[MD] Imaginings

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
OK. And like I said, he could have said, "while Presidents are justified and
correct in address the schools, I oppose Obama's policies, and therefor I will
choose to keep my kids home, democrat parents would also be justified doing the
same thing if it was a conservative president giving the address".

But that is NOT what he (nor all the wingnuts) did. 

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

[Arlo]
But they are also endemic to democratic governments, they are not ONLY endemic
to totalitarianism. And THAT was the association given by Russell's comment.

Seriously, if you think Russell geniunely believes that is a symptom of
totalitarianism for a president to deliver a school address, he would have
opposed Bush delivering one as well. No?

You don't seriously deny this was distortion via omission, creating a false
association with the sole intent of inciting anger? 

Like I said, the "intellectual" response would have been to be honest about
your support of Bush's school address, be honest about the moral right all
President's have in addressing the schools, and then make a non-hypocritical
nod to dissent. 

What is so hard to understand there? Instead, he deliberately omitted mention
of Bush's address (which would have totally refuted his intended meaning), he
deliberately made a false association by citing two examples that would lead
misinformed voters to think that ONLY totalitarianists do this, and then this
was beaten by the parrots for days, inciting angrier and greater mobs.

And you think this is not "morally evil"????

Sorry, John, will stand firm here that this is a clear demonstration of using
social violence to subvert intellectual discourse. Evil.

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
Pitchforks? No, but I am sure he knew that those misinformed and angered by his
evil rhetoric would lash out, and they did. And they continue to do so. 

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

[Arlo]
Effectively? Jeez, John, I've been trying to "instantiate my caring" for years.
The squawkbeat continues. You want me to try to "reason" with intellectually
subversive rhetoric? How do you "reason" with the statement "academics are
willing executioners of anyone who disagrees with them"?

[John]
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.

[Arlo]
FYI, my first "run in" with Platt's "reason" occurred my first week here, when
I was in a conversation about the similarities between Marx's labor-alienation
and Pirsig's, well, labor alienation in ZMM. 

By the end of it, I had been called every name in the book. I was told I was
un-American, an enemy of freedom, a traitorous, soldier-hating, murderous
despot who would love nothing more than to see American children murdered in
the streets, their parents shipped to Gulags (yes, he used that term) and
killed off. I was told the biggest threats to American society are schools and
newspapers, and how amoral, treasonous enemies-of-freedom like myself want
nothing more than millions dead in modern killing fields. Oh yes, I was the the
Height of Evil, and all because I noticed a (valid) connection between Marx and
Pirsig. 

And it was all downhill from there.

By the way, I wear many of those labels proudly. I am an "anarcho-Marxist" at
heart, although I know we are a long ways from every attaining such a
community. Hippie? I would be so lucky. But its the "cliche" anti-freedom,
anti-liberty bunk that always starts flying. As if the ONLY way to be for
freedom is to be a conservative. The ONLY way to be patriotic is to be
conservative. Etc. (And you complain about "homogenizing" forces!)

[John]
Same reason RMP hates academics.

[Arlo]
Um, the dude hangs with Ant. He not only support Ant's thesis, and continues to
support his endeavors, but has, as I said, said that DMB (another "academic")
represents his intended meaning here. Or did, anyways. And I recall he had a
fondness for an academic named Dusenberry.

That's like saying he "hates mechanics" because some bad ones broke his ride.
He might dislike the level of static firmness in the Academy, a dislike I
share, but I think he'd be the first to say that too much "looseness" will just
undermine the entire edifice. 

[Arlo previously]
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.

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

[Arlo]
If Platt was "against that", he wouldn't post it here. Really. You think
posting here that Obama wants to set up death panels to kill seniors and babies
is NOT an example of this??!! Ai yi.

[John]
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]
Not familiar, but I'll check it out.

[Arlo previously]
Cry havoc! And let loose the mobs of war...

[John]
dogs - dogs of war.  dogs that have feelings.  Feelings of love.  Warm fuzzy
puppies.  How Dare Anyone Criticize That.

[Arlo]
Yes, I *know* its "dogs of war". I was talking about mobs, and so I changed it.
I thought that was obvious.

[John]
Yeah, but now it's evolving dynamically into a rhetorical challenge  to express
opposition without vituperation.

[Arlo]
Um... at the risk of stating the obvious, that's because I am talking to
someone interested in discourse, not simply squawking hyperbole.