[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

[John]
> I have some leisure time to respond in detail.
>
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, okay, bad bad Arlo for getting upset at the moronic squawking about
> "death panels". Bad bad Arlo for getting angry at seeing someone here say
> "academics are willing executioners of those they disagree with".


Bad bad Arlo?  Man, you do have issues.  Maybe you should describe your
relationship with your mother.



> But don't
> castigate, Platt, oh no... just ignore him. Let him say whatever vile,
> distortive, nonsense he wants... but don't call him on it! Oh no!
>
>
Hey, I already said Platt's going to wouldshed for touting Ayn Rand.  I'm a
fair-minded wouldshedder.  It's just taking me a little longer.  That woman
wrote!  But I'm almost there.



> There is one point in all this I'd like to continue...
>
> [Arlo previously]
> That to me, John, is an example of something Pirsig would unequivocally
> call
> "morally evil".
>
> [John]
> I can't agree with that assertion.
>
> [Arlo]
> Russell KNEW his statement would create a false association.



in his view it was a justifiable association because he views Obama as
venturing down the same path of socialist control of the population as Kim
Jong Il.



> It was
> deliberately designed to create the impression that "school addresses" are
> endemic to totalitarian regimes.



But Arlo, here we go again.   School addresses ARE endemic to totalitarian
regimes...  its pretty easy to create an impression of a true fact.



> He deliberately ignored the fact that
> conservatives supported Bush giving a similar address a few years back so
> as to
> create a sense of anger and incite a mob.
>


You're really reaching.  You think he's picturing pitchforks and torches and
smiling inside?  I mean, we haven't seen true "mobs" in this country for
quite some time, outside of a prison, and it'd be an amazingly rare
spectacle.



>
> And you do not think that is morally evil?
>

Do you know where I think the only place moral evil resides? Within
intellect.  I don't think all intellect is evil, but evil is intellectual in
nature.  It's not evil for a tiger to kill its prey.  It's not evil to
campaign for party politics and vote for your side to win.  Evil is using
objective metaphysics to dominate reality.  Evil is using intellect to
self-justify.

But maybe we aren't ready to jump down the rabbit warren of defining evil,
just yet.



>
> Both of these are perfect examples of social violence seeking to subvert
> intellectual discourse. And as such are prime examples of something Pirsig
> would call "morally evil".
>
>

I think your understanding of him is too simplistic in this regard.  In my
not very humble opinion.



> [John]
> Right.  I get that.  Take off thy shoes and tip-toe around, thou art on
> sacred
> ground.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well we should be above pandering to rhetoric that distorts in order to
> subvert
> intellect. Yes. We should. Excuse me for thinking that people here should
> find
> such stuff revolting.
>


John clears his throat and taps his foot and looks up to the sky]

Uh yes Arlo.  I definitely agree.  We certainly *should *be above rhetorical
pandering, but we obviously are *not*.  And the one person who caught my
attention as expressing revulsion is Lu, who expresses revulsion at a lot of
things that are fun anyway, so I'm not taking HER word on it.



> [John]
> "I've put in enough time dealing with Platt.   So.... I'm gonna respond the
> hell out of him every time he pops up with this nonsense."
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't respond to Platt in the hopes of reaching any agreement. I respond
> to
> Platt so that the lurkers or newcomers here don't think we are all a bunch
> of
> idiots squawking about "death panels".
>
> But I shouldn't care.
>


I wouldn't say you shouldn't care.  Let's just say I'm suggesting you
instantiate your caring more effectively.

Lurkers.  Don't talk to me about lurkers.  Lurkers give me the shudders.
 Hello?  Is that someone lurking?


>
> [John]
> And don't take it that I'm saying you SHOULD ignore him.  Au contraire.
>  I'm
> saying your claim that you dislike the engagement is contradicted by the
> facts
> of what you actually do.
>
> [Arlo]
> You're saying that every time he squawks "death panels" I should either
> ignore
> it, or repeat the same "intellectual" response over and over, all the while
> being called a freedom hating, degenerate hippie, commie, anti-liberty
> pinhead
> "acerdimic".
>

Nah, I'm saying you should keep the flames flowing.  If that's what you
enjoy, keep doing it.  But you seem like your not having that much fun so
I'm saying, try something different.  Try seeing it from his view.  Here's a
challenge for you.  Argue against Obama's address as effectively as you can,
as you picture Platt.

Oh god.  On second thought, don't.  You're kinda doing that now with the
"freedom hating, degenerate hippy" thing.  I doubt it'd be that effective in
a long format.

I personally would wear about half those labels proudly. I'm a low down
tree-hugging dirt-worshipping, hippy-wanna-be, dot communist who would put a
poster of Marx on my walls if I could buy one in a thrift store.  I ain't an
academic, and it's kinda fun to mock them, you have to admit.  You probably
do it all the time yourself, in the privacy of your own brain.  They're a
funny breed apart.

You remember that charge about Plato hating the Sophists because they
couldn't match the greatest Sophist of them all, Socrates?   Same reason RMP
hates academics.


[John]
> Ok then.  You see the pendulum problem then.  The effect of drawing up
> sides
> and villifying the enemy and just going back and forth.
>
> [Arlo]
> I am not taking SIDES. Please see past that, John. I am taking issue with
> distortive, deceptive, inflammatory rhetoric designed to subvert
> intellectual
> discourse to social violence. Period.
>

Really.  Ok, I'm against that too.  So is Platt.  We're all in harmony!
 Break out the beer!





> I am NOT saying Obama's "end of life" provision, or any other part of his
> proposal, is beyond criticism. I have said that I disagree with sections of
> it
> as well. I am saying that squawking about "Obama wants to set up death
> panels
> to kill seniors and babies" is EVIL.
>


>
> Please, please, tell me you can see the difference?
>

Ok, I can.

But please, please tell me you can also see how it's a little bit funny?  In
the same vein of humor as the title of PJ O'Rourke's book, Let's Eat the
Rich.


> [Arlo]
> I truly think we are the edge of a powder-keg. And with discourse being
> reduced
> to "incite a larger and larger angry mob", I firmly believe it will not be
> long
> until we see actual violence in the street.



Oh.  Well then.  You probably aren't so amused as I.  Different
perspectives, again.



> Khaled and I have been talking
> about that. And this frustrates me, and this is exponential here because we
> SHOULD know better. If MOQ-D can't rise above that, if we can't
> unequivocally
> denounce that rhetoric as "evil", then I see no hope whatsoever. Why even
> try?
> Let the mobs get incited, let me try to help make my mob even angrier. Hey,
> saying "Obama wants to set up death panels to kill seniors and babies" is
> just
> a "view"! How dare anyone criticize that!!
>
> Cry havoc! And let loose the mobs of war...
>
>
dogs - dogs of war.  dogs that have feelings.  Feelings of love.  Warm fuzzy
puppies.  How Dare Anyone Criticize That.


> [John]
> Yeah.  Right.  Go away Arlo.  You do and I'll call you a metaphysical
> sissy.
>
> [Arlo]
> Why stay in a forum that is unable to denounce such rhetoric as "evil"?
> You'd
> call me a sissy. That's funny, since I am being chastised for being a
> metaphysical bully by condemning Platt's idiotic rhetoric.
>
> What would I be if I stay and just ignore it, John? I'd say "metaphysically
> dishonest".
>
> Okay, now I've had my time behind the shed. Now what do you say, John, able
> to
> make good on your promise to take Platt back there too?



Yeah, but now it's evolving dynamically into a rhetorical challenge  to
express opposition without vituperation.  Errp... the pressure.... the
pressure....