Comment
The app for independent voices
Thom. You raise great questions about the state of our news media. But of course history reminds us that our generation is not the first to deal with that question. No doubt, with the immense rise of cable and Internet news, there's been a proliferation of fake news. Yet with the similar rise of critical and/or postmodern approaches to truth and objectivity, your call for media literacy training in schools and a transparency from social media, may in fact exacerbate the impact of lies and propa…
The theory of democracy, I believe, is that each individual determines for herself or himself what is best/correct/truth. That however, is based on a well-informed, rational, and "educated" populace. The trust you speak about can only come over an extended period, starting from birth and fostered by institutions. Those institutions must be free of inordinate state interference and control. Parents must be the deciders in schooling and education - which are two separate and often opposing things…
Thanks for the comments. I agree with your thoughts about democracy. The idea of democracy certainly should allow for “each individual determines for herself or himself what is best/correct/truth.”
But this summation begs the question of why we’re enmeshed In such an uncivil war? Both sides seem full of self determining individuals deciding what is best, correct and true. Neither side seems unable to abide by this thesis. And the debate will get even hotter when we start defining what it means…
Mr. Nelson, You are correct in saying that there is a lot more going on than reasonable disagreement. However, there are honest disagreements with sincere debate founded on rationality and scientifically sound principles and knowledge, and then there are squabbles based on fear, ignorance, superstition, and appeals to the “baser instincts”, i.e., fear, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc. Thom has done his homework. He not only knows the principles, theories, facts, and history fro…
Thanks again for your response. No doubt there are ugly squabbles based on fear, ignorance, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc. They happen on both sides and certainly corrupt the civility of our public discourse. My question concerns your defense of Thom. I’ve listen to Thom for 10 to 15 years. No doubt he does his homework and is a fierce advocate of his ideological principles, theories, facts, and view of history. But his perspective, ideas and beliefs are in fact informed by …
All of us who get involved in these kinds of discussions presumably do indeed have “ideological perspectives” which are based on some beliefs, which when firmed-up and validated take on the character of doctrines. However, the test is to what extent beliefs are examined and re-examined through the most rigorous and objective lens possible and the degree to which we are informed by verified facts and science and we are honest with ourselves. In my own case, I was brought up in an evangelical fam…
Thanks for note and especially sharing your faith journey. The issue of “bad religion” is something a lot of people have experienced and have written about. Perhaps you read Ross Douthat from the NYT? His book is actually entitled Bad Religion.
I can relate to many of your comments and sentiments. I have many friends who are committed evangelicals. Good people but unable to question much of the related dogmas. My thought is, to question their dogmas, is just way too threatening to their well-be…
Mr. Nelson, This has been an interesting exchange. I can see that you are operating on an intellectual plane some distance above my own. I believe I saw an interview of Douthat on C-SPAN or somewhere but am not familiar with his book. I wasn’t overly impressed if it was the same person. I love the quote from Jung. I feel deprived by my miseducation and limited experience and exposure to certain literature and philosophy. I am even more limited by time and by my singular mission regarding counte…
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make any sense. You simply presume what you say is true. A good reading of William Buckley might show you what I mean. He was committed to clarity of thought and word, so perhaps he'd challenge you with three thoughts. One, your accusations of fascism and Christo-fascism come without any definition of the terms. Because of this they are empty generalizations. For example, a traditional understanding of the concept of fascism clearly has little to do with the right. (I’ve previously written to Thom about how the term simply does not apply.) Second, you completely depend on simple binaries. These social issues are extremely complex, but your thoughts don't allow for any complexity. You feel the other side wrong and you resort to name calling. You've reduced the matter to simple presumptions and declare your side to be morally superior. And third, which is related to the second, your accusations are clear echoes of the preferential value judgments of other people. Ironically, you’ve accused the right of this, but clearly your rhetoric sounds as though you’ve allowed someone else do your thinking for you.
Perhaps the right “tunes in and click the links” they like to hear. But there’s nothing in your latest post that that is original. Your thoughts simply repeat fashionable progressive talking points. Maybe a few questions would help understand my challenge. How does a traditional understanding of fascism reflect the agenda of the right? In other words what’s the philosophical understanding of the term? How are Constitutional or democratic principles being undermined by the right? How do you define conservatism of Bill Buckley? What does it mean to listen and inquire with an open mind? How is the right exploiting and manipulating our society? I agree we shouldn’t compromise with evil, but what make your values “good” and theirs evil? Compassion doesn’t explain what is good, nor do simple accusations of mendacity or a sheep-like inability to think independently explain anything. These are feelings not facts.
You may not see it, but in the end your arguments sound like slogans and they come with simple conclusions about good and evil. I realize this kind of forum/platform doesn’t allow for depth. It does however remind me of a good Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”