Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-s ... 83228.html

Worth reading for multiple reasons.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

See sig.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

That word...



Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I think you don't want to accept what it means.

"Be 'open-minded' because no viewpoint can possibly be evil and wrong," is a copout for "Is what Fox News is saying evil and wrong?"

Like all copouts, it is a way of evading the difficult questions.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You're wrong, because Simmons isn't rejecting meaning, he's embracing it.

Simmons is arguing that many who share his view, when faced with a conflicting viewpoint, express themselves through anger, avoid or ignore competing ideas, and label anything outside their accepted philosophical/political view as "evil." He states that "As progressives, one of the things it means is that we are open-minded. One of the things we stand for is a lack of rigidness," even after noting that it is something he sees among those with whom he agrees, arguing that " if we don't listen then we are no better than they are," alluding to the idea that those on the other side only believe what they believe because they don't accept new ideas/points of view or think. He is affirming a value he holds as important and voicing the expectation that others who share his ideology do the same while lamenting how common the failure to adhere to that standard (and the damage this causes) has become.

He is not arguing for open-mindedness for the sake of being a blank-slate. He is not arguing against structure and meaning, he is arguing in favor of it. He's not saying a viewpoint cannot be 'evil and/or wrong,' he's saying that those who agree with him must engage in a meaningful matter precisely because those with whom they disagree are wrong.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

You can't have a meaningful discussion if the discussion is not in good faith.

Fox News isn't a "discussion" any more than a political "town hall" meeting. It's propaganda. It's a big show. They choose the commentators, they choose the facts (or fabricate them), they write the script and read from it. That's not "discussion".

Even this very blog post. Good faith? Or a shill for Fox News?
Calling for objectivity? Or saying, "No opinion can be flatly wrong, so you should listen to what I think is right in the hope you agree that my opinion is right?"

Nihilism is, invariably, a copout. A way of holding onto biased and irrational opinions.

Is that good faith discussion? Or a biased shill?



Begging the question.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

He's not just talking about Fox, he's talking about everyday interactions, he just uses personalities from Fox as examples because a)they're a known quantity that makes an easy reference, and b)he has personally interacted with them. You're trying to make things out to be about something other than what they're about.



Again, the column wasn't about Fox, and I'm sorry that your fixation doesn't allow you to move beyond a television network.

I've already explained that he isn't saying an opinion can't be flatly wrong. For someone who studies language, you're fucking terrible at reading. The article is, if anything, a call for civility and an admission that he thinks that the people on the other end of the spectrum are acting with more civility than people on his end of the spectrum. He's saying that those people are generally wrong, but by acting in the manner most commonly attributed to those people, those who agree with him miss those rare and very important times when they're right. He's also saying that such behavior not only turns away those who are undecided, but also divorces his side from meaningful input in the public discourse.

"You should listen to what I think is right in the hope you agree that my opinion is right," is the basis for public discourse, and I see nothing wrong with it. You seem to be implying that keeping an open mind means being a blank slate, which as I said (and you seemed to have missed) isn't what either Simmons or myself is saying.



Simmons is arguing against acting like a hateful ass and closing oneself off to new ideas, at least one of which enables holding onto biased and irrational opinions. Given your responses, I don't think that you have any issues with holding onto biased and irrational opinions, and that you're just arguing because 'nihilism' isn't your preferred method in pursuit of that goal.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

If it weren't about Fox he wouldn't open with a "begging the question" about Fox, or make the bulk of the article about Fox and commentators.

He would talk about the issues or personal interactions, not try to "log cabin" the news commentator.

The very contention that tolerance is an issue is a red herring. The issue is not a lack of tolerance, it is the staid and unimaginative American political climate that holds progress back. If you think American politics is intolerant go watch a cast of Australian or British or Taiwanese parliamentary debate. THAT'S how you get it rolling.

The very fact he claims the issue is that people are not listening to these partisans of extremism and not the staid and misguided ideas on the table betrays his real agenda: to advance those misguided ideas. To move his log, not break up the jam.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

As usual, you put your keen and penetrating mind to task only to wind up sounding the way a gibbering baboon would were it possessed of the ability to speak eloquently.

