Thanks! (Plus, some thoughts about lying)

[lostboy_lj]

I know I've been missing of late, but I just wanted to pop in to say thanks to whoever nominated my essay, Rules of Engagement, at the No Rest For the Wicked Awards, in the category "Not Fade Away".  I suppose I was in an essay-writing mood all last year, and while I didn't get around to writing everything I'd planned, I was fairly proud of the

Comments

[rebcake]

This gives me so many thoughts! Dear Old Dad, a retired journalist, pins the beginning of the end to the dismantling of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting and print.

I was horrified during the last election cycle (can we add softener during the next round?) that the organizations who count up the lies told by each camp found more of what was said on both sides was blatantly untrue than ever before. (More than 50% in some cases? That can't be right.) The perception was that there were no consequences and nobody cared anyway. Uh, wrong.

Maybe the perception has become that everybody is lying, and therefore the term has lost its sting. Like the way you can call anybody a "bastard" nowadays and it's fairly shrug-worthy? IDK. It's heinous.

I will say that I have a particular hatred of the "bending of reality" lie, as I've seen that one end up in full-scale bloodshed, and because it's the last refuge of scoundrels. I mean, there's a reason why "The Emperor Has No Clothes" is still so current, IMO.

Also, also! I really hate the conflation of any kind of "otherness" up to an including honest disagreements into a full-on demonization of other people. It's a metaphor, it's a real, live thing that people do every day. Why can't the people who most need to see it for what it is?

All to say, thanks for saying these needed things.

P.S. What? You're having non-BtVS discussions on the internetz? What? I've never heard of such a thing! Is she prettier than us?

[readerjane]

(Maybe the perception has become that everybody is lying, and therefore the term has lost its sting.)

That certainly seems to be what Coca-Cola is presuming. I came across this article yesterday and was shocked (an effect that's kind of depressing in its rarity) by this paragraph:

"I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim."

So is mendacity the presumed default now? 'Cause if it is, I'd like to leave the party, please.

[lostboy_lj]

Hah! Well, then again I suppose that's nothing new. I think Snake Oil Salesman runs second or third in the list of "World's Oldest Professions."

I don't know if you've ever seen "Idiocracy", A.K.A The Greatest Film of All Time, but...



IT'S WHAT PLANTS CRAVE!!!

[lostboy_lj]

Oh! It also reminds me of "Vitajex", from "A Face in the Crowd"... perhaps even more so.



Oh Vitajex! What ya doin' to me?
Oh Vitajex! What ya doin' to me?
You fill me full of ecstasy! Yeah!

And, just to take Coke's side for a moment, this "Vitamin Water" junk has the same breakdown of ingredients on the back as every other drink in the case. In a world where life isn't nasty, brutal and short (and not nearly so as it was in past generations), is it really too much to ask that people take the slightest responsibility in their own health choices? Does lowering the bar of expectations merely mean the same (or greater) proportion of people will continually fail to meet it? Another eternal question.

[lostboy_lj]

Thanks, rebcake.

This gives me so many thoughts! Dear Old Dad, a retired journalist, pins the beginning of the end to the dismantling of the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting and print.

Interesting that you bring this up, because it's a good case study in what I'm getting at. I also come from a background in journalism, and think that the Fairness Doctrine was a terrible idea, with unintended consequences that actually led to an easier monopolization of the argument by people in power, and had a chilling effect on free speech. Still, if I was arguing the point with your dad, I would not assume that he was some sort of fifth column enemy of free speech, hellbent on destroying the republic. If that was the case, what would be the purpose of talking to him?

The correct default assumption would be that we are both interested in protecting free speech and preventing the monopolization of the public discourse, but have different theories as to how that can best come about. That base assumption of the "loyal opposition" feels like its being sucked out by a giant vacuum.

Maybe the perception has become that everybody is lying, and therefore the term has lost its sting.

Yes. And not just about facts, but lying about their motives for making their arguments in the first place (i.e. gun control advocates don't *actually* care about dead children, they secretly hate liberty and want a police state; pro life advocates don't *actually* care about dead children, they secretly hate women and want to strip them of their agency). It's that part about assuming fake argument that worries me more than the typical lies of politicians, no matter how absurd and rancorous they get (I think at one point in the last campaign, Romney was actually accused of giving a woman cancer, which sounds more like an old SNL parody of a campaign than the real thing). Without the base assumption that the neighbor you are arguing against is at least saying what he actually thinks, he ceases to be your neighbor, and is instead some sort of enemy presence to be parried and maybe even destroyed.

[lostboy_lj]

P.S. What? You're having non-BtVS discussions on the internetz? What? I've never heard of such a thing! Is she prettier than us?

Hah! I almost missed this part. :D

Look, baby, she means nothing to me. It was purely physical, I swear.