TPOI and Triggers

[krinndnz]

What breaks the game?

There are certain things you can say in a conversation that bring matters to a dead halt, force a re-evaluation of everything that's already been said, and generally make people want to walk out on the discussion. It's easy to think of things that shake up discourse like that - but why them?

I said one of those things

Comments

[hemlock_martini]

I've often wondered how much of my worldview is just my parents', updated and buffed to a shiny polish. I don't think they'd approve of my H+ endgame cheerleading, though.

And I have a difficult time imagining debate with a hardcore fundie or a blindfolded Bushite--I would welcome said debate if I for a moment believed that it would do any good at all for either of us. I'd be completely open to accepting their POV's if they weren't built on what I believe to be superstition and lies. Would it really benefit a Newtonian physicist to chat with someone who believes themselves to be hovering in midair because the fairies keep them aloft?

As for the conversation you linked to, it appears that you responded pretty well to the initial salvo and rather than respond to you, they decided to call you names. JUDGMENT: both posters are assbadgers and their mothers dress them funny. Thus I decree.

[krinndnz]

I took the time to look at the public parts of both of their journals, though, and they both seem to be reasonable enough people. That's part of why there's this bit of soul-searching - in another context, I think it's pretty likely we'd have gotten along famously (of course, I just reread "Red Son" so there's a little irony on that) - but I say "Chomsky!" and suddenly everything grinds to a halt.

As for doing good to either of us - the good I want it to do is understanding why people believe what they believe. Engaging the beliefs directly if you have a huge divergence in underlying axioms is, you're right, spectacularly unproductive. People generally recognize that. That's why you have to switch to arguing about axioms, which is a sticky business. I think - this shouldn't be too hard - that everyone considers themselves to have solid, well-grounded beliefs that are based on a sober look at reality. On the other hand, there's a huge divergence of human belief. So why is there a difference? I want to attain some insight into

[prickvixen]

I've found a whole lot... okay, pretty much all the people who deride Chomsky haven't actually read him.

You've got the major subset of people who claim he denies Khmer Rouge atrocities, based upon a book he co-authored which compared coverage of the Cambodian atrocities with known information about them, in the context of a larger exploration of the media. These people haven't actually read the book; Chomsky has nothing to say about whether the atrocities took place or not, or even whether the known information was accurate... just that the information provided in news reports didn't correspond to data from anyone who was in a position to have an accurate picture of the situation on the ground, such as intelligence services, or even the experts some news reports cited. And Chomsky and Edward Herman drew conclusions about the media and its coverage, based upon this discrepancy, but the conclusions did not pass judgment regarding what was or wasn't actually happening in Cambodia

[krinndnz]

Hey, I didn't know all of that - thank you.

I have to confess to much more skimming and listening to recordings of Chomsky than actual reading. What you point out, though, is what I find compelling about Chomsky's theories: that they explain, without requiring conspiracy theories, shadowy cabals, or leprechauns, observable events in the world. I tried to mention those points a couple of times in the thread - that the Democrats are also full of flaws and that no conspiracy theories are required to explain the behavior that's going on, just selfish decisions piling up. That's what I think the evidence indicates about the WTC/Pentagon attacks and Pearl Harbor, for instance - not that it was an inside job or perpetrated with the direct aid of the government, but that people making self-interested decisions blinded themselves to the evidence about what was likely to happen, with disastrous results.

[prickvixen]

You're welcome. :)

I've listened to a lot of Chomsky's major spoken word releases... they're kind of fun, almost; listening to him dissect cherished institutions in this sort of dry, caustic tone. But they're really Chomsky Lite, and they lack annotation and such, so you really should check out his books. Unfortunately his major works like Manufacturing Consent, Necessary Illusions, etc, are really dry and hard to get into. I'd suggest Understanding Power, which is a survey of Chomsky's major themes and touches upon just about everything, but it's made up of lecture transcripts so it's a little more conversational and accessible. The annotations are as long as the book itself, so they're available online at http://www.understandingpower.com.

[krinndnz]

Hey, neat - Understanding Power is, in fact, on my shelf. I should check out the annotations again.

I remember reading a cartoon version of Manufacturing Consent (I think it was that one) that was very amusing.

[prickvixen]

Get through that, and you might be ready for something with a little more academic roughage. :) The problem with most of Chomsky's books for the average person is that they really are academic studies, so they sacrifice readability for content. And because these concepts are so challenging to the way people are taught to see the world, it's difficult to abbreviate them and still have them be persuasive, except on the gut level of cynicism which I think most people have.

You have to remember that the reason the average American would like to believe in Bush and all the conservative bullshit is that they have to believe in something hopeful; the alternative is to face how messed up things really are, and that isn't easy or comfortable. It's only when the consequences of blindness become intolerable that people are willing to face facts, but even then it's with a great deal of reluctance. The Republican sales pitch is essentially an optimistic one: America is great and everything will be okay if we can only get rid of so-and-so or keep

[krinndnz]

I demand to borrow from you academic roughage!

Yes, I remember reading excerpts from MC and wincing at the density. Still, I get the impression that a lot of it is "just" well-documented examples presented Very Patiently. I can deal with that.

Your analysis regarding optimism is interesting, I want to chew that one over - something is bothering me about it, but I can't figure out what yet.