Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2011, 12:58 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-17-2011, 01:55 PM
DenvilleSteve DenvilleSteve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,460
Default arguably not insane

the arizona gunman was a heavy user of drugs. Sounds like he was high a lot. When he was ranting in class to the extent he was told not to come back to school, he was likely high. That would explain why the school administrators did not call in authorities to evaluate his mental stability. Granted, people who take drugs dont shoot people. But maybe the drugs shaped and warped his thinking. Place the blame for the shooting on lax enforcement of drug laws.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2011, 02:25 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2011, 02:33 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2011, 03:42 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.
Calling the argument I made above "convoluted" is a pretty extraordinary use of that term. If rc can't understand the not-very-subtle distinction between making a causal argument and simply calling out irresponsible behavior illuminated by sensational events, I'm not sure I can help.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2011, 06:08 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Calling the argument I made above "convoluted" is a pretty extraordinary use of that term.
He's just reaching for any big word he can throw at you at this point. It doesn't matter whether the word actually describes what you said. It just matters that it makes him feel better to throw it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2011, 06:16 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.
Nice Post.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2011, 06:20 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.
Nice Post.
The back-patting is out of control.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2011, 06:57 PM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.
You're conveniently confusing a legal defense of Loughner for a moral or causal one. As a matter of fact, it's hard to argue that Palin wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior.

Last edited by Baltimoron; 01-17-2011 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2011, 08:42 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
You're conveniently confusing a legal defense of Loughner for a moral or causal one. As a matter of fact, it's hard not to argue that Palin wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior.
Well, it's not hard for some people.

PS I think you have inserted one negative too many.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-17-2011 at 10:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-17-2011, 11:25 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baltimoron View Post
You're conveniently confusing a legal defense of Loughner for a moral or causal one. As a matter of fact, it's hard to argue that Palin wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior.
Really? Well, as a matter of fact, it's hard to argue that AemJeff wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior. The nonsensical, convoluted nature of his posts would have driven anyone to murder.

Prove me wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:37 AM
Baltimoron Baltimoron is offline
Deactivated User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Busan, South Korea (ROK)
Posts: 1,690
Send a message via Skype™ to Baltimoron
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Really? Well, as a matter of fact, it's hard to argue that AemJeff wasn't the proximate cause of Loughner's behavior. The nonsensical, convoluted nature of his posts would have driven anyone to murder.

Prove me wrong.
AemJeff's speech, even if it were "nonsensical, convoluted" (which it is isn't), could not be considered illegal by the standards of either the harm principle or offense principle, but Palin's can.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-18-2011, 08:52 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
As usual. its impossible to understand what "point" you're trying to make. Its been proven Loughner is delusional and according to everyone didn't follow political discussions in the media. According, nothing Palin or Angle did -or didn't do- was responsible for the shooting.

My theory is that reading your convoluted posts is what drove him to murder. Prove me wrong.
I would criticize this inflammatory and overblown response, however according to Althouse, I would risk delegitimizing a certain "style" of speech, often from people with less education or manners (15:39)

And they say liberals are the relativists....

note: I think I've actually read that your average Limbaugh listener is rather well-educated. Although an affinity for the man's dishonest, pompous, mean-spirited bloviations would indeed seem to indicate a certain lack of manners. I tend to avoid people whose "style" is dickishness. But that's just me.
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:01 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
I would criticize this inflammatory and overblown response, however according to Althouse, I would risk delegitimizing a certain "style" of speech, often from people with less education or manners (15:39)

And they say liberals are the relativists....

note: I think I've actually read that your average Limbaugh listener is rather well-educated. Although an affinity for the man's dishonest, pompous, mean-spirited bloviations would indeed seem to indicate a certain lack of manners. I tend to avoid people whose "style" is dickishness. But that's just me.
Oh heavens. My word. Usually pompous windbags -trying unsuccessfully to be disdainful and witty - are the providence of the right. Sadly. the conservative movement has far too many 21st Century Edmund Burke and WFB wannabes.

