Re: Look Up! Look Up!

Josh Hill wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 01:56:36 -0700, "Random" <randomiez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> On 18 Jul 2005 05:36:14 -0700, "Random" <randomiez@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Josh Hill wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 17:03:45 -0500, "0ld Yank" <same@ Isee.net> wrote:
> >> >> >Question: If Mars appears brightly in the sky and nobody sees it, is it
> >> >> >still there?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Question: If Forrest Forrest Hill posts an opinion and nobody reads it, is
> >> >> >it still stupid?
> >> >>
> >> >> Smear. Conservative. Whoda thunk it.
> >> >
> >> >You know Josh, that's just bull***. [and so on and so forth]
> >>
> >> Actually, that isn't true. For example, I roundly condemned Michael
> >> Moore after I saw Fahrenheit 911.
> >>
> >> My attitude overall is perhaps best summed up by this, from something
> >> I said to Christine:
> >>
> >> Haven't you noticed the similarity between the techniques used by the
> >> flamers and the- techniques used by the Republican party to smear
> >> Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry? (And, in all fairness, by Democrats
> >> like Michael Moore or moveon.org as well, but at the national level I
> >> think it's clear that the Republicans have been driving the process.)
> >>
> >> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.writing/browse_frm/thread/e22ef02b13def7e8/abaf2e54d04c9667?q=michael+moore+author:josh+author:hill&rnum=14&hl=en#abaf2e54d04c9667
> >
> ><news:lnfu81lrkstslvsedssiuv0kdgrugq99ar@xxxxxxx>
> >
> >The excerpt you mention stands out as yet another accusation of
> >partisan extremism from the point of view of a partisan extremist.
> >
> >It's also a good example of what I accused you of doing: 'Yeah, but
> >look what the [REPUBLICANS] did!' -- i.e. 'Yes, some Democrats do it,
> >but the Republicans are the evil ones.'
>
> IOW, if I mention only faults committed by Republicans, I'm a partisan
> extremist, but if I mention in the spirit of fairness faults committed
> by Democrats as well, I'm a partisan extremist?

IOW, you mentioned faults commited by Democrats only as a token gesture
in the direction of fairness, but in the same sentence blamed it all on
the Republicans.


> >Separately, I'd like to mention that my father once told me that the
> >word 'but' renders everything before it ineffectual. Both in the way it
> >is commonly used and the way it is commonly interpretted. People do not
> >usually mean what comes before it, at least not with any real
> >conviction. People don't usually put much stock in it, either.
> >
> >"I'm sorry, but" -- i.e. "I'm not really sorry because"
> >"Democrats do it, but" -- i.e. "It doesn't matter that Democrats do it
> >because"
>
> >Just something to think about. It's most instructive and constructive
> >when applied internally.
>
> By your reasoning, a kid who scratches his initials in his desk is no
> different from Osama Bin Laden.

Bull***. Just plain bull***.
It is your very same line of reasoning that's used to justify things
like the USAPATRIOT Act.
'Yes, we lose some rights, and no, some of those rights aren't really
necessary to lose in the fight against terrorism, but it doesn't matter
because look what we're up against.' It doesn't matter that the
Democratic Party is part of the problem, because the Republican Party
is a bigger part of it.

My line of reasoning is that we should not ignore the fact that this
child is scratching his initials in his desk just because Osama is
still loose. You should not be so quick to brush off the ills of the
Democratic Party, regardless of the behaviours of the Republican
leadership.

The difference between the behaviours of the two are far less extreme
than between a child scratching a desk and an international terrorist
leader. Your attempt to characterise it that way is just more spin.


[snip - gone over before]
> I've only touched the surface here: the list is astonishingly long.
> One has to be either very partisan or not very interested in the news
> to equate it to what the Democrats have done. (And by what the
> Democrats have done, I don't mean what the Republicans have claimed
> the Democrats have done, e.g., Gore using his office phone (choke) or
> the Clintonites trashing the White House (double choke).

You preabmle with a long list of bad behaviour on the part of the
Republican leadership, grossly mischaracterise the argument ['equate it
with'], then make a gesture at equitability ['what the Democrats have
done'] immediately followed by a distraction from the fact that
Democrats have done anything ['I don't mean what the Republicans have
claimed the Democrats have done'] by bringing up more vagaries of
Republican leadership.

