Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 122 (566038)
06-22-2010 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Artemis Entreri
06-22-2010 11:40 AM


so what do you think?
"well it links to a blog that links to a blog that links to a newa source" is total BS have you ever heard of primary sources, or is this how you do your research?
The first link sources pollster, which takes a bunch of polls (sourced) and plots them to show a general trend. The second link is to an article that specifically addresses this presentation, notably referencing page 29 which details what they think are the notable motivators for donating to the Republican party. This was a presentation by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart. The open letter suggests conservatives should do better than Rob Bickhart's efforts.
Then it goes on to implore conservatives to 'not flip out' - with a link to Republican representatives talking about how they think 'deem and pass' is 'deceptive', 'sleight of hand' and 'unconstitutional' despite it being something Republican speakers have invoked many times previously.
Do you think Conservatives should stand by and allow their representatives to say things which are not true, over-react, appeal to fear and pursuit of power to gain money, support a policy when their representative is in executive power and then rail against it when he is not?
It is a criticism of the actions of the Republican representatives, and a call to Conservatives to
quote:
{d}rain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.
Do you think they shouldn't?
I am going to blanket and generalize, and guess that the whole article is bad journalism taking stuff from biased blogs (at least the 1st 6 paragaraphs that I have looked at are).
It wasn't a journalistic piece, it was an open-letter. The bias of the blogs is irrelevant to the sentiment of the words. He wants the Conservatives to start getting their act together, to disassociate themselves of the representatives that engage in demagoguery, hypocrisy, hyperbole and hatred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 11:40 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 41 of 122 (566048)
06-22-2010 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Blue Jay
06-22-2010 2:22 PM


Generalised Libel?
Generalizing to conservatives is just as illogical and offensive as generalizing to the Republican party, so I’m not sure what you thought you would accomplish with this.
He didn't generalise Conservatives. He wrote a letter to them, imploring they clean house. He didn't say "All Conservatives are liars, hypocrites...etc". He said "Here are some Conservatives lying, being hypocritical etc. Some of them were elected as Republican representatives. Can you guys sort this out?"
quote:
You liberals shouldn’t have extramarital affairs in the White House.
Would linking to specific examples of the above really change the fact that I’m attaching the incident to the group?
Is there anything in the article cited that is comparable to this statement?
It's libel. You liberals shouldn't libel.
Nobody should. But I don't see how saying "I think the Republican party and conservative politics has become infested with demagoguery and hypocrisy and here is my supporting evidence. Can you guys put a stop that, start criticising these people, stop voting for them etc?" is libellous. Can you point to some actual libel in the article?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Blue Jay, posted 06-22-2010 2:22 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 2:09 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 122 (566132)
06-23-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blue Jay
06-23-2010 2:09 AM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Sure, this is the message King said he wanted to convey. But, he chose to convey it by insinuating that they were all guilty together.
I know that is your position, I said I disagreed. Do you have any quotes where he insinuates they are all guilty?
People with honest, sincere motives do not present things this way.
I disagree - do you have evidence of this?
If his intention was really to implore the conservatives to kick out the riffraff, he should have written, Kick out all among you who do X.
He did.
quote:
{d}rain the swamp of the conspiracy nuts, the bald-faced liars undeterred by demonstrable facts, the overt hypocrisy and the hatred. Then offer us a calm, responsible, grownup agenda based on your values and your vision for America. We may or may not agree with your values and vision, but we'll certainly welcome you back to the American mainstream with open arms. We need you.
But, instead, he chose to write, You can’t do X."
This is a strong, direct insinuation that either (1) you, the intended audience, are doing X, and shouldn’t be;
Doesn't seem that way to me at all. Unless you think King is really trying say that all Conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex?
I don’t see how he could have expected his audience to not interpret it this way.
I'm assuming he was talking to the rational majority that disagree with all those amongst them that are doing these kinds of things (or were not aware of it).
I don’t see much in the article cited that is not comparable to this statement.
quote:
You really need to disassociate with those among you who:
assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money";
Now find one that is.
The only differences I see between King’s presentation of his statements and my presentation of my parodies is that I used the word shouldn’t when he used can’t (an accident on my part; if this is your qualm, I will gladly concede the point), and he didn’t put the word conservative in every line (though he did establish, in the salutation and opening paragraphs, that you refers to conservatives; I was constrained by the one-line structure of my parodies to explicitly define the audience each time).
Is it your opinion that they CAN do the things he listed, that some Conservatives (he claims) have done, and still:
quote:
regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people,
which is the beginning conditional clause (If you want to...then you can't...)?
He was pointing out that many influential characters and elected representatives were doing those, which was resulting in the party's stature being diminished. His English was constrained by the number of points he needed to raise and the desire to link to each on. It's a time consuming process. It's certainly not libellous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 2:09 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 1:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 122 (566233)
06-23-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Blue Jay
06-23-2010 1:49 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
How do you feel about the other half of my sentence:
Bluejay writes:
...or (2) that you, the intended audience, are liable to go and do X, unless you are warned not to.
