View Single Post
Old 07-11-2005, 09:28 AM   #139 (permalink)
roachboy
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
alansmithee:
here is your post from a couple days ago:

Quote:
You are blaming the west for having a desirable lifestyle. Their gov'ts better enable people to achieve a comfortable lifestyle than the generally more autocratic governments in the Middle East, yet somehow it's the fault of western nations that they are resented. Those oil-rich countries in the area could be using their wealth to improve the living conditions of the citizens, but instead they line the pockets of a few high placed individuals. Yet I'm supposed to be to blame for their poor life because I bought some CD's yesterday and ate out?

I personally find it somehow offensive how these horrendous attacks are being hijacked by some as a way to promote their hatred of western society, by making that society somehow to blame for these acts of terrorism. I just hope that if these people are ever the victims of a tragedy, they will face the same blame as the cause of their own misfortune.
i dont know, maybe you write in some code that i cant decipher--but all the appearances that your actual writing gives would lead me to think that you do, in fact, assume that the motive for "terrorism" is jealousy over lifestyle.

when i responded with what i assumed was obvious irony (maybe not--my apologies if i was obscure) that you were making a ridiculous seperation between "lifestyle" and what that "lifestyle" requires for support, you simply reiterated your argument that things were as you said they were.

the only way i would know whether you in fact think this way would be if we were to be able to sit around having a few beers in 3-d life and talk.
which would be fine...i hope that i do not give the impression that i would treat you as a human being the way i treat the arguments you make here.
we are on a messageboard...what is written is what i react to.

as for my inability to take your arguments seriously: well, i dont.
this has nothing to do with "hatred" or any of the other cliches that you might toss about to rationalize the fact that people simply do not agree with you. if anything, i assume that you--and most of the folk with whom i argue here who position themselves on the right--are more intelligent and flexible in your thinking than the arguments you run out let you appear to be.

i have assumptions about politics and its relation to trying to understand why the world in which we live is as it is--so do you. we disagree--and fundamentally disagree--about what constitutes basic data. what you tend to rule out seems to me important more often than not.

this is important because i do not think that politics is a simple question of opinion--i do not think that all positions are equivalent because folk happen to believe them.
this is not a question of religious committment--on those grounds, you would be right in your assumptions that there is a requirement that one simply allow others to believe as they like simply because they do so.

but if you conflate the two registers, debate is pointless. and maybe it is.
but if this is an index of how the political climate in the states is moving--then, brother, we are all fucked.
and whether we do or do not pay attention to exhortations to pull together as a team will make no difference whatsoever.

i do not see debate like arm wrestling--i am not interested in the illusion of winnning or losing arguments, really. what i am interested in is trying to argue that there is a wealth of material--of data--information--available that enables you to see the question of "terrorism" in different ways---what i am interested in, on this score, is trying to force a different set of assumptions about what is and is not relevant into the conversation. in the end, it may well be that you see this as an attempt to win some match with you--and while i do think that your politics would collapse if you looked at things differently, whether you as a name that tracks across the green box that is any given post agree or do not is not really that big a deal to me.

and no, alansmithee, i have not figured everything out. and i am not a particularly "ivory tower" sort--if i was, what would i be doing here? if what you say was true, why would i talk with you? what would be the point? i would simply assume that you and everyone else here was probably an idiot and go do something else. and so i find your argument on this count to not only be wrong but personally offensive. because, at bottom, you do not know me and so do not know what you are talking about.

i do see conservative ideology as dangerous. dangerous for anything approaching a democratic polity, dangerous as a logic for thinking about the world, dangerous as a politics for thinking about domestic issues.

if you want to have an actual debate about the types of assumptions that shapes how you or i might view the question of terrorism, then let's do it: all assumptions on the table..let's go. i would enjoy it coming from someone on the right for once--but i doubt you'll take me up on it. in the end, you find yourself backed into an uncomfortable place and you cop out by trying to present yourself as some kind of victim. your choice: just dont expect that it will have much in the way of positive impact on how seriously i take you. which does not, i suppose matter much.

there are perfectly legitimate reasons for anyone to not accept conservative ideology. this whole discourse within rightwingland that characterizes anyone who disagrees with you as motivated by hatred is a declaration of intellectual vanity that far outstrips anything you impute to me. yours is the position that works from the assumption that your arguments are above reproach. if you did not assume was much, why would the only recourse you have to explain differences of views is the empty dicourse of "hatred"? there are no rational grounds for not agreeing with conservative ideology: all dissent is equally irrational. how much more vain could you possibly be? seriously...i dont see how you could go any further in that direction. but in this case, the problem is not yours--it is the ideolgical structure you adhere to--these arguments circulate endlessly in conservative media orf all types. but it is vanity, alansmithee.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360