Coming clean...
 

This guy says what a lot (not all of course)of the left feels. Honesty is good, but does it cross the line at times?

Joel Stein is a satirist. You can't take what he says at face value.

Essentially, Mr. Stein seems to be awfully critical of a group of people he knows little to nothing about. This becomes apparent even if you do not take the time to read through my Host-like post. Some people just need to think before they speak.

And so it begins again, but in light hearted self depreciating form in order to soften the initial blow.

Welcome back :thumbsup:

My issue with his, ilconcieved column is when he says, "And being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken — and they're wussy by definition."

I would argue that most who are against the war in Iraq are not pacifists. They have other reasons to not support the war which have been well trodden.

If Stein didn't have a platform like the LA Times he would be called a troll. Like most trolls he would be banned from the TFP.

Don't feed the trolls.

Not all are, of course, but a great many of them are. A lot of the same people who opposse the Iraq war also oppossed the Afghan war on pacifist principles (see my sig).

Actually...I'd probably give him a week to cool off for that one. It's really not worth the PermaBan.

Stating any opinion on TFP gets you called a troll by the other side, trust me on that one :lol: Its very amusing how you need to post an article along with your opinion in order to be allowed to have one in some peoples minds.

His use of such terms were to soften the blow of the article, to unfocus the anger that many would feel if he just said he doesn't support the troops straight out. It was amazingly masterful really, he didn't make me mad, I almost pitied him, the feeling is the of the kid who gets his lunch money taken from him by the bullies. I was most impressed.

Hmm, I think if you examine it in a way it is hypocritical to support the troops and not support what they are doing, although I think the sentiment of "supporting the troops" has more of a meaning that you empathize with the men and women in the army and that one genuinely appreciates their situation and position while at the same time disagreeing with what they are doing. I don't know...I think the article is a little over the top, maybe this person wants to garner attention.

Yes, but those are the true pacifists. Shirley McLaine notwithstanding. :rolleyes: I believe that the majority of those opposed to the war in Iraq, were, and still are, in favor of the military action in Afghanistan...as it was shown to be warranted. Iraq has been nothing but a hotbed of contention, with stories changing daily, since day one. I don't see the connection. I can support the military (I was military), without necessarily supporting the war in Iraq. I do support the war in Afghanistan. Should I stop the serviceman, in the airport, and ask him what Theater of Operations he served in, before spitting on him? (not that I ever would, but you get the idea)

I totally agree with Joel's seeming fundemental point.

I read his words to mean - if you were against the war it is inconsistent to support what allied troops are doing in Iraq.

I thought it was wrong to go to war, because I was totally unconvinced that there was any real evidence of danger to anyne outside of Iraq. Now the allies have ripped the country a new asshole they've turned over every rock and found little that indicates the Iraqis could be a danger to a foreign country.

Admittedly, the Iraqi government regularly kidnapped people and tortured them, but what can you expect? They were trained by the CIA.

That's the point. The more I learn about the way the American government conducts itself the more I wonder that the real danger to the world is the US government.

This will be taken as controverial, but maybe the day that China can play on the world stage and hold back the US the world will be a safer place.

I agree with Joel that the americans would be better off not trying to police the world.

Trying to make the world safe with american troops is like herding cats - it wastes your time and upsets the cats.

Oh United States of America, is there anything you don't do wrong? :rolleyes:

Sounds like he was just trying to get some publicity by being outrageous. Why would he go on the Hugh Hewitt show unless he wanted to stir up controversy by pissing off the right-wingers. He doesn't even try to defend himself. He's just playing along.
I agree with the Charlatan, he's a troll.

I agree completely with this
Going into Afghanistan was nessassary, Iraq was not.


Mistreating the returning solders from Vietnam was wrong,
I'm glad people have realized that.
Talk about going after the wrong people.

As far as Joel Stein' article goes...
He make's a few good points,
he make's more points I disagree with.
But as a good friend (and career millitary man)
once told me: "I totally disagree with that statement, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it"

Welcome back, Adam! :icare:

That's like saying a lot of the same people who support the invasion of Iraq are war mongers who are just spoiling for a fight... any fight.


Clearly the pacificsts are a fringe element and not central to this discussion (despite your efforts to the contrary).

