Various commentators, including Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, have expressed disbelief with the statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea of the extensive FISA abuse found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. I share that view. Schiff’s predecessor at the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, raised many of these abuses which were adamantly denied by Schiff for months. The media for its part virtually mocked such claims as conspiracy theories and false news. Now the media and Schiff is claiming total surprise by the findings (if they acknowledge them at all). The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.
In his interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Schiff told Chris Wallace there were “serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of . . . Had I known of them, Chris, yes, I would’ve called out the FBI at the same time. But I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time.”
That is one of the more extraordinary statements to come out of these scandals. Schiff spent two years swatting back these claims and was repeatedly confronted with them by their prior Chair of the Committee. Schiff not only showed little interest in confirming the allegations but assured the public that they were meritless. Yet, the media has, again, simply taken his statement as somehow manifestly true.
Hume took after Schiff over the statement:
“One of the most striking things about this IG report … is how closely it mirrors what the Devin Nunes investigation — when Nunes was still chairman and Schiff was ranking member on the intelligence committee — what Nunes found and what he said about the FISA abuses, and so on — to which, this very same Adam Schiff issued a report and rebuttal, which disputed the Nunes findings — findings now confirmed by the IG report.”
For those of us who have been commenting on these controversies, there have been ample reports about the omissions in the FISA application and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against figures like Carter Page, the subject of a recent column.
What is equally disturbing and baffling is President Donald Trump’s most recent attack on Fox for even interviewing figures like Schiff. Even if one puts aside the continued attacks on the free press and its obligation to hear all sides of these controversies, President Trump could at least recognize that such interviews tend to expose inconsistencies and falsehoods. Wallace supplied a probing and substantive interview — precisely what Trump has argued is missing in much of the coverage.
“The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.“
Media propaganda, and its loss of integrity, has become a serious problem.
Americans depend upon the information at hand to make informed decisions at the polls. Then that information is carefully parsed, crafted, or even omitted, it amounts to meddling in our election. Whoever controls information controls the vote. That appears to be GOOGLE’s mission statement, at least.
How can we have a fair election when voters are not getting accurate information? There are alternate news sites, some of which are very popular. These give both sides of the story, although they, too, rely heavily on opinion editorial shows, in addition to straight news programs. This counterbalances the constant Leftist propaganda in most sources.
I think there is a niche for more straight news.
Thank you Prof. Turley, for looking at thing in a factual, rather than a political fantasy way.
“Ignorance knows no bounds.”
Schiff probably won’t be attending anymore town halls in his own district after the last one.
This is news?
The Democratic Party in Washington is a cavalcades of grotesques. Schiff is notable for being an attention whore, so he’s the exemplar. The question at hand is how a working political society is to prosper when one of its major political parties is a criminal organization with no redeeming features. The criminality isn’t some ambient phenomenon. It’s a function of the grossness of our professional-managerial stratum, for which the Democratic Party is the principal electoral vehicle. The media, the bar, the higher education racket, the school administrators, the mental health trade, corporate HR, and the generic non-profit sector (professional associations most salient among them). What’s to do? We haven’t a clue. And, by the way, we can see from these fora that street-level Democrats are fairly content with their rotten-to-the-core political party. This will not end well.
What’s to do? We haven’t a clue.
I find that hard to believe.
This will not end well
You keep telling us.
To him whom much has been given, much shall be expected.
###
3rd Sunday of Advent: Office of Readings
From a sermon by Saint Augustine: John is the voice, and Christ is the Word
John is the voice, but the Lord is the Word who was in the beginning. John is the voice that lasts for a time; from the beginning Christ is the Word who lives for ever.
Take away the word, the meaning, and what is the voice? Where there is no understanding, there is only a meaningless sound. The voice without the word strikes the ear but does not build up the heart.
However, let us observe what happens when we first seek to build up our hearts. When I think about what I am going to say, the word or message is already in my heart. When I want to speak to you, I look for a way to share with your heart what is already in mine.
In my search for a way to let this message reach you, so that the word already in my heart may find place also in yours, I use my voice to speak to you. The sound of my voice brings the meaning of the word to you and then passes away. The word which the sound has brought to you is now in your heart, and yet it is still also in mine.
When the word has been conveyed to you, does not the sound seem to say: The word ought to grow, and I should diminish? The sound of the voice has made itself heard in the service of the word, and has gone away, as though it were saying: My joy is complete. Let us hold on to the word; we must not lose the word conceived inwardly in our hearts.
Do you need proof that the voice passes away but the divine Word remains? Where is John’s baptism today? It served its purpose, and it went away. Now it is Christ’s baptism that we celebrate. It is in Christ that we all believe; we hope for salvation in him. This is the message the voice cried out.
Because it is hard to distinguish word from voice, even John himself was thought to be the Christ. The voice was thought to be the word. But the voice acknowledged what it was, anxious not to give offence to the word. I am not the Christ, he said, nor Elijah, nor the prophet. And the question came: Who are you, then? He replied: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way for the Lord. The voice of one crying in the wilderness is the voice of one breaking the silence. Prepare the way for the Lord, he says, as though he were saying: “I speak out in order to lead him into your hearts, but he does not choose to come where I lead him unless you prepare the way for him.”
What does prepare the way mean, if not “pray well”? What does prepare the way mean, if not “be humble in your thoughts”? We should take our lesson from John the Baptist. He is thought to be the Christ; he declares he is not what they think. He does not take advantage of their mistake to further his own glory.
If he had said, “I am the Christ,” you can imagine how readily he would have been believed, since they believed he was the Christ even before he spoke. But he did not say it; he acknowledged what he was. He pointed out clearly who he was; he humbled himself.
He saw where his salvation lay. He understood that he was a lamp, and his fear was that it might be blown out by the wind of pride.
https://universalis.com/20191215/readings.htm
Beautiful.
Conversion is a perennial process. It happens en masse only with dedicated leadership.
The Church has subverted itself too many times to count. The past century, quite a bit!
Find me ten good priests and 80% will be serving under a rotten bishop.
Then there are the “Catholic Universities,.” The very name’s a fraud! Land O’ lakes. Not the butter, the statement. Look it up.
It’s a good time now for the Church, to lose a lot of money. Oh, and they’ve got a lot to lose. If they lose a lot faster, maybe they’ll clean up their act.
here the fools at NCR fail to understand why donations are down. so, they’ll keep falling, for sure, and deservedly so
https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/amid-broad-drop-charitable-donations-giving-god-down-3-billion-last-year
see that headline? Giving to God! Please! What arrogance. They should read your sermon from St Augustine– don’t confuse the voice with the word!
The last thing I’ll say is about Bergoglio. The guy is not as bad as he sounds sometimes. He’s doing some good things.
The main problem with the Church are the bishops, worst of all the Americans, who in the modern era, have grossly mismanaged it. They made their peace with America and now America owns them. Now America will take its pound of flesh.
The good thing about America, the very best thing, is that we expect everybody to work. And we even expect our leadership to work the hardest. Let them get that message and fast and maybe they can turn things around. We’ll see. I won’t hold my breath.
Conversion is a perennial process. It happens en masse only with dedicated leadership.
Youre copping out as usual when it comes to Catholicism and a dynamic, meaningful, intimate relationship with God, and failing to take any personal responsibility for your own spiritual journey.
My Bishop gets no credit whatsoever for my growth, journeying or failings therein as to my Christocentric relationship.
Thats all on me
Ditto for you
Its complex, as all love relationships are, but youre not really up for this conversation.
Introspection maybe?
And, by the way, we can see from these fora that street-level Democrats are fairly content with their rotten-to-the-core political party. This will not end well.
That is the most important point. Normally, when one discovers they’ve been lied to, repeatedly; and that those lies are not attributable to just one individual, but rather are representative of an entire block of public servants, media, entertainment, education, etc. One would reevaluate what else they believed to be true and change course. The fact that anyone would still defend the Democrat party after having a front row seat to their abuse of power is a tragic reflection on the state of our body politic.
Is there any time in human history that proves a government enabled by half of their citizens to abuse the rights of the other half, ends well for the enablers?
This is what astounds me, Olly. How the many folks posting here refuse to acknowledge the deceit being poured over them. How they embrace it, and call us fools for not embracing it. And they do it with such intense hatred. The hatred alone is a clue as to the source of their beliefs.
I agree FFS. There are clues, but to have a belief system that would consciously enable those with the power to destroy lives, to abuse that power, isn’t that suicidal? Bastiat certainly understands this phenomena.
And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding. The Law
they’re trolling us
also, they want to keep people locked into the dominant media narrative, so they just pretend that real-reality doesn’t exist, just their bizzarro version, their simulacrum
Then we have 3 options. Ignore them. Join them. Counter them.
“Is there any time in human history that proves a government enabled by half of their citizens to abuse the rights of the other half, ends well?”
probably some of them have gone on for centuries like that
probably some of them have gone on for centuries like that
Huh!? That’s what you’re seriously going to run with? Not only does that not answer the question, it’s a response I’d expect from the likes of Schiff in one of his parodies.
my reply was not an answer to your question it was just a statement of history. oppression is relative to conditions of the past. so the Kingdom of ancient Egypt may have been oppressive to us, but it was probably better than pure savagery.
now let me see if I can find your question from above:
Fss said: “How the many folks posting here refuse to acknowledge the deceit being poured over them. How they embrace it, and call us fools for not embracing it. And they do it with such intense hatred. The hatred alone is a clue as to the source of their beliefs.
Reply
OLLY says:December 17, 2019 at 1:25 PM
I agree FFS. There are clues, but to have a belief system that would consciously enable those with the power to destroy lives, to abuse that power, isn’t that suicidal? Bastiat certainly understands this phenomena.
And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.”
I agree that new regimes often seem to enact new systems of plunder from their adversaries.
I don’t moralize about this as much as you do. I’m familiar with Bastiat’s work i read it more than once and its on my shelf
Decades later, I ask myself, putting myself in the mental and strategic position of victorious revolutionaries: once you defeat your adversaries, what then are you supposed to do? if you let them keep their stuff then they will rise to strike at you again.
basically, adversaries can be killed, jailed, or at least, impoverished, if you want to keep them down. Or else they rise again. Even then, they can multiply and rise in a later generation, depending on circumstances. Which is why many regimes throughout history have chosen extermination, such as the ancient Hebrews who slaughtered the people of Jerhico and Amalek, or Ghenghis Khan, or countless others long before the bad guys of recent history.
So that is the necessary choice of every new regime, how to keep those they’ve defeated, crushed.
In America, this was a question too, A large plurality of Americans were loyal Subjects. So once they defeated the English Crown, how did they prevent a relapse into the monarchy? In part, they used the vast ocean to keep it out, and the cleverness and obvious fairness of the Republican system over the previous arrangements, endeared the population to the new system, and feudalism, which was already on its way out, was soon crushed in France by fiercer means, never to recover.
but a new aristocracy has arisen, the aristocracy of money. Jefferson recognized that would come inevitably and recommended a confiscatory estate tax. Many people don’t know that about him. Anyhow, there is no question America is ruled by a financial elite. I find anyone who doubts that in sore need of education.
You can see how when a popular figure arises who doesn’t have the full blessing of the oligarchs, they send in their agents to destroy him. And most of this happening now, by a three pronged attack from radical leftists, the mass media, and the Deep state actors in FBI etc. who tried to set him up. They all are acting in the service of financial interests.
Lucky for Trump, other financial interests supported him,. mostly the middle class in middle America, which still has some money power itself, and some ability to organize itself; and his success has gained new allies to his leadership.
I don’t moralize about this as much as you do.
Moralize? That’s an interesting choice of words. I’m citing Bastiat’s The Law, do you consider him moralizing as well? Here he is then, moralizing about why he wrote the pamphlet:
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
The remainder of your post illustrates what Bastiat warned would happen if we ignorantly allowed the law to be weaponized. I have no disagreement with how you describe the as is state of our country. The point is there is a gap, a very large gap, between where we should be and where we are. The path we’re on leads to communism. I like his last paragraph:
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
You can see how when a popular figure arises who doesn’t have the full blessing of the oligarchs, they send in their agents to destroy him. And most of this happening now, by a three pronged attack from radical leftists, the mass media, and the Deep state actors in FBI etc. who tried to set him up. They all are acting in the service of financial interests.
_________________________________________
That is definitely what the oligarchs and the financial interests want you to believe.
I hate to tell you this but the oligarchs support Trump and that story that you so neatly and succinctly laid out above is how the oligarchs and the financial interests get you to support Trump.
Consider this: you would not support Trump if you believed he was being backed by the oligarchs. The solution is to get you to believe that they are trying bring him down but for some reason just can’t seem to pull it off.
Oligarchs will always try to buy political power.
Consider this: you would not support Trump if you believed he was being backed by the oligarchs.
That would be true if I were just another ignorant citizen led to believe that’s what I’m supposed to do. Yes, it would be uncommon for a politician to defy the will of their big money donors. But what would you expect to happen if they did? What if a political figure played the oligarchs game to get elected, just like every politician before him and then once in office, set out to burn the bridge behind him?
You’d get a coup, or worse.
What if a political figure played the oligarchs game to get elected, just like every politician before him and then once in office, set out to burn the bridge behind him?
____________________________________
They don’t care what the political figure is doing as long as they get their cut….
And so far it sure looks like they have.
_____________________________________
You’d get a coup, or worse.
_____________________________________
yeah accept all these coups just seem to go nowhere, but also seem to make an unpopular political figure more popular.
In line with Professor Turley’s blog today is a piece written by Chris Farrell an extremely good investigator. This article places Schiff under more fire and reveals that it is Adam Schiff who is breaking the exact same laws he is claiming he is investigating. Who is the real criminal? Adam Schiff.
—
US: Rep. Adam Schiff’s Telephone Subpoenas
The House of Representatives, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will not punish Rep. Adam Schiff for targeting his political enemies with secret subpoenas of their phone records. Unethical, invasive, illegal activity is permissible as long as its focus is against President Trump. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
With the both the Democrats’ furious drive to impeach the president and the Justice Department Inspector General’s report on FBI surveillance abuse swirling on Capitol Hill, it’s easy to miss something that seems to be a footnote or detail. In “normal” times, the subject would be a banner headline, not a footnote, but we hardly live in such times now.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, targeted his political enemies with secret subpoenas of their phone records and then made those records public. Were his enemies the subject of the Intelligence Committee investigations? No. The victims of Schiff’s criminal abuse of his subpoena power – his personal political enemies – were the Ranking Member of Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA); veteran, award-winning, journalist John Solomon; and the personal attorney of the President of the United States, Rudy Giuliani.
Did Schiff have the legal authority to target these individuals and obtain their records? Nunes, Solomon and Giuliani were not the subjects of the committee’s investigation. Each had taken very public positions opposing Schiff’s drive for impeachment. Each had produced evidence and documentation undercutting Schiff’s assertions of grounds for impeachment and had criticized Schiff’s earlier (disproven) claims of “Russian collusion” by President Trump.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Congressional subpoena power cannot “be used to inquire into private affairs unrelated to a valid legislative purpose,” and is limited in other ways consistent with the privacy rights of individuals guaranteed by law and the constitution. One wonders how the legal counsels at AT&T and Verizon evaluated their own corporate legal exposure in participating with Schiff’s scheme.
Sticking with the Left’s technique of “projection” – falsely accusing your opponent of the very misconduct you are committing – Schiff claimed, “evidence that there were members of Congress complicit” in using official power “to dig up dirt on a political rival.” The irony is rich.
Schiff’s release of telephone call metadata reveals who spoke to whom and for how long. There are reportedly no transcripts of the calls themselves, that we know of, right now. Who, specifically, made the decision and then ordered the phone records? We do not know, because Schiff refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee and provide sworn testimony on the work of the committee he chairs. Instead, Daniel Goldman, Senior Advisor & Director of Investigations for the Intelligence Committee, appeared and when pressed to explain the telephone subpoena, obfuscated in a cowardly fashion, claiming he could not disclose the committee’s internal investigative procedures. Goldman was faced with throwing Schiff under the bus or revealing his own culpability in executing one of the most egregious abuses of congressional power in the history of the republic.
What’s the big deal about Schiff’s phone record grab? He spied on a fellow member of Congress. That’s not just unprecedented, it’s a grave abuse of Congressional norms and etiquette; an invasion of Nunes’ privacy; and a tacit allegation of Nunes being part of the alleged “crimes” Schiff was investigating.
Schiff also assaulted the First Amendment and targeted a journalist. John Solomon’s investigative work on Ukraine is unparalleled. He backs up his reporting with documents and on-the-record quotes. One would think the entire Washington press corps would rush to Solomon’s aid and condemn Schiff’s “fascist police state tactics” against a free press. Not so much. A lot of the anti-Trump Fourth Estate are A-OK with destroying Solomon’s ability to cultivate sources and work in Washington. Of course, had Donald Trump done the same thing Schiff did, the news media would be clamoring to make it another article of impeachment.
Lastly, and perhaps most dangerously, Schiff spied on the president’s personal attorney. That is a clear invasion of attorney-client privilege as well as personal privacy. The DC Bar should open an inquiry. The Department of Justice should investigate. They won’t.
The House of Representatives, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, will not punish Schiff. Unethical, invasive, illegal activity is permissible as long as its focus is against President Trump. Perhaps Senator Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the matter in the context of the forthcoming impeachment trial, but I doubt it.
Maybe Schiff’s phone records would be “revealing?” “Whistleblower” contacts? Press leaks? Who knows? Why stop there? If all political enemies can be “legally” targeted under the Schiff template, we can slide further and faster towards the failed state we are incrementally becoming.
Schiff’s conduct is outrageous and is a threat to the Constitution. He is operating outside the law. A new House majority come 2020 might find the courage to confront Schiff’s misconduct. Expulsion from Congress seems appropriate. One thing is for certain: if Schiff’s conduct stands unchallenged, the country and our Constitution will have suffered irreversible harm.
Chris Farrell is a former counterintelligence case officer. For the past 20 years, he has served as the Director of Investigations & Research for Judicial Watch. The views expressed are the author’s alone, and not necessarily those of Judicial Watch.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15302/adam-schiff-telephone-subpoenas
I am over halfway through the IG report. I have been amazed at how almost everything I’ve read was made public by Congressman Nunes and the conservative media a long time ago. I also just read the report in Vanity Fair of the Richard Jewell attempted hanging and watched a series about Henry Lee Lucas, who claimed to have killed hundreds but probably only killed three at most. The three illustrate that not only is the FBI corrupt, it’s staffed by a bunch of bunglers. The IG report makes it fairly clear that the FBI deliberately withheld vital information in order to get surveillance orders in hopes they’d find something, just ANYTHING, to show that Page was working for the Russians when, in fact, he was working for the CIA. What a bunch of clowns! As for Schiff, the man is a known liar. Only idiots and partisan Democrats believe him.
I mean to add that Schiff and Nadler are the reason the latest polls are showing that the American public is turning AGAINST impeachment and that Donald Trump will defeat ALL Democratic challengers in the 2020 elections.
those polls will get fixed and fiddled with and massaged until they say what the powers that be want them to say
the election is the truest poll– because it counts
I heard somebody call it “famous but incompetent” once. Decades ago!
I never repeated it!
Amazing how the obvious escapes the notice of the automatons of The Collective. Pelosi herself never thinks that when she violates the oath of office and seats people who are not qualified she is herself violating her oath of office. My best take on this is there is an ‘above the law’ attitude in disease form all right but never more clearly than in those charging others.
Do these claims by Schiff versus the actions he took rise to the level of Abuse of Power?
Certainly do.
Absolutely, DonEstif. Schiff completely stepped over the line and probably should be disbarred and removed from Congress. See the article I posted just about 5 comments above.
You mean the Brit Hume who repeatedly claimed, “Coalition forces meanwhile, have found further weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” That Brit Hume??? Why the fvck would I ever listen to anything Brit Hume an avowed and risible liar has to say? Why do you believe it Turley? Because of your long standing beef with Adam Schiff Because you are a Never Schiffer who has a personal vendetta against him? https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/hume-touted-discredited-wmd-discovery-chided-french-news-agency-not-following-suit
ROFLMAO! Hume is merely the messager, Schiff is the liar! I’m reading the IG report and nearly EVERYTHING in it was made public by Nunes and others months ago.
From the June 21 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: That’s the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, joined by Rick Santorum, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, who were making public today a document, an unclassified document, which constitutes a summary of chemical munitions that the Pentagon now acknowledges have been found — were found in Iraq, recovered since May of 2004. Some key points here regarding these weapons. It is said that since 2003, the coalition — this is what the Pentagon is saying in this document. I believe we have a graphic on this. Since 2003 coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons — 500 munitions which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve gas. There were weapons not declared by Saddam, which means that the assertions that he had made that he had no weapons were probably not true, although these weapons date, apparently, to the pre-’91 period. And the Defense Department is saying tonight about all this that, “Well, these, yes, they were found, and yes, they were — though degraded — weapons of mass destruction, but they were not the weapons of mass destruction that we believed were there.”
https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/fox-news-hosts-and-guests-touted-discredited-report-wmds-were-found-iraq
So Grung, please identify the lie, because it certainly seems he was reporting the facts as they were uncovered. Schiff on the other hand had absolutely no facts and continues to lie to this day.
There were no Weapons. Period. Case closed. I was there. No Weapons. Period. W and Cheney knew it and didn’t care. But, conservatives love lies and hate America.
Grung,
The first half of your statement is fine. The second half is divisive and unhelpful. You make yourself absurd using ad hominems.
If W and Cheney were lying (which I suspect they were), then it would be harder for them and those like them to get away with lies and manipulation if liberals and conservatives stopped demeaning each other and aimed for truth. Diviseness benefits the power-hungry.
But, conservatives love lies and hate America.
Given this post is about Schiff’s lies that you have refused to denounce, it’s quite clear you’re projecting here.
Well done!
“TWELVE YEARS LATER, US MEDIA STILL CAN’T GET IRAQI WMD STORY RIGHT”
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/
Grung, governments and experts are frequently wrong so that is not the question. Cheney may have stretched the truth his way while others stetched it in their way. Too many people believed that Iraq had WMD’s to dismiss it and some things were found. That should not be the issue since decisions have to be made based on imperfect and inadquate knowledge.
What we should be concerned with is how we handled the situation once the war was over. That is where we failed most grievously for we upset the balance of power and are paying for it now. I was on the fence but I leaned over to support the President knowing that he knew more than I and also knowing that initially Hillary Clinton of the opposite party supported the war. That meant leaders of both parties (including the spouse of the prior president( saw a significant threat and the action was taken. One of the Iraqi leaders interviewed indicated that Saddam Hussein may have believed he had weapons of mass destruction because no one might have wanted to tell him differently.
Why Bush didn’t get out right away is something I cannot understand. Why they disbanded the Republican army is another. Iraq should not have been torn apart the way it was because that ruined the balance of power in the region.
Thank you for your service, but being there does not give you more expertise on this limited subject.
You don’t have to believe Hume. Read the IG report. Compare it to the dueling Nunes and Schiff memos from 2018.
You believe and quote from a source that is a proven DNC mouth piece. You and MM blame Hume for agreeing with an independent report from the French Press, reporting what Polish Troops allegedly “discovered.”
“,,,Agence French Press [Agence France-Presse], after saying, quote, ‘Terrorist groups were seeking to acquire the warheads containing mustard or sarin gas, which Polish troops recently discovered in Iraq…’ ”
I presume Bush/Cheney paid/bribed the Polish government/military to propagate the above lie. Who is to blame for not convicting Bush/Cheney for war crimes? Your apparent hero Barrack Hussein Jesus Obama.
One can condemn or not condemn Hume for being wrong on WMD, but all MSM and every single Dem told the same lie as Hume, including Biden, PEEloosi, Kerry, Clintons (both), etc.
The ones to be condemned most for this error are the same “Intelligence Agencies” and MSM who blame Russia and Syria for alleged crimes without any proof, and which (I presume) you fully believe. I do condemn Hume and all MSM for propagating the WMD lie without proof, same as I condemn MSM today for trusting the Intelligence Agencies, who lie, and condemn untold innocents to death, and never pay a price. We have seen NO proof Russia did anything in the 2016 election except spend $75k on FB ads.
To single out Hume is pure horse manure.
We don’t have to believe anything Brit Hume said. This is a Turley blog. Turley is a cradle to grave Dem who voted for Hillary, calls out Trump in this same article, and is one of the most renown, reliable and independent legal authorities alive or dead.
The two persons most responsible for the WMD lie and for “authorizing” the CIA and military to commit felony murder and torture comprising international war crimes are Bushie and Dick “Satan” Cheney.
One person took a public oath to insure those two scum of the earth were imprisoned and if possible legally executed for their multiple felony death penalty crimes. Instead, that person insured Bushie and Cheney got clean away to live their lives of luxury. Instead of arresting and convicting those two scum bags, this person said it was simply “time to put this behind us.”
That person’s name is Barrack Hussein Obama. And why did he do that? Because he knew he would and he indeed did commit many felony crimes himself, including felony murder (at least twice, American citizen Muslims Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son by the same name).
And the Presidency is first and foremost about covering for the crimes of your predecessor(s), after which the next one does the same for you. Everything else is a distant second.
