"Why is this important? Because by promoting extremists like Ted, Rush or Glenn, these companies (and they are not alone) are lowering the standards of our national debate and encouraging Americans to consume garbage rather than substantive thought. "Quite the statement. I certainly agree that lowering the standards of our national debate is not a good thing, and that encouraging Americans to consume garbage rather than substantive thought, well, that's surely a big bad thing too. So, I thought that we'd better have a look at what Sanjay Sanghoee has to say about this.
He opens his thoughtful post with this:
"Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh make the perfect couple. No, I am not implying a homosexual relationship between them (although it is entirely possible) but a true meeting of the minds and hearts. Ted and Rush are not just both conservatives, but conservatives who love to hate, and have made a successful career out of it."Hmmm. Attempting to slight two conservatives with some implied anti-homosexual innuendo is not only... bad form, but it seems a bit out of place this week, what with the annointing of our first Gay President, but... oh well, it's fairly meaningless as anything other than insult, so... moving on, it's not what I'd call a promising start at fair minded reasoning, but, well, maybe Sanjay is just a slow starter, eh?, maybe level headedness is something he has to work himself up to?
That seems even less likely as we immediately get to his assertion that 'conservatives who love to hate'... if he was interested in fair mindedness, reason, etc, rather than just engaging in bashing these folks, you'd expect some definitions, wouldn't you? And some examples of their engaging in that nastiness as well, right?
You can read it yourself, but unless my eyes have taken another turn for the worst... you won't find either. Which is kind of odd, isn't it? Crying out against unjustified comments, by making unsubstantiated accusations?
I don't think I'm being overly picky in expecting that when I see accusations being made, when I see people labeled as what I assume I'm to take as bad things, 'Extremists', 'Haters', etc... I'd like to know what the accuser means by those terms. And since we're being all concerned here about the standards of national debate... wouldn't you think that defining your terms would be a reasonable place to start?
Oddly enough, Sanjay doesn't seem to do that... well, that's too polite, there's no 'seem' about it, he does not define his terms at all. It may be enough for bright, high-minded and right thinking leftists to somehow 'just know' that those terms are bad... but I'd like a few more details than the tone of voice they use them with. How about you?
The fact is he doesn't explain what he means by 'hate' at all, the closest he comes to an example is this,
"Rush's rants and bigoted comments have become so common that we barely notice them anymore..."which is Sanjay saying essentially 'Hey, take my word for it!', which is a line which I don't think even the cheapest of used-car salesmen try to use anymore. It seems that in Sanjay's mind, he feels no need to enlighten the rest of us who have somehow missed out on these bigoted comments, rather than waste time on silly things like evidence and explanation, we should just take his word for it. Sanjay should take a tip from the used-car salesmen who stopped saying 'Trust me!' because they stopped getting sales, the only people who still say things like that are leftist politicians who... oh. I see.
Moving on. Sanjay ups the ante a bit a little further on, with:
"... spewed hatred towards our leader and advocated violence against him ..."Our leader? When was the last time you heard someone refer to the President of the United States of America, out of the blue, as 'Our Leader'? I don't know about you, but as an American, I'm just a little uncomfortable with that. You know, North Korea has a leader, a Dear Leader, in fact, but I'm just a bit more comfortable referring to our head of state as President, or by their name, last name, etc. 'Our leader'... blech.
Here he gives us some more of the same, but with a little extra spice thrown in:
"Ted and Rush make a lot of money by throwing Molotov cocktails into the public discourse, and the organizations and companies who give them the platform to do so enjoy the benefits as well. "Throwing Molotov cocktails into the 'public discourse', eh? Sanjay, you might not have noticed, but many of your politically minded brethren have been throwing actual Molotov cocktails into public, and private, property, smashing real windows, beating, raping and murdering real people in the many 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrations across our nation and even worldwide... but strangely enough, looking through Sanjay's posts on Huffington Post, and his own site, I don't see Sanjay denouncing any of those instances of that actual violence or the Occupy movement which fosters it.... though he does spend a considerable amount of time denouncing the utterly non-violent (and clean) Tea Parties for their 'violent' and hateful and dangerous rhetoric, and no, no definitions or examples given there either, innuendo is simply A-Ok with Sanjay, as he stoops to advising people about their blind ideology and lack of sense,
"The Tea Party is a powerful force but it is misdirected and driven by blind ideology rather than common sense. If they really want to make a positive change, they need to examine where the real problem lies and address that.", speaking of common sense, Sanjay displays his own lack of even the most basic sense, and knowledge here, the sense and knowledge which I know from experience that even the least Tea Partier has a firm grasp of,
We do not live in a pure democracy anymore but in an oligarchy, and the only checking force that protects us from abuse is the government., for him to say that 'We do not live in a pure democracy anymore', implies that he thinks that at some point in time, we did! I dare you to go up to any Tea Party member and tell them that our Founding Fathers gave us a 'pure democracy' without ear-plugs firmly in place. I wouldn't advise it, because what you will hear in reply is some variation on,
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY! NEVER WERE! NEVER TRIED TO BE! WE ARE, AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, A REPUBLIC!!!And as far as 'oligarchy' (Oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 2. a state or organization so ruled.) goes, what form of government is it that you think is promoted by having administrative Czars, unanswerable to those they make their rules for, and empowered to give 'exemptions' to those they favor? Hmmm, Sanjay?
