View Single Post
Old 01-18-2011, 05:00 PM   #47 (permalink)
Willravel
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
Willravel is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360