quote:The incessant "Bush Lied" chant was, I repeat, a lie. Those who forget history . . . Forbes magazine ran an informal contest among its readers to find one promise that Bill Clinton had not broken. I recall someone finally came up with one. No one has / can do that with Bush. I do disagree with many of his actions, perhaps most, but the man is not a liar. If you need proof of that, you aren't paying attention.
*snort*
You mean that no one could come up with a campaign promise that Bush hasn't broken? Well that doesn't surprise me at all. The man who campaigned as a uniter who would work with Democrats, that Iraq was always one step away from victory, that we'd not be the world's policeman, that we wouldn't get involved in national building, etc etc was wrong about all of those things.
I guess it was easy to say he'd work with Democrats with they were in the minority, but since they have become the majority a year ago he has flatly refused to even negotiate with them, taking a "my way or the highway" stance to working with them. It's worked, for him, but it's CERTAINLY not what he promised.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views, but come on, it doesn't look like you're really giving the other side a fair shake if you really think what you said in that quote is perfectly fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of one example. According to a book I read, I can't think of the title right now, but it was by a fellow who was half white half Chinese. He talked about being an evangelical Christian and writing speeches for various people. He was put in charge of the faith based iniatives. According to him, Bush didn't give any of the funding that he promised he'd give. And this fellow liked Bush a lot too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, your last paragraph is incoherent. You find the term "leftaliban" amusing, then you say our angry reaction against being pigeonholed rhetorically with ultra-repressive terrorists somehow validates it's use. You conclude by rambling on about the importance of rhetoric, failing to notice your and Card's usage of extremist rhetoric as non-productive and ill-advised.
Let's all call Republicans Republithugs instead. Does that anger you? Well, that just validates it, doesn't it? Yeah, that's logical.
Card and you can both do better.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a total idiot. Why do I come back here? Mascochism, no doubt in my mind.
The Syn example is actually excellent, I now recall that and do think there was a failure on Bush's part to live up to his promises. I don't agree with the government funding faith based initiatives, but he did lead people to believe it would happen. He has done some of that but not as much as you'd think. Google Faith based initiatives 2007 current status, there are a bunch of sites where you can apply for grants.
We conservatives/libertarians also feel shafted by him, although it is our own fault. But I don't see him as a liar generally. I do see him as generally principled and even extremely stubborn. That is a strength. (I think OSC says something about that currently.) He thought he could work with the Democrat party in Washington, D.C. because he was very successful at it in Austin. New game, I think he tried and couldn't do it.
Morbo's comment interested me, I must confess. I read it and paused to note my reaction. I was truly not angry at all. Such name calling doesn't anger me. (Morbo, you aren't paying attention, Tom already tried that and it didn't work then. Why did you think it would work now? Foolish to try something that already failed.)
Republithugs: There is some justification for the thuggery angle; the Alaska bridge to nowhere was thuggery and shameful. Jerry Lewis the congressman has been something of a thug. He is the Republican version of Robert Byrd. I can benefit from the name calling by reflecting on whether there is a grain of truth to Morbo's statement. I am not even angry with being called incoherent. I am sure I am some times. I don't feel incoherent but - oh, look, a bird . . .
I do think that Morbo should read Epictetus. S/he sounds a bit reactive and therefore thoughtless.
By the way, have any of you parsed Horowitz's thinking about the functional alliance between Islamofascism and the far left? His site is www.frontpagemagazine.com and if you poke around in the archives you'll see his take on that. C.f.:
Now bear in mind that Horowitz writes in a style that most of the right finds uncomfortable. Maybe except for the lovely Ann Coulter. He is rather aggressive in his language. I was nurtured by Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley types of writing, genteel and mannerly. But if you make some allowance -- the poor guy was raised by a communist mom and dad and wrote for Ramparts -- what he is saying has some value. Look at the interview. Also bear in mind that he and Todd Gitlin were close.
I really need to stop hanging out with you people.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I liked the term and found it amusing. The angry reaction seems to me to validate it.....Language is rehearsal. I see the same happening here.
I've stayed out of the discussion mostly, but I'd like to ask what is meant here. You relate that rhetoric (or propaganda) leads to action. My question is what you mean by it happening "here". Do you mean on hatrack? Do you mean that the left's harsh rhetoric will lead to some action on par with Hitler and Mao?
