Subject:
|
Re: What's a freedom fighter?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 05:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
> > > > It's actually your rabid anti-American
> > > > sentiments that I find disturbing.
> > >
> > > Would you say that quite so readily if I were an American?
> >
> > Sure, why not. Hateful sentiments are disturbing regardless of
> > the source. For instance, I find Dave Schuler's rabidness disturbing
> > as well,
>
> I've always associated "disturbed" with Dave!
>
> But not in a serious, bad way. More of a good way.
>
> I don't see him as rabid, I see him more as "consistent". Some of his premises
> are fallacious, but he's mostly on the side of the angels, as they say. More or
> less.
>
> > but I take comfort in the fact that he's still somehow able
> > to find time for the megablocks. You are worrysome because of your
> > one track mind, narrowly focused on any and all pain and suffering
> > that may have been caused by me. Snap out of it. This is a toy
> > forum. Share some toys. If you want to share your daily pain and
> > suffering go start a blog.
>
> Not a bad idea for anyone that thinks that they have a readership for that sort
> of thing. But the blogs I enjoy are the ones that surface different points of
> view, presented rationally and with clear writing, clear ideas, and clear
> conclusions, not ones that are a stream of complaints about the world.
>
> If I want to get a constant stream of "why?" and tangential insults, I'll go
> talk to my teenager, I can get that for free. So I tend to filter Scott's
> writings here out, for the most part, and you should too. (he used to do more
> with the hobby, it is true, than he seems to now)
Its an interesting observation about the similarities between Scott and
teenagers, and to my mind not nearly so negative as Larry might cheekily imply
by ignoring them.
Even more telling is the truly American approach of simply filtering out the
feedback that does not proceed rationally from the established mindset.
That's why teenagers are so hard to follow - they proceed from a different (and
in the case of teenagers - generally incomplete) mindset. One approach is to
simply filter them out and hope that in due course of time they work out the
realities of power and get used to it. Then what they say starts to make sense
and they can rejoin productive society. So goes the popular theory anyhow. An
alternate approach is to try to engage with their reality and together form a
common view of how things work. Suddenly, and almost immediately, their
constant stream of 'why?' and tangential insults make sense, and starts to ease.
This filtering and allowing time to do the work is all well and good provided
the basic assumptions about how we do things are sound. Most teenagers will
probably work it out and they'll 'come around'.
Mind you, if the basic global assumptions were sound, Iraq wouldn't be working
out the way it is.
Maybe there is a fault with the basic assumptions.
I enjoy Scott's posts, and can see an entirely internally consistent structure
that underlies them. Obviously he could explain the structure. But its hard
and complex and challenges some very basic assumptions that underlie the US's
global supremacy, and perhaps even seeks to cap it in the name of the health,
wellbeing and prosperity of 5 billion people. I already get into trouble for
long posts - I hate to think how long those posts would be. It would be nice if
it could be reduced to a McKinsey style 5 slide presentation that folks could
soak up while sipping their decaf. But it can't.
So Scott is relegated to pointing out the basic inconsistencies between the
established American mindset, its behaviour on the global stage and reality.
Part of the reason why some find him so irritating is that there are no good
answers to some of the questions he poses, without falling back on tired and
unsupportable rhetoric that sounds more like religion than reason.
And as Larry points out, the recommended US course is to just ignore Scott and
those continually asking 'why?', in order to not feel frustrated, and to enjoy
their lives more.
I could do you 5 slides on the projected outcome of this on a global stage.
Or you could watch CNN.
> Don, (tangentially! :-) )I don't think you should sell yourself short with these
> self disparaging remarks. You're more than holding your own here and you're a
> breath of fresh air, to boot.
I don't think Don is selling himself at all short, but the problem is not the
writing, its the lack of focus, the very American faith that America's
administration of the planet is earnestly trying to work in everyone's best
interests (which it manifestly is not), and that everyone who disagrees with US
foreign policy hates Americans and Freedom (which I do not, anymore than I hate
the Australians who preside over our support of the American position, which I
do not :-).
And as to endlessly complaining that people who are passionate should go off and
play with blocks, I imagine there are some who would appreciate Don
reconsidering his balance in favour of more mocs and less posts, but who stick
to the issues and have the good sense and good taste to not tell him what to do
with his time.
I appreciate that Larry was being light-hearted and there is a grave danger in
taking light-heartedness seriously - so I am hardly ascribing what I see as one
of the key factors in the failure of US foreign policy as a basis for global
justice to Larry, or suggesting he is guilty of the same failing. As a general
rule, I find what Larry has to say both sensible and restorative. Ditto Dave!
But there is an issue in there, and for a moment, Larry happened to exemplify it
beautifully.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What's a freedom fighter?
|
| (...) I've always associated "disturbed" with Dave! But not in a serious, bad way. More of a good way. I don't see him as rabid, I see him more as "consistent". Some of his premises are fallacious, but he's mostly on the side of the angels, as they (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
