The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post Reply
User avatar
maiforpeace
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 15726
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
Location: under the redwood trees

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by maiforpeace » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:15 am

Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't support the teabaggers.
Coito, considering how you normally are opposed to misrepresentation such in the media, would you mind ceasing the use of the derogatory term "teabagger" and using the neutral term "Tea Party" instead?
What, exactly, is derogatory about the term "Teabagger". I have yet to hear or read a good explanation as to exactly what makes it derogatory other than it also means a particular sex act, and a lot of bad jokes have been made cross referencing the two.

It's commonly and frequently used in mainstream media, by both liberal and conservative outlets, newscasters and pundits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(disambiguation)
Tea bag (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tea bag is a sealed bag containing tea leaves for brewing tea.
Tea bag may also refer to:
Tea bag (sexual act), a man placing his scrotum in the mouth of a sexual partner

Fiction

T-Bag, a children's television series character
Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell, a character on the television show Prison Break

Politics

Tea bag protests, another name for the Tea Party protests
Teabagger, a term for Tea Party movement participants
When you come up with your reasons you should submit them to Wiki.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
Image
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:42 pm

maiforpeace wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't support the teabaggers.
Coito, considering how you normally are opposed to misrepresentation such in the media, would you mind ceasing the use of the derogatory term "teabagger" and using the neutral term "Tea Party" instead?
What, exactly, is derogatory about the term "Teabagger".
In one sense of the word, it is the practice of a man placing his testicles in another person's mouth. Tea partiers don't want to be laughed at as recipients of a tea bag in that sense.
maiforpeace wrote: I have yet to hear or read a good explanation as to exactly what makes it derogatory other than it also means a particular sex act, and a lot of bad jokes have been made cross referencing the two.
I didn't think it was derogatory either, because they called themselves teabaggers, I thought, probably not connecting the term to the sex act, and they also referred to sending tea bags to congressional offices and called that "tea bagging" Congress, also probably not referring to the sex act.

But, then again - I remember when I started a thread about health care reform and referred to the Obama Administration's proposal as "Obamacare." Many folks on rationalia went bat shit over my use of that term, calling it a pejorative, even though it's what some in the Administration had called it and it was a term used to distinguish the different proposals (the Administration's proposal, vs. Congressional proposals). Yet, I was accused of being biased for using the term, and moderators here even went in and changed the title of the thread to not use the term "Obamacare" as a result.

So, who knows what offends people? It varies and you can't win for losing.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:45 pm

camoguard wrote:I think we would all agree that the ideal media is sort of like the educational system. The ideal media is provided for by the government but it's not managed by the government. Like healthcare and education, a working media is an essential element of civilized societies. So you can tax me for it. And then run it like a well oiled NPO.
I don't agree that the "ideal media is provided by the government," and would want to see some evidence of that.

I think having a broad base of media lacking central control, so that important stories are reported accurately, and that all opinions are freely disseminated, is the ideal media.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:49 pm

GreyICE wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: I didn't ignore anything you wrote. I specifically addressed it. All of it.

I never dismissed your right to do anything. I only asserted my right to my own position.

There was nothing incoherent about my posts in response to you, at least not to anyone who can read English. If you want to pretend otherwise, that's fine.
I'm communicating my approach to that garbage. There is no pretense about it. I have given up trying to determine what people who cannot form a coherent series of thoughts that flow together to form a point intend to say. Mostly, they intend to "win" a "war" on the internet by "completely demolishing" their opponent.

I'm not really interested in that fucking shit. I'm interested in talking to people. 99% of the fuckers who do that ain't, and I'm not fucking interested in trying to separate those that are and just have no fucking clue from the rest of the chaff.
Are you talking about yourself? I'll leave it to the readers of this and other threads to determine whether it's you or me that can form more coherent arguments.

Naturally, you've descended into personally attacking me, rather than actually discussing the point. I'll leave you to it. Have at it, and enjoy yourself. :yawn:

User avatar
camoguard
The ferret with a microphone
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:59 pm
About me: I'm very social and philosophically ambitious. Also, I'm chatty and enjoy getting to meet new people on or offline. I think I'm talented in writing and rapping. We'll see.
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by camoguard » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:04 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
camoguard wrote:I think we would all agree that the ideal media is sort of like the educational system. The ideal media is provided for by the government but it's not managed by the government. Like healthcare and education, a working media is an essential element of civilized societies. So you can tax me for it. And then run it like a well oiled NPO.
I don't agree that the "ideal media is provided by the government," and would want to see some evidence of that.

