Political ethics

[divagreen]

Why do I feel that I just got patted on the head and told to go bake something?

 

I can understand why that's frustrating, and I often feel that way myself when I hear what seem like stupid arguments.

 

Please stop projecting, I'm not frustrated in the least...as for stupid seeming arguments, I'll leave that to you, nowhere have I raised the issue of "stupid", my focus has been on "baseless" arguments and disinformation being the root cause of a large misinformed demographic of the electorate.

 

So I don't blame you for reacting that way.

 

Actually, my response wasn't a mere reaction, it was an analogy and an accurate one.

 

But I think you're unfairly dismissing a broad (and valid) concern based on what you perceive as invalid merits of a specific case. And this is what often happens in these "conservatives are stupid" arguments -- one set of liberals will create (or at least be perceived as creating) a problem, then another set of liberals will try to explain why conservatives shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and THAT will be the focus, rather than simply straightening out the misinformation. People don't enjoy being told that they're idiots, and they certainly don't respond by repenting and joining their attacker's ideology.

 

Sorry no, I am pointing out specific (there are so many more, but let's address these first shall we?) and well substantiated instances of those with a specific political agenda disseminating disinformation...basically lies, in order to engender fear-mongering. Your "conservatives are stupid" claim is a straw man, I have not made that argument.

 

What is being discussed is the actual lies and prevarications by individual...not their intelligence, personality or any other ad hominem, stop playing the victim by proxy.

 

If you can debunk or refute those who are exposing this propagation of lies, please do so, but again, remember that digging deeper for some means due diligence, so by trying to refute claims of fear-mongering by giving further examples of it, you will likely be called on committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.

 

Regardless of why Oklahomans passed an anti-sharia law resolution, the fact that a judge put a stay on it gives them pause.

 

No, the "why" is the crux of the thread, disinformation, the fact that the bill was stayed due to being the legal equivalent of banning the ten commandments should do more than give pause...it's so blatantly obvious a violation of the first amendment. As for having any merit at all when the motivation for the bill is ignored, it's as much of a waste of time as a ban on cholesterol in boxes of crackers that never had any to begin with. :lol:

 

It is logical for them to wonder what that judge is thinking.

 

Having to wonder what the judge is thinking is only necessary if one completely ignores the first amendment.

 

This will happen no matter what Fox News has to say about it.

 

Yet, if you refuse the "brand" of religion, you will be ably to find many and myriad cries from the right-wing disinformation machine concerning the "removal of (Christian™) God from America.

 

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy...and if you really need cited examples of this?

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=removing+god+from+America

 

Do note the lack of any cites from Islamic sources.

 

(I was asked for examples on the more general subject, by the way, so calling it a straw man unfair.)

 

Not at all, you conflated your example with the explicit declarative that it hadn't been addressed by Maddow...but had you done due diligence you would have seen that it has. Still, if you wish to remove the issue of a straw man argument, you are still left with several other non sequitur descriptions that can be applied in regards to your "general subject" example of the Sharia law "threat", - ignoratio elenchi, you've tried to refute the claim of fear mongering with an example of fear-mongering.

 

There's an irony: Telling me that it's not a major concern,

 

Okay, I'll bite, can you cite a single example of Sharia law superseding the constitutional law of ANY western nation, state or city. I won't hold my breath.

 

and oh, by the way, you think their exercise of sharia practices should be permitted.

 

Please, you have to find something other than straw man arguments, it's getting tiresome. Catholics have the right to live their lives by canon laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state), Jews are allowed to live their lives by halacha laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state). The first amendment of the constitution makes it clear that the state can't interfere with people's religious and vice versa, provided those practices don't violate the law.

 

Where is the hew and cry protesting Halacha law, or Canon law?

 

There isn't, nobody is kicking the fear-monger machine for these.

 

Don't just dig deeper, think deeper.

 

If they're going to ban one, they are going to have to ban them all.

 

What's happened locally here concerning the flying of a Christian flag at a VFW cemetery, as it was a public/government place it was taken down after the threat of a first amendment lawsuit by the ACLU, Many Christians protested so the city council decided to compromise in allowing the rotation of all religious flags recognized by the US armed forces (including flags of Islam, Wicca and the Church of Satin). This made them even more upset.

 

The agenda here should be obvious in regards to inclusion/exclusion and the first amendment.

 

http://www2.journalnow.com/news/2010/nov/10/limit-flags-group-says-ar-525190/#comments

 

I understand that you're not advocating men beating their wives, but there are many aspects to sharia law and the purpose of my bringing up this subject was to point out that Rachel Maddow and her ilk are attempting to downplay their concerns while disrespecting and ridiculing them at the exact same time.

 

You say "downplay", I say "due diligence". As for ridicule, see reductio ad absurdum.

 

Setting aside for a moment the sheer gall of quoting Noam Chomsky as an unbiased source for political analysis, this issue has gotten quite a bit of attention, and while there are many valid opinions on the subject one of them is not "myth".

 

Wrong, Chomsky's purview in this example isn't political analysis, it's his internationally recognized scholarly expertise in the science of linguistics (he's the most cited expert in the world in this regard) and cognitive science, you neglected to play the ad hominem card against Edward S. Herman though, why?

 

Is it because he isn't on some right-wing knee-jerk list?

 

As for the liberal media myth, how can you possibly argue that a corporate, for-profit media sector can be trusted to report fairly on other corporations, such as companies who advertise in that same media?

 

This is all great fodder for another thread because there does exist a wealth of scholarly and academic resources (no...not just cites from the news sources themselves), that can be brought to the table that exists outside the realm of the monosyllabic chants of the more ill informed partisan pundits.

