Failure to Communicate...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

In 1956 Robert Lifton wrote THE book on brain-washing. Lifton said...

The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.

We all know the lines. Prgressives love to go on about how "Conservatives are racist" or how "Conservatives want the poor to starve in the street", just as Conservatives will support anything done in the name of "National Security" or "Traditional Values"

Everyone uses such clichés to some degree. Either to avoid facing uncomfortable truths about themselves, or as a means to marginalize potential opposition. About a week ago I got into a war of words on with someone I ordinarily respect and agree with. The battle spanned two posts and close to 200 comments. Needless to say, things got a little heated.

The core of the disagreement was my assertion that it is not enough to say that something is right or wrong. One must also be able to articulate why.

Anything less make you vulnerable to cliché.

In my opinion, many progressives on this forum use charges of racism or just plain cruelty on the part of thier opponents to avoid taking a good hard look at the flaws in thier own reasoning.

As was said in the comments to an earlier post... If we can't have the conversation in reallistic terms, and naming the apropriate parties, then exactly how are we to be solving any of the problems? If, for example, I cannot say "the african american population of the US is 17% of the overall, and committs 40% of the murders, how can we improve that situation", without worry of being accused of racism and hate-mongering, then exactly *how* can we look at solutions

On the flip-side, Many conservatives freely accuse Obama of being a Communist or a Socialist. but far fewer are willing to examine whether or not such titles are warrented or why being one a might be a bad thing in the first place.

What clichés do you fall prey to?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

These sorts of cliches are things I'm trying hard to rid myself of as of the last couple years. It's much more difficult than it seems, especially when you're surrounded by them as much as we are in this day and age.

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Is it still a cliche of this type if I am willing and able to rigorously back up and defend my statement? In my case it is that Obama is (in broad strokes) a socialist. But the conversation need not end there, I have what I consider to be sufficient evidence to the extent that it's possible to know the mind of a stranger. What bothers me more is the general run of reply to a charge of socialism levelled at Obama. "That's stupid". And "if he were a socialist, he would abolish private property" (neglecting the lack of a proceedure by which the president could *do* that without public debate and congressional approval) do not feel to me sufficient to refute his record of increased government interventionism, socialistic domestic policy, outright communist (in several cases) appointments, and foreign policy.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

It would help even more if you used the standard definition of "Socialist" or "Socialism"
if you believed your examples support the notion.

and " outright Communism"? Is this a serious claim on your part? or just the
need for drama and adventure?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So he's a socialist that does everything the capitalists want. What does socialism even mean to you then? It seems equivalent to "poopyhead" the way you use it.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Outright Communism, to people who sincerely care about not associating a movement that killed 150 million people in less than 100 years with things that are not-it, and people who value human life enough not to make such vulgar statements requires advocating a command economy, a one-party state, and the establishment of a secret police network. Where are any Democratic politicians advocating any of this? I'm not interested in any excuse about why you don't care about mass murder when it's politically convenient to do so and "But the Democrats use Hitler" is not an excuse, that has plenty of indefensible issues in its own right. Why vulgarize what the Communists, the real ones, the Stalin-Mao-Pol Pot ones, did?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

. Prgressives love to go on about how "Conservatives are racist" or how "Conservatives want the poor to starve in the street"

Uh speaking of cliches. I think its more blanket statements than anything. Major blanket statements going on.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Furthermore, I see very often that a liberal will provide fairly accurate evidence pointing out that a specific candidate, especially Newt currently is pandering to racist sentiments, and then people like you specifically try to equate that to being just as bad as certain conservatives, no names, randomly saying Obama is a socialist with no evidence. And you equate these things like the are equally bad, when they're completely different. This is the standard falacy of the distributed middle that is so widespread these days. Its just as bad as hyperbole claiming one side is always wrong no matter the evidence and one side always right no matter the evidence.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"the african american population of the US is 17% of the overall, and committs 40% of the murders, how can we improve that situation"

Its more like 13% and blacks make up over half of the murder victims. The vast majority of those murders, black white or asian latino etc. are in poor urban areas and the majority are gun crimes. But, seriously? Skin color is the issue to be focused upon? Really? Is there a word to describe someone who would focus on skin color despite other correlating factors?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

I largely agree with you, but the seemingly random numbers that are being thrown around are driving me crazy, especially when precision on this subject is so easy,

African-Americans make up about 12.6% of the population and in 2009 were the perpetrators in 51.6% of murders where the perpetrator's race is known.

These numbers are not racist, but they are accurate. The use of the 40% statistic is pretty lazy (I suspect that I know where that statistic came from, well, if they were rounding to the nearest 10%), and that 17% the last year that would have been in the ball-park would have been 1840.


http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab01.pdf

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

[ford-prefect42.livejournal.com]

Pragmatist? Problem solver?

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

To steal and mangle Trotsky,

"When some one says human nature, I reach for my gun."

