A discussion almost no longer worth having
As shadowed (whined about, really) in a comment to an earlier post by Minister Buckethead, I don't see much intelligent political discourse these days. Which is a shame, really - I've always enjoyed reading it and have, at times enjoyed writing it or attempting to.
But these days, political discussions tend to appear most often from mouth-breathers with no critical thinking skills or rank partisans pushing buttons on a presumed-ignorant voting populace. The ratio must be somewhere around 90% today, unlike back in the "old days", where it was only, oh, 75%-80%.
As an example of the former, I'd give Debbie Schlussel's recent rant on Barack Obama ("Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim") and some of the comments (not the post by the estimable Allahpundit, but some of the comments) in the story at Hot Air, "Schlussel: Is Obama a Muslim manchurian candidate?". Anyone who feels compelled to use Sen. Obama's middle name, other than perhaps his mother, is an unserious rabble-rouser and should be vigorously ignored. Anyone who thinks he's DQ'd from further political office solely due to his Muslim heritage is no different, and has the added disadvantage of being incapable of forming a coherent thought in support of an argument they're incapable of considering. Rubes, the lot of them.
Examples of the latter abound; far too many to list, but they include the hubbub about Harold Ford Jr. and his taste for white women and the creepy predilections of Mark Foley. In the comments to a story (linked to the story) that Buckethead provided below (referenced above), about a congressional aide named Shriber who solicited help from hackers in adjusting his undergraduate GPA, most of the noise wasn't focused on the fact that Shriber had attempted to violate a federal law, nor that he'd been played so majestically by the supposed hackers he thought he'd found to help with his nefarious plot.
No, the comments went straight to the heart of the matter - that he was an aide to a Republican. The first of these stories flatly didn't matter, not a bit, the second was interesting primarily due to Foley's immediate resignation but not at all due to his party affiliation, and the third indicated that the commenters were humorless drones, politically tin-eared morons without meaningful lives, beating on a drum that people with IQs over 100 wouldn't even hear.
Those pushing stories like these either don't know or wilfully ignore how low-budget and minimally meaningful their rants are, to thinking adults. Yet they continue; they happened throughout the 2004 presidential campaign, throughout the most recent mid-term elections, and are sure to play a part in the 2008 federal elections as well. Truly a shame, and a waste of opportunity to have an intelligent discussion about what we really want our legislative overlords and masters to do on our behalf.
But enough of my setup - as you all know, Scott Adams' Dilbert speaks for the common man, and hasn't let us down in our hour of need. Witness:
Dec 22, 2006:
(click for original @ Dilbert.com)
Dec 23, 2006:
(click for original @ Dilbert.com)
They pretty much summarize my view of the landscape as it sits today. We, as an electorate have to get smarter, and while we're working on that, we have to reject the button pushers and the slobbering retards. Yeah, that's a plan.
on
| § 4
§ 4 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Nicholas, I agree with you
Nicholas, I agree with you completely. However, I still think you're a jerk. An insane, warmongering baby-buggering jerk.
Just didn't want you to get comfortable with that world view.
Funny you should mention nuance, though. Not long ago, I was having a conversation with my dad about that. One of the things we've had a problem with over the last couple years was people claiming a moral high ground of nuanced understanding, and claiming that those who disagreed with them were un-nuanced Neanderthals.
For many issues, nuance and subtleties are important. For others, not so much. It seems that going nuts with the nuance often was a cover for morally ambiguous partisanship. It's bleed over, perhaps, from a habitual stance of moral relativism, which, I think, is a very bad thing. Of course, if I was sensible and nuanced, I would never be able to think that.
Also, Phil, I don't know that I'd put Glenn Reynolds on that list. Ann Coulter and Al Franken sure, Kos and LGF - but Reynolds is pro-space he can't be all bad.
Funny thing about the whos
Funny thing about the whos and the whats: I'd exempt Glen Reynolds from your list too, Phil. But I understand the starter list you've constructed, and agree completely with the sentiment.
Part of the problem isn't the authors or forums themselves, it's the participants. For instance, on B's list, I completely share the sentiment behind his list. However, I'd tend to exempt Charles Johnson, the author of LGF, but would quadruple the sentiment for his largely inflammatory commenters. Same deal at Hot Air - the authors there are generally interesting and moderate, but the commenters' ill-thought-out ramblings generally irk me.
Oh, and Nicholas, I remember that discussion and didn't think at the time, nor do I think now, that you treated me shabbily. It was just a discussion.
I really crave discussions
I really crave discussions with people who have a different perspective and aren't going to yell at me when they find out I'm coming from a different position than they are.
So far, not much luck. People either agree with me completely or go nuts.
I've actually had a fairly good discussion here, where I in fact treated you rather shabbily, but I thought at least it was an interesting discussion. If I remember correctly it had to do with whether it was the right thing to do to force feed someone on a hunger strike. Sorry about that. I found the discussion interesting though.
There really are some amazing nuances to the decisions that we as a society need to make today. Most people aren't interested in the nuances though. It's a pity.
Unfortunately, so long as
Unfortunately, so long as both the media and the Internet continue to be dominated, not by serious thinkers, but by the likes of Gleen Reynolds and Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews, this trend is unlikely to be bucked.