 

There is no easy, casual dismissal here, especially from the far left. What's most likely is a cancelation of equal biases depending on the source. Which supports my point.

 

This is about deliberate dissemination of disinformation, lies and a consensus of deliberate prevarication...you have yet to give any examples of this from so-called "liberal news" outlets. PBS and NPR...they are not corporate sources of news, or even Free Speech Radio or Democracy Now. They may be seen in the light of having a bias, BUT...can you give any examples of propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering that even compare fractionally; to the bovine excreta spewing forth from corporate owned right wing purveyors of fear?

 

You want to make this about personalities, when the issue is decidedly information vs disinformation.

 

Period.

Edited November 12, 2010 by divagreen

[Pangloss]

Why do I feel that I just got patted on the head and told to go bake something?

 

Probably for the same reason that I'm feeling ridiculed and attacked. You complain above about "projection" but you introduced ridicule into our exchange, and you peppered your response above with rolling eyes, laughing icons and so on. Do you want to have a conversation about this, or do you want to point at the conservative and have everyone laugh?

 

 

Wrong, Chomsky's purview in this example isn't political analysis, it's his internationally recognized scholarly expertise in the science of linguistics

 

I disagree. Chomsky's purview is his political analysis, for which he leverages his scholarly background even though there is no intersection between intelligence and ideological opinion.

 

 

Catholics have the right to live their lives by canon laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state), Jews are allowed to live their lives by halacha laws, rituals and practices (if this doesn't contravene the laws of the country/state). The first amendment of the constitution makes it clear that the state can't interfere with people's religious and vice versa, provided those practices don't violate the law.

 

That's fine, thanks for clarifying this point. When those practices don't contradict the law then they're allowed, I agree. If the "ban on sharia law" law passed in Oklahoma stops Muslims from enjoying the same rights, then I would agree that it's wrong and should be banned.

 

None of this contradicts my original point, which was only that there is a reason why conservatives pause and wonder what is going on. They're just behaving like normal human beings. I don't disagree that Fox News (et al) sometimes feeds that FUD with more FUD, compounding the problem.

 

 

They may be seen in the light of having a bias, BUT...can you give any examples of propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering that even compare fractionally; to the bovine excreta spewing forth from corporate owned right wing purveyors of fear?

 

In my opinion MSNBC = Fox News. Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are just commentators, but so are Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. MSNBC news reporting is pursued on the basis of left-good-right-bad, just as Fox News news reporting is pursued on the basis of right-good-left-bad. It's the underlying perspective that informs basic news reporting on these two networks. BOTH networks are "corporate-owned purveyors of fear".

 

I didn't say that NPR = Fox News. I didn't say that bias = agenda.

 

But ultimately it doesn't really matter that the left things the right is mislead and the right thinks the left is mislead. That's always going to happen to some extent in a free society, IMO. I agree with you that ultimately it's about information versus disinformation.

 

What are we going to do about that?

[swansont]

I don't understand what you're saying about the New Jersey judge. Did I link the wrong story?

 

The links mention two legally unrelated stories; their commonality is that they mention sharia law. The incident in NJ influenced the ballot measure in Oklahoma, but the cases themselves have no overlap, as far as I can tell. The legal challenge in no way would legalize spousal battery.

 

Edit: the actual NJ case was about whether to issue a restraining order, rather than being a trial about domestic violence

 

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html

[JohnB]

For those interested, the complete, rather than the edited aired version, of the Rachel Maddow interview with Jon Stewart is here. It's very good. Rachel Maddow does an amazing job of proving Stewarts points for him.

 

As for who lies, well both sides do, they just use different tactics. Note this quote from Bill Maher;

The message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media stopped giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side forgetting that Obama tried that and found out...there are no moderates on the other side. When Jon announced his rally, he said the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama's a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11's an inside job, but I can't name any Democratic leaders who think 9/11's an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama's a Socialist? All of them.

 

"There are no moderates on the other side". Really? There is no such animal as a conservative moderate, all the moderates are on the left? So in his "Left wing liberal media Universe" the American political spectrum goes extreme right wng, moderate left wing, extreme left wing. Either Americans are stranger than any other group on the planet ot he is full of sh*t and lying.

 

Let's throw in a bit of misdirection for good measure. Stewart said "the national conversation was dominated by people on the Right who believe Obama's a Socialist and people on the Left who believe 9/11's an inside job". Note the words "left" and "right", Mayer changes that into "Democrat" and "Republican" to show Stewart is wrong. But Stewart didn't say anything about Democrats or Republicans, he spoke about left and right.

 

While there are similarities, Left != Democrat and Right != Republican. It is this dumbing down to Black/White two value logic that breeds the partisanship. That is the point Stewart has been trying to make and those on the left are just as blind to this as those on the right.

 

As to the media, from what I've seen there isn't much difference between Fox and MSNBC, only the tactics differ and that's because of the differences in the audience. Fox is more likely to exaggerrate and use a line of "Your way of life is in danger" because that is what concerns its audience. People like Maddow use pseudo intellectualism and ridicule to debase and diminish their opponents. "Gee, aren't they stupid? Let's all have a good laugh and revel in our superiority." This appeals to her audience because it strokes their egos and confirms in their minds that they are in fact intellectually and morally superior to the right.

 

Look, whatever floats your boat. But from the outside it looks like you're arguing about which is worse, physical or mental abuse. Neither is worse, they are both bad and both are damaging.

 

BTW, here is Mahers full segment. In it he states that the Republicans are intending to abolish the EPA. Is this true, or is he spreading a lie? (Not a trick question, I have no idea at all on this but he must either be lying or telling the truth)

Edited November 14, 2010 by JohnB

[Pangloss]

Well put.