I think it relies on reading something in the worst possible way, rather than trying to understand the point the author is actually trying to make.
I don’t think he’s actually trying to make this argument: I think he’s using a rhetorical device that makes it sound like all conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex.
This is dishonest, and, therefore, libelous.
So what you are saying is, you think his writing is sloppy and might be interpreted by some people to insinuate conservatives all have gay sex while decrying it? So what - that isn't the message he is trying to convey - as the context surrounding it amply displays.
You can make a case for libelous - but it would like the BCA's case against Simon Singh. Nonsense, relying on a single interpretation of the piece and ignoring the context the piece itself sets up.
Perhaps I've made the mistake of assuming that the device was intentional, when it could very well be accidental. This is another point that I'll glad concede.
I'd think you'd have a stronger point if he said 'you do this, you do that, you do this other thing'.
Personally, yes, it is my opinion that people can redeem themselves after making bad mistakes.
I wasn't asking about redemption. The author clearly believes the party is capable of reforming, since it is his point that it needs to be done.
If King said:
Dear criminals,
If you want society to treat you well:
You can't go around stealing things.
You can't go arout murdering people
etc
That isn't to say all criminals commit murder, for example. And the question I would be asking you in that case is - Do you think criminals can continue to commit crimes and expect society to treat them as well as people that don't?
Do you think that a group which elects people that lie, engage in hypocrisy, hyperbole etc - who spokespersons have all the traits described in the article can continue to lie, engage in hyperbole and at the same time - be seen as rational, responsbile and reasonable people?
I say you can't. So does King.
The formula is You can’t do X, with a link to a reference about somebody doing X (which I didn’t provide in my parody: but I figured everybody knew what I was talking about).
In King’s case, X is hypocrisy. In my case, X is infidelity.
And the example you gave - I'd say it was fine and not libellous. I think the last guy that was caught doing that got a severe telling off by everybody, right?
So you you might be right - if you want to be thought of as credible, you can't lie to the person you said you loved the most.
The reference is an evidence of guilt. Addressing his comments to you, the intended audience, is a grammatical and rhetorical device that associates this guilt with you, the intended audience.
They do have some responsibility - that's Kings point. He doesn't suggest all Conservatives do those things - he's reminding his audience that their representatives do (by linking them to those events) and calling for them to sort it out. It is a political group, democratic in nature: The supporters are respsonsible for their representatives. Not totally - if Conservatives joined together and called for the resignation of the representatives that did some of the terrible things pointed - they would be taking control of their party and showing their credibility as reasonable people. It was easy enough to get ACORN taken out, right?
...and was using second person while pointing them out, thereby grammatically associating the listed actions with you, the intended audience.
Not associating the actions, associating responsibility for sorting them out.
Unless he feels that you, the intended audience, are guilty of doing the listed actions or are liable to do the listed actions, or wants you, the intended audience, to think they share in the guilt; using this device is highly inappropriate.
Not necessarily. It is certainly possible, but it isn't necessarily so.
So, perhaps I should amend my position to say that, either King is being disingenuous and, therefore, libelous; or he is too insufficiently adept at oration/rhetoric to understand the message his technique conveys to his intended audience.
Maybe. Or maybe he wasn't talking to the people that go into knee-jerk interpret this guys words in the worst possible way mode. Maybe he was appealing to the reasonable elements in the party, and yes he was using the rhetorical ploy of spreading a feeling of shame. And if my representatives were acting like he has claimed the conservatives reps are...I'd be ashamed.
If the person reading it dismisses the comments as 'biased liberal slander' then that person wasn't the intended audience. If they think, 'Yeah, there are a lot of jackasses that have hijacked the Grand Old Party to be the party that appeals to base emotions to drum up support rather than rational arguments and calm elucidation of our core values.' then they were the intended audience.
Sure - he's not the perfect writer, and there are probably superior ways to communicate the ideas...but I think libellous is going a little overboard
Edited by Modulous, : It was chiropracters, not homeopaths that went after Singh - my bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 1:49 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2010 6:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 122 of 122 (566995)
06-29-2010 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Blue Jay
06-28-2010 6:13 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
If there is a sincere desire to benefit the audience, then the author needs to be held accountable for giving as much consideration to the audience’s sensitivities as he or she does to the content of the intended message.
Sure - I've not argued that King is the king of diplomacy or anything.
I’ll certainly grant that these are all feasible, but it’s difficult to make it stick ex post facto: retroactively defining the intended audience as something other than what was written on the salutation line feels a bit slippery to me.
I think, given what he said - it was already in there. He was talking to those people with whom he politically disagreed with but who he thinks should be changing the discourse of their party to something less filled with demagoguery.
Still, I think King is either extremely clumsy or extremely disingenuous in the way he presents his message.
I think clumsy is a better analysis than disingenuous, but then disingenuous has shifted meanings lately - especially in political discourse so I guess it depends on how you are defining it.
Sorry I took so long: I forgot I had even gotten involved in this topic (I guess that shows how much interest I have in it).
It's not the most exciting topic - I'd forgotten about it too until you'd replied
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2010 6:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024