False Labeling Stifles Meaningful Debate

[Intense]

No, but the Randians keep trying. (And failing.)

Rand wasn't so much about converting disciples, more focusing on getting the correct change back from a purchase, getting the correct order at a restaurant, getting deliveries to the correct address, you get it. Value for value. You don't support incompetence any more than her, she just didn't stop because the culprit belonged to a Union or worked for the Government. She wrote some great reads. For a self proclaimed atheist, she got some important stuff right. My market is a direct relationship with my customers, no middlemen or go betweens. In it's own way it usually works out right, two parties coming to a plain agreement. Much less stress that way, no false promises or assumptions. We need Government to maintain the playing field and to establish Justice, Impartial Justice, our disagreement comes in size, function, scope, there are things government should stay out of. getting someone a start or a helping hand, as opposed to redistribution of wealth, a reward for doing nothing to better yourself or your circumstance. Show something for the time and money invested. People are not inherently because they achieve or succeed in what they do. It is horrible that we treat each other so. Method, Intent, are more relevant factors than worth. These teachings are anti federalist, anti free market, anti industrial revolution. We need not apologize to the world for having indoor plumbing and flush toilets. The rational is corrupted and self destructive.

Ayn Rand's rationality was always very irrational. Markets do not get things right or wrong. Markets have no invisible hand. Markets are systems meant to be regulated if we are to survive as a society.

How we regulate and when we regulate are the questions, not should we regulate.

Regulated, not manipulated. The referee isn't supposed to have players and money bet on the opposing team. Take the hint. Markets do get things right and wrong. Are you blind when you shop? Regulation should not be an obsession Dante, but a public service. Sorry buddy, too many are too bent on controlling others from cradle to grave, my response to that is live your own life, and be very wary of what you impose on others. Injustice will find it's way back to you and bite you in the ass. Government by the consent of the governed, for the benefit of the consent of the governed, not just the privileged few. Regulation beyond recognized powers is the reality we live in today thanks to lines of thought similar to yours. The rule of law applies equally to all of us.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Look who the admin of this forum is, Gunny, and the shitty example of posting he sets. It's no wonder its like that in so many cases. Place is crawling with troll like posters, and just ranters and ravers

Translation= Anyone who disagrees with you.

That's the dishonest idiots response. YOu think GUnny puts forth solid arguments without ranting and raving and constant attacking, then you truly are a moron and there is no hope for you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do trolls always whine about trolls?

 

[Intense]

Look who the admin of this forum is, Gunny, and the shitty example of posting he sets. It's no wonder its like that in so many cases. Place is crawling with troll like posters, and just ranters and ravers

Translation= Anyone who disagrees with you.

That's the dishonest idiots response. YOu think GUnny puts forth solid arguments without ranting and raving and constant attacking, then you truly are a moron and there is no hope for you.

Greg, Gunny may not be Mis Congeniality, but neither are you. I've been on more than a few boards in my time, none have given so much freedom to Voice and freedom of expression as this. That in itself is more of a show of tolerance than I've experienced on any public platform. My political views may be more similar to his than yours, true I've not been in his cross hairs, but, maybe the problem is you. Why not try rooting your witness or perspective, in principle? Try not to stray too far, or corrupt logic, through attempted indoctrination. Give it a try. What have you got to lose? Nothing. What have you got to gain? Your conscience, your soul.

 

[Granny]

I've been called names also - stupid, racist *****, etc. - none of which are true. I think another consideration should be made - age matters. The history and government I was taught in school is waaay different that the history and government that is being taught today. I think education generally was far better "yesterday" than it is today. Schools were tougher and more was expected from students - including self respect and respect for others. Those of us who are older grew up in a whole different world than the young people of today.

Also, various things we believe are in part influenced by the regions in which we grew up or live in today, by our parents' influence for better or worse, by our environments, by our religious beliefs whatever they may be (or not be).

Not everything that is posted is cut and dried one-size-fits-all. Many things factor into the way we think and feel - it's what makes us individuals rather than little "drones."

