Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATED: The Cause: Justice And Democracy (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador
    I don't know what issues you want my perspective on.  
    You've been reccing comments in Ray's diaries on these subjects for quite some time now. Yet you still don't know what issues he might want you to offer your own perspective on? After noting how he should diary on them because others would find them to be interesting reading?

    Well, at least you were polite about it...

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:01:15 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's amazing, isn't it? It is as if some of these (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lunachickie

      folks think they are dealing with kinder-garteners.

    •  Sorry, I'm not a mind reader... (3+ / 0-)

      ... as I stated in my post, I worked on responding to Ray's question but I was not sure exactly what he was asking.  This thread is about Ray surveying the disenfranchised to determine their needs.  Ray responded that he has, and I indicated that I was curious to read about his results.  I felt that Ray's question to me was ambiguous, so I asked for a simple clarification rather than ramble on in a direction which may not have been viewed as productive or on topic.  It's really that simple.

      What's not simple is the world of "teams" and labels assigned to people who comment in Ray's diaries.  I (and many others) have been labeled many things by the people who comment in these diaries.  The latest label is "contrarian".  Asking for additional information from a diarist isn't "contrarian" or "trolling", neither is disagreeing with a premise or a conclusion.  But I've been labeled and I'm pretty much damned if I do and damned if I don't - and I understand that.  I could have posted one of my four sincere attempts at answering Ray's question and most likely failed to answer appropriately, or I could have sincerely asked for specificity and failed.  It's an interesting game y'all have set up -  you get no points for trying, only for agreeing.

      Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

      by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:38:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So pointing out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        an obvious thing makes me part of a "game" someone set up?  Wow...what happened to all the polite?
         

        I felt that Ray's question to me was ambiguous, so I asked for a simple clarification rather than ramble on in a direction which may not have been viewed as productive or on topic.

        Keep in mind, first of all, that I had no quarrel with your overall intent. But your follow up is--at the very least, unimaginative--coming on the heels of something like this:
        what was the perspective the teachers gave you versus the perspective you gained from politicians or union leaders?  What were the commonalities and what were the differences, specifically as they relate to each group's insights, biases, and openness to new ideas?  Were there noticeable differences based on the ages of the people you spoke with, and were there differences based on race, class, gender, or even party affiliation?
        You had it down to a science there. Brilliantly pointed and well-stated.  
        I could have posted one of my four sincere attempts at answering Ray's question and most likely failed to answer appropriately,
        Seriously? In a diary with less than 30 comments, you were worried about being irrelevant?  

        What is YOUR vocation? What do you do for a living? Answer you own questions as a (whatever your job is). And, please, don't worry about follow up here to me specifically. You're not that dim and I'm not that dumb, and we both know it, so carry on, please, and have a little more faith in yourself.
         

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:41:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, in a relatively dead diary... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          serendipityisabitch

          ... with very few active threads, I am much more concerned with being on topic - especially since this is posted at the top of most of Ray's diaries:

          Sockpuppets & Trolls Watch:  Their aim is to disrupt, to annoy, to introduce "noise" in order to prevent meaningful discussions of issues.  Their tactics include casting aspersions (attack on the reputation or integrity), and ad hominems, where instead of addressing issues, they attack the character of people.  They also engage in mockery, and logical fallacies....  Once you familiarize yourself with those tactics, it is pretty easy to spot the potential troll.  Once spotted, the best thing is to ignore them.
          We both know to whom that statement is targeted - and it's not you (well, after your conversation with Zhen, who knows?).  My response had nothing to do with "faith" in myself, it had to do with three things:
          1) Keeping the conversation going.  2) "Addressing" the issue.  3) Avoiding a pie fight.

          Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

          by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 02:00:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  . (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ray Pensador

            Oh, do pardon me for not understanding that this:

            3) Avoiding a pie fight.
            Is such a very big concern of yours!

            Particularly here:

            We both know to whom that statement is targeted - and it's not you (well, after your conversation with Zhen, who knows?)

            Oh, brother...

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 02:34:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh, brother is right... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serendipityisabitch

              ... I admired the stand you took against Zhen's argument.  Is that so horrible - coming from a contrarian and all?

              Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

              by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 04:32:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Perhaps... (0+ / 0-)

                You're not such strange bedfellows after all.

                "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                by ZhenRen on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:04:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm an anti-authoritarian (0+ / 0-)

                  Which is quite different from the left-right divide.

