Alex Jones' propaganda wars

[Selene]

A wise man observes all actions, particularly his purported "enemies."

[KacyRay]

Look, if I’m wrong on Beck – if I’ve mistaken him for just another sensationalist pundit who makes his living off of instilling fear into the masses for his own professional gain while masquerading as some kind of legitimate journalist/investigator when he’s actually some small-government freedom crusader – then I’m wrong on Beck. If all the tears, all the chalkboards, all the dramatic pauses, all the dire predictions, all the doomsday “we –aren’t-going-to-recognize-this-country-in-a-year” harbinger-drawing, liberal-socialist-boogeyman stuff that I see every time I’ve every seen him on TV was just him on a particularly bad day, if all the David Barton revisionist theocracy-pushing, bogus history stuff was just something he did to fill the time and doesn’t actually represent him or what he stands for, then alright… maybe I’m just seeing the ass end of the elephant.

But that doesn’t mean I’m wrong on the idea that theocrat revisionists are more repugnant than liberals. I find Sean Hannity infinitely more disgusting than Rachael Maddow. I find Rush Limbaugh infinitely more distasteful than Keith Olbermann. Guys like Breitbart, who went out of their way to splice together video and wreck people’s careers, guys like James E. O'Keefe who go “undercover” trying to snare people, and when it doesn’t work, they create their own narrative – scumbags like that are much more distasteful to me than anything comparable coming from the left.

Now when it comes to guys like Michael Moore, Sean Penn, et al… I consider them on the same level as those I mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I have nothing good to say about guys like that.

Does hypocrisy not matter to anyone? Does it mean nothing to anyone here when the same Republicans...

Kacy,

This is exactly what I am talking about.

I don't frame things like this.

If you want to do the celebrity pundit thing, I will look at a few for you. But you may be surprised at the result since my approach is not fundamentally competitive like the above frame.

(Score 1 for MSNBC, Score 1 for Fox, Score 3 for MSNBC, Score 0 for Fox, etc. Look at Victim A of Celebrity B. Disgusting. Boo.)

Now that I know you run a discussion place and have for some time, I'm beginning to understand why the polemical dichotomy frame kept repeating in your comments, especially with the Soros-media-jargon. It's a habit and probably some well-worn arguments and narratives.

And that's OK. I just couldn't figure it out.

Let me start by saying this on one of your celebrities. You said, "Now when it comes to guys like Michael Moore... I have nothing good to say about guys like that."

Well I do. I think Michael Moore is a knucklehead on his politics, but he is one hell of a documentary maker. He has my utmost respect in that regard and every time I see one of his works, I learn a little more about how to do it and be persuasive. (He's a master of the hero's journey format, for example.)

Also, he's not bad-intentioned. I believe he cares about people for real. And he's clear, not deceptive. Even though I disagree with him on fundamentals, I highly prize these positive values.

I do not put him in the same class as I would, say, someone like Sandra Fluke, who is all about opportunism and deception, even though they both share the same politics.

Michael Moore is a voice--a legitimate voice. Sandra Fluke is a manipulator.

In my world, there is room for Michael Moore (well... not all that much ), but none for Fluke. What I mean is that I look at his work and use my intellect to probe what I agree and disagree with, why, and I analyze what he did and how. I have major disagreements with his views, and even contempt for some of the more outlandish ideas he tries to put across (which I think are more for showmanship and marketing than depth anyway), but I have respect for him.

With her, I just dismiss her out of hand. Just one more blip on the Progressive radar.

I don't know if this is clear to you.

You see? I'm not playing by your dichotomy rules. And it's not to show you up or win any argument or be superior or whatever.

I'm truly that way. That's how my mind works.

The ideas are far more important to me than tribal associations.

Michael

MSK,

You are correct - it is inaccurate to say “I have nothing good to say about guys like that”. Moore is skilled at what he does, and to his credit, he does exhibit a genuine concern for other people. I guess I just see his tactics as a bit too close in resemblance to those of James E. O'Keefe. For example, I think Bowling for Columbine would’ve been a great documentary without the embarrassing intrusion on Heston at the very end. That sort of demagoguery wasn’t needed in that particular documentary. The Columbine tragedy was emotional enough.