 

[saveliberty]

The only board I ever got kicked off of was a liberal one. EVERY other board wanted me to mod. Glad people do it, not for me though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberal boards can be as nonobjective as conservative boards, that's true. Both the radical and reactionary wing nut groups have some loonies.

This Board is run fairly, I think. There seems to be more loony reactionaries than silly leftists, but is merely my opinion.

 

[hjmick]

For crying out loud, people, grow a pair! Big deal, someone calls you a name, deal with it. If I call you a frog, it doesn't mean you're a frog. You know who and what you are, **** everything else and move on. Be a better and bigger person. Ignore the insult and refrain from lashing out in retaliation.

****.

Bunch of babies...

 

[JakeStarkey]

For crying out loud, people, grow a pair! Big deal, someone calls you a name, deal with it. If I call you a frog, it doesn't mean you're a frog. You know who and what you are, **** everything else and move on. Be a better and bigger person. Ignore the insult and refrain from lashing out in retaliation.

****.

Bunch of babies...

hjmick, you are nuthin' but a quacking parrot, huh?

 

[saveliberty]

For crying out loud, people, grow a pair! Big deal, someone calls you a name, deal with it. If I call you a frog, it doesn't mean you're a frog. You know who and what you are, **** everything else and move on. Be a better and bigger person. Ignore the insult and refrain from lashing out in retaliation.

****.

Bunch of babies...

Of course I didn't think YOU were a frog...your a parrot right? I'd be pretty bummed if you weren't the smartest parrot I ever met on the internet.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've been called names also - stupid, racist *****, etc. - none of which are true. I think another consideration should be made - age matters. The history and government I was taught in school is waaay different that the history and government that is being taught today. I think education generally was far better "yesterday" than it is today. Schools were tougher and more was expected from students - including self respect and respect for others. Those of us who are older grew up in a whole different world than the young people of today.

Also, various things we believe are in part influenced by the regions in which we grew up or live in today, by our parents' influence for better or worse, by our environments, by our religious beliefs whatever they may be (or not be).

Not everything that is posted is cut and dried one-size-fits-all. Many things factor into the way we think and feel - it's what makes us individuals rather than little "drones."

For me, the MOST frustrating part is seeing so many younger people who want, listen to/watch, and act out as if one-size-fits-all equals their way or the highway.

 

[Intense]

All this touchy feely is too much for me! We have a coffee shop, why not a bar? Tequila on the rocks with a twist of lime. Keep em coming.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've been called names also - stupid, racist *****, etc. - none of which are true. I think another consideration should be made - age matters. The history and government I was taught in school is waaay different that the history and government that is being taught today. I think education generally was far better "yesterday" than it is today. Schools were tougher and more was expected from students - including self respect and respect for others. Those of us who are older grew up in a whole different world than the young people of today.

Also, various things we believe are in part influenced by the regions in which we grew up or live in today, by our parents' influence for better or worse, by our environments, by our religious beliefs whatever they may be (or not be).

Not everything that is posted is cut and dried one-size-fits-all. Many things factor into the way we think and feel - it's what makes us individuals rather than little "drones."

For me, the MOST frustrating part is seeing so many younger people who want, listen to/watch, and act out as if one-size-fits-all equals their way or the highway.

Sounds like they are product of NCLB.

 

[Intense]

I've been called names also - stupid, racist *****, etc. - none of which are true. I think another consideration should be made - age matters. The history and government I was taught in school is waaay different that the history and government that is being taught today. I think education generally was far better "yesterday" than it is today. Schools were tougher and more was expected from students - including self respect and respect for others. Those of us who are older grew up in a whole different world than the young people of today.

Also, various things we believe are in part influenced by the regions in which we grew up or live in today, by our parents' influence for better or worse, by our environments, by our religious beliefs whatever they may be (or not be).

Not everything that is posted is cut and dried one-size-fits-all. Many things factor into the way we think and feel - it's what makes us individuals rather than little "drones."

For me, the MOST frustrating part is seeing so many younger people who want, listen to/watch, and act out as if one-size-fits-all equals their way or the highway.

