Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Will, I'm not fishing for any argument. I'm speaking my mind and that's it.
|
These aren't always mutually exclusive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
People are free to make their statements and actions. We are free to determine if we agree or disagree with them. We are also free to ignore them. Get that Will, because I don't denounce a group does not mean I enable them, it means I've marginalized them to mean nothing to me.
|
What specifically is standing between you and denouncing them, though? Is it just the comment you made about how this discourse allows you the opportunity to better understand their desperation? Can't you do that while condemning them? I get what you were saying with that argument, but I don't see it as somehow preventing you from being clear that you don't agree with these people. That was really all I wanted clarification on.
So you don't agree with Rush or Beck or Savage when they go on tirades including violent rhetoric? I'm not asking you to tell them to stop talking or whatever, just about condemnation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I see that the left called for Bush and Cheney's demise during the 8 years they were in office. It wasn't much different when Regan or Bush Sr. was in office either. I can't imagine it being any less going back in presidential history. If it wasn't the left it was OTHER people and no one denounced that they should not be talking about such things. No, it was people like you who didn't say anything and enabled them. I guess that makes you responsible too. See what I did there?
|
We on the left weren't calling for the demise of Bush and Cheney, we were calling for them to be prosecuted for breaking actual laws. That's not the same as what's coming from the right's more radical and noisy voices. Second Amendment remidies was a reference to the Second Amendment's original intention, armed revolution against a tyrannical government. As messed up as things may be, we're not living under a tyrannical government, so using such language is calling for violent revolution against a democratically elected, relatively moderate government. Who on the left did that? Did Michael Moore or Bernie Sanders call on progressives and liberals to take up arms against the Bush Administration, even during its darkest hours? Of course not. We on the left can get just as pissed as people on the right, I redly admit, but violent rhetoric doesn't find a home among progressive ideology the same as it does conservative, seemingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
You believe people on here are so compelled to compel they are willing to lie about what they actually believe? Sounds goofy to me. Ace tells me he believes and likes Palin for X, Y and Z then I believe that's he likes her. Just as I believe you believe the opinions you post.
|
It's not intentional. I don't think these are all just long-term trolling or anything like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
will--repetition is basic to the analyses of fascism that look to the role of radio as an ideological mechanism that assured regular turnover/adaptation of Official Attitudes and a running co-ordination between audience and state (in addition creating/reinforcing the sense of immediate identification with the nation-in-motion expressed through the real volk who ran the state)....it's not new the idea that repetition is a powerful conditioning tool. check out pascal's wager sometime.
|
I was curious more to your take on the psychology of this phenomenon. I think I understand in basic terms the modus operandi of the repeated line (lie) in the media becoming truth, or at least acceptable, but your mention of respondent conditioning has me very curious about that angle of whatever one calls this phenomena.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
are you suggesting trolling?
|
No. Trolling is intentional by nature, and it serves no purpose but to stir up shit. If I'm right, I don't think what you're doing is intentional or just here to stir shit up. You're sharing your take, I just think your bias might be keeping you from reaching a conclusion closer to my own, particularly because of your equivalence argument.