousness generally, but I pretty much keep my mouth shut when it comes to people being civil, because I'm not always that civil myself. So, who are you talking to? What newfound respect for civility do you think I've claimed? I realize it would be a wonderful blow to me if I had actually spouted long and loud about civility and its wonderful qualities- because that would make me look like a hypocrite. But you're just too lazy to actually account for my points, rather than the points you imagine for me in your own head- so I'm sure you feel you've scored some real points, calling me on my hypocrisy for saying things I haven't said. It's a good strategy, but I'll have to call you on your ridiculousness, as usual.
Two: "All the Bush comments?" From whom? Me? I wasn't extremely vocal about Bush- nor am I extremely vocal about Obama- nor have I ever been extremely vocal about McCain. Palin, now, everything I've said has been true, and none of it has been unfair in my estimation- I have been vocal on the fact that I think she's an idiot and an embarrassment.
Now, if you're asking me if I'm going to apologize for "all the Bush comments," made by Liberals? No. Mainly because a lot of them have merit, and do not require apologies- just as many comments about Obama have merit. But also because I am not personally responsible for what other people say- especially when I spend my time arguing against ridiculousness, as I frequently do with Liberals, much more in fact than with Conservatives. I would say that while I am not personally responsible, as in, me, myself, as a person with a brain, being culpable for someone else's words, I feel responsible to people of similar ideals and opinions to help them express themselves effectively and righteously, and to disuade them of their attachments to various pieces of nonsense. I am not apologetic when others on my political side of the fence screw up- but that is mainly because I spend a lot of my time talking reason. If you did the same, the world might be a better place.
quote: scholarette, I haven't known you to engage in anywhere near the same level of political rhetoric that Orincoro has.
Rhetoric is not bad, and Rhetoric is not good. You can persist in your small minded reductionism, or you can absorb that bit of wisdom right now. The kind of rhetoric, the aim, the motivation, the content- that all matters very much. But rhetoric is not valued in and of itself. It always exists. It is a function of language. So understand if you can, that when I say: "the rhetoric of the Right," I am talking about that rhetoric which I believe is generated with poor intentions, poor aims, a lack of wit or skill, and a disregard for truth. Were the rhetoric of the right something more positive- likely I would refer to it as such. I believe those terms characterize most of the current rhetoric of conservatives. 'Twas not always this way. It's just this way now. While rhetoric maintains a vaguely pejorative connotation, actually *using* rhetoric, actually being "rhetorical" is not in itself a failing. It's just that we refer most often to that "rhetoric" which is plainly obvious and therefore leaden and often destructive to communication.
You need to understand this point- and I think you need to demonstrate that you do understand it, or else we're not talking about *anything* except what you don't understand.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't really rush to the defense of Bush, since I voted against him in 2000. I changed my mind about him later, and it appears to me that democrats and other liberals held on to their mistaken views of him.
Orincoro, you do make some good points about "rhetoric." Some people are trying to make the term itself pejorative. I tried to be a little clearer when I spoke about "metaphors" being a natural part of our language that makes it more robust. But it was the same idea. Whenever some issue like this comes up in the wake of some tragedy, I always feel an instinctive wariness for the over-reaction of "PC" type demagogues trying to take away something from all of us.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
