Subject:
|
Re: Freedom from information
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 04:45:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
537 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> >
> > > With due respect, John, what book would you call "worthy" of the award?
> >
> > Well, let's back up a moment. I am suspicious of anything such as a "book of
> > the year" award, *especially* if it is open to a public vote. What the
> > public likes is often quite silly and rarely serious. I would hope that a
> > winner of such an award would be a more thoughtful and meaningful work. But
> > having said all of that, I think such an award itself is rather silly, unless
> > the criteria for the winner were objective (sales, for example).
>
> Hey, that was a pretty good answer.
I try...:-)
> So your complaint is a comment on the award process itself, rather than on
> which book received the award? I can accept that.
Yes. Reminds me of the People's Choice Awards. I am suspicious of those as
well-- I am a believer in relying on the marketplace to define the success of
many things. After all, a platinum record sold 1,000,000 (or whatever the
number is) copies. The market can be manipulated for sure, but the more open
it is the harder it is to control.
>
> > I have seen some of [Moore's] work and read some of his work. Life is short,
> > and spending much time on him is time I will never get back...
>
> Maybe, but it's also useful to Know Thine Enemy!
lol I'm not quite "into" it enough to go that far-- most often the Liberals I
encounter in day to day life are idiotic and inconsistent-- intelligent,
coherent ones are few and far between. I find that I can form opinions by
using Conservatives as a sort of sounding board better than I can Liberals.
Though I find discussions with you and -->Bruce<-- intellectually stimulating,
you two, at least for me, are exceptions rather than the rule.
>
> > Even from the title "Stupid
> > White Men" alone-- I mean, what if I decided to write a book entitled "Stupid
> > Black Men"? I would be labeled a racist and bigot from the git-go. There is
> > no difference in kind from *his* title, but his work is "book of the year".
> > (Reminds me of another literary giant's work entilted "Rush Limbaugh is a Big
> > Fat Idiot" by Al Franken). The duplicity is irrational, the hatred is ugly,
> > and the whole thing disgusts me.
>
> Let's leave Franken aside for a moment, since his work is distinct from
> Moore's and should be addressed separately (which I'm happy to do!).
> Moore's title was chosen for irony, since he himself is of course a white
> man. It's also something of a jab at an intellectual fad of the late 80's
> and 90's. Specifically, many philosphers, poets, and political figures
> dating from the Renaissance and after were commonly decried as "old [dead]
> white guys," as if the fact of their age, life-status, and gender had
> something to do with their correctness. Moore's title capitalizes on that
> misguided trend, tweaking it to apply to current figures. It all depends on
> whether you accept the irony or not.
That all may be true, but I could have the same sort of justification for my
book, but I'd be willing to bet that I won't get past the lobby of any
publisher. Maybe it's his tone, but there is something about him that I can't
take seriously. I got the same sort of feeling when I read Ann Coulter's
latest book _Slander_. Though she makes some great points, her tone at times
can be a bit nasty (though I guess I could hardly blame her-- she has been
treated pretty darn poorly by the media).
> As far as duplicity or hatred goes, the Liberal Left hardly has the market
> cornered! Limbaugh,
It's funny-- I used to *hate* Rush. I couldn't listen long enough to get past
all of the darn *schtick*. But putting his personality aside, I find his
politics pretty sound. I wouldn't characterize him as "hateful" though...
> Liddy,
Never heard.
> Gallagher,
"Mike" Gallagher? I hear him every so often-- he's a little over the top.
> Reagan, Buchannan
Nope and nope (except when he was on Crossfire a million years ago. He's an
"in your face" type I suppose).
> et al spew more than their fair share of the same.
> Moore is sufficiently far to the left to have knowingly become something
> of a caricature, but many of his points are sound even if his specifics are
> a little shaky. Say whatever you want to about his shoddy fact-checking; I
> won't defend him on that ground, because it's inexcusable.