Stop fixating on Fox. Fox in this conversation is the avatar/icon Simmons is using to represent everything in it's sphere of politics. He is talking about the issue, and he is talking about his personal interactions, with Fox staffers, with Hannity, and even in his reference to his friendship with Roger Ailes.

Tolerance is exactly what is at issue, because the lack of it has led us to a two-party system where the most extremely opposing views define the discussion...because any tolerance of the other point-of-view carries with it consequences those who participate in or comment upon politics wish to avoid, like loss of readership/career/stature/elected office. The lack of middle ground leaves us with nothing but the "partisans of extremism" who advance those "staid and misguided ideas" about which you're complaining.

And you can have a meaningful discussion without any good faith on either side, so long as you operate under the assumption that the other participants in the conversation are untrustworthy fucks. Just because someone is being deceitful doesn't mean you aren't discerning some truths.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I see what you're saying Jubber about listening to both sides. Certainly, liberals are just as guilty as some conservatives of ignoring the opposite viewpoint and just going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

However, the example of Fox is pretty much the worst example to use when it comes to backing up the idea of "listening to both sides"

Fox is narrow minded, and do they even "listen to both sides"? How many times has Bill O'reilly told people to shut up on his program?

It's not that I don't want to hear conservative viewpoints, but I want to hear them in the context of an equal discussion. Just like I would want to hear liberal viewpoints only in the context of an equal discussion.

The message of the article is correct...but the reasoning is flawed. Listen to both sides, but that doesn't mean you need to listen to people who won't even give other opinions a thought.

How can you learn about tolerance by listening to people who are intolerant?

Do Maddow (and did Olberman) have conservatives on their programming often? Fox often has democrats (democratic politicians/analysts/strategists) that come on the commentary shows during panels or when they're discussing things. If O'Reilly get's hot with them (from time to time), at least it's better to have them on than NOT have them on... which I don't think happens frequently on MSNBC.

No - it is bad faith.

It's like creationists hosting a "debate" about evolution then bringing on some strawman punching bag for the other side.

It's a form of show trial.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Yeah, if you'll re-read what I wrote...I didn't say anything about MSNBC, or any of the other news networks to try to claim that they are some beacon of equality. All news networks could do better in presenting both sides of the story.



I know for a fact though, that many fox shows will bring democrats or someone with a divergent viewpoint on solely to act as the whipping boy in the discussion...maybe they'll let them answer a few questions, but then will tell them to "shut up" or threaten to turn their mic off if the conversation stops going their way.

Think of something like Hannity and Colmes...and tell me with a straight face that Colmes didn't serve as a liberal caricature and whipping boy. You can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Colmes#Criticism

But I guess it is better to have them on and then tell them to shut up, or just use them as straw men....I mean...at least they are there.

Truthfully, Fox News does have some proper discussions - I think of John Stewart's recent appearance...yes he was interrupted quite a bit to be shown out of context clips, but he was given time to express his opinions and respond to criticisms, which I respected.




Edit as Aestu got his post out just before me...it doesn't happen often (ever?) but......



This.

I'll grant that some of those Fox segments where they get two pundits from each side and bullshit sometimes get so lopsided that they remind me of old "Politically Incorrect w/ Bill Maher" bits (where Maher would have a 'round table' with 3 people who agreed with him and 1 that didn't...was still a good show), but it is still less straw-man-y to have a guy there articulating their side's P.o.V. than it is to allege the other side's P.o.V. is something then argue against it, and as Eternul said, it's definitely more than other news networks do in most cases. I think the issue is that the speakers/pundits brought in to advance the "un-Fox" P.o.V. aren't as good as some of the people they could get...but that might not be entirely a function of Fox, it may just be that, as Simmons suggests, it's because better quality speakers/pundits don't want to do a bit on Fox.

Leaving Fox aside and getting back to the point, though, this is the first "call for civility" I've seen from either side where the person making the plea for sanity is addressing his own people and not the guys across the aisle. Any thoughts about that?

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I don't believe it's in good faith. I think it's a shill. That's what I think of this "call for civility".

I would argue that "civility" is itself the problem since political discourse is so defined by red lines lest we violate someone's sense of "civility".

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.