I can’t say I know anything about Sandra Fluke… the only time I even heard her name was when Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute, classy guy that he is.

“You see? I'm not playing by your dichotomy rules. And it's not to show you up or win any argument or be superior or whatever.”

I appreciate that, but those “rules” are your own projection. I’ve never stated any such rules! You are proposing as a point of fact that I hold these rules and then proudly declaring that you do not play by them.

You’ve rejected a bunch of rules of mine that I never personally asserted or endorsed. What am I supposed to say to that? Congratulations?

“I'm truly that way. That's how my mind works.”

Good!!! I’m all about it.

“The ideas are far more important to me than tribal associations.”

That is commendable. In fact, I would ask you to continue making that point when others are busy flinging around labels like “Progressive” and “Liberal”. I’ve been fighting to shake those associations myself for a long time, and I would be very happy to dispense with all those types of characterizations altogether.

Interesting story… the other day there was a news clip on the news about how some members of Congress appear to be openly endorsing the use of torture against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in order to gain intelligence about potential follow-on terrorist threats. All three of my Senior Staff-NCO’s loudly affirmed that they had no problem with the idea. To them, if it would prevent further terrorist attacks, then hey... no complaints.

Of course, the spotlight shone over in my direction, and I mentioned that there was this little thing I’d heard of called the 5^th Amendment that protected American citizens from cruel and unusual punishment. I also mentioned that he was entitled to due process, and that he is legally presumed innocent until found guilty by a jury of his peers.

One of my Gunny’s looked over at me, and as god is my witness, this is what he said, verbatim: “Are you a liberal, sir?”

How am I supposed to respond to that???

What I said was – “Well, I don’t know. Is it a liberal position to believe that the Constitution should apply to every citizen? Is it a liberal position to take this thing that we all raised our hands and swore to uphold and defend seriously?”

There was the mumbling of “No, that’s not I’m saying..” but let’s face it… in their eyes, I’m a liberal because I believe that the protections afforded to those of us sitting in my office should also be applied to every American citizen – even those naturalized citizens with funny-sounding names.

So, believe me, I’m no stranger to knowing what it’s like to be lumped into uninvited tribal associations. Apparently if you really like the 2^nd Amendment, you’re a true American patriot god-fearing conservative. If you deign to speak out in favor of the 5^th Amendment, you’re a liberal progressive. Who knew?

[Brant Gaede]

"I'm a liberal like the guys who wrote the 5th Amendment."

Try that.

--Brant

when you need me send out the signal!

[Selene]

I can’t say I know anything about Sandra Fluke… the only time I even heard her name was when Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute, classy guy that he is.

KacyRay:

Out of curiosity, how did you hear about Ms. Fluke being called, by Limbaugh, a "slut," and, a "prostitute?"

A...

[KacyRay]

I can’t say I know anything about Sandra Fluke… the only time I even heard her name was when Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute, classy guy that he is.

KacyRay:

Out of curiosity, how did you hear about Ms. Fluke being called, by Limbaugh, a "slut," and, a "prostitute?"

A...

I didn't actually hear him say it per se... my buddy George Soros told me about it while we were planning a socialist revolution over cocktails one night.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A wise man observes all actions, particularly his purported "enemies."

Adam,

This is part of it. The other part, frankly the more important one for me, is that Moore is a producer who puts his products on the open market. He makes a success out of documentaries in theaters.

The Fluke woman merely puts herself out there and says whatever her handlers want said in order to get political power. She's done that, too. In terms of influence in the Obama administration, I believe she now has more clout than Michael Moore.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... those “rules” are your own projection. I’ve never stated any such rules! You are proposing as a point of fact that I hold these rules and then proudly declaring that you do not play by them.

You’ve rejected a bunch of rules of mine that I never personally asserted or endorsed. What am I supposed to say to that? Congratulations?

Kacy,

I'm blunt, I guess. Here's my standard. When I see a difference between what someone says and what they do, I go with what they do as the stronger indication of their intentions.

I already know what you say. You say you are fair and balanced (to coin a phrase. ) What you do is constantly demonize public figures you don't like, and they all coincidentally fall on the same side of a false dichotomy.

So I deduce the rules from that behavior. I refuse to participate on the demonize with oversimplification and nasty names level and start a pissing match.

About Progressive, I have a very specific meaning for that term. And I am beginning to think you have general left-leaning values (which I sometimes call "liberal," although that's a fuzzy term these days), but you are not a Progressive.

Believe me, I hope that's true because I'm more than fine with that. In fact, I'm pretty convinced right now it's true.

Progressivism started way back when with Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party. A little before, actually, but that's a pretty good place for the sake of argument. It was greatly expanded by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Modern Progressives include George Bush (the younger), Al Gore, and Barack Obama. Bill Clinton, for example is not a Progressive. His wife, Hillary is. John McCain is a Progressive. Sarah Palin is not.

(Believe me, the Soros-Bush conflict was a clash of personalities and window dressing, not a clash of underlying values.)

The fundamental belief of Progressivism is that humankind as a collective is perfectible and it is the government's obligation to perfect them, even against their will.

Volition might exist, but it is out the window on what to do about the fundaments. The government knows best.

The conservative Progressives spread democracy by force and liberal Progressives spread the goodies by force. Both keep spreading the other's stuff, too. They just don't talk about it.

Do you really thing Obama doesn't give a silent prayer of thanks to Bush every night for making the Patriot Act?

Heh.

The difference between this and communism lies in method, not fundament. The communist makes a violent revolution. The Progressive "progresses" by babysteps. If he can't get it all at one time, he'll take a little and go for more next time. He constantly goes in one direction and one direction only. The march is always toward the biggest government possible with the most control over the minds of the citizens, starting with state-imposed education and indoctrination.

It's to make a perfect herd with technocrat dictators at the top.

I'll let you take it from there to see if you understand where I am coming from.

When you come out with your Soros-media Progressive catch-phrases, I'm starting to think you don't really mean them in the Progressive sense they were designed for.

btw - I fully agree with you about Tsarnaev's rights as an American. May he get the same rights and penalties any one of us would in his shoes.

What your colleagues are proposing is essentially Progressivism. The government decides what is best for the exceptions to the perfectible man. Tsarnaev suddenly is a reject. He's never going to be perfectible, so it's OK to treat him as a rights-stripped guinea pig. Do you see that? Your colleagues are far closer to Obama than you are at that moment.

They think they are being individualistic, but they are being as collectivist as all get out.

(A whole science called eugenics sprang from that mentality.)

The conservative "torture the son-of-a-bitch" and the Progressive "weed out the bad actors" or "collateral damage" with drones are two sides of the same damn coin.

The casualty is always to take away just a little more rights, just this time, only under these circumstances, etc. And once the precedent is set, move the goalpost so that becomes the new norm.

Notice that change always goes in one direction, toward more centralized government power with more "flexibility" towards individual rights, never the reverse. And it goes gradually. By babysteps. It progresses.

That's Progressivism.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

As a PS to the last post, Progressivism is even in the churches.

If a church preaches collective salvation, it's Progressive. Almost a sure bet.

If it preaches individual salvation, it's generally for inalienable individual rights.

The phrase "social justice" can mean either, depending on use. Some churches use it to mean you helping out voluntarily. Others use it to mean the government taking money from one set of people and giving it to another. People who use the phrase "social justice" in churches and mean the second sense are usually Progressives.

Michael

[KacyRay]

Michael,

Very compelling comments. Most notably, I’d say that Progressivism, as you have defined it, is something I would categorically reject.

Only I’ve never really heard it defined that way. Is that your own formulation, or is that an actual codified platform? Just curious.

I have long known that my concept of “social justice” is not the same as the idea commonly expressed when that term in used. To me social justice means that all are treated equal under the law, laws are applied evenly, etc. I am very strict on property rights – to the extent that I don’t agree with anti-discrimination laws being applied to private businesses. I think churches should have to pay taxes just like the rest of us. Government should not decide who can and can’t get married – in fact, any contract between consenting adults should be honored.

