Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[Dennis Ruhl]

Honestly, you make some good points on some issues, but you really lower the level of discourse when you post utterly ridiculous blogs.

Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.

 

[Gimpy]

Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.

I never stated that though, I'm fully aware that most or all NDP politicians (the ones that don't have some explaining to do) say they are social democrats, but there are few who would freely admit that they are in line with the NDP Socialist Caucus' ultra-left socialism. Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse.

 

[Kirkhill]

The slant of that blog seems in line with all the people speaking of Harper's "hidden agenda" and how he was going to steer the Conservative Party and Canada into the right.  People trying to make the most out of the fringe of his parties caucus.

It goes in the lame fearmongering pile.

I like both my geese and my ganders well sauced.

 

[a_majoor]

If a group representing about 40% of the party is "fringe", then your definitions are quite different from most definitons of "fringe". 40% is close to the amount of voters needed to get Prime Minister Harper a majority mandate, and given the rather complex voting structure internal to the NDP, it may be more than enough to provide a "majority" of direction to the Party and their Caucus.

At any rate, people can look at this as a place to start their research, or can attack the messenger. I would rather have clear knowledge of what is on offer to voters.

 

[Redeye]

Not so sure about that.  I don't know that you would find many NDP politicians denying that they are social democrats considering that the roots are unambiguously socialistic.

You likely would find few denying that they're social democrats, of course - since the party is basically a social democratic party.  You would, however, find very, very few that agree with the "Socialist Caucus of the NDP" point of view, because they're a tiny fringe of the party and in no way do they represent the whole.  It is, as several have pointed out, no different than the varied caucuses one finds in any political party's organization.  Having been a Young Tory and attended quite a few conventions, I saw the variety of caucuses who developed their own ideas and tried to steer the party toward them.  There's no difference.  I'd say these folks are just like the rapid social conservative fringe in the Conservative Party of Canada - slightly disturbing, but also pretty much irrelevant, except to ignorant clowns who read ridiculous blog posts and don't actually seem to be able to give any sort of critical thought to them.

 

[Journeyman]

Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse.

Are no bloggers informed?

Personally, I try to judge information by its content rather than its delivery media  ~shrug~

 

[a_majoor]

Growth of another disturbing trend, Brownshirt tactics in the United States. We have also seen this happening in Canada (Anne Coulter event in Ottawa comes to mind, but I have heard first hand accounts of email "bombing" of the Dean and University President's office demanding the removal of two professors on several separate occasions based on public pronouncements or writings quite unrelated to their work at the University.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029018.php

THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL INTIMIDATION

May 11, 2011 Posted by John at 7:36 PM

A disturbing new element has crept into our political life: organized efforts to intimidate private citizens who choose to support certain political causes or otherwise participate in civic affairs. This, as far as I know, is unprecedented in our modern history. Our democracy depends on citizen involvement, and until now, Americans have felt free to participate in public life and to support whatever causes, political and otherwise, they choose. But if the Left has its way, that may be about to change.

We wrote here about a disgraceful episode in which approximately 500 union members were bused to the home of a lawyer who works for Bank of America, where they "demonstrated" on his lawn, thereby terrifying his teenage son, who was home alone. The event was supposed to have something to do with foreclosures. Nina Easton, who lives nearby and witnessed the attack first-hand, wrote at the time:

Now this event would accurately be called a "protest" if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be "mob." Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might "incite" these trespassers.

We wrote last week about another attempt at such personal intimidation. Left-wing filmmaker Robert Greenwald (who, like most far-left activists, is funded by wealthy benefactors) set out to violate the privacy of the Koch brothers, Charles and David, by filming their houses, sending minions to ring their doorbells and demand to see them, and so on.

Greenwald made a very silly seven-minute video which talks mainly about the Koch brothers' seven homes and features three senior citizens--who, as the law averages would dictate, are nowhere near as well off as the Kochs--picnicking outside one of their homes and speculating about how many families could better be housed in it. (Their conversation was eerily reminiscent of a scene in Dr. Zhivago; Greenwald apparently yearns for an American Lenin to make things "just.") Greenwald's efforts supplement those of ThinkProgress, the Obama administration-affiliated web site whose employees stalk the Koch brothers with video cameras. And Greenwald also operates a web site called "Koch Brothers Exposed," where vicious, anonymous leftists can indulge their murderous fantasies.