“ The two persons most responsible for the WMD lie and for “authorizing” the CIA and military to commit felony murder and torture comprising international war crimes are Bushie and Dick “Satan” Cheney.” Every once in awhile I am pleasantly surprised, the truth is the truth.
This very short video is definitely off the topic of today’s discussion but in less than three minutes attempts to put to rest arguments of people like Enigma so I was hoping he and others would view it. The real questions being discussed on this blog revolve around the American vision, is it good or bad? The left hates the Constitution and America.
Enigma isnt the only one who hates America. So do these 3 freshman US Representatives, Democrats Abigail Spanberger (VA), Elaine Luria (VA), Elissa Slotkin (Michigan)
They are each voting for impeaching President Trump and they are using the same verbiage…talking points from Pelosi no doubt.
Abigail Spanberger:
This vote is about more than one man’s abuse of power; it is about the power of the presidency and whether we, as citizens, can expect that our elected officials, and most powerfully, our president, will fulfill their obligation to uphold the Constitution,” she said in a written statement.
Pelosi must have something in mind as to how to keep the US House in control of the Dems and beat Trump in 2020 other than impeachment. These are 3 educated women, one a 20 year Naval officer (Commander Elaine Luria) in swing districts, yet they are willing to gamble their seats in Congress. What guarantee has Pelosi promised them?
Earlier Monday, a small group of protesters gathered outside the Virginia Capitol in Richmond to decry the ongoing impeachment process against Trump and the role of Spanberger and Rep. Elaine Luria, D-2nd, another freshman Democrat with a national security background who represents a swing district. Luria, a former U.S. Navy commander, also plans to back impeachment.
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/spanberger-says-she-will-vote-to-impeach-trump/article_138baa75-6507-5d16-829c-c5f18960f997.html
Slotkin, a former national security official, says Trump used the power of the presidency for his own advantage and she has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution.
https://www.wzzm13.com/article/news/politics/michigan-politics/slotkin-vote-to-impeach-trump/69-28d63f94-4662-46d9-95d1-45fa0029dfb5
But their voters went against them last time and did the same just recently in the varous polls.
They cant be fools especially the Naval Commander.
Why would they vote to impeach on “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” knowing what you and I know? Their town hall meetings were very clear as to how their constituents think. Their statements are literally copies of each other…and the leadership.
There is something Pelosi is telling them that you and I and others do not know. Or….they are idiots which I think is not likely
Just strange. Cult suicide?
🤔
Estovir, the US military like every other nation’s military in history, has political commissars.
They are just operating with subtlety. But they exist.
The very fact the US has promoted many females all up the ranks of commissioned officers is reflective of the “gender ideology” that has prevailed among our elites the past 50 years
SO yeah, a Ms. Naval Commander can be a big fool and both a beneficiary and an enforcer of “political correctness.”
Now, this is not to say that women are inherently unsuitable for many military roles. And as our military conflicts have taken on a greater bureaucratic and technological aspect, even more so now. But the political correctness and “affirmative action” style promotions of them do exist here to push them up the ladder beyond what would happen just by personal initiative.
estovir:
I got Spanberger’s tripe by email. I’ll be backing whomever the Repubs run now. Even Lassie.
there is some basis for saying that racism is encoded in DNA.
people mostly prefer to mate with their own kind, just look at statistics, it’s a durable aspect of human action.
many religions commend endogamy, and ethnocentric behavior. For my part, I have no problem with that.
however, it’s not malicious, it’s just the way of nature.
from habitual mating patterns arises new subspecies and forms of life.
Horowitz makes a fantastic point at 1:15 or so, about how the anti-slavery movement was essentially a result of the thinking of 18th century Englishmen. If anything, America is peculiar because it is one of the “least racist” societies in history, if I understand Horowitz’ point correctly.
as for the “DNA of America,” that’s a metaphor. Just a metaphor. America is very disparate in terms of shared DNA. If you took ancestry I suppose there’s a narrow majority of bipeds here who are mostly descended from European-kind. Narrow majority. Narrow enough it’s not much of a common basis. But I’m talking literally here, and they’re talking figuratively
So in some literal sense what Obama said has some truth to it, but he falsified the truth by putting it in a moralistic context.
“here is some basis for saying that racism is encoded in DNA.
people mostly prefer to mate with their own kind”
Kurtz, I don’t agree though many variables exist that can create what appears to be racism. When one chooses something important I think they prefer something known rather than unknown and they like to keep it simple. That is not racism.
“So in some literal sense what Obama said has some truth to it, but he falsified the truth by putting it in a moralistic context.”
Good liars often include a bit of the truth in their lies.
well, racism is a senseless word, stretched beyond all meaning
so, i sometimes use it when i just mean ethnocentrism, in a nonperjorative way
Allan: “The left hates the Constitution and America.”
Where’s the little” Prairie Rose?”
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-1/#comment-1905910
Allan’s entire comment:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-1/#comment-1905830
Anonymous,
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I did miss it and, yes, it was unfair of Allan to construe the perceptions of ‘the left’ as such.
I have not watched the video. I homeschool two of my 4 children and am very busy throughout the day, so I do not carefully read the whole blog. I do try to be fair.
My comment about the problems of divisiveness stands. Divisiveness does not solve problems; it can only cause stagnation or allow issues to fester and worsen. Either causes nations to decline.
“it was unfair of Allan to construe the perceptions of ‘the left’ as such.”
Prairie, precisely what was unfair?
Allan,
I think it is unfair to say “The left hates the Constitution and America.”
Half my family or more are Democrats. As far as I can tell, they love this country as much as I do, though their perceptions are warped by ideology and unclear thinking primarily.
By defining a whole group of people as having or being a certain way, the conversation stays diametrically opposed and defensive or worse, antagonistic.
Following th rut ough positions to their logical end would bring clarity. Trying to impeach a president on flimsy reasons is extremely detrimental to the republic. Showing how that is the case, respectfully, may help soften the partisanship and help the country get back on kilter.
“The real questions being discussed on this blog revolve around the American vision, is it good or bad?”
That is a very important question. What is your understanding of the American vision? That basic element may need defining.
“Half my family or more are Democrats. As far as I can tell, they love this country as much as I do, though their perceptions are warped by ideology and unclear thinking primarily.”
Again: “…their perceptions are warped by ideology and unclear thinking primarily.”
Oh my.
Maybe you’re projecting.
Anonymous,
Perhaps I have a bad sample, since I generally do not discuss politics with all my family (and I’m not a Republican). I have a handful of family members who are quite exercised about Trump and Republicans and freely share their opinions. While I do point out issues as I see them, I am perhaps more circumspect in the interest of family peace.
I have family members who have blamed Trump for bad weather (as if global warming suddenly went into high gear in 4 years), called Republicans horrible demeaning names, said that women should run the country because they are more moral than men, and presented the most atrocious straw man arguments.
Logical arguments about why policies should be X and not Y because of evidence or solid reasoning are not presented. No, Republicans/ conservatives are all construed as horrible people. So, perhaps my sample size is too small, but the comments I hear are ideologically-driven and poorly reasoned.
Prairie, I didn’t say Democrats or center left. I said the left. I’ll give an easy example. Many on the left do not believe in property rights. The constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and happiness which at the time was somewhat of an explanatory expansion of the earlier statement right to life, liberty and property.
You either believe in property rights or you don’t. You either support the Constitution or you don’t.
Thank you for the clarification, Allan. Dennis Prager distinguishes between liberals and leftists, with leftists being the radical element.
Yes. Prager is great.
Too many people have gone over the edge. That is sad when it happens to good people because in the end most of us are looking to do good things. We differ in how we get there.
Classical liberalism is a good philosophy but the word liberal has devolved into more than one meaning.
The constitution guarantees…
Allan,
If you’re going to capitulate to the Left and split hairs on terms, then begin with the fact not one founding document guarantees anything. The only guarantee is human nature will be the same tomorrow as it was in the beginning. The rest of this experiment in self-government requires a civically enlightened, active and self-reliant citizenry to enforce those DoI principles through constitutional goverance.
Olly these are quick and relatively short responses so one shouldn’t concentrate too hard on things of this nature. You should have skipped your focus on the word guarantee and focused on the fact that I was quoting from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
You should have skipped your focus on the word guarantee and focused on the fact that I was quoting from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.
I focused on the facts of your own words. They matter. Just be honorable and admit the error. Neither the constitution or the DoI guarantee anything. And it’s the pursuit of happiness. Be precise when quoting those documents, because each word has meaning. Leave the imprecision to those that want to undermine its meaning.
“Just be honorable and admit the error. Neither the constitution or the DoI guarantee anything.”
Olly, I didn’t deny the troubled use of the word guaranteed and thought my more important error was my error in ascribing something to the Constitution when it should have been ascribed to the Declaration of Independence. In my mind the admission of a far worse mistake without defending the one you pointed out implied that your statement was valid.
“And it’s the pursuit of happiness. Be precise when quoting those documents, because each word has meaning.”
I didn’t put quotes around the three words so I wasn’t quoting. My point was to provide the historical importance of the word “property” so that we could differentiate certain leftist ideals from those that are considered American ideals.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? 🙂
Noted. Thanks.
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
I’m watching this theater of the absurd going on in the house chamber. I picture the members wearing shock collars and every time they make a statement that is unsupported by evidence, they get zapped.
And you mentioned “Enigma.”
When one lacks so much context they might as well be completely illiterate instead of partially.
“Allan says:December 17, 2019 at 10:56 AM
This very short video is definitely off the topic of today’s discussion but in less than three minutes attempts to put to rest arguments of people like Enigma so I was hoping he and others would view it. The real questions being discussed on this blog revolve around the American vision, is it good or bad? The left hates the Constitution and America.”
Prairie, your patience is commendable but your inability to still not understand Allan – you state your desire to do so at the end of your latest post – puzzling. As he has told you 20 times now and as demonstrates here regularly in his other interactions, Allen thinks that anyone he disagrees with is evil and cunning, while those he agrees with are stalwart and righteous. That’s not an unusual attitude of course, but rarely seen in such an obvious, nfantile, and occasionally vicious manner.
Carry on.
“Allen thinks that anyone he disagrees with is evil and cunning, ”
No Anon, I think you are mindless, stupid and abusive. Though it seems to your puny mind that I disagree with Prairie you should note that I have said that I like Prairies attitude. I just feel that a different tactic is necessary with abusive people like yourself.
“Where’s the little” Prairie Rose?””
She is on the list and posting. Are you trying to impugn her character? She hasn’t said anything wrong but you seem to be stirring up trouble. You just can’t stop.
Some AllanSpeak, directed at someone Allan doesn’t like:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-2/#comment-1905951
“Allan says:December 17, 2019 at 5:06 PM
What a fool… You lied then and you lie now. You can’t even admit you were wrong. Some would say you are garbage. Garbage can be recycled. You can’t.”
Allan uses this kind of divisive language a lot, on this blog, but he’s rarely called on it.
Anonymous,
I am not on here that often, and, I do not always read thoroughly. I do try to be fair regarding my concerns about civility, though heaven knows I’m not perfect. There is plenty of divisive language on both sides of the aisle.
If everyone spoke respectfully to one another with a real desire to get to the truth of the matter, a whole heck more problems would be solved.
It’s no wonder the country is in such a mess. Look at how we all talk to one another here.
If everyone spoke respectfully to one another with a real desire to get to the truth of the matter, a whole heck more problems would be solved.
PR,
That’s part of problem; the Left believes feelings define truth. The right believes facts (evidence) define truth. How are we to reconcile that impasse? More importantly, how long should we remain civil, when what’s being threatened are the bedrock first principles of this nation’s founding?
“…the Left believes feelings define truth. The right believes facts (evidence) define truth.”
Nonsense.
Exhibit A: Impeachment articles based on no evidence (facts) of an impeachable offense. The entire basis for impeachment is the feeling he abused the power of his office and didn’t properly accede to the Democrats abuse of power.
Olly,
“That’s part of problem; the Left believes feelings define truth.”
Many, but I do not think all. Since feelings can get in the way of reason, and we are being drummed into an emotional fervor by the media (etc.), I think that is getting in the way of effective discussion.
“The right believes facts (evidence) define truth.”
Far more, but the right, too, is getting drummed into an emotional fervor, I fear. I do think more people on the right are inclined to believe that those on the left are mistaken rather than wicked.
I do think facts and evidence can influence those on the left (center-left, especially) if presented fairly and reasonably.
“How are we to reconcile that impasse?”
That is a difficult goal. I do think both elements are needed in a civil society. I do think there needs to be a mix of vertical hierarchy and lateral creativity. I think olive branches go a long way.
There is an ugly mix of stagnation and chaos in our nation right now. Politics are attempting to stagnate (corruption, disingenuous politicians) while the culture is spinning into chaos. Therefore, both elements need to examine whether their actions are in the best interest of the nation as a whole. With the tribalism of identity politics, we are forgetting, at our peril, E. pluribus unum.
“More importantly, how long should we remain civil, when what’s being threatened are the bedrock first principles of this nation’s founding?”
Rocks are civil in the face of a howling maelstrom. Taking the high road is the best policy, in general. Honey attracts more so than vinegar.
Perhaps it is too much like Maria in The Sound of Music (or, Mary Poppins, too), but being firm but kind will have the best outcome in the long-run.
Thanks PR.
I had previously written on a different thread that it has become apparent that how one perceives evidence of truth will determine how far left or right they are in politics. In my opinion, there are 25% on the Left that will rely completely on what they feel to be true. Conversely, 25% on the Right will rely completely on physical, incontrovertible evidence for truth. The remaining 50% will rely on a some percentage of feelings and evidence.
The fact is we all feel a particular truth. It cannot end there. We’ve evolved beyond those instincts and have been gifted with the capacity for logic and reason. And right now we have a large percentage of our population that have not been taught how to do that critical-thinking. My opinion is this has been by design.
We are at a crossroads, that house divided point, where we have to figure out whether we are going to be controlled by our emotions, or we are going to control by reason. We are not going to get through this by feeding into the emotional arguments of the Left. We are at that tough love moment where civil discourse is defined by a significant emotional event known as facts and evidence. Those too weak to accept that truth will no longer control the lives that do.
Olly,
“The fact is we all feel a particular truth. It cannot end there. We’ve evolved beyond those instincts and have been gifted with the capacity for logic and reason. And right now we have a large percentage of our population that have not been taught how to do that critical-thinking. My opinion is this has been by design.”
Critical thinking cannot occur without broad knowledge and meaning. Facts alone are insufficient and hands-on learning is insufficient, too. Critical thinking occurs at the interplay of the meaning of different kinds of knowledge and observation and how they might fit together; it is a bit of scientific thinking and noticing and dismissing logical fallacies.
I, too, am a bit cynical and thing it may be by design. However, do not underestimate well-meaning incompetence. 🙂
The past 20-some years of federal interventions in education have been disastrous.
That said, there are terrible elements from society that are not helping matters, either. That’s a whole ‘nother conversation.
Critical thinking cannot occur without broad knowledge and meaning.
Prairie Rose,
I respectfully disagree. Critical-thinking defines the process an individual will use to acquire that broad knowledge and meaning. We’ve seen in our discussions on this blog what it looks like when people either can’t or won’t follow that process.
The link below describes that process.
Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism.
https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766
Thank you, Olly, for the correction and clarity. That looks like a fantastic website!
“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.”
I was focused on the information–which does need to be broad for effective analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating to occur (etc).
You are right; it is more about the process.
PR,
After watching Sen. McConnell this morning speak on the Senate floor about the impeachment process, it’s quite clear the House has produced impeachment articles based primarily on emotions (no critical-thinking) and the Senate will be the wet blanket of reason to this process.
Prairie Rose:
“If everyone spoke respectfully to one another with a real desire to get to the truth of the matter, a whole heck more problems would be solved.”
*****************
As you know, you’re one of my favorite commenters here, so let me give you my honest assessment of your idealistic take of the situation. If your assumption is intellectual honesty, you’re correct, but consider the tactics of the modern Left displayed here daily. Here’s a illustrative example: you round a corner in your place of work and you see a co-worker smash another co-worker’s Iphone with whom he’s just had a unpleasant verbal altercation. When you ask: “Why did you smash the phone,” you’re met with “I didn’t smash the phone. You did.” When you display the incredulity the situation calls for you’re further rebuked with “You’re only blaming me because you hate me for my race, gender, social circumstance, etc.” Fearing false charges of property destruction or irrational group-based animus, you slink away knowing what you did was morally wrong but, given society’s growing list of sacred cows, keenly adroit in terms of self-preservation. It is the corruption from the top that allows this sad state of affairs. It is also this accepting the intolerable that allows the intellectually dishonest like Anon1 to engage reasonable folks and gain what he clearly desires which is the intimidation that free range liars always enjoy.
Prairie Rose:
Yeah. Mespo’s a stand-up guy. He’ll tell you so himself:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-1/#comment-1905914
Mespo,
Thank you for the compliment, you are very kind.
While I agree with you that too many discussion tactics by the left are manipulative and unfair, I do think that such things can still be addressed civilly.
Jordan Peterson vs. Cathy Newman is a great example of how to manage such tactics.
https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
Appealing to the better angels of others and taking the high road I think is more effective in the long run. That does not mean allowing yourself to be a doormat, of course.
“It is the corruption from the top that allows this sad state of affairs.”
I am not certain it is the top that should be blamed. Ours is a government of the people and by the people. We have only ourselves to blame.
Part of the problem does arise from the top, though. They see that we can be pitted so easily against one another. If they can keep us fighting one another, they get to keep their petty fiefdoms.
“Appealing to the better angels of others and taking the high road I think is more effective in the long run.”
Prairie, that means basing your life on the goodness of others. Historically we have seen how that idea can be a deadly failure.
” That does not mean allowing yourself to be a doormat, of course.”
Reason doesn’t seem to always work. That is quite evident on this blog.
Allan,
“Prairie, that means basing your life on the goodness of others. Historically we have seen how that idea can be a deadly failure.”
I disagree that it means basing your life on the goodness of others. People can be horribly wicked and deceitful. I aim for goodness in my behavior, the only thing I can control. I am not always successful, so the only thing is to try to improve my aim.
It means in interactions not stooping to their level if they are being rude. It means treating them with respect and trying to see where they’re coming from (even if they are really wrong).
It means giving someone the benefit of the doubt but watching and paying attention for signs of ill-will. Even then, staying civil.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Therefore, I figure most people are trying to argue for what they think is best or to do what is right. Not everyone does, of course, but still at that point being firm but kind goes a long way as others observe the interaction.
I guess I am rather Methodist in this way. John Wesley exhorted people to:
“Believe evil of no one; unless you see it done, take heed how you credit it. Put the best construction on everything. You know the Judge is always supposed to be on the prisoner’s side.”
“Speak evil of no one; else your word especially would eat as doth a canker. Keep your thoughts within your own breast, till you come to the person concerned.”
I also consider Ephesians 4:29 and Proverbs 31:26, among others.
“I aim for goodness in my behavior, the only thing I can control. I am not always successful, so the only thing is to try to improve my aim.”
Most of us have goodness in our hearts and goodness is not excluded when one fights to preserve their wellbeing. Look at history and see how that has turned out. Your goodness is protected by those that do not just “to try to improve my aim.” Your goodness exists because of the lives given by others.
Look at the news media today. How did it get that way. Look at protests in the street that are peaceful and then watch when Antifa enters the picture. Andy Ngo reported and protested peacefully. Look at what happened to him. What did the police do to prevent his injuries? …And after he was injured what did that society do to get him to a hospital?
Prairie, you say ““Believe evil of no one…” That is why I don’t act in an impolite fashion until I take note of the impolite manner in which someone else is behaving. I no longer believe that pure goodness will win the day. It has’t in the past and it is doubtful that will happen in the forseeable future.
Allan,
“Most of us have goodness in our hearts and goodness is not excluded when one fights to preserve their wellbeing. Look at history and see how that has turned out. Your goodness is protected by those that do not just “to try to improve my aim.” Your goodness exists because of the lives given by others.”
I think we must be talking about slightly different things. Goodness does not mean softness or weakness. It means doing what is right. There are such things as righteous battles, and battles fought with a code of honor.
We are discussing interpersonal interactions among our fellow plebians, not geopolitics and diplomacy. That is a different discussion.
“Your goodness exists because of the lives given by others.”
Solzenitsyn noted that goodness can be independent of circumstances. See Y-81 in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.
“Look at the news media today. How did it get that way.”
Because it is in an echo chamber, its market is shrinking, and strife sells. It’s probably complicated in other ways, too.
“What did the police do to prevent his injuries?”
They were told to stand down, from what I heard. I would criticize them. The Nuremberg Trials made it clear there is a moral standard everyone must abide by and cannot blame a superior that they were “just doing their job”. They failed their oath.
“That is why I don’t act in an impolite fashion until I take note of the impolite manner in which someone else is behaving.”
Take note most definitely so as to get a sketch of their character. It is good to be wise and wary when there is reason. But why rise to the bait? The impolitic language is like the ring sowing discord at the Council of Elrond–it affects the spirit of the conversation as a whole, not just that between the verbal combatants.
https://youtu.be/O8lvwu3V6dg?t=120
Cicero commented on goodness and civil society, and we fail ole Tully badly.
His Four Cardinal Virtues:
“According to Cicero, the sources of moral righteousness are four in number (De Officiis I.15):
1. The perception and intelligent development of truth (In perspicientia veri sollertiaque versatur);
2. The preservation of civil society, with the faithful rendering to everyone what he is properly owed (In hominum societate tuenda tribuendoque suum cuique et rerum contractarum fide);
3. The greatness and power of a noble and unconquerable spirit (In animi excelsi atque invicti magnitudine ac robore);
4. In the order and moderation of things which consist of temperance and self-control (In omnium, quae fiunt quaeque dicuntur, ordine et modo, in quo inest modestia et temperantia).
What is moral and good, according to Cicero, has to spring from one or more of these sources. They can be connected with each other, depending on the situation. The first of these sources, as listed above, revolves around the search for truth. The remaining three relate to our conduct within organized society.
And this is where Cicero makes an important point. The search for truth is a morally righteous thing.
Truth is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; it is a moral one. It is an impulse that arises from the deepest core of our moral being.”
https://qcurtius.com/2015/03/12/ciceros-four-cardinal-virtues/
“I think we must be talking about slightly different things. Goodness does not mean softness or weakness. It means doing what is right. “
Prairie, What is right is quite individual in nature until the law is broken. You have your opinion and everyone else has theirs.
I wrote “Your goodness exists because of the lives given by others.” to which you answered “Solzenitsyn noted that goodness can be independent of circumstances. See Y-81 in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.” Take note of the words “can be” not ‘are’. Andy Ngo acting in a non-violent fashion was nearly killed by those on the left and little was done by the authorities. Is your answer that Andy Ngo should give up his rights?
The news got that way because ” it is in an echo chamber”? Perhaps it got that way because there was no one there to stop it from becoming abusive rather than remaining our fourth branch of government.
In the Ngo case you recognize that the police “were told to stand down” and no one else acted. Tell me what that means about the Nuremberg Trials. Despite the Nuremberg Trials genocide has occurred in the world.
“But why rise to the bait? “
Why not? The comment session is not a serious place of debate. On it lurk some very intelligent people with a bunch of mindless and stupid people. Why not let their stupidity ring the bells?
As to Cicero the words alone are meaningless unless one broadens the vision making something useful out of them. Much of what we talk about is definitional. When the blog concentrates on it being “primarily an intellectual pursuit” I will follow suit but until then I will play in the sand and do my own thing.
Allan,
“Despite the Nuremberg Trials genocide has occurred in the world.”
And, sadly, it will continue to occur in the world because people can be wicked. The standard remains.
““But why rise to the bait? “
Why not? The comment session is not a serious place of debate.”
It could be.
“And, sadly, it will continue to occur in the world because people can be wicked. The standard remains.”
Prairie, should we utilize the same standard you used when trying to dissuade my statements towards some of the people on this list? ‘Man is created in God’s image’.
“Why not? The comment session is not a serious place of debate.”
That is absolutely correct. If it were a serious place everyone’s appearance would be different.
“It could be.”
Could, should or would be, but it isn’t, so one deals with the time and place.
Allan,
““Despite the Nuremberg Trials genocide has occurred in the world.”
And, sadly, it will continue to occur in the world because people can be wicked. The standard remains.”
“Prairie, should we utilize the same standard you used when trying to dissuade my statements towards some of the people on this list? ‘Man is created in God’s image’.”
Yes. It is the same standard, effectively. The Nuremberg Trials denounced the responses of many who said that they were under orders or that it was their job to make sure the trains ran on time. They violated the humanity of the people they ensnared in Hitler’s Final Solution.
All people are made in God’s image and as such are endowed with certain inalienable rights, which is what the Nuremberg Trials reinforced through the trials and the punishments meted out.
The trials also emphasized that, yes, we are our brother’s keeper. We cannot use the excuse that superiors ‘told us to’–even our own military does not let that fly. People should not obey immoral/unethical orders.
Further, by subjecting the accused to a trial instead of outright killing them, they were treated as those ‘made in God’s image’ and deserving of a fair trial and punishments that fit the gravity of the crime.
Prairie Rose, let me summarize what I believe to be what you are telling me. It is not good to inform the mindless and stupid of their problems in words they might understand because they are made in God’s image. However, after they become Nazi’s or violent fascists it’s OK to kill them despite the fact that they too are in God’s image.
