Saturday, October 22, 2005
Some art soon?
Just a quick update:
Tomorrow will be spent reading folklore. Monday I have a folklore quiz. After that, I should have free time to put up some art and the like. At least, I hope so.
That is all.
posted by Jonathan at 10:48 PM
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
A lack of civility
Okay, I haven't had a whole lot of time to do anything non-school related the past few weeks. Fucking tests and assignments out the wazoo. But in my spare time, I did have the opportunity to discuss the "liberal bias" of the mainstream American media with a very intelligent, quick-witted conservative. The exchange was a learning experience for me. I learned that not everyone is operating at the same maturiy level that I am. I had always heard stories of these mythical "Freepers" but never felt overly compelled to seek them out and engage them. I was amazed at not only the lack of civility displayed, but the lack of any actual evidence used to support this persons assertions, FOLLOWED BY a demand that I offer credible sources to back up my prior assertions. Of course I gladly complied. If you're really that interested, here's the exchange:
First "Freeper" (this is what initiated the discussion):
And also explains a great deal more why we're in the fix we're now in, in this country. It makes me sad, actually, but not surprised.
yes ... your are right but not surprising. The hollywood industries, who cuddled up to Fidel Castro, and the liberal hypocrites, much like George Clooney who seems with this film to be damning himself and liberal people like him of today, are still at it, damning this country and saying how much better it would be with a communist ruler as President. As for the Joe McCarthys' one can only look to the media and its acceptance of the likes of Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Dick Durbins, Robert KKK Byrd, and others along with the likes Fondas, Sutherlands, who find it joyful in damning this country as the evildoers of the world everyday of the week. Then you can look to the liberal media who relishes and promotes them and their comments. Yes it would be good if we had more Joe McCarthy's in todays world. Maybe not his methods but his ideaology.
My response to that:
Hahaha, oh man, that's the funniest thing I've read all day.
I find it especially amusing that you're mention Robert Byrd's past affiliation with the KKK, as though that somehow connects all liberals to the KKK or something. If you want to play that type of game, I could mention James Thomas Milton Anderson (first Conservative premier of Saskatchewan), Owen Brewster (incidentally a close friend of McCarthy), David Duke, and so on. But since in the context of this discussion it's completely irrelevant, I'll move on.
If you think the mainstream American media is LIBERAL, then you need to start paying more attention to reality. There is nothing liberal about the media. (Incidentally, the media isn't conservative either, it is corporate, as is your government, both under Democratic and Republican rule.) If there truly was a liberal media, you'd probably be hearing about how much of a failure the war on drugs has been, or how absolutely ridiculous Bush's plan to ban same-sex marriage via a constitutional ammendment is, or how a lot of the people held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are in fact not terrorists, are being held without any actual evidence and are given absolutely no legal council or due process. Or maybe about the Downing Street Memo, or how terrorism has actually increased in the past few years, despite claims to the contrary.
Actually, if the media was actually objective and concerned with reporting important things rather than appeasing its corporate overlords, you'd probably be hearing a lot more about those things.
Also, just who has been saying that the United States would be better with a communist ruler as president?
Second "Freeper":
Well I'll take it a step further ApeFace....Fullbright...Wallace...Gore Sr. LBJ...what do they have in common? All Dims...and all racist.
There is no "thinking" the MSM is "Liberal"...everyone with a two functioning brain cells already KNOWS it's Liberal. What's funny is that you're too stupid to realize it.
From forged and fake doccuments ginned up at Kinko's by See BS to the overblown and false reporting during Katrina...it's all got a lefty slant to it. If you ever left that echo chamber known as the DUmp you might realize this.
BTW...all this BS you're saying...I guess you can link to credible sources to back it up right?
*hint* RawStory and AlerterNet.org are NOT legit sources to the real world.
You're still stuck on the DSM? How does it feel to be Stuck on Stupid?
Face it...all of the Pavlovian salivating you jerkwads do at the DUmp over the next *-gate has gotten you squat.
You all are collectively Charlie Brown trying to kick that football that Lucy keeps pulling away from you at the last minute.
