Quote:
|
In order for the above to be correct, in that conservatives can control the debate and disable the debate across differing viewpoints you have to assume that scientist with views contrary to those of conservatives (assuming conservatives agreed on the scientific issues in question), are gutless and unwilling to take a stand against irrational conservative views. I don't believe that. I also think scientists with opposing views to those of conservatives have many outlets and forums where they can express those views and move the debate in a rational direction.
|
first off, ace, you misunderstood my post.
we are not talking about scientists in general, we are talking about the bush administration's use of the surgeon general's office as an extension of the conservative ideological apparatus (ideological state apparatus is a technical term. look it up.)
this usage of the surgeon general's office is in keeping with the logic of conservative ideology in general. control the parameters of debate.
now by control, what is meant?
well, ace, look at your own posts in relation to anyone else's here. to enter into an actual conversation with you requires that one accept your premises, not because they are legitimate (they aren't) but because you are either unwilling or unable to move beyond them. you cannot even articulate the premises of your positions, must less defend them: all you can do is cling to them.
the matter of control can work in this way--it does not require domination (your side of the political aisle is increasingly a minority position every day, it seems--no matter that the bush people are still in power--they are increasingly talking to themselves, just as you are)--it can require only pigheadedness, obstinance, etc.: turning your inability to articulate the basis for your own position into a quasi-virtue by confronting everyone who interacts with you here with a choice: you either accept what are--to my mind--idiotic logical and political premises in order to debate you on your own terms, or find oneself in yet another tedious tedious tedious session of talking-past-each-other.
so your own technique of non-debate are in a sense a little duplication of what amounts to an attempt to control the terms of debate. of course, this technique does not work here simply because you have no power. no-one does.
in the context of bushworld, however, cowboy george retains formal power and is therefore in a position to directly or indirectly impose conservative ideological filters on information emanating from any number of administrative positions.
this imposing of conservative ideological filters is an aspect of the conservative surrealism.
the bush people continue to believe, it seems, that they "make reality" while the rest of us trot along behind interpreting their brave new world.
of course at this point (7/7) that view is ridiculous, but the administration--rather like yourself in this petri dish we swim in--doesnt seem to get that quite.
if we were talking about "the scientific community" as a whole--which we aren't--then the entire discussion would be otherwise.