Why point out dishonest rhetoric?

[We need Tom Tupa]

I wonder what we hope to gain. I suppose part of it could be that we hope that once people see through the rhetoric, they will change their vote. But that isnt really all that likely is it? Especially on a board like this. I suppose we could hope to encourage each other to more civil discourse, though our methods dont lend much support to that hypothesis. I find Robin Hanson's theory of politics useful here: it isnt about policy, it's about status and affiliation. This has two implications:

 

1) We can win votes to our side based on how unattractive we can make affiliation with the other side.

2) We feel better about our affiliation when we can discredit, dismiss, mock or humiliate the other.

 

I think 1 is incredibly true and unfortunate. I think it would be less true in a more decentralized political system.

 

I think 2 is true also, maybe less that we want others to be low than we just want them to be lower than us. We see mud on ourselves and so want the world to know that our enemy is covered in feces.

 

What would be a good reason to focus on rhetoric? I guess I would nominate the two responses I gave at the outset as possibilities, but are either of them likely to be effective in our current system?

 

 

This isnt a knock on anyone here, as I think we've all done this enough that the marginal difference between us isnt worth debating here (especially since it would just be a meta-version of this discussion).

[calfoxwc]

Nice post. Somewhere along the way, sincerity fell off the wagon. Perhaps there isn't any going back to

 

retrieve it. But winning is everything with major parts of the media.

 

The timing of the question, not by you, but by the media, seems to me, to be just out of the dismay of those who lost

 

in the last midterm election. The two years before that, dishonest rhetoric was never the question by the media.

 

Once again, it's political expediency that rules, with steadfast principles and values through into the circular file cabinet.

[Mr. T]

In response to what you are saying Tupa, IMHO: Most people identify themselves as a R or a D and can only talk about different subjects along

their favorite parties talking points only.

 

You will not find them capable of being able to respond as a self thinker.

 

But you have to admit that free speech is a something that has to be treasured and exercised.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"Why point out dishonest rhetoric?"

 

To expose its dishonesty?

 

We live a (somewhat) polarized country, and this is a polarized board, but it's not like everyone is immune to facts or reason.

[Westside Steve]

First in most cases dishonesty is relative.

One guys explainable poorly phrased statement is another guys filthy horrible lie.

There aren't many examples of flat out bullshit.

 

Second we all seem to pick ann idelogical subgroup, base, indy, blue dog tea partyl whatever.

Since none of us are all that zealous we try to behave as if we were and it strengthens our resolve to find wrong in the other party.

 

As far as to a political end one can only hope that the enemy's support will weaken, not that they'll convert.

They won't vote for our yguy but they may stay home.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think there are lots of examples of flat-out bullshit. And then there are the people who can't process what the facts/events/information means. Glenn Beck's show is all about taking information and not knowing how to process any of it, or be able to tell what it means. He's not "lying" (necessarily) but he's not saying much of anything that's true.

 

Or take an example from in here: when Obama gave a speech about giving organizations like the Peace Corps and community volunteer groups more funding attention, we had to listen to many on the right, including some members of Congress, suggest that what he meant was that he was going to start his own armed civilian national security force like the brownshirts in Nazi Germany. That charge was then repeated in here over and over.

 

It took weeks to disabuse some people in here of that notion, and I'm not even sure it worked on some.

 

Though I remember someone seeing my post and realizing that what he'd been told was completely wrong, and the speech was entirely innocuous. Kosar maybe? I can't remember.

 

So pointing out bullshit helps.

[Paxton]

If we don't point out dishonest rhetoric, Obama will run roughshod over OUR Constitution.