I took it to mean that, if language is rehearsal, then allowing terms like "leftaliban" to be used (a good example of rhetoric) is a bad thing, because it might lead to "action" against the left.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
A'right, if one wants to state "Bush Lied", one apparently needs to be very specific. Because certain parties, hearing such a claim, become peculiarly demanding of a kind of absolute, verifiable, pin-point accuracy... That they've never thought to demand of, say, the Commander-in-Chief.
It is much easier, if harder to chant, to claim that "The Bush Administration Lied". One of the most grotesque things about the last several years is observing that we live under an executive branch that seems to have been designed from the top down to efficiently delegate blame.
One can with some ease link blatant mistruths to Cheney (collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, definitively denied by the report of the 9/11 commission), Wolfowitz ("We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon"), Gonzales ("I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons"), Chertoff (No one could have anticipated Katrina causing a breach of the levvies), Rumsfeld ("I don’t know anybody who had any reasonable expectations about the number or the length of the war or the cost of the war...", "never said [the Iraqis would greet us with open arms]"...) and so on.
And with gentlemen like Tony Snow and Ari Fleischer doing most of the talking to the press, there's an additional level of plausible deniability that Bush has intentionally stated mistruths.
One could, if one felt charitable, make the case that Bush has not lied, but merely made fundamental, world-changing, earth-shattering decisions based on information that proved to be incomplete, false, or incorrect.
Though with the tiniest amount of perspective, one might temper that argument with recognition that Bush also went into several such decisions with large presuppositions and little interest in obtaining information that might cast doubt on those suppositions.
I'm uncertain as to why anyone would be comforted at the notion that our leadership is only ignorant, arrogant, and pathologically unwilling to accept responsibility- but not duplicitous at the highest level. But one could make such a claim.
I suppose it might be considered petty to point out Bush's claim on ABC's "This Week" that "Stay the Course" had never been part of the Iraq policy when he had been quoted saying such on six seperate occasions.
Or that warrantless wiretapping was justified "to move quickly to detect" terrorists, when FISA allows such a warrant to be obtained three days after the wiretap is initiated.
Or a claim that 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan were the cause of deficit spending at a time when his tax cuts were responsible for three times as much of the budget shortfall.
Perhaps he's only ignorant of the law, the numbers, and... What he's said in the past.
At a certain point, though, a claim that it's a matter of perspective perhaps deserves a less than credulous response?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, you may call me whatever name you wish and I am not offended.
I think you missed the point. If that particular insult wouldn't offend you, insert a name that would offend you. What about "abortionist?" Or "whore?" Or "liberal?" Now think: is it true? I submit -- and I suspect you'll agree, if you think about it for a second -- that the degree to which someone is irritated by an insult is not necessarily proportional to its accuracy.
Let me clarify: my intent was not to anger you. My intent was to point out that, were I to anger you, it would not necessarily mean that I had insulted you accurately.
quote:Language is rehearsal.
And yet you see nothing wrong with calling someone a member of the "Leftaliban?" Keeping in mind that we have declared war on the Taliban and carpet-bombed them back to the Stone Age?
If language is indeed a rehearsal, what lesson can be taken from the use of a term that likens one's ideological opponents to a literally mortal enemy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Tom, of course I missed the point. Why should I be angry at any name calling? If one is angry with a name - true or false - one is foolish.
If I did react with anger, that is simply a reflection of my own immaturity. It says little about you, the name caller, and a good deal about me.
But more generally, I completely disagree with you. The accuracy of a painful name is what makes it hurt. If you hit close to home, I am more likely hurt than if you hit wide of the mark. Your premise is quite flawed. Folk wisdom: the stuck pig squeals.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh...the reason "leftaliban" offends us so much is because it hits so close to home. If it weren't true, we'd just laugh it off. ok.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, I think there are serious flaws with your premises and assumptions here -- like, for example, the belief that insults are evidence of a flaw in the person insulted -- that may indeed make it very difficult for you to understand the perspective of many of the people posting in this thread. Please grant before moving on that many people are in fact angered by baseless insults.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A monk enters a tea room and states: “My master taught me to spread the word that mankind will never be fulfilled until the man who has not been wronged is as indignant about a wrong as the man who actually has been wronged.”
