[MD] Joseph Campbell

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ian]
This is a very old argument ... is Platt a fool, and if not, what ?

[Arlo]
I'm starting my comments here in reply to your words, Ian, though I 
know you get what I am going to say, so they are not directly just at you.

If any actually believes Platt's claim that the response he gets is 
about his "conservative views", they are wrong. There are other 
"conservative" contributors here, or those that may espouse a 
particular "conservative" view on something, and I find conversing 
with them enjoyable and fun. The "war I wage" (to use Marsha's 
metaphor) has nothing to do with his "views", but everything to do 
with the outright dishonesty and deceptive rhetoric tactics deployed.

Take my first response to the comments on "political correctness". I 
made several points; "pc" is wielded by both sides, in some cases I 
think "pc" is appropriate (the use of "retard" was the example I 
gave), and in other cases both sides have carried "pc" too far. I 
mentioned the pc-demonizing of anyone who dares criticize the USA by 
the right. My closing thought on "pc" was this. "Do we go too far in 
calling garbagemen "sanitation engineers"? Maybe. But its balance. Do 
those on the "left" go too far? Sure. Do those on the right? You 
bet." And I ended by condemning those who, like Platt, reduce the 
dialogue to some inane "evil leftist acerdemic" plot to bring tyranny 
to the globe.

This is the reply I got. "Ah yes, the PC-loving Arlo again launches 
an evil personal attack while at the same time claiming tolerance and 
sensitivity. Will laughter ever cease?"

You see straight off he begins with an outright dishonest statement. 
I have asked him repeatedly to point at where I "claim tolerance and 
sensitivity". He knows I never said such a thing, and that's what 
makes his reply "evil". Its deliberately using dishonesty to avoid 
answering ANY of the challenges brought forth. Since that time I have 
renumerated many examples of right-wing "pc", from the demonizing of 
the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher to recasting "torture" as 
"interrogation techniques". Has he responded to any of that? If he is 
so anti-PC as he claims to be, where was his ire when the Chicks and 
Maher suffered the most outrageous pc-demonizing in recent times?

To this Platt replied, "Anyone who defends PC as vehemently as he 
does can be assumed to take pride in his tolerance, sensitivity and 
especially his moral superiority."

So I ask again, where have I "defended PC vehemently"? The only thing 
I've defended at all had been over the use of "retard" and "nigger". 
I've condemend PC in instances like the Chicks and Maher, "torture" 
and even the pc term "Patriot Act". As for "santitation engineers", 
I've pointed out its probably comical, but its one that's irrelevant 
in my opinion. And yet from that I am told I "take pride" in my 
"moral superiority"? Doesn't Platt himself defend the use of PC when 
it nearly cost the Chicks and Maher their careers?

But you see even in his second response, there is nothing of 
substance, no attempt to address any of the points made. It is 
nothing but dishonesty and deception.

And from there, yes, I rage back. Those sort of tactics may be fine 
for the Limbaugh program, but they are shameful here. Utterly 
shameful. And they embarrass us all.

To further this point, Platt himself makes this comment in one of his 
replies to Krimel. "Next, like Arlo, you will be advocating freedom 
to run around naked in public."

If you search the archives for this thread, you'll find that the 
original topic was whether a woman should be free to go topless in 
the same contexts in which a man is. I talked about the 
objectification of women's bodies, the property-ownership patriarchal 
mindset of the American, and how the MOQ could be used to cast 
"nudity" laws in a new light. For example, since society has a right 
to act when biology threatens it, it would be an easy case to 
demonstrate situations in which public nudity would lead to the 
spread of germs and sickness. In those cases, I argued directly 
AGAINST one's "freedom to run around naked in public". But you see 
how its deliberately recast here?

Point is that the frustration and embarrassment expressed have 
everything to do with the distortive and deceptive talk-radio tactics 
he uses to advance the idea that everything boils down to evil 
tyrannical leftists and anti-freedom perfessers collaborating with a 
communist media to enslave the good, honest, freedom-loving 
conservative. In the entirety of the "pc" dialogue, he did not 
address ONE, not ONE, point made. All he did was rehash the same 
"evil leftists use pc, mmmkay?" over and over, all the while using 
outright dishonesty and deception to evade answering any of the 
questions, which I re-post below.

1) You made the assertion that I "claim tolerance and sensitivity", 
can you point out where?

2) You further made the assumption that I "vehemently defend PC", can 
you point out where?

3) In about a dozen posts I've given multiple examples of how 
"conservatives" have manipulated and wielded PC with just as much 
vigor as those "evil leftists". What is your respond to ANY of those? 
(Torture becomes "interrogation techniques", the Dixie Chicks and 
Bill Maher are assalted with a venomous PC war from the right).

4) You claim "individual liberty", and have claimed that "every 
regulation takes something away from individual liberty". But yet in 
those same posts you support laws denying gays the ability to marry 
(regulations) and laws that deny a woman the liberty to go topless 
(regulations). You have yet to answer to these as well.

5) I've claimed (rightly) that being "against PC" is nothing but 
political manure. I've asked for specific examples of where and when 
YOU feel YOU have been the victim of PC. What have YOU not been able 
to say that you wish you could say?

Its not like I expect him to answer of these, any more than I 
expected him to answer to challenges to his assertions about 
"purpose" or "consciousness" or whether "only man can respond to DQ". 
He replies the only way he knows how, with the use of dishonesty, 
deception and evasion; most of it grounded in making derogatory 
comments leftist perfessors (or some other anti-intellectual term) or 
references to Pol Pot and socialism.

And it is THAT that gets my ire, that has me "wage war". Is he a 
"fool"? Not how I define "fool", no. A fool make stupid mistakes 
because he doesn't know any better. Platt plays a game of deliberate 
deception aimed at actually degenerating dialogue when it appears in 
any way to aim criticism at the "right" or when it is obvious he 
can't substantiate or support his assertion in any way. That's not 
being foolish, but it is intellectually evil.