|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kikomom
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: them thar hills--Penna, USA--Zippy is my kid, the teacher in ROK. You can call me Kiko
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Just follow the news, there's always something. Here's a story out of Beck's 912 March on Washington that's kind of mind-boggling.
Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service
Who knew the WSJ did satire? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Conservative philosophy goes so strongly against our natural ethical inclinations that it inevitably leads to utterly ridiculous statements and actions from the people trying to justify it. |
That's funny, I've always thought it was the opposite. Aren't liberals the ones who think that if we just understand everyone then conflict and war and pain will go away, contrary to the entire body of recorded history of the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Conservative philosophy goes so strongly against our natural ethical inclinations that it inevitably leads to utterly ridiculous statements and actions from the people trying to justify it. |
That's funny, I've always thought it was the opposite. Aren't liberals the ones who think that if we just understand everyone then conflict and war and pain will go away, contrary to the entire body of recorded history of the world? |
Yeah that one had me scratching my head as well.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Conservative philosophy goes so strongly against our natural ethical inclinations that it inevitably leads to utterly ridiculous statements and actions from the people trying to justify it. |
That's funny, I've always thought it was the opposite. Aren't liberals the ones who think that if we just understand everyone then conflict and war and pain will go away, contrary to the entire body of recorded history of the world? |
Liberals desiring to end conflict, war, and pain is in tune with our ethical inclinations. Even if you disagree with their methodology, sarcastically attacking them about such things just comes off as bitter or angry. It's not particularly ripe grounds for satirical humor; it can certainly be mocked, but most people won't enjoy it nearly as much as they'll enjoy hearing the utterly ridiculous words of Conservatives being mocked.
Satirical humor is at its best when it's attacking hypocrisy, and there's nothing hypocritical about promoting peace through inter-cultural understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This topic has the danger of becoming 99 pages of useless shouting. I don't have the online stamina for that sort of thing anymore. If anyone else wants to take up the banner, go ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
What this thread needs is some priceless feelgood platitudes, courtesy of President Obama.
"The road ahead will be long...." (he loves that one)...."but we gotta do what's right!"
Brilliant!
*cue thunderous applause from Obama's absolutely stupid supporters*
Or perhaps...."The time for bickering is over. We need to look to the future"
How did I do?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Fox"]
| mateomiguel wrote: |
but most people won't enjoy it nearly as much as they'll enjoy hearing the utterly ridiculous words of Conservatives being mocked.
|
Yes but didn't Al Franken try that with Air America and ended up going out of business?
Generally speaking satircal political comments by either Rush Limbaugh (on the right) or whoever you want to ascribe on the left are in essence "preaching to the choir" of their own constituencies and not widely appreciated "en masse" regardless of the calims of the purveyors. It's interesting (*and I'm only using the dems as an example because they've held power in congress most recently) will go out and tell everyone that most people agree with them and think the way they do and if you don't you are some kind of "fuddy duddy" and then they end up losing a vote on something and act like persecuted victims the next day.
Yes liberals do appreciate pointing out the absurdities of the conservatives' discourses just as the latter do to the former.
