Arlo: In addition to fear, hate and envy are also rampant in today's social rhetoric. The MOQ solution is exactly as you say, " . . .lay out a intellectual, reasonable argument for the dangers and offer potential solutions. That's about the best we can do." In pursuing that moral goal, personal attacks should be shunned.
> [Arlo] > Fear, it's what's for dinner. > > [Platt] > Agree in principle. Not only politicians but the media thrive on fear. > > [Arlo] > Yes, and make sure you recognize that its not only the so-called > "mainstream media" that resorts to fear, but also other media outlets > like talk-radio and Net Media. > > Oddly, this was a central point in "Bowling for Columbine", where > Moore considers the violence in America to be rooted in part in a > media that bends over backwards to scare people about this threat or another. > > [Platt] > There are times, however, when fear is justified but the very common > psychology of denial occurs. > > [Arlo] > And here is where the danger of degeneration in the dialogue begins, > namely in overlaying "justifiable" with "my party". That is the mess > that got us where we are. Both sides pander to their own proclaimed > "justifiable" things we should be afraid of, while ridiculing that > which the other party professes should scare us. > > Are there things we should be concerned about? Absolutely. But I > don't think we need to rely on fear, a kind of Armageddon-rhetoric, > to get this information out there. Or maybe we do, maybe we as a > culture are so conditioned to only pay attention when someone yells > "Fire!!!" that simple, straightforward dialogue is impossible. > > I think the key is pointing out specific, workable, areas of concern. > Take illegal immigration. Are there things about it that should > concern us? Absolutely. Is the end of America eminent? Of course not. > Same with global pollution. Are there things that should concern us? > Yes. Are we only days away from "The Day After Tomorrow"? No. > > [Platt] > I'm thinking particularly of the lead up to WW II when Churchill's > warnings were a cry in the wilderness. > > [Arlo] > There will always be real dangers in the world. But what saddens me > is that our own shortsightedness following WWI, and our overall > sympathies with the Master Race dialogue of the Nazis, led to a > situation that only after many, many years became one where war was > the solution. Do not forget that Henry Ford, among others, was a > staunch backer of Hitler, even receiving the top Nazi award given to > foreigners. > > [Platt] > I wonder if the MOQ has any clues as to how to assess potential > dangers. What immediately comes to mind is any threat to free speech > and other intellectual level rights that oppose to social conformity. > I'd be interested if you have suggestions for any other MOQ clues of > legitimate threats. > > [Arlo] > As started this thread, there is always reason for concern when > social powers subvert intellectual patterns. And that's also part of > the solution, as I believe "fear" is social-level rhetoric. If you > believe caution is in order, lay out a intellectual, reasonable > argument for the dangers and offer potential solutions. That's about > the best we can do. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