Glad to see the left-wing has to suffer with the same kind of clowns. You for example.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:09 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Oh heavens. My word. Usually pompous windbags -trying unsuccessfully to be disdainful and witty - are the providence of the right. Sadly. the conservative movement has far too many 21st Century Edmund Burke and WFB wannabes.

Glad to see the left-wing has to suffer with the same kind of clowns. You for example.
So, rc senses no danger of imminent irony when he deploys terms such as "pompous windbags." I choose to interpret that as courage.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:39 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
So, rc senses no danger of imminent irony when he deploys terms such as "pompous windbags." I choose to interpret that as courage.
Or criticizing the speech of others, while using phrases like "providence of the right". I suppose the charitable interpretation was that he meant province?
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-19-2011, 12:03 AM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Tut tut... TUT!
__________________
my blog
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-19-2011, 01:26 AM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
Tut tut... TUT!
Yes, now I can see why you defend AemJeff. Neither of you can post comments that make any sense.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-19-2011, 12:03 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Or criticizing the speech of others, while using phrases like "providence of the right". I suppose the charitable interpretation was that he meant province?
That would be Mississippi.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-17-2011, 02:34 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
It's not irrational to point out that Gabrielle Giffords felt threatened by Sarah Palin's personalized gun-sight symbolization, and then somebody attempted to assassinate Giffords. Nobody knows what Loughner saw or what motivated him, and regardless of whether that motivation had anything to do with Palin or Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies" or anything else, the fact remains - Gabby Giffords was shot after Sarah Palin concatenated a gunsight with her name and location, and after Sharon Angle slyly asserted that political assassination was - at least - a topic open for discussion regarding (specifically!) Arizona politics. Both Glenn and (particularly) Ann are guilty of trying to explicitly ignore those facts.
And, to amplify: There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds. Another is putting an opponent's initials on a target at a shooting range (as happened to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.) "Second Amendment remedies" ought to be seen as a direct threat, not a metaphor at all.

Althouse should be targeted for ridicule for suggesting otherwise.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-17-2011, 05:53 PM
jimM47 jimM47 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 459
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds.
It seems like you are carving out a specific position, but my impression is that it is not uniformly the one taken by others. Yes, some people are decrying specific metaphors, but others are decrying rightist rhetoric with a much broader brush, and still others seem to be blaming the intensity of feeling on the right, without regard to specific language at all. Perhaps Ann and Glenn should also have addressed your specific argument, but I don't think they were attacking non-existent arguments either.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-17-2011, 07:05 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimM47 View Post
It seems like you are carving out a specific position, but my impression is that it is not uniformly the one taken by others. Yes, some people are decrying specific metaphors, but others are decrying rightist rhetoric with a much broader brush, and still others seem to be blaming the intensity of feeling on the right, without regard to specific language at all. Perhaps Ann and Glenn should also have addressed your specific argument, but I don't think they were attacking non-existent arguments either.
I'll accept the criticism. I've been following the reactions on both sides pretty closely, and I think my take on this at least closely resembles the dominant argument being made by most people on the Left; and I also believe that much of the reaction from the Right has been against, if not quite a straw-man, a less credible version and less widely held version of the argument. It's definitely true that my impression is purely anecdotal, though.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-18-2011, 03:03 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I'll accept the criticism. I've been following the reactions on both sides pretty closely, and I think my take on this at least closely resembles the dominant argument being made by most people on the Left; and I also believe that much of the reaction from the Right has been against, if not quite a straw-man, a less credible version and less widely held version of the argument. It's definitely true that my impression is purely anecdotal, though.
It may be anecdotal, but it's the same as mine. Except I'm more willing to say the reaction on the Right is against a straw man, and knowingly so.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-17-2011, 06:12 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
And, to amplify: There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds. Another is putting an opponent's initials on a target at a shooting range (as happened to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.) "Second Amendment remedies" ought to be seen as a direct threat, not a metaphor at all.