The assembly is momentarily impressed.
Then Nasrudin speaks: “My master taught me that nobody at all should become indignant about anything until he is sure that what he think is a wrong is in fact a wrong-and not a blessing in disguise!”
Wisdom both ancient and modern speak to the futility of being angry about insults. The fact that people are angered is not the result of the insult but their own method of thinking. Haven't you read Martin Luther King's Letter from the Birmingham Jail where he explains the self-purification needed before one can demonstrate for civil rights?
Launchywiggen has it right. Whether you agree, that is my position, although as I have said already, nearly every insult contains a pearl of wisdom. Have you not studied Tibetan Buddhism? You earlier showed a sophisticated understanding of Buddhism. How can you not now apply it? My enemy is always my best friend. Since the purpose of life is to perfect my character and thus avoid coming around on the Wheel again, only my enemy will point out my flaws. I must be thankful for such an enemy, since my friends are too willing to ignore my flaws.
As far as being indignant about false accusations, what a foolish thing to do! One may as well be indignant about a dog who barks as one passes his kennel.
That is my opinion, and if you don't like it, I have others.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Joseph Smith’s Method of Dealing with Personal Injury (By Jesse Crosby)
I went one day to the Prophet with a sister. She had a charge to make against one of the brethren for scandal. When her complaint had been heard the Prophet asked her if she was sure that what the brother had said of her was utterly untrue. She was quite sure it was. He then told her to think no more about it, for it could not harm her. If untrue, it could not live, but the truth will survive. Still, she felt that she should have some redress. Then he offered her his method of dealing with such cases for himself. When an enemy had told a scandalous story about him which had often been done, before he rendered judgment he paused and let his mind run back to the time and place and setting of the story to see if he had not by some unguarded word or act laid the block on which the story was built. If he found that he had done so, he said that in his heart he then forgave his enemy, and felt thankful that he had received warning of a weakness that he had not known he possessed. Then he said to the sister that he would have her to do the same; search her memory thoroughly and see if she had not herself unconsciously laid the foundation for the scandal that annoyed her. The sister thought deeply for a few moments and then confessed that she had. Then the Prophet told her that in her heart she could forgive that brother who had risked his own good name and her friendship to give her a clearer view of herself. The sister thanked her advisor and went away in peace.
(“Stories from the Notebook of Martha Cox, Grandmother of Fern Cox Anderson.” Church Archives; Lee C. LaFayette, “Recollections of Joseph Smith,” Church archives as cited by Helen Mae and Hyrum Andrus, They Knew the Prophet.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, would you be offended if Joseph Smith came back from the dead to tell you that you were a terrible Mormon and an embarrassment to Christianity? I have a hard time believing that there is absolutely nothing that someone could say to offend you.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wisdom both ancient and modern speak to the futility of being angry about insults.
Sure. And if your point were merely "people shouldn't be so easily insulted," I'd have no problem with it. But your point was actually based on the following three assertions:
1) Liberals are more easily insulted than conservatives. 2) That liberals are easily insulted is a sign of a personality flaw endemic to that group. 3) When someone is insulted by a statement, it dependably means that statement is at least somewhat accurate.
I disagree with all three of these assertions.
quote:As far as being indignant about false accusations, what a foolish thing to do!
What if the false accusations are being made about you specifically to further marginalize you among people who are already predisposed to believe them, despite their falsehood? Why is indignation at shamelessness inherently foolish?
The idea that someone cannot be harmed by a falsehood spread about them is demonstrably wrong; Smith, if he indeed had that conversation and made that claim, was clearly incorrect. Moreover, it's clear from his own personal actions that he didn't reliably take his own advice to that sister.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
lynn, The examples you gave actually speak against what you were originally arguing (that people don't get angry about insults unless there is truth to them). You presented examples of people getting angry about baseless insults. Now, it seems to me your point was that people shouldn't get angry in these cases, which is fine, but showing examples where they did pretty much invalidates what you initially claimed and seemed to be trying to defend.
