[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 6:17 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> You don't seriously deny this was distortion via omission, creating a false
> association with the sole intent of inciting anger?
>
>
You know that famous scene in Casablanca when the Inspector General closes
down Rick's Cafe because he is "Shocked, yes shocked! to discover there is
gambling in the establishment?

That rings about as convincing as your protestation that a politician would
use distortive and excessive rhetoric.

Now.... to finish off my point, it is that I think your most effective
weapon in fighting distortive and excessive rhetoric, is probably NOT
excessive and distortive rhetoric.  That creates more of the "Pendulum
Effect".  Such flows from your emotional reaction of aggravation rather than
the calm considered intellectual analysis of the best way to respond to the
situation.

See?  That's all.



> 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.
>
>
Ok Arlo, if actual violence occurs I will definitely brand his rhetoric
"evil".  If it doesn't will you concede the point to me and brand it merely
excessive and aggravating?




> [Arlo]
> Effectively? Jeez, John, I've been trying to "instantiate my caring" for
> years.
> The squawkbeat continues.



Hmmm.  A clue perhaps?




> 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"?
>
>

The way to reason with intellectual subversive rhetoric is using
intellectually subversive rhetoric.

C'mon Arlo.  You know that.  You've been doing it your whole life!  We all
have.  We all do.  Just don't be all Shocked, Shocked!




> [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.
>


Just been grudge, trudge, grudge ever since, eh?  And yet you keep coming
back for more.  There must be some sort of degenerate glee in doing so.  I
know there is for me.




>
> 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.
>
>
Well yeah, obviously.  According to my analogy, Socrates didn't "hate" the
sophists either.  He was one!  He hung around with them.  He should have
listened to them a little more instead of setting up this dialectical
either/or rigidity.

A little sophistry woulda served the dude well, facing his oppressors with a
cup of hemlock in their hands.  I sure would be motivated to see the other
side of my argument at that point.

Some guys will do anything to win an argument.



> [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.
>

No!  I mean, yes, if you want to. He's funny.  But I meant the title was
funny.  "Eat the Rich"?  "Death Panels to exterminate seniors and babies"?
 "Angry mobs storming the castle"?

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you to discover excessive and inflammatory
rhetoric on this fine forum with all these noble onlookers lurking on.

Ri-i-i-ght.



>
> [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.
>
>

Of course you would know it was dogs. It's a very famous quotation and you
are a very educated guy.   I was referring back to our first  debate on the
love of dog, for the love of dog.

That and wrapping my arguments in the Flag AND warm fuzzy puppies.  I have
no rhetorical shame.

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.
>
>
Yeah, I thought that was kinda obvious too.  So we must be in agreement.

thank dog!