Let me make one thing clear. I believe in respecting all people, however, there are times when blunt talking on their level is required. I agree this list should be for intellectual discussion where none of that occurs but it wasn’t that way before I arrived and it won’t be that way when I leave. If, however, things change so do I.
You seem to base your answers on your religion which is fine with me since that is a great part of the basis of western culture and western law but to make things less variable I base things for everyone on the laws that have been passed.
Allan,
“let me summarize what I believe to be what you are telling me. It is not good to inform the mindless and stupid of their problems in words they might understand because they are made in God’s image.”
You have misunderstood me. And, I do not think throwing around insults helps them get any perspective on ‘their problems’.
What are ‘their problems’ that you wish would change? What would you like to be fixed?
“However, after they become Nazi’s or violent fascists it’s OK to kill them despite the fact that they too are in God’s image.”
Being made in God’s image does not exempt you from capital punishment if that is the punishment that fits the crime. The punishment should fit the crime. Antifa members should be arrested and tried for assault, theft, and perhaps intimidation.
“You have misunderstood me. And, I do not think throwing around insults helps them get any perspective on ‘their problems’.”
Prairie, I don’t ask you to throw around insults. We have a bunch of mindless and stupid people that throw around insults all the time. There is no problem on a blog such as this to have discussions with them on their level.
I am still waiting for you responses to questions such as the Andy Ngo’s and families that can loose advancement at their jobs when they speak out at school board meeting about their children being indoctrinated.
Allan,
“I base things for everyone on the laws that have been passed.”
Laws do not govern at the level of discourse and the manner of discourse we are discussing. Nor should they.
You are blessed with opportunities to interact with national leaders. Perhaps you have had the good fortune to meet Justice Gorsuch who also is concerned about civil discourse. The Federalist Sociey noted that “For Justice Gorsuch, civility is a cornerstone of our republic.”
Justice Gorsuch wrote:
“Without [civility], “the bonds of friendship in our communities dissolve, tolerance dissipates, and the pressure to impose order and uniformity through public and private coercion mounts.”[1] Self-governance “turns on our treating each other as equals—as persons, with the courtesy and respect each person deserves—even when we vigorously disagree.””
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/civility-courage-humility-lessons-in-life-and-law-from-a-justice
” Perhaps you have had the good fortune to meet Justice Gorsuch who also is concerned about civil discourse.“
I probably will meet him and would love to but his concerns are the same as mine. He is an upstanding man but look what happened to him and look at how the liars tried to destroy him and his family. Listen to what the mindless and stupid said on this blog. There was no civility from those liars but there was a man who stood by him when others would have folded and Gorsuch would have gone home without the position and without his good name. That man is Donald Trump…yes, the same man who you might call rude and advise not to tweet statements that you find uncivil.
If I were writing as a judge of Gorsuch’s position I would write a similar statement to the one you posted. However, I am not in the same position so I can act in a different fashion.
Allan,
I disagree that most of the people with whom we discuss things are Prince Humperdink:
“I disagree that most of the people with whom we discuss things are Prince Humperdink:”
Prairie, most people aren’t and that is why my tone reflects the tone of the one I am speaking to.
Allan,
“Prairie, I don’t ask you to throw around insults. We have a bunch of mindless and stupid people that throw around insults all the time. There is no problem on a blog such as this to have discussions with them on their level.”
You have suggested I am not getting my hands dirty or am wearing gloves by not using logical fallacies (which can be used as an impolite discussion tactic) or other demeaning or rude language. Perhaps I was wrong to conclude that you are wanting me to do such things.
I do think it is a problem to have discussion “on their level”. I cannot see how such modes of discussion will decrease rancor, partisanship. or induce any possible willingness to cooperate. Perhaps that is not the goal.
What outcome are you desiring by having “discussions with them on their level”?
“You have suggested I am not getting my hands dirty or am wearing gloves by not using logical fallacies (which can be used as an impolite discussion tactic) or other demeaning or rude language. Perhaps I was wrong to conclude that you are wanting me to do such things.”
Prairie, the actual discourse was:
___________
Prairie: “I am dirtying my hands by getting into the conversations at all.”
Allan: Is that so Prairie, or are you wearing gloves? 🙂
____________
That is not suggesting you be rude or even blunt. You should carry out your method of discussion in the way you choose wearing gloves or not. However, entering into conversations doesn’t mean you must or must not get your hands dirty.
“I do think it is a problem to have discussion “on their level”. I cannot see how such modes of discussion will decrease rancor, partisanship. or induce any possible willingness to cooperate. Perhaps that is not the goal.”
I don’t see how your model of discussion has achieved its goal. We are dealing with a type of person that is wedded to his ideology and won’t likely change unless a mountain falls on his head.
One of my gripes with those considered on the right is that they do not strongly protect their interests any way necessary. Look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh. The left wasn’t just rude or insulting. They were savage, lied and even promoted violence. They tried to destroy an upstanding family and you are complaining about a few words that return an insult?
“What outcome are you desiring by having “discussions with them on their level”? “
I can ask you the same question. The result of both methods of discussion will be the same with those rude and mindless individuals. I do not hold any hope of changing their minds and I do not believe you have done any better.
Allan,
>”It is not good to inform the mindless and stupid of their problems in words they might understand because they are made in God’s image.”
You have misunderstood me. And, I do not think throwing around insults helps them get any perspective on ‘their problems’.”
What are ‘their problems’ that you wish would change?
What would you like to be fixed?
These are important points for us to have clarity on.
“You have misunderstood me. And, I do not think throwing around insults helps them get any perspective on ‘their problems’.””
Prairie, you focus on the terminaly mindless and the stupid. They are hopeless.
Allan,
“I am still waiting for you responses to questions such as the Andy Ngo’s and families that can loose advancement at their jobs when they speak out at school board meeting about their children being indoctrinated.”
I have responded several times regarding Andy Ngo.
“Andy Ngo acting in a non-violent fashion was nearly killed by those on the left and little was done by the authorities. Is your answer that Andy Ngo should give up his rights?”
Your question does not follow. His decision to act in a non-violent fashion was his choice. He in no way gave up his rights, nor do I think he should. In fact, he ought to consider suing the city’s police department and whomever told the police to stand down. They are charged with upholding the law; if they willfully fail to do so, then they should be sued. Or, the next level of government should step in keep order.
Also, his decision to be non-violent highlighted the partisanship of some elements of the radical left. By not fighting back, he made them more repugnant. It also tarnished the left because Antifa is associated with them, and, too many leaders on the left have ignored them or refused to denounce them. Why consider oneself on the left if that is whom you could be associated with? It should move people back toward the center.
Regarding the other people, perhaps the ACLU would be interested in their cases as a free speech matter. I do not know about the other situations to comment properly.
People can work together to effect change in their districts. It is their district and their children. They can civilly follow the steps through the hierarchy trying to effect change. They can talk to the school board. They can run to be on the school board.
“I have responded several times regarding Andy Ngo.”
I bring up Andy Ngo to show that no matter how erudite you might be that doesn’t seem to solve the problem of all the Andy Ngo’s out there. Nor does it solve the problems of normal working people whose jobs or advancements are threatened. Finally it doesn’t help Glenn Beck’s young children who are assaulted while playing in Central Park.
Prairie I really didn’t hear anything from you that would solve the problem or even have a chance to solve the problem. The best I have heard is a reliance on others to solve the problem but we are discussing what we are willing to do, not what they should do.
“By not fighting back, he made them more repugnant. It also tarnished the left because Antifa is associated with them, “
I agree with what you think Ngo accomplished but while you are willing to see people die or nearly die without any negative feelings you are horrified about returning words that are rude. Do you see a problem?
“Regarding the other people, perhaps the ACLU would be interested in their cases as a free speech matter.”
Again you are counting on others to do something. By the way the ACLU is NOT the organization it used to be. It’s funny why you would seem to rely on them when the ACLU is clearly on the left. Look at some of those that were on the left that were board members of the ACLU who resigned from the board because of some of the ACLU’s activities.
“Regarding the other people, perhaps the ACLU would be interested in their cases as a free speech matter.”
That is what you say from a perch of safety. However, many are not so safe and that is one of the reasons the left has gained so much cultural territory.
I haven’t read it yet and have only heard reviews but since you appear to be one that believes in God and a member of a church perhaps you would like to read “DARK AGENDA: The War to Destroy Christian America”.
It is written by one of the foremost experts of the left. The author is Jewish.
Allan,
“I bring up Andy Ngo to show that no matter how erudite you might be that doesn’t seem to solve the problem of all the Andy Ngo’s out there.”
Not directly. The conversations on this blog may be able to effect change in small ways. The problem will never fully be solved, all you can do is uphold laws forbidding assault and pressing on with better speech to try to prevent other people from foolishly advocating violence over speech.
“Prairie I really didn’t hear anything from you that would solve the problem or even have a chance to solve the problem.”
“The problem” has not been clearly defined.
“The best I have heard is a reliance on others to solve the problem”
What reliance on others? Perhaps I should have said that someone should have stood up for him and protected him in person. That is an option. In issues of law and order, other than protesting when laws are not being upheld properly or are unjust, citizens should not engage in vigilante justice.
Protests can be made, discussions with representatives can be had. There are channels to go through for some problems.
“we are discussing what we are willing to do, not what they should do.”
Both are necessary. We are discussing civil discourse. Are you wanting to redirect the conversation?
>“By not fighting back, he made them more repugnant. It also tarnished the left because Antifa is associated with them, “
I agree with what you think Ngo accomplished but while you are willing to see people die or nearly die without any negative feelings”
You presume too much.
“you are horrified about returning words that are rude. Do you see a problem?”
Yes, that these problems keep escalating.
What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?
“What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?”
Prairie, do not assume that all people are reasonable and that their rancor and fury can be defused by logical and civil discussion. Do not assume that right prevails.
Allan,
““What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?”
Prairie, do not assume that all people are reasonable and that their rancor and fury can be defused by logical and civil discussion. Do not assume that right prevails.”
I do not assume any such things. Nor do I wish to assume they are the opposite either. Besides, my focus is not on the outliers, those that garner the most media coverage. I figure most of the people I converse with are regular people.
Sometimes rancor and fury can only be defused by a gentle answer. Hard words too easily stir up anger.
I also think of Jordan Peterson’s discussion of There’s No Such Thing As a Dragon by Jack Kent. In the end, the dragon who grew to monstrous proportions, ate everything in sight, and upended the family’s home, all it wanted was to be noticed, in effect, to be heard. Good questions help untangle issues by allowing people to be heard through the expression of the tangle of thoughts and emotions that aren’t being effectively aired. Sometimes the dirty linens must be aired.
No one should assume that right prevails.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ~Edmund Burke
That may be too harsh. Whether Right prevails is perhaps like the upkeep of a house. It must be reinforced and attended to regularly, the windows shined, the hinges oiled, for it to be not only maintained but made sturdier.
What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?
” my focus is not on the outliers, those that garner the most media coverage.”
At one point most revolutionaries are outsiders.
“Sometimes rancor and fury can only be defused by a gentle answer. Hard words too easily stir up anger.”
I’ll answer this at the extreme. If someone wishes to kill you why worry about the harsh words. Are you afraid they will kill you twice?
“What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?”
I suggest using whatever means necessary.
Allan,
““Sometimes rancor and fury can only be defused by a gentle answer. Hard words too easily stir up anger.”
I’ll answer this at the extreme. If someone wishes to kill you why worry about the harsh words. Are you afraid they will kill you twice?”
Answering at the extreme is not helpful. The conversations that are happening or could be happening amongst people are unlikely to be at the extremes. I just had such a conversation with a family member. While intense and fervent, it stayed civil.
Are you wanting to discuss the extremes, which most people will never encounter, or, do you want to discuss the sorts of conversations people could be having online or in their communities?
“What do you suggest to defuse the rancor and fury?”
I suggest using whatever means necessary.”
Having that at the ready too easily gives permission for violence to certain sorts of people on both sides of the argument. It does not draw people away from the extremes and back to the center. We are unstable on the extremes.
“Answering at the extreme is not helpful.”
Prairie, you are missing the point. Some people want you dead or injured. Think of the extremes facing you, not the other way around.
Example: In NYC getting off the subway train in a nice area of Manhattan another couple after following our lead in getting the elevator spontaneously said something to the effect that we were smart not like the Trump clowns. My friend didn’t promptly agree with them and they took offense. They were ahead of us on the street and were constantly telling people they passed by that we were Trumpers hoping, I believe, that would cause us to be involved in a fight. We are dealing with a bunch of bad people.
“Having that at the ready too easily gives permission for violence “
Violence already exists among many of these people. Subservience to their ideas is the only thing that will make them happy. To survive one has to have a backbone or friends with one.
Allan,
“” my focus is not on the outliers, those that garner the most media coverage.”
At one point most revolutionaries are outsiders.”
True, but that is not where the focus should be. The focus should be on preventing the outliers/revolutionaries from becoming a larger group. How does one keep people from joining the causes at the extremes? Through reasonable conversation, better speech, appealing to those shared goals and values, and not making them feel like outsiders so they’d prefer to join the “outsiders”.
“True, but that is not where the focus should be. The focus should be on preventing the outliers/revolutionaries from becoming a larger group.”
Do you like constantly risking your life chopping off the tail of a poisonous snake or do you go for the head? Hitler was originally not the dominant figure. The leaders let Hitler rise to power.
Allan,
““I do not rely on them. I choose to follow the appropriate channels until they prove faulty.“
Andy Ngo is not the first case demonstrating a severe problem and the appropriate channels (police) proved themselves faulty. So yes, I would say you are relying on faulty channels and not relying on the individual.”
Most of the channels are not faulty. They proved faulty in that locale. Wherever they prove faulty, people should let city hall and the police department know they messed up; they should let their state reps know that it is unacceptable and if nothing changes, then they need to effect change politically.
“Ok, that is fair. Even if there is no ‘Fairness Doctrine’ law, people, especially journalists, ought to try to give a fair listen to opposing perspectives.”
Maybe you are not totally aware of what is happening in today’s environment. Using Prager who you seem to like, take note many of their videos are banned from youtube and their advertisements have been removed from Spotify which is the largest or one of the largest streaming companies. This is just a tiny example of what is going on nationally. This is happening all over but you won’t read about it or see it on your local TV channels. The left is controlling the media and they disparge anyone who tells the opposite side so that good people make the wrong decision that these alternative views are not true. Take a Rush Limbaugh, the left calls him all sorts of names but they can’t demonstrate his facts are wrong and they can’t provide good counter arguments to his arguments. Take a listen to him or any similar personaity and see if the left can prove lying. Stack the arguments up one against the other. The left listens intently to these personalities so if they err they have to correct their errors immediately or lose credibility. The MSM for over two years has made mistake after mistake on a daily basis yet it is rare for them to appologize or even correct their errors.
Professor Turley resides in a leftist environment and probably relies on the leftist facts which help slant his viewpoint to the left. However, he is an expert on civil liberties so he discusses the law in an unbiased way though his opinions sometimes appear a bit leftward leaning. The left has torn into him even though he is on the left just like they tear into Alan Dershowitz who is also on the left. There is no tolerance on the left for differences of opinion. Read some history about Lenin and Stalin and see how their revolution functioned.
““one approach psychologists warn against is…”
I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, many psychologists are subconsciously needing to psycho-analyze themselves. I have met and interacted with enough people with psych degrees that I am cynical about much of what they say and advocate. That said, they are not wrong 100% of the time. Jordan Peterson has essentially said the same thing I quoted. I included the quote because I thought it serendipitous that my book on education had issues and concerns very apropos to this discussion.
“What constitutes effective communication?”
Whatever gets the job done.”
A job can be well-done or not. The larger goal is too important (which, still hasn’t exactly been defined). Some kinds of communication may seem to work in the short-term but are ineffective or down-right detrimental in the long run; therefore, ‘whatever gets the job done’ is not a sufficiently effective overall strategy. The short-term goals should work to also achieve the long-term goals.
“Most of the channels are not faulty. They proved faulty in that locale. “
…And other locals. By all means use the law, but when the law isn’t functioning be prepared to protect oneself, one’s family and one’s friends. Don’t wait until you are the last locale so that no one is there to help you.
“I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. “
No one requested you to do so. However, you need to recognize how to remove the baby and drain the water. That is not done by making assumptions or closing one’s eyes.
“whatever gets the job done’ is not a sufficiently effective overall strategy.”
Quoting a statement: Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.
Allan,
““Answering at the extreme is not helpful.”
Prairie, you are missing the point. Some people want you dead or injured. Think of the extremes facing you, not the other way around.”
People are only going to be pulled away from the mob if they are treated like individuals.
“We are dealing with a bunch of bad people.”
You are right; there are a bunch of bad people. A bunch is not all.
“Violence already exists among many of these people.”
I disagree with the many.
“Subservience to their ideas is the only thing that will make them happy.”
Unfortunately, this is largely true. The irony of their ‘tolerance’.
“To survive one has to have a backbone or friends with one.”
That’s life. Makes me think of the line in Dead Poets Society: “Are you a man or an amoeba?”
Stand up straight with your shoulders back.
“People are only going to be pulled away from the mob if they are treated like individuals.”
Prairie, tell that to the mobs that went after the seniors in a car, Andy Ngo, Milo and countless others. You are limiting yourself to one tactic. Try fighting a war with one tactic. Try negotiating for something you want with one tactic. Try disciplining your children with one tactic.
“You are right; there are a bunch of bad people. A bunch is not all.”
We are talking about a few that are mindless and stupid (like magnetic particles they seem to be attracted to this blog). You have a tendency to manage things changing from one extreme to the other. If the individual is handled with rude words your response is that is bad because they were created in God’s image. If, however, they are no longer simply mindless but have reached that certain point your answer is to kill them. There is no middle of the road.
——
Allan: ““Subservience to their ideas is the only thing that will make them happy.”
Prairie: Unfortunately, this is largely true. The irony of their ‘tolerance’. “
——
That is the problem in a nutshell and that is one of the reasons that being nice doesn’t always work. They are not interested in anything you have to say and will lie or deny without concern. They react only when faced with the knowledge that you will do *anything necessary*. You are permitting that type of behavior so you are left with being nice and when that doesn’t work killing people. I know you do not feel that is what you said but if you look back and put the pieces together you will find that is exactly what you said.
Understand Prairie I like your approach but only to the point where it is not working.
Allan,
““True, but that is not where the focus should be. The focus should be on preventing the outliers/revolutionaries from becoming a larger group.”
Do you like constantly risking your life chopping off the tail of a poisonous snake or do you go for the head? Hitler was originally not the dominant figure. The leaders let Hitler rise to power.”
The regular people are a crucial part of that terrifying equation. Peeling off that potential support prevents the rise.
Chaos of economic turmoil, joblessness, degradation of national identity helped Hitler rise to power.
We are seeing chaos now, too, with issues of free speech, broken families, damaged trust in systems, aimlessness, fragmented communities, identity confusion at multiple levels. People need narratives in their lives about who they are individually and within the various levels of communities. Discussion and argument are important for figuring things out. Right now, too many real things are going unsaid, leaving people to bicker instead about piss and hookers and quidless pro quo.
At this point, there isn’t a head exactly to confront. Almost like the Boogie Man in The Nightmare Before Christmas. He was a bean bag stuffed with bugs. We need to undo the stitching or prevent the formlessness from getting stuffed with enough bugs that it can be formidable at all.
“Better to argue than to fight.” ~Jordan Peterson
“The regular people are a crucial part of that terrifying equation. Peeling off that potential support prevents the rise.”
Prairie you cannot limit yourself to one tactic or appealing to only one group.
“We are seeing chaos now, too, with issues of free speech, broken families…. “
In the former, pre Hitler, the regime wasn’t providing the stability or economic well-being desired. Today under Trump we see great economic growth among a whole host of other things.
It is the leftist ideology that is trying to fragment our society. The economy is not the driving force. Power is and they are willing to create a totalitarian regime. Your religion interferes with their ability to control so they are not anxious for religion to exist except if it is a faith based religion faithful to the leftist state. You already heard a stupid and mindless anonymous person attack personalities but he could not attack the content of what was said.
““Better to argue than to fight.” ~Jordan Peterson”
That does not preclude fighting when the arguing leaves you a subservient individual.
Allan,
“By all means use the law, but when the law isn’t functioning be prepared to protect oneself, one’s family and one’s friends. Don’t wait until you are the last locale so that no one is there to help you.”
Of course. Do I appear to be waiting and watching silently from the curtains?
“I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. “
…However, you need to recognize how to remove the baby and drain the water. That is not done by making assumptions or closing one’s eyes.”
Figured I’d done that with judicious reading regarding the statement by psychologists. How would you like to ‘remove the baby and drain the water’?
I do try to not make assumptions or close my eyes.
“whatever gets the job done’ is not a sufficiently effective overall strategy.”
Quoting a statement: Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.”
So, are you saying I should be locked up with the other crazies? 😉
Of course one should aim to be responsive and flexible in how problems are confronted.
Yet, I still do not see how being rude can be an effective strategy? I do not see how ‘mirroring’ people’s rudeness effects beneficial change? I do want to understand where you seem to be coming from.
“Of course. Do I appear to be waiting and watching silently from the curtains?”
Prairie, in a way yes. You don’t have a middle ground between discussion with the mindless and stupid and killing them.
“How would you like to ‘remove the baby and drain the water’?”
Pick the baby up and don’t let anyone get in the way. Do whatever is necessary. Protect the baby.
“So, are you saying I should be locked up with the other crazies? “
You are normal. Being normal comes from not having to face the crazies but if you have to face them you will come out fine. They are stupid and mindless. You have intellect and the ability to know who you are. The mindless and stupid are similar to the pea pod people from the movie.
“Yet, I still do not see how being rude can be an effective strategy? “
It may not be but you don’t know and neither do I.
” I do not see how ‘mirroring’ people’s rudeness effects beneficial change? “
Showing people who they are by undressing them has an effect.
Allan,
“If, however, they are no longer simply mindless but have reached that certain point your answer is to kill them. There is no middle of the road.”
Wrong. That is not my answer at all.
We are a nation of laws. When people cross the line into violence, intimidation, vandalism, that is what law enforcement and the judicial system is for. That system is working fine in most places. And I already described what needs to happen if it isn’t working properly. You are also allowed to defend yourself physically–and that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘to the death’. Plenty of good self-defense or jiu-jitsu classes out there, but, it is likely not going to be needed (especially since online discussions have been our focus).
Verbally defending oneself also does not mean it has to get personal or insulting.
Allan: ““If, however, they are no longer simply mindless but have reached that certain point your answer is to kill them. There is no middle of the road.”
Prairie: “Wrong. That is not my answer at all.””
—–
Prairie, I can only say that you should reread what you have written and take note that you did not discuss any intermediate steps except to let the government take care of things despite the fact that government did not act when Andy Ngo was beaten nor did government immediately act to get him to the hospital.
“You are also allowed to defend yourself physically–and that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘to the death’. “
You are allowed to defend yourself with words as well.
“Verbally defending oneself also does not mean it has to get personal or insulting.”
I doesn’t mean it can’t get insulting especially where the other person is most definitely insulting.
Allan,
““Yet, I still do not see how being rude can be an effective strategy? “
It may not be but you don’t know and neither do I.”
What undergirds your reason for defending rudeness?
” I do not see how ‘mirroring’ people’s rudeness effects beneficial change? “
Showing people who they are by undressing them has an effect.”
What effect are you trying to achieve by mirroring people’s rudeness? Mirroring alone will not necessarily get people to ‘see’ ‘who they are’.
People do not want to see ‘who they are’. If they did, no one would seek or need therapy.
There are some people I know who say rude or unkind things because they don’t ‘hear’ themselves. They have a hard time considering how their words sound (or tone of voice sounds) to other people. They seem to be disconnected to a degree to the emotions that underly their words or tone of voice. Or, they just weren’t thinking about how they came across at all. Repeating what they said and asking, “What do you mean by___?” or “Did you mean to say ____?” can help to some degree straighten out the disagreement.
“What undergirds your reason for defending rudeness?”
I’m not really defending rudeness. Sometimes making another uncomfortable seems an appropriate avenue to try. If someone lets their dog do his business in front of your house and they don’t listen to your requests to pick up after their dog do you think you might become a bit rude?
“Mirroring alone will not necessarily get people to ‘see’ ‘who they are’.”
It may or may not help. So far the actively mindless and stupid remain in their comas but they are not the only ones that exist. You can use the methodology of your choice.
Allan,
““People are only going to be pulled away from the mob if they are treated like individuals.”
Prairie, tell that to the mobs that went after…”
Once the mob is in action, of course civil discourse will be ineffective. Most people cannot ‘hear’ once they are part of a mob. There are no ‘individuals’, in some ways, in a true mob.
The discussions and the changing of hearts and minds must happen before the mob forms, before it coalesces.
“Once the mob is in action, of course civil discourse will be ineffective.”
That is the point.
Take note that even when not part of a discussion where Anonymous the Stupid has nothing to add he posts the same posts over and over again as seen in between our responses. He demonstrates no significant intellect and acts like a blathering idiot. He does not seem to have a mind of his own. Sometimes he provides an Http as his answer but doesn’t even know what it says. He is a follower that is led because he lacks any significant ability.