I think having a broad base of media lacking central control, so that important stories are reported accurately, and that all opinions are freely disseminated, is the ideal media.
My thinking is to establish centralized funding.

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by GreyICE » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:40 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Are you talking about yourself? I'll leave it to the readers of this and other threads to determine whether it's you or me that can form more coherent arguments.

Naturally, you've descended into personally attacking me, rather than actually discussing the point. I'll leave you to it. Have at it, and enjoy yourself. :yawn:
No I haven't. I "descended" to explaining why the posts you made and the style you employed were counterproductive nonsense.

If you are unable to distinguish between explanations of differences between effective communication and ineffective nonsense, and a personal attack I am surprised. I have no real desire to read or engage with material that is presented in a style that discourages communication and conversation. This is no more a personal attack than an explanation of why "1337 speak" and texting acronyms ("u" and the like) discourage communication and inhibit the flow of a conversation.

If you care to make a point related to the thread topic, I encourage you to do so.
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:53 pm

GreyICE wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Are you talking about yourself? I'll leave it to the readers of this and other threads to determine whether it's you or me that can form more coherent arguments.

Naturally, you've descended into personally attacking me, rather than actually discussing the point. I'll leave you to it. Have at it, and enjoy yourself. :yawn:
No I haven't. I "descended" to explaining why the posts you made and the style you employed were counterproductive nonsense.
Responding point-counterpoint is quite common. I didn't invent it and others do it all the time.
GreyICE wrote: If you are unable to distinguish between explanations of differences between effective communication and ineffective nonsense, and a personal attack I am surprised. I have no real desire to read or engage with material that is presented in a style that discourages communication and conversation. This is no more a personal attack than an explanation of why "1337 speak" and texting acronyms ("u" and the like) discourage communication and inhibit the flow of a conversation.

If you care to make a point related to the thread topic, I encourage you to do so.
I am able to distinguish between someone who actually intends to debate an issue and someone who tries to sidestep the issue with irrelevant bullshit (the latter being you).

My style encourages both communication and also precision. It's obvious you want to avoid being precise.

Regarding the thread topic, the ball is in your court. I'll not rewrite my posts to suit your personal preferences.

User avatar
GreyICE
Account Suspended at Member's Request
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 10:27 pm

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by GreyICE » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:28 pm

I am able to distinguish between communication and obfuscation too. While some posters may split posts in to parts, most respond to multiple paragraphs or at worst an individual paragraph.

You are responding to parts of sentences. If you wish to do this, I have no interest in communicating with you, as you are not interested in communicating with me. The ball is not "in my court," I do not play that game. If you wish to, I suggest you find others who are interested. I wish you best of luck.
Gallstones, I believe you know how to contact me. The rest of you? I could not possibly even care.

User avatar
eXcommunicate
Mr Handsome Sr.
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Indiana, USA
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by eXcommunicate » Mon Nov 15, 2010 8:11 pm

Love how my original premise for this thread was blown out of the water before we even had half a page of replies.
Michael Hafer
You know, when I read that I wanted to muff-punch you with my typewriter.
One girl; two cocks. Ultimate showdown.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:17 pm

eXcommunicate wrote:Love how my original premise for this thread was blown out of the water before we even had half a page of replies.
I blame the libertarians among us. ;)

Or perhaps whatever can be said about the rally has been said? If not, care to pick the discussion up again from there?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Hermit » Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:27 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't agree that the "ideal media is provided by the government," and would want to see some evidence of that.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is government funded and operates very much at arm's length from it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! No matter whether the liberals (Labor Party) or the conservatives (Liberal Party- National Party coalition) are in power, the ABC is regularly attacked for being grossly biased against the incumbents. Attempts to stack the board with sympathetic directors have yet to succeed. I think that is an example demonstrating that government funded media (in this case national radio as well as television networks) can work very well indeed. At least it has worked for us in Australia since 1932.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by sandinista » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:30 pm