I'll have fun with my mole account over there on election night watching all of you go into a collective meltdown when you lose yet again.
It will be better than election night 2004.
My final response (as neither of the "Freepers" returned to rebut):
Name calling, real mature.
Okay, for starters, my first paragraph, if you had actually READ it, was to point out that bringing up Byrd's KKK history in an attempt to paint liberals as racist (really, that's the only reason to bring him up in this context) is a smear tactic and an ironic one, at that. Rather than bringing facts to the argument, you bring smear tactics and name calling.
As for the rest of my post:
My war on drugs coimment is based on the fact that it started in 1971 under Nixon and guess what? There are still lots and lots of drug-related activity happening in the United States.
The comment on banning gay marriage is based on my opinion. (A leftist opinion, which you'd think you'd hear constantly since the media and its cohorts are so damn liberal).
As for the Downing Street Memo, that is a legitimate document.
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0517/dailyUpdate.html)
Add to that quotes like "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,"
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1053801479971.html?oneclick=true)
And...
"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,' and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks]'"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1175070,00.html)
And...
"(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."
(http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/933.htm)
Then you take into account that the two main reasons for going to war: Weapons of mass destruction and Iraq ties to 9/11 and involvement in Al-Qaeda were false, it's pretty easy to conclude that intelligence and facts actually WERE being fixed around the policy and they knew that what they were saying was a distortion or an outright fabrication.
(WMD: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4169941.stm; Al-Qaeda ties: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html)
What's ironic is how you mention "forged and fake documents". The irony being that some of the evidence given that Saddam had WMD was, in fact, a forged document. "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm)
Th major difference of course, being that any false documents used by Dan Rather were in relation to Bush's past in the National Guard (which was irrelevant and shouldn't have been an issue during the election anyway, in my opinion) whereas THESE false documents helped start a WAR.
And an increase in terrorism? I think going from 175 to 650 significant attacks from 2003 to 2004 would constitute an increase. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286/)
Guantanamo Bay:
"Said Abaseen is a taxi driver from the Afghan capital, Kabul.
He set out on an ordinary day's work last July - and ended up in Cuba, 15,000 kilometres (9,300 miles) from home.
He was held at Guantanamo Bay for nine months, before being classified as of low intelligence value and sent back to Kabul in March - part of the first substantial group to be set free.
He was never charged and still does not know why he was arrested.
Nobody knows exactly who is being held, but the US Government says there are roughly 660 people currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, from over 40 countries."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3034697.stm)
And one last thing: Notice how I didn't call you a name once during this post? It's called maturity, give it a shot some time.
Now, I know all conservatives aren't like this, but this is an example of just how fucked political discourse in the US is right now. It's so insanely and irrationally polarized that it's basically just a back and forth of insults and blanket statements. I've seen this on other websites as well (Fark.com's political threads are usually pretty ridiculous), but this takes it beyond that. The ability to discuss political issues without resorting to calling the other person "ApeFace" and "Stuck on Stupid" is a sign of both political and general maturity which some people apparently lack. What I'd be curious to know is the age of this person. The prospect that these people might actually be adults frightens the shit out of me.
A lot of people, both on the left and the right, tend to completely miss the point of political debate, however. To a lot of people, discussing politics is about winning the argument, rather than exposing truths or expressing and advancing ideas. The general lack of respect, not only on the right, but on the left as well, leaves me feeling that the American political culture is pretty much hopeless at the moment. I see "liberals" asking how to "deal with" Republican friends who aren't "raving lunatics" (or something along those lines) like they're a fucking toxic waste spill or something. Try treating them like other human beings who happen to have a different (in some cases drastically different) worldview than you.
You're not going to convince someone of your positions by insulting them. A certain decorum is required, and the presentation of facts and ideas in a calm, rational manner is what will convince others of your positions. Like I said, until both the left and right (especially in the United States) realize this, the political culture is fucked.
And with that, I have an anthropology class in twenty minutes, so I should get ready and leave. (I'll proofread and fix mistakes later...maybe)
posted by Jonathan at 6:42 PM