So much for his "satire"

here

I've never heard of Joel Stein, but I think his position makes sense. It doesn't seem at all outrageous to me. I mean you are either for the war or you are not. What does it exactly mean to say that you are against what the troops are doing, but you still "support" them?

I mean it certainly makes sense to say that you are against the war, but you don't think that troops themselves are responsible for the waging of the war.
It also makes sense to say that you are against the war, but you don't like seeing American men and women dieing needlessly.
It also makes sense to say that you are against the war, yet empathise with what the troops have to go through.

It's certainly possible to say a lot of things about the troops, but these things are not the same as supporting them. When you are against what they are doing and the reasons they are doing it, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that you "support" them, at least not by my understanding of supporting a group of people.

Is there anyone here who is against the war in Iraq, yet "supports the troops"? If so, could you explain what you mean by "support"?

(Honestly curious, not trying to troll or start a flamewar)

Raises hand.

My support comes from an historical perspective which is based on how dreadfully many of our returning Viet Nam vets were treated, including my first husband. I did not participate in the demeaning of our troups, nor did I have strong beliefs regarding the war in those early years ('68-'69). I did believe it outrageous that we could vilify a soldier for serving in the war.

I have constantly held very strong beliefs against the war in Iraq, but our soldiers did not start this war. I respect the young men and women who are members of our military and to that extent, I am in "support" of them. I don't see a contradiction in being against the war itself and the respect I have for our soldiers, where ever they may be serving.

Someone commented on the notion of "collective guilt" which may very well be in play for a good many people. I'm not one of them.

I'll second Elphaba's comments,
and ask to identify myself with them.
with the exception of the returning vietnam vet
was my father not husband.

I guess it's all just a question of semantics. I think that what you describe here is similar to the statments that I listed as things that I wouldn't consider 'support'. But it doesn't matter greatly, it's pretty much a minor thing. No need to quibble over a word.

(For what it's worth; not American, but believe the war in Iraq was wrong, but don't blame it on American soldiers and don't harbour any ill will against them - but even so, don't consider myself a supporter of them or their actions)

You know we could argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin forever.

Saying you support the troops but not the war, or don't support the troops or the war makes no difference in your actions as far as I can tell. Both are attempting to undermine the US war effort. At this point, reguardless if you think the war was needed or not is a moot point, the US has a moral obligation to the people of Iraq. You may not have approved of the war but it happened, you can't take it back, and advocating anything but victory at this point will harm the US both directly and indirectly. This is why such 'supporters' have their patriotism questioned. With friends like that, the enemy is half way to victory already.,

Ok I think I understand what you are saying and agree with some of it too.

My question is at what point can we tell the President (he's CiC, he gets the grief) to stop doign stupid shit with the military?
Do we have to wait until Iraq is COMPLETELY finished (great well my grandchildren can tell him)? Or do we wait until the Army actually is stretched too thin (I don't think it is yet, but we do seem to be heading that way)?
At some point critisism has to acknowledged and considered. And I do mean constructive critisism not pointless bitching.


For the record, my opinions:
Afgan - Good move (except we didn't FINISH)
Iraq - could've been a good move in time after Afgan was finished and if the ENTIRE Iraq occursion had been considered.

Ustwo, I agree completely. I think the confusion that the Times author made was between not supporting the invasion and not supporting victory. Elphaba, when you say that you have never supported the Iraq war, I interpreted it to mean that you thought and still think it was a mistake for us to go there in the first place. Is this correct?

There are, of course, some people who "support our troops" but think we should immediately withdraw from Iraq. That position makes significantly less sense because it seems to me that supporting the troops includes supporting their mission. Even so, however, I think it is possible to argue that one can support the troops by hoping they leave the dangers of the battlefield behind.

Alternatively, if you hope that the Iraqi insurgents ("minutemen" in obese traitor-speak) defeat our soldiers, I don't see how you could possibly say you support the troops.

Thus, it seems that the vast majority of people who do not support the war could conceivably support our troops. It all depends on precisely what you mean when you claim not to support the war.