Sounds like they are product of NCLB.

Sounds like someone making a wrong turn so far back they are without a clue.

 

[HUGGY]

I've been called names also - stupid, racist *****, etc. - none of which are true. I think another consideration should be made - age matters. The history and government I was taught in school is waaay different that the history and government that is being taught today. I think education generally was far better "yesterday" than it is today. Schools were tougher and more was expected from students - including self respect and respect for others. Those of us who are older grew up in a whole different world than the young people of today.

Also, various things we believe are in part influenced by the regions in which we grew up or live in today, by our parents' influence for better or worse, by our environments, by our religious beliefs whatever they may be (or not be).

Not everything that is posted is cut and dried one-size-fits-all. Many things factor into the way we think and feel - it's what makes us individuals rather than little "drones."

This is a different world. The only thing that makes sense is to allow our televisions to vote and make all meaningful decisions in the home.

If they made a "box" that worked like the neilsons people could sign thier rights over to the tube and take the guesswork out of society.

People IQ could be rated by what they watch. Census by who is home watching Fox..

It's all so simple...

 

[QUENTIN]

Since when has that ever concerned a Tea Bagger?

Funny seeing the Totalitarians compete!!!

It's a shame that not even in a thread about the real negative consequences of this kind of name-calling can people refrain from the behavior.

I see a common pattern on this board and in general political discussion of dismissive labels being applied totally inaccurately to people and then used to ignore them or avoid debating more specific issues at hand.

I've been labeled a rightwinger, wingnut, neocon, Republican, etc. when I criticize Obama and Democrats for escalating the occupation of Afghanistan, curtailing civil liberties, egregiously rebuking the rule of law, expanding executive power, colluding with powerful corporate interests against the public good on health care reform and the bailout, and general lack of transparency.

I've also been labeled an Obamabot, wingnut, socialist, Democrat, etc. when I criticize Bush and Republicans for much of the same and even greater failures of foreign policy and domestic governance, curtailment of basic liberties and disastrous economics, and extreme secrecy in how it operated.

I'm far from the only one I see this happen to, it's quite pervasive. Critique the Kagan pick, you're assumed to be a Tea Partier and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "left" no matter how substantive. Critique Cheney's views on habeus corpus, you're assumed to be a true blue partisan and your argument is dismissed by the members who identify with the "right" no matter how substantive.

I've never voted nor supported either national party or their candidates, I've actually actively opposed them my entire adult life, and I have to believe there are a fair amount of genuine independents on the board, despite the generally polarized and partisan makeup here, whose grievances cannot be conveniently packaged with the platform of any party or movement.

I just want to bring it to general attention in the hopes that a couple people will read this and think twice before assuming the next person they disagree or agree with in a thread is automatically of a certain political persuasion, holds a variety of allegiances, and can be judged on a wide range of issues based on their opinion on a single and specific one.

We'd all be better off and discussion here would be a lot more rewarding if people took a little extra time and care to actually debate the issue at hand and not jump to conclusions about agendas and broader political beliefs, labeling any opponent in order to dismiss all they say or insult them, but rather engaging them point-by-point. Obviously there are people here who are simply loyalist partisans of both parties, but a lot of other people are more complex and individualized and there could actually be merit to debate that isn't shoehorned into simplistic, polarized, and so often inaccurate "sides."

*Steps off soap box*

Thanks for listening.

Could you point out what civil liberties Obama has curtailed??

I'm glad you asked. More and more it seems people aren't even aware of the many ways in which he is adopting the Bush/Cheney line on issues of civil liberties, the "war on terror" and expanding surveillance state, in part because Democrats often reflexively assume they support whatever he does and Republicans don't care since that's an issue where he actually mimics their policies.