                  There are people who are quite "liberal" who can still be quite authoritarian.

                  I've come to the point that I view the real dividing line between left and right as whether one supports capitalism, or not. And the dividing line between authoritarianism, and libertarianism...

                  That's pretty much a division between how much one supports the central state, vs a bottom up structure.

                  Anyway, it's heartening to see people realizing which bed they sleep in. glad you two could come together as comrades in arms.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:11:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  OMG - you're so clever! (0+ / 0-)

                  And who knew that you could type a comment that didn't require a mouse with a scroll wheel?  Bravo!

                  FWIW, it's the quality of the argument which earns admiration and wins the day; not the quantity of words.  On the bright side, you had to be close to Bob Johnson's record for comments in a Ray Pensador diary, you certainly out word counted Bob, I bet by that metric it wasn't even close.  Again, Bravo!

                  And I wouldn't get too complacent if I were you.  At some point Ray is going to have to make a decision about what happens when something violent happens during one of his "protests" and my money isn't on your argument.  Every diary Ray has written says he believes in non-violence.  So who wins the argument Ray?  Are you going to turn a blind eye to some broken corporate "property", or turn in the people who broke it?  Are "black bloc" tactics on the table at your functions?

                  Looking through the bent backed tulips, To see how the other half lives, Looking through a glass onion - John Lennon and Paul McCartney

                  by Hey338Too on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:03:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Anarchists (0+ / 0-)

                    Are actually far more non-violent than most Democrats on Dkos.

                    You obviously didn't understand a word I wrote, or you would have at least some idea why I say this.

                    As to violence, OWS actions were very non-violent. That's what's so sad about that thread in Ray's diary. People allowed the false construct that OWS was violent to go on unopposed. OWS was quite peaceful. It was the police who were violent. Did you not understand that? That's what was so sadly wrong about the repetition of Hedges comment. It completely distorts the facts, and is a total falsehood as far as the impression it leaves. He really damaged Occupy's reputation, something he should know better than to have done as a journalist.

                    When one considers the many thousands who participated in occupy nationwide, and that only a handful of "violent" events by attendees occurred, that is a very low percentage (less than a tenth of 1%) of individuals who broke windows. Tell me, how many windows were broken out of the dozens of cities in which Occupy had organized? 3 or 4? Involving perhaps 10 or 20 people?

                    There were about 2,300 Occupy camps in about 2,000 cities worldwide. By all accounts these were peaceful.

                    This involved a population of people ranging into the millions. Most of you here have no real idea how successful and important this uprising was.

                    What you're doing in helping to spread this vicious propaganda serves the worst interests in this country.

                    My god... maybe you're all just frauds.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:07:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, and is Ray in charge of "his" protests? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ray Pensador

                    I didn't know that. Your choice of words reveals your way of seeing this.

                    Seems to me he is emulating exactly the policy of Occupy:

                    1) Non-hierarchical approach (although it seems you think he'd be setting policy, which wouldn't exactly be possible in a truly non-hierarchical movement --  he can influence, but not rule)

                    2) Non-violent approach (which OWS members adopted from the beginning, and despite some people attempting to distort the facts, OWS was largely successful in remaining peaceful, considering the enormous amount of people involved).

                    So, if Ray wants to make dictums to the movement, and tell them policy, would he take your advice and turn the one tenth of 1% who break a window over to cops? That in itself would incite violence. Good luck with engendering solidarity with that attitude.

                    But, as far as I know, Ray didn't express this view. Being non-hierarchical really means just that. No one owns the movement. Decentralization means each small cell in the larger movement self-manages itself.

                    Anyway, I wish Ray well with this.

                    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                    by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:21:02 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are correct. I'm working on a diary I will (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lunachickie

                      post tomorrow on my findings and suggestions regarding non-hierarchical movement capable of attracting a wide segment of the public while at the same time mitigating the effects of widespread spying and infiltration by gov't and corporate agents.

                      It will be substantive and it will have a lot of new material.

                      •  I'm looking forward to it (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Ray Pensador

                        Just be careful not to mention "Black Bloc" and "call outs" in the same sentence or paragraph or else we'll all have a new and exciting type of Discussionus Interruptus to deal with...

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:16:06 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It isn't about mentioning black bloc (0+ / 0-)

                          Its about mentioning the tactic in a factual manner.