I would fall into the catagory who support our troops by bringing them home.
I was against going to Iraq in the first place,
But now we are there.
there is no use pretending we have no responsibilty to
the Iraqi peoples, and their neighbors.
Now, I DO NOT want to see a "cut and run"
I would hope we have learned that lesson from Vietnam as well.
I do think we should start withdrawing one city at a time.
Keeping enough troops around in case the Iraqi's fail to keep control.
As the hand over progress's each city will become easier.
Start in the north, where it is the most stable.
by the time we are leaving the more dangerous southern areas
the locals will understand the drill.

Fuck, i don't support the troops in any meaningful way. Neither do most of you. If i believed in this occupation i'd most likely be helping with it. I wouldn't be sitting on my ass here in america, pretending i had some sort of notion about making the world a better place that didn't involve me making zero sacrifices.

I like the idea that people, not just our troops, won't die unnecessarily. I like the idea that somehow some amount of regional stability will come out of our ill advised little affair in iraq. I like the idea that whoever ends up in power in iraq won't be as bad as saddam. I just don't necessarily believe that there's much hope for any of these things to actually happen.

And the way to make sure these things don't happen is a premature pull out. We stay until the job is done, no time tables, we can not do to the people of Iraq what we did to the people of Vietnam.

Absolutely.


Oh...My...God We could have prevented all of this by never going there.

Yes we could have, so what? We are there now and that is all that matters. Even if you didn't support the action, the action HAS been taken despite your wise counsel, and if you try to make that action fail what does that make you?

I was againts the war in Iraq but I am certainly not advocating that the US troops pull out. The USA should clean up what it started, failure to stabilise Iraq will lead to unnecessary hardship for the Iraqi population in the long term and another "messed up" state in the middle east. I do not think supporting the troops means much to me, firstly my nation does not have troops in Iraq, secondly I do not see what supporting the troops means other than wishing that they fufill their task of making Iraq into a "sane" state (that is democratic with a minimum of human rights abuses and no erratic behaviour that threatens us all). Of course I also hope that this is accomplished with the least possible loss of life because I do not like it when people are killed or injured.

I really don't understand this whole success, failure, artificial timetable stuff.
Sadam has been removed from power
His millitary, goverment....well everything has been destroyed.
Why shouldn't we leave?
Why can't we start leaving in a orderly, stratgic manner?
Does anyone even know what sucess means?
No set goals, No game plan,
How are we supposed to follow the carot at the end of the stick,
if we can't see the carot?
Heck, we don't even know if it's a carot or a stone.



I had a thought about the support issue earlier today.
Even the anti-war protesters are supporting the war,
That is...if they are paying their taxes.
That goes for citizens of any nation who have troops in theater.

There is a very, very, very fine line between "supporting" the troops by calling for their withdrawal and hoping that the military action itself fails. After all, the most obvious circumstance in which the administration would decide to pull out the troops is if the situation on the ground becomes unwinnable.

By this, I am not implying that everyone who wants us to cut and run from Iraq wants to see the U.S. fail, although I am definitely saying that some people who hold that view would like nothing better than for the insurgency to strengthen and begin to kill more of our soldiers.

Additionally, even those who fall into the former category would have their ends furthered if the insurgency were to begin winning. Provided, of course, that there were still enough soldiers alive to bring home.

My quandary is this: if you believe that the best thing to do in Iraq is to pull out all troops ASAP, how can you support the troops if the very success of those troops would prevent them from coming home?

If the options are failure and a swift withdrawal or success and a substantially later withdrawal, which option is preferable?

Alternatively, is success compatible with immediate withdrawal? How?

Again WTF is success?
You make accuations of people wanting to see a failure
You spout the standard flag waving parrotism.
Yet no concept of what success is.
Is withdrawl at anytime ever failure?

I would very much like to have anyone define what success in Iraq means.

Success in Iraq is the establishment of a government that does not violate the civil rights of its citizens or threaten the security of the United States or U.S. interests abroad.

If withdrawal would weaken the new democratic government (it would), then withdrawal jeopardizes success.

I have to give this guy credit;

He makes a valid point, and I applaud him. I have to also chastize the person who edited his interview. As I have said before, I have been misquoted by the press, and that is what is happening here (with all of the '...'s going around)

Hey, what is wrong with this position?
Oh, we aren't supposed to criticize the guys in theatre, because they are just doing their jobs. We learned this lesson in Vietnam. Okay. I understand that.

I didn't hear any criticism here. He is not supportive. Cool. At least he has the balls to say it, and not hide behind a fridge magnet.