I believe that you are pushing a fallacy - That being appealing to popularity but at the same time creating the illusion that the poularity exists widespread outside your political base which is not true. In reality the country is pretty evenly divided along politcal lines regardless of how any one presidential or congressional election swings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Yes but didn't Al Franken try that with Air America and ended up going out of business? |
The Daily Show and the Colbert Report do it too, and quite successfully. They take some shots at Liberals where possible -- as they should -- but it's no accident that the majority of their political material burns Conservatives. Conservatives virtually write the material for them. A wealthy man arguing that other wealthy men should get tax cuts is far easier to mock than a man arguing for environmental protections or business regulations, and far more satisfying to mock too.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| I believe that you are pushing a fallacy |
Then I believe you don't understand what I'm saying.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| That being appealing to popularity but at the same time creating the illusion that the poularity exists widespread outside your political base which is not true. In reality the country is pretty evenly divided along politcal lines regardless of how any one presidential or congressional election swings. |
Absolutely nothing I've said has anything to do with the political affiliations of our citizens. I said Conservatives are more vulnerable to satirical mocking, and as such the satire directed at them is invariably funnier. I didn't say anything about the political demographics of our country. Even a Conservative can enjoy anti-Conservative satire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Wealthy men should get tax cuts is far easier to mock than a man arguing for environmental protections or business regulations, and far more satisfying to mock too. |
About as satisfying I'd say as Nancy Pelosi labeling a bunch of mom and pop seniors and baby boomers as Nazis for attending town hall meetings on health care and expressing their concerns. I dunno maybe the latter is not just as lighthearted and funny. Also it's no suprise that Colbert and Stewart are liberals themselves.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Then I believe you don't understand what I'm saying. |
I understand perfectly what you're saying as it's the same old tired line I've been hearing form liberal apologists for years. You are purporting that the majority of Americans share your liberal views when in fact it's pretty evenly divided. It's good propaganda to state that your party is for "peace, justice, and the American way" and that your opponents oppose all of those noble virtues, but in reality we all are for the same things but have different views about how to go about getting there. I will be the first to agree that there are many cracks in conservative ideology as i am not a republican. But I have lived through 3 republican presidencies and 2 democrats and during each my taxes were hiked and I am far from what you would call rich.
| Quote: |
| Even a Conservative can enjoy anti-Conservative satire. |
So why pray tell, cannot liberals do the same when the monkey is on their backs? You suggest that conservatives naturally make themselves the butt of jokes but i can remember during Clinton's presidency that Leno, Letterman, Conan, etc...had a field day hamming it up about Bill and Hillary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mateomiguel
Joined: 16 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Conservative philosophy goes so strongly against our natural ethical inclinations that it inevitably leads to utterly ridiculous statements and actions from the people trying to justify it. |
That's funny, I've always thought it was the opposite. Aren't liberals the ones who think that if we just understand everyone then conflict and war and pain will go away, contrary to the entire body of recorded history of the world? |
Liberals desiring to end conflict, war, and pain is in tune with our ethical inclinations. Even if you disagree with their methodology, sarcastically attacking them about such things just comes off as bitter or angry. It's not particularly ripe grounds for satirical humor; it can certainly be mocked, but most people won't enjoy it nearly as much as they'll enjoy hearing the utterly ridiculous words of Conservatives being mocked.
Satirical humor is at its best when it's attacking hypocrisy, and there's nothing hypocritical about promoting peace through inter-cultural understanding. |
Ok ok ok i can't let this one go. What are "natural ethical inclinations" exactly? Is that "natural" as in "survival of the fittest" as in food for me is good, and food for you is bad? You'd think that if we had anything like natural ethical inclinations we'd see them pop up a lot in people's actions. You know, how people spontaneously organize themselves into larger and larger groups over time. Or how people seem to like family and dislike strangers. Or how people worship some higher mystical being. These are the closest things to natural inclinations I can think of, since they always occur in every culture everywhere, throughout history. Incidentally, it also includes "Kill your neighbor and take his stuff before he does the same to you." That's definitely a big part of recorded history.
But these natural inclinations are so basic that they are not a part of any political ideology. Political ideology is complex stuff. So complex, in fact, that I'd say its all unnatural ethical inclinations. if you're going to define things as natural at all.
That's probably my real point. What is called "natural" tends to be whatever the speaker agrees with, and what is unnatural tends to be whatever the speaker disagrees with. That's the underlying reason why I think identifying one political ideology as "natural" is so absurd. Sure, its natural to you, because that's what you agree with. But saying that the opposing viewpoint is unnatural is simply taking the stance of the Inquisitor. Sure, go ahead, condemn whatever you don't agree with as unnatural. Then, its just a few steps from there to torturing and burning the unnatural elements of society to purge them from existence, which they richly deserve because they are unnatural anyways right?
