Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Karl Rove's Speech condemning liberals

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Karl Rove's Speech condemning liberals (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/91164-karl-roves-speech-condemning-liberals.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

roachboy, your lines of questioning and your running commentary on these threads, generally, and much more so lately, cause me to draw a comparison to a scenario where you, as an anthropologist, or possibly a news reporter from a large, west coast based media outlet, visits......say....Amish folk in Lancaster county, PA., with an intent on examining why, for example, these folks live such a quaint and anachronistic lifestyle, with a near universal shunning of the connection of electrical power or telephone lines to their homes.

Do I get to have a straw hat? I've always liked straw hats. :thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Are you arguing that conservatives use logic and intelligence to develop their arguments and liberals "attempt" to use logic and intelligence? Or are you arguing that both conservatives and liberals use logic and intelligence to develop their arguments, but liberals make the mistake of using the guise (for lack of a better word) of logic and intelligence to communicate their message to "the masses? Both positions may be equally flawed, but conservatives don't pretend that their positions and logical and intelligent?

Very close to your second scenario. I believe both sides use primarily logic and intelligence in formating their beliefs, positions, etc. But through this there is some illogic, faith, whatever. When republicans present their platforms, they rely more on the illogic and faith to gain votes, with logic taking a back seat, but still present. Democrats often try to do the opposite. Of course, one stance has much higher burden of proof, and is easier to attack. So if a republican gives a speech about their view, when questioned their reasoning might be boiled down to "because it's right" with nothing definate about their point other than a shared belief in what's right. This isn't a logical view, but because of that it's hard to attack it from the standpoint of logic. Whereas a democrat might appeal to logic more initially, and be attacked on that point easier when their inherent illogic (if present) is pointed out.

Quote:

Discussions that involve using logic and intelligence are what interest me. I find arguments from either side that require the use of faith or intution frustrating.

Again, that does not put you in the average.

Quote:

In itself, that doesn't seem like a bad thing.

It wouldn't be, if they could maintain that standard.

Ill respond to your second post later, gtg again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Do I get to have a straw hat? I've always liked straw hats. :thumbsup:

i don't normally involve myself in this forum, because i've spent too much time in "real-life" politics, but i would suggest that you, mr. ustwo, lay back on your innuendo...and yes, this is an "outside" mod speaking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I think this thread poses a great case study for politics and the divisveness of our nation.

Both sides are arguing, neither listens nor compromises and both refuse to see that the other does have some valid points.

Unless we can start having civil discussions, allowing the other side to have their valid points and acknowledge them, we seriously will continue to divide until there is a violent break.

LOL

I couldn't agree more pan6467.

But when I made that point I was accused of being biased! :)

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This is why it is not inconceivable that there will be a second American Civil war in the not-too-distant future. Especially since now the Supreme Court will no longer be the rational voice of the people. But that's another thread...

I'd agree with that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

i don't normally involve myself in this forum, because I’ve spent too much time in "real-life" politics, but I would suggest that you, mr. ustwo, lay back on your innuendo...and yes, this is an "outside" mod speaking...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TM875

So just who will be revolting? I wouldn’t be surprised to see some small terrorist type groups spring up, it doesn't take that much to get a group of radicals together, but a revolution? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The exchange between Host and Roachboy is at a level of discourse that I believe can't be easily appreciated among the usual posters in politics.

Ustwo, to say that Host was referring to any poster in politics as backward folk and to add that he is being condescending because of your interpretation of his comments is not supportable.

If you carefully read the exchange between the two, without any knee-jerk bias, I believe you will find an extremely interesting dialogue.

Humor and banter have a place, but not in exchange for your considered opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

They have a perspective which can not be easily appreciated, not a level. The level of discourse is the same as everyone elses. host was quite plain in what he meant. Shall we take it appart?

Quote:

Translation: Your discourse is at a much more sophisticated level than the people you are speaking to.

Quote:

You dig away at their belief sytem, asking why some of them can rationalize the accomodation of a telephone, located out in a field some distance from their home, wired to a free standing pole. You inquire as to why they find a gasoline powered clothes washer tolerable, but relegate themselves to horse and buggy for their personal transportation, instead of gasoline powered vehicles, and why they have less resistance to replacing horse drawn plows with modern tractors, than they do to replacing their buggies with cars.
You conclude that one of their greatest, common aversions is to proximity to
electrical wiring and devices. They know why they live the way they do, but
they cannot explain the combination of tradition, religiously influenced societal behavior, and the edicts of their elders that have dictated the resulting practices and prohibitions in their current lifestyles. Facts about the safety and benefits of electricity and gasoline powered transport can only reach them on one level, and not enough to influence them to embrace these
technological innovations to any further extent.

Translation: You are expecting them to accept your very logical and valid arguments based on the logic of them, you are not taking into account their indoctrination and world view. You are interpreting their reactions based on logic, not their illogical upbringing. Your facts will not convince them to change their views.

Quote:

Care must be taken by the inquisitor not to lose sight of the fact that these curious subjects are people, and not specimens, much easier to do when you are questioning folks more similar to the Amish, "plain people", folks who just want to be left alone, to themselves, then when your subjects represent a group with an ambitious, externalized agenda.

