Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,579 Year: 2,836/9,624 Month: 681/1,588 Week: 87/229 Day: 59/28 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 36 of 122 (566033)
06-22-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
06-21-2010 12:19 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
Hi, Taz.
Taz writes:
Artemis Entreri writes:
Broad in the sense that he indicts the entire Republican party for what only some do or have done.
And that's exactly what he didn't do. This was an open letter to conservatives, not an open letter to the republican party.
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.
-----
Taz writes:
Again, the author didn't condemn the whole republican party. He specifically pointed out specific cases.
You liberals shouldn’t have extramarital affairs in the White House.
You police officers shouldn’t beat Black people with knight sticks.
You scientists shouldn’t fake fossils of dinosaur-bird intermediates.
You lawyers shouldn’t lie to help guilty men go free.
Would linking to specific examples of the above really change the fact that I’m attaching the incident to the group?
It's libel. You liberals shouldn't libel.
Edited by Bluejay, : Minor grammatical adjustments.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 06-21-2010 12:19 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 06-22-2010 2:25 PM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 4:02 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 46 of 122 (566094)
06-23-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
06-22-2010 2:25 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
Hi, Taq.
Taq writes:
If you can show that those things really happened then it isn't libel.
It's not the fact that he is presenting the information that I object to.
It's the fact that he is presenting it as if it's conservative Americans, and not, e.g., George Rekers, who are guilty of it.
That most assuredly is libel.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 06-22-2010 2:25 PM Taq has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 47 of 122 (566098)
06-23-2010 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
06-22-2010 4:02 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
He said "Here are some Conservatives lying, being hypocritical etc. Some of them were elected as Republican representatives. Can you guys sort this out?"
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.
People with honest, sincere motives do not present things this way. 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.
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; or (2) that you, the intended audience, are liable to go and do X, unless you are warned not to.
I don’t see how he could have expected his audience to not interpret it this way. This is not the way honest, sincere people present information of great importance for the betterment of their intended audience: it’s the way sensationalists present information to belittle, smear or get a rise out of their intended audience.
-----
Modulous writes:
Bluejay writes:
You liberals shouldn’t have extramarital affairs in the White House.
Is there anything in the article cited that is comparable to this statement?
I don’t see much in the article cited that is not comparable to this statement.
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).
Other than those two points, I don't think my parodies were inaccurate at all.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 4:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 7:20 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 122 (566192)
06-23-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
06-23-2010 7:20 AM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
Bluejay writes:
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.
It does to me.
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.
...?
-----
Modulous writes:
Unless you think King is really trying say that all Conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex?
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.
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.
-----
Modulous writes:
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...)?
Personally, yes, it is my opinion that people can redeem themselves after making bad mistakes.
But, were you actually asking for my personal opinion? Or were you asking for my analysis of Russell King’s position?
King’s position seems to also be that redemption is possible.
-----
Modulous writes:
Bluejay writes:
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.
First of all, I did say much," and I did so intentionally.
Second of all, here is an example that is parallel in form to most of the comments in Russell King’s letter:
quote:
You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.
My statement for comparison:
quote:
You can’t have extramarital affairs, especially in the White House.
(I’ve taken the liberty of making the edits I pointed out in my last post.)
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.
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.
Again, whether or not he intended it thus, he had to have known that this is how the intended audience was going to read it. If his motives were sincere, then he failed in his responsibility to communicate his sincerity, and instead communicated an accusation.
-----
Modulous writes:
He was pointing out that many influential characters and elected representatives were doing those...
...and was using second person while pointing them out, thereby grammatically associating the listed actions with you, the intended audience.
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.
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.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 7:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 4:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 121 of 122 (566937)
06-28-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
06-23-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Hi, Modulous.
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).
Modulous writes:
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.
Sometimes I think you're too robotic about these sorts of topics. From the perspective of the audience, if everybody read the way you do, politics would be a lot more civil. But, I feel like this is a subject matter in which holding the audience accountable for forgiving insensitivity is not reasonable.
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.
King appears to have not done this, or to have done this and judged the sensitivities of his audience unimportant. He paid great attention to the content of his letter, but his presentation is too pointed, too incautious, and lacks sympathy or sensitivity.
I just don’t see how he can expect this to be seen as legitimately sincere by anybody who doesn’t already agree with him or who isn’t Modulous.
-----
Modulous writes:
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...
...If the person reading it dismisses the comments as 'biased liberal slander' then that person wasn't the intended audience.
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.
-----
Modulous writes:
...but I think libelous is going a little overboard.
I've noticed that I tend to use the word more than other people do.
I have a strong distaste for stepping on toes. When I’m sincere about something, I try to be as sensitive as I can. So, when other people try to make a sincere point in a less sensitive way, they come off as fake and, thus, dishonest. Maybe I’m a little too sensitive.
Still, I think King is either extremely clumsy or extremely disingenuous in the way he presents his message.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 4:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 6:23 AM 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