EPTAnd of course, in none of the cases does the media become the enemy of the people, with the exception of siding with a regime against it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 580
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12173 Posts
And of course, in none of the cases does the media become the enemy of the people, with the exception of siding with a regime against it. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 04 2018 02:46 Plansix wrote: Yes. Absolutely. It dripped with fascistic trappings, even if it isn't completely fascist. The nomenclature of "enemy" is more than a simple opponent, especially in the terms government. An enemy of the state, government or administration is viewed as a destructive agent or force that must be crushed. We reserve that word for wars or people who wish to inflict mass violence on our country, not professional reporters. that's not really how words works. the same logic can be applied to "racist" : we reserve that word for people who say the n word or people who actually hate blacks. maybe i missed something trump has actually done that would be actionable as a breach of someone's first amendment rights. but "freedom of speech" is still preserved even after some are nominated opponents in the culture war. there is a difference between "civility" and "freedom to speak" as preserved by the first amendment. but then, again, talking about civility becomes a problem for people who insist that civility is an oppressive tool of discourse. hence my original claim that people routinely underestimate the cynical embrace of postmodern language games by the right. the problem is that there has been a fracture in the very limits of shared intelligible discourse -- a fracture over what we deem to be the existing state of things. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 04 2018 02:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: It would be an utter disaster for the values of liberty and freedom and American democracy, for anyone in the white house to 'the media is the enemy'. The two aren't equivalent as in your scenario, you need to add everything that Trump and the Trump administration is doing as well. Maybe the socialist president is claiming a growth of 300% and his was the largest penis on the sunniest day when it was a small crowd on an overcast day. Doesn't matter. It's still a disaster for American democracy for someone in the white house to say 'the media is the enemy', and for it to an opinion a group can hold in USA blithely. I really have no idea why IgnE would then think it is not a problem just because it would be a socialist government. Not that the Trump administration is the opposite of socialist anyways. see you are a perfect example of what i was talking about when i referred to people who believe that phrases like "liberty" and "freedom" are really existing transhistorical referents out there, and that your main unspoken desire in criticizing Trumpist rhetoric is for the return of a good Master who will stabilize meaning | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:17 IgnE wrote: that's not really how words works. the same logic can be applied to "racist" : we reserve that word for people who say the n word or people who actually hate blacks. maybe i missed something trump has actually done that would be actionable as a breach of someone's first amendment rights. but "freedom of speech" is still preserved even after some are nominated opponents in the culture war. there is a difference between "civility" and "freedom to speak" as preserved by the first amendment. but then, again, talking about civility becomes a problem for people who insist that civility is an oppressive tool of discourse. hence my original claim that people routinely underestimate the cynical embrace of postmodern language games by the right. the problem is that there has been a fracture in the very limits of shared intelligible discourse -- a fracture over what we deem to be the existing state of things. I completely disagree with both your assessments. I grew up with plenty of racist people that did not hate blacks, but did think they were inferior humans that maybe shouldn’t be allowed to vote without taking a test. I think you have been exposed to very few racists in your lifetime and lack an understanding how they present themselves. The same goes for calling the press the Enemy. Even if the administration takes no direction action against the press, they are setting the stage to do so by eroding public trust in the press. Every government and dictator that abuses their power had done this to the agency or profession they are attacking. They label the judges “enemies of the people” to set the stage to replace them. And then they follow through. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12173 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:25 IgnE wrote: please note the use of the conjunction "or" and your own unselfconscious use of "racism" as meaning something definite despite the repeated arguments in this very thread over what the term 'should' mean Aren't those repeated arguments the result of one of the language games that you were talking about earlier? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:31 Nebuchad wrote: Aren't those repeated arguments the result of one of the language games that you were talking about earlier? yes? we are trapped in language for better or worse | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:20 IgnE wrote: see you are a perfect example of what i was talking about when i referred to people who believe that phrases like "liberty" and "freedom" are really existing transhistorical referents out there, and that your main unspoken desire in criticizing Trumpist rhetoric is for the return of a good Master who will stabilize meaning What does transhistorical have to do with anything? When you take a situation where an elected government official has a certain amount of responsibility to his people to be transparent and therefor answer critical questions on the actions of the government, and also having to take responsibility when he has no good answer to those critical questions, and you replace that with a government official who says 'your question is invalid because I don't enjoy it, stop being hostile or face consequences' than the latter option leads to a society with less freedom no matter how much you want to bicker about the true meaning of the word. Because it automatically creates a power imbalance and a tool for suppression. It also doesn't matter which faction this official belongs to. It's a de facto worse situation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:25 IgnE wrote: please note the use of the conjunction "or" and your own unselfconscious use of "racism" as meaning something definite despite the repeated arguments in this very thread over what the term 'should' mean The debate over what the term racism means is evergreen. Both racists and the oppressed want their definition to be accepted as the general nomenclature. I have simply chosen which side of that argument I wish to be part of. You on the other hand, appear to believe the argument is frivolous. