Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (497)	4/21/2003 10:02:54 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Are you sure you are responding to the right post?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (497)	4/21/2003 10:37:20 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Hi Dale, You have seen an entirely different focus in that column than I did. I didn't see this as a political column at all about Bush's actions, one way or the other (other than he obviously agreed with them), but a sociological commentary. He was saying that beyond the reality of real enemies that need to be dealt with, we have a need to create "Others", and that in recent years, the behaviors and reactions to "Others" have become increasingly uncivil and even violent at times. He is wondering why the level of discourse has gotten so extreme and strident, while acknowledging that we have this inherent tendency, even need, to see people as "us" or "them", that it isn't a particular person who incites us to do so, as much as our need to create the division. He is trying to overcome this by creating his own Rules of Civil Discourse. A bunch of us have discussed The Other as a literary concept in the past and it's also something we have seen in action around SI, which is why I posted the column. So I guess I just was reading this from an entirely different POV than you. How Bush responded to Iraq seems to me entirely irrelevant to this particular column. Whether you believe that Bush was reacting to facts and reality as the basis of the threat Iraq posed, or whether he employed some sort of manipulation of our tendency to demonize in order to facilitate the war for whatever political reasons, would be a whole different discussion. However, for the purpose of his column, I see no abdication at all of personal judgment, merely a willingness to consider and listen before making the judgment.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (497)	4/21/2003 10:30:26 PM
From: coug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Hi Dale, I agree 100% with your response. It is okay, accepted, I guess to demonize in a "suit" in an official capacity.. In a calm demeanor, in a sterile environment, like before the covered "breasts of justice, or in a controlled, staged presidential appearance before a bunch of the "choir".. And people forget or don't care that this calm official, but immoral "demonizing" hurts, maims, kills, destroys magnitudes more than the peaceful, average citizen that is outraged by the "official action". Why? because the "official suits" have their finger on the trigger.. The peaceful ones DON'T. Actually, average moral outrage doesn't nothing more than hopefully tinge the conscience of the officials.. Bring enligtenment..Because mostly, they (the peaceful, but outraged) citizen do not believe in the tactics of the official suits, so they do not lower themselves to their level.. Just my thoughts and beliefs.. c