Translation: You are talking down in your posts to these simple people, not people who want to change the world like you and me, who think beyond themselves and their way of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can only take the condescension so long before I reply, in this case with humor, or does banter have no place in the politics board? What was I implying btw? The only innuendo I can find is host refering to some of us posters as backwards folk.

So just who will be revolting? I wouldn’t be surprised to see some small terrorist type groups spring up, it doesn't take that much to get a group of radicals together, but a revolution? No.

i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...and i've been following this thread since it's inception...please enlighten me as to your specific point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

i have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...and i've been following this thread since it's inception...please enlighten me as to your specific point...

The Amish men are known for wearing straw hats.

Host was refering to some of us posters as like the Amish to roachboys superiority.

As such I was hoping to wear a straw hat, I happen to like them (and they are saddly out of style).

http://www.bio-itworld.com/images/08...SIDS-amish.jpg

and this relates to the thread topic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

and this relates to the thread topic?

I'm confused too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

I observed host employing (to roachboy) the innuendo that those who disagreed with him (that would be ustwo, mainly) were somewhat unsophisticated, like the Amish.

I followed ustwo's statement. It was a humorous reply, in the absence of a warning to host.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain the innuendo that you detected in ustwo's "straw hat" comment.

It would help all of us avoid committing a similar offense.

I didn't read that Host was being condescending to anyone here. However, it is up to Host to say what his intentions were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

and this relates to the thread topic?

Did hosts post relate to the thread topic?

No it was an open letter and a telling one of the level of arrogance involved.

I made light of this arrogance.

funny, ustwo--that's not at all how i took host's post.
but i do imagine you'd look pretty swell in a straw hat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think most liberals don't understand the conservative arguement that America was not attacked because of our foriegn policy and "meddeling in other's affairs," but because the pan-arab population has been indoctrinated by their leaders (through the media and the supporting of extremist religious views) that america is the great satan. The people have been told this for generations because it is yet another weapon dictators have to keep ahold of their power.

The liberal arguement is that if we change the way we act around the world the terrorists won't have any reason to attack us.

But thats not true. They attack us because they hate us, they hate us because theyve been, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed. Nothing we do, short of killing the extremists, giving people the opportunity to be free so that they can freely be allowed to find all the information (both sides, or more) of a story. Like the story they've been told since birth, that the US is the devil. We give these people the ability to free themselves from tyrants, improve their standards of living (over time) and the personal freedoms we take for granted every day, all the while we are killing the terrorists that hate us and destroy their countryside and then one day, they don't have to like us, but they might not be so willing to blow themselves up to kill us, or just kill us in general.

I mostly agree with your assessment of the terrorist situation as described above. I hope that the sacrifices our troops and their families are making are not being done in vain.

I fear that people indoctrinated as you describe, once they have some sort of democracy, may well vote themselves back an Islamic dictatorship and we (and they) will be right back where we started.

How to win the hearts and minds will be the long term goal. Perhaps if they stay free enough for long enough and are exposed to uncensored news they will at least not think of us as the great satin that must be destroyed at all costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

While this is always a possibility, Iraq does have the advantage of being a secular state to start with, and the results of the general election in this regard are promising. The key will be getting the Iraqi education system up to some sort of acceptable standard. Education, particularly history education in the arab world is carefully distorted and designed to keep the people hating the west, and celebrating the concept of islamic governments. I posted excessively on this in the past, though the posts are long buried.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Did hosts post relate to the thread topic?

No it was an open letter and a telling one of the level of arrogance involved.

I made light of this arrogance.

My post was in reaction to this exchange:

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

stevo: thanks for the response--i dont buy some of it, but it is an interesting position you outline.

one thing that i have been interested in doing here, in this board, with varying degrees of clarity i'm afraid, is to try to work out a general logic for how conservatives in the new mode argue--what the logic is, how the various positions that folk hold fit together. desipte the occaisional flashes of irritation that i let pass when i write these things, i am really interested in trying to understand this logic--mostly because i see it running through the posts and conversations of many folk i encounter.

what i mean by this is that i think there are patterns that let the arguments you characterize as straightforward function. i try to outline, from time to time, what i think those patterns are. because i think it most strange that it is so difficult to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world. this partly as a reaction to the difficulty i mentioned before, and partly because i think the patterns i noted are new and frankly are dangerous if you value anything like a democratic process that necessarily involves debate, conflict between positions--and the possibility of real dialogue within that and possibly, on that basis, something like shifting positions.

i am afraid i'm being vague here: i did something a few days ago somewhere--not sure where right now---that ran out a theory about the basic structure, the basic pattern that holds these positions together as being a transposed racism--i tried to be quite clear about what i meant--which was not that conservatives are racist--but rather that there are similarities at the level of pattern between ways of pitching claims in both areas. that conservative politics seems to me to be about a particular personal belief that is defined as much be reating against the outside as it is about anything positive from the inside, and that this belilef leans pretty heavily on a kind of religious committment as its model.

i do not write stuff like that--and this really---out of much motive except trying to understand what i see as a strange kind of politics--a strange and relatively new kind of politics in the american context.
so that's why i use the terminology that i use.
well that and i actually think like this.
just to explain.

as for the claim concerning "terrorism" suffice it to say here, because i am not interested in arguing about it, that i do not buy your assumptions.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=135

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I'm not exactly sure of the patterns you mention. I remember your "racist" post, and later after reading it I do remember thinking to myself, "well, yeah, of course there's an us and a them. If they thought the way we thought they would be us"

But I'll think about it some and let you know if I can help you out, but I'm not sure I'll come up with anything.