Well in that case we have already succeeded.

The presence of foreign troops only serve the "image" of a puppet goverment.
If anything a highly publized, city by city, strategic withdrawl
will strengthen the democratically elected goverment.
The right wing millitas will settle down only when they see
their goverment in the hands of Iraqi's.
Our actions against terrorists have been like plucking grey hairs,
every hair plucked regrows three.
the longer we wait, the higher the probability of a panicked withdrawl.
That is failure.
I don't want to win the failure.

I'm not sure why one would think that withdrawing from Iraq would weaken the insurgency. After all, the insurgency is already killing substantially more Iraqis than Americans. While it is certainly true that the insurgents use anti-American rhetoric to justify their actions, those words look more and more like hot air with every Iraqi death at the hands of the insurgents. OF COURSE the insurgents would like to turn Iraqi public opinion against the United States: a U.S. withdrawal would leave the minimally trained Iraqi Police as the only force maintaining order in the country. The U.S. can begin a gradual withdrawal beginning this year, but only in proportion to the number of available trained Iraqis.

Withdrawl would take the wind out of their sails
The insurgents will no longer be insurgents
(or what ever patriotic name their followers give them)
Instead they would become criminals, and thugs.
With each city we successfuly exit,
the Iraqi goverment, and police become stronger.
The way I see it, we need to take the training wheels off.
The Iraqi people are not our children.

The nation was ruled by criminals and thugs for years, why would a withdrawal without a prepared Iraqi force to deal with these 'insurgents' suddenly prevent them from taking over again?

You do need to push the baby bird out of the nest to learn to fly, but make sure its still not in the egg.

They'd be just like us then wouldn't they?

But politicophile, if you think the insurgency will not weaken once we withdraw, what makes you think that the insurgency will die down once they have to face more Iraqi soldiers? If the best soldiers and technology from America can't bring a halt to the insurgency, then how are a bunch of Iraqis going to do it? Simply turning the country over to the Iraqis and watching them fail does not take the responsibility off our shoulders.
Also, I don't think your definition of success in Iraq is far sighted enough. Success should not be simply the establishment of a government, but the long-term maintenance of a peaceful Iraq. Once you look at it this way, it's easy to see why many are not optimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. I'm not sure myself. So the question is, should we continue to hold our soldiers in harm's way when the chances are low that success will ever come about?

Iraq was ruled by a dictator.
Thug? yes
Criminal? by our laws...sure....not by his.
He would be (and is) a criminal by today's Iraqi law.
If the Iraqi police can't control just one city by now
we are in serious trouble.

Do you mean kill them in mass without any good reason? Because we seemed to have already done that.

Here is a question for those of you that don't think moving our troops out of hte cities would weaken the insurgency. Did the british sending more troops at the US weaken the US's resolve or insurgency? Or did it increase it? The fact is that the marjority of people in Iraq see the US as occupiers not liberators and want us out. As long as we are there telling them how to live the killing of US troops will be considered heoric and gain them support. We are making martyers out of thier insurgents which in turn creates more insurgents. Get our troops out of the cities and see how the cities are then if all goes well we could start withdrawing. Let the Iraqi soldiers and police secure the country. The insurgents will have a hard time being considered martyrs when they die killing their own people.

what a goofy thread: the op reproduced a staricial piece without realizing that it was satirical--never a good start---from that you get yet another tiresome rehearsal of the false binds around which debate over the war in iraq has been framed by conservative discourse: you either support everything the administration has done and is doing so you can "support our troops" or you oppose the war and in so doing do not "support our troops"---the function of this false binary is self-evident---to substitute a cartoon for the range of motives that might lead a people--a significant majority of the american public by this point, judging from various polls over the last year or so--to oppose bushwar.

this tedious rhetorical move, like so much else in conservativeland (think of it as an amusement park in which every ride you take narrows your vision), is rooted in the right's mythology of vietnam, in particular the myth of "our boys" being spat upon by "protestors" upon their return from vietnam. never happened. but that's no matter, it suits the purposes of the folk who operate politically by contributing to conservative discourse and so it circulates.

the fact that, in this thread, a debate about withdrawing from iraq is framed by this idiotic binary opposition is kind of depressing to see: that many of the conservative folk in this community seem to find this narrow and uninteresting conversational space one in which they can swim about in circles comfortably is not surprising. looking at it from the outside, however, the thread does provide a domonstration of discourse effects and their uses: the kind of argument they enable, the kinds of arguments they exclude. which gives this a kind of anthropological interest, but not much else.

what i find curious, however, is the total lack of information in this thread: folk are spinning around in generalities as if the factual situation was transparent. it isnt.
that does not stop anyone, but perhaps it should.

The problem is that this administration has repeatedly shown that the standards by which success is measured are more subject to politics than any kind of grand vision. We already know they don't have WMDs. According to the president, our mission was accomplished years ago.

I thought conservatives were supposed to be the realists. What makes you think that our presence in iraq will ever be able to provide the stability and civility necessary to achieve the vague notion of success you subscribe to?

Roachboy, I can't properly express over this electronic medium how incredibly irritated I become when you, as you do in very literally EVERY post you make, say something equivalent to:

"This thread is very interesting because it shows the irrational, infantile thought process used by the lumpenconservatives. Notice how they alter the terms of the debate by inserting their dogmatic loyalty to conservative talking points in place of reality."

I haven't the faintest idea why this is permitted. Your contributions to this forum are nothing more than clever, longwinded, typographically incorrect INSULTS of conservatives at large. You repeat over and over that conservatives are irrational and that their arguments are "idiotic", all the while refraining from offering counterevidence.

I am concerned that the moderators have not seen through your trick of couching personal insults inside of dense language. But honestly, you are killing debate, not only on this thread, but on the rest of the politics board.

We had a very civil debate in progress here until you stepped in and refered to conservatives and their arguments as "goofy", "tiresome rehearsal", "false binary", "cartoon", "tedious rhetorical move", "narrows your vision", "mythology", "idiotic", "depressing to see", "narrow and uninteresting", "swim about in circles", "total lack of information".

Let me be clear:

I will not engage in conversation in forums where this sort of insulting behavior is permitted. Period.

politicophile: think about the options--what exactly would you have me do?

i am completely opposed to the politics that you espouse.
the question is whether i talk about the effects of the public discourse that shapes the political views of many folk on the right, or i could pretend that a messageboard is transparent, that posts in a messageboard can rationally be connected to who the poster is as a human being in any detail and launch on that basis personal attacks. i do not do the latter. i restrict myself to the former. sorry that you dont like it--so long as you understand why the posts look as they do, the question is aesthetic and as such doesnt concern me.

i think that reasonable people can derive bizarre views of the world if they allow the present conservative discourse to shape them.
this result is a function of how discourse works: it posits signifiers and modes of linking them: the result of that is a carving up of information and the offering of modes of linking factoids together.
so when my posts happen, they are always focussed on the patterns of thinking.
i generally see folk from the right reproducing these patterns, most often at the center of their positions.

this tendency makes positions from conservatives here look like cookie-cutter results at times---i react to that.

finally, i am totally opposed to this discourse, to this politics and find alarming what this discourse does in debilitating the thinking of people who i assume to be otherwise reasonable folk. so it is not--ever--a matter of finding folk from the right to be stupid as human beings--it is that i find the frame of reference you use to lead you (plural form of "you") leads you to narrow and often surreal interpretations of the world.
and because this is a mass politics, i find this dangerous.

and for some reason that i have long since stopped understanding, i find it occaisionally to be worth my time to run out counterarguments in this space.

so you know.
sorry you dont like it, but there is really nothing i can do.

i could, of course, simply attack you as a person for your politics, as you do above to me.
but that is tiresome, at all ends.

give me a better strategy and i'll consider it.

To the contrary, a large percentage of the members are being insulted: namely, all "conservatives". The charter says that:

Only Halx can tell us exactly what it means, but I certainly think that my personal way of thinking is being degraded.

Very disappointing.

how about you read the post that apparently went up as yours did, politicophile?

This is a two way street
I've been called a liberal, a socialist, and a democrat for my views.
I am none of the above.
I am a very conservative person
I no longer support the federal level republicans for many reasons.
I will stop here in order to go back to topic.
This topic could make a good dicussion thread for philosophy.