Under Obama and the Democrats we have seen presidential assassination programs (where the mere assertion by the executive, without charge, trial, or review that an American citizen is a terrorist means they can be "'legally'" assassinated far from any battlefield), detention with no charges (a fundamental and extreme abridgment of the Constitutional right to a fair trial guaranteed to everyone in American jurisdiction), senseless demands for further reductions of core rights when arrested (a revocation of core Miranda rights that achieve nothing but satiating the rightwing need to destroy the principles of the law and civil liberties), ongoing secret prisons filled with abuse (long after Obama promised to run "the most transparent government in history" and railed against prisoner abuse), military commissions (which the Supreme Court ruled an unConstitutional abridgment of rights for non-military prisoners and which progressives - rightly - condemned when Bush advocated them but now largely ignore or support since Obama has championed their use), warrantless surveillance of emails (anyone else remember when privacy was something Americans both cared about and expected since it's a right enshrined in the law?), and presidential secrecy claims to block courts from reviewing claims of government crimes (the broad invocation of "State Secrets" claims to block from any review cases where the government egregiously broke the law to avoid embarrassment or culpability for those who committed felonies and infringed on the rights of thousands). The Democratic-led Congress takes still new steps to block the closing of Guantanamo (a key issue in the War on Terror platform of Candidate Obama, and for good reason as it's a legal blackhole condemned by civil liberties and law groups throughout the world). Democratic leaders push for biometric, national ID cards (a further expansion of the massive surveillance state and the ability of the government to keep tabs on all Americans). The most minimal surveillance safeguards are ignored. Even the miniscule limits on eavesdropping powers are transgressed (after numerous safeguards have already been eliminated and the powers broadly expanded - they still couldn't stop violating the law). And from just this week: "Millions of Americans arrested for but not convicted of crimes will likely have their DNA forcibly extracted and added to a national database, according to a bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday"

To be sure, Obama's collusion with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries to block meaningful reform of healthcare or adopt a public option that was enormously popular among pluralities of Americans and particularly strong among Democratic voters, his expansion of the occupation of Afghanistan and illegal entry into Pakistan, and his partnering with top bankers to not only shield them from responsibility but in fact pay them for their unscrupulous practices that bankrupt the country, with public money, are shameful. But nowhere is his record more shameful and less progressive than on the subject of civil liberties.

Rush, Beck and Hannity only give them talking points. They never give them anything to back them up with...

Rush, Beck, and Hannity? Are you ******* joking? Try Chomsky, Greenwald, and Goodman. This is exactly what I'm talking about in the OP. Completely false labeling and jumping to idiotic and inaccurate conclusions based on little or no evidence of actual views.

You assume if someone criticizes Obama - even when obviously from the left - they must be parroting rightwing talking points. You're either ignoring what's actually being said or have terrible reading comprehension skills, but you are the personification of the problem I'm talking about and this behavior is laughable, but also destructive of meaningful discussion.

Sticks and stones........



It obviously bothers you to be labeled. But for folks like me, it's water off a ducks back.

No, it's not a thin skin thing. It's not the labeling that bothers me, if someone labeled me remotely accurately and responded accordingly, fine. And I could care less about someone applying a label to me if that were the only result.

My problem is the unwarranted dismissal that follows based on a rash misjudgment that, as I said, stifles meaningful debate.

A valid point being disregarded because someone assumes I'm just stumping for Obama or Bush, when I vociferously criticize both and think they're terrible presidents, and only want to discuss the matter at hand not be forced to try and defend the fact that I'm no fan of either party and don't fit into whatever box they've put me in based on my opinion on one issue, is annoying and discourages substantive debate and the time and effort that requires.

If someone just assumes you're part of some group they despise and they won't give what you say a fair shake as a result, what's the point of bothering to engage them?

The idea that criticizing someone on the right must mean you're a leftist and criticizing someone on the left must mean you're a rightwinger, or the reverse for supporting an action taken by someone on those sides, promotes polarization and discussions that amount to little more than name-calling between boosters of different sports teams. It reduces the complex and interesting into the stupid and predictable and makes it hard for anyone to get anything meaningful out of conversations here. That applies to everyone since I've noticed it as a really common go-to reaction among a lot of people, not just towards me. I have to assume there are members here whose views can't be pigeonholed simply into party talking points, otherwise this place has no more value than Crossfire.

