Jump to content
Curiouser and curiouser...
Is calling someone a "right wing nut" and "right wingnut" less offensive than using the epithet, "loopy left winger?" I was guilty of the latter on these pages but came to see the futility of name calling in advancing knowledge. It was said in a paper I read this week as a quote by an author whose name I can't recall, "A discussion is an exchange of information. An argument is an exchange of ignorance."
As to quotes, I said here once that President Eisenhower said that it was better to remain silent and be though stupid rather than to open one's moutn and eliminate all doubt, when Lincoln is the author of that remark. The gentleman above who ascribed the quote to Lincoln, I believe was mistaken, as the humorist, Will Rogers, first said, (I believe), 'Never be afraid to admit you were wrong, as all you are saying is that you are a smarter man today than you were yesterday and there is no shame in that' (in words or substance).
The point that the Constitution bars only government supression of free speech is literally correct, but overlooks the reality that all laws, including the Constitution, reflect a nation's communal moral beliefs, and one would hope and expect, do so in a minimal way. Otherwise we end up with Sharia or John Smith and Brigham Young suppressing freedom of the press in Navoo, IL. Thus, it is uncivil and bad manners when "right wingers" at colleges shout down liberal speakers or successfully compel student groups to disinvite them;... no wait !..., I got that backwards. As a society we depend on free speech in almost all forms to see which ideas prevail in the market place of ideas.
If you loathe Ann Coulter, don't go.
Hope I'm wrong...
I've dealt with bureaucrats in government and in the private sector who, challanged to make a judgmental decision in a controversial area, deign to allow the public the delusion that their input could actually affect the decision, after they have decided what the policy will be. This current exercise by the Pilot staff has such an aroma. This is because the issue was visited in the past and nothing new has warranted looking at it again.
I've been posting for about four years or, perhaps slightly more, and remember emotional responses characterized by the invective complained about as some recent phenomenon. I do observe that the IQ of more of the fringe posters seems to have dropped. I doubt that the psyche of readers was damaged or that they put off reading the paper.
I don't accuse Brent and his staff of a cynical meeting where the decision was made to eliminate anonymous postings. Rather I suspect that as wannabe Pulitzer recipients, as all newspaper newsmen are, they have brought a subconscious bias to the decision making process against extreme views and passionate argument, (therefore by definition, 'irrational'). They don't want their paper 'stained' with irrationality. It's too bad there's not more H.L. Menken in their makeup. It's too bad that nannystate mentality has crept into the newsroom of an amusing little regional newspaper, knowing better what we should want and what's in our best interest, which coincides with their best interests.
A vicious press probably had more to do with Washington leaving after two terms than anything else. Since then the press has had a monopoly on information dissemination until the internet era, before which the only mechanism to criticise a newspaper was in one of its rival newspapers, thus the comment, "Never pick a fight with someone who owns a barrel of ink." The Pilot will obviously have the last word here.
I am saddened that on the eve of a Presidential election that there will probably be a change in policy. Many of the wittier and amusing punches and counter-punches of conservatives and liberals will be lost. I had hoped that JLM would return to these pages, but that won't be; Trumpsuit, gone, Cooke, gone; replaced all too often by people with a narcissistic need to have their names and faces appear in public places.
Pilot, leave a good thing alone.
MM gives us the answer we have been seeking to the question, "If we are discussing ideas, concepts and opinions, why is it important to know the identity of the poster?"
We have to own our ideas, comments and opinions, she says. Translation- your neighbors want to be able to shun you, boycot your business, curse you to their friends and acquaintences, and/maybe not or, in extreme circumstances split your lip.
If names are required, fewer posters will be nasty, childish and vitriolic, because....
your neighbors will then be able to shun you, boycot your business, curse you to their friends and acquaintences, and/maybe not or, in extreme circumstances split your lip.
Don't you see nasty things on the sidewalk that you step around every day? Aren't you able to relegate a level of importance to them to be quickly forgotten?
Do you want Brent and his staff deciding what is hate speech, beyond the usual fighting words? A long time ago I posted the inquiry whether at a nightspot gathering of the homosexual community whether it would be informative to poll them as to the manner of ther meeting their partners, and had the comment stricken. Do you want to unleash the censors who inevitably use as their measure whether the most sensitive soul would be offended rather than to apply more important factors like the importance of considering an issue. It's a slippery slope into the dishwater dull world of PC.
