Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[seemslikeadream]

[quote="Belligerent Savant » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:37 pm"].


I do not post warmongering propaganda


In 14 years I have never been warned by any of the 7 mods that would include Jeff of posting warmongering propaganda

Please stop...I do not need advice from you no matter how many times you two say it over and over again ...it is not true so I am asking you again politely to please stop

[peartreed]

The problem in perception that we all share is that the input of all five of our senses is filtered through preconceived beliefs we hold to be true, and we judge that input accordingly. Our level of conviction in our beliefs results in our emotional reaction to any input that challenges those personal tenets of truth or contradicts our convictions.

MacCruiskeen’s reaction to American Dream and seemslikeadream is negative primarily because he appears to believe the American dream itself is hot war with Russia.

He further calls their copying of public news articles, “Private Data Dumps” and “reactionary warmongering propaganda” presumably because the content contradicts his prior political convictions and, most importantly, is apparently perceived as a direct threat to his and his family’s survival in proximity to the potential nuclear war fatal battleground.

As he explains his perspective, we can all vicariously feel his very real, visceral objections.

He further attributes the copy-paste reposting of what he deems objectionable public articles as a misuse of the discussion board (a barrage, a regurgitation, a private dump etc.) despite the fact that it is allowed – and has been as a common practice for years. What he singles out as the “dream” team tactic objection is the sheer volume of it. Others of us enjoy that data here.

While objection to the volume of the posts may be a shared sympathy of others participating here, it ‘s still allowed.

Behind the superficial issues in contention MacCruiskeen again reveals his real fear. He sees any pro-America potential political war policy support as a personal threat and, in his political perspective, that apparently includes opposition or threat to peaceful coexistence with Russia for the strategic balance of power.

When others defend his opponents, or accuse his supportive group of bullying them for misuse of the board, he seems to see it all as a personal challenge to his own personal perspective and deeply held truths.

It comes back to the original point above: We all filter our observations through pre-formed feelings and then react in accord with our prior convictions, accurate or not.

What is needed on all sides is more tolerance, understanding, empathy and consideration of conflicting views, and the realization that we have to coexist both here on the forum and globally as a species. Let your conscience be your guide.

[Marionumber1]

peartreed, I do not want to misconstrue what you say, so I need to ask. Are you saying that being against

pro-America potential political war policy support

and

opposition or threat to peaceful coexistence with Russia

is merely one position among many conflicting views that deserve to be understood and accepted?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Propaganda and/or disinfo is NOT "a point of view" . Indeed, one of the chief objectives of such tactics is to distort, dilute and/or purposely obfuscate legitimate inquiry/points of view.

Let's be clear: it's not only the select members of this relatively small-scale RI membership calling out said content as propaganda/disinfo. Many, many others -- largely outside Western media, but also within, call it out as such as well. Unfortunately, it often gets drowned out amid the perpetual FIRE HOSE deluge of corporate media white noise.

We expect this outside of RI; it's immensely disappointing to see its prevalence within these walls, however, and defended no less. Worse, it appears those that dump -- yes, dump -- such material, and the few that read through it uncritically, are blissfully unaware of (and/or UNWILLING to analyze) the content for what it is.

(Though one member -- the self-identified dreamer from America -- may be operating with eyes wide open)

You're addressing the wrong audience when you speak of 'empathy'. Those that are most lacking in empathy are unfortunately the ones pulling the trigger: literally, figuratively, metaphorically, and have been for a LONG time.

These words are meaningless, in any event. Confusion abounds in these times.

[American Dream]

Friendly reminder:

The charge or insinuation of "disinfo agent" can almost never be proven, and poisons and often ends meaningful discussion. Therefore suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted.

Please refrain from personal attacks, and keep arguments issue-based.

.
(Though one member -- the self-identified dreamer from America -- may be operating with eyes wide open)

[Rory]

Friendly reminder:

The charge or insinuation of "disinfo agent" can almost never be proven, and poisons and often ends meaningful discussion. Therefore suggesting a poster is purposefully spreading disinformation is not permitted.

Please refrain from personal attacks, and keep arguments issue-based.

.
(Though one member -- the self-identified dreamer from America -- may be operating with eyes wide open)

Are you a mod now? Congrats, if so

[JackRiddler]

He's always been a mod in his mind.

[peartreed]

Marionumber1 – no, I am not saying being against “pro-America potential political war policy support” and “opposition or threat to peaceful coexistence with Russia” is merely one position among many conflicting views that deserve to be understood and accepted.