                          I presented accuracy and facts. Discuss this in a factual way, and there will be no problem. Reality based site and all that, remember?

                          Not going to let you, or Ray, or any of those who were posting there to state falsehoods, or slander Occupy, or the people who founded the movement, or distort black bloc.

                          What happened in that thread was a real slur against occupy, because it led people to believe Occupy was overrun with people breaking windows. That people on this site allowed that to happen is one of the lowest points that Ive seen here. My entire perspective of the membership has changed.

                          "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                          by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:59:31 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  At some point (0+ / 0-)

                            it becomes about trolling.

                            My entire perspective of you has changed. And I imagine I'm not alone.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 11:45:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Luna, I'm the same as I've ever been (0+ / 0-)

                            in terms of my occasional intensity, and my (relatively) infrequent moments of unrelenting tenaciousness in discussing a topic. Its interesting how perspective changes when one is in disagreement with one's (former) milieu. When people were on my side, they urged me on. Now I'm just a lowly piece of trash, and called a troll.

                            You and I have not had much interaction in the past, and I realize you don't have much familiarity with me. I've always been this way on occasion, with long spells of more or less lurking in between.

                            Many of my "epic" (as some have called them) debates in the form of comments have occurred in the past (maybe you weren't aware of them) mostly with those whom I thought were on the "other side" up until recently. No one minded when I did this before, even with a much more strident approach than I have had in the last year or so. Ask them. They know.

                            Now that I've parted company in several substantial ways (I'm actually more to the left, as I have transitioned into anarchism over the last many years, especially the last 5, but this also includes a less authoritarian stance, which is a much different divide than the left/right axis) I find myself more denounced by the self-described "left" than I once was by the more administration-supporting side. They always condemned my view, but they didn't condemn me personally (well, not much, anyway).

                            So... this is a rather eye-opening situation for me.

                            I've also been a long standing participant in Ray's diaries, and whether he now will admit this or not, I often defended him (in my way) more than a lot of people now frequenting his posts. (In fact, I have a few personal insights into why a certain group mostly stayed away just a few short weeks ago, but I'll keep that to myself -- I'm done with personal revelations about anyone here, and it isn't my desire to indulge in this sort of thing -- people can figure things out for themselves). But now that I disagree with Hedges, and the wholesale lack of factual comments in that thread, and called people out on some dangerous notions they advocated, I'm... wait for it... a TROLL.

                            LOL. What a comedy. I'm the same as I've ever been.

                            No, black bloc are not fascists, not a cancer, not even an identifiable, singular group. And people should not turn activists over to police, or do anything which might indirectly cause that to happen (in most circumstances). What the fuck is so hard to understand about that? Is it me personally that people are opposing, and not my ideas? This is insane. I thought we were above that sort of thing here.

                            See my new sig.

                            "The moment some people participating in an action feel they have more of a moral commitment to those who are threatening to attack them than they do to another activist, the game is over." -David Graeber

                            by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:53:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, good! (0+ / 0-)

                            now you won't have to keep repeating yourself.  

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 03:11:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And now you can leave me out of your insults (0+ / 0-)

                            which is why this is starting again in this thread.

                            "The moment some people participating in an action feel they have more of a moral commitment to those who are threatening to attack them than they do to another activist, the game is over." -David Graeber

                            by ZhenRen on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 03:18:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Of course not! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ray Pensador

                But it still doesn't answer the original question here:

                what is your perspective about these issues?
                Maybe someday you'll tell us...

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 09:12:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Luna, what have prior recs got to do with (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, serendipityisabitch

      the specifics of Hey's comment or "Ray's" non-reply?

      Nothing human is alien to me.

      by WB Reeves on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:36:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is an honest question. If I analyze dozens (0+ / 0-)

        of your posts in my diaries it would seem that you are not fond of my style, to say the list.  From reading them it looks like you don't think I'm that smart, that I disrespect people who disagree with me, that there is no substance to what I write, etc.  That's my take, but you can confirm if I'm right or not...

        So anyways, and again, since you've repeated these memes in several of my diaries now, do you see yourself ever skipping one in the near future.  Mind you, I've never visited any of your diaries.

        If you don't like my diaries, but you keep visiting and posting dozens of messages along the same lines, would it be fair to say that what you are then trying to do is to convince others to see my writing the way you see it?

        I'm not saying that's the case; I'm just trying to figure out something that doesn't make any sense to me, since I can't imagine visiting every single diary of a diarist I've made a negative impression of.

        •  And this is an honest reply (5+ / 0-)

          I have, in the past month and a half, skipped the majority of your diaries as far as commenting is concerned.

          What you describe as "memes" are my opinions based on personal observation. People are free to agree or disagree with them, reply or not reply, as they choose.

          BTW, you have, in fact, visited my diaries. The very first comment in the last diary I posted was yours. You even recced one of my diaries previous to that. I've pointed this out to you before and I find it odd that you continue to repeat a claim that is demonstrably false.

          To be blunt, I come to your diaries primarily for the discussion and debate in the threads, something readily apparent from the fact that the majority of my comments are in reply to other comments. I do, as in this case, make comments on the substance of your diaries but since you rarely respond in a substantive way if at all, they are necessarily less in number.

          Your comment here is a good example. For some reason you've chosen to query me in a reply to a comment that wasn't even made to you. Is there a particular reason that you chose to ignore the comments that directly addressed you?

          What I find hard to figure out is why you are constantly hunting for hidden motives. My comments are pretty much self explanatory. Having spent the better part of a life time as a radical activist, I have a compelling interest in the issues you raise. Since this is an online community and not your private website, I will continue to comment where and when I feel the responsibility to do so. Disagreement is the essence of discussion and debate, regardless of how disagreeable you may find it to be

          I don't believe that I've ever questioned your intelligence, only your judgement.

          Nothing human is alien to me.

          by WB Reeves on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 05:17:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You say you spent part of your life being a (0+ / 0-)

            radical activist but a reading of your work shows the exact opposite. It shows you as being pro-establishment, pro-status quo. That's the conclusion I've come to after reading a few of your diaries just now.

            You say you question my judgement. That's fine, and it looks like you will continue doing so in diary after diary. In the meantime I will continue writing with passion, commitment and truthfulness. The site metrics and whether I continue reaching a wider audience will speak for themselves as to whether others share your questioning of my judgement.

            You also state that you have a compelling interest in the issues I raise and that you will continue to comment out of a sense of responsibility regarding those issues. Fair enough. That means you will probably be commenting in my diaries for a very long time.

            •  N3, O4 n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              HudsonValleyMark, Hey338Too

              At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

              by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:28:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  failure to engage noted (5+ / 0-)
              a reading of your work shows the exact opposite. It shows you as being pro-establishment, pro-status quo. That's the conclusion I've come to after reading a few of your diaries just now.
              You seem to have lost interest in your diary, but allow me to remind you of something that you wrote in it:
              Some of the key findings show that people are rising up due to "the failure of political representation and political systems," and that the top demand for the protests is "is not for economic justice per se, but for 'real democracy' which would allow national governments to address core economic issues."
              Now, WB Reeves noticed a disjuncture between that statement and the executive summary of the report. He refrained from drawing any firm conclusions. But in simple truth, the report doesn't say that 'real democracy' is "the top demand for the protests." The diary misrepresents the source. It would be interesting to see you dispute that, although I don't think you plausibly can.

              For many people, the natural response would be to revise that sentence of your diary to be more accurate or clearer. For reasons known only to you, if to anyone, you have taken a very different course, building up to a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization about WB's politics which is both insulting and irrelevant. Along the way, you made the risibly wrong assertion that you had "never visited any of [WB's] diaries," and you haven't even acknowledged that error. It's quite a show.

              In the meantime I will continue writing with passion, commitment and truthfulness.
              Unfortunately, your understanding of "truthfulness" doesn't appear to entail being correct. It's your choice. Rebecca Black's "Saturday" video has 18.5 million views, so certainly you have some prospect of "reaching a wider audience" regardless of people's reservations about your judgment.

              "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

              by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 08:36:26 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Certainly as long as you employ misrepresentation (3+ / 0-)

              and smear in your "writing with passion, commitment and truthfulness.", you can count on me to speak out against such tactics.

              Which brings us to the examples of the same in your reply:

              You say you spent part of your life being a radical activist but a reading of your work shows the exact opposite.
              That is not, in fact, what I said. What I actually said was that I'd spent the better part of a lifetime as a radical activist. That activism continues to the present day. This kind of obvious distortion on your part does you no credit.
              ...a reading of your work shows the exact opposite. It shows you as being pro-establishment, pro-status quo. That's the conclusion I've come to after reading a few of your diaries just now.
              If this were true, you'd have no trouble linking to such examples to bolster your claim, rather than floating the accusation based on nothing more than your bald assertion that it's so. You've failed to do this.

              Hardly surprising, since I've never posted a single diary here that could accurately or honestly be described as "pro-establishment" or "pro-status quo". More misrepresentation on your part. Anyone interested in my actual political history and orientation, rather than your transparent calumnies, can find the facts here.

              Unprincipled, opportunistic demagoguery may find you an audience in the short term; manipulating people's passions and prejudices often does. However, radical social transformation isn't a short term process and you will find that such "celebrity", however self gratifying, is ephemeral.  

              Nothing human is alien to me.

              by WB Reeves on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 10:43:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I visited the link and something interesting (0+ / 0-)

                happened... For example, I got to this blog: Protesting Democrats: The Radical Option.  I read it twice, just to make sure I understood all your points correctly, and I concluded that I agree with it 100 percent.  It as extremely well-written and though-out.

                Yet, the diaries I read here at Daily Kos, especially the one where you seem to be arguing that propaganda is a relative term...

                What it all boils down to is that anyone making an argument either for or against something is engaged in an exercise in "propaganda". The only substantive distinction to be made is between the factual or nonfactual character of such arguments.

                Denouncing something as being "propaganda" is nothing more than fallacious rhetorical posturing, serving no purpose other than to avoid engaging arguments on their merits. Anyone who practices the fallacies described above shouldn't be surprised if they are hit by a wave of criticism. They have no one to blame but themselves.

                Or another diary where you take on Noam Chomsky, or a few where you seem to be making an emphatic point to defend the president, or others where you seem to be looking at the debate about fascism through an hyper-partisan lens (when in fact, the proto-fascism problem is systemic, as argued by Chris Hedges and others), lead me to see your approach as pro-establishment.

                Be that as it may, as you emphatically assert, you'll continue visiting and commenting in my diaries as this is a public forum.

                Regarding my own website, well, that's a good point... I'll start publishing my work there as well, which it is something I've been wanting to do for a while now.

                Let's carry on the debates...

                •  what, are you joking? (3+ / 0-)
                  I have a confession to make: I'm a propagandist.  I don't necessarily write to inform, or to set the record straight, or to put an argument forward.  I write, first and foremost, to influence, to motivate, to effect action; and not just any run-of-the-mill action, but action at a massive level, and specifically action taken in concert by millions against a particular type of target....

                  And so when I came to understand this outrage, this subversion of decency, I asked myself, "Does the truth have a propagandist?"  And to my astonishment I realized that it didn't....

                  But when you deal with parasitic sociopaths, with megalomaniacs, with sadistic monsters, then you don't only need a propagandist for the truth, but you need to be able to use that propaganda to help raise the ire and emotions of millions and millions of people so it turns into a fearsome and overwhelming show of force capable of forcing these vile despots to back down, as history has shown time and time again that these types of tyrants, these bullies, only understand overwhelming force.

                  Ray Pensador, "Confessions of a Propagandist," 2/27/13

                  So, don't you in fact agree that denouncing something as "propaganda" simply avoids engaging it on the merits?

                  "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                  by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:03:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The point I'm making in that diary is that (0+ / 0-)

                    nobody seems to be engaging in an effective counter-propaganda campaign against the corporate state.  The corporate state is bombarding the population with massive amounts of mind-numbing propaganda 24/7; it is very systematic and relentless.

                    My point is that I've observed many of the Left thinking that in order for the truth to prevail all you have to do is state the facts.  I argue that in a sea of deception and propaganda, the truth needs to be defended using a very disciplined and relentless counter-propaganda campaign, strategy.

                    Bottom line: Propaganda is based on false narratives, half-truths, and repetition, while counter-propaganda is (or should be) based on the truth, on justice, on democracy, and equality under the law, AND on repetition and other counter-propaganda tactics.

                    So in anything I do, I'm only interested in the truth.  I would never argue that I'm privy of it, just that I'm seeking it, and I want to join others who are doing the same.

                    •  And the great thing about truth is that you don't (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      erratic, Hey338Too

                      have to bother getting the facts straight? Those inconvenient, messy little details like citing the conclusions of an article that you reference correctly?

