--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
You've given too much thought on this topic to just blow it off so I'll dig in. > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I got your point but that wasn't what interested me. > > Uh-huh. > > Was what interested you really the notion that I > wasn't aware till now that Barry claims he says stuff > just to piss me off? Whatever I wrote about was what interested me. This is not the best area to challenge because it deals with my own interests and I am unlikely to conclude that you might have more knowledge about this than I do. I suspect that some of the things her writes fall in this category but I'm sure he has lots of different motivations for what he writes. You seem more interested in speculating on what those other motives are than I am. > > Because you and I have been around that block several > times now. As you know, I don't believe it for a > nanosecond, at least the "just" part. He also wants > other readers to take it seriously; and he doesn't do > it only because he finds it "entertaining," he does it > because it *enrages* him that I see through him, and > he has to release some of that anger or he'll > incinerate himself. > > "Just to piss Judy off" is his *excuse* for constantly > demonizing me, including all the falsehoods. I think I understand what your POV is on this. I'm not sure about your conclusions about his internal state, but you are welcome to them. From outside it doesn't seem much deeper than that you don't like each other and have decided not to find anything to like. So you end up as cartoon people to each other, all bad, all good. You and I bounce off each other frequently but I don't only think of you one way. I try to focus on the parts of our interaction that work for me. > > Plus which, of course, he doesn't demonize and tell > falsehoods *just* about me. The post I was originally > commenting on was about John. In fact, you'll find > very, very few posts of his that don't demonize > somebody or some group. As I said before, that's his > M.O., that's what he *does* here. I admit to not being up on all your falsehood perspective on Barry's posts. That analysis of yours is not the most interesting angle for me. I know you think it should be everyone's big interest here but it just isn't the most interesting way to approach this board for me. I get the least out of those kinds of discussions. > > (You got a little taste of it not long ago regarding > your views on homeopathy, and you didn't like it much. > He forgot himself there for a minute, but he backed > off when you stood up to him; he doesn't want to lose > one of his few allies here. Unless you think he was > just having fun pissing *you* off to see how you'd > react.) I thought he was being cranky that day. But he doesn't have to cultivate me as an ally or worry about expressing anger or strong disagreement with me. I feel confident that we can work it out or at least move on. I take people post by post and try not to come in with too much baggage. That is also the strategy that works best for me interacting with you here. Every post is the first post as best as I can manage that perspective. > > In any case, Atrios does not, of course, believe for > a nanosecond that the right-wingers are just trying to > piss off liberals. Nor does he believe they make stupid > arguments because *they're* stupid. It's because they > know there are quite a few people stupid enough to take > them seriously. If they piss off liberals into the > bargain, that's a side benefit, but it isn't the goal. This is getting interesting. > > They *want* people to believe Obama is a "socialist > ideologue"; they *want* people to believe in "death > panels"; they *want* people to believe Obama wasn't > born in the U.S.; they *want* people to believe a big > snowstorm disproves global warming. They know better, > but they are confident many among their audience do > not. In other words, they're unscrupulous, cynical > liars. This is an area of mystery whenever I talk with my otherwise brilliant Dad about politics or anyone who lives on the Fox News perspective. I think it is case by case. Guys like Glen Beck are cynically rabble rousing for ratings IMO. I don't believe his schtick. I think Palin is a shitty thinker and does believe what she says but with zero analysis or depth. She seems to say things for reaction and feeds off of that rather than really analyzing anything she is saying. She parrots phrases and watches how people respond. Hannity seems to be a good match for your analysis. But I'm pretty sure that they are all just preaching to the choir. Although I will be sadly mistaken if they vote Obama out next election based on their propaganda campaign. They have mastered a unified message even though the message is mostly anathema for people on the right I have respect for like George Will. Ultimately I believe they are destroying their party with this extremism and simplistic sloganeering. I don't think much of the country has really gotten over electing a black president. I get that sense when I talk with some conservatives. I see the right as splintered now with the current crop of loudmouths at center stage. But I have too much disappointment with the democrats to see this too black and white. I have heard plenty of shitty thinking and sloganeering from them. Remember the whole Cheney conspiracy folks? They remind me of the Obama is a Muslim crowd. And I hated Cheney. But right now the right is using the rabble rousing mike and I agree with how you are characterizing them. I used to watch FOX news to understand the right's POV but since Obama has been in office I find it completely unwatchable. It makes me furious to hear them. > > And so are some of the TM critics on FFL, Barry most > prominent among them. As with the right-wingers, > some among the TM critics' audience find their lies > and demonizations convincing, especially when the > critics reinforce each other. You know what would really shut up all the critics? Impressive results from the TM programs so obvious they could not be denied. I don't believe for a second that critics are a problem for TM. People who have adapted the pro TM POV and love their practice don't care. People who are interested in TM are more likely to be influenced by a person into TM rather than someone who dropped it. And it is very natural to view critics of anything unfavorably in our society where the term "skeptic" is commonly used in derision. I think people gravitate to people like them for their information. It takes a lot of effort to push beyond natural affinity and interact with someone with a very different POV. Look how rare it is on this board where it should be relatively easy. I view the TM critics here as a very diverse bunch. Every relationship on the scale of belief and disbelief is represented. Even you are not at the World Government Ladies side of the line with your overt criticism of the organization and lack of TM teacher/religious reverence for Maharishi. (I may not have phrased that right.) (Shit I just discovered that using parentheses makes it look like I am using emoticons!) (That was not one.) )Or that one...) > > The one thing the right-wingers *don't* do is claim > they're saying this stuff just to piss off liberals. > They know *nobody* would be stupid enough to believe > that. If you want me to say that pissing you off is not Barry's sole motivation, fine. He writes a lot of stuff so I'm sure there are many motivations just as there are for me. But if you want me to see Barry as a really bad guy I have to decline. There are enough Barry and Judy haters here. I'm more interested in finding productive ways to interact with each of you. Just as we have here. >