I mean, I have read Marx, Hayek, Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Augustine, Moore, Arendt, Hagels, Kant, Burke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Ramone, Lock, Jefferson, Von Mises, Malthus, Averroes, Darwin, Strummer, Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Gramsci, Weber, Ibn Masarra, Livy, Foucault, Nietzsche, Aurelius, Hamilton, Dawkins, Bentham, Rand, Madison, Adams (both John and Douglas), the Bible, the Koran, Terkel, the Book of Mormon, Smith, Sartre, Camus, McManus, Vogelin, Strauss, Reed, a smattering of the Buddhist and Hindu sutras, and a bunch of other stuff that was required.

Hell, I have even learned French, Italian, Latin and [some] Classical Greek to get through this crap.

But I am not ready to discuss "human nature" and frankly, I am not prepared to read some marxist/athiest/objectivist/catholic/protestant philosophy minor who thinks they are, go on about human nature. Unless it is policratus or johnny9fingers.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Actually those are not bad choices :)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'd say that invoking "Human Nature" as a motivation would be an excellent example of the sorts of cliche' i'm talking about.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I feel reminded of the times fozzy bear called out posts like this as some sort of feel-good circlejerk about how you're 'above' some self-invented dilemma and want to share this revelation with others. There's nothing to discuss. "Don't make blanket statements; Don't be stupid; Most people don't critically examine their own beliefs." There is no offer of any solution here, just pointing out the problems and how you're, despite human nature, beyond all of them.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So what's your point?

The first step to solving any problem is to identify it.

Are you saying that I shouldn't bother and just enjoy throwing my poo at the other monkeys? Is trying to "rise above it" really just a waste of time?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

If, for example, I cannot say "the african american population of the US is 17% of the overall, and committs 40% of the murders, how can we improve that situation", without worry of being accused of racism and hate-mongering, then exactly *how* can we look at solutions

You can't because without context that statement is racist. In order to successfully make it you have to frame it within a larger context. Therein lies the bigger problem: People often don't know they are being or saying something racist.

If you're not part of the subject group, people will assume that you speak from a particular set of biases because you lack the first-hand experience of the subject group. If you are a member of the subject group, you can usually get a pass, because you already have some context. This is true for any class of people.

I'm sorry your thread got hijacked by those who can't get past their cliches.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

What cliches do I 'fall for'?

Does that mean "Fooled by" or "utilize"?

Fooled by: Probably the NASCAR WASP angle. There are much more people who vote GOP than that cliched group.

Utilized: based on personal experience, growing up around, and rarely associating with real racists that will not vote Democrat because to them. it is the "ni**er party" and that was decades before Obama.

I utilize that cliche because unlike the 'polite ones' we have in conservative blogs, these people openly call a spade a spade.

Yeah, based on personal experience, I fall for the 'conservatives are racist' one pretty regular. And this reality ruler HAS 12 inches [inside joke from enduring 100 or those 200 comments]

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Ya sorry about that.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

If I fall prey to anything it's for GOP leadership and candidates, not the members at large (which is a very diverse group). But for said leadership I do tend to paint them with a broad stroke, and I probably shouldn't.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

What clichés do you fall prey to?

Well, when it comes to politics...

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"
"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy."
"Just one more wafer thin mint."

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"What have the Romans ever done for us?"

That's one I fall for a lot myself.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Every time I think conservatives may be falsely accused of racism, I pay another visit to FoxNews articles on line. The comments indicate that no more than roughly 60% are openly racist.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So here's a nasty question.

What would you consider to be the key qualities in a president?

Would you be willing to forgive other character flaws (even racism) if a candidate had these quality?

[paft.livejournal.com]

I try to avoid cliches.

Here are a couple of cliches I counter online quite frequently. Interestingly enough, they tend to be related to racism.

"The word 'racism' has been way overused."

In fact, the words "racism" and "racist" have frequently not been used when they need to be used.

Another cliche is this one. It's an exchange I've had online so many times it's become depressingly predictable...

A. I refer to THE BELL CURVE as a racist book.

B. Another poster takes issue with this, and snidely implies I haven't even read it.

C. I point out that, in fact, I have read it (more than once) and ask if the other person has read it.

D. The very person who was implying I hadn't read THE BELL CURVE turns out not to have read it.

This has been so consistently true of people who defend THE BELL CURVE as not racist, I've been gobsmacked on those rare occasions when I encounter a defender who has. I want to leap over the net and shake their hand vigorously before going back to my position and preparing for the next lob.

Oddly enough, the folks who say they've actually read the book and think it's not racist rarely, if ever, want to play.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

I read Anders Behring Breivik's "manifesto" and discussed it on a site I run devoted to odd, strange and outre literature. I wrote about 50,000 words on a 1,518 page document.

Without exception, every person denying the various writers in the manifesto engaged in extraordinary bigotry, historical revisionism, bad analysis, and outright misogyny has not read the manifesto. When asked how they came to have their erroneous opinions, they link me to people holding forth at brief who admit at the end of their discourse that they have not read the manifesto, only the snippets provided by others just like them. So their opinions are fed by those who have not read it and because some guy repeated what someone said in the comments on the Huffington Post, it trumps two months of analysis on my part that was eventually translated into Norwegian.

It's maddening and it fills me with despair. I don't expect people to read the manifesto but I also do not expect people who have not read it tell me that my analysis was wrong.

