BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions

Subject: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:16 PM

In many of the news stories I have seen/read/heard recently, I note that many people use words that they think they know what they mean, and they think that we also know what they mean.

For starters--and the list is waaaay too long for this post--"libertarian" and "conservative." In general, it seems like people in the US who are referred to as "conservatives" believe in unlimited, unfettered rights for corporations, and none for individuals who only want to control their own bodies--sex, drugs, and rock & roll, of course. In other words, they talk libertarian, but they cherry pick which part of the program they will support.

The principles (principals?) of the Libertarian Party as listed on their website suggest that they want as little regulation as possible, except to protect a person from harm or harm to their property. Now, that can be very loosely interpreted. I suspect, though, that most people would not want to live in the unavoidably chaotic world of pure libertarianism. That is why Rand Paul is such a blessing to the Dems.

The "Tea Party" claims some of the libertarian mantle, but only in very vague rhetoric. To save my life, I really couldn't say with any certainty how a TPP member would handle "X" issue in REAL LIFE. And somehow, even though they are both using most of the same language, there seems to be a difference?? between the TPP and mainstream conservative/Repubs.

Are there any definitions with substance out there? Other than enjoying seeing the "loyal opposition" feasting on itself, I am utterly confused as to who stands for what and why, and how their beliefs would guide their legislative or social actions.`
Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:24 PM

So am I, Saul. So am I. It all seems so like the Catepillar in Alice In Wonderland: "Words mean what I want them to."

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:26 PM

People like labels. Many of the people that they are applied to would not agree.

Like most people, I apply them to anyone who disagrees with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 10 - 02:31 PM

I once had a North Philly cop inform me that I was a pinko, hippy, faggot bastard. He reinforced his conviction to this effect by slugging me in the mouth.

Actually I was none of the above, but I didn't think I was in a position to argue with him about semantics and labels. Besides, I was wearing his handcuffs at the time and it wouldn't have been polite to argue with my host.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 May 10 - 11:54 PM

I thought this was going to be about Mudcat original thread postings which are cryptic and/or use of acronyms without explanation.

I just hope they all lose out and most folks don't believe a word of their slogan-slinging, substance-less, silly, sodding, stammering, staccato statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 May 10 - 06:02 AM

One of the big problems I have with the use of such terms here on Mudcat in particular, is that political *parties* and their policies are not necessarily identical to the political *philosophy* which they adopt to define themselves.

Hence when I describe myself as a libertarian, it may or may not have much to do with the American Libertarian party and their policies - AFAIK. Yet an American reader might misconstrue my post to mean 'I'm a supporter of the Libertarian political party', rather than 'I define myself as a libertarian thinker.'

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: frogprince
Date: 26 May 10 - 10:39 AM

What C.S. describes is, of course, by no means limited to online exchanges. I'm inclined to be a "creationist" in my own thinking. But I absolutely don't want "creationism" drug into science classes,
and I see the Creation Museums as highly regretable reinforcement of dangerous ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:00 AM

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one".   ~ Thomas Paine

That is a reasonable statement for a libertarian thinker. Small "l" not large "L".

Parts of the Left share similar views as the Right, especially in the area of laws that control presonal conduct.

The Left is especilly afraid of allowing the "people" to tell the government what to do because the "people" might make the "wong choices".

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: mousethief
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:04 AM

There is of course no such thing as "the people" -- different people want different things. The majority of (American) people during WW2 were in favour of putting Japanese-Americans on the west coast into internment camps. The majority of the people were wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 10 - 11:09 AM

It's not uncommon for a majority of people to be wrong when it comes to something like that. It's also not uncommon for governments to do stupid things, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off without any government. ;-) Life is a series of compromises, and a government is only as good as the people who are put in place to administer it.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:53 PM

The majority of (American) people during WW2 were in favour of putting Japanese-Americans on the west coast into internment camps.

That was a decision by the military and approved by FDR. SOME of the people supported it but many did not. Some used it as a way to grab farms and businesses, just as some got into the black market and war profiteering. Most did not.

I know some Japanese-Americans who were interned and they will tell you that many of their neighbors thought it unfair and "stupid."

Ask yourself why the Japanese-Americans in Hawai'i were not interned, and yet post-war investigations showed that there were actually Japanese spies active there.

This was another case of ignorance used for political (and sometimes economic) ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: mousethief
Date: 26 May 10 - 12:59 PM

You've missed the point. Sometimes what people want is wrong. And there is no such thing as "the people" because people are not an undifferentiated blob. If you agree that some people wanted to intern Japanese-Americans and some didn't, you agree that "the people" is not an undifferentiated blob, and sometimes people want something that is wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: pdq
Date: 26 May 10 - 01:00 PM

"The majority of (American) people during WW2 were in favour of putting Japanese-Americans on the west coast into internment camps."

Even if we say that polls showed support for the internment, the decision was made by the government and "the people" had nothing to do with the decision.

My point stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:11 PM

It may be relevant to repost here a comment I made in the "brownshirts" thread in response to GfS:..in fact, I hereby deem it relevant to the debate over 'how much government' we should have and what the 'majority' wants.

"This "will of the people" phrase is a bit overused and misunderstood as a guide to how elected officials should make decisions.
Of course our elected representatives should take into account, as best they can, the opinions of those who elected them, but not just blindly. They were also elected because they were trusted to study situations, in this full-time job, and understand better than the average voter what is needed and what is best for not only THEIR constituents, but for the country as a whole.
   There are areas in which they SHOULD vote mostly as the "will of the people" dictates, but there are also areas where "the people" have little idea what the situation is and what consequences might be.
   It is possible for the hoi polloi to have a collective opinion that is uninformed, prejudiced or just plain dangerous & wrong. Should a member of Congress vote to bomb Iran, just because he get a lot of letters asking him to?
If the elected official(s) turn out to be dumb, unresponsive...and in the pay of some lobby, we have recourse at the next election.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:14 PM

Another problem is that people generally associate with people who agree with them. Thus, the beliefs of that small group (comparatively speaking) is projected to be the beliefs of the whole population -- and the small group can get a very, very rude awakening. For example, the Charles Manson bunch thought that the killings would start a "Race War" and even Kim Il Sung in 1967 thought that the people of South Korea would rise up in rebellion if given the chance -- neither happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 10 - 02:38 PM

Rapaire's point is doubly relevant in the age of the internet, when you can search the world for communications which simply reinforce what you already hold to be true; multiplied a billion-fold, this capability can make a thousand fractured, insulated, self-protecting islands of disagreement. Read any hot issue where reader comments are appended in the modern media and you will see the voices of these hardened camps getting strident and shrill because they have lost the art of dialogue with differing viewpoints, and so resort to namecalling. Hell, I've done it myself!!

It is a fundamental of all reasoning communication that a definition of terms is necessary to the resolution of a problem or any collision between points of view. Different frameworks and different assumptions, often embedded below the conscious level of the person in the argument, tend to make a lot of dialogue heat up because of the inherent difference in definitions of terms.

When Ann Coulter calls me a "liberal", I know I am being insulted; if Thomas Jefferson were to call me a "liberal", I'd be proud of it. Same noise, same letters, but anyone who thinks it is the same word is not paying attention.

This is why it is a national disgrace that dictionaries have fallen into less use, and that the boneheads in some states thinks politics ought to be a criterion for choosing textbooks. Without definitions, words become reactive buttons, and children are taught acceptable reactionary patterns rather than knowldege and citizenship.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Missing Definitions in Discussions
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 10 - 06:27 PM

...and in school, we wait far too long to teach kids the meaning of ambiguity and equivocation. (along with a number of other concepts)