Labels sure are great aren't they. It's interesting to get called every name in the book when you don't follow the usual party line rheatoric. I get called a liberal often too when I'm actually conservative.

Heh I've been warned for using blanket statements about liberals in the past.

Roachy often gets directly insulting too, and those are ignored by mods as well.

I think the problem is the mods are using the ignore on his posts :lol:

In alio pediculum, in te ricinum non vides



Look it up.



edit
Oh, and by the way...the preceding was not directed at any one particular individual. Think about it.

I think the problem is that roach talks about conservative thought, while you mainly deal in one liners based on liberal stereotypes. In other words, roach has something interesting to say concerning conservative thought as it appears on this board, while you often don't have anything to say beyond sardonic remarks based on mostly insular notions of liberalism.

Iniuria non excusat iniuriam

Yea right :rolleyes: and his personal attacks against me?

I must have missed them.

leviculus probus est nunquam gauisus

Ok...obviously I started that I shouldn't have...seeing as my latin is rusty, at best. :rolleyes:
Mince pies don't grow on trees? :confused:

It was something about fat birds not flying, but I thought of a better one and made a quick edit...

empty something and name happy?

Exactly! And, ya know...you, personally, have gotten much better. :thumbsup:
It's been much appreciated.



Personal attacks? Against you...personaly? Or against conservatism as an institution? Big difference. Huge, even.
If, however, there have been attacks directed against your person, let me, or any of the other moderators, know.

......close

Mouthfull of dried pigeon? :confused:
Eat crow? You're telling me to eat crow? :crazy:

now you're way off, bill. I was telling alpha phi she was close. The edited one has nothing to do with birds...well bird brains maybe...

probus seems to be a last name associated with rank
used from Marcus Aurelius Probus to King Henery IV Probus

The ranks are name happy.

smells like a crows fart?

I don't read or speak latin...

Not saying this is the most authorative resource available, but...still. It was found on the interweb, afterall. It must be true. Right? ;)

nice latin match:
reading it was like watching ping pong on tv.
almost made me wish i was drinking a beer as i read, since ping pong on tv seems to require one.


to go back to the issues raised by my style of posting for a moment


the strange thing about running the kind of arguments that i tend to post here is that they work up to a point but havent really triggered what i had hoped they would: a reflexive response from the folk on the right--you know, a step out of the framework and a moment of wondering about/thinking about or even arguing about the frame itself. it seems that the mode of interacting with the discourse is to assume it to be a kind of natural horizon and run everything through it--which amounts to watching combination and recombination of the same moves with some variation as to inputs--and that's about it.

this is not the kind of relation to politics that you see from every position: it is in fact quite peculiar. that a feature of right discourse is projection (the claim that the characteristics of that political field are reactive comes up often enough) changes nothing. folk from the right tend to act as though everyone interacts with their political views as they do, that is immediately, as a matter of (apparently) semi-religious committment--two thread in this forum have been generated in the past days that address this, not by making it a problem, but instead by using arguments (the value of which is impossible to determine from the truncated accounts presented) that politics is by its nature irrational.

well, folks, if that is true we are all fucked.

anyway, given this, politicophile's response--to get offended rather than think about what is being said--follows. it is a sad state of affairs, really: this kind of relation to one's own views runs wholly counter to how one would expect folk who participate in a democratic polity to act. it is only possible if democracy is nearly meaningless operationally, if the polity has no real power, no real posssibility of exercizing power. it reflects an assumption particular to contemporary conservative discourse itself: that public opinion is a management issue and nothing more.
suffice it to say that there really is nothing personal about the way in whcih i go at political questions here (well, i like to think so anyway--obviously no-one is totally consistent and sometimes i do step outof this detached view--it usually doesnt work out so well, so i dont do it often)

the only criticism of how i have been operating in here that i took seriously was from host, who noted at one point or another that i appeared to be treating the forum as a kind of laboratory and threads as experiments. he was right. he was right about quite a few things beyond that as well: it is a shame tht he seems to have been driven out by what were--to my mind--really ridiculous arguments about how much reading his posts required.