Instead of saying that liberals are more natural and conservatives are more unnatural, I'd be inclined to say that having an eternal dichotomy of viewpoints is the more natural state of things, because that's generally what always happens. If there were just two people left on earth, one of them would start arguing against the other one eventually, on some esoteric point of useless conjecture. Then, poof, two opposing parties would be born again. But saying that one side is natural and the other isn't is just ignorant - an ignorance powerful enough to support ethnic cleansing, inquisition, and genocide. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
That's probably my real point. What is called "natural" tends to be whatever the speaker agrees with, and what is unnatural tends to be whatever the speaker disagrees with. That's the underlying reason why I think identifying one political ideology as "natural" is so absurd. Sure, its natural to you, because that's what you agree with. But saying that the opposing viewpoint is unnatural is simply taking the stance of the Inquisitor. Sure, go ahead, condemn whatever you don't agree with as unnatural. Then, its just a few steps from there to torturing and burning the unnatural elements of society to purge them from existence, which they richly deserve because they are unnatural anyways right?
|
This is one of the best things I have read all day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xingyiman
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Conservative philosophy goes so strongly against our natural ethical inclinations that it inevitably leads to utterly ridiculous statements and actions from the people trying to justify it. |
That's funny, I've always thought it was the opposite. Aren't liberals the ones who think that if we just understand everyone then conflict and war and pain will go away, contrary to the entire body of recorded history of the world? |
Liberals desiring to end conflict, war, and pain is in tune with our ethical inclinations. Even if you disagree with their methodology, sarcastically attacking them about such things just comes off as bitter or angry. It's not particularly ripe grounds for satirical humor; it can certainly be mocked, but most people won't enjoy it nearly as much as they'll enjoy hearing the utterly ridiculous words of Conservatives being mocked.
Satirical humor is at its best when it's attacking hypocrisy, and there's nothing hypocritical about promoting peace through inter-cultural understanding. |
Ok ok ok i can't let this one go. What are "natural ethical inclinations" exactly? Is that "natural" as in "survival of the fittest" as in food for me is good, and food for you is bad? You'd think that if we had anything like natural ethical inclinations we'd see them pop up a lot in people's actions. You know, how people spontaneously organize themselves into larger and larger groups over time. Or how people seem to like family and dislike strangers. Or how people worship some higher mystical being. These are the closest things to natural inclinations I can think of, since they always occur in every culture everywhere, throughout history. Incidentally, it also includes "Kill your neighbor and take his stuff before he does the same to you." That's definitely a big part of recorded history.
But these natural inclinations are so basic that they are not a part of any political ideology. Political ideology is complex stuff. So complex, in fact, that I'd say its all unnatural ethical inclinations. if you're going to define things as natural at all.
That's probably my real point. What is called "natural" tends to be whatever the speaker agrees with, and what is unnatural tends to be whatever the speaker disagrees with. That's the underlying reason why I think identifying one political ideology as "natural" is so absurd. Sure, its natural to you, because that's what you agree with. But saying that the opposing viewpoint is unnatural is simply taking the stance of the Inquisitor. Sure, go ahead, condemn whatever you don't agree with as unnatural. Then, its just a few steps from there to torturing and burning the unnatural elements of society to purge them from existence, which they richly deserve because they are unnatural anyways right?
