OT: Sad day for America

[Arraya]

Brian, I was not quite advocating for propaganda and language manipulation to control people. But, more pointing out the fact that it is done, and in my opinion, mostly done for personal gain of a small minority on a grand scale. People are essentially herding animals controlled by emotion. See the housing bubble for example.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Rustico] You are kind of scary.[/quote]

I scare myself sometimes.

But you have no choice but to live dangerously when you’re dealing with dangerous people.

“Don’t retreat, reload.”

What are we supposed to do while the other side reloads?

Noting that heated rhetoric was nothing new in an America where politicians used to resort to dueling with pistols, she went on to defend vigorous disagreement. “If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas.”

It would have been good if she had stopped there. But then, with characteristic passion, she turned to what she knew would be her most memorable line: a charge that her critics are the ones guilty of fomenting violence.

“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”

By “blood libel,” Palin was referring, of course, to the charge that her own rhetoric had somehow increased the likelihood that a mentally disturbed young man would shoot people. And on the substance, she was right: There’s no evidence that her words — or anyone else’s —contributed to Saturday’s tragedy.

But her statement also confirmed something that should disqualify the former Alaska governor from ever seeking higher office: She has no sense of proportion.

A “blood libel” isn’t just a groundless charge that something sparked bloodshed. It is used primarily to refer to the monstrous anti-Semitic charge that Jews kidnapped and killed Christian infants for ritual use, a falsehood that provided a twisted justification for pogroms.

Palin was justified in accusing her critics of unfairness in using the tragedy as a talking point and in pointing a finger at her. But she went much further than that: She asserted that their argument “serves only to incite … violence.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-palin-20110113,0,4794503.column

[/quote]

Is our society at a point now where every word is look at under a microscope regardless of its obvious intent? It doesn’t surprise me coming from the LA Times. The author even admits they know what she is saying but if you dissect it really means x. Are politicians suppose to be walking thesauruses now? If this is all the LA Times can come up with they are pretty hurting. No wonder no one subscribes.

[Arraya]

[quote=possible]
Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…[/quote]

It is quite disturbing to people that we are unbelievably malleable and controlled like herd animals by a small few but all evidence points to it. Left and right alike.

your job as a consumer is to maintain consumer confidence and take on debt, if you have means. If you don’t have means, your job is to blame yourself and keep the faith.

Essentially we are production machinery for keeping the system running. The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism

[Arraya]

[quote=possible]
Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…[/quote]

It is quite disturbing to people that we are unbelievably malleable and controlled like herd animals by a small few but all evidence points to it. Left and right alike.

your job as a consumer is to maintain consumer confidence and take on debt, if you have means. If you don’t have means, your job is to blame yourself and keep the faith.

Essentially we are production machinery for keeping the system running. The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism

[Arraya]

[quote=possible]
Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…[/quote]

It is quite disturbing to people that we are unbelievably malleable and controlled like herd animals by a small few but all evidence points to it. Left and right alike.

your job as a consumer is to maintain consumer confidence and take on debt, if you have means. If you don’t have means, your job is to blame yourself and keep the faith.

Essentially we are production machinery for keeping the system running. The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism

[Arraya]

[quote=possible]
Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…[/quote]

It is quite disturbing to people that we are unbelievably malleable and controlled like herd animals by a small few but all evidence points to it. Left and right alike.

your job as a consumer is to maintain consumer confidence and take on debt, if you have means. If you don’t have means, your job is to blame yourself and keep the faith.

Essentially we are production machinery for keeping the system running. The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism

[Arraya]

[quote=possible]
Arraya, if life is as predisposed as you or the social “scientists” claim, why put on your pants in the morning (figuratively speaking)…life should whisk you away on its forethought conveyer belt. This mindset (true or otherwise) would make a Calvinist blush. To loosely paraphrase Nitche, the only thing more depressing than religion is science…because in religion the universe is all about you, but in science you are less than insignificant, you are nothing…[/quote]

It is quite disturbing to people that we are unbelievably malleable and controlled like herd animals by a small few but all evidence points to it. Left and right alike.

your job as a consumer is to maintain consumer confidence and take on debt, if you have means. If you don’t have means, your job is to blame yourself and keep the faith.