The corollary to this is when challenged for evidence, some people will produce links and once I read them, it is clear to me that the person hoped no one would actually read them, that the evidence of the links would make people be all, "Oh, he has links, that's good enough for me." Then once read, the links have little to do with the point at hand and at times actually of help proving the opposite of what the linker said they proved. I think increasingly debate has become so lazy that people don't expect to be challenged, and when they are, they think simply linking to an OpEd somehow counts as proof.

Again, it is maddening.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The cliche of assuming whenever people discuss politics they actually mean anything that's ever said in it. Otherwise we're just hunky-dory with it. Of course, too, the degree to which people bastardize and vulgarize the mass-murderous regimes and ideologies of the 20th Century would be appalling in a civilized society, as would be the concept of a religion whose fundamental tenets are hating Muslims and Gays and blaming them for all evils in the world.

Progressives do many of the exact same things they accuse conservatives of, from engaging in rampant violations of separation of powers, engaging in blatant overstretch of government power beyond where it fairly belongs, having rather immense issues with the same problems of privilege and racism in practice that they say is a conservative problem. Progressives have made hay for years out of comparing conservatives to the Nazis, despite that the real Nazism was about exterminating Jews and Slavs to build Greater Germany and is completely, utterly, and totally irrelevant to the United States. Progressives elect politicians who are just as dependent on corporate donation and control as GOP politicians are, but claim that *their* version of the exact same problem is different because it's their version, for no more and no less a reason. Progressives claim to fight great, sweeping evils even as they themselves often are hard to distinguish from the very evils they claim to fight against. Conservatives are all for social justice and eliminating privilege until they realize that it's not just Skinheads or the various Family associations that can be homophobic, they are, too. And then when that's noted to them they react in manners directly identical to the conservatives they so demonize as privilege is privilege. Progressives demand the USA adopt policies which the countries that "adopt" them don't enforce and expect the USA to do what nobody else does as though one country doing it will magically make all the other countries do this same thing. Progressivism also has far too much incompetence and infighting to be worth more than pointing and laughing. Progressives invent the conspiracy of all-powerful rich people opposed to them to disguise that politically speaking they're incompetent and unable to organize worth a good goddamn and have as a result universally failed to get what they want, not from people being out to get them, but from being unable to politically organize and often unwilling to accept the consequences of said organization. Much easier to invent conspiracies than to address these issues.

Conservatives, by contrast, have a political ideology, if we go by what conservatives themselves call conservatism, that gays, Muslims, and atheists are the root of all evil and exterminating/extirpating/brainwashing them will make utopia. Libertarians are a bunch of whiny Jacksonians who have at the best case an astonishing naivete and faith in human good-will that doesn't on the evidence wind up being justified at all and makes them as dangerous as Marxists but without a USSR to wreck their ideology for anyone with a lick of conscience or good will. Conservatism wants a government small enough to fit in the uterus and the bedroom but claims to represent small government. It picks wars with weak, incompetent enemies and hails itself for being the greatest soldiers ever, even as its leaders are all quietly keeping *their* kids out of the wars. Conservatism favors the governmental employees of the military and the handouts of Social Security and Medicare, but says "Fuck you sonsobitches" to all other handouts where they do not personally benefit. Conservatives, frankly, are a grab-bag of Khomeini wannabes and a bunch of desperate relics of the early 19th Century vainly grasping at the tide ala Canute and with just as much effect. Conservatives invent a conspiracy theory that involves the USA being simultaneously invincible and simultaneously menaced by enemies which are only a threat to idiot damn fools that don't have any idea what they're doing. The USA cannot simultaneously be the last best hope and in imminent danger of collapse from a few ranting Muslims with AK-47s taken off the body of a dead Soviet soldier in the 1980s.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Ah, cliches. Little heuristic thought shortcuts, as necessary for survival as food.

That's what they are, really, the thought equivalent of muscle memory. Without the ability to reduce into cookie-cutter paradigms, we would forever be stuck analyzing the wisdom of every choice and decision.

When I started to realize this was the case, I realized I fell into the "good/evil" cliche. Things were good, or they were evil, or they were neutral. Problem was, too many of the good/evil things were poorly understood on my part.

Good example: Driving in So. Cal. in the early '80s, I saw the kind of desert sprawl that haunts the dreams. Beautiful mountains and dry valleys . . . broken up by gated communities of McMansion boxes. No employment, no retail, not even a convenience store. Those were miles away, dependent on cars for any an all access.

Silly me, I blamed capitalism. Why? It was the only word in my vocabulary that related to both the sale of land and the abuse that sale can result in. Had the vocabulary of development been around, I might have berated the anti-urbanism this unsustainable slap-dash construction represents.

So now, I try to avoid the cliches of good and evil. They don't exist except as heuristics for praise and condemnation. Things have to be "beneficial" or "detrimental." I don't always succeed, of course, since I am lazy to an evil degree. (Ooops.)

[whak-hat.livejournal.com]

I agree, especially on this forum. It's like those anon posts all over again. Only now it's about politics rather then which character is whatever