There you said it. I find him hard to take seriously, and his fast and loose
treatment with facts just aggravate me, especially when I think that there are
people out there who are buying *his* schtick hook, line, and sinker.
>
> > The tired polemic of class warfare and race baiting offers nothing new, but
> > merely rouses emotions that obfuscate truth and reason-- 2 casualties all too
> > often a part of his work and the Left in general.
>
> I've noticed, especially lately, that it is the Right that beats the drum
> of Class Warfare more often than anyone, just as it is the Right that so
> often raises the spectre of some "Conspiracy" or other. The problem,
> rhetorically speaking, is that the Conservative pundits then attack the
> issue of class warfare or hidden conspiracy as ridiculous, as if either of
> those was the charge put forth by the Left in the first place! That's
> classic Straw Man argument, and it's a fallacy.
Really? I'd be interested to know to whom you are referring. As far as the
issue of Class Warfare, I'm curious as to how you would say that a conservative
would beat that drum?
>
> > The irony is that MM is a white millionaire, and the bottom line is that I
> > have had enough of Leftists telling me how bad, stupid, racist, greedy,
> > imperialist, etc I am.
>
> Be careful of painting with too broad a brush. Moore's complaint is not
> with millionaires but with corporate CEO's who earn their millions by
> downsizing middleclass workers into unemployment and poverty, or who receive
> hundreds of millions of dollars while the company screws its low-level
> employees out of basic wage equity.
I don't think he has a corner on the market of contempt for Enron or Tyco-type
execs, but certainly such ilk are exceptions, not the rule. The message that
ends up getting conveyed, however, is that businesses are bad, and workers are
oppressed and screwed by them. And then by extension *Capitalism* is bad and
exploitative. I get the impression that, given the opportunity, the Left would
happily turn the US in a socialist state. But I seriously digress:-p
> He's also an award-winning,
> card-carrying member of the NRA who rightly identifies the NRA as a puppet
> of the huge corporate firearms industry.
There it is again-- bad, "huge corporate __ industry" Mention the "industrial
military complex" and we will have a winner:-) And what was that you were
saying earlier about conspiracies;-)
> If you really are a stupid, racist, greedy imperialist, then you should be
> condemned for it, and it doesn't matter if your acccuser is wealthy or
> impoverished.
Well, that's my point. Talk about your broad brush strokes-- how many times
has the Left condemned the white male. This world would be a utopia by now
were it not for this horrific and disgusting group!
> If you are not a stupid, racist, greedy imperialist, then
> your accuser is incorrect whether he's rich or poor.
> If you dismiss Moore's argument simply because you judge him to possess
> certain traits similar to those of the people he condemns, then you are
> guilty of ad hominem reasoning.
>
> > Let him wallow in his own guilt and self-hatred
> > without emotionally dragging everyone else in with him.
>
> Again, this is ad hominem attack and doesn't address Moore's arguments.
> You also shouldn't try to pigeonhole your opponent using pop psychology,
Ouch, I like that one:-)
> since you risk basing your argument entirely on a subjective analysis. For
> that matter, even if Moore is wallowing in guilt and self-hatred, many of
> his assertions are still true.
See, that is what I get for arguing on an emotional level-- I have resorted to
the type of argument style that I so detest:-/
As for MM's assertions-- some may be true, but they only tell a portion of the
truth. Selective analysis is more about driving agenda (or worse-- ignorance)
than elucidating the truth-- an endeavor that I doubt he really cares to pursue.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) See, I think this paragraph very neatly spotlights the problem with the one dimensional labeling system in use (because it's simple?) left-right ... liberal-conservative To be fair you did not explicitly label Bruce and Dave! (1) But the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I haven't listened to him at all for several years, except for an occasional snippet while I'm driving. When I did listen, he played at least as fast-and-loose with facts as Moore does, and (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) Hey, that was a pretty good answer. So your complaint is a comment on the award process itself, rather than on which book received the award? I can accept that. (...) Maybe, but it's also useful to Know Thine Enemy! (...) Let's leave Franken (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