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:20 IgnE wrote: see you are a perfect example of what i was talking about when i referred to people who believe that phrases like "liberty" and "freedom" are really existing transhistorical referents out there, and that your main unspoken desire in criticizing Trumpist rhetoric is for the return of a good Master who will stabilize meaning The obscurantism is strong with this one. In any case I don't have an unspoken desire to criticise Trump rhetoric, I have an outspoken desire to criticise trump rhetoric. I have no idea what you are on about with the return of a good Master, but to use words in a meaningless way by the highest officials of the land is to render words meaningless giving to the very dangers of newspeak and doublethink and the current era of "alternative facts", all of which undermine the transmition of information of democracy of a whole. Unless the argument is that you don't see democracy as a positive force, therefore it doesn't matter if words have meaning, in which case I can't persuade you I suspect. _____ Anyways most racists don't see themselves as racists, because they recognise that they would be viewed negatively. They rather see it as true that other races are inherently criminal or stupid or inherently "cultural" or whatever. For them, it isn't racist, but back up by "truth". | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12173 Posts
On August 04 2018 03:31 IgnE wrote: yes? we are trapped in language for better or worse I think we mostly agree on the substance but I find your choice of targets weird given what I understand. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9118 Posts
On August 04 2018 02:33 JimmiC wrote: With the Pope recently declaring that death penalty is not acceptable in any situation. Do you think that states that still have the death penalty will consider changing the laws? It appears from Pew that most Americans still favor the death penalty. Will this move the needle at all? https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/02/politics/pope-death-penalty-us-politics/index.html The Pope's words matter to Christians when he's a good boy churning out folk wisdom, not when he's exposing the shambolic reconciliation between supporting the most premeditated form murder and beating one's chest about the 'sanctity of life'. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 04 2018 01:47 IgnE wrote: it seems possible that anti-trumpers (as demonstrated by the comments in this thread) are routinely underestimating the degree to which the trumpist right is consciously assuming the kind of deconstructionist language games that defined the post-60s liberal discourse, while at the same time 'keeping up appearances'. the question for me is less about how many fundamentalists there are on the right (no doubt a great many) but about how more educated right-wingers (like xdaunt) engage in a cynical maintenance/production of a big Other, through the Zizekian 'subject supposed to believe'. now i admit that xdaunt rarely goes into it, and that is why ive made comments in the past about the radical 'decisionism' of trumpist right-wingers that mostly subsides below naive appearance. but cant we see now how right fredric jameson was to insist that neoliberals and fellow travelers on the left share much in common: almost everything except the most important stuff. and so i read xdaunt's comments in that light. that is, if xdaunt is the cynical, economically neoliberal trumpist who cares about rule of (property) law, he should be opposed to the more unreflective anti-trumpers who are actually more fundamentalist. they insist that phrases like "freedom of the press" and "the media" are transhistorical signifiers referring to really existing objects. their hysterical response to linguistic attacks is to assert "no, these aren't just language games, we want a real Master to come back and secure the symbolic order that we insist is real" edit: i probably shouldnt characterize xdaunt as a neoliberal, it is possible that "classically liberal" is the new neoliberal, except it should now be known as a kind of oxymoronic "postmodern classical liberalism" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12173 Posts
On August 04 2018 04:19 Plansix wrote: I think we all got it, but politely disagreed with his assessment. But its nice you found someone that agrees with you on this subject. I don't think he did though. Agree with xDaunt, that is. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler + (I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening. I also personally enjoy it) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 04 2018 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote: P6 chronically doesn't understand IgnE but feels compelled to respond, and xDaunt consistently thinks IgnE is agreeing with him when he's actually making fun of him (and the people poking xDaunt). + Show Spoiler + (I don't think this spoils it for IgnE since this isn't the first time it's been pointed out and yet it keeps happening.) That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23229 Posts
On August 04 2018 04:42 xDaunt wrote: That you think that I believe that Igne is agreeing with me substantively on this topic or anything else tells me that you don’t understand Igne’s posts at all. You have. It's a forum so people can see it's happened before. You're right though that more often you're aware he's disagreeing with you (but engaging your argument) and it's people like P6 that think you and Igne are in agreement which prompts them to post non sequiturs and other things that betray a complete lack of understanding of the post with which they are engaging. So probably not fair for me to say you consistently do it, but you do seem to miss (or just never remark on) how IgnE slams you harder than they ever do. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