Nothing but spin, Josh.
That was nothing but spin.

You're looking no better than Fox News.

This, as you explain later, is apparently your goal.

> >> And this, to Gekko:
[snip, side issue, no real disagreement]
> I don't know enough about your views to place you, but I do know that
> my subjective assessment of my own politics matched the results of the
> online survey everyone here filled out a couple of years ago -- a
> notch to the left of center, and a notch in the libertarian direction.
>
> I've always believed that ideology is for those who cannot or choose
> not to think. Unlike ideologues, I have no interest whatsoever in
> adhering to, or being identified with, any creed -- I merely support
> the party and politicians that have the most integrity and that
> support the policies that I favor. At the national level, that is the
> Democrats; at the local level, that has often been the Republicans.

I haven't seen support. Only negative campaigning. I'll grant that, as
you say later in your post, I've been around for five minutes, but I've
delved a bit into the archive and I did lurk for a couple weeks at
that.

Of what I've seen, your negative campaigning usually falls just shy of
the 'smear' mark, but it's so loaded with spin and twist that, though
usually based in fact and bearing the potential to pose a reasonable
political position or argument, it qualifies as barely more than
partisan propaganda.

You address this concern later in your post.

> >> Finally, we've discussed the Republican vs. Democrat thing before,
> >> n'est-ce pas? You felt the parties were the same, I felt that today's
> >> Republicans were worse, and I think that the evidence supports me on
> >> that: it was the Republicans, after all, who gave us the likes of the
> >> White House plumbers, Iran-Contra, negative campaigning, Kenneth
> >> Starr, and now the rich assortment of scandals that are starting to
> >> ooze from the Bush Administration like pus from a festering sore.
> >
> >I have yet to see any such grossly-slanted, insulting characterisation
> >of anyone you don't consider rightward.
>
> That's because you've been here for about five minutes. Most of the
> wacky leftists aren't around any more, whereas we still have Geno and
> Ray to represent the wacky right (and, sadly, Kurt, who used to argue
> reasonably but appears to have been driven over the edge by my attacks
> on the Republican Party).

Point being that it is just a grossly-slanted, insulting
characterisation that you are more than willing to toss around at
anybody with whom you disagree? Or only at extremists with whom you
disagree (i.e. those wacky leftists or the current administration)?

Is extremism the appropriate response to extremism?


[snip]
> >> And finally, I focus on Republican shenanigans because they're what I
> >> see. It isn't the Democrats who are outing CIA agents to get revenge
> >> then threatening to put reporters in jail for investigating. It isn't
> >> a Democratic White House that is producing illegal propaganda. It
> >> isn't the Democrats who are claiming the AARP opposes our troops and
> >> favors gay marriage.
> >>
> >> It isn't the Democrats who tried unsuccessfully to change ethics
> >> committee rules to allow majority leaders -- oh, say, Tom DeLay -- to
> >> retain their positions while under indictment, and it wasn't the
> >> Democrats who successfully changed the rules to prevent the minority
> >> party from starting ethics investigations if the majority doesn't want
> >> it, i.e., the Democrats.
> >>
> >> It wasn't a Democrat who wore a wire to the Presidential debates and
> >> then lied about it, and it wasn't the Democrats who illegally started
> >> the Swift Boat smear campaign and then refused to forthrightly condemn
> >> its lies. It wasn't the Democrats who put a gay S&M prostitute into
> >> the White House Press Corps under an assumed name and had him ask
> >> leading questions of President Bush.
> >
> >I focus on Republicans because the Democrats are not:
> > [list of things some Republicans have done, many of which are quite
> >bad]
> >
> >If the Democrats have not done some wrong things, then the Democrats
> >are not doing any wrong things.
>
> Huh?

A quick paraphrase of the argument, followed by a quick paraphrase of
the essence of it.

> I could make a list of Democratic wrongs -- mentioning Bork's
> marijuana use, say, or Clinton's perjury, or the funding scandal --
> but it would be much shorter.

I don't doubt that at all. In fact, I agree.
But does that mean that you should ignore it, whether past or present?



