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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (7297)	7/30/2007 6:54:32 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

Boycotts and Ostracism Roger L. Simon writes of MoveOn and DailyKos: Whoa! Let's put it simply: attacking sponsorship is at base a sneaky way of suppressing free speech and essentially anti-democratic and reactionary. Brave New Films? Brave New World is more like it. Gilliam's company's name echoing Huxley's dystopia seems like some kind of unconscious admission of a creepy truth. In my book they have a right to make their views known to sponsors in any legal way they wish (as long as they remain privately funded). But it is hysterically funny to see organizations of this ilk adopt the techniques of Jerry Falwell or the American Decency Association. It's fair to say these techniques typically rebound on the boycotters. One of the commenters makes a good point as well, although the phenomenon is hardly as restricted in practice as he suggests: This relates to one of my hobby horses regarding the left side of the blogosphere: their overuse of ostracism as a politcal (sic) & social tool. Trying to cast a person (or company) out of polite society is a radical tactic, but it's not always wrong. The way the left uses this tactic, though, is troubling. They regularly use it, or threaten to use it, against people who disagree on purely political matters. But if you try to cast out someone who disagrees on something like social security reform, for example, what social sanction is left for those who truly should be shunned by society, like neo-Nazi's and NAMBLA members? The left turns to ostracism so much that the tactic could loose its power. That would be a bad thing. At the school parent gatherings Tigerhawk and I attend, his "W" bumper sticker has provoked screaming and name-calling from otherwise sedate suburbanites, and one of my neighbors became suddenly unfriendly when we enrolled our kids in the Charter School. Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at July 30, 2007 2:43 PM janegalt.net

To: TimF who wrote (7297)	7/31/2007 9:18:47 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

"Here are, in my view, the two key temperamental distinctions:" Her two distinctions are way too esoteric for me. I'm sure they would be interesting if I understood them. <g> You've reminded me that I've gotten away from reading her. I haven't been reading any blogs lately. I need to get back to her. Maybe she's discussed this subject before and I can find some context. I did notice the other day that Hillary said she preferred "progressive." I scratched my head over that.

To: TimF who wrote (7297)	8/2/2007 6:24:23 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

When I think of progressives, I think of the old prairie populists. This magazine has been in publication since 1909, maybe they should the ones who get to define the term. progressive.org That racist/eugenicist idea was everywhere in those days, it was "accepted" science, but I don't believe too many old line progressives bought into it. The racist/eugenicist model came from academe, and the most advanced thinkers bought into it. The farmers, artisans, and mechanics who made up the progressive movement didn't have time for BS like that.