Jump to content

Why is there a growing movement to deny reality in America?


CmdrShepSpectre2183
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, iNow said:

It feels a bit like we’re getting closer to World War 3, but I suspect we’d actually be fighting it with ourselves… against our neighbors. It’s no longer about national borders and has shifted instead to which version of truth and reality you align with. 

And it’s clearly not an issue limited to just the US. 

Dividing countries and making them vulnerable to internal strife and civil war helps those who thrive on chaos and uncertainty. Getting your enemies to decimate themselves before you invade is sound strategy, and it's worked for a long time, so long that it's part the narrative in many of our stories. We've all seen how division among the heroes makes them ineffective against the villains, and it's only when the good folks put aside their differences to work together that they can achieve victory. 

I truly believe most humans just want more stability and predictability, and the prosperity we sense is possible without so much chaos and misery. Extremism is exhausting and incredibly expensive, and we really don't deserve this kind of treatment from ourselves. Most people are far too awesome to be acting this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 9/19/2021 at 4:01 PM, CmdrShepSpectre2183 said:

It seems like society is going backwards. It seems like each passing year more and more people believe in a fantasy reality. A fantasy reality that believes in outlandish things like "vaccines are the devil" or that "space is fake".

This mindset has even infected physically healthy people.

oefnJow.png

bSKKc4w.png

 

There was a time when these type of people aspired to be astronauts.

 

 

What has happened to society? We aren't just turning away from science but from reality as well.

 

 

 

 

 

It not science it is a break down of faith in government.

The US has a very strong libertarian movement and the conservatives are far right in the US compared to say Europe or Canada.  The idea of anti big government is government agencies cannot be trusted. This why things like universal healthcare, welfare state, science or NASA is treated like they cannot be trusted. Out side of the far right wanting only a very strong police force and strong military they are paranoid of any big government cannot be trusted.

Where liberals and conservatives are more trusting of government but the far right  and libertarian do not trust the government.

This why you have flat earthers, space is not real, or we don’t have technology to go to space and they are lying, there is a middle earth so on. All these conspiracy theories because people don’t trust government. 

It just the US going back long time ago was always anti government and very decentralized. Where as Europe being smaller population and more centralized government people had more faith.

There was conspiracy called the deep state where Trump was fighting democratic party and republican party and the FBI trying to take down the US well they are sleeping with kids. Yes not two or three people but hundreds and hundreds of people in Hollywood, schools, government and police and all political parties trying to take down the US well they sleep with kids.

And many far right became the foot soldiers for this huge conspiracy movement. 

Edited by nec209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Honestly, I think these fears are best discussed by Chris Hedges...

However, to understand the rising elements of "fascism" in the US, you have to understand how skewed and ignorant US politics has become. How almost nobody understand the political landscape, and how the information available is so well bleached that few comprehend even a basic understanding of the landscape that is the various ideologies on the playing field. (when if ever have you heard "journalists" discussing political theory? Attempting to teach people the how and why of political ideology? I have never seen as such, and I suspect neither have you)

So many use terminologies they know absolutely nothing about, parroting the words of whichever useful idiot they borrowed from. Those who are paid well to provide rhetorical dumpster fires for those programmed into gullibility. (and lest we forget the 5 filters of mass media, thank you Noam)

---

A history of those in power lying to keep it, and lying to gain more. (A fundamental truth of political power)
They pollute the narrative, and poison the historical contexts with verbal diarrhea. And those who came after, can pretend as though their predecessors are celebratory of some grand truths. So and, and so forth, until we find that the only thing we don't know, is the truth.
History is fraught with those seeking to maintain power (right-wing) lying to the masses, to sell their morally and ethically corrupt policies.

Social issues and the culture war are "free." They cost those is power nothing. They need not concern themselves with bigotry, poverty, and the like... The liberties of the people holds no value to them.
They do however, need a social cudgel with which to maintain control, and the narratives of anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia, and bigotry have always held great power for those seeking to divide and conquer a populous, garnering the interest of those susceptible to demagoguery, and fear-mongering.

It should be more apparent, but the nuclear dumpster fires that are the current culture war have blackened the skies so we might not see what is right in front of our faces.
Neither political party in the US has any motivation whatsoever to act in the interests of the people. They have constructed a system in which the wealthy may purchase their favor, in a mutually beneficial way. The only losers, are We The People. (This indicates a non-democracy/republic, and denotes an oligarchy) *It also indicates that both parties are inherently "right-wing." It should also be noted that governmental bodies that are non-democratic, are inherently conservative by their very nature. To maintain their hierarchical hegemonies and maintain the status quo is their primary objective. [aka right-wing and conservative]

---

You hear the lesser of two evils argument every 4 years or so, and the culture war escalates ever more. Democrats (not to be confused with democrats) happily sell everything wrong with the nation when not in power, and do everything in their power to fix nothing when in power. Republicans (not to be confused with republicans) do nearly the same thing, except when in power engage in radical anti-democratic practices, and attempt at every turn to steal everything not nailed down. *Thereby verifying Democrat voters fears about 'evil.' (Add in the culture war, and those fears of evil are even more validated)

There is a saying, that "Democrats hate their voters, and Republicans fear theirs." this tends to track when you look at how they interact with their "constituencies." Republicans have the never-ending task of keeping their base in a state of perpetual anger, anybody with half a brain would have the good sense to fear such hostility to some extent. And Democrats are constantly having to kick down their voter bases ideals in wanting a more egalitarian society, selling whichever bad faith economic lie is necessary to stamp out the narratives. And they never see an end either. As one falls, another takes its place, and you can see the blatant irritation on their faces when asked about such issues. They absolutely and unequivocally hate the people they are tasked with appealing to.
(yes, these are generalizations, and yes you may find an outlier here or there, and no, I do not care about outliers, they are not representative of their parties) *perhaps outliers represent future change, but that's not the discussion for the here and now, on why such dangerous culture war anti-democracy, fascistic nonsense reaching further and further into US politics...

---

As to specifically the how of the Republican Party to have moved so far right, and become the proto-fascists of our time?
One might look to the cooptation of the Christians into radical right wing fundamentalist conservatives. A path which perfectly aligns with the Southern Strategy, and the direct appeals to the racist south. (What, you've never heard of Jerry Falwell?) *platforming reactionary demagogues has been the Republican bread and butter for a VERY LONG TIME NOW.
For the wealthy and powerful elite, this was a move motivated only by power, and the possibility to capturing more audience and support for that power. The actual radical right Christian movements are just good strategy if you have no morals, no ethics and are more than likely a psychopath or sociopath in search of infinite power.
I always wonder what happens if the Christian right ever realizes how much their beliefs have been used to abuse them? How they might react if they ever see through the thick layer of demagogic human excrement that has been controlling them for decades... I cannot imagine there is a place on earth a person could run, that they would not follow for the kind of vengeance that would ensue. (And yet, they may simply all double, triple, quadruple down on fascism, and go in whole hog, only realizing after they have good and collapsed into oblivion) *Imagine being so abused and resulting in your own personal shame? I don't wish that on anybody. Least of all, an entire culture of people.

Should we be afraid for the future? Unless the culture war can be curbed, and the oppressors engaged instead, we're probably in for some real hell on Earth in the coming years.

The brainwashing and training into extreme ignorance, with excessive use of emotional word training, as a direct replacement for actual literacy, it may be damn near impossible to appeal to anyone following in such ideological agendas. It is almost a certainty that every single one of us has at some point, and currently are in the controls of such linguistic programming, and we are certain to not realize it. Propaganda from those who "speak our history, propaganda from those who "won the war."
How do you deprogram those already write protected minds? When the lock has been on for more than 40 years? We're in the second generation of right-wing demagogic radio... Does nobody understand what that actually means for society? (yes that was rhetorical)

Just remember, the whole political pie is there to prevent you from bettering the future, it is there to maintain power as they are. Partisanship is the mark of ignorance in today's political climate, and "centrism" is a direct admittance that you both know almost nothing about our politics or history, and think yourself superior at the same time. (don't be that "guy")

If you fear a word, and have never read anything about it from the "horses mouths," (those who actually pioneered it) perhaps you're not as rational as you think...
Consider the dialectical process, always view an issue from multiple lenses, especially opposing ones. And understand that context is realizing that people lie, history cannot and should not be understated, and there are more motivations than you think. You will never know the "truth" but you can find yourself closer and closer to it if you try hard enough.

Understanding human ideology will probably be my lifelong obsession.
A-contextual ideologies are a danger to society, a danger to the future, and are inherently infantile when compared to those more literate, and with greater context.
I would posit that the age old saying "The young are more liberal, and age begets greater conservatism" is really just a bad-faith argument for fools. But appeals to the mind as you realize context begets less blatant idealisms. And so people fall for it more often than they should.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

Honestly, I think these fears are best discussed by Chris Hedges...

That's NOT a discussion, that's a lecture. We prefer discussion as opposed to lectures and blogs, because these fears usually stem from listening to too few sources. Chatting around a table rather than sitting in an audience, as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

That's NOT a discussion, that's a lecture. We prefer discussion as opposed to lectures and blogs, because these fears usually stem from listening to too few sources. Chatting around a table rather than sitting in an audience, as it were.

Ask a question that almost certainly requires 100 hours of reading context, and the best you will ever get is a lecture...
And the lecture only covers the "why in the immediate." I added many very abstract and non-specific elements to try to give more context, but even that's not a great explanation. And sure, I intentionally threw fire on several poorly thought out political and ideological positions. But that was very necessary.

Hedges perfectly explains the very question being asked by the OP.
I could instead just post reference to entire books, and many of them, but you would absolutely hate that more.

It isn't as though I ONLY posted that... But if people really want to learn something about why, instead of pretentiously acting like experts already, they're never going to get anywhere without reference to those in expertise. (The trope of engineers who think they have all the answers to all other aspects of society is rather pointed)
These are randoms in a website, I wouldn't take anybody calling themself an expert seriously. And certainly no more than a known individual whose expertise can be quantified.

Maybe I don't understand how this method has any useful function. It seems more like it's just going to enfranchise fools and idiots.
Debate does not favor truth. Debate is performative, favoring the rhetorician and the deceiver. (but that ties perfectly back into why our political system is a pile of hot garbage today...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

Ask a question that almost certainly requires 100 hours of reading context, and the best you will ever get is a lecture...
And the lecture only covers the "why in the immediate." I added many very abstract and non-specific elements to try to give more context, but even that's not a great explanation. And sure, I intentionally threw fire on several poorly thought out political and ideological positions. But that was very necessary.

Hedges perfectly explains the very question being asked by the OP.
I could instead just post reference to entire books, and many of them, but you would absolutely hate that more.

It isn't as though I ONLY posted that... But if people really want to learn something about why, instead of pretentiously acting like experts already, they're never going to get anywhere without reference to those in expertise. (The trope of engineers who think they have all the answers to all other aspects of society is rather pointed)
These are randoms in a website, I wouldn't take anybody calling themself an expert seriously. And certainly no more than a known individual whose expertise can be quantified.

Maybe I don't understand how this method has any useful function. It seems more like it's just going to enfranchise fools and idiots.
Debate does not favor truth. Debate is performative, favoring the rhetorician and the deceiver. (but that ties perfectly back into why our political system is a pile of hot garbage today...)

And you wish us to wade through two hours of somebody's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

And you wish us to wade through two hours of somebody's opinion.

A journalist and researcher, whose opinion is a thousand times more credible than yours?
Yes, in fact that is exactly what I expect. (all are opinions, sciencey or otherwise)
*I also did not state it was a requirement to address all of the things I WROTE. But clearly you're more interested in deflecting from that which directly attacks whatever ideological position you might blindly follow...

Yes, the lecture does go into specifics as to what I was referring to, he goes into great detail as to a number of aspects of our political and economic realities.

The very fact that you cannot differentiate prescription from description and objectively watch a lecture tells me that you are not an academic. Or have since lost whatever skills were involved in being an academic.

--

You are not giving me any faith that this site actually holds people with critical minds...
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have four posts. Do you have any idea how much of our lives we've lost watching pointless videos? 'Wary' is the word. Even the most respected member here wouldn't expect us to watch such a long programme, they would summarize the salient points what was said. You have one more post until tomorrow. It mitigates spamming. No limits on posting after that. Welcome to the forum.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlightedFox said:

Hedges perfectly explains the very question being asked by the OP.

For you.

1 hour ago, BlightedFox said:

I could instead just post reference to entire books, and many of them, but you would absolutely hate that more.

Perhaps instead, you could try to refute the stance I have on the subject, which is that part of the growing movement to deny reality in the US is based on reading/listening to too few sources, and that the average person is falling to populist opinions which can be outlandish, extremist, and unreasonable. You can hopefully see why your focus on a single presenter sparked my replies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phi for All said:

For you.

Perhaps instead, you could try to refute the stance I have on the subject, which is that part of the growing movement to deny reality in the US is based on reading/listening to too few sources, and that the average person is falling to populist opinions which can be outlandish, extremist, and unreasonable. You can hopefully see why your focus on a single presenter sparked my replies.

 

I didn't, and don't need to read your hypothesis. It is severely lacking in all respects.
But you didn't bother to read what I wrote either, so why should I care?

Good on you to try and change the subject to "your poorly constructed argument."
You refuse to even acknowledge I wrote a damn essay under that link...
Nice job, 

If you had actually read it, you would know how I represent "centrist" ideologies, and how ignorant I state they are.
And yet, I also give credence to contextualized ideologies, as being the only ones worth a damn. Which is significantly different than centrism, as the contextualized are significantly better read than centrists. (centrism is worse than what you accuse these "ignorant people" of)

I'm 100% sure you cannot distinctly lay out the dominant and sub dominant ideologies at play in US politics. Much less the fringe and radical ideologies. And absolutely cannot explain the how and why of said ideologies. That history is almost mandatory to discuss how we got here, but apparently simpleton arguments about people deciding to ignore that "grand ole information" is apparently better?! There are many factors which caused them to be susceptible to the demagoguery and snake oil. You have to address the actual causes and not the symptoms.

Don't consider the expertise of a presenter, don't even engage the idea that he could be an expert, and instead, ignore everything and pretend you already just know better... I would have respected a 5 second criticism of who the presenter is, more than whatever this ignorance is... Without the watch party. But hey, now I get to know the egoisms of the various loud mouths. And that's fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably way off topic re the recent posts, because a lot of them are too long to get into. 

But as far as the OP goes, I don't think reality has ever been a big seller in the US, so this is nothing new. I think it all started with the Western novels, and then exploded when movies came about. Americans from an early age are brought up on a diet of fantasy garbage, and it's addictive, like the junk food that is peddled to them. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of fantasy, but that seems to be the staple diet in US movies. And movies and tv seem to play a huge part in people's lives, especially the young. 

When you are contantly fed a diet of stories where people are either good, or bad, with nothing in between, it forms an attitude to life with similar inclinations. So the US as a nation seems to divide the rest of the world up as good guys, and bad guys. And the same goes for their own politics. 

Real life is boring  by comparison, when you are used to so much fantasy in your life. 

Of course, that doesn't apply to all Americans. But I think it is a trend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

You refuse to even acknowledge I wrote a damn essay under that link...
Nice job, 

I thought I did acknowledge your damn essay with my reply about lecturing and blogging and soapboxing. I remember saying something about discussion, and how it's preferable to being lectured to. 

I will admit I dislike video as a means to learn about something from someone's words. I love video for entertainment, and for learning how to DO things by having someone show me how. But when it comes to raw information that I need to assess for validity and accuracy, the written word is far more trustworthy. I'm not being distracted by presentation, and I can instantly re-read anything I don't immediately understand. With video, we're predisposed to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, which I think is detrimental when you're trying to stay informed. I don't listen to lectures, I don't watch the news on video. I read what I want to know, and I read what others take the time to write out thoughtfully and concisely. 