Seraph wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't agree that the "ideal media is provided by the government," and would want to see some evidence of that.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is government funded and operates very much at arm's length from it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! No matter whether the liberals (Labor Party) or the conservatives (Liberal Party- National Party coalition) are in power, the ABC is regularly attacked for being grossly biased against the incumbents. Attempts to stack the board with sympathetic directors have yet to succeed. I think that is an example demonstrating that government funded media (in this case national radio as well as television networks) can work very well indeed. At least it has worked for us in Australia since 1932.
I agree, as bad as state media can be (CBC) it is still much better than corporate media.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:52 pm

sandinista wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:I don't agree that the "ideal media is provided by the government," and would want to see some evidence of that.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is government funded and operates very much at arm's length from it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! No matter whether the liberals (Labor Party) or the conservatives (Liberal Party- National Party coalition) are in power, the ABC is regularly attacked for being grossly biased against the incumbents. Attempts to stack the board with sympathetic directors have yet to succeed. I think that is an example demonstrating that government funded media (in this case national radio as well as television networks) can work very well indeed. At least it has worked for us in Australia since 1932.
I agree, as bad as state media can be (CBC) it is still much better than corporate media.
Well, there appears to be a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinion as to what constitutes "better."

In countries like Canada and Australia, they don't just have the CBC and ABC - they also have independent media outlets. I would submit that the ideal is not government media, but rather a wide variety of media. I have no complaint about having a PBS or NPR here in the States; however, they most certainly aren't a replacement for a private media market.

Free press must exist from the soapbox shouter to the pamphleteer, on up to the local newspaper or radio station, to the citzens' access cable channels, to internet websites and blogs to national news papers, radio and television, and even international, etc. To suggest that it would be much better if we didn't have 100 different sources of news and opinion, but rather one government funded source, seems to me patently absurd.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Hermit » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:10 am

Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, there appears to be a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinion as to what constitutes "better."

In countries like Canada and Australia, they don't just have the CBC and ABC - they also have independent media outlets. I would submit that the ideal is not government media, but rather a wide variety of media. I have no complaint about having a PBS or NPR here in the States; however, they most certainly aren't a replacement for a private media market.

Free press must exist from the soapbox shouter to the pamphleteer, on up to the local newspaper or radio station, to the citzens' access cable channels, to internet websites and blogs to national news papers, radio and television, and even international, etc. To suggest that it would be much better if we didn't have 100 different sources of news and opinion, but rather one government funded source, seems to me patently absurd.
Unfortunately about 90% of the "free press" in Australia is owned by either Murdoch or Packer empires, and that includes magazines, the local papers, television networks and radio networks. Neither will publish anything that they perceive to be against their own commercial interests. Those interests consist chiefly of advertising revenue from big companies, so serious criticism of those is off the menu. Our local version of "60 minutes" once did an expose of something BHP did. BHP promptly canceled its ads on that network. That was a costly lesson to its owner, and he made not to let such a thing happen again. So much for free and independent mass media.

As for the soapbox shouter and the pamphleteer, I don't recall any legal or other impediments in this country besides a lack of money to reach an audience.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:17 am

Seraph wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, there appears to be a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinion as to what constitutes "better."

In countries like Canada and Australia, they don't just have the CBC and ABC - they also have independent media outlets. I would submit that the ideal is not government media, but rather a wide variety of media. I have no complaint about having a PBS or NPR here in the States; however, they most certainly aren't a replacement for a private media market.

Free press must exist from the soapbox shouter to the pamphleteer, on up to the local newspaper or radio station, to the citzens' access cable channels, to internet websites and blogs to national news papers, radio and television, and even international, etc. To suggest that it would be much better if we didn't have 100 different sources of news and opinion, but rather one government funded source, seems to me patently absurd.
Unfortunately about 90% of the "free press" in Australia is owned by either Murdoch or Packer empires, and that includes magazines, the local papers, television networks and radio networks. Neither will publish anything that they perceive to be against their own commercial interests. Those interests consist chiefly of advertising revenue from big companies, so serious criticism of those is off the menu. Our local version of "60 minutes" once did an expose of something BHP did. BHP promptly canceled its ads on that network. That was a costly lesson to its owner, and he made not to let such a thing happen again. So much for free and independent mass media.

As for the soapbox shouter and the pamphleteer, I don't recall any legal or other impediments in this country besides a lack of money to reach an audience.
If that's true then you ought to have better enforcement of antitrust laws, which I am a big believer in.

But of course advertisers can pull their advertising. They aren't compelled to advertise. But still - why would it be better to do away with private media in favor of only government media?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests