I suffer from a bit of cognitive dissonance on what does and doesn't constitute "thread bloat"; my personal perception is that endless regurgitation of conservative op-ed columns and random political sniping match that phrase quite well, but I'm not the ultimate arbiter there.
Too many op-ed pieces from both left and right posted here. Because:
Thing about op-ed pieces, usually, is that we either leave their assumptions unexamined or examined only superficially while we celebrate or attack the argument presented. (When examining assumptions it's generally good to be neutral in tone because the assumptions are what folk are emotionally invested in to some (sometimes quite remarkable) degree).
Too often, op-ed pieces are posted as a stand in for the poster's argument. (In old time parlance, 'appeal to authority"). It's understandable: a lot of the op-ed authors are much better writers than we are but it's unfortunate we do this because, we then don't have to confront our assumptions in any significant manner the way we have to when we write ourselves.
Oped pieces can be very useful because they are often provocative, make a case fairly well and can really inspire us to investigate a case, an argument, stuff presented as fact, different world view, etc. But I don't think they should be substitutes for our own thoughts.
I think triumphalist tone, BWAHAHA, general statements about the narrow mindedness of certain views, and so forth are, distracting, irritating, crappy manners, and generally get in the way because they make stuff too personal. And this is already a very personal thing we do here: folk invest some part of themselves in their writing and thinking and this isn't surprising because often what we discuss are life and death issues, either for ourselves or people we know. We post our writing in the general expectation it's going to be vivisected anyway by someone, so why make it super-personal?
I assume that this thread will continue to drift toward a tolerable Republican model of "diversity"; a more conventional definition of that word might be considered "PC" or "postmodern" or something equally heinous.
Ummm.... In the 19th and early 20th centuries there was a large body of stuff written that was highly critical of the political and business activities of the privileged. This was done from the point of view of what we call the "left" today. Its greatest power was in it's exposure of misery, degradation, and of hypocrisy of the privileged. I say hypocrisy because at the same time lots was written from the point of view of the "right" justifying the behaviour of the privileged usually calling on the law, and results of current science, political theory, and economics as the justification, whilst at the same time often serious efforts were made to ensure the unprivileged could not improve their lot, even if they "qualified" for improvement in terms of the current science and economics.
The criticism of the "left" did eventually work and social assistance, public education, public works, laws, etc., were put in place and concurrently the conditions of the less privileged improved. The "left" has generally taken credit for the programs and improved conditions and has called upon the results of current science, etc., as justification.
The "right" is highly critical of some of the results, and further, in some cases, say the improved conditions would have come about anyway and the case today's "left" presents is bogus and divorced from reality, and depends from discredited science and doesn't take into account real human nature.
That is a dry as dust description. (My personal feeling is that reality is some where in between). The wet description is that these arguments between left and right have been played out in terms of lives, blood and huge emotion.
Right now, what is called the "right" in North America, has I thnk, more of the reality based descriptions and arguments, especially in the foreign affairs field. I say more, not all.
This has put parts of the "left" in some difficulty as they try to square perhaps outmoded descriptions and arguments with, as they say, "objective conditions". The more articulate, and certainly the more vociferous, parts of the "right" are taking advantage of this difficulty.
Can't easily lead to quiet discussion, can it?
I sincerely hope the "left" keeps posting here because it won't do me a lot of good to post to Bill or Nadine, we agree about too many things. |