Althouse should be targeted for ridicule for suggesting otherwise.
You nailed it. The problem really is not the use of metaphor. Conservatives have been trying to distract us with that red herring since Giffords was shot. The problems are the repeated death threats and threats to overthrow the government which have been a constant feature of the conservative movement (though, clearly, not every individual member, or even a majority of members) since it became apparent that they were going to lose the 2008 elections.

It's also worth pointing out that this is the identical dynamic that played out in the 1990s. The problem then wasn't conservative use of metaphor, but conservative use of murder and terrorism in a political context.

Those conservatives who have not personally indulged in treasonous and murderous rhetoric since 2008 have, nevertheless, provided cover for it -- denied it, excused it, etc. And that's why they are now apoplectic: finally the national conversation has focused on this important story.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:29 AM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
And, to amplify: There is no "War on Metaphor." There are specific metaphors, that when they're directly coupled to somebody's name (e.g. a gun sight) that are obviously out-of-bounds. Another is putting an opponent's initials on a target at a shooting range (as happened to Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.) "Second Amendment remedies" ought to be seen as a direct threat, not a metaphor at all.
Well, I don't know what "out-of-bounds" means. Do you think that 21st century society can enforce some standard of discourse? I don't. Ultimately the people will make their own judgment about politicians, and their judgment may or may not be commensurate what you think is "out-of-bounds".

I have previously opined that Palin shot herself in the foot by using that gun sight graphic, (Oops, sorry! Can I say that?) and she will suffer mightily because of it. That's the kind of negative feedback loop that keeps me so sanguine about the American political process.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-18-2011, 11:25 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Well, I don't know what "out-of-bounds" means. Do you think that 21st century society can enforce some standard of discourse? I don't. Ultimately the people will make their own judgment about politicians, and their judgment may or may not be commensurate what you think is "out-of-bounds".

I have previously opined that Palin shot herself in the foot by using that gun sight graphic, (Oops, sorry! Can I say that?) and she will suffer mightily because of it. That's the kind of negative feedback loop that keeps me so sanguine about the American political process.
I don't think it's very hard to imagine language that's unquestionably outside the boundary: "I think someone should assassinate you," for example, obviously crosses the line, as would any direct threat. If you want to produce a really fine-grained definition, you're going to eventually find things that are pretty ambiguous. So what? We resolve ambiguity with norms and judgment here, just as we do elsewhere. e.g. If you name somebody, and if you use a metaphor that implies a threat against the person you've named, in most circumstances that's going to offend most people. If you use a simple martial metaphor: "You should be targeted for a primary challenge," very few people are going to get upset about that. We can play with examples all day, and we're bound to find some where reasonable people disagree. I don't think the examples I've used elsewhere in this conversation are especially ambiguous.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:18 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I don't think it's very hard to imagine language that's unquestionably outside the boundary: "I think someone should assassinate you," for example, obviously crosses the line, as would any direct threat. If you want to produce a really fine-grained definition, you're going to eventually find things that are pretty ambiguous. So what? We resolve ambiguity with norms and judgment here, just as we do elsewhere. e.g. If you name somebody, and if you use a metaphor that implies a threat against the person you've named, in most circumstances that's going to offend most people. If you use a simple martial metaphor: "You should be targeted for a primary challenge," very few people are going to get upset about that. We can play with examples all day, and we're bound to find some where reasonable people disagree. I don't think the examples I've used elsewhere in this conversation are especially ambiguous.
What you say sounds very sensible, and clearly I'm in a feisty, argumentative mood today (see my "crazy" posts). But I think you're not answering the fundamental question: what does this boundary mean? It has no legal consequences. Isn't this just you and your friends agreeing about some irrelevant rules of etiquette? Sarah's gotta do what Sarah's gotta do. And if she goes too far, well, she's the one who will suffer.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:24 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
What you say sounds very sensible, and clearly I'm in a feisty, argumentative mood today (see my "crazy" posts). But I think you're not answering the fundamental question: what does this boundary mean? It has no legal consequences. Isn't this just you and your friends agreeing about some irrelevant rules of etiquette? Sarah's gotta do what Sarah's gotta do. And if she goes too far, well, she's the one who will suffer.
From my perspective it's about the establishment of norms and related social sanctions in regard to them. I think those sanctions can have political consequences (on both the the credit and debit sides.)
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:36 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
From my perspective it's about the establishment of norms and related social sanctions in regard to them. I think those sanctions can have political consequences (on both the the credit and debit sides.)
What social sanctions?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:55 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
What social sanctions?