---
Also, you used the term projection incorrectly before. In order for a situation to be projection, there would have to be strong underlying congitive dissonance/trauma about the quality in the people doing the projection. That doesn't seem to be present in what you were talking about.
posted
There is IMO some truth to the Taliban-Left notion. The far left is shrill and reactive, so it contains a grain of truth.
Tom misstates what I said. I have said: "The problem seems to be that by your own rhetoric you prove Card's point. The responses are so emotional and overwroght that it is hard to make an intelligent comment."
I then tried to expand that point:
"The Taliban seemed to violently oppose any ideas they didn't like, and the emotionality of the responses makes me very uncomfortable. I don't trust such levels of invictive. "
"So perhaps you could view this term as a blessing in disguise. If thoughtful people are using that term, perhaps it is an early warning about a moral bankruptcy setting in. Rather than attacking the messenger, could you look thoughtfully at the message.
"How did the Taliban become as they did? Didn't it start with intolerant talk? After all, the Buddha said, "thoughts become feelings, feelings become acts, acts become character. Take care of your thoughts." Or words to that effect."
What that means is that PERHAPS you are on the road to the Taliban type of behavior. In my opinion, those reacting angrily to Leftaliban certainly are. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. I particularly used the Corrie Ten Boom example because the language of the 1920s became the actions of the 1940s.
Tom, those on this thread have over-reacted. The possibilities are two: You are guilty of the kind of totalizing language the Taliban started with, or perhaps you simply are too reactive. I don't know which it means in your case, but it is likely one of the two.
Actually, I thought of an exception you should have used. Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That would have been a better counter to my argument and the Joseph Smith quote. (Hum. Why didn't anyone tackle the Nasrudin story?)
Mr. Sq: Projection? No, I used it correctly. Projection means we put onto (project onto) an ambiguous situation our own meaning. I certainly doesn't require cognitive dissonance or trauma. People who watch a lot of TV project more danger into situations than those who don't.
But I am puzzled. I originally said that I thought there is some truth to the term based on the kind of emotional reaction evident, and that the left would benefit from reflecting on what degree of truth might be found therein. I don't want to "should" on you (that people shouldn't get angry), I simply responded that I don't see any real value in reacting with anger. I didn't say _you_ shouldn't get angry, I am saying that spiritually advanced leaders from many traditions tell us it is better to look for the truth in the accusation. The baseless insults sub-thread came because of Tom's "what if" scenario. I was responding to that, saying that I am not insulted.
Threads: No, of course I wouldn't be offended. I would be heart-broken. What if Buddha said I was an embarassment to Buddhists? I would be shocked and frightened. When such things have actually happened (well, living people I respect, not the Buddha or Joseph Smith or Nasrudin), I have felt a flush of anger, behind that is sadness and fear that they are right. It creates soul-searching. Would you not do the same?
Morbo: Here's the link to Epictetus. I like the Enchiridion, so I linked it. http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html I actually enjoy psychobabble and think I will continue it, but thanks for your advice.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lynn, I'm trying to remember when I ever clicked on a link thrust upon me by a smug and patronizing debater, and I'm coming up empty. So I'll pass on the Epictetus, thanks.
Since you seem to be struggling to support your thesis, you might try this book.Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is IMO some truth to the Taliban-Left notion. The far left is shrill and reactive, so it contains a grain of truth.
So everyone who is shrill and reactive is like the Taliban? That actually seems rather shrill and reactive to me.
quote:What that means is that PERHAPS you are on the road to the Taliban type of behavior. In my opinion, those reacting angrily to Leftaliban certainly are.
I'm having trouble understanding this. Do you not comprehend why I, for one, am angered by the term "Leftaliban?" And do you really think that, by being angered by the term, I am on the road to "Taliban-like" behavior -- keeping in mind that we slaughtered thousands of people to punish them for Taliban-like behavior, which included mass murder, rapine, and conspiracy?
quote:The possibilities are two: You are guilty of the kind of totalizing language the Taliban started with, or perhaps you simply are too reactive.
Not only is this a false dualism -- there are considerably more than two possibilities here, even if we grant that the people on this thread are indeed over-reacting, which is by no means a given -- but I fail to see why either of these two unlikely possibilities would constitute a justification of the term. After all, isn't the very term "Leftaliban" exactly an example of the "totalizing language" that you're saying it's justifiably used to condemn?
quote:Why didn't anyone tackle the Nasrudin story?
