The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

I'm still waiting for iSm to get indignant about name calling being a step too far (personally, I don't care about name calling on the assumption that we're all growed up enough to take it without needing extra therapy) but it is true that when it went the other way -- politically -- suddenly it needed reining in.

[Alex]

I know you work in the industry, but may I say you split a mighty fine hair.

Personally, I don't see any significant difference between "You are delusional" and "You are arrogant." But c'est la vie, I'm sure neither of the aggrieved parties are crying themselves to sleep at night. However, if anything, the former is, to me, more insulting because it rhetorically removes the other person from competency to participate further.

[wendybeth]

I do NOT split hairs. Split ends are anathema to stylists.


Perhaps your right. However, I think there is a wee bit of difference between 'you're delusional if you think' and " You are perhaps the most arrogant and condescending poster here."

[innerSpaceman]

Um, I didn't call scaeagles delusional. If he wants to consider himself a member of the vast group of non-posters that I did call delusional, that's his choice.


Oh, if he fits my definition of the delusional thinkers, then yes, he is a member of the group I called delusional and by extension I then called him delusional after the fact, I suppose.


If he believes we are still a country of small towns, that people from small towns do most of the work in this country as opposed to sub-and-urbanites doing it, believes that it's mostly people from small towns who fight in our wars as opposed to sub-and-urbanites fighting them, and that people from small towns grow our food as opposed to vast corporations ... then, yes, I am flat-out calling him delusional. But I didn't assert he personally had those beliefs.


So, I didnt' do any name calling ... except that, Alex, I'm calling you a muckracker.




ETA: I think I'm in the wrong thread. I'm tellin' ya, we need to roll these all into the Random Political Thoughts Part Deux.

[wendybeth]

Bush acknowledges that we have a little bit of economic trouble:

Financial "Pain" grows worse

"Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., described this as the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s."We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan earlier in the morning, before Bush's speech. "There's no road map for this."

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Bush acknowledges that we have a little bit of economic trouble:

"Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co., described this as the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the railroad bankruptcies of the 1800s."We've never witnessed this before," said Hogan earlier in the morning, before Bush's speech. "There's no road map for this."

Sure there is, just turn right at Sarah Palin's Bridge to Nowhere




Oh, and this is what I saw when I initially clicked into this thread.

political-thread.jpg

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

ETA: I think I'm in the wrong thread. I'm tellin' ya, we need to roll these all into the Random Political Thoughts Part Deux.

Errr excuse me you will find that I own the "Random Political Thoughts Part Deux" thread. As such it should only be used for on topic posts per the original intent. So be sure any posts you move there are somehow related to T-shirt slogans. Preferably funny ones. I like the funny ones.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So, I didnt' do any name calling ... except that, Alex, I'm calling you a muckracker.

I didn't say you called anybody any names. But you were quick to take sympathetic umbrage recently at someone else calling someone else names. You gave details on how you'd respond if you were a moderator, you helpfully interpreted for us all the comments of an actual moderator. You made sure it was known that a line had been crossed. I'm just waiting for similar empathy despite you probably agreeing with the characterization this time around.


Personally, I don't consider being called arrogant or delusional to actually be name calling, except insofar as attaching an adjective to a specific person is always name calling. If "you're an arrogant person" is name calling then so is "you're a wonderful person."


All of it is really just my long winded way of saying that despite protests to the contrary there is around these parts a decided slant in when feelings need to be collectively protected from bruising.

Ultimately it affects me little, since I am generally capable of making is perfectly clear that I think someone a fool or whatever adjective is appropriate without actually saying it. But it does fall into that same category as to why it is ok to say fothermucker but not mother****er when the intent and context are exactly the same.

[Moonliner]

Interesting...

Scott Adams (aka the Dilbert guy) commissioned his own report on which candidate will be better for the economy.

It has a lot of interesting facts. Like did you know that the overwhelming majority of economists are registered democrats?


The Scott Adams Report.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Really, I don't mind being called delusional. I don't mind being called a sheep (which I was - since I believe in left wing media bias I must be one of the sheep being fed). I just know that when I have, in the past, made broad generalizations about democrats or people who believe something I have been chastized (not officially mind you, but by others who are offended at my generalizations).

.......

Name calling or generalizations are easy to defend if you agree with them. If you disagree then they are just name calling or generalizations.

Well, when it seems that a "news" outlet such as Fox is where a great deal of Americans gets their news from and, given the number of people who prop themselves down in front of the TV on a daily basis to get news in general (even if it isn't Fox) then it isn't difficult to make a generalization based on these facts. Now, if 10% of the population watched Fox, 10% listened to NPR, 10% watched CNN, 10% read the NY Times, 10% read the Wall Street Journal, 10% read USA Today, 10% read the BBC, etc such generalizations would be impossible to make. I have no problem making the generalizations I did when it seems that the "norm" is indeed Baaaaad.

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Interesting...

Scott Adams (aka the Dilbert guy) commissioned his own report on which candidate will be better for the economy.

It has a lot of interesting facts. Like did you know that the overwhelming majority of economists are registered democrats?


The Scott Adams Report.

Not having read the report yet, I wouldn't have too much difficulty concurring that the reason the majority of economists are registered democrats is that the democratic party economic philosophy is probably better suited for a stable or improved economy. I mean, they ARE the experts in this field, right? I think their own political choices should really be taken seriously.