For instance facing public, possibly (though not necessarily) partisan, denunciations and praise; changes in reputation, etc... Exactly what we do see.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:10 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Well, I don't know what "out-of-bounds" means. Do you think that 21st century society can enforce some standard of discourse? I don't. Ultimately the people will make their own judgment about politicians, and their judgment may or may not be commensurate what you think is "out-of-bounds".

I have previously opined that Palin shot herself in the foot by using that gun sight graphic, (Oops, sorry! Can I say that?) and she will suffer mightily because of it. That's the kind of negative feedback loop that keeps me so sanguine about the American political process.
Palin shot herself in the foot by saying something "out-of-bounds" or, more accurately, by suggesting that another politician was "beyond the pale" and therefore a worthy "target" of all good, freedom-loving Americans, those who believe, for example, that the second amendment entitles them to overthrow their government, and that "freedom" is whatever they say it is.

You may be right that Palin made an idiot of herself, but that remains to be seen. I am mystified why you are so sanguine about the "American political process" when people like Palin (and Beck and Angle etc. etc. etc.) can say such outrageous and obviously false things about their opponents, and still be considered within-the-bounds of civil discourse. It is one thing to criticize an opponent for his ideas; it is quite another thing to suggest that his ideas are "out of bounds," that he is an enemy of "freedom."
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:36 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
You may be right that Palin made an idiot of herself, but that remains to be seen. I am mystified why you are so sanguine about the "American political process" when people like Palin (and Beck and Angle etc. etc. etc.) can say such outrageous and obviously false things about their opponents, and still be considered within-the-bounds of civil discourse. It is one thing to criticize an opponent for his ideas; it is quite another thing to suggest that his ideas are "out of bounds," that he is an enemy of "freedom."
This is exactly what AemJeff and I were discussing. I am asking what these bounds are. Clearly you think Beck is out-of-bounds, but many of his followers don't. So who's right? Discounting the possibility that AemJeff will get all citizens on the same page anytime soon, I think this is just the ebb and flow of politics as usual. Sure, people can go too far, but I believe American history shows that the center will ultimately punish the outliers.

By the way, Florian, nice job resisting the urge to call me out on my use of the word "sanguine" which, with its Old French etymology, could be interpreted as out-of-bounds in this context.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-18-2011, 01:52 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
By the way, Florian, nice job resisting the urge to call me out on my use of the word "sanguine" which, with its Old French etymology, could be interpreted as out-of-bounds in this context.
An amusing false friend. The word "sanguine" comes from the ancient theory of "humors," but somehow the meaning got lost when the Anglo-Saxons started speaking French after 1066. Tempérament sanguin," or "homme sanguin" means almost the opposite in French, an angry, temperamental man. Sanguinaire = cruel, féroce, blood-thirsty.