Twit. Moving on.
He also likes to slather on some serious hate (Hate: to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward;) towards Sarah Palin.
"What Palin really needs to do is shut up. She needs to stop her fear-mongering and her hate-mongering and either learn to be a responsible leader or vanish back into the obscurity from which she came."Interesting. And again, sadly, without examples or evidence of any kind, other than the use of cross-hairs in a political ad... which democrats used first, that and Sanjay's assertion of it being true.
You know, it's beginning to look like Sanjay isn't interested in actual discourse or reasoning, in fact it's beginning to look just a bit like he's interested in nothing more than smearing those he doesn't agree with, because he doesn't agree with them; it's beginning to look like the reality of them or their positions, or even his own, are just not of any concern in his form of 'reasoning'.
Wow. Who'da thunk it. And from a proregressive leftist at that. Huh.
The rest of his post goes on in the same vein, picking up on Rush's 'slut gate' comments... somehow he fails to note that those same darlings Rush referred to held a 'slut pride' parade the following week, but, hey, Sanjay's probably just trying to keep his own head out of the gutter, right?
Yeahhh... maybe. My real problem with this is that with all his calls for 'reason'... he does little, well, actually, he engages in no reasoning (1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments. 2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.) in his posts at all. He accuses, defames, insults, labels and maligns, without offering anything more than a word or two in reference, if that, neither clarifying what his charges are, nor supplying evidence of his charges, not even links to someone else who does - we are apparently simply supposed to take his word for it. Because he's him. And was successful in the banking industry. When he pulls out his buzz words: Hate, Extremist, Intolerance... does he offer any definitions? Does he offer any examples of what they are doing or saying that is hateful, extreme or intolerant? No.
Do you suppose Sanjay has ever considered the sort of society which forms up around the willingness to accept such charges without evidence? Which accepts charges of hatred towards individuals or groups, simply because it is fashionable, and expected of those who wish to be accepted and fashionable, to do so?
Even more disturbing, he makes many claims to Rights (those actions required by the nature of being human, which a person must be free to engage in, in order to live a fully human life), and how some people's (Tea Party) concerns for them are unfounded (depending upon the strength of your stomach, or blood pressure, have a look at his thoughts on the 2nd Amendment), but does he offer any definition of what he says Rights are? Or how they are being harmed, other than his assertion that Ted & Rush are savaging them? Any examples?
No. None. He simply says it is so, he thinks it, and therefore you are to believe that it is. As with,
"... those who provide them with the outlet to spew their hatred do it to protect "freedom of speech" but that is utter nonsense. Freedom of speech is a guy in his basement posting his views on the Internet without being censored, or an activist picketing Capitol Hill without being arrested. Giving someone like Ted, Rush or Glenn a national megaphone to advocate bigotry, while making a massive profit out of it, has nothing to do with protecting the First Amendment, but with making lots of money. ..."So in Sanjay's view, Rights in general, and Freedom of Speech in particular, are transient things whose protections vanish in the presence of profit? I know the Founding Fathers were somewhat technologically challenged, but I'm pretty sure that some guy in his basement writing posts or pamphlets was not the only 'type of person' (I guess that in Sanjay's world, only the 'right type' of people warrant the protections of their Rights - that's the type of world proregressive leftists like Sanjay are rushing us towards) or issue they had in mind with Freedom of Speech. And I'm pretty damn sure that whatever it is that 'Rights' are in Sanjay's head, our Founders had something a bit more substantial in their minds than some few privileges that could be eliminated by a person earning a profit.
"Why is this important? Because by promoting extremists ... are lowering the standards of our national debate and encouraging Americans to consume garbage rather than substantive thought. "They certainly are Sanjay, they certainly are.