i have to say that debating with most of the conservative folk here gets really tedious for me because they simply will not or cannot step outside of their immediate responses and think about why they are as they are. maybe they think there is no need: i cant really tell. but i think the framework through which conservative folk tend to operate--what i call conservative discourse--is weak descriptively--it uses a very strange mode of presenting claims, which would pass them off as transcendent. it seems to me that the whole project--which has been developing since the 1970s--is predicated on a kind of wish fulfillment in that the discourse seems geared at erasing the political, social and cultural problems that were raised by the civil rights movement, vietnam, etc., all of which functioned to blow apart the idea that the surface of reality is adequate, that you can sever the present configuration from its history, from structural factors, etc. the one lasting result of this period is that politics could drift back toward its origin in philosophy. i think this an important thing. this is more or less the space from which i operate, both in and in general. it means that you have to think both through and about particular frames of reference--to think about what these frames do, how they do it, what they enable you to get at, what they exclude. i do not see this as a bad thing. i does mean that being certain about things is a problem--but that's fine...any philosophical project worth developing has this feature as well. it makes it harder to be in the world maybe--but it seems to me to be worth it. this is as close as i have come here to a direct statement of my own politics, which tend to disappear a bit behind the style i usually adopt.

in some sense, the conservative project seems to be not so far from that of edmund burke---it is rooted in the same type of reaction to the 60s as burke had to the french revolution--but unlike burke, folk who either make or use this discourse seem to imagine that going back to a simpler time is possible. it isnt. and that fact alone seems to drive folk crazy. the discourse, with its penchant for transcendent propositions, offers the illusion of a response. this response might work to an extent if you inhabit that political space--but not everyone does, and so there will always be limits, always folk who point out the problems with all of this: with these people, for folk on the right, it seems that the operative assumption is that there is no possibility of meaningful discussion. but sometimes the people behind the combinations of conservative elements peer around the edges, and when they do conversation can actually happen. such is the situation i find myself in here relative to most of the folk from the right. mr. pollyanna broadcasting to you from his livingroom in philadelphia dixit.



as for ustwo: i find your hit-and-run style of posting to be patronizing in the extreme.
you can choose to see in this a personal attack, but it is not meant as such: again, it is about your posts. i do not know you. i do not imagine that i can get to know you through this board, or any such board. i see what you write and i react to it--often on the basis of what i take to be a patronizing relation to this whole space. you write short, often goofy things. what that indicates is that you think your readers stupid. most of your shorter "witty" posts are kind of offensive personally to me at this level. if you are really concerned about the quality of debate in this space, try raising the content level of your interactions with it. you reap what you sow, as the cliche goes.

mr pollyanna now ends his broadcast day.
In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

I see and understand what you are saying but then the practicality of it then discludes many from the discussion.

I could easily state in any of the computer threads, "Well if you truly want to understand what to do then you must read about electrical engineering, GUI design, and programming coding."

But that's not a good method of discussion since it halts and stops it. It gives one a little pause to discuss. In the case of host or even yourself, I need to read the rhetoric and then double check the facts, read the implications and inferences and decide for myself the motivators of the writers being cited. If that's how you coffee clatch, then I'd not ever be interested in sitting down in real life discussing anything with you or anyone who's style it is to make the other individual feel incompetent, stupid, or ignorant about the subject being discussed.

In alio pediculum, in te ricinum non vides: You see a louse on someone else, but not a tick on yourself, equivelant to the parable from Jesus in Matthew 7: "And why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" Take care of your own big problems before worrying about others littl problems.
Iniuria non excusat iniuriam: One wrong does not justify another. Of course, this philosophy is contraditory to Ustwo's response in the Ann C. thread in which the argument about Ann Coultier was deflected by using a liberal play about killing the president.

jesus, cyn: there really is nothing to be said about your last post.
you feel that way--fine.
it does i suppose raise the question of why you bother with any of this, if you really feel that way.
there is no need to respond, really.

what i will say is that i would hope the 3-d person behind "cynthetiq"--whoever that is--- doesnt actually limit himself the way the persona does.
there is so much around us that neither you nor i knows about.
being in the world is a kind of adventure.
nothing is given in advance, nothing is stable, nothing knowable from its surfaces.
no point in hiding from that within some illusion of certainty. not really. nothing to be gained, nothing to be learned. the result: always and everywhere the same old stuff. always and everywhere only repetition. i dont see the appeal.
what's to be afraid of?

as for your swipe at me as a human being: this board is a small part of my life. you see nothing about me from it, not really. you have no idea who i am or how i am. you get an idea of how i write when i am here.
how i write here is an even smaller part of my life than the board is as a whole.
so when you say stuff about who you imagine me to be, i have a hard time not laughing.... sorry, but there we are.

roachboy is an illusion.
he is a voice.
he is a series of sentences.
so are you, cynthetiq.
that's it, that's all you know about me, and all i know about you.
the voice is all there is.