Honestly? Because it's completely irrelevant. That some random dude thought people shouldn't get upset when they're insulted does not mean that they don't, and that's the only observation relevant to this discussion. I "tackled" the Smith story only because it's obvious from his own history that Smith himself didn't always practice what the story says he preached.
quote:I am saying that spiritually advanced leaders from many traditions tell us it is better to look for the truth in the accusation.
Yes. This is why spiritually-advanced leaders are pretty much useless in the real world, where accusations have power regardless of their truth.
----------
Seriously, if you pretend to care about "over-reaction," if you are worried about "totalizing language," I am left profoundly confused by what appears to be a case of nearly total cognitive dissonance on your part here in your attempt to defend the use of "Leftaliban." I can't understand why you don't see it as a classic example of exactly what you're complaining about.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Projection? No, I used it correctly. Projection means we put onto (project onto) an ambiguous situation our own meaning. I certainly doesn't require cognitive dissonance or trauma. People who watch a lot of TV project more danger into situations than those who don't.
No, you didn't. In psychology, projection has a distinct meaning, which does not fit with how you are using it. Projection means putting one's own unacceptible thought and motives onto others. If you are using a different definition, it's dishonest to try to invoke this one. If you don't actually know the correct definiton, you shouldn't be trying to invoke it at all.
edit: If you are trying to describe a situation where people, by default, view others as having the same traits and motivations that they have, then the term you are looking for is probably egocentric perceptual bias.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read about halfway down the first page and I feel like interjecting my humble opinion:
Orson, with the word "Leftaliban" is saying in a nutshell fanaticism is bad. Just like Voltaire, he is saying that extreme support of a group (along with dogmaticism ect) is bad. He also also not calling everyone on the left side of the spectrum bad, he is just harshly criticizing the extreme left, and in my opinion then deserve every shred of it.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
My own opinion on atheists is that they experience a crisis of conscience around 13 when they experience puberty and impure sexual impulses, and reject their intuitive connection with God so as to resolve their guilt. I did some surveys on a list once and most of the atheists did "realize" (scare quotes used intentionally) they were atheists around puberty.
That is a silly idea too, but one I am quite fond of. So when I point out your idea is silly, I am also saying we are siblings.
To be fair, I believe the difference between me (if not most athiests) and religious people is that I do not presume to be a reliable source of information on the subject. The thing is, no matter my experiences, I am aware of the fallability of my perceptions. I can't believe in God. It's not possible for me. If I had an experience that made me "see God" I would also be aware that my mind is capable of generating any experience I could possibly have. People have delusions all the time, and as long as I am aware of that fact, I am aware that I can't be trusted either way. People who claim to have spiritual experiences are delusional... I'm not saying they're malicious. Personally, I would always want to be aware enough of the reality of my life to realize that what I see is not the end all.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lynn johnson: I am a total idiot. Why do I come back here? Mascochism, no doubt in my mind.
I'm sorry I may be late to the party on pointing this out, but I will anyway.
This forum is very much a revolving door. I don't think people expect you to stay or go in a certain conversation, and I doubt people particularly mind you doing either. I've found personally that trying to edge my way out by proclaiming a lack of interest in the forum (or whatever it is you're trying to show) is just kind of tiresome and useless. On the one hand, thanks for posting... on the other hand, don't do me any favors.
Edit: And I'm in total agreement with Tom. Cognitive Dissonance is painful. Stop it!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He also also not calling everyone on the left side of the spectrum bad, he is just harshly criticizing the extreme left, and in my opinion then deserve every shred of it.
Out of interest, how do you tell the "extreme Left" from the "Left?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So being a jerk makes you akin to the taliban.
I never knew such an indiscriminate line existed between violent, repressive, fundamentalist, militant, totalitarian terrorist backwater warlordism, and being a kind of a jerk about politics.
posted
Hatrack makes me laugh. I read like the first page and then today I read the last page. Thank you Tom, Morbo, and Sam for making me laugh. (With those last three posts)
This is why I love this place.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, that's logical. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