4 comments:
LOL! Very humorous and brutal beatdown, Van!
Sanjay does have evidence, though.
Evidence of hate and intolerance (as well as lunacy) abounds in his hysterical rants.
So yes, he has the evidence, but it's his words that are rife with incoherent hate, dishonesty, misinformation, exaggerations, omissions, and intolerance.
Oh, and there's evidence that Sanjay has no idea what kind of govt. we have or what rights are.
It's very telling that leftists understand metaphors and analogies when they use them but forget what those words mean when conservatives use them.
Gee, I wonder why? Do proregressives suffer from selective and collective memory loss?
Or, maybe this is all calculated to spread their lies since they can't get the truth to work for them.
BTW, Van, I know you posted about Descartes before and I need a refresher course due to a debate I got myself into with other conservatives who have partially fallen for Descartes BS.
I had mentioned how "I think, therfore I am" is upside down and inside out and that it should be "I AM, therefore I think."
Here's a few of their replies:
"It's certainly a fair bit of sport to kick Descartes around. That isn't to say that "I think, therefore I am" isn't called upon to create an illusion of profundity where none exists. But I still think the statement packs a level of profundity rarely if ever matched in Western--and possibly all--thought."
"Also, I agree with tryanmax that we shouldn't knock ol' Descartes down too much. As a bit of context, the 17th century was full of skeptics who he believed were ruining civilization by introducing doubt of everyone and everything. His goal was to establish via logic the things we could know for certain, and he started with the question of existence. And it is an effective statement: it points out that you cannot disbelieve your own existence, since to do so is a contradiction in terms. From there, his object was to rebuild certainty in everything else. The results were far from perfect, but it was a worthy effort."
Do you recall some posts you wrote about him?
These are good guys and willing to debate but they are young and no doubt got their info about Descartes in college.
I'll admit I haven't read much of Descartes yet, and I really need to do that one of these days, but I have never read anything he wrote that struck me as profound.
Profoundly wrong disguised as profound but not profound. :^)
We are beginning to discuss it here:
Commenteramafilms
if you're interested or have the time. The comments are sort of far apart though. Mine was first and their comments are near the end (the ones I quoted).
Hi ya Ben,
I think you're in for some fun with these two, but here's a couple reactions before bed:
"the statement packs a level of profundity rarely if ever ma..."
Personally, I think it pack a level of evasion rarely dared by anyone with the least bit self awareness or concern about the ground beneath their feet.
If he cared for thought, devoted some of his awareness to the requirements of thought and understanding, then he might have come up with something more like:
"IT is, and through my awareness of IT, I realize that I AM"
, but instead what followed his Cogito has transformed the love of wisdom into something like "Through my own motive assertions, I AM, and so I am justified in doing what I want", or a bit shorter: "Because I want it, IT must be", and all else that has followed ever since, has been philosophy's devolution into the blackhole of leftism, as it must, has, and does, follow from such 'profundity'.
" As a bit of context, the 17th century was full of skeptics who he believed were ruining civilization by introducing doubt of everyone and everything. "
... Annddd sooo he devised a philosophy explicitly built upon a "Method of Doubt" in order to counter that... how?
"His goal was to establish via logic the things we could know for certain, and he started with the question of existence."
No, he didn't start WITH existence, but with his whimsies about what he'd like to know about what he could not know. His goal was to 'free himself' from the reality which Aristotle gave him no escape from, so that he could believe in whatever he wished were true - truly, he put Descartes before de horse (one of Gagdad's I think, but it fits!).
Have them read his thoughts on Physics sometime. Far from profundity, or even an honest attempt to establish anything certain by logic, he began, as a basis for his thought, by imagining what it would be like if he had no body... as a basis for THINKING about existence, he began with the notion of discarding everything about himself which existence required in order for him to exist? Hello?
The first rule of sound thinking and forming a syllogism, is that your premises must be true, or nothing true can follow from them.
He began with an arbitrary proposition, because only that would allow the appearance of thought, while enabling him to depart from the confines of reality.
I've read him several times over and I don't have much patience left for those who see sense in his thoughts (I suspect they see in them, what he did, release from 'bondage' to reality). But even so, I don't think Descartes was malicious (as Rousseau certainly was), only an extremely self centered & egotistical fellow intoxicating himself with his own cogitations.
Here's one of mine that digs a bit into him: * Unknown Conspiracies - You don't think, therefore, they are
Thanks Van! That post in the link is a great refresher! :^)
Post a Comment