Allan,
““Verbally defending oneself also does not mean it has to get personal or insulting.”
I doesn’t mean it can’t get insulting especially where the other person is most definitely insulting.”
Jocko Willink on being a straight shooter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drlezymk9RY
and on dealing with passive aggressive people:
Allan,
“I’m not really defending rudeness. Sometimes making another uncomfortable seems an appropriate avenue to try.”
I can see that. For example, shame can be a self-reflective discomfort that, if it arises on its own, can be a positive behavior modifier. If I realize I messed up and am ashamed of my behavior, I’ll change for the better. It seems to work best if someone becomes aware that their actions did not match their values; it is a realized loss of not living up to one’s potential or one’s ideals.
I think the link you are trying to impart, however, is getting misplaced. Instead of discomfort being linked to cognitive dissonance (logical error) or discomfort being linked to personal behavior, it doesn’t end up becoming a self-reflective discomfort, and, the link of discomfort ends up being other-focused and associated with interpersonal interactions.
” It seems to work best if someone becomes aware that their actions did not match their values”
Prairie, that can happen when one observes themselves in a mirror or by watching others.
“on dealing with passive aggressive people”
Prairie, what makes you think passive aggressiveness is the best way to define this group of mindless and stupid people?
Allan,
“He does not seem to have a mind of his own.”
This is a very important point that is apropos to the context of our discussion (online), civility, and the issues of group identity.
The issue of someone seeming to not have a ‘mind of his own’ is one we should all be wary of as we converse online.
“The inability to see or be seen by one’s interaction partners can lead to deindividuation, or a state of decreased self‐evaluation, and depersonalization in which others are perceived to represent broader social groups that are salient during interaction.”[1]
When people are anonymous online “people are more likely to operate at the level of a social group identity rather than an idiosyncratic personal identity, and hence are more likely to conform to group‐based norms” [1].
Discussion in a republic is intended to be by individuals speaking as individuals. That is what the internet was supposed to be able to facilitate, but that is not how it is working out due to the anonymity. Being anonymous means your identity is obscured. When we obscure it thus, what does that do to us? Do we stay ourselves but simply speak as from behind a veil? It seems that too often that anonymity leads people away from their ‘idiosyncratic personal identity’. So what can happen if that individual identity melds with some kind of larger collective identity?
” In groups, individual identity tends to be diffused into the larger collective identity. When combined with feelings of anonymity, participants may feel released from normal constraints on their behavior.”[2]
Deindividuation is one of the factors that can lead to participation in a mob [1]. And that is the direction I am very worried we are headed.
The collective identities we can too easily be labeled as (by ourselves or others) is a terrible part of the culture today, what with identity politics (a nasty game played by both ends of the political spectrum), the partisanship in politics (R vs D) and the media, the collectivist orientation of some people in the culture and in politics, and the us vs them atmosphere.
How does incivility play into the problems of deindividuation? “[Incivility] can make political arguments less credible, weaken political trust, generate unfavorable views of political institutions, and increase public perceptions of political polarization” [1] It can also decrease open-mindedness and trust [1].
Considering the loss of such things are going to entrench partisanship, the likelihood of identifying with a social or political group will only increase and the consequent problems of deindividuation will loom even larger as the feelings of anger, bitterness, and resentment towards ‘opponents’ begin to fester.
1. https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcc4.12191
2. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/17424_Chapter_8.pdf
” people are more likely to operate at the level of a social group identity rather than an idiosyncratic personal identity, and hence are more likely to conform to group‐based norms”[1].”
Prairie, what better person is there to show how the group identity they assume looks. Let them and others (even if vicariously done) look in a mirror and decide for themselves.
Let them know what Antifa and other such groups are. The formation of those groups are dependent on three individual types. 1) Those that will commit violence. 2) Those that will attempt to hide the violent ones from the police. 3) Those that do not want to participate directly but act as crowds adding cover to 1 and 2. A lot of supposedly nice people will intentionally involve themselves in #3.
Allan,
Happy New Year, by the way!
“Allan,
Happy New Year, by the way!”
Prairie, I am afraid it was a too happy event and now I must pay.
Happy New Year to you and all.
Allan,
“Reason doesn’t seem to always work. That is quite evident on this blog.”
Demeaning others doesn’t seem to work either.
It is nearly impossible to discuss anything with ideologically-possessed people (you can hope the ‘possession’ eventually wears off after the fervor dies down). Patiently asserting the better argument would, hopefully, at least garner the attention of those not ideologically-possessed.
Having the better narrative, backed with reason and research, may. Asking questions, too; there may be faulty understanding or some other concerns regarding an issue that is holding back effective communication.
“Demeaning others doesn’t seem to work either.”
Prairie, in my case I don’t care what the people I am talking to think. I want them and the silent others to recognize that what they say has meaning and will not be pandered to with the promotion of goodness that in certain people is never returned. I do not expect these “ideologically-possessed” people to change their tunes. Their intellect if it exists is too buried to do so.
All your suggestions are good for people that are open to new ideas. That is not what we are dealing with. I suggest you think futher than trying to aim better and think what happens when you are unwilling to dirty your hands.
Prairie, let me add a few things that are real and not hypothetical. Through the goodness of peoples hearts European cities were flooded with immigrants. With the goodness of those European hearts they helped those people and forgave them for their indiscretions because the Europeans felt the immigrants had to adjust.
Today we see murder and rape from those people where the aim of goodness was to improve their lot. This was not due to the fact that the Europeans didn’t try to improve their aim. Those deaths and rapings are on the hands of those people that thought that goodness prevails and pushed such goodness onto their fellow citizens.
Ask yourself why you have to homeschool your children.
Allan,
I am dirtying my hands by getting into the conversations at all. Plenty of people out there don’t even speak up; they just grumble privately and hope things will change (see how well that slogan worked out!).
“Prairie, in my case I don’t care what the people I am talking to think.”
I do not understand this exactly. What they think matters because it has ramifications. Understanding how and what they think can help make your response more effective in terms of potentially nudging their thinking in a better direction. I think of Dave Rubin interviewing Larry Elder–boy did that conversation change Rubin’s thinking!
https://youtu.be/IFqVNPwsLNo
What about what the people ‘listening’ to your conversations and what they think? I am not sure they’ll really come away considering that “what they say has meaning and will not be pandered to”.
Could disrespectful discourse leave them thinking that the meaning of what they are saying is not being considered at all? I think that has certainly happened for people on the right, feeling like that what they say has no meaning and their concerns do not matter. I think that is a huge reason Trump got elected.
Allan,
“Through the goodness of peoples hearts European cities were flooded with immigrants. With the goodness of those European hearts they helped those people and forgave them for their indiscretions because the Europeans felt the immigrants had to adjust.”
They were fools and that wasn’t really from the ‘goodness of their hearts’. Goodness aims for what is right and in the best interests of all parties. Flooding countries with immigrants from hell-hole countries is a terrible idea for the native citizens.
“Those deaths and rapings are on the hands of those people that thought that goodness prevails and pushed such goodness onto their fellow citizens.”
Perhaps I am too cynical, but I do not think there was some do-gooder naivete by the political class, perhaps by elements of the citizenry. Perhaps foolish, naive incompetence could explain it, but the geopoltics, birthrates, etc make me suspect otherwise.
“Ask yourself why you have to homeschool your children.”
It has nothing to do with “safety”. It has more to do with freedom and aiming to give my kids a rich and robust moral, intellectual, and civic education in the face of ridiculousness on the part of Federal, State, and local bodies governing education.
“I am dirtying my hands by getting into the conversations at all.”
Is that so Prairie, or are you wearing gloves? 🙂
” What they think matters because it has ramifications. “
It only has ramifications if people believe them. There are differences of opinion and then there are the opinions of the mindless and the stupid. We are dealing with the latter. Let an intelligent and civil individual promote the leftist agenda and then we can have a real discussion. That is difficult for the left to do and that is why they strike out violently trying to shut down the voices of those that disagree.
” I think of Dave Rubin interviewing Larry Elder–boy did that conversation change Rubin’s thinking!”
You miss the point. We are not dealing with Dave Rubin or Larry Elder. We are dealing with mindless and stupid people. Those that aren’t so wedded to sewers and are civil get civil responses in return.
“What about what the people ‘listening’ to your conversations and what they think?”
Intelligent people recognize the discussions for what they are. Other conversations can spring up, like this one, and can have polar opposite opinions without those things occurring we both dislike.
“I think that is a huge reason Trump got elected.” …they included some rudeness by Trump that you may not have agreed with but got him elected.
Regarding European immigration resulting in killings and rape Prairie responds: “They were fools and that wasn’t really from the ‘goodness of their hearts’. “
That is your opinion and though you are right you are demeaning those who believe they acted honorably along with questioning their motives. (Isn’t that what we are seeing on the blog and we are discussing right now?)
” Flooding countries with immigrants from hell-hole countries is a terrible idea for the native citizens.”
To that the mindless and stupid reply you are a racist. Your response will be gracious and respectful along with providing facts. Their response for the next year will be to call you a racist while constantly forgetting the facts. What is your response the following year on January 1?
Regarding homeschooling Prairie writes: “It has nothing to do with “safety”. It has more to do with freedom and aiming to give my kids a rich and robust moral, intellectual, and civic education in the face of ridiculousness on the part of Federal, State, and local bodies governing education.”
I agree with you but should you have to homeschool when you are forced to pay taxes to the school system? Things weren’t always that way but I think you are constructing walls between important freedoms when you say “It has nothing to do with “safety”.” Of course it does because when your children have to go to work they will be working alongside indoctrinated people who believe that the freedom of speech and other freedoms don’t belong to your kids. When the mindless and the stupid are in control your kid’s lives are in jeopardy.
Allan,
““Why no reason? They are people, too.”
So?”
Because they, too, are made in God’s image. He created them, and I should treat one of His creation with respect.
“Is that so Prairie, or are you wearing gloves? 🙂”
I think not. Building bridges and sorting through messiness is plenty dirty enough. Scrapping with someone pointlessly does not interest me, especially if it is likely to interfere with any future interaction I might have with others. Sorting out problems takes perspectives from the left and the right.
““What about what the people ‘listening’ to your conversations and what they think?”
Intelligent people recognize the discussions for what they are.”
But many more than the ‘intelligent’ can be swayed to adopt patterns of behavior if that pattern is deemed preferable. Influence is important and I can see it in the emotionalism being drummed up in society. We are tribal creatures who too often look to others to guide our behavior and our thinking and our actions.
I rather aim for construction or reconstruction of civil society than encourage destructiveness, demonization, or the demeaning of ‘opponents’. Heck, there are some things my ‘opponents’ and I might discover we agree upon. If I sabotage my interactions, how can that positive connection be observed and appreciated?
“Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
Prairie you are getting into theology and the teachings of your church. I don’t like to argue two things at once, religion and policy. I keep them separated. Let the church dictate the morals of their congregation keeping that separate from the policy of the state though the state is based on the western culture of the people that in part derives from the Judeo-Christian world.
If you believe God made these people in his image then there is some sort of error that perhaps you need to correct. If you think things are preordained then this discussion is useless.
“Building bridges and sorting through messiness is plenty dirty“
There is more than one type of dirt. Others, with their lives, have permitted you to pick the type of dirt you wish to touch.
“Sorting out problems takes perspectives from the left and the right.”
That requires a willingness from a side that has not ceased to use violence and insults. We have gotten to the point where you are home-schooling your children and others require armed guards just to hear a lecture at a university and elsewhere.
“Intelligent people recognize the discussions for what they are.”
You forget that the conversations under discussion are with the mindless and the stupid. You seem to believe that the actions of conservatives have been just peachy. Unfortunately the results aren’t. We will always come back to the fact that you and others are home-schooling their children and our college students cannot hear conservatives speak without the use of armed guards.
“I rather aim for construction or reconstruction of civil society than encourage destructiveness, demonization, or the demeaning of ‘opponents’.”
Do you think that is not my wish as well? Civil discussion is first. But what follows when civil discussion doesn’t work? Do you leave the playing field or do you throw their words back at them?
Allan,
“you are demeaning those who believe they acted honorably along with questioning their motives.”
You are right, it was unkind language. I should have written they were foolish, which is about behavior. I only questioned the motives of some elements of the political class with good reason. People have motivations behind; whether it matches their words is another issue. We have seen far too often, after the fact, that what seems to motivate some in politics does not match the story they sell people.
While the same may apply to people we discuss issues with here, I will not make that assumption that they discuss with nasty intentions in their back-pocket.
“I agree with you but should you have to homeschool when you are forced to pay taxes to the school system?”
Yes. This is something I am choosing to do. Not everyone is suited to homeschooling, prefer other schooling methods, or cannot afford to do so. My taxes support the education of all students–I have a responsibility to my neighbors, too. Two of my older kids attend public school. If I wished, my younger two can participate in extra-curricular activities, such as band performances, if they learn the music and come to band practices.
“when your children have to go to work they will be working alongside indoctrinated people who believe that the freedom of speech and other freedoms don’t belong to your kids.”
While I have disagreements with aspects of my local district, I have not found them to be turning kids into mindless drones. The students have not been indoctrinated away from civil liberties. I think those students are a noisy minority who are allowed to cause greater disruption than they normally would because the administrations allow it and some professors encourage it. I suspect most students just try to ignore the antics.
“You are right, it was unkind language.”
Prairie, don’t be hard on yourself. What you said was perfectly proper. Sometimes one has to say exactly what they mean to be understood. Remember those people you called “fools” caused the deaths of others. Why should you not speak plainly when lives are at stake?
“Yes. This is something I am choosing to do. … My taxes support the education of all students–I have a responsibility to my neighbors, “
What about those that can’t afford to homeschool but can’t afford to let their kids be indoctrinated? Those are the one’s I worry about. I want good schools for all children without indoctrination. I don’t think nice words have gotten us very far, just look at the schools and colleges. I will repeat what I said: “When the mindless and the stupid are in control your kid’s lives are in jeopardy.”
“The students have not been indoctrinated “
We disagree but the lack of indoctrination you see might be local. I have spoken to organizers from multiple parts of the country and have even been involved in getting rid of certain indoctrinating textbooks from one school system.
Allan,
“I don’t like to argue two things at once, religion and policy. I keep them separated. Let the church dictate the morals of their congregation keeping that separate from the policy of the state though the state is based on the western culture of the people that in part derives from the Judeo-Christian world.”
We are not arguing policy. We are discussing how we treat others in a discussion, particularly those with whom we vehemently disagree.
The congregations and the state are comprised of the same people. The morals imbued in religious traditions affect how citizens of the state interact with one another in society as it is organized as a community at the local, state, and federal level. Will we treat each other as sovereign citizens who are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights? What other rights beyond the 10th, that states that any other such rights not enumerated are held by the states and the people respectively? What of respect? There is respect for the law and it is to be held higher than people and their stations in life. If there is to be respect for the law in civil matters, then respect for people should follow. How else can there be civil society if civil behavior is not a community standard and expectation amongst its citizens?
>>”Prairie you are getting into theology and the teachings of your church. I don’t like to argue two things at once, religion and policy. I keep them separated.”
>”We are not arguing policy. We are discussing how we treat others in a discussion, particularly those with whom we vehemently disagree.”
Policy = course or method of action. You brought in religion which is fine with me but generally not when discussing policy.
You said: “Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
That is faith based which is fine but that makes assumptions that shouldn’t be made even if I may agree with the statement.
“How else can there be civil society if civil behavior is not a community standard”
Obviously civil behavior is not the standard on this blog nor is it the standard in society when dealing with some leftists. Ask Andy Ngo.
I am quite familiar with civil communication but I am also familiar with the less civil methods. Everything has its time and place. This is a blog. It would be nicer to have civil discussion and learn but that was not what was happening while I lurked on the blog. I wasn’t happening when I first responded on the blog. You are speaking to the wrong person. You should be speaking to the left who when they don’t get their way become uncivil and even violent.
Allan,
“If you believe God made these people in his image then there is some sort of error that perhaps you need to correct.”
What do you mean?
“If you think things are preordained then this discussion is useless.”
I do not think things are preordained. Life is like a box of chocolates. 😉
“Others, with their lives, have permitted you to pick the type of dirt you wish to touch.”
I do not see them as separate. I’d rather stand tall against injustice than stoop to their level.
“We have gotten to the point where you are home-schooling your children”
I am not homeschooling my children for fear of violence. Please see Maria Montessori, Charlotte Mason, and Susan Wise Bauer.
“You seem to believe that the actions of conservatives have been just peachy. ”
Not really.
“Do you think that is not my wish as well?”
Of course. We are in agreement as to all but the manner of doing so.
“Civil discussion is first. But what follows when civil discussion doesn’t work? Do you leave the playing field or do you throw their words back at them?”
I do not think I have reached the point when I think civil discussion will not work. Sharp words should be focused on actions. I do not want to create defensiveness; I want to create change for the better. Defensiveness leads to stagnation, like trench warfare.
“What do you mean?”
You were talking about why someone should not be impolite to those that are continuously impolite. I asked why and your response was “Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your religious philosophy but there seems to be some kind of disconnect. Maybe our respective pictures of God are somewhat different.
” I’d rather stand tall against injustice than stoop to their level.”
So would I and I would rather not kill but I would if my family were in danger I would do whatever is necessary.
“I am not homeschooling my children for fear of violence. “
Would you do so if you had fear of indoctrination?
“I do not think I have reached the point when I think civil discussion will not work. “
Prairie, I understand that but I have reached the point where I think civil discussion will not work. I have seen too much violence. I have talked to too many people that have faced violence or seen the indoctrination of their children. We seem to have different experiences.
” I do not want to create defensiveness;”
Divisiveness already exists if you look around . I’m not sure of where you live but I am involved in groups that are national and your experience does not seem to recognize what is happening. Many of these people I know are leaders in fighting the left.
“Defensiveness leads to stagnation, like trench warfare.”
You are either defensive or offensive which would be the opposite strategy. Conservatives have been defensive and that has brought the nation to a very bad spot. In many places and situations conservatives can lose their jobs. Violence towards conservative speakers exists almost all over the country. I’m not sure of your awareness of the existing problems.
Allan,
“What about those that can’t afford to homeschool but can’t afford to let their kids be indoctrinated? Those are the one’s I worry about. I want good schools for all children without indoctrination. I don’t think nice words have gotten us very far, just look at the schools and colleges.”
Then let them speak their minds at school board meetings. Let them gather their like-minded neighbors to their cause, get out to pound pavement to change the make-up of the school board. I go to school board meetings very frequently and it is a crying shame how FEW citizens show up to know what is going on in the district.
Nice words? Civil words. Civil words can still be pointed; can still effect change. I have been part of such change.
We are running off the initial topic but I will follow.
“Then let them speak their minds at school board meetings.”
In certain areas I see people losing their jobs or chances of promotion when they push against Liberal indoctrination in the nicest of ways. It might be different in your particular area so I think you are generalizing too much. That doesn’t seem fair to those that are in areas that face intense hatred from the left.
You may not like Glenn Beck but I want to use his story as an example. He lived on the West Side of Manhattan (very Liberal). His young children were accosted in Central Park by Liberals because of their hate for him. He felt it necessary for his kids safety to move to Texas.
Allan,
““The students have not been indoctrinated “
We disagree but the lack of indoctrination you see might be local.”
Yes, it likely is. The Pledge of Allegiance is said at school board meetings.
“Yes, it likely is. The Pledge of Allegiance is said at school board meetings.”
That is what you see Prairie Rose but what I see is quite different. There is a video of a woman who objected to the way the meetings were handled. She got her time to speak and all she did was nicely state the Pledge of Allegience. What was heard from the left was not nice and scary.
Allan,
“Policy = course or method of action. You brought in religion which is fine with me but generally not when discussing policy.”
Then we have different definitions of policy. Discussing policy means we discuss action plans, directives, rules and regulations of an organization, business, or government. I do not consider it policy to discuss social interactions.
How one conducts discourse is imbued with values, as anything is. I would find it pert near impossible to uncouple my values from the manner in which I interact with people.
“You said: “Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
That is faith based which is fine but that makes assumptions that shouldn’t be made even if I may agree with the statement.”
What assumptions?
““How else can there be civil society if civil behavior is not a community standard”
Obviously civil behavior is not the standard on this blog nor is it the standard in society when dealing with some leftists. Ask Andy Ngo.”
It is the standard on the blog. I’ve seen blogs where it wasn’t the standard whatsoever. The standard is there even if it is violated. People do try to reinforce the standard.
It is standard of society that theft is not okay; yet, people still steal. The standard then must be reinforced through words/action and consequences.
Yes, absolutely those leftists exist who attacked Andy Ngo and brought a garrote as they protested outside one of Jordan Peterson’s lectures. The state government should step in if the local government does nothing to serve and protect the public and to uphold their oaths of office.
“Allan,
“Policy = course or method of action. You brought in religion which is fine with me but generally not when discussing policy.”
Then we have different definitions of policy. Discussing policy means we discuss action plans, directives, rules and regulations of an organization, business, or government. I do not consider it policy to discuss social interactions.”
—
Prairie Rose, I used the definition from, I believe, Merriam Webster. I understand how you feel but your statement “Because they, too, are made in God’s image” is most definitely entwining whatever discussion we are having into religion. As I said I am on the side of religion as opposed to those that hate religion but I don’t like to mix religion with any other type of discussion whether it be policy or policy as defined by you.
“What assumptions?”
“they, too, are made in God’s image”
That may be the case but that is not agreed to by the whole of our society. Others will ask for proof of your contention and you will ask the proof of theirs. In the end with no tangible proof it becomes a draw whether or not one believes as you do.
“It is the standard on the blog. I’ve seen blogs where it wasn’t the standard whatsoever. The standard is there even if it is violated. People do try to reinforce the standard.”
It is not the standard until the owner of the blog makes it the standard. There are reasons the blog owner hasn’t done that and since it is his blog I will follow based on how the standard is imposed. Others will follow as well or if the standard became strict they will cease to exist on the blog. That is not the reality we are facing today.
“The state government should step in if the local government does nothing to serve and protect the public and to uphold their oaths of office.”
It’s funny how when discussing the school boards you stated the people should rise up. I agree. However, in the Andy Ngo situation you seem to want to leave it entirely in the hands of government.
President Trump is moving in that direction and already has passed executive orders to use the weight of the federal government to help in the change.
Allan,
“”You were talking about why someone should not be impolite to those that are continuously impolite. I asked why and your response was “Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your religious philosophy ///but there seems to be some kind of disconnect. Maybe our respective pictures of God are somewhat different.”///
That may be so. I am only mostly-Methodist. 🙂
We were all created by God and thus all have a spark of the Divine and should thus be treated with respect. We are all human; we are all equal under heaven. I am my brother’s keeper and I am to do unto others as I would have others do unto me.
“Allan,
“”You were talking about why someone should not be impolite to those that are continuously impolite. I asked why and your response was “Because they, too, are made in God’s image”
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your religious philosophy ///but there seems to be some kind of disconnect. Maybe our respective pictures of God are somewhat different.”///
—
That may be so. I am only mostly-Methodist. ”
That is good.
“We were all created by God and thus all have a spark of the Divine and should thus be treated with respect. We are all human; we are all equal under heaven. I am my brother’s keeper and I am to do unto others as I would have others do unto me.”
I consider this a good statement but this is religious and it is hard to mix religion with affairs of state or the affairs of the blog.
Allan,
“have even been involved in getting rid of certain indoctrinating textbooks from one school system”
Diane Ravitch wrote a great book about the issues with textbooks and tests (etc.) called The Language Police. Written awhile ago, but it was an excellent read.
Allan,
“You should be speaking to the left who when they don’t get their way become uncivil and even violent.”
I do. I am not perfect, but I do try to call people on incivility wherever I encounter it.
Allan,
I am pretty sure I have not quite answered thoroughly, but I need to go to bed. I will try to carve out more time tomorrow…er…later today. 🙂
Allan,
>”“What do you mean?”
>You were talking about why someone should not be impolite to those that are continuously impolite. I asked why and your response was “Because they, too, are made in God’s image””
I meant to ask you what you meant by :
“If you believe God made these people in his image then there is some sort of error that perhaps you need to correct.”
>I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your religious philosophy but there seems to be some kind of disconnect. Maybe our respective pictures of God are somewhat different.”
What is your picture of God in regards to this discussion, in particular?
>”I’d rather stand tall against injustice than stoop to their level.”
>So would I and I would rather not kill but I would if my family were in danger I would do whatever is necessary.”
When people are in mortal danger, that is not stooping to their level.
While we could follow the ramifications of incivility all the way to its ends, it does seem rather outside the discussion of civil discourse because we haven’t even sorted out what constitutes civil discourse and its necessity (or not) at the verbal and higher level.
>”” I do not want to create defensiveness;”
Divisiveness already exists if you look around.”
You misunderstood me. I do not want to create defensiveness. Yes, there is plenty of divisiveness. That chasm will widen if defensiveness and distrust is reinforced and entrenched. Incivility perpetuates both.
“Defensiveness leads to stagnation, like trench warfare.”
You are either defensive or offensive which would be the opposite strategy.”
That is not the manner in which I meant defensiveness. Also, to be on the offensive does not require incivility.
