Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 07-20-2005, 12:53 PM

there really is nothing in what i said that should have lead you to this conclusion bear.
not even a hostile reading of it--what seperates your interpretation from a hostile reading is the term reading, which would imply that you have to respect to a certain extent the words that actually turn up in the text that you respond to.
i dont think this is an unreasonable expectation, that in a debate the arguments try to stick to the words actually written, as opposed to what you, apparently, would prefer to see.

this nomination/confirmation process involves pressure group artillery from all sides--roberts is an interesting nomination from the tactical viewpoint in that he is at once quite far to the right (from what one can tell given information out there so far) and difficult to oppose on credentials grounds--so the fight is going to be played out across robert's obviously very conservative politics.

given the level of pressure already being brought to bear on this confirmation process, it is not unreasonable to wonder about how various tactics will develop and be deployed to structure opinion on the nominee and the process. my response to ncb's post earlier simply reacted to the kind of trivializing bite he took from fox news as an early example of what i expect to follow in spades from right media. that's it, the only point i was really making.

as for the question of right media or the conservative media apparatus in general--i really do not care if you are bothered by the characterization of it as a single, tightly controlled field of positions. that such a media system exists, that it is tightly co-ordinated and very very well financed, that it is engaged with the conservative think tanks circuit and that it has acquired very considerable cultural power in the states is empirically evident. that a central characteristic of this media apparatus beyond tight co-ordination of political line is the systematic blurring of information and political argument is also obvious. that the right for years has defended what is innovative and dangerous about their repackaging of information as a reactive move is only interesting in that it is an aspect of the general conservative reliance on projection to legitimate their actions. this too is empirically evident--so i really do not care in the least whether you like the terminology or not--and since you offer nothing whatsoever of any substance that would justify having a debate on the question, i consider the matter ended here.

if you want, get some actual information, make some arguments about that information, and start another thread and maybe there could be a debate about this. but i am not wasting any more of my time with you here.

07-20-2005, 12:53 PM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there really is nothing in what i said that should have lead you to this conclusion bear. not even a hostile reading of it--what seperates your interpretation from a hostile reading is the term reading, which would imply that you have to respect to a certain extent the words that actually turn up in the text that you respond to. i dont think this is an unreasonable expectation, that in a debate the arguments try to stick to the words actually written, as opposed to what you, apparently, would prefer to see. this nomination/confirmation process involves pressure group artillery from all sides--roberts is an interesting nomination from the tactical viewpoint in that he is at once quite far to the right (from what one can tell given information out there so far) and difficult to oppose on credentials grounds--so the fight is going to be played out across robert's obviously very conservative politics. given the level of pressure already being brought to bear on this confirmation process, it is not unreasonable to wonder about how various tactics will develop and be deployed to structure opinion on the nominee and the process. my response to ncb's post earlier simply reacted to the kind of trivializing bite he took from fox news as an early example of what i expect to follow in spades from right media. that's it, the only point i was really making. as for the question of right media or the conservative media apparatus in general--i really do not care if you are bothered by the characterization of it as a single, tightly controlled field of positions. that such a media system exists, that it is tightly co-ordinated and very very well financed, that it is engaged with the conservative think tanks circuit and that it has acquired very considerable cultural power in the states is empirically evident. that a central characteristic of this media apparatus beyond tight co-ordination of political line is the systematic blurring of information and political argument is also obvious. that the right for years has defended what is innovative and dangerous about their repackaging of information as a reactive move is only interesting in that it is an aspect of the general conservative reliance on projection to legitimate their actions. this too is empirically evident--so i really do not care in the least whether you like the terminology or not--and since you offer nothing whatsoever of any substance that would justify having a debate on the question, i consider the matter ended here. if you want, get some actual information, make some arguments about that information, and start another thread and maybe there could be a debate about this. but i am not wasting any more of my time with you here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-20-2005 at 12:56 PM..