5 months ago
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
my yet another "nothing to do with bikes" post.....
I can't stand Chris Matthews but I love a good call out when I see it. This video here is a great example of why the political discourse in this country just flat out sucks at times. It nothing but emotionally based arguments centered around antagonistic talking points peppered with emotionally charged rhetoric. The entire time the discussion never truly examines the greater philosophical contexts of the positions they advocate / argue against. This dumb ass pundit in question didn't even know what the hell Neville Chamberlain did to qualify as appeasement in the first place! But hey, it makes for a hell of a big sounding word; thus making you sound like you know some shit when regurgitating your 20 second rehearsed sound bite on tv...
To keep this somewhat bike related, I'm really feeling these macaframa teaser vids; they just look nice and match up with consistent style he has defined. That and I'm trying to get out and ride after work today as long as the rain holds out... :)
ez!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
and just think this guy influences peoples decisions.
Though I enjoyed that little bit, I'm really not sure what the point is of trying to prove to people that they're idiots. For people like the pundit in the video, that's the last thing they want, and its clear that proving it won't make them change their mind. You see this type of thing all over the place, no matter what political side you belong to. It just seems like it only appeals to whatever side you belong to, and just angers the opposite side. Does it really matter who's right or wrong if you're not willing to find a way that you can effectively share your opinion without coming across as a dbag?
Watching that reminded me a lot of some religious argument over the existence of god.
This is often why I don't engage in political/religious conversations. Logic just doesn't seem good enough.
Another thing I hate is when arguments get heated is when they turn into arguments over semantics. The first thing that comes to mind is the definition of "marriage." Just because you don't agree with a definition of a word, I don't understand how that makes your argument valid. Though I suppose that works in proofs for mathematics.
who ever yells the loudest wins.
have you never watched fox news?
I understand where you’re coming from Julius but IMO logic should always be what we aim for when debating topics such as the one in the video. There will be some things where an ultimate leap of faith is needed in order to justify your position but again IMO, a logical viewpoint should be the ultimate goal we strive for…
For instance, lets address what I find to be so asinine about this video. Lets not look at the obvious issue here (the incorrect use of the word appeasement) but instead lets concentrate on how language is being used to illicit emotional responses as opposed to being used as tools of debate. As you all ready know, certain words used in certain contexts can illicit emotional responses. Language has that effect and when used in that manner, can be effective in how certain topics get framed in public discourse. The entire line of “reasoning” being used by the pundit in question is not based on logic, but rather on the misuse of a word that carries certain emotional connotations. If you can portray Obamas position of initiating dialog with Iran as something that it is not (appeasement), then the emotional connotations of the word now outweigh the actual position regardless of whether it true or not. In essence instilling an emotion (in this case fear) in to the debate that does nothing to really address or disprove the merits of the position in question. Follow what I’m saying? In other words the main goal was to instill fear in to the debate in order to stifle the merits of the other position involved. Ever hear the phrase fear is a control mechanism? This is why I like what Chris Matthews did; he exposed it (whether intentional or not) for what it is...
Since you brought it up, same sex marriage is another one of these issues that gets clouded by emotion and ideology. IMO, if you take the religious overtones out of the legal designation, what’s the problem? Reclassify the legal definition as a civil union for everyone involved and now there is no religious context to it. The state can set up criteria on what classifies a civil union and now everyone gets the same legal rights under the eyes of the law. And guess what, no religious beliefs of individual citizens where trampled in the process...
Ultimately this is not about “converting” others to a way of thinking. IMO, this is about upping the discussion and exposing the philosophical laziness that has entrenched itself in the American political discourse. I have many friends I can talk to about topics such as this and we rarely agree on all fronts. The thing is we use logic to discuss the merits of our positions as opposed using fear or some other emotional variable in order to trump one over the other. I see both major parties using emotions when trying to push their ideological positions and the fact that the national media plays along is no surprise. For them it’s about attracting eyeballs and not playing the role the 4th estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate) was meant to serve. And we all know how vital a free press is to a free society... (but thats a whole other topic LOL!)
I could keep going but I’ll stop here because I’m notorious for over explaining things... :)
ez!
i just got a black hub for the 650 wheel i'm building. Do you guys think i should get a a black, red, or white rim for the bianchi?
hot pink! its been the new black for quite some time now... :)
I was hoping that you would write me a novel.
Post a Comment