I am both sanguine and "sanguin" about Sarah Palin.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-19-2011, 10:32 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
You may be right that Palin made an idiot of herself, but that remains to be seen. I am mystified why you are so sanguine about the "American political process" when people like Palin (and Beck and Angle etc. etc. etc.) can say such outrageous and obviously false things about their opponents, and still be considered within-the-bounds of civil discourse. It is one thing to criticize an opponent for his ideas; it is quite another thing to suggest that his ideas are "out of bounds," that he is an enemy of "freedom."
The type of language we are discussing has always been a part of political discourse in America. My dad used to listen to Father Coughlin frequently on the radio around the time of the Depression and spoke vaguely of conspiracies like the Tri-Lateral Commission which ruled the world behind the scenes. Eventually Coughlin lost popularity and was lost in time. I think this is why Simon Willard can be sanguine about our process. People eventually go by the wayside and equilibrium is restored.

It is interesting that the unfortunate Loughner was a devotee of the Zeitgeist movement which I think bears a resemblance to Coughlin's rhetoric as it refers to secret cabals of shadow bankers.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith

Last edited by badhatharry; 01-19-2011 at 11:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-19-2011, 11:13 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
The type of language we are discussing has always been a part of political discourse in America. My dad used to listen to Father Coughlin frequently on the radio around the time of the Depression and spoke vaguely of conspiracies like the Tri-Lateral Commission which ruled the world behind the scenes.
The Trilateral Commission wasn't founded until 1973. But you're right: Conspiracies about it have been a fixture of the far right since it was established, and continue to this day. I just saw a video on YouTube this very morning (did not watch, just saw it listed) of some conservatives accosting David Rockefeller (the 95-year old founder of the Trilateral Commission) and confronting him for his plot to enslave the world in a system of global communism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Eventually Coughlin lost popularity and was lost in time. I think this is why Simon Willard can be sanguine about our process. People eventually go by the wayside and equilibrium is restored.
Yes, thanks to people who fight them, and NOT thanks to people who are sanguine or indifferent about them. Equilibrium was restored in Germany, too, after World War II.


Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
It is interesting that the unfortunate Loughner was a devotee of the Zeitgeist movement which I think bears a resemblance to Coughlin's rhetoric as it refers to secret cabals of shadow bankers.
What's your source for your claim that he was a devotee of the Zeitgeist movement? I'd heard he was enamored of the first movie -- the one that effectively endorsed Ron Paul for president and popularized many of the key obsessions of the tea party movement, but I had not heard he was a devotee of the Zeitgeist movement.

ADDED: David Rockefeller is mentioned at the end of Zeitgeist -- around the part where it promotes Ron Paul. If I recall the details correctly (2+ years since I watched it) the movie claims to have audio tape of Rockefeller discussing a plan by the global elites to microchip all humans on earth. The chip would allow the New World Order to monitor all of your movements, or even kill you at the flip of a switch. Exactly the kind of paranoid fear of global domination that certain conservatives have been terrified of for literally generations.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 01-19-2011 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-19-2011, 12:23 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
The Trilateral Commission wasn't founded until 1973. But you're right: Conspiracies about it have been a fixture of the far right since it was established, and continue to this day. I just saw a video on YouTube this very morning (did not watch, just saw it listed) of some conservatives accosting David Rockefeller (the 95-year old founder of the Trilateral Commission) and confronting him for his plot to enslave the world in a system of global communism.



Yes, thanks to people who fight them, and NOT thanks to people who are sanguine or indifferent about them. Equilibrium was restored in Germany, too, after World War II.



What's your source for your claim that he was a devotee of the Zeitgeist movement? I'd heard he was enamored of the first movie -- the one that effectively endorsed Ron Paul for president and popularized many of the key obsessions of the tea party movement, but I had not heard he was a devotee of the movement.

ADDED: David Rockefeller is mentioned at the end of Zeitgeist -- around the part where it promotes Ron Paul. If I recall the details correction (2+ years since I watched it) the movie claims to have audio tape of Rockefeller discussing a plan by the global elites to microchip all humans on earth. The chip would allow the New World Order to monitor all of your movements, or even kill you at the flip of a switch. Exactly the kind of paranoid fear of global domination that certain conservatives have been terrified of for literally generations.
Interesting that you can peg Father Coughlin as part of the "far right" when he was a rabid New Deal enthusiast. His bigotry was mainly directed at Jews, and anti-semitism is hardly exclusive to the right.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-19-2011, 01:10 PM
operative operative is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,261
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
Interesting that you can peg Father Coughlin as part of the "far right" when he was a rabid New Deal enthusiast. His bigotry was mainly directed at Jews, and anti-semitism is hardly exclusive to the right.
Coughlin's anger with FDR was that he didn't do enough--he wasn't remotely right-wing, he was a creature of the left. Particularly the left the veered into fascist thought.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-19-2011, 02:58 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
Interesting that you can peg Father Coughlin as part of the "far right" when he was a rabid New Deal enthusiast. His bigotry was mainly directed at Jews, and anti-semitism is hardly exclusive to the right.
I can see how my comment gave you the wrong impression, but I really did not pin Father Coughlin on the far right. I pointed out that the Commission wasn't founded until 1973, long after Coughlin stopped broadcasting, but that it was, in fact, the subject of numerous paranoid conspiracy theories on the right since it was established.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 01-19-2011 at 03:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-19-2011, 08:35 PM
eeeeeeeli eeeeeeeli is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Palm Desert, CA
Posts: 811
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I can see how my comment gave you the wrong impression, but I really did not pin Father Coughlin on the far right. I pointed out that the Commission wasn't founded until 1973, long after Coughlin stopped broadcasting, but that it was, in fact, the subject of numerous paranoid conspiracy theories on the right since it was established.
I think though that there was a definite right-wing strain to his facist rhetoric though, right? I mean, the element of fascism that deals with the sort of ethnic chauvinism and nationalism is a very right-wing attitude. This explains how Nazism could be incredibly socialist, yet do it all for the "motherland".

In the past 50 years, so much has changed with regard to the way "big government" is viewed, especially in that race is a big element of where our social programs are directed. So the "welfare" queen phenom didn't just arise out of the blue. I think social services for those like us (poor whites) are seen as less threatening than social services for the other (blacks, immigrants).

I know this is getting pretty deep into the psycho-social weeds. But I think it is very reasonable to view fascism and ethnic politics this way. Any serious person realizes that the real ugly racist rhetoric comes from people/groups that are firmly to the right in many other areas - gun rights, smaller government, etc. The reason is explained by what I'm saying. One then wonders whether Europe would have gone so far to the left on government if they weren't as ethnically homogeneous. My predictive guess would be that the fulcrum toward rolling back any of it will be from ethnic resentment on the right in those countries, as the tax money is going towards the "other" - in this case Arab and African immigrants.
__________________
my blog

Last edited by eeeeeeeli; 01-19-2011 at 08:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-19-2011, 09:27 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Tease Away (Glenn Loury & Ann Althouse)

How does this

Quote:
Originally Posted by eeeeeeeli View Post
I think though that there was a definite right-wing strain to his facist rhetoric though, right? I mean, the element of fascism that deals with the sort of ethnic chauvinism and nationalism is a very right-wing attitude.
explain this?
Quote:
This explains how Nazism could be incredibly socialist, yet do it all for the "motherland".

Quote:
In the past 50 years, so much has changed with regard to the way "big government" is viewed, especially in that race is a big element of where our social programs are directed. So the "welfare" queen phenom didn't just arise out of the blue. I think social services for those like us (poor whites) are seen as less threatening than social services for the other (blacks, immigrants).
Oh yes, I'd much rather see a white person on the dole than a black person. A black person on the dole is scary.

Quote:
I know this is getting pretty deep into the psycho-social weeds. But I think it is very reasonable to view fascism and ethnic politics this way. Any serious person realizes that the real ugly racist rhetoric comes from people/groups that are firmly to the right in many other areas - gun rights, smaller government, etc.
Seriously? Is this is what is found in the psycho-social weeds? I better stay on the pavement.
__________________
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.