FanFiltration said:
Oh, and while I’m on the subject. Did you know that according to the right-wing talking heads today "This is still a center right country"?
This is how these dirt bag republican sore loser talking heads play their propaganda game. If you can handle it, watch this video segment, and see how these masters of deception do it. It’s sure to entertain. At least it may educate some of the smarter people out there.
Watch if you dare>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj9iIPTrn1I
Hmm, first, I want to say that I don't like the term "center-right" country; it's stupid. What is the "center" and what is the "right"? If the principles of right and wrong which these people defend are contained within what they call the "right," then what's the "center," exactly? Is it an entirely other grouping of things that are like their starting principles that then "moderate" them somehow?! Well, as far as I can tell, moderating any principle is simply nothing more than WRONG and there are no "center-anything" people or nations in the entire world (it's not logically posible to me). In other words, nobody can hold the moderation of ideals as an ideal because that kind of an ideal would have to moderate itself (and would therefore be a principle that is compromised by default).
I know that, in practice, they're meaning that this nation is comprised of people who take "right-wing" principles (whatever they are . . . I'm not even going to go into that) but not as completely unbreakable or immutable principles. As such, they will disregard them whenver they think certain, other principles (like "left-wing" principles) are rising in importance enough to overide them. However, that's still stupid because the way a spectrum of different situations will "moderate principles" is on the basis of how principles relate and not on the basis of the idea of "moderation" in and of itself. (In other words, nobody is "center-right, but "left-right-and-center" to the degree that they value truths on each side of a spectrum.) Therefore, in my opinion, they should be discussing each principle according to why, when, and how they should be followed in relation to other principles. When we, instead, give a value system a definition (and a name) that has no valuable meaning (internally or externally), that's then self-defeating if you ask me.
Anyhow, to you, FF, you're being rather hypocritical in your extreme criticism of people who desire certain ideas to be popularly accepted more than others. In the case of ideas that are true and useful to society's discussions, that kind of behavior is actually a good thing. As such, conservatives promote particular words, phrases, and their attending ideas within society just as much as you do. While doing that sort of thing might be stupid in some situations, even that is incredibly common to all human beings (not just the conservatives you want to condemn with such absolute fury, hehe). The fact that you aren't honest enough to see this behavior in yourself, and act like you never do it is highly laughable. Human beings can't even get through life without behaving in this way (it's necessary for common communication). While this free exchange of ideas often involves pushing bad ideas, we can't dismiss certain ideas simply on the basis that we don't automatically like them on some simple basis; everyone has the right to express their ideas and those ideas should compete.
The problem with promoting ideas through the repetition of words is when people go beyond a place where they are simply trying to increase awareness for their ideas by going into a place where they are trying to get their ideas automatically accepted. They'll repeat their phrases in ways where they try to shout down dissent with emotional appeals ("we need to care about the children!"), in ways that cleverly use rhetoric to ignore arguments that deny their ideas ("deregulation is bad because people will use that freedom to abuse others!"), and in ways that try to intimidate people into silence ("we're in the center and you're an extremist!"). This is how I would define the origin of "group-think." When people put themselves into a group purely on the basis of common words, phrases, and ideas (as apposed to using real reasons), those people are collectively working to cripple each other's ability to think.
Now, no matter how much you (and the guy in the video you linked) would try to deny the use of pushing ideas on people without thinking, we all do it. In fact, you reveal yourself as doing that very EXACT thing in the way you're accusing other people of doing it. Instead of devoting your time to peacefully discussing why you would be apposed to the words and ideas of people in a group that you're apposed to, you just express a common-ized idea from your group that says people in the other group are trying to supress thought by common-izing ideas. Why devote so much concern to automatically immunizing yourself to a phrase when you could be thoughtfully analyzing it instead? The one rational objection the guy in the video you linked used (people always vote for the values of the people they vote for) is incredibly weak and simple.
Oh, and I think you and MeBeJedi should really get together and compare notes, FF. You both seem extremely skilled when it comes to divining the intents and desires of Republicans. Unlike most people who spread groupthink in mostly unthinking ways, you seem very certain that Republicans only spread their ideas because they knowingly and thoughtfully want to deceive and control others with their diabolical lies! Your ability to sense these "masters of deception" right through their masterful facades without the aid of any facts or logic amazes me. ;)
Hmm, though I just had a thought, FF: it occurs to me that you're really lucky that other people don't accuse you of thoughtfully intending to mislead and lie to people with your own expressions. Since you don't need proof when accusing others, they might also think they don't need any proof when accusing you. Hmm, they could then use their mystic power of judgement to actually begin sensoring your views on the basis that you're intentionally lying. That would be scary, wouldn't it? ;)
Jay said:
This place is starting to look like Hannity's forums.
Hmm, no offense, but I feel as if you're saying this because you basically want to outright dismiss many of us who happen to disagree with your views. I may be wrong in this regard, but I think my emotions are being pretty accurate here. If that's the case, why would you want to do that?
Sure, conservatives and people with other viewpoints like my own will tend to go too far in attacking yours and, as a result, say things that you'd rather not deal with (cause they make you angry), but, at the same, are you then saying there's nothing that we present which honestly challenges your thoughts or is worth exploring? Are your ideas and is your perception of the truth so solid and so unquestionable that you can absolutely say your thoughts need no reassessment? Are our thoughts so reprehensible and so devoid of reality that you can't even take time to at least respect them? I doubt you actually think any of that fully, but it definitely seems like your actions reflect such sentiments to a degree.
Again, this makes me think about the small difference I've noticed between "informed" conservatives and "informed" socialists. I generally see that conservatives tend to have a slightly greater willingness to consider, discuss, and expose themselves to points of view they disagree with (it's slight difference but it is generally there). I feel if people were truly concerned with what's most true in a given situation, that they'd be glad to challenge even their own ideas. It's sad when people react with a sour or mockingly dismissive attitude.
It's this issue that makes me ashamed of parts in my last reply to MeBeJedi. To be truthful, I generally try not to be as dismissive with people's beliefs as I sometimes come across. However, just like all people, I tend to value 'winning" in an argument as something more important than treating it as honestly as I can. Also, like all people, I don't react well when people treat my beliefs in that fashion and almost always find myself responding in kind. To that unfortunate end, I'll often explore the truth of an issue just so I can use it to get the high ground and then shit on their heads with insults ("fucking stupid" and the like). While I can't guarantee I won't do that in the future, I generally force myself to try and avoid it and I hope others do that too. (Just because I try to get as much highground as I can before shitting on people doesn't make it okay for me to shit on people.) I just wish people would prefer being accurate with reality because they actually like knowing reality (not because they want to pound people into the ground with it). (By default, I believe no human being likes reality in this way perfectly (or even mostly), but I'm going to be hopeful anyways.)
Bravo, dude! Thanks for the unintended example ::clap::
