My bad on the title slip up. Dan Rather is busy fulminating on Facebook, liberal Andy Rooney style. Don't get me wrong, I resonate with everything he says. But this is 2017, and Dan Savage's message on messaging was timely and spot on, imho.I was hoping for Dan Rather, but got Dan Savage. disappoint!
On Bill Maher. Republicans have been winning the propaganda war since forever. Dems have really never effectively responded. Of course, it does help the Pubs to have a credulous target audience of ill-informed bozos. The Dems need to unapologetically pander to their cache of ill-informed bozos.
Narratives that foment ever more divisiveness make me want to puke. How about we talk ourselves off the ledge instead of over it.
On Bill Maher. Republicans have been winning the propaganda war since forever. Dems have really never effectively responded. Of course, it does help the Pubs to have a credulous target audience of ill-informed bozos. The Dems need to unapologetically pander to their cache of ill-informed bozos.
I'd like to get off the ledge, but that never requires acquiescing to the desires of Nazis in order to compromise. One group has to simply accept that they are a very real type of social cancer before progress can be made, because they will simply continue to let their little ideas metastisize in small forms long after that compromise has been reached. There is no truth to the assumption that "both ideas are right."
I'd like to get off the ledge, but that never requires acquiescing to the desires of Nazis in order to compromise. One group has to simply accept that they are a very real type of social cancer before progress can be made, because they will simply continue to let their little ideas metastisize in small forms long after that compromise has been reached. There is no truth to the assumption that "both ideas are right." That's a fallacy. If the cancer must be brought to heal to prevent its spread, that's the fault of the cancer, not the cure.
When I read stuff like this I wonder how any debate is possible. To whom is the worn-out appellation of Nazi applied, anyone to the right of center? Anyone to the right of you? When the the talking stops, the shooting starts. Sounds like that's what you want.I'd like to get off the ledge, but that never requires acquiescing to the desires of Nazis in order to compromise. One group has to simply accept that they are a very real type of social cancer before progress can be made, because they will simply continue to let their little ideas metastisize in small forms long after that compromise has been reached. There is no truth to the assumption that "both ideas are right." That's a fallacy. If the cancer must be brought to heal to prevent its spread, that's the fault of the cancer, not the cure.
I think that's a leap you're taking.When I read stuff like this I wonder how any debate is possible. To whom is the worn-out appellation of Nazi applied, anyone to the right of center? Anyone to the right of you? When the the talking stops, the shooting starts. Sounds like that's what you want.
Perhaps without even thinking, you've done something very similar to what zin has done, by lumping everyone who doesn't align precisely enough with you into "those who would end democracy." Pardon me, but that how is that substantively different than Nazi name calling? Once you take that mental step of categorizing andI hope you're clear that the Left (though angry) are the one's trying to stop democracy from being bastardized one bit at a time until it's unrecognizable. The Right wing wants what it wants at any cost including the demise of democracy.
As you define it. But not everyone falls for fast and loose interpretations of language, for instance, a wish for positive voter ID is not necessarily an eager pursuit of "disenfranchisement," no more than a reduction in the rate of growth is a "cut." But this is how language is used by propagandists to demonize their fellow countrymen.Some things cannot be compromised with. A party that supports and eagerly pursues disenfranchisement, for example, is incompatible with a functioning democracy. A party that spreads falsehoods about groups that they shout down whenever those groups try to address those complaints, for example, is incompatible with a functional society in a multicultural world.
When I read stuff like this I wonder how any debate is possible. To whom is the worn-out appellation of Nazi applied, anyone to the right of center? Anyone to the right of you? When the the talking stops, the shooting starts. Sounds like that's what you want.
As you define it. But not everyone falls for fast and loose interpretations of language, for instance, a wish for positive voter ID is not necessarily an eager pursuit of "disenfranchisement," no more than a reduction in the rate of growth is a "cut." But this is how language is used by propagandists to demonize their fellow countrymen.
Perhaps without even thinking, you've done something very similar to what zin has done, by lumping everyone who doesn't align precisely enough with you into "those who would end democracy." Pardon me, but that how is that substantively different than Nazi name calling? Once you take that mental step of categorizing anddisregardingdehumanizing a vast swath of people after knowing just one single thing about them, it's you who are helping to bring about the demise of democracy, knowingly or not. It's you who are starting the ideological war by making enemies of your countrymen!
There has to be compromise in a healthy democracy, in fact, I'd say it's axiomatic. To reductively paint any opponent as an enemy of democracy simply because they disagree with you or belong to the other party is intellectually lazy.
How could I disagree? But you must recognize that your latter stance is a significant departure from your former post which provoked my reaction. Despite the emotionally charged political environment, debate and engagement on issues must continue if we are to avoid a complete breakdown of the democratic process. I for one still have enough confidence in the separation of powers to think that our current situation is just another test that we will pass; a President can't break us, but we can break ourselves if we all decide to hate each other enough to stop talking.I'm pretty squarely right of center, as far as I see myself, I'm also on the left in many ways. There are fundamental rights and fundamental truths: freedom of the press, for one. I do not compromise on such rights, and nor should you. At some point, how you define yourself, left or right, simply doesn't matter. When fundamental truths are being trashed, the trashers must be brought to heal.
do you not agree?
What do you suggest is done about this evil party?Some things cannot be compromised with. A party that supports and eagerly pursues disenfranchisement, for example, is incompatible with a functioning democracy. A party that spreads falsehoods about groups that they shout down whenever those groups try to address those complaints, for example, is incompatible with a functional society in a multicultural world.
How could I disagree? But you must recognize that your latter stance is a significant departure from your former post which provoked my reaction. Despite the emotionally charged political environment, debate and engagement on issues must continue if we are to avoid a complete breakdown of the democratic process. I for one still have enough confidence in the separation of powers to think that our current situation is just another test that we will pass; a President can't break us, but we can break ourselves if we all decide to hate each other enough to stop talking.
On Bill Maher. Republicans have been winning the propaganda war since forever. Dems have really never effectively responded. Of course, it does help the Pubs to have a credulous target audience of ill-informed bozos. The Dems need to unapologetically pander to their cache of ill-informed bozos.