Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Shaman wrote:If I wanted to watch a slowed fat man's opinion I'd watch the simpsons.
So, are you amongst that top 1% who screw the rest of us out of what is rightfully ours on a regular basis? Because that's the way it is.
Are you serious? Please, tell me what you've ever done to earn the money they worked for. Please tell me how it is "rightfully" yours.
Those super-rich scumbag CEO's? They didn't work for those massive bonuses, they used a corrupt system to steal from people's retirement funds and now they're laughing in our faces about it. Are you on there side? That's the purest definition of evil I've ever heard of.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My thoughts on this film are, it's sheer hypocrisy. Moore will make millions more off of the capitalist system that he's lambasting.
He's playing you all for fools. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man. And he's laughing all the way to the bank.
I don't mind a bit o' Michael Moore - but why does he have to be so fething 'earnest'? FFS! I thought he was gonna burst into tears when he started talking about nuns and saying he is a 'true patriot' and a christian. Who gives a feth? There seems to be a lot of that sentimental gak on the other side of the pond of late (see 'Joe The Plumber'...) All that showboating detracts from the seriousness of some of his issues TBH - despite that, Sicko was a great film (made me cry and rage in equal measures - sentimental, I know...).
And for the stupid people: Yes, Michael Moore IS wealthy. Well Done!
Yes, this is due to capitalism in no small part. Again, WELL DONE!
At no time in the interview does he say that he hates money, or the acquisition thereof. Neither does he hate rich people - he simply believes that the current financial system is imbalanced. He even says that he doesn't hate capitalism - just it's current incarnation.
Anyway, Mark Thomas kicks his arse.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Where would one acquire said Space Corridors and Industrial Towers?
People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:10 years ago I liked Micheal Moore's TV show, but as the saying goes...
If you are 18 and aren't a socialist you have no heart.
if you are 28 and are a socialist you have no brain.
Which is one of Churchill's great turns of phrase. Of course, what Churchill meant was 'You take whatever power you can from whatever party is willing to give it. When I was young that happened to be the Labour Party. When it looks like that party will reject you you join the other one, because ideology is nice and all but what really matters is personally staying in power.'
Really, to turn an act of blantant political expediency and use it to create a quote that's lasted generations, that is impressive and an indication of where Churchill's strength's lay.
The saying is, of course, utterly wrong. There's nothing wrong with relying on stereotypical views of the left and right wing when making sweeping political statements, but those stereotypes haven't fit for at least 30 years. These days it's just as common to spend one's youth as an ideological right winger as an ideological left winger, with the myth of the self made man being just as tempting as the myths of class oppression. It's later in life when you start seeing how the world really works that you tend to pull back, and modify your beliefs. Perhaps a better saying would say 'if a man is not a true believer at 18 he has no soul, if he is not a pragmatist at 28 he has no brain'.
Or you know, better than that. I don't have Churchill's talent in turning a phrase.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:My thoughts on this film are, it's sheer hypocrisy. Moore will make millions more off of the capitalist system that he's lambasting.
He's playing you all for fools. Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man. And he's laughing all the way to the bank.
If Moore was opposed to the idea of rich people, then yes he'd be a hypocrit. Moore is opposed to people doing nasty things to get rich, and to a system that condones or encourages people doing nasty things to get rich.
The idea that a person can't support a more humane economic system while pursuing personal wealth in a humane manner is a lame, old ploy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:If I want to watch a political propaganda film, I will watch this...
Yeah! Because any and all politically charged commentary is equal to Nazi ideology!
Honest to God, what is going on? Has the US political debate get so ridiculous that any media taking an opposing POV is immediately likened to Nazi propaganda? Or is it just a special Michael Moore thing, perhaps based on his little place in history that I mentioned earlier?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/29 03:10:00
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Honest to God, what is going on? Has the US political debate get so ridiculous that any media taking an opposing POV is immediately likened to Nazi propaganda? Or is it just a special Michael Moore thing, perhaps based on his little place in history that I mentioned earlier?
JohnHwangDD wrote:If I want to watch a political propaganda film, I will watch this...
Yeah! Because any and all politically charged commentary is equal to Nazi ideology!
Honest to God, what is going on? Has the US political debate get so ridiculous that any media taking an opposing POV is immediately likened to Nazi propaganda?
Or is it just a special Michael Moore thing, perhaps based on his little place in history that I mentioned earlier?
I didn't say that all political commentary is Nazi ideology - you did. But the idea that a Michael Moore film is anything but political propaganda is pretty silly. And quite frankly, when we talk about political propaganda done right, the Nazis did it first, best.
Secondly, this isn't "any media", because the word "media" pretends that there is some semblance or pretense of "balance", and that criteria isn't met in the slighest.
In context, we're talking about a Michael Moore film, where is no balance whatsoever. It's a pure Leftist propaganda disguised as a documentary, so why not just call the frickin' spade a spade?
JohnHwangDD wrote:I didn't say that all political commentary is Nazi ideology - you did. But the idea that a Michael Moore film is anything but political propaganda is pretty silly. And quite frankly, when we talk about political propaganda done right, the Nazis did it first, best.
John, is English your first language? I don't mean to be rude, but from what I've read of your posts you don't seem to be an idiot, but you keep making a lot of really simple errors. In the past I've assumed it's because you've just been reflexively typing whatever you think will score you a point without actually reading what's been posted, but now I'm wondering if there's a language barrier. If it isn't I'll cut you some slack.
Anyway, I didn't say all political commentary was Nazi ideology, no-one did. You likened Moore’s work to Nazi propaganda, I pointed out that not all political commentary is equivalent. Simply put, an opinion piece that argues for healthcare reform is not the same thing as an opinion piece that argues the Aryan race is superior.
Secondly, this isn't "any media", because the word "media" pretends that there is some semblance or pretense of "balance", and that criteria isn't met in the slighest.
Ah, that's simply not what media means. Media refers to any and all material commenting on the world, regardless of quality. FOX is media, Dateline is media, the tabloid press reporting on the cellulite of celebrities is media.
Now, you can make an argument for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ media, but even then you’d be wrong in claiming Moore is bad because he isn’t objective. Within the media there are many different types, and Moore is doing opinion pieces. These pieces advertise their beliefs up front, then go about building a case to convince you of those beliefs. Now, it is reasonable to argue that Moore is bad because he doesn’t do a very good job of building a case (and I would agree with those who make that claim), but to complain that he isn’t showing both sides of the story is a woeful criticism, indicating a very poor understanding of the media and the place of opinion pieces.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
MM makes a lot of his money by simply being controversial. With so many people hating on this latest flick (and MM in general), you know ti is going to be extremely popular. I would not be surprised at all if MM was taking the topic directly into his own hands, and manipulating it (as most opinion based media does) to fashion a highly contested viewpoint, and in turn, produce revenue given the context that his opinion is presented in.
I do still think that a good portion of the watching is going to be done via torrents, and I would laugh in MM's face if he got angry about that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/29 05:49:59
@sebster: English is my first language, and no, I don't consider you an idiot (by Webster's definition), either. There's no language barrier per se (aside from random American / Australian differences) - I generally understand exactly what you're saying, and typically think that you're completely 100% wrong. That is, we simply don't agree on anything politically. Just as agreement doesn't imply intelligence, nor does disagreement doesn't imply a lack of understanding.
I likened Moore's work to Nazi propaganda precisely because he goes out of his way to demonize those who he disagrees with in his movies. Ergo, what's good for the Left is good for the Right. And regardless, it's still BS propaganda, of which Leni's movie is of the absolute highest caliber.
We are using the word "media" differently, but that doesn't mean that my usage is "better" nor that yours is "worse".
Anyhow, I think our worldviews are sufficiently opposed that no middle ground of common understanding is possible whatsoever. Ergo, I'll not respond to you in the future as we cannot communicate together. I suggest that you do the same.
I liked Bowling for Columbine. I thought it was interesting. I didn't like how he cornered Chuck Heston, though. The whole opening unlocked doors in Canada was pure BS. Most people's doors are locked. They might not pull a gun on him, but he would've gotten a hockey stick to the head and his ass kicked by a lot of people. At that point, I knew that reality of living in Canda and what he was presenting were different.
I saw Fahrenheit 911. I thought it was interesting. I didn't like how he builds up a case for an inside job but never gets around to connecting all of the dots as to why it was done. They want our freedoms, more money, power,etc. OK, I understand. Why exactly? Greed? Hubris?
Never saw Sicko. Again, I heard he made valid points vis-a-vis why the Gitmo detainees had A1 class medical treatment but a lot of vets didn't. I also heard he championed a healthcare system modelled on a "Universal Healthcare" model. However, I know, again from personal experience, that the NHS in the UK is no where near perfect, in fact the hospital I went to in Durham reminded my of an American Civil War field hospital, nor is the Canadian system. However, personally, I'd take waiting in a crummy hospital for hours to get looked at for something serious or trivial and not having to worry about the bill over being dicked around by insurance companies while I'm supposed to be getting better. A little socialism goes a long way.
I doubt I will ever see this one either. JohnHwangDD is 100% correct ( put that in your sig) Moore's films are propaganda. Unfortuantely, nowadays most media is only "Right" or "Left" propaganda.
Feel free to drive a truck through my arguments as they are full of holes.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Anyhow, I think our worldviews are sufficiently opposed that no middle ground of common understanding is possible whatsoever. Ergo, I'll not respond to you in the future as we cannot communicate together. I suggest that you do the same.
If you want. I think there's plenty of room for discussion for people we disagree with, but obviously you mileage varies.
I apologise for the confusion over the language. I understand it could be taken badly, and credit you with taking it with good grace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Khornholio wrote:I liked Bowling for Columbine. I thought it was interesting. I didn't like how he cornered Chuck Heston, though.
His interview with Heston was crap.
The whole opening unlocked doors in Canada was pure BS. Most people's doors are locked. They might not pull a gun on him, but he would've gotten a hockey stick to the head and his ass kicked by a lot of people. At that point, I knew that reality of living in Canda and what he was presenting were different.
It was a silly way of making a worthwhile point about paranoia. I mean, in the middle of the day when we're in the home in the middle of a leafy green suburb, why are we locking the doors?
Never saw Sicko. Again, I heard he made valid points vis-a-vis why the Gitmo detainees had A1 class medical treatment but a lot of vets didn't. I also heard he championed a healthcare system modelled on a "Universal Healthcare" model. However, I know, again from personal experience, that the NHS in the UK is no where near perfect, in fact the hospital I went to in Durham reminded my of an American Civil War field hospital, nor is the Canadian system. However, personally, I'd take waiting in a crummy hospital for hours to get looked at for something serious or trivial and not having to worry about the bill over being dicked around by insurance companies while I'm supposed to be getting better. A little socialism goes a long way.
It basically relies on anecdotal evidence and cute events to make the case that other countries have better healthcare. Parts are entertaining, parts are funny, and the bit where the woman in Cuba is given medicine that would cost thousands of dollars in the US is genuinely powerful, but for the most part it's manipulative. I wouldn't recommend it.
There's probably been more than a dozen PBS documentaries that make the case better than Moore's Sicko.
I doubt I will ever see this one either. JohnHwangDD is 100% correct ( put that in your sig) Moore's films are propaganda. Unfortuantely, nowadays most media is only "Right" or "Left" propaganda.
Are the columnists writing opinion pieces in the paper 'propaganda'? At what point did the term come to describe any and all media that argues from a position?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/29 07:19:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:There's probably been more than a dozen PBS documentaries that make the case better than Moore's Sicko.
MM makes better points in the fact that he gets more views... case and point.
Are the columnists writing opinion pieces in the paper 'propaganda'? At what point did the term come to describe any and all media that argues from a position?
Hence the "trick question" comment... as in yes, they are all propaganda. In fact, we are propaganda, you are propaganda, and that is propagandized.
Khornholio wrote:
Feel free to drive a truck through my arguments as they are full of holes.
I am going to use this one... it speaks to me on many levels... FORWARD MIGHTY STALLIONS!!! FORWARD TO THE FUTURE... of crushing your car.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/29 07:26:22
sebster wrote:
Are the columnists writing opinion pieces in the paper 'propaganda'? At what point did the term come to describe any and all media that argues from a position?
The same point at which the US political apparatus began to include partisan cheering sections in addition to the parties themselves.
That said, a lot of contemporary, political argument carries a sort of propagandic tone as a subtext to the information which is the core of the proposition. So you get films like An Inconvenient Truth that are meant to be documentaries, but also technically align with the minimal definition of propaganda.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote:
Are the columnists writing opinion pieces in the paper 'propaganda'? At what point did the term come to describe any and all media that argues from a position?
The same point at which the US political apparatus began to include partisan cheering sections in addition to the parties themselves.
That said, a lot of contemporary, political argument carries a sort of propagandic tone as a subtext to the information which is the core of the proposition. So you get films like An Inconvenient Truth that are meant to be documentaries, but also technically align with the minimal definition of propaganda.
Minimal to the point where everything, everywhere becomes propaganda as Wrexasaur claimed. I think to be propaganda it has to be directly representing the platform of a political party. Arguing from a position that is broadly similar to a political party doesn't count, or else the word loses meaning and comes to define every opinion piece.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/29 07:51:59
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:
Minimal to the point where everything, everywhere becomes propaganda as Wrexasaur claimed. I think to be propaganda it has to be directly representing the platform of a political party. Arguing from a position that is broadly similar to a political party doesn't count, or else the word loses meaning and comes to define every opinion piece.
Yeah, that's the whole distinction between validity, and appropriateness. Unfortunately, American's love nothing more than technical correctness. Damned legalistic idealism. I blame Wilson.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
sebster wrote:I think to be propaganda it has to be directly representing the platform of a political party. Arguing from a position that is broadly similar to a political party doesn't count, or else the word loses meaning and comes to define every opinion piece.
Oh... are we talking about "real" propaganda now?
I need a seed to plant a tree, and from this tree I can plant many more. From this forest, the trees will grow, and from this growth the forest shall overwhelm. Subtle, maybe... but ineffective... well... that is simply laughable.
Lets just define the bastard and be done with it eh?
dogma wrote:Unfortunately, American's love nothing more than technical correctness.
Tis' the ole fashioned "Prove me wrong" ideal... flimsy it may be, inaccurate it simply is not. Your argument lacks credulity mate .
Here is an example of utter fail... totally utter fail propaganda. THINK BRAIN!!! THINK!!!
Wait... wait wait wait... this is umm... wait. This is that thing right? Why? But no? Why yes? Oh.... right...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2009/09/29 08:11:16
dogma wrote:Yeah, that's the whole distinction between validity, and appropriateness. Unfortunately, American's love nothing more than technical correctness.
It's the definition I've always had, it's propaganda when it is directly tied to the policies of a political group.
The difference between a person who believes in healthcare reform making a piece of media in which they argue for their idea of healthcare reform, and a piece of media that directly adopts the views of one of the political parties and argues those views explicitly is vast.
Damned legalistic idealism. I blame Wilson.
Woodrow? Tom Hanks' volleyball? I don't get the reference, sorry.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
dogma wrote:Yeah, that's the whole distinction between validity, and appropriateness. Unfortunately, American's love nothing more than technical correctness.
It's the definition I've always had, it's propaganda when it is directly tied to the policies of a political group.
At what point does the blame get directed at the people that are "forcing" their affiliated parties into such drastic measures. You can see a loss of Rep support, but a advancement of fringe enforcement. What does this mean? Does it mean that the politicians are pushing agendas disconnected from the majority populace? Sure, why not; but it doesn't mean that this stuff in no way represents a legitimate political opinion.
In essence, I feel that you are splitting proverbial hairs in a hair factory, next to the place where they grow the hair and separate it for discussion.
sebster wrote:
It's the definition I've always had, it's propaganda when it is directly tied to the policies of a political group.
The difference between a person who believes in healthcare reform making a piece of media in which they argue for their idea of healthcare reform, and a piece of media that directly adopts the views of one of the political parties and argues those views explicitly is vast.
True. I've always operated under the assumption that propaganda is any piece of media created for the explicit purpose of helping, or hurting an institution. Now, that doesn't mean one would refer to anything that fits with that definition as something which was exclusively propagandistic, as there is a vast discrepancy between something like An Inconvenient Truth and The Battleship Potemkin .
Really, I think we're of the same mind on this; only approaching classification from different angles.
sebster wrote:
Woodrow? Tom Hanks' volleyball? I don't get the reference, sorry.
Woodrow. He loved his laws and technicalities; especially in international affairs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
At what point does the blame get directed at the people that are "forcing" their affiliated parties into such drastic measures. You can see a loss of Rep support, but a advancement of fringe enforcement. What does this mean? Does it mean that the politicians are pushing agendas disconnected from the majority populace? Sure, why not; but it doesn't mean that this stuff in no way represents a legitimate political opinion.
I guess the question would then be: Do you feel all propaganda is bad?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/29 09:27:37
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote:True. I've always operated under the assumption that propaganda is any piece of media created for the explicit purpose of helping, or hurting an institution. Now, that doesn't mean one would refer to anything that fits with that definition as something which was exclusively propagandistic, as there is a vast discrepancy between something like An Inconvenient Truth and The Battleship Potemkin .
Really, I think we're of the same mind on this; only approaching classification from different angles.
Yeah, and to a large extent context and intent matters. There is a big difference between your meaning and intent when you call An Inconveniant Truth propaganda, and when JohnHwangDD does the same with Moore's work. It is the implication behind John's claim, 'therefore ignore it entirely, never watch it and never let your worldview be questioned' that really needs to be challenged.
People complain about the increasingly partisan nature of the media, and they're right that that is a problem. But personally I've got a much bigger problem with the tendency of people to claim 'bias' and put their fingers in their ears. The other day, in a thread on the census worker that was hung, someone linked to an article pointing out that the area the crime occurred in was full of meth labs, and that was a far more likely cause than increasingly angry right wing pundits pushing a nutter over the edge. Which seemed a reasonble idea, if not the fully story at this point. However, the article was posted on a site with a link to a Michelle Malkin piece, so the left wing of the board decried it as biased, and said they could completely ignore and carry on speculating that it was all Glen Beck's fault.
Woodrow. He loved his laws and technicalities; especially in international affairs.
Ah, I'm with you now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:At what point does the blame get directed at the people that are "forcing" their affiliated parties into such drastic measures. You can see a loss of Rep support, but a advancement of fringe enforcement. What does this mean? Does it mean that the politicians are pushing agendas disconnected from the majority populace? Sure, why not; but it doesn't mean that this stuff in no way represents a legitimate political opinion.
I don't think opinion pieces force anyone into anything. They may not help the dialog, they may add noise that harms the dialog, but a piece can't define the dialog.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there is a massive difference between An Inconvenient Truth and a piece written by the DNC, that directly argued for the legislation being prepared by the Democrats. The first is an opinion piece, and needs to be taken on those terms. To declare it propaganda and therefore having no value is a big mistake.
In essence, I feel that you are splitting proverbial hairs in a hair factory, next to the place where they grow the hair and separate it for discussion.
I have absolutely no idea what that means, but it is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/09/29 09:45:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:It is the implication behind John's claim, 'therefore ignore it entirely, never watch it and never let your worldview be questioned' that really needs to be challenged.
Flawed logic.
So, if there is a wall break it down? Yeah... that just makes so much sense...
Come on now man, you know for a goddam fact that this is not that simple. If it were, there would be no problems with this stuff. People would have taken care of it a long time ago. Before you go into how it is necessary, please consider the fact that you may accomplish nothing... absolutely nothing. Spread that fact, live with it, and then think about another other options... please, before we all die arguing.
I don't think opinion pieces force anyone into anything. They may not help the dialog, they may add noise that harms the dialog, but a piece can't define the dialog.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there is a massive difference between An Inconvenient Truth and a piece written by the DNC, that directly argued for the legislation being prepared by the Democrats. The first is an opinion piece, and needs to be taken on those terms. To declare it propaganda and therefore having no value is a big mistake.
Force does not need to be applied to convince people of points that they have contrived from the beginning. If you truly believe someone is wrong, you should take the time to understand why they might be so controversial in their publications... and after you do that, you should take steps to totally destroy their point of view. Not a game of cat and mouse, not a game of this and that, then the other thing, but a fact of life. You see a wall, I see another obstacle that is yet to be dealt with. Feeble minded... ummm... no, not really, just trying to change the angle of the discussion.
When you run into a wall, expect to hit it...
have absolutely no idea what that means, but it is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
I see everything as potential propaganda. Not in the way that fateweaver does, I am sure. All I am saying is that to try to define one point as more substantial that the other, requires no only logic and solid facts, but the backing of said point/s. This gets messy as all hell, and it sure as frak goes downhill from here. Not deception, mainly because only you can decieve yourself ( in essence), and this becomes particularly apparent when a fringe ideal is recycled (as it has done throughout history, and in many different ways) into a mainstream ideology. You have an apple, I have an orange, but the apple does not make a banana, and bananas do not, I repeat, do not grow on trees.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/29 09:54:28
So, if there is a wall break it down? Yeah... that just makes so much sense...
Come on now man, you know for a goddam fact that this is not that simple. If it were, there would be no problems with this stuff. People would have taken care of it a long time ago. Before you go into how it is necessary, please consider the fact that you may accomplish nothing... absolutely nothing. Spread that fact, live with it, and then think about another other options... please, before we all die arguing.
Dude, I'm posting on the internet, I'm well aware that I'm accomplishing nothing. I have in the past changed people's opinions on topics, and have had my own changed on multiple occasions... which still achieved exactly nothing. Some random guy on the internet now has a somewhat different view on a topic.
But so what? BS should still be called BS. Now, when grandma goes off on a rant about how the Japanese just aren't like us, you let it slide because she's your gran and she's a great old lady. But to just sit back and nod when people post and repost bad arguments, letting that slide does no-one any good. It doesn't help the board culture to have everyone just nodding, patronising each other by thinking them wrong but being too 'polite' to call them on it.
Force does not need to be applied to convince people of points that they have contrived from the beginning. If you truly believe someone is wrong, you should take the time to understand why they might be so controversial in their publications... and after you do that, you should take steps to totally destroy their point of view. Not a game of cat and mouse, not a game of this and that, then the other thing, but a fact of life. You see a wall, I see another obstacle that is yet to be dealt with. Feeble minded... ummm... no, not really, just trying to change the angle of the discussion.
When you run into a wall, expect to hit it...
Well, sure. And when there's a way to step around a wall and challenge the poster's assumptions in an indirect manner, then that should be done. But when a poster just hops in to say Moore = Reifenstahl there's really nothing to be done but call it for what it is.
I see everything as potential propaganda. Not in the way that fateweaver does, I am sure. All I am saying is that to try to define one point as more substantial that the other, requires no only logic and solid facts, but the backing of said point/s. This gets messy as all hell, and it sure as frak goes downhill from here. Not deception, mainly because only you can decieve yourself ( in essence), and this becomes particularly apparent when a fringe ideal is recycled (as it has done throughout history, and in many different ways) into a mainstream ideology.
That's an interesting way of looking at things. It fits in nicely with ideas behind message politics, where you don't try to substantiate the reasoning behind policies, just phrase it in such a way that the audience wants to believe. Which predictably has ended up with the situation where there is nothing but the message, and policy is formed to fit the message (whether it is useful or not).
Which is how the game has to be played if you're running for office these days, but I'm not. I'm just trying to point out some stuff that is true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/09/29 10:27:11
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
...