“What is your picture of God in regards to this discussion, in particular?”
Prairie, ask yourself the question. Is God a just God or a hateful God? If the latter he dictates to you and if you don’t follow what he wants to the letter he sends you to H.ell. Does that answer the question?
“When people are in mortal danger, that is not stooping to their level.”
I prefer to be proactive.
“we haven’t even sorted out what constitutes civil discourse”
The notion of civil discourse can be used by the unwary to provide more power to people that do not deserve it. Look at Gorsuch who you discussed earlier. The liars attacked the Gorsuch side by creating new rules for civil discourse. Blasey Ford didn’t have to prove her case for she was a woman and Gorsuch was appointed by Trump. Anyone that wished to question Blasey Ford was accused of a lack of civil discourse.
“That chasm will widen if defensiveness and distrust is reinforced and entrenched. Incivility perpetuates both.”
Prairie, to make that claim you will have to step into the world of reality. That is why I brought up just a few examples that you chose not to deal with.
“That is not the manner in which I meant defensiveness.”
You will have to define the way you mean defensiveness and put it into the situation you are discussing.
“Also, to be on the offensive does not require incivility.”
That is correct but sometimes incivility helps. Sometimes one has to use the language of the people your are surrounded by.
Allan,
““Policy = course or method of action. You brought in religion which is fine with me but generally not when discussing policy.”
Then we have different definitions of policy. Discussing policy means we discuss action plans, directives, rules and regulations of an organization, business, or government. I do not consider it policy to discuss social interactions.”
—
Prairie Rose, I used the definition from, I believe, Merriam Webster.”
You chose the 2a definition. The 1a definition, “prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs’ (affairs being understood as one’s personal conduct and interactions), actually does fit the issue of values, civility, and the social contract surrounding discourse.
“You chose the 2a definition. “ (of policy)
Prairie, you are splitting hairs. I said I don’t mix a policy discussion with religion no matter how you wish to define the word ‘policy’. Our discussion was not religion. You brought in religion when you said man was created in God’s image as a rebuttal. To now start discussing which definition 1a or 2a of the word policy should be used doesn’t change the facts.
Allan,
““Because they, too, are made in God’s image” is most definitely entwining whatever discussion we are having into religion. As I said I am on the side of religion as opposed to those that hate religion but I don’t like to mix religion with any other type of discussion whether it be policy or policy as defined by you.”
I answered why I thought people ought to be treated with civility and respect; that is my answer, in part. I suppose I could say that we are equal before the law, or that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, but those statements are still too high level as to answer how we are to treat one another in society prior to laws being broken.
How can values, especially those that govern how we treat others, be discussed otherwise? There is the ‘social contract’ but that seems to focus too much on the relationship between the state and the individual rather than the relationships between individuals. Am I missing something?
Why be civil? might be a better question.
“It is not the standard until the owner of the blog makes it the standard.”
https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
“I will follow based on how the standard is imposed.”
Why ‘how the standard is imposed’? Why not simply follow the standard?
“Others will follow as well or if the standard became strict they will cease to exist on the blog.”
That does happen from time to time.
The standard is fine. It is whether or not the enforcement is strict. Why wait for external enforcement? Why not have strict self-enforcement? Civil society and civil liberties depend upon self-regulation to large extent.
>“The state government should step in if the local government does nothing to serve and protect the public and to uphold their oaths of office.”
>It’s funny how when discussing the school boards you stated the people should rise up. I agree. However, in the Andy Ngo situation you seem to want to leave it entirely in the hands of government.”
They are two entirely different matters. Andy Ngo was robbed and assaulted. At that point, laws were broken and it becomes a matter of law enforcement and government/judicial system. If the local government is impotent, then the matter goes to the next level in the hierarchy.
The other is a matter of discussion for the community. The people ARE the community and whose voices are intended to be part of the decision-making.
“President Trump is moving in that direction and already has passed executive orders to use the weight of the federal government to help in the change.”
I have concerns about the use of executive orders. It deeply depends upon the context. I would rather my elected representatives would do what is right legislatively.
“I suppose I could say that we are equal before the law,”
We should be but the law doesn’t make anything that has been said on the blog illegal so I don’t think that statement pertains. Nor does the follow up “that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” even thought that was a brilliant statement.
“Am I missing something?”
Yes, you are missing a bit of reality and the fact that different people handle different things in different ways at different times. That is a blessing, not a curse.
“Why ‘how the standard is imposed’? Why not simply follow the standard?”
There is a tag placed on your mattress that says do not remove. If you find a desire to remove it do you remove it or do you leave it on? Do you ever jaywalk? Do you ever speed when driving? I am sure I can find many things where you deviate from the standard. Historically in the south the standard was to sit in the back of the bus if one was black. Of course that was nonsense as was the nonsensical white and black public water fountains. I guess you might think that black people should have followed the standard. I don’t think so. I never followed the standards.
“Why not have strict self-enforcement?”
Do you enforce such standards on all your activities? What happens if your church says one thing and civil law says another on something that doesn’t injure another or cause harm to the community or property. Do you violate God’s rule or the standards of the state?
“If the local government is impotent, then the matter goes to the next level in the hierarchy. The other is a matter of discussion for the community. “
You are picking and choosing based on your beliefs and trying to impose that code on others. You consider Sunday a day of rest but Jews consider the day of rest to be on another day. Do you wish to impose your standards on Jewish people and tell them they most close their businesses? I bring that one up because laws were created to do just that. How were those laws a civil response?
“I have concerns about the use of executive orders. It deeply depends upon the context. I would rather my elected representatives would do what is right legislatively.”
So what? I agree but because of your preferences should Trump have not reversed the Obama executive orders with his own? This is what happens when mindless and stupid people gain control. They bend laws creating an environment where in order to survive others have to bend the same laws.
Allan,
“Prairie, ask yourself the question. Is God a just God or a hateful God? If the latter he dictates to you and if you don’t follow what he wants to the letter he sends you to H.ell. Does that answer the question?”
God is just.
“we haven’t even sorted out what constitutes civil discourse”
“The notion of civil discourse can be used by the unwary to provide more power to people that do not deserve it.”
Political correctness does not equal civil discourse.
“The liars attacked the Gorsuch side by creating new rules for civil discourse.”
I am ashamed to admit I did not sufficiently follow either man’s appointment gauntlet. I will have to look up the painful details regarding civil discourse and either Gorsuch or Kavannaugh.
“Blasey Ford didn’t have to prove her case for she was a woman and Gorsuch was appointed by Trump. Anyone that wished to question Blasey Ford was accused of a lack of civil discourse.”
That debacle was with the Bret Kavannaugh appointment. Again, I will have to familiarize myself with the events.
>”“That chasm will widen if defensiveness and distrust is reinforced and entrenched. Incivility perpetuates both.”
>Prairie, to make that claim you will have to step into the world of reality. That is why I brought up just a few examples that you chose not to deal with.”
I have responded regarding Ngo several times upthread. What have I missed? We have discussed many things.
Also, this issue with incivility in public discourse has been building over decades and has only worsened with the anonymity of the internet. What once was published with a name in the newspaper is fully anonymous now. Perhaps the 1987 elimination of the Fairness Doctrine caused people to settle into their ideologically-comforting camps. People prefer confirmation bias because it’s easy. Settling into confirmation bias and one’s singular political perspective encourages tribalism indirectly. Why reach out to others who think differently if you’re tribal? You might get your axioms poked or your worldview shaken and people generally don’t like that, especially if they’ve gotten used to their settled-in position.
The New Yorker made an interesting point about civility and discourse (or lack thereof):
“And, as the common ground between us seems to dwindle, it has become easier to fixate on incivility than to reckon with whatever ideas rude language might describe.”
Perhaps I seem to be guilty of this, but I do try to focus on the ideas. I think it is easier to focus on the ideas if there is not so much chaff blowing about.
>”“That is not the manner in which I meant defensiveness.”
>You will have to define the way you mean defensiveness and put it into the situation you are discussing.”
You used the word defense like that used for battle or sports–“You are either defensive or offensive which would be the opposite strategy.”
I mean defensiveness as a personal reaction, as in ‘the state or condition of being prepared or required to defend against attack or criticism.”
If someone is trying to defend against personal attack or personal criticism or deliberate misconstruing of their arguments, why would they want to see things from my point of view, consider facts (because even the messenger can taint people’s perception based on how or who is delivering said facts), or even discuss, fairly, the issue at hand?
>”“Also, to be on the offensive does not require incivility.”
That is correct but sometimes incivility helps.”
How?
“Sometimes one has to use the language of the people your are surrounded by.”
Only if it is going to make communication more effective. Is that actually happening?
Allan,
““You chose the 2a definition. “ (of policy)
Prairie, you are splitting hairs. I said I don’t mix a policy discussion with religion no matter how you wish to define the word ‘policy’.”
I do not see it as splitting hairs. I am looking for clarity because I do not think we are discussing policy. We have been discussing civility in conversations, particularly when partisanship is present. The other definition seems to fit the topic at hand more accurately. Making sure we agree to definitions and concepts is important to understanding the direction of the argument.
Should we be discussing the ‘policy of the state’ as you noted below? Is that where you would prefer to aim the discussion?
“Prairie you are getting into theology and the teachings of your church. I don’t like to argue two things at once, religion and policy. I keep them separated. Let the church dictate the morals of their congregation keeping that separate from the policy of the state though the state is based on the western culture of the people that in part derives from the Judeo-Christian world.”
Why does “the policy of the state” come into this conversation at all?
I thought this was a matter between citizens and how we discuss challenging topics with one another.
“I do not see it as splitting hairs. I am looking for clarity because I do not think we are discussing policy.”
Prairie, we definitely are not discussing religion so I think the 2a definition is adequate.
Allan,
Prairie: >”I suppose I could say that we are equal before the law, or that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, ///but those statements are still too high level as to answer how we are to treat one another in society prior to laws being broken///.”
Allan: >”We should be but the law doesn’t make anything that has been said on the blog illegal so I don’t think that statement pertains. Nor does the follow up “that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights” even thought that was a brilliant statement.”
Absolutely, then how should we treat one another in society prior to bumping up against laws? That was the focus of the discussion. That is where values and beliefs exert more overt influence.
“God is just.”
Prairie, I like to think so. If that is so God won’t be concerned if I call the crazies mindless and stupid.
“Political correctness does not equal civil discourse.”
So don’t be so concerned about civility.
Look up Kavanaugh not Gorsuch but make sure you look up the honest details. It was downright gory.
“I have responded regarding Ngo several times upthread. What have I missed? We have discussed many things.”
Your reliance seems dependent on government and exactly those people that didn’t protect Ngo before he was nearly killed and didn’t help him when he needed to get to the hospital.
“Perhaps the 1987 elimination of the Fairness Doctrine caused people to settle into their ideologically-comforting camps.”
I think you need to review the Fairness Doctrine and at the same time think about freedom of speech. The worst entity to control things outside of war is generally government. Do you want government to regulate freedom of speech?
“You used the word defense like that used for battle or sports–“You are either defensive or offensive which would be the opposite strategy.”
I think the word is appropriate. We are in a war of ideas, cultural and political. We are in a war to protect freedom of speech and other basic rights.
____________________
Allan: “Sometimes one has to use the language of the people your are surrounded by.”
Prairie: “Only if it is going to make communication more effective. Is that actually happening?”
______________________
No one modality is sufficient. I am fortunate. I can use a multiplicity of modalities.
“Absolutely, then how should we treat one another in society prior to bumping up against laws? That was the focus of the discussion. That is where values and beliefs exert more overt influence.”
Values and belief might except influence but don’t think the Church’s values and beliefs exempted the Church from killing and torturing others. Let’s look at history.
Allan,
““Am I missing something?”
Yes, you are missing a bit of reality and the fact that different people handle different things in different ways at different times. That is a blessing, not a curse.”
I am aware of those differences. Some differences are more optimal than others, which is the focus of the discussion.
Can incivility be optimal in some situations?If so, what situations, and why? That is what you are arguing for, correct?
Allan,
“I guess you might think that black people should have followed the standard. I don’t think so. I never followed the standards.”
Absolutely not. Sometimes civil disobedience is called for.
What do you mean ‘the standards’? Which ones? Never following standards is not wise either.
““Why not have strict self-enforcement?””
By self-enforcement, I mean the governing of one’s own behavior.
“Do you enforce such standards on all your activities?””
What do you mean ‘such standards’? I suppose the answer is yes. I try to uphold my conduct to high standards of honesty, integrity, kindness (etc) as much as possible. I am certainly fallible.
“Do you violate God’s rule or the standards of the state?”
I would rather be civilly disobedient if I had to be. The standards of the state, however, is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Prairie Rose>“If the local government is impotent, then the matter goes to the next level in the hierarchy. The other is a matter of discussion for the community. “
Allan>You are picking and choosing based on your beliefs and trying to impose that code on others. You consider Sunday a day of rest but Jews consider the day of rest to be on another day. Do you wish to impose your standards on Jewish people and tell them they most close their businesses? I bring that one up because laws were created to do just that. How were those laws a civil response?”
This is a non sequiter. My comment about the hierarchy of government has to do with the function of laws and their violation. The local police force refused to uphold their own laws in the case of Andy Ngo. Since they refused to do so, particularly in the matter of assault, then the State should intervene, and/or Ngo should sue the local government.
I am not picking and choosing and trying to impose a ‘code’ on anyone else. That is the structure and function of the different elements of society.
Communities of people determine how their children should be educated by selecting from amongst themselves representatives for a school board. These individuals help to decide who should act as superintendent, guide the funding and educational policy, among other duties. If parents of children or other community members have concerns about elements of the education, they should express concerns at the right granularity of leadership–the teacher, the principal, the superintendent, the School Board. If moving through those channels is insufficient, and they need additional voices to effect change, then they should discuss their concerns with friends and neighbors and other community members.
I am rather happy Jews and Christians each have different days of rest–both Saturday and Sunday are days of rest for many people now. The laws you refer to violated the First Amendment. The civil response to those laws was to argue persuasively against them, helping people see they were unfair, and getting them changed or rescinded legislatively or judicially. If people wish to close their businesses on their Sabbath, they are free to do so.
“I have concerns about the use of executive orders. It deeply depends upon the context. I would rather my elected representatives would do what is right legislatively.”
So what? I agree but because of your preferences should Trump have not reversed the Obama executive orders with his own?”
They negated each other, so not a problem. Congress was free at that point to try to legislate Obama’s now reversed E.O.’s.
Allan,
What are your thoughts on this excerpt in regards to our conversation?
“While the challenges that face our country are great, the bonds that unite us as Americans are much stronger. Together, we must strive to foster a culture of deeper understanding and respect—traits that exemplify the teachings of Christ.”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/presidential-message-christmas/
“What are your thoughts on this excerpt in regards to our conversation?”
A typical message at a special time from a leader to all his people especially when most Americans are what he attributes to them.
Allan,
““God is just.”
Prairie, I like to think so. If that is so God won’t be concerned if I call the crazies mindless and stupid.”
He may have other reasons to be concerned.
“Political correctness does not equal civil discourse.”
So don’t be so concerned about civility.”
That is exactly the reason to be concerned about civility. It is being inappropriately conflated with political correctness and consequently being wrongly rejected.
“Your reliance seems dependent on government and exactly those people that didn’t protect Ngo before he was nearly killed and didn’t help him when he needed to get to the hospital.”
I do not rely on them. I choose to follow the appropriate channels until they prove faulty. At which point they prove faulty, then action must be taken to correct the problem. People, even those ideologically opposed to Ngo, should have stood against violence and helped him get medical treatment. Good grief, even criminals are taken to the hospital if they have been injured in a firefight with police.
“Perhaps the 1987 elimination of the Fairness Doctrine caused people to settle into their ideologically-comforting camps.”
“I think you need to review the Fairness Doctrine and at the same time think about freedom of speech.”
Ok, that is fair. Even if there is no ‘Fairness Doctrine’ law, people, especially journalists, ought to try to give a fair listen to opposing perspectives.
““You used the word defense like that used for battle or sports–“You are either defensive or offensive which would be the opposite strategy.”
I think the word is appropriate. We are in a war of ideas, cultural and political. We are in a war to protect freedom of speech and other basic rights.”
That word is appropriate for a different subject. I agree with you that we are in a war of ideas and that civil liberties are needing protection now more than ever.
That said, I was speaking about defensiveness as a reaction best avoided during difficult conversations. I am reading an interesting book right now called The Knowledge Gap. In it, Natalie Wexler notes that,
“one approach psychologists warn against is…to tell people experiencing cognitive dissonance they’re stupid, irrational or cruel. Better to focus on their existing goals and values and explain how evidence-based practices will serve them” (p. 76).
What constitutes effective communication?
“He may have other reasons to be concerned.”
God may always be concerned but if he is a just and forgiving God who provided most of us with intellect he forgives. But, now we are getting into religion something that should be separated from the rest whether it be policy or something else.
“That is exactly the reason to be concerned about civility. “
You have things backward. You can control your own thoughts and expressions. You can’t control another who is mindless and stupid and doesn’t understand reason.
“I do not rely on them. I choose to follow the appropriate channels until they prove faulty.“
Andy Ngo is not the first case demonstrating a severe problem and the appropriate channels (police) proved themselves faulty. So yes, I would say you are relying on faulty channels and not relying on the individual.
“Ok, that is fair. Even if there is no ‘Fairness Doctrine’ law, people, especially journalists, ought to try to give a fair listen to opposing perspectives.”
Maybe you are not totally aware of what is happening in today’s environment. Using Prager who you seem to like, take note many of their videos are banned from youtube and their advertisements have been removed from Spotify which is the largest or one of the largest streaming companies. This is just a tiny example of what is going on nationally. This is happening all over but you won’t read about it or see it on your local TV channels. The left is controlling the media and they disparge anyone who tells the opposite side so that good people make the wrong decision that these alternative views are not true. Take a Rush Limbaugh, the left calls him all sorts of names but they can’t demonstrate his facts are wrong and they can’t provide good counter arguments to his arguments. Take a listen to him or any similar personaity and see if the left can prove lying. Stack the arguments up one against the other. The left listens intently to these personalities so if they err they have to correct their errors immediately or lose credibility. The MSM for over two years has made mistake after mistake on a daily basis yet it is rare for them to appologize or even correct their errors.
Professor Turley resides in a leftist environment and probably relies on the leftist facts which help slant his viewpoint to the left. However, he is an expert on civil liberties so he discusses the law in an unbiased way though his opinions sometimes appear a bit leftward leaning. The left has torn into him even though he is on the left just like they tear into Alan Dershowitz who is also on the left. There is no tolerance on the left for differences of opinion. Read some history about Lenin and Stalin and see how their revolution functioned.
““one approach psychologists warn against is…”
Have you not noted the letters signed by that community calling another they never examined mentally ill solely for political reasons? The psychiatric association stated that was inappropriate ( and is inappropriate for psychologists as well). It makes one suspicious of motives though under normal social circumstances they have things to offer.
“What constitutes effective communication?”
Whatever gets the job done.
Allan,
““That is exactly the reason to be concerned about civility. “
You have things backward. You can control your own thoughts and expressions. You can’t control another who is mindless and stupid and doesn’t understand reason.”
Civility is different than reason. If they are so attuned to emotion that reason is not particularly effective, then the emotions they feel during our conversation can be made positive or negative based on the tone and civility of the discussion. The presentation of arguments can be colored with different kinds of emotions to help people ‘see’ the argument. While that can be done manipulatively, it doesn’t have to be; it shouldn’t be (that would put the discussion into bad faith). Civility interacts with the emotional side of discussions. If the focus of negative emotion rests on the speaker, that’s wrong. The hearer should connect emotion with the subject.
“Civility is different than reason.”
Prairie, you can create all the rationals you want but placing a mirror to reflect the image of the mindless and stupid so they and everyone else can see them can create reason and is not undue incivility. You are too attached to politeness and that reduces effectiveness. You will be polite until someone is killed and they you will agree with killing back (see your earlier comments), the former (rudeness) being unacceptable and the later (killing) to be encouraged.
I’m not saying that what I occasionally do is superior though it might be. I’m saying your method hasn’t worked.
Allan,
“placing a mirror to reflect the image of the mindless and stupid so they and everyone else can see them can create reason and is not undue incivility.”
There is a starker contrast when the incivility is only on one side.
“You will be polite until someone is killed and they you will agree with killing back (see your earlier comments), the former (rudeness) being unacceptable and the later (killing) to be encouraged.”
No, not to be encouraged! What you are describing is not the progression I advocate at all whatsoever.
I do not agree “with killing back” in some kind of retaliatory response.
Defense due to mortal fear for your loved ones is not the same as “killing back”, neither is the response of the Warsaw Jews. Neither situation is likely to be encountered by most people. Most people will be engaging in difficult, stressful conversations about charged, polarizing topics. How best to proceed is the question.
“I’m not saying that what I occasionally do is superior though it might be.”
Really? Your evidence?
“I’m saying your method hasn’t worked.”
What evidence are you seeking? I have no idea either. It is likely the tone will shift subtly; it might not even be seen on this blog.
I realize that there is a segment of people for whom discussion is futile as they are only interested in power. I am not aiming at them. While some of them may be on this blog, I will not begin with that assumption with those I converse.
Are you trying to discuss how best to engage with those who demonstrate they are only interested in power? If so, we have been talking past each other unnecessarily.
“There is a starker contrast when the incivility is only on one side.”
Sometimes things have to be spelled out.
“No, not to be encouraged! What you are describing is not the progression I advocate at all whatsoever.”
Your progression: Civility with a sharp break to killing after your friends and family have been killed and you are next.
“I do not agree “with killing back” in some kind of retaliatory response.”
I could not find the phrase “with killing back” so I couldn’t find any context to it.
With regard to how I react you asked for evidence: “Really? Your evidence?”
The problem with that request is that I didn’t draw a conclusion rather I said ” it might be.”. You are very definite in your opinion so the question “Your evidence?” should be directed to you.
Allan,
Regarding the phrase “killing back”:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-1/#comment-1908426
“Your progression: Civility with a sharp break to killing after your friends and family have been killed and you are next.”
Perhaps since our discussion has been scattered, that which I advocate is not easy to identify.
–Civil, logical discussion with facts and examples. This can go round and round for some time since there are lots of directions arguments can take. Sometimes it takes quite a bit of digging to get to the bottom of emotions, presuppositions, experiences, etc. It can take a very long time to unravel the problems within problems. It requires asking LOTS of questions and sometimes holding your own desire to make statements. Asking the right clarifying questions with respect and in good faith can bring the other person’s argument to a point where a misunderstanding or a logical fallacy is laid bare. Asking, what are your thoughts on _______? may open the door to considering different perspectives, if not during that discussion, perhaps one down the road either with you or someone else. Socrates had a great deal of wisdom regarding engaging in critical thinking and argumentation. The conversation may need to be redirected repeatedly back to the original focus since people often move laterally to related ideas. The same thing will patiently have to occur if a logical fallacy occurs; it will have to be examined and corrected. The goal is for truth to be sought, not your opponent to be hammered into the ground. You both might step away agreeing to disagree but both at least deciding the conversation as a whole was enjoyable. It may be tense, fervent, and perhaps even heated, but it can remain civil and leave both parties open to later discussion.
However, enough people have to engage in this sort of discussion with people of opposing perspective for any movement in the conversation can be made. If we only discuss with like-minded people, it is too easy to fall into lazy thinking, straw-man argumentation (rather than steel-manning), and demeaning, or worse, dehumanizing people of other perspectives.
–Suppose the other person does not play ball with a good faith attempt at discussion.You can point out calmly whatever seems to be the problem (unfair argumentation (“so you’re saying, we should organize our societies along the lines of lobsters”, ad hominem attacks, too emotional) and say you’d prefer to stay on topic. To actually care about a subject means you treat the subject and the argumentation of it with respect–which includes not twisting counter-arguments, using ad hominems or other fallacies. You might even have to suggest that while you’d like to discuss this topic with them, perhaps the conversation should continue at a later time when emotions aren’t running so high. Hopefully, after a breather, the conversation returns to being a civil one.
–Suppose the other person decides to try to escalate the situation. I won’t throw the baby out with the bathwater by quoting a few tips from Psychology Today:
“Set limits and boundaries. While some of the above tips have encouraged listening and letting the angry person vent, you also have the right to be assertive and say, “Please don’t talk to me like that.” [I’d say, in some circumstances, ‘please’ is optional.]
Trust your instincts. If your gut is saying, this is going downhill fast, be ready to do what you need to do to remain safe. Look for an exit strategy.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-the-questions/201503/20-expert-tactics-dealing-difficult-people
–If the situation won’t deescalate, leave. If the other person is breaking the law, get law enforcement involved.
–If the situation is truly dangerous, you may need to be prepared to defend yourself. Involve law enforcement to stop any potential violence.
“Regarding the phrase “killing back”:”
Thank you Prairie . Now the context of my statement is revealed: “You are too attached to politeness and that reduces effectiveness. You will be polite until someone is killed and then you will agree with killing back (see your earlier comments), the former (rudeness) being unacceptable and the later (killing) to be encouraged.”
Earlier you were turning the words “killing back” but agreed that the killings by Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were justifiable. I agree but the Jews knew it wasn’t defensive because they recognized that they would die fighting the Germans.