Instead of saying that liberals are more natural and conservatives are more unnatural, I'd be inclined to say that having an eternal dichotomy of viewpoints is the more natural state of things, because that's generally what always happens. If there were just two people left on earth, one of them would start arguing against the other one eventually, on some esoteric point of useless conjecture. Then, poof, two opposing parties would be born again. But saying that one side is natural and the other isn't is just ignorant - an ignorance powerful enough to support ethnic cleansing, inquisition, and genocide. |
It's the same old argument of I am obviously right and you are obviously wrong. The poster in question is pulling a double fallacy -ad populum appeal to common belief or popular opinion, and by invoking Stewart and Colbert he is making an appeal to Celebrity (since Stewart and Colbert are the only two comedians I can think of who mock politics and they are liberal, it must mean that conservative politicos are laughingstocks). All this reminds me of a little flower girl in college who was debating me one time and she accused me of being "closed minded", I then shot back at her and asked her if her belief in openmindeness was defined by people accepting her views while she maintained she was correct and trhe opposing argumentor was wrong. The hypocrasy in these arguments is mammoth. This thread was basically started to smear right wing politicos - fair enough, but as I've said before don't cry foul when your opponents resort to the same tactics. If a poster of Bush getting shot in the head is "beautiful art" then so is one of Obama made up to look like Heath Ledger in Batman. There's plenty of stuff on both sides of the isle to provide enough satire for anyone. All politicians are hyporitical and crooked to some extent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Wealthy men should get tax cuts is far easier to mock than a man arguing for environmental protections or business regulations, and far more satisfying to mock too. |
About as satisfying I'd say as Nancy Pelosi labeling a bunch of mom and pop seniors and baby boomers as Nazis for attending town hall meetings on health care and expressing their concerns. I dunno maybe the latter is not just as lighthearted and funny. Also it's no suprise that Colbert and Stewart are liberals themselves. |
As I said, at times Liberals screw up and say or do stupid things, and they should be mocked for those things. But there's nothing about Liberalism that inevitably involves calling protesters Nazis. There is something about Conservativism that inevitably involves wealthy men arguing for tax cuts.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Then I believe you don't understand what I'm saying. |
I understand perfectly what you're saying as it's the same old tired line I've been hearing form liberal apologists for years. You are purporting that the majority of Americans share your liberal views ... |
Yet again: at no point did I say the majority of Americans were Liberal. Why is that so hard to understand? Saying Conservativism goes against our natural ethical inclinations in no way requires me to say most people in our nation aren't Conservative. I'm making no claim about our political demographics either way.
Stop trying to straw man me.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Even a Conservative can enjoy anti-Conservative satire. |
So why pray tell, cannot liberals do the same when the monkey is on their backs? |
They can. I certainly do enjoy Liberals being mocked when they make fools of themselves.
| xingyiman wrote: |
| You suggest that conservatives naturally make themselves the butt of jokes but i can remember during Clinton's presidency that Leno, Letterman, Conan, etc...had a field day hamming it up about Bill and Hillary. |
Yes, and it was all about things that have little to do with Liberalism and everything to do with Bill and Hillary personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Ok ok ok i can't let this one go. What are "natural ethical inclinations" exactly? |
Ethical ideas we are naturally inclined to experience, obviously. The world over, certain ethics are essentially universal.
| mateomiguel wrote: |
Political ideology is complex stuff. So complex, in fact, that I'd say its all unnatural ethical inclinations. if you're going to define things as natural at all.
That's probably my real point. What is called "natural" tends to be whatever the speaker agrees with ... |
Okay. So, you feel the ethical inclination to take care of fellow members of your society -- the inclination most deeply linked to Liberal Philosophy -- is unnatural. If so, we have nothing to discuss, because we have absolutely nothing in common and no room for empathy with one another at all, because I feel it's quite natural and an important part of human life. If not, then your point is invalidated.
Which is it?
| mateomiguel wrote: |
| Instead of saying that liberals are more natural and conservatives are more unnatural ... |
I didn't say that. I said Liberalism is more inline with our natural ethical inclinations. That doesn't make it more natural than Conservativism, because Conservativism is also in line with something quite natural: our desire for independence, our self-interest, and our desire for material things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mateomiguel wrote: |
Political ideology is complex stuff. So complex, in fact, that I'd say its all unnatural ethical inclinations. if you're going to define things as natural at all.
That's probably my real point. What is called "natural" tends to be whatever the speaker agrees with ... |
Okay. So, you feel the ethical inclination to take care of fellow members of your society -- the inclination most deeply linked to Liberal Philosophy -- is unnatural. If so, we have nothing to discuss, because we have absolutely nothing in common and no room for empathy with one another at all, because I feel it's quite natural and an important part of human life. If not, then your point is invalidated.
Which is it? |
This has to be some type of debating move that has a weird latin name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