Essentially we are production machinery for keeping the system running. The elites hold that the common good is an undefinable and therefor empty notion. They maintain that it is up to society’s leaders (them) to tell the masses what is in their own interests. They snatch up every corner of add space to foster the myth that consumer choice is synonymous with democracy (including brand blue and brand red politics). They justify America’s decadent economic inequality as necessary for the “accumulation of capital” (the “rising tide floats all boats” gem). They engage in military campaigns abroad to spread the “good news” of capital, privatized national resources, and bourgeois consumerism

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rustico][quote=briansd1]Great beautifully written post, Arraya. I agree also.

With respect to “the desire to stifle certain forms of expression”, it’s now my side’s turn to not waste an opportunity.

As Arraya said, we are shaped by our environment. If we change the language and the culture, we can change society.

The Right wants to wage the culture war. Bring it on. I wouldn’t mind eradicating redneck culture.[/quote]
Yeah brian, but you wouldn’t mind sewing the mouths shut on everyone with a waist that is bigger than their inseam either.[/quote]

Russ: Bingo and excellent shot! (From a Navy guy, no less!). What Brian and his ilk advocate, under the guise of “improving society”, is exactly that: Controlling all “negative” behaviors and thus “perfecting” society.

Of course, having a pretext helps and here comes the Gifford shooting. Which is why we find ourselves again listening to the Left complain about those nasty guns and that awful hate speech, and, gee, if we just did away with both, wouldn’t we all be happy, shiny squirrels?

You want my guns, Brian? Come and get ’em.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rustico][quote=briansd1]Great beautifully written post, Arraya. I agree also.

With respect to “the desire to stifle certain forms of expression”, it’s now my side’s turn to not waste an opportunity.

As Arraya said, we are shaped by our environment. If we change the language and the culture, we can change society.

The Right wants to wage the culture war. Bring it on. I wouldn’t mind eradicating redneck culture.[/quote]
Yeah brian, but you wouldn’t mind sewing the mouths shut on everyone with a waist that is bigger than their inseam either.[/quote]

Russ: Bingo and excellent shot! (From a Navy guy, no less!). What Brian and his ilk advocate, under the guise of “improving society”, is exactly that: Controlling all “negative” behaviors and thus “perfecting” society.

Of course, having a pretext helps and here comes the Gifford shooting. Which is why we find ourselves again listening to the Left complain about those nasty guns and that awful hate speech, and, gee, if we just did away with both, wouldn’t we all be happy, shiny squirrels?

You want my guns, Brian? Come and get ’em.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rustico][quote=briansd1]Great beautifully written post, Arraya. I agree also.

With respect to “the desire to stifle certain forms of expression”, it’s now my side’s turn to not waste an opportunity.

As Arraya said, we are shaped by our environment. If we change the language and the culture, we can change society.

The Right wants to wage the culture war. Bring it on. I wouldn’t mind eradicating redneck culture.[/quote]
Yeah brian, but you wouldn’t mind sewing the mouths shut on everyone with a waist that is bigger than their inseam either.[/quote]

Russ: Bingo and excellent shot! (From a Navy guy, no less!). What Brian and his ilk advocate, under the guise of “improving society”, is exactly that: Controlling all “negative” behaviors and thus “perfecting” society.

Of course, having a pretext helps and here comes the Gifford shooting. Which is why we find ourselves again listening to the Left complain about those nasty guns and that awful hate speech, and, gee, if we just did away with both, wouldn’t we all be happy, shiny squirrels?

You want my guns, Brian? Come and get ’em.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Rustico][quote=briansd1]Great beautifully written post, Arraya. I agree also.

With respect to “the desire to stifle certain forms of expression”, it’s now my side’s turn to not waste an opportunity.

As Arraya said, we are shaped by our environment. If we change the language and the culture, we can change society.

The Right wants to wage the culture war. Bring it on. I wouldn’t mind eradicating redneck culture.[/quote]
Yeah brian, but you wouldn’t mind sewing the mouths shut on everyone with a waist that is bigger than their inseam either.[/quote]

Russ: Bingo and excellent shot! (From a Navy guy, no less!). What Brian and his ilk advocate, under the guise of “improving society”, is exactly that: Controlling all “negative” behaviors and thus “perfecting” society.

Of course, having a pretext helps and here comes the Gifford shooting. Which is why we find ourselves again listening to the Left complain about those nasty guns and that awful hate speech, and, gee, if we just did away with both, wouldn’t we all be happy, shiny squirrels?

You want my guns, Brian? Come and get ’em.

[Author]

Posts