“–Civil, logical discussion”
In the end you have three methods. 1) Continuous polite discussion no matter the reply or the libel. 2) At the same time you felt a reliance on government even when government wasn’t responding and 3) An abrupt end to 1 and 2 where suddenly killing is involved. Your rules of discussion and engagement count on both parties following the rules or one party waiting to be murdered, libeled or otherwise damaged. I like the rules until we are dealing with Mindless and Stupid people that do not abide by any rules.
Prairie, you should listen to this video completely and note how the government is not enforcing the law and rewarding criminal behavior. Suddenly we see how the talk evolves into violence and that has to be faced by people that are willing to use violence. Being polite didn’t work.
Allan,
I watched the video. Other than the one rude gesture at 5:55, he was very civil, though quite direct and no-nonsense, which is fine–no gratuitous name-calling at all. He pointedly focused on the problems with the actions (lack thereof) of the leadership and focusing on the importance of upholding the law.
He, too, should fail your appraisal because he apparently relies on law enforcement. After making a citizen’s arrest, they hand the culprit over to the criminal justice system. Then, he tells people they need to force politicians to do their job.
“Being polite didn’t work.”
I have focused doggedly on civil discourse. Politeness can overlap with civility, but, unfortunately, politeness can deteriorate into being too polite to say anything in opposition. That is not at all what I have advocated ever.
“I watched the video. Other than the one rude gesture at 5:55…”
Prairie, I am afraid that in your attempt to prove your point you missed the point of the video. It was not to demonstrate civility or lack thereof. I posted the video to demonstrate that civility is gone in certain areas and violence has taken its place while we debate whether the words used in discussion are civil enough. It is the attitude of PC and lawlessness of some even on this blog that leads to this type of violence being permitted.
Earlier you told me that you didn’t see this type of thing so I wanted to show it to you to demonstrate that outside of where you live the world might be quite different. You seem to want to justify your position “because he apparently relies on law enforcement. After making a citizen’s arrest,…“ rather than reassess what is happening. He might be turning people over to the police but why didn’t the police stop this in the first place? Why are the perpetrators let out of jail almost immediately so they can continue their violent attacks?
This is America. Ask yourself why violence is being perpetrated against these people by people who come from other areas to commit it? Ask yourself why the violence wasn’t stopped and the perpetrators put in jail as a deterrence to others. Ask yourself why this has gone on long enough that private citizens band together to stop the violence that the police didn’t stop. Don’t be so offended when people use language to show what other people actually look like.
Allan,
I also noticed that their chapters were primarily focused in very large, democratically-controlled cities.
“I also noticed that their chapters were primarily focused in very large, democratically-controlled cities.”
Yes, and that is why I have stated more than once that your personal experiences might not permit you to understand how bad things are in certain areas of the country.
Allan,
“In the end you have three methods. 1) Continuous polite discussion no matter the reply or the libel.”
Civil discussion.
“2) At the same time you felt a reliance on government even when government wasn’t responding”
That is the main course of action. I also laid out some things people could do if government was not properly responding. Sliwa and I are pretty much in agreement.
“3) An abrupt end to 1 and 2 where suddenly killing is involved.”
Defense to the death should be the last response if there is a mortal threat to safety (which is a very unlikely scenario). Sliwa defends people with the presence of Guardian Angels. There are plenty of ways to defend that do not end in death for heaven’s sake. I have noted that defending oneself or others is fine. It is not uncivil to firmly tell people they are out-of-line and to hold people accountable for their actions and to uphold the law.
“Sliwa and I are pretty much in agreement. “
Prairie, once again you travel very quickly from absolute civility to using force. Sometimes a bit of incivility might make the use of force unnecessary. It can demonstrate intentions.
” It is not uncivil to firmly tell people they are out-of-line and to hold people accountable for their actions and to uphold the law.“
I refer you back to the video where the law didn’t seem to work.
Allan,
“Sometimes a bit of incivility might make the use of force unnecessary. It can demonstrate intentions.”
‘Might make the use of force unnecessary’ is unlikely, particularly when discussing with someone on a blog. It is also unlikely in real life. Insults are not a means to de-escalate an argument.
” It is not uncivil to firmly tell people they are out-of-line and to hold people accountable for their actions and to uphold the law.“
I refer you back to the video where the law didn’t seem to work.”
But, that is essentially what Sliwa said in the video.
“But, that is essentially what Sliwa said ”
Praire, you are drawing unfounded conclusions and haven’t provided answers as proven by what is happening to Jews in NYC and other people elsewhere. The video demonstrated the need for action not that any particular method under discussion doesn’t work.
.
You seem far more upset over rudeness than you are over violence.
Allan,
“Prairie, what better person is there to show how the group identity they assume looks. Let them and others (even if vicariously done) look in a mirror and decide for themselves.”
Antifa doesn’t need any additional help showing who they are and how they look. Cathy Newman and other journalists have laid themselves bare without the provocation of insults. Their intolerance of opposing views is stark without any need for insulting repartee.
“Let them look in the mirror”–not a habit of narcissists.
Others with a conscience will eventually open their eyes to injustice; defensiveness will let them continue to shut their eyes.
“Eyes I dare not meet in dreams…”
“Antifa doesn’t need any additional help showing who they are and how they look.”
That is your opinion but a lot of people are unaware of many things happening because they generalize and believe that what happens around them is what happens elsewhere and what works for them works elsewhere. That is a fallacy.
Just so you know, not that many months ago some blog members stated that they didn’t think Antifa was violent. I would say they need an education and they need to look in a mirror.
Allan,
I hope you have recovered from paying for last night’s merriment. 🙂
“how bad things are in certain areas of the country.”
Most of the country is not dealing with broken systems and high levels of tension. The perception is there because the online world makes the strife seem proximate.
“I hope you have recovered from paying for last night’s merriment. “
Thanks Prairie. I got off cheap. The merriment was fantastic and the payoff was not that much.
“Most of the country is not dealing with broken systems and high levels of tension.”
It depends how you define “most of the country” How big is the part of the country you live in? Over 4 million people? Over 8 million people? What is happening in the universities? What is happening in local school districts? You are an intelligent woman so such a comment is quite scary.
Allan,
“With regard to how I react you asked for evidence: “Really? Your evidence?”
The problem with that request is that I didn’t draw a conclusion rather I said ” it might be.”. You are very definite in your opinion so the question “Your evidence?” should be directed to you.”
I have been trying to determine the basis for why you are trying to assert that insulting ‘mindless and stupid’ opponents is not just okay but ‘might be’ a good thing to do. To argue in favor of using insults must mean you have some evidence as to its efficacy.
My evidence: Columbia Business School and other organizations, including police forces, using de-escalation to prevent violence. Sounds like they are trying to redirect rising problems civilly.
None of the sites I’ve looked at regarding de-escalation have included using insults as a tip to prevent violence or as a mirror so the other person can see how they come across.
“To argue in favor of using insults must mean you have some evidence as to its efficacy.”
Evidence? We are dealing with a subset of a much greater problem. Neither of us has the evidence and therefore neither of us can claim being right and the other wrong.
What we do know is that the present methodology doesn’t work satisfactorily. That leaves the door open to experimentation and exploration. I am NOT responding to the entire population with the rudeness that population throws at others. I am dealing with the subset I call the Mindless and the Stupid.
Among other things they call Trump supporters racists and deplorables that do not care about minorities. Trump has done wonders for minorities therefore cannot one conclude that there seems to be a racist component in the ones that have been touting those words? Is it not fair to turn their words against them?
Allan,
I do not want rudeness to escalate into violence. That’s where it will lead. I am upset with rudeness now because of what it can become. Verbal fights far too often escalate into physical ones.
The nation is being drummed up into emotional turmoil and hardening partisanship. It is spilling over into violence in some areas. I do not want that to spread. People need to harness their emotions and use them in constructive conversation rather than in an insulting, rude, discourse-destroying manner. If people cannot speak to one another, the problems get buried under poisonous feelings of anger and resentment and bitterness and damaged pride and all that begins to fester into a desire for revenge.
I have seen what buried, poisonous anger does to people. I do not want to see such things play out on a large scale.
“I do not want rudeness to escalate into violence.”
Prairie, this is a blog where rudeness seems to be a major method of communication. This is not the world stage. No one, I think, disagrees that rudeness in general is not a way to converse here or elsewhere.
I prefer you to think about what the subject is all about and put it into perspective rather than to continue answering the question. I think you will figure out a better answer in the silence.
Allan,
“It is the attitude of PC and lawlessness of some even on this blog that leads to this type of violence being permitted.”
I disagree that it is those things that lead to ‘violence being permitted’. It is the silence that follows that encourages it.
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” ~John Stuart Mill
Too many people look on and do or say nothing. The worst kind of silence is because people try to excuse it or justify it. Voices of rebuttal are then needed even more.
““Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” ~John Stuart Mill”
Excellent.
Focus on the words “do nothing”.
Think of all the people in the word that ’see nothing’ and therefore do not feel obliged to act. They ‘do nothing’.
Allan,
“Just so you know, not that many months ago some blog members stated that they didn’t think Antifa was violent. I would say they need an education and they need to look in a mirror.”
I agree. Some videos and articles about violent leftist protests would help to some degree. Whether or not people want to see it is another matter.
Prairie, you recently made the claim: “Antifa doesn’t need any additional help showing who they are and how they look.”
I stated that some blog members didn’t recognize the violence Antifa was promoting where you seemingly disagreed. Have you changed your mind?
You now say about the ignorance that exists: “I agree. Some videos and articles about violent leftist protests would help to some degree.”
…And the key to your statement “Whether or not people want to see it is another matter.”
When people don’t want to see, making a reflection of them to show the Antifa within themselves is a method that might help.
Allan,
““Most of the country is not dealing with broken systems and high levels of tension.”
It depends how you define “most of the country” How big is the part of the country you live in? Over 4 million people? Over 8 million people? What is happening in the universities? What is happening in local school districts? You are an intelligent woman so such a comment is quite scary.”
Most of the country is not dealing with what Portland or Berkley or NYC is dealing with. My area is about 4 million people. Heck, all of Iowa is barely over 3 million. While there are some problems here and there, it is not at all comparable to Portland or NYC.
I was speaking specifically about the broken police systems and high levels of tension like what is going on in Portland and NYC. Most of the country is not dealing with that level of animosity and ineffective law enforcement.
You have broadened my statement to apply it to the problems in universities and school districts. I agree that both have problems that are creeping. I have family that are now using leftist language that they never would have used 20 years ago. Those issues have a far broader reach throughout the country. People can withhold donations to their universities and they can take an active role in guiding their school districts to slow or reverse the creep.
TIA would be able to speak more to the problems within universities, though I could see it growing while I was in school and while we lived in several university towns. More recently, I could see the spread and extent of leftist ideology on a trip we had this summer. I did not deny that there was any tension at all; I disagree that the tension in the entire country reaches the level of that of the aforementioned (and similar) locations.
“Most of the country is not dealing with that level of animosity and ineffective law enforcement.”
You realize that when heinous people gain control they don’t necessarily control the entire nation. They may only control small parts. You might think what happens in NYC or Los Angeles stays there, but it doesn’t. That type of comment represents complacency. Think of John Stuart Mill.
Allan,
“That type of comment represents complacency.”
Not really. It would be illogical to behave in a Code orange manner at all times if the situation is at a code blue. Being watchful and standing up for what’s right will help prevent larger problems, especially the more people who follow suit.
I am not so naive to think such poisonous attitudes and behaviors cannot spread. Even the evil of Sauron reached the Shire.
Considering I am involved in my community in various capacities, I’d hardly say I’m complacent.
“Not really. It would be illogical to behave in a Code orange manner at all times “
Prairie, if it is inferred that problems need to exist at your front door in order for you to think about them, that is complacency.
The complete preceding response was:
——
Prairie: “Most of the country is not dealing with that level of animosity and ineffective law enforcement.”
Allan: You realize that when heinous people gain control they don’t necessarily control the entire nation. They may only control small parts. You might think what happens in NYC or Los Angeles stays there, but it doesn’t. That type of comment represents complacency. Think of John Stuart Mill.
———
This preceding response was to: January 1, 2020 at 9:38 PM
Allan,
““To argue in favor of using insults must mean you have some evidence as to its efficacy.”
Evidence? We are dealing with a subset of a much greater problem. Neither of us has the evidence and therefore neither of us can claim being right and the other wrong.”
You asked me earlier “Do you like constantly risking your life chopping off the tail of a poisonous snake or do you go for the head?”
Are the Mindless and Stupid ‘the head’?
If a minority of people truly are mindless and willfully stupid, there probably isn’t much that can be done. Being mindless and stupid, they are unlikely to follow their own path, choosing instead to follow the herd of their preference. If that is the case, then what is the point of antagonizing them? How does it effect the change you desire? It may be counter-productive to your goals.
“What we do know is that the present methodology doesn’t work satisfactorily.”
I think the methodology hasn’t been tried particularly. There hasn’t been enough backbone, grit, and tenacity shown by enough people. Too many people have allowed themselves to be cowed into silence. Too many people tolerate or enable the problems to grow.
“That leaves the door open to experimentation and exploration…dealing with the subset I call the Mindless and the Stupid.”
What have you discovered?
“therefore cannot one conclude that there seems to be a racist component in the ones that have been touting those words?”
Yes.
“Is it not fair to turn their words against them?”
I would not say it is just. Framing it so they can see it from another perspective is what will help change people’s minds.
I think the following is pertinent to our discussion. This was published in National Defense University Press: The premier professional military and academic publishing house:
“Also, successful change requires focusing on the enabling conditions and not narrowly on the toxic individual whose ingrained behavior is reinforced by a results-rewarding system that tolerates toxicity. … The answer is to feed and reinforce the culture, confront toxic personnel and those who protect them, and teach leaders to create a culture of respectful engagement.
The culture should create the expectation that all personnel practice the core values, not permitting anyone in authority to abuse the standards they are responsible for supporting. It is insufficient merely to create a list of values assuming the desired culture will automatically follow.
Values must be communicated regularly and in a variety of ways, since, as research shows, “toxicity will be significantly reduced in organizations that clearly define values in concrete ways, identify the kinds of behaviors the organization will and will not tolerate, and have a clear set of consequences when an individual does not live up to the values. Of course, the leader must model these behaviors as well.”26 …
These values include, among others, honesty, integrity, loyalty, accountability for actions and decisions, fairness and impartiality, respect, and responsible citizenship. Importantly, this engagement must begin with top leaders and cascade down to each subordinate organization’s leader.
Leaders at all levels must foster a culture of ethics with their organizations by setting the example in their own conduct and by making values-based decision-making central to all aspects of the Department’s activities.27 … Leaders must ask, “What does respect (or honor, integrity, and so on) mean in how we communicate (or collaborate, correct mistakes, and so on) with each other?”
https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Article/1325971/toxic-culture-enabling-incivility-in-the-us-military-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Prairie: ” You asked me earlier”
Allan: “Do you like constantly risking your life chopping off the tail of a poisonous snake or do you go for the head?”
Prairie: Are the Mindless and Stupid ‘the head’?”
—-
That had to do with a different contextual arrangement. The context was that if a snake is attacking you do you cut off its tail or go directly to its head.
There was no mention of the Mindless and Stupid being the head.
“If a minority of people truly are mindless and willfully stupid,…”
You were saying that the real problems are limited to a limited number of geographic areas neglecting to recognize that many of these limited areas had huge populations and are the centers of the economy with tremendous political and cultural influence. You were acting as if you were satisfied because the bad guys weren’t at your back door. The Mindless and Stupid add numbers and physical power. Remember a lot of ‘followers’ followed in the footsteps of Hitler even though he didn’t control Germany or have the following of the vast majority of the people. The ‘majority’ came later. I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.
“It may be counter-productive to your goals.”
Your fixed in stone methods might be counter-productive to my goals.
“I think the methodology hasn’t been tried particularly. There hasn’t been enough backbone, grit, and tenacity shown by enough people. Too many people have allowed themselves to be cowed into silence. Too many people tolerate or enable the problems to grow.“
This is a typical fall back position when ideas you hold dearly don’t work in the real world. Blame everyone else.
“What have you discovered?”
Look at what you have written in all your replies and the all important shadow (what you left out when replying to my responses). I learned some things I didn’t expect.
“Framing it so they can see it from another perspective is what will help change people’s minds.”
…And how has that been working out for you?
Allan,
“Prairie, you recently made the claim: “Antifa doesn’t need any additional help showing who they are and how they look.”
I stated that some blog members didn’t recognize the violence Antifa was promoting where you seemingly disagreed. Have you changed your mind?”
No, I have not changed my mind. There will always be a few people who aren’t paying attention for whatever reason. Unfortunately, sometimes it is willful ignorance (or perhaps even trolling) to not see the violence of Antifa.
I’d say most people see Antifa clearly. Even my Democrat family members dislike Antifa; they, too, think they are radical.
“You now say about the ignorance that exists: “I agree. Some videos and articles about violent leftist protests would help to some degree.”
Sure. There are people who are either just plain unaware who ought to see it. And, for those who are willfully ignorant, they should be handed what they will not seek out.
“…And the key to your statement “Whether or not people want to see it is another matter.”
When people don’t want to see, making a reflection of them to show the Antifa within themselves is a method that might help.”
Will they actually see the reflection of Antifa within themselves you are trying to mirror? I doubt they see a reflection of Antifa; what they see reinforces what they think all Trump-supporters sound and act like.
“No, I have not changed my mind. There will always be a few people who aren’t paying attention for whatever reason. “
Prairie, there seem to be a lot of those people on this blog comment section.
“I’d say most people see Antifa clearly. Even my Democrat family members dislike Antifa; they, too, think they are radical.”
I haven’t done a study on it so I don’t have an answer backed with proof. However, I have noted others that have gone out and asked simple questions of people that I would expect almost all to know. Unfortunately our population is a lot more ignorant than many of us would like to believe. Your n = 1 evaluation is anecdotal not factual.
“what they see reinforces what they think all Trump-supporters sound and act like.”
You are drawing unfounded conclusions. I note how emphatic and certain your words are about your conclusions. This is very revealing. One would think that you would be mixing up these things with phrases like, “I think” or “I believe”. That is not seen and that frequently reflects a lack of an open mind. I am not stating your mind isn’t open but once again I urge you to look back at all your statements.
Allan,
““I do not want rudeness to escalate into violence.”
Prairie, this is a blog where rudeness seems to be a major method of communication. This is not the world stage. No one, I think, disagrees that rudeness in general is not a way to converse here or elsewhere.”
Rudeness does not have to “be a major method of communication” on this blog. Once something is on the internet, it is, in effect, on the world stage, even if the reach seems like only a drop in a bucket.
“I prefer you to think about what the subject is all about and put it into perspective rather than to continue answering the question.”
This discussion has been about perspective. What are some elements to ‘what the subject is all about’ that I may not be considering?
“I think you will figure out a better answer in the silence.”
If this is the conclusion to our conversation, I am sorry that is the case. I hope I have misinterpreted you. While I do find silent reflection to be useful, thinking through problems in conversation is often more effective.
“And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share and no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
Fools said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you”
I hope my words do not like silent raindrops fall…
80% of Americans, according to NPR, are worried about incivility turning into violence.
“Rudeness does not have to “be a major method of communication” on this blog. “
Prairie, rudeness is a major method of communication on the blog and I haven’t seen you do much to stop the rudeness other than you telling me I shouldn’t return bombs. I am not being rude for rudeness sake. Some others are rude because that is how they think and talk. They talked that way long before I came to this blog and will talk that way long after I leave.
I think one of the problems with conservatives is they are too nice. When they are denied a right to speak they all too frequently walk away. That only adds to the problem. Maybe your attitude is the counter productive one.
————
Allan: “I think you will figure out a better answer in the silence.”
Prairie: If this is the conclusion to our conversation, I am sorry that is the case. I hope I have misinterpreted you.
———-
Of course not. I just don’t think you have adequately examined the playing field.
“80% of Americans, according to NPR, are worried about incivility turning into violence.”
So do I but in the bigger playing field outside of this insignificant comment section is a world that is becoming increasingly violent while you excessively worry about the petty bombs being thrown. The question is do you act which is what helps prevent the violence and so far the answer seems to be no.
Allan,
“If this is the conclusion to our conversation, I am sorry that is the case. I hope I have misinterpreted you.”
Egad that was unclear. I mean that I hope I am wrong in thinking this conversation is at its end.
I feel as though I have not asked enough of the right questions.
Allan,
“I haven’t seen you do much to stop the rudeness other than you telling me I shouldn’t return bombs.”
You are not the only person I have talked to about this. I do try to be fair. Other people do comment on issues of incivility from time to time. Perhaps I cannot ‘do much’. Better ‘a little’ than not address the issue at all.
“I am not being rude for rudeness sake.”
I realize that.
“When [conservatives] are denied a right to speak they all too frequently walk away. That only adds to the problem. Maybe your attitude is the counter productive one.”
What is ‘my attitude’ as you see it?
I am generally not one to ‘walk away’ unless I need to. I do sometimes pick my battles, but, there are only so many hours in the day; I have plenty of other pressing things on my plate. While I will address issues of civility, it is a distraction from the main points of discussion.
Perhaps it is the attitudes people have towards others that is an elephant in the room.
“You are not the only person I have talked to about this.”
Prairie, I see a paucity.
“What is ‘my attitude’ as you see it?”
I will be blunt. Do not insult because they are made in God’s image. Do nothing until there is reason to kill. If it’s not in my backyard it isn’t so bad and we need not deal with the situation.
Allan,
“in the bigger playing field outside of this insignificant comment section is a world that is becoming increasingly violent while you excessively worry about the petty bombs being thrown.”
This is not an ‘insignificant comment section’. It is reflective of many of the tensions simmering under the surface in the wider world. Not everywhere is very tense; this blog is a cross-section, though.
I wouldn’t describe any bombs as petty. Even seemingly small bombs can have unintended far-reaching effects.
“The question is do you act which is what helps prevent the violence”
I am.
“This is not an ‘insignificant comment section’. It is reflective of many of the tensions simmering under the surface in the wider world. Not everywhere is very tense; this blog is a cross-section, though.”
Prairie, that the comment section is a reflection of what is occurring elsewhere is true. The same Peter Shill’s and Anon/Jan F’s are in the crowds lying and preventing conservatives from speaking or maybe in the tertiary row where Antifa is attacking.
However, what is actually said here is insignificant.
Allan,
“The context was that if a snake is attacking you do you cut off its tail or go directly to its head.
There was no mention of the Mindless and Stupid being the head.”
If they are not the head, why attack?
“You were acting as if you were satisfied because the bad guys weren’t at your back door.”
Nope, I’m not satisfied or complacent.
“Remember a lot of ‘followers’ followed in the footsteps of Hitler even though he didn’t control Germany or have the following of the vast majority of the people. The ‘majority’ came later.”
Don’t give them more of a reason to follow. Assuming they are mindless and stupid is unwise. Hillary assumed that about those she despised.
“I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.”
Nothing of the sort.
>“It may be counter-productive to your goals.”
Your fixed in stone methods might be counter-productive to my goals.”
I disagree that they are fixed in stone.
What are your goals?
“I think the methodology hasn’t been tried particularly. There hasn’t been enough backbone, grit, and tenacity shown by enough people. Too many people have allowed themselves to be cowed into silence. Too many people tolerate or enable the problems to grow.“
This is a typical fall back position when ideas you hold dearly don’t work in the real world. Blame everyone else.”
Not in the least. You yourself said conservatives are too nice and tend to back down or walk away when they have not been allowed to speak. It was a statement of observation.
It can also be a statement of encouragement to people to speak up more. There is more to them than they realize, to paraphrase Jordan Peterson.
“and the all important shadow (what you left out when replying to my responses)”
Sorry. Didn’t mean to leave anything out. I tried to address them as best and as thoroughly as I could. What were you disappointed that I didn’t address?
“I learned some things I didn’t expect.”
Hmmm…do I want to know?
“Framing it so they can see it from another perspective is what will help change people’s minds.”
…And how has that been working out for you?”
Slow and steady wins the race. I have had good conversations. Not sure whether I will see the fruits of my labor. I hope some good seeds took root.
“If they are not the head, why attack?”
Among other things, you can’t always get to the head.
“Don’t give them more of a reason to follow. Assuming they are mindless and stupid is unwise. Hillary assumed that about those she despised.”
Yes and no. Many voters are unsophisticated but can see through people like they did with Clinton. On the other hand many on the left distort what is actually happening and that cannot be refuted by working people that are more interested in their jobs than the politics of the day. Thus we have a relatively ignorant population that votes but have difficulty seeing the truth with a press that is pushing leftist candidates and lying about those on the right. Look at some of those on the street interviews. They too mirror what people are thinking and saying.
That the Mindless and Stupid on this comment section cannot engage in normal discussion and learn is unfortunate but there are a lot outside of this comment section that can.
————
Allan: ““I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.”
Prairie: Nothing of the sort.”
————
I hope I am not understanding your answer.
“I disagree that they are fixed in stone.”
They certainly sound that way.
“What are your goals?”
We are playing in a sandbox but I learn even when I play.
—————
Allan: “Blame everyone else.”
Prairie: “Not in the least.”
—————
You can prove that going forward.
“Slow and steady wins the race.”
I have demonstrated what is happening to Christians in the middle east, Jews in NYC, conservatives on the campus.
Are we winning the race or slowly moving backward. Perhaps now under Trump we are moving forward again despite the things some don’t like in his tweets and mannerisms. I think he is great and actually getting the job done instead of talking about it.
Allan,
“Prairie, if it is inferred that problems need to exist at your front door in order for you to think about them, that is complacency.”
“in order for you to think about them”
I have never once indicated that I do not think about the nation’s problems. Neither am I going to act as though I am under direct, imminent threat at all times. I am going to respond to life as life warrants I respond–watchfully as I engage with people.
Allan,
““what they see reinforces what they think all Trump-supporters sound and act like.”
You are drawing unfounded conclusions.”
The following cropped up:
“Seth Warner says: January 3, 2020 at 10:27 AM
Rose, if you were to read the comments by Trump supporters on this very thread, just a little further down, you might realize Moore was pretty much in the ballpark.”
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/02/moore-most-white-people-are-not-good-people-and-are-dangerous-if-encountered-on-the-street/comment-page-4/#comment-1909615
I’ve heard similar comments about Trump-supporters from other liberals, so this isn’t a one-off example.
“One would think that you would be mixing up these things with phrases like, “I think” or “I believe”.”
I do occasionally hedge my comments with such phrases, but, in general, it seems a bit redundant since what I write is what I think and what I believe.
“once again I urge you to look back at all your statements.”
What, in particular, would you like me to look back at? I try to be careful with what and how I write.
“I have never once indicated that I do not think about the nation’s problems. Neither am I going to act as though I am under direct, imminent threat at all times. I am going to respond to life as life warrants I respond–watchfully as I engage with people.”
What you are saying is that you will judge whether you are complacent or not based on how you feel instead of the reality of the world where tangible events occur. That is pretty much how a lot of German Jews thought in pre WW2 Germany.
Allan,
“Do nothing until there is reason to kill.”
I have never advocated doing nothing. Nor have I advocated killing. Killing is only justified if it is defensive because you are in mortal fear for your life. I clearly wrote what I thought would be appropriate ways to converse and respond to people.
“If it’s not in my backyard it isn’t so bad and we need not deal with the situation.”
I never said that either. Different locations will need different responses. NYC needs patrols to protect Jewish citizens; my area does not. Civil conversation needs to be happening everywhere. However, some places people will need to be more on their guard than in other places.
Allan,
“Allan: ““I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.”
Prairie: Nothing of the sort.”
————
I hope I am not understanding your answer.”
Your guess is not accurate.
______________
“I disagree that they are fixed in stone.”
They certainly sound that way.”
Civil discourse is as old as Socrates. Heck, it is as old as Judaism, too, considering they purposefully include the record of both the winning and losing perspectives (e.g., Hillel and Shammai).
_____________
“What are your goals?”
We are playing in a sandbox but I learn even when I play.
Your goal is to learn what?
—————
Are we winning the race or slowly moving backward.
I do not see us as moving backward at all. Peterson’s Twelve Rules for Life has sold over 3 million copies worldwide. Prager’s The Rational Bible is also a best-seller, surprising even him.
“despite the things some don’t like in his tweets and mannerisms.”
Those are a deliberate side show and distraction. Scott Adams has some insights about it.
_____________
“getting the job done instead of talking about it.”
He is a man of action. The prison reform bill will hopefully help a lot of people, for example.
“Prairie: Nothing of the sort.””
Prairie your words indicated that you would think the following: “I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.” Of course you could mean a lot of things so you have to explain it carefully. You said regarding the mindless and stupid: “If that is the case, then what is the point of antagonizing them?” In other words make sure you aren’t rude or offend them. That actually happened in Nazi Germany
I think we should keep the big picture in mind. Some people throw bombs and call decent people holding a different ideology racists and deplorables. I see no reason to withhold returning such remarks even if someone might thing it rude to do so.
“Civil discourse is as old as Socrates.”
So what? Does that mean that when a bomb is thrown it shouldn’t be returned?
“I do not see us as moving backward at all. Peterson’s Twelve Rules for Life has sold over 3 million copies worldwide.”
There are almost 8 billion people in the world so that doesn’t suggest much of anything.
Allan,
““You are not the only person I have talked to about this.”
Prairie, I see a paucity.”
I have been accused of chiding only liberals and chiding only conservatives. Since that’s the case, it seems my attempts at being fair must not be too dismal.
Prairie: ““You are not the only person I have talked to about this.”
Allan: “Prairie, I see a paucity.”
Prairie: “I have been accused of chiding only liberals and chiding only conservatives. Since that’s the case, it seems my attempts at being fair must not be too dismal.”
——————
Paucity has nothing to do with fairness, but it can have something to do with getting the job done.
Allan,
“However, what is actually said here is insignificant.”
I hope that is not the case. Professor Turley has important things to say about civil liberties and Constitutional law. How people on here wrestle with what he says can be an important element to how people in the wider world wrestle with the ideas.
Different, well-considered perspectives can add to people’s greater understanding of the sides of an issue. If a person is living in an echo chamber (be it one on the left or the right), they could gain reasoned perspectives from other viewpoints, and thus gain a more well-rounded view themselves, or, at least develop their own arguments to a greater extent. Arguments cannot really be sound without having a fair understanding of steel-manned opposing arguments. Arguments ought to be aimed at truth not ideology.
“I hope that is not the case. Professor Turley has important things to say about civil liberties and Constitutional law. “
Prairie, try reviewing what was said in the response (I’ve seen that problem before). That response dealt with the comments being made on the blog and a prior response differentiated Turley’s excellent contributions from the blog comments.
Allan,
“What you are saying is that you will judge whether you are complacent or not based on how you feel instead of the reality of the world where tangible events occur.”
No, that is not what I’m saying at all.
Reality must be faced in all its painful ugliness and be responded to with the very best of our character and integrity.
Allan: “What you are saying is that you will judge whether you are complacent or not based on how you feel instead of the reality of the world where tangible events occur.”
Prairie, you disagree with my opinion and that is fine but that is how it appears to me. I’m not blaming you for anything. I am just making a point.
Allan,
“Prairie your words indicated that you would think the following: “I guess you believe those Mindless and Stupid followers of Hitler had nothing to do with his rise to power.” Of course you could mean a lot of things so you have to explain it carefully.”
You are right. I reread it; I was unclear. I appreciate you asking for a clarification.
Prairie Rose: “they are unlikely to follow their own path, choosing instead to follow the herd of their preference. If that is the case, then what is the point of antagonizing them? How does it effect the change you desire? It may be counter-productive to your goals.”
Allan: “In other words make sure you aren’t rude or offend them. That actually happened in Nazi Germany”
That is not what I advocate. Both questions need to be looked at together. My thoughts were toward redirecting the herd. Antagonizing them is going to get them to focus on you rather than get them to focus on the thing you’d rather they focus on.
How does antagonizing them effect the change you desire?
Prairie my system is still not working the way it should and might be that way for days. The chances are that I am missing some emails or they are coming in late. If something of significance in our discussions is missed, please let me know.
—
“That is not what I advocate. Both questions need to be looked at together. My thoughts were toward redirecting the herd. Antagonizing them is going to get them to focus on you rather than get them to focus on the thing you’d rather they focus on.”
People are afraid of confrontation so some use that fear to push their way around. That is how mobs act and I challenge you to redirect a mob or a herd. Try being polite to them and show them the manual of politeness and you might find yourself missing a head. It’s best to leave the immediate situation but it is not good to let it fester like they did in Nazi Germany.
On this blog with a few people it is a bit different. They are like accesses and can even be infectious. Two ways to treat an access. 1) Put a bandaid on it and maybe down the road gangrene will take care of it or 2) Cut it open and drain it. The pus is not pleasant but better than leaving it fester. The former is being nice and sweet. The latter is somewhat painful and a child might call it mean.
How does antagonizing them effect the change you desire?
Prairie, there are no guarantees in life. If what you are doing doesn’t work try something new. This comment section on the blog is a sandbox. Build what you wish. If it falls over it doesn’t matter though others might gain experience. So it is with the use of mirrors.
Sometimes the problem is that the individuals being dealt with are of very low intelligence and they are threatened by people with normal intelligence. So it is with people like Anonymous the Stupid who sets a very low bar on this blog comment section. His intellect doesn’t permit a higher level of discussion.
Remember Prairie, we agree on being civil so I am not rude for the sake of being rude and am not rude to those that are not rude by nature. I am returning terms that my group has been accused of such as bigotry, racism, deplorables etc. That is the nature of our times. Look at the Washington Post or the New York Times and take note of all the rudeness on the first page. We are in a different world than previous and we have learn to deal with it.
Allan,
“Some people throw bombs and call decent people holding a different ideology racists and deplorables. I see no reason to withhold returning such remarks”
Yes, that is a nasty, lazy way to debate people.
What might be some strategic reasons to withhold returning such remarks?
———
Allan: “Some people throw bombs and call decent people holding a different ideology racists and deplorables. I see no reason to withhold returning such remarks”
Prairie: “Yes, that is a nasty, lazy way to debate people.”
“What might be some strategic reasons to withhold returning such remarks?”
———————
Life isn’t always pretty.
Would I use such remarks with you? No. Why would I even think of doing so?
Allan,
““Civil discourse is as old as Socrates.”
So what?”
Through the use of civil discourse over the course of about 2,500 years, we have made innumerable advancements in civil liberties, law, government, culture, education, science, and even religion. It is a very effective tool for sorting out complicated problems.
“I do not see us as moving backward at all. Peterson’s Twelve Rules for Life has sold over 3 million copies worldwide.”
There are almost 8 billion people in the world so that doesn’t suggest much of anything.”
I disagree. The book can be shared amongst friends; it can be checked out from a library by hundreds of people; people can discuss the ideas at Meetup groups. My husband heard a pastor make an allusion to the ideas expressed in the book. At least 3 million people are beginning to wrestle with how their lives measure up to their values, how they can bring them into alignment and become better people. That’s quite the ripple effect.
“I disagree. The book can be shared amongst friends; it can be checked out from a library by hundreds of people; “
3 million compared to almost 8 billion people and I would guess that most agreed with Peterson before listening to him. I like him but Peterson’s present popularity doesn’t mean we are moving forward.
Allan,
“Prairie: ““You are not the only person I have talked to about this.”
Allan: “Prairie, I see a paucity.”
Prairie: “I have been accused of chiding only liberals and chiding only conservatives. Since that’s the case, it seems my attempts at being fair must not be too dismal.”
——————
Paucity has nothing to do with fairness, but it can have something to do with getting the job done.”
True, fairness is a side issue. Paucity means small in number, insufficiency or scarcity.
I was trying to say that I do speak to people. Still a paucity, I guess. I hope more people will be encouraged to speak up. There are others on RIL who do.
Allan,
You seem to have focused on the wrong part of my response. You focused here:
““I hope that is not the case. Professor Turley has important things to say about civil liberties and Constitutional law. “
What he says is absolutely significant. The next few lines, however, indeed, the rest of what I said, was the main focus of my response–regarding how people respond to his most excellent contributions:
“How people on here wrestle with what he says can be an important element to how people in the wider world wrestle with the ideas.
Different, well-considered perspectives can add to people’s greater understanding of the sides of an issue. If a person is living in an echo chamber (be it one on the left or the right), they could gain reasoned perspectives from other viewpoints, and thus gain a more well-rounded view themselves, or, at least develop their own arguments to a greater extent. Arguments cannot really be sound without having a fair understanding of steel-manned opposing arguments. Arguments ought to be aimed at truth not ideology.”
That is the part I hope is not insignificant.
Does that clarify things? I hope I have accurately understood your response below:
“Prairie, try reviewing what was said in the response (I’ve seen that problem before). That response dealt with the comments being made on the blog and a prior response differentiated Turley’s excellent contributions from the blog comments.”
Prairie to make things clear you said: “This is not an ‘insignificant comment section” You can say a lot of things about the comment section, but “what is ***actually said*** here is insignificant.” {referring to the comment section.}
Allan,
““what is ***actually said*** here is insignificant.” {referring to the comment section.}”
I disagree. There are very insightful, knowledgeable, and wise comments on here. Who knows how these comments positively affect the thinking of those who read them. Many more people read the blog than comment. Each comment by itself may not rise to the level of John Jay, Cicero, Bastiat, or Thomas Paine, but the aggregate of thoughtful “insignificant” comments on here helps give voice to the wider concepts of the great writers.
“I disagree. There are very insightful, knowledgeable, and wise comments on here.”
Prairie, aside from the blog itself, written by Turley we have a difference of opinion despite the fact that some very smart people post.
Things like insightful and complacent are all in the eyes of the beholder. To me, despite some very intelligent people commenting, the comment section is insignificant to the world we live in. You are free to feel differently.
Allan,
“Allan: “What you are saying is that you will judge whether you are complacent or not based on how you feel instead of the reality of the world where tangible events occur.”
Prairie, you disagree with my opinion and that is fine but that is how it appears to me. I’m not blaming you for anything. I am just making a point.”
How things appear does not necessarily reflect reality.
Allan,
“Prairie my system is still not working the way it should and might be that way for days. The chances are that I am missing some emails or they are coming in late. If something of significance in our discussions is missed, please let me know.”
I am sorry you are having troubles with your system. That is frustrating.
Should I tease you saying by saying, ‘Ah-ha! So there might be something significant said in this comment section!’ 😉
Allan,
“Prairie Rose: “That is not what I advocate. Both questions need to be looked at together. My thoughts were toward redirecting the herd. Antagonizing them is going to get them to focus on you rather than get them to focus on the thing you’d rather they focus on.”
“Allan: People are afraid of confrontation so some use that fear to push their way around. That is how mobs act and I challenge you to redirect a mob or a herd. Try being polite to them and show them the manual of politeness and you might find yourself missing a head. It’s best to leave the immediate situation but it is not good to let it fester like they did in Nazi Germany.”
That’s why speaking to individuals civilly on this blog is important. Perhaps that individual discussion will help prevent them from becoming part of a mob.
“I challenge you to redirect a mob or a herd.”
I have a story about some aggressive, mob-like thinkers whose actions did not instigate a fight…. I did not speak to the mob-like thinkers to effect change.
I was lucky it was not a real mob, but it was scary enough. I agree it is not good to let bitter and resentful thoughts fester.
“On this blog with a few people it is a bit different. They are like [abscesses] and can even be infectious. Two ways to treat an [abscess]. 1) Put a bandaid on it and maybe down the road gangrene will take care of it or 2) Cut it open and drain it. The pus is not pleasant but better than leaving it fester. The former is being nice and sweet. The latter is somewhat painful and a child might call it mean.”
The former is not being nice and sweet. The former is not wanting to look at it or truly deal with the problem.
“Cut it open and drain it. The pus is not pleasant but better than leaving it fester.”
This is having a real conversation, even when it is difficult and full of volatile emotions. Yes, it is painful to deal with problems, too often because we must look to our own failings and our own participation in the development of the festering wound.
Good parents raise their children to see that it is better to face problems and deal with them, even if it is painful and difficult. The book There’s No Such Thing As A Dragon is a great metaphor on this issue. Jordan Peterson has a wonderful discussion on the book and the need to ‘slay your dragons’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REjUkEj1O_0
“I am returning terms that my group has been accused of such as bigotry, racism, deplorables etc.”
Which can be done civilly. Noting where you observe racism, bigotry, etc is important for a society that aims to treat people fairly and justly. It can be done directly, which may or may not be effective, or, it can be done indirectly, via questions or other tactics.
I am a bit concerned about the phrase ‘my group’ you used above. Seems like you are playing into the identity politics business that is so detrimental right now.
Allan,
Unless you are just very busy and have not been able to respond to some posts, I think there may be a few that are not coming through to you via email. You may have to go to the blog and scroll through the posts to find them. Sorry about your system crashing.
————————-
“Things like insightful and complacent are all in the eyes of the beholder. To me, despite some very intelligent people commenting, the comment section is insignificant to the world we live in.”
I think I see where you’re going with this. I still assert that the comments are not insignificant. Without thoughtful discussion, action in the world will be disjointed and potentially detrimental (the best answers can be found through debate and discussion). The discussion on here can be the precursor to conversation and action in the world–conversations at school boards, city councils, churches or other charitable organizations, with county, state, and national representatives, etc.
Yet, I agree that people cannot figure that they have voiced their opinions online and stop there. If they do, then that is being complacent. Action and engagement in the world is necessary, too. Such things take time, and, in some ways, courage. It is intimidating sometimes to engage with people face-to-face. It is better than complaining, stuck in the same old rut, cursing the darkness.
“I still assert that the comments are not insignificant.””
Prairie if everything is significant then nothing is insignificant and we are unable to differentiate from the mass of things that are written. It may be personally significant but has no real impact on the world.
Allan,
““I still assert that the comments are not insignificant.””
Prairie if everything is significant then nothing is insignificant and we are unable to differentiate from the mass of things that are written. It may be personally significant but has no real impact on the world.”
I did not say everything is significant; I focused on the best ones.
“Each comment by itself may not rise to the level of John Jay, Cicero, Bastiat, or Thomas Paine, but the aggregate of thoughtful “insignificant” comments on here helps give voice to the wider concepts of the great writers.”
These comments play a role in a part of the wider, national conversation. Many people may not be comfortable discussing fraught topics face to face. Some may be looking for different points of view on a topic (I hope, anyway). Many may not be familiar with the great thinkers whose writings undergird Western culture. Here, they can ‘eavesdrop’ on conversations that include such valuable tidbits, perhaps leading them to seek out more. For example, while I had heard of Bastiat, I was unfamiliar with anything he had written–I can thank Olly for that introduction. Olly and others write with good sense, which has developed my own thinking on various topics.
Of course not everything is equally significant. If everything is significant and has all the same value then it becomes a gray fog without distinctions. The most thoughtful comments are like single pixels, adding to the larger picture.
““Each comment by itself may not rise to the level of John Jay, Cicero, Bastiat, …”
Prairie, the aggregate of comments do not rise to the level of Jay, Cicero or Bastiat. The aggregate falls far short and will be buried and never retrieved except by the person who might have learned a tid bit or two.. Significance is in the eye of the beholder though any one person might learn something. Whether that something be right or wrong is the question.
Olly taught you about Bastiat. That is good but if someone were to ask you about “The Law” what would you say? Significant comment comes from reading and truly understanding that work by Bastiat. r
Allan,
“Sometimes the problem is that the individuals being dealt with are of very low intelligence and they are threatened by people with normal intelligence”
I don’t think it is a matter of intelligence. Feeling threatened by such things is likely to have more to do with pridefulness or a sense of some kind of superiority. You could say that isn’t a very intelligent way to respond, but it has little to do with IQ. It is an issue with a sense of self, I think.
Allan,
“3 million compared to almost 8 billion people and I would guess that most agreed with Peterson before listening to him. I like him but Peterson’s present popularity doesn’t mean we are moving forward.”
3 million copies worldwide is an indicator that many, many people are aiming up. That doesn’t mean it won’t require concentrated effort to oppose the nihilists and other anti-individualist and anti-liberty people.
To look at the whole world in its entirety and say 3 million is too small in comparison is unfair. Many, many people in the whole world do not even have running water, yet, here in the United States, we have water parks in the desert. There has been forward movement. When the Enlightenment was in motion, many people, even in England, could not even read, yet massive intellectual progress was occurring, and gaining momentum, nonetheless.
This new awakening needs to be nurtured and encouraged for sure. Which is why civil discourse and all its attendant strong arguments needs to be at the forefront.
Prairie, everything depends on what your claim is. You claimed that the 3 million persons reading Peterson demonstrated that we were moving forward. You only provided a single data point so that doesn’t demonstrate any movement one way or the other. That is why I brought up the almost 8 billion and put the 3 million in perspective.
Do you know what demostrates that we are moving forward? Donald Trump who has been breaking all the rules. He just killed Soleimani and the Iranians returned fire by warning that the return fire was on its way and by missing the presumed target. To me and many others that has lessened the chance of war. It has singed Iran’s cloak of power, it may help reduce terrorism, it impacts Kim of N. Korea, it tells the leaders of China that their continous provacative actions may not be tolerated any longer. …And what is the big complaint from the left about Trump? He is rude and doesn’t follow their rule book.
Allan,
“It may be personally significant but has no real impact on the world.”
I disagree. A personally significant comment can effect change in a person such that then their actions can effect change in the world. If that personally significant comment effects positive change, so much the better. Depending on the comments, it can effect negative change, too. They should be treated with wisdom and care.
“Speech has power. Words do not fade. What starts out as a sound, ends in a deed.” ~Abraham Joshua Herschel
Allan,
“Prairie, the aggregate of comments do not rise to the level of Jay, Cicero or Bastiat. The aggregate falls far short and will be buried and never retrieved except by the person who might have learned a tid bit or two..”
I agree, tis true. But that’s okay. The aggregate of good, effective comments get people considering the ideas at all. It is a starting point for exploration.
“Whether that something be right or wrong is the question.”
Yes, very much so. Which is why thoughtful, civil discourse by liberty-minded folks should be emphasized.
“Olly taught you about Bastiat. That is good but if someone were to ask you about “The Law” what would you say?
Unfortunately, not much…yet. Ignorance can be fixed.
“Significant comment comes from reading and truly understanding that work by Bastiat.”
Which is why Olly is a great person to be sharing Bastiat’s works.
Allan,
“Prairie, everything depends on what your claim is. You claimed that the 3 million persons reading Peterson demonstrated that we were moving forward. You only provided a single data point so that doesn’t demonstrate any movement one way or the other. That is why I brought up the almost 8 billion and put the 3 million in perspective.”
Peterson has also been interviewed by Joe Rogan like 6 times; most of them got over 6 million views each.
I just heard another interview on Dave Rubin’s show in which another lifelong Democrat realized he could no longer call himself a Democrat.
I also brought up Dennis Prager’s surprise at The Rational Bible being a best-seller.
“Do you know what demostrates that we are moving forward? Donald Trump who has been breaking all the rules. …And what is the big complaint from the left about Trump? He is rude and doesn’t follow their rule book.”
I have brought up that most of what we see seems to be a distraction while other change seems to be happening quietly without much fanfare.
PR:
True about Petersen but I always sense a geyser is rushing up when he confronts stupid. He’s could about keeping it in check.
Mespo,
Oh, yes, he was definitely livid in that interview. It was impressive how he kept his cool and remained civil.
Praire Pollyanna Rose,
I have responded to the “Painful Uglinees” of a few people here with “character and integjty”.
Don’t expect me to be “nice” about those responses as well.
Maybe the anonymous person at 11:19 PM has been drinking…
Anonymous at 11:28,
“Maybe” you have been smoking crack.
Or, maybe it’s just your nature to surface every now and then to say nothing, except for proving that you are a prize pri**.
If that is your goal, you are succeeding.
“…except for proving that you are a prize pri**.”
Nope. That prize is apparently all yours “Anonymous” at 11:44 PM. Thanks for playing. You’re the winner.
Anonymous at 1:01 A.M.,
There is a pattern that you repeat here.
You slither unto this blog from time to time, say nothing save for some bitchy little remark, then when you are called on it, come back with something like “oh yeah, well you too”.
You could consistently prove that you are an unimaginative, bitchy nuisance.
Prairie, these characters are not discussing policy. If they were we would have civil conversations as disagreement doesn’t mean hostility. One has to carefully evaluate what people say. We have a whole slew of anonymous characters who don’t care about the confusion they create by not using one name. We have those that have been insulting liars over and over again that maintain generic names like Anonymous the Stupid and The Brainless Wonder Fido. We have those that have done the same as the preceding but have changed their identities over and over again like Jan F. who became Anon and Anon1 and now bythebook. There are others that just continuously change their name like the Shill, Peter Hill. There is no reason to be polite to persons of this nature and because of the name changes sometimes the hostility is diverted accidently to the wrong person creating even more hostility. Remember, the number of people engaged in any sort of discussion good or bad is very limited and made up mostly of a very small number where the mass of names belong to only a couple of people.
If you wish to be nice to trash that is fine with me but I see no reason to since they only care about themselves and have no concern for the blog or anyone else on it. They refuse to let it function in the way intended.
AllanSpeak:
https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-2/#comment-1905951
“Allan says:December 17, 2019 at 5:06 PM
What a fool… You lied then and you lie now. You can’t even admit you were wrong. Some would say you are garbage. Garbage can be recycled. You can’t.”
Allan uses this kind of divisive language a lot, on this blog, but he’s rarely called on it.”
But it’s okay, in Allan’s mind, because it’s directed at Peter S.
Allan,
“If they were we would have civil conversations as disagreement doesn’t mean hostility.”
I have had civil conversations with several such commenters, even on things not ‘policy’. We have definitely disagreed, and have even ended conversations agreeing to disagree and maybe not even moving the dial. Ah, well.
“We have a whole slew of anonymous characters who don’t care about the confusion they create by not using one name.”
Yeah, that is frustrating.
“There is no reason to be polite to persons of this nature and because of the name changes sometimes the hostility is diverted accidently to the wrong person creating even more hostility.”
Why no reason? They are people, too. And, I guess I don’t see how being impolite furthers the conversation or improves the situation. I’d rather not entrench defensiveness or disagreement; that makes solving problems all the harder. I try to to give people the benefit of the doubt and to meet them where they are.