19 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm probably way off topic re the recent posts, because a lot of them are too long to get into. 

But as far as the OP goes, I don't think reality has ever been a big seller in the US, so this is nothing new. I think it all started with the Western novels, and then exploded when movies came about. Americans from an early age are brought up on a diet of fantasy garbage, and it's addictive, like the junk food that is peddled to them. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of fantasy, but that seems to be the staple diet in US movies. And movies and tv seem to play a huge part in people's lives, especially the young. 

When you are contantly fed a diet of stories where people are either good, or bad, with nothing in between, it forms an attitude to life with similar inclinations. So the US as a nation seems to divide the rest of the world up as good guys, and bad guys. And the same goes for their own politics. 

Real life is boring  by comparison, when you are used to so much fantasy in your life. 

Of course, that doesn't apply to all Americans. But I think it is a trend.

Because you specifically targeted fantasy, I started to object, but I see some validity in what you say. I don't think it's necessarily any single genre that's at fault here. Science-fiction and fantasy are perfectly reasonable human pursuits, as are historical stories like Westerns and other period pieces.

But being a fan of British TV, I think where the US is guilty of what you claim is our fantastically myopic and wishful perspective on normal life. British shows thrive often by being very realistic and gritty, where many US shows depict some kind of imaginary world where everyone hits their cue and there's never a hitch in the conversation and everyone always knows just what to say! And the laugh tracks still let us know when somebody was witty, since we can't be trusted to figure that out on our own. 

And since 1996, we have no standards that require our news shows to be anything but entertainment. That may be one reason why we allow such wishful thinking in our television, because the news is like a horror show meant to make us afraid and the sitcoms let us pretend we didn't just watch the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I thought I did acknowledge your damn essay with my reply about lecturing and blogging and soapboxing. I remember saying something about discussion, and how it's preferable to being lectured to. 

I will admit I dislike video as a means to learn about something from someone's words. I love video for entertainment, and for learning how to DO things by having someone show me how. But when it comes to raw information that I need to assess for validity and accuracy, the written word is far more trustworthy. I'm not being distracted by presentation, and I can instantly re-read anything I don't immediately understand. With video, we're predisposed to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, which I think is detrimental when you're trying to stay informed. I don't listen to lectures, I don't watch the news on video. I read what I want to know, and I read what others take the time to write out thoughtfully and concisely. 

Because you specifically targeted fantasy, I started to object, but I see some validity in what you say. I don't think it's necessarily any single genre that's at fault here. Science-fiction and fantasy are perfectly reasonable human pursuits, as are historical stories like Westerns and other period pieces.

But being a fan of British TV, I think where the US is guilty of what you claim is our fantastically myopic and wishful perspective on normal life. British shows thrive often by being very realistic and gritty, where many US shows depict some kind of imaginary world where everyone hits their cue and there's never a hitch in the conversation and everyone always knows just what to say! And the laugh tracks still let us know when somebody was witty, since we can't be trusted to figure that out on our own. 

And since 1996, we have no standards that require our news shows to be anything but entertainment. That may be one reason why we allow such wishful thinking in our television, because the news is like a horror show meant to make us afraid and the sitcoms let us pretend we didn't just watch the news.

It's use as a starting point is increasing and I dislike it for reasons you mention. When it comes to the serious or technical, text removes a lot of fluff and time. I  read and absorb text much faster. Being deaf has nothing to do with it, of course. :) If I'm going to lip-read, I might as well read text at the faster rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When it comes to the serious or technical, text removes a lot of fluff and time. I  read and absorb text much faster.

Absolutely, and I'm much more likely to spot discrepancies, exaggerations, and fallacious logic reading text than I am with video. Frankly, I enjoy good movies and television partly because I can let the story unfold without questioning it too much, so I end up being surprised when the author/director/actor wants me to be. But when I want to be informed, there's nothing like reading for me. 

It occurs to me that there may be some correlation between those who deny reality and a preference for video over the written word. Many seem to have been duped by flashy presentations rather than actively in denial of reality.

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Being deaf has nothing to do with it, of course. :) If I'm going to lip-read, I might as well read text at the faster rate.

Have you ever watched one of the more flagrant wingnut US politicians, like Rep Lauren Boebert from my state, talk about their conspiracies, and then had to rewind because you couldn't believe you didn't mis-read what her mouth just said? I think that's actually a business model in the US now: make a video of yourself saying something so crazy that people will keep watching it and sharing it in disbelief without realizing how much fame and fortune they're making for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Absolutely, and I'm much more likely to spot discrepancies, exaggerations, and fallacious logic reading text than I am with video. Frankly, I enjoy good movies and television partly because I can let the story unfold without questioning it too much, so I end up being surprised when the author/director/actor wants me to be. But when I want to be informed, there's nothing like reading for me. 

That's a case of  passive absorption vs active absorption, I think. Obviously, you need to periodically interject some active analysis when absorbing objective information at your own pace, and spoken video inhibits that. Don't forget, when you open your mouth, your brain shuts down.  :)

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 2:05 PM, Phi for All said:

I thought I did acknowledge your damn essay with my reply about lecturing and blogging and soapboxing. I remember saying something about discussion, and how it's preferable to being lectured to. 

I will admit I dislike video as a means to learn about something from someone's words. I love video for entertainment, and for learning how to DO things by having someone show me how. But when it comes to raw information that I need to assess for validity and accuracy, the written word is far more trustworthy. I'm not being distracted by presentation, and I can instantly re-read anything I don't immediately understand. With video, we're predisposed to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, which I think is detrimental when you're trying to stay informed. I don't listen to lectures, I don't watch the news on video. I read what I want to know, and I read what others take the time to write out thoughtfully and concisely. 

 

I don't care about your likes, and dislikes for information dissemination. That is entirely irrelevant. I don't care about your desire for your dictatorial rules in the exact and only means of which you will engage with information. That is also irrelevant.

You refused to engage with what I wrote after attacking the notion of addressing a video lecture, and THEN proclaimed everything I wrote as saopboxing, so you could entirely ignore that as well. IGNORANCE. Perfectly acted out.

I have never seen anybody so ignorant and wantonly, act as though their ignorance is defensible, and that it makes them the more intelligent and virtuous person. Such amazingly incompetent dismissal and pathetic hand waving.
I will NEVER submit to your RULES. I will never engage under you criterion. I'm better read than you, and your wanton ignorance is the proof of that. You did an excellent job of of outing yourself.
You didn't even bother nit picking, as you didn't even bother reading a damn thing. You are not a debater. You act in bad faith, and ignore anything which might challenge your less literate preconceived notions of reality. You are not an intellectual. Stop pretending you are.

Edited by BlightedFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

I don't care about your likes, and dislikes for information dissemination. irrelevant.

You refused to engage with what I wrote after attacking the notion of addressing a video lecture,

I have never seen anybody so ignorant and wantonly, act as though their ignorance is defensible, 
I will NEVER submit to your RULES. I will never engage under you criterion. I'm better read than you, and your wanton ignorance is the proof of that. You did an excellent job of of outing yourself.

A 2 hr video and you want, no demand people to watch it? I did do the next best thing though and googled this Hedges turkey....yeah just as I thought....a bloodt presbyterian minister, and worked at the christian science monitor. Yeah thatnks for your preaching but no thanks... I'm here for the science and to learn, not to listen to some damn mythical hysterical nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, beecee said:

A 2 hr video and you want, no demand people to watch it? I did do the next best thing though and googled this Hedges turkey....yeah just as I thought....a bloodt presbyterian minister, and worked at the christian science monitor. Yeah thatnks for your preaching but no thanks... I'm here for the science and to learn, not to listen to some damn mythical hysterical nonsense. 

Just STFU!
Consider me not in this topic anymore. You people are insufferable.
Are you drunk? Yeah, yer probably drunk. (spelling and such poor searching is kinda an indicator)

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/15438.Chris_Hedges?from_search=true&from_srp=true

IDK, maybe this guy's writing history makes your response look vapid, and wanton too...

Such Titles as:

-American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America
-The Death of the Liberal Class
-America: The Farewell Tour

He has spent the better part of his career (after being a long time war correspondent) studying this political culture self annihilation occurring in the US. You quite clearly have done none as such. *Hedges is a very well traveled journalist.
And your search abilities are almost non-existent. Don't pretend you know what you're talking about with that level of critical approach.

Adios, I will be responding to no more of you folks in here... (I don't debate ignoramuses) *I know better than to scream at walls.
Goodbye!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

Just STFU!

Not yet.🤣

11 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

Consider me not in this topic anymore. You people are insufferable.
Are you drunk? Yeah, yer probably drunk. (spelling and such poor searching is kinda an indicator)

Nup, havn't touched a drop...just typing in the dark!!😜

13 minutes ago, BlightedFox said:

Adios, I will be responding to no more of you folks in here... (I don't debate ignoramuses) *I know better than to scream at walls.
Goodbye!

That's nice, see you in hell!🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlightedFox said:

I don't care about your likes, and dislikes for information dissemination. That is entirely irrelevant. I don't care about your desire for your dictatorial rules in the exact and only means of which you will engage with information. That is also irrelevant.

You refused to engage with what I wrote after attacking the notion of addressing a video lecture, and THEN proclaimed everything I wrote as saopboxing, so you could entirely ignore that as well. IGNORANCE. Perfectly acted out.

I have never seen anybody so ignorant and wantonly, act as though their ignorance is defensible, and that it makes them the more intelligent and virtuous person. Such amazingly incompetent dismissal and pathetic hand waving.
I will NEVER submit to your RULES. I will never engage under you criterion. I'm better read than you, and your wanton ignorance is the proof of that. You did an excellent job of of outing yourself.
You didn't even bother nit picking, as you didn't even bother reading a damn thing. You are not a debater. You act in bad faith, and ignore anything which might challenge your less literate preconceived notions of reality. You are not an intellectual. Stop pretending you are.

People buy from people they like. This is a generlisation, but you can readily find research articles confirming the tendency at your university library, or on Google Scholar. It is also true whether you are buying a new washing machine, a political argument, or a social thesis.

With that in mind you may wish to reflect on how much your agressive, self-righteous, discourteous posts are making you popular. "Aha", I hear you say, "I am not here to be liked." But why are you here? Normally one makes an argument in the hope of persuading others of the value, or wisdom of that argument. Being rude and overbearing does not encourage the reader to read associated posts with an open mind - not when their author has shown so much evidence of having a closed one.

The good news is that most of us grow out of teenage angst, but if you are already in your thirties I fear time may be running out for you. :)

Now, back on the ranch, how about a concise exposition of your thesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Area54 said:

People buy from people they like. This is a generlisation, but you can readily find research articles confirming the tendency at your university library, or on Google Scholar. It is also true whether you are buying a new washing machine, a political argument, or a social thesis.

With that in mind you may wish to reflect on how much your agressive, self-righteous, discourteous posts are making you popular. "Aha", I hear you say, "I am not here to be liked." But why are you here? Normally one makes an argument in the hope of persuading others of the value, or wisdom of that argument. Being rude and overbearing does not encourage the reader to read associated posts with an open mind - not when their author has shown so much evidence of having a closed one.

The good news is that most of us grow out of teenage angst, but if you are already in your thirties I fear time may be running out for you. :)

Now, back on the ranch, how about a concise exposition of your thesis?

Concise exposition  seems to be outside his MO.... one must must read whole libraries that he provides. When he asserted I wasn't an academic (I'm not), I just dismissed his approach as that of an academic snob, for whom I am not worthy to parlez with. :)

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.