This is, as I said, a brand-new phenomenon. We are not talking about public officials; put aside for a moment whether it would ever be appropriate for a mob to congregate on an office-holder's front yard. These are private citizens who are being targeted by the Left simply because they work for an unpopular company (the BOA lawyer) or support conservative rather than liberal causes (the Koch brothers). The purpose of these efforts is obvious: the Left wants to intimidate anyone who might consider opposing its legislative and cultural agenda.

Of course, this could be a two-way street. The Left has plenty of wealthy backers who could be intimidated by the same tactics. Indeed, most rich people who are active in politics are liberals, not conservatives. If owning multiple homes is somehow an offense, then let's be bipartisan. Robert Greenwald, how many houses do you own?

A simple Westlaw search indicates that one Robert Greenwald owns at least six residences, worth millions of dollars, in Los Angeles County alone, in addition to commercial properties. Is this our Robert Greenwald, the same hypocritical film director who excoriates the Kochs for owning too many houses? Someone should ask him. How many families whose houses have been foreclosed upon could be living in the properties owned by the left-wing filmmaker? Has Greenwald done anything to ease the plight of the homeless? Someone should ask him.

Greenwald lives on the largesse of wealthy donors, as we noted in the post linked above. How would those donors like to have their doorbells rung, and to be followed around by political enemies with cameras? According to its 2010 Annual Report, the Board of Directors of Greenwald's front group, Brave New Foundation, includes Wendy Abrams, whose family business does $2 billion in annual sales. How many houses does she own? Should we send someone around to ask her? Another board member is Katrina vanden Heuvel, whose far-left activities long been financed by her inherited wealth. Should she be stalked by conservatives with video cameras?

These are, of course, only rhetorical questions. Conservatives are decent people and don't engage in such repugnant tactics. The Left threatens to disrupt a basic equilibrium that has long prevailed in America's civic culture. Private citizens have traditionally been free to participate in public affairs and to support whatever causes they choose, without fear of harassment or intimidation. The Left now wants to destroy that consensus by harassing private citizens who happen to work for unpopular companies (unpopular on the left, anyway) or support conservative causes. This is a dangerous trend that all Americans of good will, conservatives and liberals alike, should oppose.

 

[Redeye]

Growth of another disturbing trend, Brownshirt tactics in the United States. We have also seen this happening in Canada (Anne Coulter event in Ottawa comes to mind, but I have heard first hand accounts of email "bombing" of the Dean and University President's office demanding the removal of two professors on several separate occasions based on public pronouncements or writings quite unrelated to their work at the University.)

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/05/029018.php

Just so we're clear, slandering "wealthy benefactors" of the "left" like George Soros is okay, but calling out the secretive (and frankly, quite disturbingly influential) Koch Brothers isn't.  Right.  I'm sure that's going to garner lots of sympathy.

 

[Infanteer]

Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?

 

[Redeye]

Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?

I'd say so, yes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Does use of the term "Brownshirt Tactics" count for Godwin's Law?

Yes, because the "Brownshirts" did, didn't just lead to, actually did this:

.
The morning after Kristallnacht, 1938


But, "brownshirst tactics" is pretty close to this:

Poster for Israeli Apartheid Week which is "celebrated" at several Canadian universities.


Is Israel mean and nasty to the Arabs? Yes. Does Israel want to separate 'Palestine' from Israel, proper? Yes. Does Israel discriminate for and against its own citizens based on religion? Yes. Does Israel practice apartheid? No.

Does Canada discriminate for and against its own citizens based on religion? Yes. Consider, just for starters, that Christmas and Easter are public holidays but e.g. Diwali is not. (I advocate fewer, not more, religiously based holidays. I have nothing against the winter and spring festivals, just the recent (1,500 or so years old) religious connotations assigned to ancient and perfectly respectable pagan festivals.)

 

[Gimpy]

Are no bloggers informed?

Personally, I try to judge information by its content rather than its delivery media  ~shrug~

Unless the blogger clearly identifies themselve or can be identified as a credible source and provide primary or even secondary references on work written, or even shows to have some kind of information others have than absolutely I believe they can be informed. That posting however was your typical nutjob blog post. From my many hours spent in research at university I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are.

If a group representing about 40% of the party is "fringe", then your definitions are quite different from most definitons of "fringe". 40% is close to the amount of voters needed to get Prime Minister Harper a majority mandate, and given the rather complex voting structure internal to the NDP, it may be more than enough to provide a "majority" of direction to the Party and their Caucus.

Do you have any sources to back up that 40% of the party is involved in the NDP Socialist Caucus? Because in the last NDP leadership election the NDP Socialist candidate received 1.1% of the vote. If you have the actual numbers I'd love to see them because I haven't found any reliable information on them.

 

[Redeye]

Do you have any sources to back up that 40% of the party is involved in the NDP Socialist Caucus? Because in the last NDP leadership election the NDP Socialist candidate received 1.1% of the vote. If you have the actual numbers I'd love to see them because I haven't found any reliable information on them.

I'll save you the trouble of waiting for an answer, because we've been down this road before, many times.

He doesn't.  He won't offer anything, most likely, unless it's another, completely non-credible blog claim.

 

[Journeyman]

From my many hours spent in research at university I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are.

Ah well, if you want to be the guy in Good Will Hunting who can quote one author, until he discovers the next 'expert' the year following, then limiting ones reading to peer-reviewed and footnoted publications is definitely the way to go.    :nod:


I suspect, however, you may have stumbled upon one of the downfalls of "many hours spent in research at university," to the detriment of living and thinking independently. 

 

[Gimpy]

Ah well, if you want to be the guy in Good Will Hunting who can quote one author, until he discovers the next 'expert' the year following, then limiting ones reading to peer-reviewed and footnoted publications is definitely the way to go.    :nod:


I suspect, however, you may have stumbled upon one of the downfalls of "many hours spent in research at university," to the detriment of living and thinking independently. 

It's not purely about footnotes and peer reviews, but whether or not I can quickly google a writer and see if I can find other works and other publications they've written in. For instance if a recognized journalist had a blog, it would have credibility, but go and google the author of the initial blog I posted about and tell me if you believe that author to be a credible source on information related to the NDP. I will admit though that I was a bit hyperbolic on the whole blog issue and I probably should have stated that unsubstantiated and ridiculous blogs lower discourse!

 

[observor 69]

Last weeks light bulb moment ...

Some of the most educated people I know aren't smart. 

 

[Journeyman]

....if a recognized journalist had a blog, it would have credibility

I assure you that just because someone is cashing their "recognized journalist" paycheque from, say, the Toronto Star.....name recognition, because of personal bias and publications' political stance, has a very tenuous link with credibility.

Now, I suspect we'll go through a couple more iterations of back-peddling, refining what you think you believe, allow for the tossing in of the term "discourse" a few more times.....and you'll come to the point where you say, "I read through it, thought about it in comparison with my currently held beliefs, and found it lacked credibility." Which is to say, you judged it based on the content rather than merely because it was in blog format (by a "non-recognized journalist" at any rate).


Let's just pretend we've reached that stage already.   

 

[Gimpy]

I assure you that just because someone is cashing their "recognized journalist" paycheque from, say, the Toronto Star.....name recognition, because of personal bias and publications' political stance, has a very tenuous link with credibility.

Now, I suspect we'll go through a couple more iterations of back-peddling, refining what you think you believe, allow for the tossing in of the term "discourse" a few more times.....and you'll come to the point where you say, "I read through it, thought about it in comparison with my currently held beliefs, and found it lacked credibility." Which is to say, you judged it based on the content rather than merely because it was in blog format (by a "non-recognized journalist" at any rate).


Let's just pretend we've reached that stage already.   

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allow to use the word discourse. I'll try and remember that for the future. How about you do me a favour and cut the condescending tone and go back to the original blog I quoted and point me towards any credibility that the author has with regards to his topic?

You also talk about judging based on content and personal beliefs when you are doing the exact same thing with your comment about the Toronto Star. I guess I'm just an idiot for putting more credibility in a recognized journalist, irrelevant of political beliefs, than an unknown blogger.

 

[Journeyman]

I can see how encouraging someone to consider the logic of their posts could be considered condescending in some circles.

I wasn't remotely defending the initial blog, merely questioning your statements that:
- "Anyways, that's not really relevant to my point on blogs lowering discourse,"
- [bloggers must] "provide primary or even secondary references on work written," and
- "I immediately judge blogs as non-credible unless they can 100% prove they are."

Hey, they're your words; I was merely contrinbuting to the discourse by questioning your logic.

    op:


Perhaps I should have used proper citations.  :-[

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I guess I'm just an idiot for putting more credibility in a recognized journalist, irrelevant of political beliefs, than an unknown blogger.

Finally something I can agree with on either side of this ideological mudfest..............