> >> And beyond that, the Bush Administration has been incompetent, without
> >> vision, economically irresponsible, pro-rich and anti-people, overly
> >> beholden to extremists on the right, and systematically dishonest
> >[snipped the only few words I disagree with]
> >>
> >> So yes, I criticize Republicans more than Democrats here, though, as
> >> you may remember from my reaction to the Michael Moore obscenity, I'm
> >> willing to criticize the Democrats when they do something wrong.
> >
> >Yet in your 'tit-for-tat' list, you have listed only tats, when the
> >point is that you're never showing any tits.
>
> I think that's better done by those posters whose tits don't have hair
> on them. In any case, whether I mention the tats is purely a matter of
> context: I did mention them in the quote above, and you criticized me
> anyway.

I addressed that above.

But to go further:
You criticised Michael Moore very reasonably, gave him props for good
filmmaking and acknowledged that many truths had been discussed, then
pointed out some half-truths, a lot of unreasonable spin, and that
there were a lot of out-and-out lies. Overall, you stopped short of
condemning it if I remember correctly, but you certainly denounced it.
You treated the film with a mostly even hand, if slightly slanted in
the direction of your own leanings-- which is not unreasonable.

On the strength of precendent, if a Republican had made something like
it about a Democrat, you'd've torn it to shreds with a serated blade,
ignoring every truth, listing every lie and half-truth, using that list
as a basis for calling the entire film one big lie, and condemning
every conservative alongside it as an unprincipled liar doing exactly
what you expect of conservatives:

Smear. Conservative. Whoda thunk it.



> >> Are all conservatives, or Republicans, or anything like a majority of
> >> the Republican rank and file like this? Of course not.
> >
> >If every time my dog poops on the carpet, I say 'Democrat!', and this
> >use of the word constitutes 90 - 95% of the times my dog hears me say
> >'Democrat', what will my dog think it means?
> >
> >If 90 - 95% of the times you say 'conservative' you're using it in the
> >context of detestible behaviours or individuals, complete with long or
> >short expositions on why this behaviour or information is despicable,
> >what does that say, Josh?
> >
> >Either you are trying to sell an image of conservatism and
> >conservatives by classical propagandistic & commercial advertising
> >tactics... or you really do think that all conservatives and all
> >Republicans, with very few exceptions, are 'like this'.
> >
> >Of all the posts of yours I've read (maybe upwards of 200 by now), I
> >have seen only occasional glimpses of your acknowledgement of the
> >possibility that your unwarranted blanket generalisations and
> >caricature might not be entirely accurate. They are rare, fleeting, and
> >surrounded by 'reasons' why they are wrong.
>
> And that means nothing, except that:

None of the points delineated below have anything to do with the above,
except to confirm that yes, in fact, you are trying to sell an image of
conservatives and conservatism using classical propagandistic &
commercial advertising tactics and that yes, in fact, you do now
believe it, too.

I'd thought it was one or the other. Below, you explain that it is
both.


> A. I engage in rational discussion with those who are willing and want
> to engage in rational discussion; there aren't all that many left on
> this group.

But you will begin that discussion with propagandistic material
dripping with slant, innuendo, and thinly- (if at all) veiled insults
(a.k.a. smears). This you also explain below.



> B. I responded in kind to the right wingers here after they refused to
> engage in principled debate. They've used the same smear tactics
> against me here that their masters have used against their Democratic
> opponents, including everything from ethnic slurs and cruel criticisms
> of my disabled brother to accusation that I had sexual designs on
> teenagers.
>
> C. In broadbrushing them, I did nothing different than what they are
> used to doing and what they were doing, e.g., Geno can't even make a
> post about his cat without making an attack on liberals.

Ah, okay.... that makes it okay, then.



> Just yesterday Ray smeared me with another of his lying accusations,
> viz., that I myself had lied when I said that I had criticized Michael
> Moore. He did that knowing full well that it wasn't true; in fact, I
> think I'll quote some of that exchange here, because it says a lot
> about the integrity of some of the conservatives on this group:
[snip-- illustration of a point not in contention]

At least you said 'some' and 'in this group'. That is the most
equitable reference to conservatives I've seen you use.

> D. You have no fucking idea how angry we Democrats are after years of
> Republican smears and dirty tricks. I said after the Swift Boat
> obscenity that I was going to try using against the Republicans here
> some of the tactics that they've been using against the Democrats, and
> that's precisely what I've done. It's been most amusing to watch the
> Republicans here scurry about like ants whose nest has been prodded
> with a stick.

Well... I can't really say anything to that except that you've given up
the moral high ground, and that was just about the only ground left to
lose.



[re: <news:99vkc11u6ov79dgdgei1u25a2j81j3cjcg@xxxxxxx>]
> >The measures in question are opposed by junk food makers and
> >distributors.
> >The title of your post is 'Conservatives for obesity'
> >The quote you were defending said that conservatives opposed said
> >measures.
> >
> >When I said that it was more accurate to say that junk food makers and
> >distributors were opposing those efforts, you said, 'I'm not sure I
> >understand your distinction.'
> >
> >I can't think of a nice way to characterise that statement, so I'll
> >refrain.
> >
> >But I do hope you get the point.
>
> I'm perfectly capable of being sarcastic, but you had never given me a
> reason to be, and as far as I can tell my reply in this case was
> straightforward and friendly.

That's how I read it. And that's exactly my point.
You've been blinded by what is apparently your own propaganda.
To the point that you don't even understand the distinction between
conservatives in general and some absurd industry group.



> >> Are all conservatives, or Republicans, or anything like a majority of
> >> the Republican rank and file like this? Of course not.
> >
> >Reading almost any of your other posts, all I can say is that I
> >wouldn't know you thought there was some difference.
>
> Yeah, well, I've now made myself clear, as I do when anyone raises
> that point.

You have, yes.
Before your explanation, I thought that you had simply fallen victim to
the continuing polarisation of ideologies.
After it, it's clear that you *chose* to become what you'd fought.


[snip, cut/paste]
> >> Are all conservatives, or Republicans, or anything like a majority of
> >> the Republican rank and file like this? Of course not.
> >
> >Then let's not pretend that that's the case, such as in
> >> >> Smear. Conservative. Whoda thunk it.
> >or 'Conservatives for obesity'
> >
> >Almost every single one of your political posts is an attack on
> >conservatism and/or Republicanism, Josh. And who uses negative
> >campaigning?
> >
> >Has it occurred to you that the solution to a fire is not in lighting
> >more matches?
>
> Yeah, that's what we Dems have been doing for years, and the
> Republicans have been walking all over us.

Wrong strategy. A house upon a hill is not impervious to attack-- it
just makes a more visible target.

Not justifying it, just saying: wrong strategy. See below.


> The dilemma -- I've said this, others have said this -- is how do we
> fight them without becoming them. And I don't think anyone has an
> answer. If things are not to continue spiraling down -- if we're to
> maintain a two-party system, if the public is to have access to the
> facts rather than being programmed by attack ads and spin --
> well-meaning people on /your/ side are going to have to own up to what
> it's done and reign in your own leadership. Problem is, I don't see
> any evidence that that's about to happen. You['re] victims of your own
> masters (and yeah, that's a sarcastic term, but not an uncalled for
> one) because you fall for their spin and smears and dirty tricks and
> reject honest, qualified candidates like McCain in favor of dishonest,
> incompetent ones like Bush.

I agree that much of it is the fault of the public for falling for it.
The idiocy that rained down from above was eaten up like manna from
God. People are addicted to not thinking. So much so that we have books
about mindfulness being hailed as 'new' and regarded as almost
New-Agey.

I disagree that the only solution is to try to make the public take
responsibility. That's a lost cause, from my approximation. The only
way to do it is to install leadership that can do it, and the only way
to do that is to make the public take responsibility. Thus, the only
way to do it is to already have done it.

So the question you're asking is, how do we stop the downward spiral?
Your answer is, 'The Republicans must kill their Frankenstein.' The
problem for you is that, a) doesn't look like it's gonna happen and b)
if that Frankenstein ever falls, you're going down with it if you're
acting the same way.

I do have some suggestions there, but they belong in another thread.

[snip snip snip]
> --
> Josh

Basically... what you've said is that you chose to behave in an
extremist fashion in order to use their own dirty, underhanded tactics
against them. This serves to explain the apparent conflict that I
perceived, which was that of a thinking individual with apparently
considered political views behaving unreasonably and using the very
underhanded tricks he so consistently accused the other side of
employing.

So it goes.

Given that... I don't see that there's anything left to discuss in this
regard.

.

Loading