I am saying that people holding different views from one’s own is a reality that deserves to be understood as a fact of life. It doesn’t constitute any obligation for agreement or acceptance of the content of those views at all.

One tenet I was taught was to respect is the individuality of others and their right to that individuality. With that as a guiding principle, our vast diversity is acknowledged as a fundamental right, individually and collectively. Given that, there should be greater respect and tolerance of individuals whose opinions differ from one’s own, especially as to their entitlement to disagree. It’s like basic freedom of speech. How we interpret or react to the substance of those views is another choice.

Similarly, determining what is propaganda versus legitimate news is a highly subjective exercise influenced by - and primarily filtered through - our pre-existing beliefs. There is no objective criteria to independently assess that accurately without human judgment.

Terms like “unfiltered reactionary warmongering propaganda from mercenary corporate media” are biased opinions, not objective fact, despite an advocate's fervent belief.

So are pejorative labels insultingly attributed to another person's mind, character or beliefs. They expose the accuser's bias.

[Elvis]

(Though one member -- the self-identified dreamer from America -- may be operating with eyes wide open)

You know that suggesting these motives is out of bounds, and the go-around language doesn't even pretend to hide the meaning. Very disappointed. Three days' suspension should be a sufficient reminder to observe this important rule.

[liminalOyster]

determining what is propaganda versus legitimate news is a highly subjective exercise

We can make all sorts of judgments about the motivations of news publishers and the relative likelihood of their affiliation with other state and non-state actors which are sound and pretty empirically grounded and that have little to nothing to do with our individual bias or position. Indeed, that's of the big motivations for this board, IIUC.

[American Dream]

What is and is not propaganda is highly contested- and the dissenters from "RT approved" ideas have a legitimate right to do so, I would daresay. The fact that Jerky is still banned- and for a long time to come, I might add- makes it very difficult to say that we are living up to the principles we are supposed to be upholding here. As I've said previously, it is not a good way to treat our fellow board members. Nor is it good for our intellectual rigour.

[liminalOyster]

I don't know quite how to respond in a way that affirms my fondness and respect for you, AD. So I'll just put that out there.

Saying "RT-approved" is clearly meant to provoke, is it not? Perhaps I truly do not understand where you're coming from. I could see that gibe maybe having more currency if it was referring primarily to opinions about Ukraine or Syria but as the predominant axis of difference on this board? Respectfully, it certainly feels to me like a strawman.

I don't make a habit of visiting (much less watching or following) RT or Sputnik and I don't frankly see how those organs are any more relevant to understanding the discussions here than others. Yes, RT is a highly problematic news organ demanding good critical consumption of its product. I've never seen anyone here dispute that but maybe I missed it. And of course same goes for Sputnik. And for CNN, NYT, Intercept, TruthOut, etc ad infinitum. The only interesting question - ever - to me about any story on any of these sites is - what are they trying to convince me of and how are they trying to do so?

As for Jerky's ban, I guess I missed it but on looking, I would assume he would be the first to admit he sometimes lashes out when he's pissed off. He gets pissed but he's not a bad egg IMO. Not going to judge him (or his banning) for that but I can say that I would definitely kind of expect to be given a time out if I accused others here of "gangstalking." Seems like a likely forgivable mistake born of passing rage but at bare minimum not terribly surprising it would be interpreted as a rule violation, no?

[American Dream]

"RT-approved" is not meant to provoke but rather to shine a light on what I feel should inherently be a wake-up call: a political tendency that supports siding with one set of (oftentimes brutal) bosses over another. Not my politics at all. Irregardless of the particulars of one's own worldview, this sort of dissent from a putative "consensus" absolutely should be allowed here.

As to Jerky, check it out. His tone was harsher than I think would be ideal but some board members here do much worse and do not earn multi-week bannings for it. He was banned on the thinnest of rationales and really should be back by now.

[Sounder]

Irregardless, Thanks AD for using my favorite non-word marker for lack of intelligence.

[Cordelia]

As for Jerky's ban, I guess I missed it but on looking, I would assume he would be the first to admit he sometimes lashes out when he's pissed off. He gets pissed but he's not a bad egg IMO.

I agree. I don't remember why he's been banned (or is is it suspended?) and hope it's not for much longer. He rightly called me out a while back on something I posted that was offensive and I fully appreciated the feedback. Jerky can be a jerk at times (can't we all?) but he knows it and he's very valuable to this board, imo.