Anonymity is relative. There is a representation of everyone's persona here on FTP, whether that representation is reserved and controlled, or free and total. While one could see each avatar as a mask, and the words as if coming from nowhere, the words themselves are very much telling of the persona of the wizard behind the curtin. While clearly not face to face, this is a community. I try to see this as a blind community. It is as much a community as any other community, but it simply lacks in sensation. I cannot hear or taste or touch any other member. Does that make the other members less real?

I know that roachboy and Cynthetiq are real people to an extent. I could write a book about either of their post histories, and either book would be a complete character with likes, dislikes, storyline, facts, roads of trials, antagonists, friends, and conclusions (maybe even climaxes). Let's not downplay the importance of persona on TFP, because it's all we have.

will: i am on my way out the door, kinda (have to go warm up before a performance in about an hour and a half)
dont take what i wrote the wrong way: there is a kind of community here, yes. i hold myself at a bit of a remove from it because of my awareness of the degree to which roachboy is, in fact, a persona. in the forums, the distance between myself and roachboy can be quite great--i think kind of the same way, but the voice that comes out through roachboy is very very different from the person pulling his strings. not unrelated. not the same. roachboy is a surface. he, too, has adventures. they are and are not my adventures.

this is a silent space.
the world i live in is not.
this is a 2-dimensional space.
the world i live in is not.
the fit between 2 and 3-d is highly variable.
what ends up migrating from one to the other, when the folk here meet up, is what each of us pulls from one to the other.
that's it.

I'm sure you'll do famously at the performance.

Some of the thing's I've read on TFP have conveyed truely brilliant ideas coming from truely brilliant minds; minds that live in the 3D world. Even though it is impossible to represent a full 3 dimentional person on TFP, that doesn't make the 2D persona any more or less important. The way that we communicate, language, is a 2d form of communication. True, nonverbal communication, which can communicate volumes, is not present, but the center of communication is often in the words. TFP is about the words. My words, your words, even Ustwo's words. Those words are inately valuable.

/end threadjack

what's amazing is that you have a hard time fathoming that the same applies to the other individuals who are here. You may espouse it, but IMO you don't get nor apply it.

I respond to what I can in the the confines of the context applied. When the context is broadened to have to include more background and depth, then the only way to continue the conversation is to either acquiese or read and understand and then return. To read and understand can sometimes take weeks or months to properly vet out and investigate, would it be better to just gloss over the connections you, host, or any other makes? Should I read the cited texts and not understand the bias or motivator? Or should I take it on faith that your opinion is good enough and that since I cannot cite as many quotes to refute your/host quotes that I adamantly stand firm in my position and dig in? That would be irresponsible wouldn't it?

maybe you're right, cyn, and such problems as there are here with debate are structural, the nature of the beast.
i cant say as i have my head fully around that yet.
do you?

on the other hand, if the problems are structural, then maybe a coffee woudln't be so bad....who's to know?


will: thanks. i think the performance went well. i could talk about it at length....but it is late.....i am tired,.....and i think whatever i said would be misunderstood as one of those threadjack things.

signing off.
regular roachboy programming will resume with the next post.

Coffee wouldn't be as bad as I imagine. It's here when we can take 15-20 minutes to create a response, have infinite reference tomes etc to cut and paste can create a deluge of information. When speaking I'm pretty sure (from my personal observations) that reference would be made, possibly the person not understanding of the reference would inquire, other would explain, and then the onus on the inquirer would be then to investigate at a later time. Explainer and inquirer would then move onto the next points of the subject, inquirer understanding the foundation of the rest of the discussion but not scrutinizing facts since they are couched for the moment.

I have my head around it as best as I can for what works for me, which is usually similar in manner to my 3D persona which is to try to continue the conversation as best as possible. Sometimes when something seems so "out there" contrasting to my opinion I have to take that time to investigate.