This is so brilliant. I urge everyone to watch it with an open mind:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-j ... share_copy
Civility in public discourse
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46101
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Civility in public discourse
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46101
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Really, the Daily Show isn't available in Canada? That's unfortunate.
It's an interview by Jon Oliver with a woman who is the president of an organization that promotes civility in journalism, who wrote a column for her newspaper calling tea party types "terrorists". Her utter lack of awareness that what she was doing was exactly what she was calling an end to is emblematic of so much that I see as wrong in our society.
It's an interview by Jon Oliver with a woman who is the president of an organization that promotes civility in journalism, who wrote a column for her newspaper calling tea party types "terrorists". Her utter lack of awareness that what she was doing was exactly what she was calling an end to is emblematic of so much that I see as wrong in our society.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
That is interesting. Years ago I was giving a talk to activists and said something similar: both sides, left or right, call the same media (for instance The Washington Post or the Toronto Star) leftist or rightist depending on whichever label is opposite to their own. How can the Washington Post be a rightwing and leftwing paper at the same time? It is ridiculous.
But of course, as I follow you here (and elsewhere), the idea is that weaving ad hominems into whatever you are saying is counter productive. It is not the same exactly as saying "judge not lest you be judged;" it is about respecting the democratic process enough not to try to gain an edge by disparaging each other. No?
But of course, as I follow you here (and elsewhere), the idea is that weaving ad hominems into whatever you are saying is counter productive. It is not the same exactly as saying "judge not lest you be judged;" it is about respecting the democratic process enough not to try to gain an edge by disparaging each other. No?
It's about not thinking that your "side" is the only one with noble positions and intentions and that other "sides" are therefore wicked/selfish/ignorant/whatever. This is mainly what I see as the core problem. It's as if many people don't understand that good, smart, thoughtful people can have different opinions on the same issue. If you were good, smart, and thoughtful, you would agree with ME! Ugh......lord, I hate politics....
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46101
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
They know it must not fall into the wrong hands. 
I would separate out "ignorant" from that list, though. The other attributes are a matter of opinion, but ignorance is objectively demonstrable. And while well-intentioned people hold all sorts of opinions, it is possible that they would change them if they were better informed. As we used to say on another messageboard, when you know better, you do better.
Very good post, yov.It's about not thinking that your "side" is the only one with noble positions and intentions and that other "sides" are therefore wicked/selfish/ignorant/whatever.
I would separate out "ignorant" from that list, though. The other attributes are a matter of opinion, but ignorance is objectively demonstrable. And while well-intentioned people hold all sorts of opinions, it is possible that they would change them if they were better informed. As we used to say on another messageboard, when you know better, you do better.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Well playedFrelga wrote:They know it must not fall into the wrong hands.
That's right V, the embedded video doesn't work due to boundary issues. It may even be more specifically regional as Vison and I are from different provinces I think. We run in to this a lot with MTV as well... the shows are all over the tele here but can't be watched online for some reason.
Oh and IAWYandF
I think that is an excellent point. That said, there is a difference between using ignorant as a simple extra derogative label, and real ignorance. There are plenty of people who consider merely not holding the same opinions as them to be ignorant, regardless of whether said ignorance can actually be demonstrated or not. And that ties in exactly with what yov said.Frelga wrote:I would separate out "ignorant" from that list, though. The other attributes are a matter of opinion, but ignorance is objectively demonstrable. And while well-intentioned people hold all sorts of opinions, it is possible that they would change them if they were better informed. As we used to say on another messageboard, when you know better, you do better.