|
at the risk of this thread, i want to say a couple thing to clarify why i posted what i did earlier here:
i think there are a couple types of conservative argument that you see in this space: the one in whch a substantive argument about information framed in a way that other folk can access and debate--that is which is not presented already *entirely* packaged in conservative logic--and the other, which consists in at best tiresome quips and at worse irrelevant to bogus information presented as factual.
with the former, i have no problem whatsoever: i have had interesting and informative conversations with folk with whom i expect i would disgree fundamentally even in real life--with the other, i see no reason to be patient these claims are inevitably presented from deep within the strange little world of the dominant conservative ideology--they do not bother with logic, with referencing, with research, with thinking to all appearance--they generally leave a reader wishing for the penetrating insight of a sean hannity or ann coulter--a position which frankly is like standing behind an exhaust pipe--like their more articulate talking head counterparts, these folk not only add nothing to conversation that is not a kind of peculiar rightwing circlejerk of mutual affirmation of meaningless statements-----they appear to be actively working to undermine such conversation as might be possible. i have no idea what these folk are like in rel life--i suspect that they are intelligent folk who think about their politics as anyone else does---but in this space, they post in ways that gives no indiciation of that, and does nto even grant others in the space the courtesy of explanation---from which i take it that these folk do not respect the folk that read their stuff here enough to think they capable of arguing about the bases for their quips and/or information. i find this tactic condescending in the extreme--and further i find it ironic that it would be them who choose to complain about someone reacting to their way of posting--which is their way of treating those of us who read what they post.
i come here because i usually find interesting conversations about questions that are unfolding about/in the world in much closer to real time than anyplace else. so this can be a space for working out how to interpret what is being presented to us as happening, and for reading how others are trying to do the same thing. while it is not unreasonable, i suppose, to attempt to fit everything into a relatively static framework--which curiously seems to be a feature of the contemporary right in this point--which i take as an index of the sense of crisis that the folk who run the right media apparatus are experiencing. and from this viewpoint, i suppose that the recurrent spamposts that i am referring to are interesting as an index of the same thing--but it doesn't take long to figure that out and after you do, they get tedious really fast.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|