Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - meta-question

roachboy · 12-19-2006, 11:39 AM

i have to say that matthew's post above is one of the funniest i have seen in a long time.

i wonder if i should apologize for my vocabulary.......um......no.

i wonder if it is really a problem that not every viewpoint is easily packaged into nice, tidy little soundbytes outfitted for a type of consumption that is so close to passivity as to be indistinguishable from it.......um......no.
sometimes less is less.

============
and i dont agree with you, pan.

i dont think it is even rational to imagine that the range of political options we as consumers are spoonfed are such that reasonable people are required to find some compromise in the middle somewhere. to think that is to ignore the problems--and there are many many such--of how information is mediated, how it is structured.
you cannot seriously believe that the range of views that make it onto the prechewed little world you see on television is the range of acceptable political positions at any given time---and the situation is not a whole lot better in the american print media.

i dont subscribe to the busby berkley school of political thinking. i just dont.

and that does not mean that it follows that i or anyone else understands what they say as being necessarily correct at all points--politics is a space of argument--arguments can be more or less compelling---that one rejects the space of argument as it is posited for you by the dominant media does not mean that one is convinced of one's own correctness--it just means that your game, pan, is not the only one in town.

and it seems that if anyone is rigid about their game, it's you: because you consistently attribute all kinds of made-up motivations to folk who do not play by your rules.

what could be more self-righteous than deciding--arbitrarily i might add--that rejection of the present degenerate state of political debate means that one is or is not a particular way, that one must be because if that wasn;t true, that person would agree with you?

if you make arguments, you are exposing your position to criticism. you can choose to defend it or not. arguments are effectively experiments.

you confuse tone with motive.
that is naive.

12-19-2006, 11:39 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have to say that matthew's post above is one of the funniest i have seen in a long time. i wonder if i should apologize for my vocabulary.......um......no. i wonder if it is really a problem that not every viewpoint is easily packaged into nice, tidy little soundbytes outfitted for a type of consumption that is so close to passivity as to be indistinguishable from it.......um......no. sometimes less is less. ============ and i dont agree with you, pan. i dont think it is even rational to imagine that the range of political options we as consumers are spoonfed are such that reasonable people are required to find some compromise in the middle somewhere. to think that is to ignore the problems--and there are many many such--of how information is mediated, how it is structured. you cannot seriously believe that the range of views that make it onto the prechewed little world you see on television is the range of acceptable political positions at any given time---and the situation is not a whole lot better in the american print media. i dont subscribe to the busby berkley school of political thinking. i just dont. and that does not mean that it follows that i or anyone else understands what they say as being necessarily correct at all points--politics is a space of argument--arguments can be more or less compelling---that one rejects the space of argument as it is posited for you by the dominant media does not mean that one is convinced of one's own correctness--it just means that your game, pan, is not the only one in town. and it seems that if anyone is rigid about their game, it's you: because you consistently attribute all kinds of made-up motivations to folk who do not play by your rules. what could be more self-righteous than deciding--arbitrarily i might add--that rejection of the present degenerate state of political debate means that one is or is not a particular way, that one must be because if that wasn;t true, that person would agree with you? if you make arguments, you are exposing your position to criticism. you can choose to defend it or not. arguments are effectively experiments. you confuse tone with motive. that is naive. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 12-19-2006 at 11:46 AM..