I am terribly worried what not only the divisiveness and hostility are doing to us as a nation, but also the consequent lack of communication is doing. A republic is dependent not only on a moral people but on effective communication.
“I have had civil conversations …”
Prairie, I have had civil conversations with some that I disagree with as well. What does that mean? It means that some are better than others. Look at the Karen/ Anon discussions.
“Why no reason? They are people, too.”
So?
” I guess I don’t see how being impolite furthers the conversation or improves the situation.”
I guess the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were impolite when they picked up weapons. I don’t believe that is what you mean.
” I try to to give people the benefit of the doubt and to meet them where they are.”
Virtually every first conversation I have had with individuals on this list was polite. That didn’t help and when I copied the conversation demonstrating where the hostility arised from that didn’t help either. Nor did the name changes. Not everyone is here to have a real discussion. The leftist movement wasn’t created out of politeness. It was created out of death and destruction.
I believe the ends don’t justify the means especially when the ends are dreams that some people have and only are directed towards their power.
Allan,
“I guess the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were impolite when they picked up weapons. I don’t believe that is what you mean.”
No, that is not what I mean at all. They have a right to defend their lives; what they did was righteous. Martin Niemoller had something to say about speaking up for what is right.
“I believe the ends don’t justify the means especially when the ends are dreams that some people have and only are directed towards their power.”
We are in agreement. I believe sustained civil discourse by many will win the day for what is right in the long run. We need many more people standing up with ‘good speech’ as that is the antidote to bad speech and bad arguments and bad ideas.
About the Warsaw Ghetto Prairie writes: “No, that is not what I mean at all. They have a right to defend their lives; what they did was righteous.”
Defense of ones life is righteous. What about the defense of one’s integrity? The mindless and stupid call those on the right deplorables, racists and a whole host of other things. Do those not on the left have the right to think differently? Should the mindless and the stupid control the dialogue?
Take note, the mindless and the stupid now control much of the dialogue in our two major newspapers. No, the people working for the Times aren’t stupid but they are responding to a mass of mindless and stupid people. That is in part how the Times has degenerated since the passing of Abe Rosenthal. His gravestone said “He kept the record straight”.
“We are in agreement”
Of course we are in agreement. We just have different styles based on our histories. I was taught not in the school but by reality. Therefore I have two basic modes of dialogue, civil and another mode for the mindless and stupid. Of course if the mindless and stupid decide to accept civility so will I but that means they have to give up on their insults and give up the walls of lies they cannot defend.
Allan,
I will do my best to answer all your posts as thoroughly as I can. I have been burning the candle at both ends lately and it is starting to catch up with me. If I do not answer fully tonight, I will continue tomorrow as time allows.
“What about the defense of one’s integrity?”
I have had to defend my integrity. In order to defend my integrity, I must do so with integrity, meaning, I must stick to the facts of the matter, remain in control, not cause distractions with name-calling, and stand my ground rather than stoop to their level. I will also consider the source. I name their actions but not them.
“Do those not on the left have the right to think differently?”
Of course.
“Should the mindless and the stupid control the dialogue?”
They do not control it as much as they think they do; otherwise, would Trump have been elected?
To be fair, however, I do think propaganda and other elements of manipulative persuasion has worked regularly on the population over the years. People are catching on and they are ticked about it. It is not the role of the government to steer public opinion; it is intended to be the other way around.
“No, the people working for the Times aren’t stupid but they are responding to a mass of mindless and stupid people.”
There may be some of that, but I think it mostly comes down to ideological-possession, which can change or at least dissipate. I do not think people are stupid. Foolish, misguided, ignorant, sometimes willfully so, but even that can sometimes change.
“Of course if the mindless and stupid decide to accept civility so will I but that means they have to give up on their insults and give up the walls of lies they cannot defend.”
Who goes first? Sounds like a recipe for endless battles.
I’d rather not go-round that way.
Prairie, this is a discussion list. The mindless are continuous in their insults declaring those not in agreement with them racists and deplorables. There is nothing wrong with responding in kind. Civil discussion with these creatures has gotten nowhere. They only understand their own language.
You bring up the President. We have watched conservatives turn over the floor to the opposition again and again. Trump has stood his ground and been criticized for it. But the result of the lack of backbone in conservatives has led to you having to home-school your children. Things are reversing slightly with this President as he stands up and responds with the words masses of people understand. The Never Trumper’s hate it but the general voter who has been mistreated understands. They like their jobs. That is why the left has been losing the battle for the past 3 years. Even the Republican Party is beginning to show a backbone.
Who goes first is your question. A better question is who goes last. The attacks by the left in general have occurred while the right has been sleeping. Today conservatives have difficulty speaking on college campuses and require security when they do. Do you want them to disarm first so they disappear?
Yes “endless battles” are what we get until there is a decided victor. I would rather win than be polite. I would rather your children be able to be educated, in a public school, if you wish, than be polite. What is it you want?
Allan,
“They only understand their own language.”
What is your goal?
“Do you want them to disarm first so they disappear?”
Why do they have to disarm? What do you mean by ‘disarm’?
“I would rather win than be polite.”
To what end?
Dennis Prager would emphasize that there should be clarity over agreement.
“I would rather your children be able to be educated, in a public school, if you wish, than be polite.”
As I have said prior, two of my children are being educated in public school and the other two will be eventually. While the district has improvements that could be made, that is my responsibility as well, as a citizen of my local community to have a voice in it. It is my school district; how I support and encourage and defend education in it is part of my responsibilities as a citizen, and it isn’t just because my children are in school at this time. It is a community responsibility, whether or not you have children.
“What is your goal?”
To communicate and explore people that are impolite and violent.
“Why do they have to disarm?”
Who are you referring to, leftists or everyone else? Though you haven’t responded to one example of many, Andy Ngo, I will keep mentioning him. He was disarmed. The ones that almost killed him were not. The police that are supposed to prevent violence let it happen.
“Dennis Prager would emphasize that there should be clarity over agreement.”
Of course. I like Dennis Prager and have met him and listened to him. I met his son as well, very well mannered. He is a tremendous national asset where many of his youtube videos are banned on Google. I think he was prevented from advertising on Spotify one of the largest music streaming networks.
“It is my school district; how I support and encourage and defend education in it is part of my responsibilities as a citizen, and it isn’t just because my children are in school at this time. It is a community responsibility, whether or not you have children.”
The left has taken over many school districts and they don’t like what you teach your children at home. You should see what happens in certain areas when a person gets up to speak and simply states the Pledge of Allegiance.
Allan,
““What is your goal?”
To communicate and explore people that are impolite and violent.”
What do you mean “communicate people that are impolite and violent”?
What do you mean by ‘explore people that are impolite and violent”?
““Why do they have to disarm?”
Who are you referring to, leftists or everyone else?”
The statement that originally prompted my question:
“Today conservatives have difficulty speaking on college campuses and require security when they do. Do you want them to disarm first so they disappear?”
I thought you were referring to conservative speakers, and, if they disarmed, the consequences would be that they’d disappear. To whom were you referring?
“What do you mean “communicate people that are impolite and violent”?”
Prairie, I am not quite sure of what you are looking for. My answer was self explanatory. You seem to be straying far from the discussion.
My concerns here lay with the loss of freedom of speech, PC and the violence that is associated with leftism.
“I do not want to ‘win’, I want to solve problems. Winning does not equal solving problems.”
To be blunt, I haven’t seen you solve any problems.
Prairie, keep your perspective. This is nothing more than a blog. Start thinking about those whose environment is different than yours. Think in terms of the Andy Ngo’s, people who can’t stop their children from being indoctrinated, and others that have faced adversity caused by the left.
Allan,
“Yes “endless battles” are what we get until there is a decided victor. I would rather win than be polite …What is it you want?”
I do not want to ‘win’, I want to solve problems. Winning does not equal solving problems.
In order to preserve relationships, in some kinds of battles there should not be ‘decided victors’. That pushes dissent underground, creates resentment and bitterness and destroys communications and leads to worse and greater conflict later.
Communities, at all levels, depend upon sufficient healthy relationships and effective civil communication.
I believe being part of a community can constitute an ‘intimate relationship’ because of the complexity of intertwined problems we all share, and, the numbers of people involved.
Some perspectives on handling conflicts in relationships:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThKZ67qPcBE
(the full Jocko Willink interview is excellent)
Allan,
“To communicate and explore people that are impolite and violent.””
“Prairie, I am not quite sure of what you are looking for. My answer was self explanatory. You seem to be straying far from the discussion.”
I do not mean to be difficult; I simply didn’t understand the phrasing. I am not sure what you mean.
Do you mean ‘To communicate /with/ people who are impolite and violent’, or, are you, by your interactions ‘communicating’ them? And, ‘to explore people who are impolite and violent’ do you mean, essentially, what their triggers are, their motivations? A revelatory engagement?
“I do not mean to be difficult; I simply didn’t understand the phrasing. “
Prairie part of that may be due to the intrinsic problems of written communication in this type of setup where there is a lot of shorthand that makes one only choose to respond to small portions of what is being said along with the fact that the answer to your very specific question is multifactorial and has been responded to in many different postings.
I wrote earlier:
“Defense of ones life is righteous. What about the defense of one’s integrity? The mindless and stupid call those on the right deplorables, racists and a whole host of other things. Do those not on the left have the right to think differently? Should the mindless and the stupid control the dialogue?”
I didn’t hear an answer but I did hear about the Warsaw Ghetto “They have a right to defend their lives; what they did was righteous.” even if it involved violence and killing. Why do you find responding to these mindless people in their own language before they kill others so offensive yet when they kill you consider that honorable? This perplexes me.
Allan,
““I do not want to ‘win’, I want to solve problems. Winning does not equal solving problems.”
To be blunt, I haven’t seen you solve any problems.”
Problems, especially the ones plaguing the nation, are thorny and complicated enough that steps toward paring them down to size can take decades. Plessy vs Ferguson was in 1896; Brown vs the Board of Education was in 1954. That’s almost 60 years of wrangling over equal education opportunities. It is still, in some ways, a work in progress.
How effectively and respectfully conversation is conducted is one small element in the tone of the wider conversation.
If all I do is leave a few people open to discussing (or even slightly more open to discussing) difficult topics civilly with those across the partisan divide, that is success. If there is one small thing they hadn’t considered or heard about that they now are, then that, too, is a small success and a walk in the right direction.
“Prairie, keep your perspective. This is nothing more than a blog.”
It is part of the wider national conversation. What we say here matters. What we say and how we say it with other members of our communities matters.
“Start thinking about those whose environment is different than yours. Think in terms of the Andy Ngo’s, people who can’t stop their children from being indoctrinated, and others that have faced adversity caused by the left.”
I am trying to. I have a responsibility to speak out against injustice. My response is to have better speech, if I can manage it.
To be blunt, I haven’t seen you solve any problems.
Prairie Rose,
Perhaps not so much a problem, but you’ve managed to distract Allan from engaging with his Anonymous antagonist for a little over a week. So there’s that. 🙂
I hope you had a very Merry Christmas and I pray you and your family are blessed in the new year.
“Perhaps not so much a problem, but you’ve managed to distract Allan from engaging with his Anonymous antagonist for a little over a week. So there’s that. 🙂”
Olly, I prefer talking to people like Prairie than to discuss things with the mindless and the stupid. Prairie is a breath of fresh air.
Well may God bless us with her continued participation on Res ipsa loquitur.
“Problems, especially the ones plaguing the nation, are thorny”
Yes, they are and the problems haven’t gotten better rather they have gotten worse even when that one person walks away with “one small thing they hadn’t considered”.
Prairie, did you ever notice how most on the right disagree with the ideas of the left, not the person? That is not true with the left. They hate those with ideas that are different from their own and that is why they call people on the right deplorables and racists. We have a bunch of those people on this blog.
I have not seen your method change the minds of those that hate so much. Many of them are violent or get vicarious pleasure when they watch others of their ilk be violent. (We are not talking about the run of the mill Democrat or the run of the mill person of any party.) There is only so long that this game can be played. Right now we are seeing Andy Ngo’s more and more. This is not good for the nation.
“What we say here matters. “
Only if some of the haters are forced to look in a mirror and see what they look like.
“I am trying to. I have a responsibility to speak out against injustice. My response is to have better speech, if I can manage it.”
Despite the fact that things have gotten worse over the decades no one is telling you that your behavior is wrong. It might be as the nation sinks but no one is dictating to you how you should respond. Some feel and act in many different ways based on the place, the time and the person.
Allan,
I did respond to: ““Defense of ones life is righteous. What about the defense of one’s integrity? The mindless and stupid call those on the right deplorables, racists and a whole host of other things. Do those not on the left have the right to think differently? Should the mindless and the stupid control the dialogue?”
I didn’t hear an answer”
My response was here: https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/17/schiff-under-fire-for-denying-any-knowledge-of-fbi-abuses/comment-page-1/#comment-1906804
“but I did hear about the Warsaw Ghetto “They have a right to defend their lives; what they did was righteous.” even if it involved violence and killing. Why do you find responding to these mindless people in their own language before they kill others so offensive yet when they kill you consider that honorable? This perplexes me.”
That is a serious misunderstanding of what I wrote and to whom I attributed righteous participatiion in honorable violence.
The two situations are so far afields from another that they cannot be compared.
“Why do you find responding to these mindless people in their own language before they kill others so offensive”
‘Before they kill others’–how is speaking rudely to people going to redirect them from violence? They can more easily dehumanize their opponents, thus lowering the bar for committing violence.
“yet when they kill you consider that honorable?”
Who is the ‘they’ to which you refer?
The Jews suffering and dying in the Warsaw Ghetto were failed on multiple levels and were being targeted and killed viciously by horrible people. They have a right to defend their lives. The terrible tragedy of Nazi Germany had escalated beyond the reach of civil discourse, debate and refutations. Sometimes there is no other recourse than battle. It had gotten to the point there was no one left to speak up.
We are not at that point.
“I did respond to:”
You didn’t answer the question. Instead you stated your modus operandi which is fine but doesn’t seem to work in all situations. You are willing to kill another but not insult those same people before they become part of a mob that kills. Think Andy Ngo.
“The two situations are so far afields from another that they cannot be compared.”
There is not so much distance between the two methods of acting and we see a progression from one point to another. You cannot separate the two because it makes it convenient for you.
“how is speaking rudely to people going to redirect them from violence?”
Sometimes we lock the crazies up before they kill people or we help them look into a mirror. Look around at suicide bombers and tell me now they should be handled. Look at children that are being brought up to be suicide bombers and tell me how they should be handled.
I am not advocating rudeness in most situations but we already know that your methods haven’t worked sufficiently for if they had we would have no more terrorists. We are on a blog where some are mindless and stupid. Your words of wisdom have not changed the dynamics. The blog comments are near meaningless with regard to discussion. Let the mindless and stupid look in a mirror.
“We are not at that point.” (loss of civil order)
You are right, the nation as a whole is not at that point but areas of the nation are. If things were otherwise the police would have stepped in in the Andy Ngo matter which they didn’t and afterwards when he was badly injured they would have immediately assisted in getting him to the hospital. Do you wish to insist that we haven’t been at that point in certain localized areas?
Olly,
“Prairie Rose,
Perhaps not so much a problem, but you’ve managed to distract Allan from engaging with his Anonymous antagonist for a little over a week. So there’s that. 🙂
I hope you had a very Merry Christmas and I pray you and your family are blessed in the new year.”
lol Thank you for the pick-me-up. 🙂 You are very kind. I hope you and your family also had a very Merry Christmas. Blessings to you as well in the new year.
Allan and Olly,
Thank you for the kind words. I enjoy talking with the two of you, too. Real conversations are so much more enjoyable and productive!
” I enjoy talking with the two of you”
Prairie, I enjoy talking to sensible and intelligent people like you. Our ideas are not that far apart.
“Civil discourse is beneficial. “
Prairie of course civil discourse is beneficial but as you say it might not be sufficient. That is when one tries to think of other ideas. The police stood down. That was an illegal act that for the most part wasn’t punished. Why? This involves elected officials that we ’the people’ vote for including the mindless and stupid.
“I do not want anyone else to drift to the edges.”
I think you are late to the party.
” I am more concerned about the run of the mill people, who far outnumber the violent outliers in the world.”
They may outnumber them but they voted to support the authorities that stood down. That is the point you don’t seem to get.
“I have missed them in the news. I am sorry I am not better informed. Do you have links?”
One cannot rely on the MSM or TV. There is spin on both sides so one has to be careful of how one interprets what one reads. But you know law and order is breaking down. Read the Horowitz report and you see how it broke down on the federal level. Take note how difficult it is to even remove the bad individuals from their jobs or even take their security level away from them. Durham will demonstrate more wrong doing and perhaps a few will be prosecuted but most of the bad actors will continue with their lives essentially unchanged.
Web searches especially on Google tend to leave out conservative opinion so even searching on the web to get a fair picture is difficult.
I did a 10 second search and https://duckduckgo.com/?q=violence+created+by+leftisist&t=osx&ia=web provides a few incidents. Most are not reported or reported under the wrong label. Take note. I stopped using Google because it steers responses in political direction. I think that affects all search engines but perhaps not as much. (Take note of shadow banning by twitter and other bans on social media directed against conservatives.)
Take a listen to Project Veritas videos. The left makes all sorts of claims against Project Veritas but when taken to court regarding the content of Project Veritas it has a 100% win ration, 7 wins no losses in a row.
“What of the dictates of our consciences?”
You have your conscience and others have their own. You cannot base the actions of the world on your own experiences.
“And actions should be aimed at the good and right for every level.”
Who is to judge what actions are right and what actions are wrong?
Allan,
““Problems, especially the ones plaguing the nation, are thorny”
Yes, they are and the problems haven’t gotten better rather they have gotten worse even when that one person walks away with “one small thing they hadn’t considered”.”
The national conversation is a complex system. Civil discourse is beneficial. However, there may be more detrimental inputs or simply not enough beneficial ones to counter the problems. Civil discourse is one positive element. Yet, other couner-productive elements need to be dealt with–e.g., ending the police being told to stand down from preventing violence from Antifa.
“I have not seen your method change the minds of those that hate so much.”
I do not want anyone else to drift to the edges. Minds are very hard to change. Through conversation, I hope hard views can become somewhat tempered, sharp corners sanded. If nothing else, interactions become less strident, maybe even to not so much seek to be understood, but to understand.
“(We are not talking about the run of the mill Democrat or the run of the mill person of any party.)”
Perhaps that is where we differ. That is my focus. The radical elements are a concern, but I am more concerned about the run of the mill people, who far outnumber the violent outliers in the world.
“There is only so long that this game can be played. Right now we are seeing Andy Ngo’s more and more.”
I have missed them in the news. I am sorry I am not better informed. Do you have links?
“This is not good for the nation.”
Neither is the demeaning of others.
“What we say here matters. “
Only if some of the haters are forced to look in a mirror and see what they look like.”
Mirroring their actions doesn’t create the environment for change. It is realizing the reality of their behavior does not match their ideal.
“I am trying to. I have a responsibility to speak out against injustice. My response is to have better speech, if I can manage it.”
“Despite the fact that things have gotten worse over the decades no one is telling you that your behavior is wrong.”
Mine???
“It might be as the nation sinks but no one is dictating to you how you should respond.”
What of the dictates of our consciences?
“Some feel and act in many different ways based on the place, the time and the person.”
And actions should be aimed at the good and right for every level.
“They refuse to let it function in the way intended.”
Now that’s funny, Allan.
Yes, Anonymous the Stupid, that is how trash behaves.
Allan,
“There is no reason to be polite to persons of this nature and because of the name changes sometimes the hostility is diverted accidently to the wrong person creating even more hostility.”
“creating even more hostility.”
Yeah, that’s why I’m concerned. More hostility does not make the national conversation better, just more antagonistic.
“Yeah, that’s why I’m concerned. More hostility does not make the national conversation better, just more antagonistic.”
Prairie, you are making a very broad assumption that is not warranted. It may satisfy your feelings but that might be as far as it gets you.
Allan,
“Prairie, you are making a very broad assumption that is not warranted. ”
What assumption?
“It may satisfy your feelings but that might be as far as it gets you.”
How? Why?
Fido AKA the Brainless Wonder go to that garbage heap over there and do your business. You haven’t stopped being nasty from day one. You and Anonymous the Stupid make quite a team.
“Wallace supplied a probing and substantive interview ”
Wallace is on the left but actually has the ability to delve deep into discussions. Unfortunately he is willing to delve many layers deeper with the right even when the right has good answers. Sometimes he even gets frustrated. He does not do the same with the left. Once he delves deep enough into leftist arguments to make a slight bruise he doesn’t pursue and instead goes onto another subject.
I’ll watch him because of his talent but I keep a watchful eye on the unequal way he pursues those in the hot seat.
When you say “many voters”, Mr. Turley, you’re talking about the middle-aged white guys in basements, on the FoxNews IV drip…?
I am one of those middle aged white guys you liberals love to assail. A deplorable in good standing. I do not live or dwell in a basement and would venture a guess that I am far more educated and accomplished than you or your dim witted leftist friends. I agree with Professor Turley. By the way; please continue to insult half of those who cast votes in this country. It will insure another term for President Trump.
anonymous you’re probably not even gay. and you probably have a job. you have a lot of marks against you!
from a fellow “deplorable”
At least you had enough sense to post that stupidity in the form of a question. The answer is there are likely many voters that fit that description, as well as many that do not. What is lost on you however is that you believe you’ve insulted anyone that watches FoxNews. The fact is they’ve been correct about Schiff being a congenital liar and that the IG report proved Nunes was correct all along. The truly sad aspect of your comment is all the evidence was and is available for you to reach a completely different and rational conclusion…and you whiffed. Your future prospects for climbing out of your ignorance are not looking good.
Not at all he was referring to Citizens who do not need programming with the daily falsehoods of the left wing extremists in this particular case. Try getting a mirror tht works.
Because of Schiff, Nadler and Pelosi.plus their orbital minions, I will no longer vote for a Democrat.
I will no longer vote for a Democrat.
But are you still an agnostic?
At home we changed our party affiliations 2 weeks ago, from Dem to NPA. If we changed parties others did as well and more to come.
See you at Mass, Paul! I’ll keep a pew vacant for ya!
It seems Schiff lied. But I don’t know why he needed to. It has been apparent for a very long time that the FBI’s goal has been to find enough evidence to convict anyone they were after…anyone. If they want to surveille anyone they will find a way to do it, including fudging the FISA applications for permission to wiretap. Cops want to convict their targets. It has nothing to do with disliking Trump.
Cops want to convict their targets. It has nothing to do with disliking Trump.
LOL! Hillary Clinton approves your message.
‘It has been apparent for a very long time that the FBI’s goal has been to find enough evidence to convict anyone they were after…anyone.”
Except when they investigated Hillary – she/her campaign destroyed evidence she/they were instructed to retain by a court; she failed to comply with State Dept policies and not subjected to the penalties thereto; she falsely claimed no classified info on her server; etc., etc.
And monkeys may fly out my butt.
Comey himself stated that his wife and four daughters attended the I Hate Trump rally the day after Trump’s inauguration, and that Comey’s entire family are all rabid Hillary supporters. And RD would have us believe the above has and had zero effect on Comey’s legal actions and inactions.
Comey’s intent does not matter one god-forsaken bit. The FBI destroyed Carter Page’s life because they could, and posters like RD want only to cover the FBI so those who did the deed can get away with it.
The FBI’s intent or lack of intent is irrelevant you stupid twat. “Officer, I did not MEAN to go 75mph in 35mph zone. I meant to go the speed limit!!! Why don’t I get CREDIT FOR MY GOOD INTENT YOU MEAN POWICE MAN???”
And the MSM will walk quietly away!!
I don’t think so. why does Fox the sole occupant of the main stream media for sometime need to be worried.
Did you mean the former mainstream media which for sometime has moved of their own volition to the extreme far left and is now known far and wide as the left or lame stream media?
And this is the Democrat’s best choice for chair of the House Intelligence Committee? Putin couldn’t have put a better mole in our government capable of undermining our electoral process.
Well done Democrats!
I’m…. Kind of at a loss. That Shift lied was fairly easy to tell very early on, and he’s a serial liar (anyone else remember his constant statements regarding Russian collusion?), but it’s unusual for a politician as polished as Schiff to get slapped so hard with reality.
Did he think the media would be more effective at covering up for him? Did he think the IG would quash the findings? Did he think that it wouldn’t get this far? Or was it all a very hand to mouth, what-serves-me-today-mentality that he always knew, deep down, that he’d have to pay?
Shiff, not Shift… Damn autocorrect. But heh.
He probably subscribes to the Harry Reid theory – “it worked, didn’t it?”, when asked about his lies on the Senate floor concerning Romney’s taxes.
Finally, an educated democrat having to admit the obfuscations and moral deficiencies of the DNC. Breathtaking but a must read to know just how deep the rot goes at the DNC.
Rep. Schiff is a known liar; worse, he is a vindictive and malevolent liar.
Schiff comes off effeminate to me. Same for his mannerisms and speaking style. Think he’s a cross-dresser?
just a wimp
mespo’s true colors are shining through, yet again
Anonymous:
What color is honest?