                      You pick and choose your truths to support making an emotional case. That's why the usual oath isn't only to speak the truth, it's to speak all the truth, and nothing but the truth. The second part of it would produce a more reasoned, less emotional screed which wouldn't give you the results you're looking for, and the third wouldn't permit you to spin, out of thin air, the fantasy of a small corrupt elite that is effectively, in concert, running the global economy, just to have a big enough bogeyman to help frighten your readers.

                      I don't see that your "truths" are much different from the half-truths that so disgust you when you denigrate "their" propaganda. They certainly don't prevent you from jumping to conclusion after unsupportable conclusion.

                      And I haven't seen a full apology to WB Reeves, either - and you owe him one.

                      At least half the future I've been expecting hasn't gotten here yet. Sigh.... (Yes, there's gender bias in my name; no, I wasn't thinking about it when I signed up. My apologies.)

                      by serendipityisabitch on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 12:49:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  move to strike as nonresponsive (3+ / 0-)

                      The question is, what did WB say about propaganda that you regard as "pro-establishment"? Apparently when you say that propaganda can be true or false, it's edgy, but when he says it, it's reactionary.

                      "I am not sure how we got here, but then, I am not really sure where we are." -Susan from 29

                      by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Jan 11, 2014 at 06:22:57 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Here are some other quotes that puts that (0+ / 0-)

                    diary into context:

                    Now, you may ask about my motivation for being a propagandist, or about the messaging I'm propagandizing about.  My "customer" is a very modest, polite and unassuming customer: The truth.

                    Many years ago I realized that falsehoods and false narratives specifically designed to dupe the population into believing and accepting absurd propositions as not only normal, but good for them, had plenty of proponents, or propagandists.

                    I became aware of the infrastructure, methods, and modus operandi of this massive propaganda machine, and of how incredibly effective it was at convincing otherwise functioning, everyday people to literally act against their own interests, by the tens of millions.

                    And I realized that in order for this odious propaganda machine to be effective, it had to subvert the truth; turn it upside down.  Make people believe that up is down, and down is up, literally.

                    And then, when I started analyzing the issue further, I identified certain psychological tactics which were born out of a myriad of research and studies by psychologists, business analysts, marketing, and public relations (propaganda) people, many of which had lurid pasts supporting brutal regimes.

                    They sliced and diced the understanding of human psychology and then went about using that knowledge to manipulate entire populations.  And so they would create certain memes by linking well-known positive human traits such as hard work, love of family, and dedication to community, safety, and economic security, with absurd propositions.

                    And so the poor, the homeless, and the dispossessed, instead of pity and empathy, they deserved scorn and outright hate.  Unions became bad for workers.  Unbridled greed became something to be admired.  Regulations preventing predatory practices by business conglomerates became bad for the economy.  Too-big-to-fail banks became a necessary aspect of the financial sector.  Increasingly onerous and draconian laws and sentencing for common crimes by average citizens became necessary for public safety, while massive looting of the country's coffers became to be seen as just part of normal business.

                •  Not surprised that you agree with "Protesting (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hey338Too, serendipityisabitch

                  Democrats" which, BTW, was one of the early diaries I published here at DKos.

                  I did not argue that "propaganda" was a relative term. On the contrary, I argued for a strict adherence to the actual definition of the word, the precise opposite of what you claim.

                  I never wrote a diary where I "took on" Noam Chomsky. I did write a diary where I mentioned him in passing, which was likely a mistake since it seems to have confused you. This begs a question though: Is friend Chomsky supposed to be above criticism? Is uncritical acceptance of his views supposed to be some sort of litmus test?

                  That Fascism is only definable through material historical context and experience is hardly a "hyper partisan" position. One can either agree or disagree with that proposition but it has nothing to do with partisanship. It stands or falls on the actual history and development Fascism as a social/political phenomenon. If anything, it is treating Fascism ahistorically as nothing more than an epithet and a synonym for a centralized, authoritarian statism that elevates political and ideological expedience above factual substance. Indeed, it is precisely this erroneous approach that arguably paved the way for the triumph of Nazism in Germany.

                  Differences such as these can only lead to the conclusion that I am "pro-establishment" if you are operating from the assumption that any disagreement from your own views is, by definition, "pro-establishment".

                  From my perspective, you are recycling ideological tropes and attitudes unexamined that date back to before either of us were born, which not only failed in the past but failed spectacularly. Such uncritical repetition promises no better result.

                  Nothing human is alien to me.

                  by WB Reeves on Sun Jan 12, 2014 at 12:26:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site