Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Where do we draw the line between political discussion and ideological spam?

roachboy · 12-27-2007, 12:03 PM

it's the case that the thread is basically nothing but tangents at this point.
but there are underlying issues that might be worth pushing through the tangents to get to.

summary:

a. there is no agreement about what constitutes a political discussion.
that is obvious.
what do we do about this?
anything?

b. there is equally obviously a conflict happening within the thread about how to frame this problem.

ustwo (for example) invokes an imaginary "mainstream of american politics" and then uses that "mainstream" image to argue--=-well what really? the actual argument is not even made--there's just an annoying coyness game in which he runs up to the edge of saying something, then runs away from it again. given the vacant space where argument should be, i figure that what he's saying is that there are folk are here who should not be allowed to speak--this because the "mainstream" as ustwo asserts it (without content) is basically the range of acceptable opinion AND relations to opinion.

others, including myself, raise questions about this move---they are ignored.

c. so there's a third dimension to what is happening here: a mounting irritation over the fact that discussion is problematic, but one in which the real problems are in fact being demonstrated live---and the problem is not only host's posts, their length and their organization--the problem is every it as much the refusal to engage on the part of the house populist conservatives--who paradoxically are the ones doing the complaining about how their positions are not taken seriously.

d. but none of this is what bothers me about this thread.

what bothers me is the following: i think the real complaint that prompted the thread is that the range of political positions represented in the tfp-microworld is too wide for the personal and political tastes of some.

in this view, host is a whipping boy-----the real problem is that there is a plurality of views---and that this pluraity extends outside the confines of cnn/fox news presentations of the boundaries of "legitimate debate".

but if that's correct, then the entire thread is a tangent simply because the comrades from the right do not avow what they seem to actually want--a shutting down of the range of debates.

but that's basically what i see this thread as doing--arguing for the narrowing of the range of political options---but it's an argument made by folk who do not want to accept responsibility for that argument by making it outright--so this is what we get: nothing but tangents.

but hey, maybe that's a misreading.
feel free to correct it.
i'm just working off what i read.

12-27-2007, 12:03 PM	#40 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it's the case that the thread is basically nothing but tangents at this point. but there are underlying issues that might be worth pushing through the tangents to get to. summary: a. there is no agreement about what constitutes a political discussion. that is obvious. what do we do about this? anything? b. there is equally obviously a conflict happening within the thread about how to frame this problem. ustwo (for example) invokes an imaginary "mainstream of american politics" and then uses that "mainstream" image to argue--=-well what really? the actual argument is not even made--there's just an annoying coyness game in which he runs up to the edge of saying something, then runs away from it again. given the vacant space where argument should be, i figure that what he's saying is that there are folk are here who should not be allowed to speak--this because the "mainstream" as ustwo asserts it (without content) is basically the range of acceptable opinion AND relations to opinion. others, including myself, raise questions about this move---they are ignored. c. so there's a third dimension to what is happening here: a mounting irritation over the fact that discussion is problematic, but one in which the real problems are in fact being demonstrated live---and the problem is not only host's posts, their length and their organization--the problem is every it as much the refusal to engage on the part of the house populist conservatives--who paradoxically are the ones doing the complaining about how their positions are not taken seriously. d. but none of this is what bothers me about this thread. what bothers me is the following: i think the real complaint that prompted the thread is that the range of political positions represented in the tfp-microworld is too wide for the personal and political tastes of some. in this view, host is a whipping boy-----the real problem is that there is a plurality of views---and that this pluraity extends outside the confines of cnn/fox news presentations of the boundaries of "legitimate debate". but if that's correct, then the entire thread is a tangent simply because the comrades from the right do not avow what they seem to actually want--a shutting down of the range of debates. but that's basically what i see this thread as doing--arguing for the narrowing of the range of political options---but it's an argument made by folk who do not want to accept responsibility for that argument by making it outright--so this is what we get: nothing but tangents. but hey, maybe that's a misreading. feel free to correct it. i'm just working off what i read. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite