[MD] Imaginings

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
Well I'm not embarrassed except at the lack of cogent criticism of Platt's
tactics.

[Arlo]
Cogent criticisms... Okay, John, while I think I've laid that out, I'll simply
remind you of a long history here in this forum of people, many people, taking
very much time to lay out "cogent criticisms" of the kind of talk-radio
nonsense Platt spews here. And having seen that for years and years, and yet
each month brings new squawkings as if no one has ever bothered to try before.
I've said this before, I've gone that route, I have NO patience for it any
longer. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Ron, for example, has tried the more patient,
saintly approach, and I respect him for that. But me, I've been dragged through
the mire of "commie, anti-liberty, freedom-hatin', acerdimic" so many times my
eyes bleed every time I see yet another anti-intellectual squawk about
"interllictials". The recent upping of the squawk volume about "death panels"
and the idiotic response to the President's speech, has me annoyed (as well as
embarrassed) at the depths to which rhetoric in this country has fallen. 

Onward...

[John]
Ok Arlo.  In philosophy we use logic and logically speaking, the statement is
accurate.  It is the kind of activity that I'm sure is exhibited by North
Korea, Iraq and (as you point out) Bush's America.  And probably France too.

[Arlo]
Accurate? Sure, like saying "Drinking beer is the kind of thing we'd expect or
see in Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Russia". Yeah. You'd expect to find it
there, but the rhetorical association is "evil". It attempts to subvert
intellect to social anger (an anger pandering to misinformed people).

As I said, when Russell made the comment, he was FULLY aware of both Bush's
similar 1991 address, and conservative support for it. But instead of
mentioning this, he chose to take a route that deliberately distorted via
omission with the INTENT of inciting. 

That to me, John, is an example of something Pirsig would unequivocally call
"morally evil".

Now. I expect to hear that sort of stuff on Limbaugh's show, but when I see it
HERE, it really, really, really pisses me off.

[John]
I mean, the leader of the country addressing the country's school children is
most likely done everywhere, so a politician blathering about North Korea and
Iraq doing it is pandering to his constituancy with maddeningly inflammatory
rhetoric and logically defensible accuracy.

[Arlo]
Its not "accurate". Its a false association. It uses deliberate omission to
incite. Accurate? We use that word differently, apparently.

[John]
Its many things, but certainly not "stupid".

[Arlo]
THAT was my point. Russell was deliberate in his attempt to subvert intellect
in order to incite mob anger. That is calculated. And it is "evil". Plain and
simple.

And THAT is why its embarrassing to me to see it here.

[John]
Just angrily denouncing doesn't do that much good.

[Arlo]
Fair enough. But, like I said, please search the archives. I've put in enough
time trying to deal intellectually with Platt's talk-radio nonsense. 

Take "death panels". We DID denounce that crap intellectually. And that was
just a few weeks back. And, lo and behold, a few days later, the resident
parrot was squawking about "death panels" again. Do you REALLY think, for one
minute, any of that made ANY difference to Platt? 

[John]
The way you come off when you get so rhetorically inflamed by Platt does not
make your argument seem stronger, it makes it seem weaker. The old adage, if
the facts are on your side, pound the facts if logic is on your side, pound
logic and if neither, pound the table.

[Arlo]
Yeah, I know this. Again, I've been there, John. I get angry, and I should not.
I take it personally, and I should not. But "facts" and "logic" just accomplish
nothing, believe me, I am not the only one who has tried. 

[John]
Ok, here I'm sidling up and thinking that problems with power and self are
tricky to untangle, but you may have some good points. 

[Arlo]
Since this was in response to what I said Russell could have said, let me
restate quickly.

A principled response to Obama's speech would have been to say, "Look,
Presidents are morally justified addressing the schools. I supported it when
Bush did it, and I support it now that Obama is doing it. As a parent, I object
to Obama's politics, so I am keeping my kids home. And, if a latter address is
being given by a Republican president, Democrat parents are similarly justified
in keeping their kids home."

Had THAT been the message, I would have had little complaint. Instead, the
message has been one where facts are deliberately distorted and omitted, in
order to evoke fear and incite anger. I find THAT morally reprehensible. And I
fully believe that that is a form of what Pirsig would call "evil".

But here I'd ask, how would you argue, intellectually and logically, with
Russell. He KNOWS he is being deceitful. He KNOWS he is distorting the facts.
Do you really think any intellectual argument would do anything? Hell no. He'd
call you a liberal swine, perhaps, maybe a socialist, duped by the
fascist-liberal media, make some inane comments about "acerdimics" and your
love of "Obozo". 

And that is where I am at here. You and I can talk about this, and I am glad we
are, because I know you are coming from a place of reason. But people like
Russell? How do you respond to that? Ignore it? I do, when its on the Limbaugh
program. But HERE?

[John]
Would you honestly prefer an all-liberal forum? 

[Arlo]
Don't fall into this trap. This is NOT about "conservative views". As I said, a
conservative making the above principled remark about Obama's speech, I'd
likely not even glance twice at. Craig makes many points supporting
conservative views, and have you seen any time where I have responded to him
angrily, or denouncingly? I have not. This is NOT about conservative views, its
about rhetoric that is deliberately dishonest, deliberately distortive, and
designed to subvert intellect by pandering instead to fear and anger. Liberal
politicians do that too, by the way. Its just that the level of vitriol has
increased a thousand fold in America recently. 

[John]
Angry, incited mob is not such a far fetched object as one might think, and
even if the mob stays mainly peaceful, the democratic mob has powers of
political force that create destructive reality. 

[Arlo]
This was my point to Platt when he claimed victory when angry, misinformed
voters stormed "town halls". Its hardly new. History is filled with examples of
angry mobs, and politicians who manipulated them to achieve political gains. 

[John]
Platt's giving you a chance here to really debate and present your case.  An
important task.  Use it, don't just abuse it.

[Arlo]
Sorry. I've been there, John. Many times. There is no debate, its a constant
end-around, topic changes, Pee Wee's, distortions, and usually ends with Platt
crying about how the evil academic is soooooo mean. 

But I think you've missed some posts if you don't think I've presented my case.
"Death panels" was handled very thoroughly by several people. The Obama speech
comments I clearly pointed out, with reference, that the three "adjectives"
Platt used are three that have been repeated ad nauseum on Limbaugh, Hannity
and countless wingnut outlets. The comments about how wrong it was for Obama to
give a school address was something Ron jumped in by pointing out the blatant
hypocrisy (including the "letter writing").  

So whatever. Take me to the shed. I probably deserve it for my impatience and
anger-embarrassment induced condemnations. If YOU think that seeing "death
panels" or this other crap appear here is not embarrassing, then I stand
corrected, but to be honest, John, it should embarrass you. And if no one here
is willing to stand up that distortive and deceptive rhetoric, then maybe this
is likewise not worth my time either.