There's no getting around it, you're not going to change it, so you might as well just live with it and explain when necessary that you, personally, are NOT a "liberal," or whatever.

Again, after I thoroughly demonstrated what a dishonest poster you were (and you thereafter left the thread, not before admitting but minimizing the degree to which you were wrong - either lying or completely mistaken), you come here to label me as not sufficiently or truly liberal.

The fact is, I'm almost certainly more liberal or progressive than you are, particularly if you're an Obama supporter. That is where my critique comes from.

But you falsely conflate support for Obama or the Democratic party with liberalism.

I'm not illiberal, I'm just consistent and when a politician or political party that claims to be liberal but in fact advances policies that are anathema to genuine liberalism, I oppose them on those grounds. I don't oppose Obama and his actions because he's a progressive, I oppose them because he and they are not.

But to some people, who are actual not false party loyalists, any critique of their leader is assumed without any proof or reason to mean you're of "the other side" and thus should be ignored, to them it's impossible that you would hold core, unshakable beliefs (in my case, ones that are considered quite progressive in American discourse) that transcend and supersede party identification and politics.

 

[QUENTIN]

Then STFU about party politics. Start your own party.


---

on a more serious note, you are against the major parties, yet you have no reasonable and rational solutions? I, methinks, the wingnuts and moonbats are owed an apology---by your detractors.

Why should I shut up about party politics when they are the controlling factor in political debate and policy. So long as most Americans refuse to think outside of a false dichotomy of a broken two party system, party politics are a worthy subject of study, concern, and discussion.

And what on Earth is your basis for believing I have no reasonable or rational solutions? Because I don't support Republican or Democratic presidential candidates and consistently vote for third party politicians who actually represent me (you know, the point of democracy in a country that was not designed to be a two-party state), you assume I have no alternatives. I'm extremely active in politics and the advancement of political causes I care deeply about, volunteering my time and money, going so far as to be jailed for pacifistic civil disobedience, personally being involved in the campaigns of genuine progressive independents, but if the solution isn't what the deeply corrupt R's or D's are championing, you're claiming they're nonexistist, irrational, or unreasonable.

People are so quick to jump to false conclusions based no nothing more than their own existing prejudices and inaccurate assumptions. This is precisely the problem I intended the highlight, helpfully exemplified.

 

[MaggieMae]

For me, the MOST frustrating part is seeing so many younger people who want, listen to/watch, and act out as if one-size-fits-all equals their way or the highway.

Sounds like they are product of NCLB.

Sounds like someone making a wrong turn so far back they are without a clue.

Since I've been around to witness first-hand several generations, undoubtedly the baby boomers began a trend of wanting it all, with little sacrifice, and that idealism has been passed along to Generations X and Y, nudged at first, then expanded at light speed with instant access to the Internet. In general, just about anyone under 50 now expects instant gratification, whether it's buying (or stealing) whatever they want, or praise for their "efforts" (even when there are none) by their parents, teachers and peers. There's no such thing as learning to be a better person by failure and experience.

 

[Intense]

Sounds like they are product of NCLB.

Sounds like someone making a wrong turn so far back they are without a clue.

Since I've been around to witness first-hand several generations, undoubtedly the baby boomers began a trend of wanting it all, with little sacrifice, and that idealism has been passed along to Generations X and Y, nudged at first, then expanded at light speed with instant access to the Internet. In general, just about anyone under 50 now expects instant gratification, whether it's buying (or stealing) whatever they want, or praise for their "efforts" (even when there are none) by their parents, teachers and peers. There's no such thing as learning to be a better person by failure and experience.

You do know who did all of this don't you!!!!! Blame Dr. Spock.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every American of every age should read David Brooks' "The Art of Growing Up" Lincoln. He argues that Lincoln's struggle consciously with "his inner demons" transformed him into the leader we needed at the most desperate junction of our history. Recognized his faults and limitations as challenges to meet and overcome, not to excuse and rationalize. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06brooks.html

Maggie is absolutely right on with her analysis.