Letters to the Editor
talesofunrest
Published Letters: 172
-
@gc_wall
[Read the article: The Chicago Tribune vs. Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The concept you are looking for is ‘rational fascism,’ an idea developed by Michael Parenti in a number of works- try “Democracy for the Few”.
-
Who said anything about a conversation?
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re: “Perhaps you folks should take a moment from self-righteous, self absorbed, indignation... and consider some context.”
I converse with reasonable people who approach discussions in good faith and with an open mind. Once a party has demonstrated that they are not reasonable, are not operating in good faith and with an open mind, my returns from engaging in conversation drop dramatically as the arguments offered by such a disordered mind are unlikely to have much merit. One does not gain anything from attempting to deal with unreasonable persons by using reason; such persons can be ignored, observed (to learn from or to be amused by), or opposed.
Which brings us to Shooter’s suggestion that, “Perhaps you folks should take a moment from self-righteous, self absorbed, indignation... and consider some context.” Putting aside the inflammatory language, Shooter is arguing for a lowering of the rhetorical temperature, for cooler heads to prevail, in short, offering a roadmap toward a reasonable conversation. Shooter ignores the premise, implicit in many of the posts here, that large portion of the media is not behaving in a manner consistent with reasonable, good faith, discourse. According to this premise, such media outlets are no better candidates for conversation than Shooter. That Shooter’s attempt is to move the conversation here away from this premise is hardly surprising. What is instructive is that the will-o’-the-wisp he chooses to employ- those who aggressively attack poor quality reporting are unreasonable extremists- is actually quite seductive. After all, it would be so much more pleasant if, for example, Joe Klein and his handlers at TIME were, contrary to appearances, reasonable, and could therefore be reasoned with. Worse, one may be so concerned about being reasonable that one may tempted to treat one’s opposition as reasonable as well despite all available evidence, because the consequences of wrongly judging the other party as unreasonable (i.e. being blind to the oppositions well thought out arguments) carries a high cost to one’s self image.
I suggest that reasonable persons overvalue the merits of conversation long after discussion becomes pointless. Once a party demonstrates that it is both unreasonable and a threat to whatever values one holds dear, it is entirely appropriate to use whatever tactics one deems effective, be they extreme, childish, or shrill. At some point one must cease trying to convince and begin to oppose. I have noticed that forceful, effective opposition often encourages one’s opponent to eventually become more open to reason.
And this part is just for Shooter:
In regards to the improving situation in Iraq: in numbers of innocent people killed for the period January 1, 2000 to right now, who do you think is ahead, the United States of America, or every terrorist organization on the planet?
-
Shooter’s in the ‘amusing’ category
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It’s not that I don’t trust your motives Shooter; I’m just pedantic by nature...
Do you have no idea, or do you think it’s the terrorists?
If you have not idea, but your guess is still the terrorists, why? Coin flip?