I think as far as current world events are concerned and the discussions about them, perhaps it comes down to beliefs. and beliefs are hard to change. people die for beliefs, just look at suicide bombers.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=136

I attempted to draw a comparison, from my point of view, of the challenges that a scientist or a news reporter would face in trying to process and then document the viewpoint of Amish people who "come[s] down to beliefs. and beliefs are hard to change", -stevo
and..........
"because i think it most strange that it is so difficult to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world." -roachboy
and........
"that conservative politics seems to me to be about a particular personal belief that is defined as much be reacting against the outside as it is about anything positive from the inside, and that this belilef leans pretty heavily on a kind of religious committment as its model." -roachboy

I selected the Amish, and described them as <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1828055&postcount=159">"liv[ing] such a quaint and anachronistic lifestyle"</a> because I think that this is what is most interesting about them, to many outsiders. I attempted to make the point that it may not be possible for roachboy "to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world." The similarity with the Amish is that when conclusions are influenced by "belief" and "a kind of religious committment", with "family values" and the dictates of elders, roachboy might as well be the anthropologist trying to find out how the Amish accomodate the use of some technology that seems similar to technology that they prohibit the use of.

Maybe my point would have been clearer if I compared the opinions of creationists to those who embrace the theory of evolution.

The last sentence in my post was in response to this, by roachboy, "and partly because i think the patterns i noted are new and frankly are dangerous if you value anything like a democratic process that necessarily involves debate". I edited it 2 or 3 times, after I posted, to make doubly sure that my point would not be obscured by the very allegations that I've avoided responding to, until it became obvious that it is appropriate to add my "take".

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I selected the Amish, and described them as <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1828055&postcount=159">"liv[ing] such a quaint and anachronistic lifestyle"</a> because I think that this is what is most interesting about them, to many outsiders. I attempted to make the point that it may not be possible for roachboy "to get folk from the right to explain why they hold certain views, how these views fit with others, and how they fit with data about the world." The similarity with the Amish is that when conclusions are influenced by "belief" and "a kind of religious committment", with "family values" and the dictates of elders, roachboy might as well be the anthropologist trying to find out how the Amish accomodate the use of some technology that seems similar to technology that they prohibit the use of.

Um, hate to pick nits here, but the Amish are very well aware of what goes on in the outside world. They have a "rite of passage", for lack of a better term, in which the young people are sent out into the world and are basically cut loose to do whatever they want. After a certain amount of time, they get to choose if they want to live in the Amish tradition or if they want to stay in the modern world. They are not naive about what goes on and what the options are, they just choose to live how they want to live. As for their use of technology, for example cellphones, they may use them because they are necessary professionally, but they leave them outside of the house because they don't want to corrupt what they hold dear. (I've used Amish builders/contractors before.) They reject the technology because they feel it basically enslaves them. Having spent X number of years carrying around my cellphone, when I'm accessable pretty much 24/7 to the people who may need to contact me in an employment-related emergency, they may have a point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Maybe my point would have been clearer if I compared the opinions of creationists to those who embrace the theory of evolution.

Host, from my perspective, I don't know how you could have made your point more clear.
If this is the first time your post has been maligned into something totally alien to what you meant, and then picked apart by fanboys, welcome to the club...

I'm as certain as I can be that just about everyone understood exactly what you meant...and didn't intend to imply. Evidently there wasn't enough agitation on the politics board for ustwo's taste, so he felt the need to create a problem when there wasn't one.

for what it's worth--even though i was really clear about this in my response to host--i felt a bit caught out by his post--but there is nothing condescending in it--it simply reflected the tension that exists when you are on the one hand thinking about a something as an analytic question and talking to folk who are involved in that same issue at the same time--there is always a danger that you will start treating the people you are speaking to as specimens..it's not about being condescending--it is about the appearance of being condescending that can come about quite against your will simply because you are thinking in two different ways about the same questions.

that ustwo confused appearance for reality does not surprise me, and i have nothing to say either to or about it beyond that.

but his reaction--his interpretation--has no contact whatsoever with either how i think about folk on this board or anywhere else, no contact whatsoever with how i took host's post or the exchange that followed. with the result that i cannot fathom what the motive might have been behind his posts.

The fact that the current administration prides itself with being bi-partisan seems out of place with Karl Rove's speech. Modern politics has become a verbal boxing match with the news media as the commentator.

The government would be more efficient and effective if officials respected each others ideological differences. Then they might actually engage in intellectual discourse instead of disconnecting verbiage that causes defensiveness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lusciousmunkee

Modern politics has become a verbal boxing match with the news media as the referee.

Referee, commentator, or cheerleader?