Sep, I appreciate your remarks and have reciprocal respect for your opinions. I think your comment tying all of us who wish to preserve our anonymity to the quotes you saved and posted is uncharacteristically reckless on your part and curious. If you are so incensed by these emotional excesses, why did you save,cut and paste them? Getting beyond my first reaction as the target of such rejoinders to something I posted, I am amused by them. My wife catches me watching Jerry Springer once in a blue moon too. I'm of the school that one can't know light until he has experienced darkness. To know who I am, I have to fit myself into the spectrum of human behavior. If my sample is narrowed to a bandwidth of polite Quakers, then I fear that I'd be like the monkey whose brain was kept alive separated from it's body and quickly deprived of stimulus, went haywire and insane. My wife has her opinions that I'm already there.
The Pilot has a policy about offensive speech. The Pilot has a mechanism for complaint about offensive speech. The chance that a reader will be exposed to the rawness of human nature from time to time is outweighed by the desirability of robust debate.
Jefferson said we shouldn't fear free speech because it is the only way to sort out ideas and to allow the better ones to prevail in public opinion.
"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of the Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Have you asked yourself, if it ideas, concepts and opinions were are discussing, why is it important to know the identity of the speaker? Is it some visceral perception that by this form of communication you have lost the freedom to retaliate in all of retaliation's subtle ways? If so, which is darker, the desire to remain anonymous, or the desire to punish beliefs?
hard to type being a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, troglodyte-
There is some joy in being able to still inspire passion in women. Thanks for that. I won't suppose to speak for Sled, but in comparing the physical appearance of prominent conservative women to prominient liberal women, I am struck by the obvious violation of the law of averages, pointed out above. (Sled, we left out the concupiscent Barbara Mikulski)
MM- your comments are valid. I note, however, that among feninists, there seems to be a recurrent illogic that men find so bewildering. Gloria Steinem, (the exception to the rule, but cancelled out by Betty Friedan) wants us to notice her with a glance, but not to stare or desire her. I didn't understand this until an epiphany that women don't dress and make themselves up for men, they do it for women. Now I get it. Mens' function is to be sperm donars and to thereafter protect and thrive the genes of the female they impregnated. Feminist credo: woman good, man bad
Following on to Sled's comments, and as a nod to Fred's comments-
I got an e-mail once from an acquaintance that featured women of the right, Michele Bachman, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin, (and a surprising number of others, whose names and images I can't now call to mind like the blond haired woman on The View), who by objective standards are attractive. Contrasted with this were shots of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bella Abzug, Maxine Waters, Rrosie O'Donnell and some other clock stoppers. Now all comparisons are odious, but is it a cardinal sin to indulge just a little speculation that those prominent left wing women, sharing in common that nature by-passed them when beauty genes were being handed out, were envious and angry little girls who carried the politics of envy and resentment into adulthood?
Fred, The issue with Ann Coulter is her intentionally being provacative. I'm not on a national stage, so my above remarks don't amount to much, but when she tears off the emotional scab of mothers who have had children killed in war and are expressing hatred of war generally, in my book, she violated my Yankee sense of manners and civility. She went on my list of people including O.J. Simpson and Jonathan Pollard, whom I wouldn't invite for ice tea on the side porch.
Here we go. Red meat for the Yampa Valley left. Oops, forgot that the Birkenstockers are vegans.
This woman is a shameless self-promoting entertainer, posing as a serious pundit. The closest thing to her on the left is Rachel Madow.
Get your undies in a knot if you want to about her speaking in Steamboat. That's what she's all about.
I'll take my conservatism from George Will or Charles Krauthhammer, thanks.
Angus: "You know Archie that I'm getting married?
Archie: No Angus, That's brah, Angus, brah!
Angus: Yes, and I've done all the planning. I've hired a hall for the reception, arranged entertainment, scheduled with the priest, and got a caterer for the food. I even bought a new kilt.
Archie: What's the tartan?
Angus: Oh, I expect she'll be wearin' white."
Judgin' from the video camera angle of the horse's posterior and poor lighting I first thought it might be the Oracle of Oak Creek.
Last login: Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |