From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 16:30:00 GMT
Arlo,
> No, Platt. What you've been doing repeatedly is "dismiss" anything
> challenge to the conservative orthodoxy by smearing it as "liberal (or
> leftist) bias".
Let's see. Does that mean that you agree with critiques of liberal
orthodoxy? Somehow I doubt that's the case.
>At the same time, you do not point any lens of critical
> evaluation on "conservative channels" (at least not as far as my humble
> powers of observation have been able to gleen, if I'm in err, please point
> me to where in any post you have criticised "conservative" media reports
> for propagandizing or skewing facts to favor their positions, the same
> ubiquitous charges you make agains "liberal" media reports). In short,
> dont' start "talking the talk if you ain't walking the walk".
When you point your any of critical evaluation on "leftist channels,"
please point them out to me as my humble powers of observation have not
been able to glean any.
> You may admit that both sides have a "bias", but you portray in your words
> as only "leftist bias" being "deceitful". Indeed, I think anyone would be
> hard-pressed to see that you consider "right-wing bias" any sort of problem
> whatsoever. If you truly believe there to be a right-wing bias, why do you
> not critically examine the MRC, and instead take everything they say as
> accurate? Point, if you believe Limbaugh to be as badly biased as Rather,
> why do you believe what he says? Or consider him a credible source?
Do you consider left-wing bias a problem? If not, why not? As for bias, we
all are to some extent, but some are more so than others. Those who admit
their bias often and openly are more credible to me than those who don't,
like Rather, Jennings, Woodruff and others in the mainstream media.
> Mark, however, has pointed out a very good charge, that is very much
> relevant here. The so-called "liberals" you refer to in the media may be
> "left" of the "far right wing", but they are hardly true leftists. Maybe
> this is why they "deny the charge". To be left of the far right wing, does
> not one a "leftist" make. Spend some time around some real "leftists" and
> you'll see your "liberal media poster boy" Dan Rather is centrist at best.
Perhaps you and/or Mark will be good enough to define for us what a "true
leftist" believes.
> Here, again, I point out the manipulative discourse. By painting what is in
> reality centrist media outlets as "liberal", smearing the liberal label as
> "deceitful, ad-hominem, propaganda, killing the messenger, traitorous,..
> (name your MRC charge)", you are attempting to funnel all media discourse
> through conservative filters (at best). The idea is to slowly get people to
> associate "the liberal media" with "lies" and the conservative bastions
> (such as O'Reily, Limbaugh, etc.) as "truth". It is precisely this tactic
> that made Goebbels propaganda machine work so well. His years-long
> propaganda campaign discredited "academic" sources as unpatriotic,
> left-wing propaganda, the main-stream media as "liberal, jewish bias", and
> as such set up his ideological platform as the sole outlet for truth and
> honesty. After years of being told that the academics and the media were
> deceitful leftist, jewish sympathisizers, it was not difficult for people
> to uncritically accept the nazi propaganda as unquestionable, objective,
> unbiased truth. Is it any surprise that so much effort is spent by
> conservatives discrediting academics and main-stream news sources?
Once again we see conservatives compared to Nazis. (And they criticize
blame me for associating leftists with Commies!) This is a sure sign to me
that one has exhausted all claim to "critical thinking."
> > Let's see. Businesses are power structures, but governments are not? Last
> > time I looked, businesses can't legally use the point of gun to force
> > someone to do something, but if I don't pay my taxes, guess who shows up
> > at my door wearing a gun belt.
> You act as if taxation is theft, a common conservative cry. And let's be
> honest, no one shows up at your door wearing a gun belt, this is a silly
> emotive tactic. I've known people who've been audited and fined for tax
> evasion, and certainly prison is a last resort.
And if they don't pay the fine? What then?
> But, the reason you have
> to pay that money, Platt, is to support the police, and road constructions,
> and infrastructure building, libraries, medical response teams, FBI, CIA,
> armed services, traffic studies, emergency relief to disaster victims here
> in the US, coast guard, forest rangers and fire units, sidewalks for you to
> stroll on... oh I could go on for a while for all the things around you,
> and this is not even mentioning your dreaded "safety" nets for
> unemployment, worker's compensation, infant care for the uninsured, food
> programs, work training, etc. You take all these things, Platt.
Like hell I do. You were doing fine until you got to those "safety nets."
which comprise a huge percentage of the national budget and consequently a
huge percentage of taxes.
> Don't like
> your taxes, think about that next time you hop on the road, visit the
> public library or museum, need an EMT or police repsonse team, want to hike
> in safety in your local forests.
Stick to those uses for taxes and you'll get no argument from me,
especially when it comes to the policeman and his gun "conversing" with
biological criminals.
> If you "took" something from a business and did not pay, you can damn well
> bet someone WILL show up at your door wearing a gun belt, and a helluva lot
> quicker than the IRS. You want proof, stop paying one of your credit cards.
Please tell me you don't condon theft. Please tell me you think it's moral
for people to pay for the goods and services they buy.
> > Once again that word "truth" shows up which everyone here, including me,
> > hasn't really examined in depth. But recently Nick wrote, "There has to
> > be an absolute truth here," and Paul replied to him saying, "The Absolute
> > truth is that DQ runs the world." Given the past heated arguments about
> > absolutes on this site, I guess it's little wonder that the subject of
> > truth along with criteria for identifying credible sources has been
> > avoided.
> As those interested in the MOQ, we should agree (I hope) that it should be
> a chosen desire for a society to maximize its citizenry's exposure to, and
> participation in, DQ.
Pirsig made it clear that the capitalist system of free markets beats
socialism in making DQ available to all. That, at root, is what the
argument is about.
> Ideological labels are meaningless, and often detract
> from progress towards this end, as it implies (wrongly) that DQ is a
> function of an ideology. It is not. Once we are here, we can rightly
> criticize attempts by ideology to subvert the dialogue to favor itself over
> DQ. When the MRC, or Rather, uses their media power to subvert the dialogue
> to favor its chosen ideology over exposing itself to the possibility of
> disenfranchisement by allowing DQ to "flow where it may", this is what is
> at point here. When the MRC, or Rather, fabricate results or stories to
> further their own power-entrencment, and in doing so prevent from entering
> into the discourse DQ led inquires that threaten this power, the should-be
> chosen goal of maximizing exposure for its citizens to DQ is broken. And we
> end up arguing over static social patterns.
See comment above.
> > I call 'em as I see 'em. If you catch me or any other rightist engaging
> > in gratuitous personal insults to those we disagree with here, please
> > point it out. (May I presume ad hominems have no place in "critical
> > thinking"?)
> As do I, and I've seen (and heard) just as many rightists engage these
> techniques. Indeed, your near omnipresent associative combinations of
> "liberal" or "leftist" with "dirty tricks" (my word, I just use to sum all
> those bad discourse techniques) could be easily construed as a form of
> ad-hominem attack. Indeed, you use the word "liberal" as a hoped for
> ad-hominem attack in and of itself, don't you? Ironically, this use of an
> ideological label as a perjorative is precisely what the MRC complain
> about, although their concern is over people using "conservative" as such.
> Do we condemn most in others...?
"Leftist" and "liberal" are pejoratives? That's news to me. I have no
concern at all being labelled a "conservative." In fact, I'm proud of it.
> > Also, how do you propose to correct the faults of the "commercial" media
> > other than by calling on the government gun power structure?
> That's the point of the thread, is it not? Mark's already given some good
> possibilities. More on this tomorrow...
He has? Like listener-paid TV networks? I have no objection to that
whatsoever. I look forward to your proposals.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 28 2005 - 17:21:22 GMT