I advocate “social justice”, meaning that the concept of justice should be applied to all of society, not only to select demographics. That seems a no-brainer to me.

But no, it doesn’t mean taking from one to give to the other. That’s not justice, that’s theft. And I oppose the theft of liberty as much as I oppose the theft of capital or material.

I’ve always perceived “Progressivism” as a progressive transition from a less civilized to a more civilized society. The abolishment of slavery, women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, etc… all steps from a pre-enlightenment society to a post-enlightenment society.

I believe that reason wins over faith and mysticism. That’s why I do believe there is a “right side of history” – I believe in the inevitable progression from pre-enlightenment to post-enlightenment society – particularly in the USA where enlightenment principles are codified into law. On issues such as legal discrimination (marriage equality, etc), the drug war, abortion rights, etc… I believe that the trend will always ultimately lead to a freer, more liberated, enlightenment-based social order.

Is that “progressive”? Not by your definition, but I’d call it progress. Would I then, therefore, call myself progressive minded? If the political designation “progressive” in any way resemble the actual word “progress” then it seems we are at a difference not of ideology, but of definition.

It seems you have offered definitions of thee words that do exclude me from membership. But if your definitions are correct (and I’m not disputing that), then I’d say those words and terms have been hijacked.

“The fundamental belief of Progressivism is that humankind as a collective is perfectible and it is the government's obligation to perfect them, even against their will.”

If that’s the definition of progressivism, I reject progressivism in its entirety. But who set this definition? Is this a real platform? Or is this a characterization that opponents of progressivism have conferred upon it?

If that’s a legitimate definition, it’s unfortunate. The word “progressive” generally means progress – as in, the opposite of regress, so it's irritating to feel like I support what I consider "social progress" without being able to call it that.

In any event – I support progress. Progress – the gradual movement of society from a pre-enlightenment state dominated by faith and mysticism to a post-enlightenment state characterized by liberty and reason.

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, your definition of "social justice" - that the laws be applied evenly and fairly - is really just "justice." The notion of "social justice," as used by the modern-day Progressive movement, means something extra-judicial and is actually inconsistent with your traditional notion of justice (hence the need for the new term). To take one illustrative example, "justice" would mean that all children have a chance to get into a New York City magnet school based on a standardized evaluation of math, reading, and writing. "Social justice" would mean that if the Progressive elite don't like the outcome of that examination, they should have the power to tinker with the outcome until the number of darker-colored faces in the class matches the vision they have in their mind of what it should be in a perfect society. I actually second MSK's point that you are not truly a Progressive, and that is why we find it frustrating that you have adopted so many of their talking points and social-media tactics.

MSK, I like your definition of Progressivism, and I think it describes their ideology well. I've spent a lot of time engaging progressives on both conservative and progressive blogs. I argue that the defining philosophical component of progressivism is utilitarianism. Nearly every one of their actions is justified under an "ends justifying the means" rationalization. Libertarians tend to believe the opposite - that the ends never justify the means, and that due process matters very deeply. To get additional mileage out of the above example, it doesn't matter to the libertarian if the class is all-white or all-black as long as the applicants were given equal and fair opportunity - the traditional notion of justice. I come from New England, and the Progressives there will usually support any crooked politician (or union) that they feel will serve their immediate needs or get themselves in power to make the "necessary" changes to society.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... if your definitions are correct (and I’m not disputing that), then I’d say those words and terms have been hijacked.

Kacy,

Boy did you nail it here.

The Progressive trick is to change the label when the public gets pissed at them. Here's an example. In ancient times, liberal used to mean pro-liberty (like libertarian). Progressives hijacked this term when people get pissed at them. It was a rebranding thing by using a word that meant the opposite to pull the teeth out of the negative emotional load on their name. They started soft for show when using "liberal," but then after the label took (especially with LBJ's Great Society), they relaxed and migrated to the bad stuff.

Then people more recently started getting pissed at liberals. So just in the last few years they rebranded back to "Progressive" as the memory of the public for fundamentals has always been short and this gives them an air of historical credibility.

Tomorrow they will call themselves something else.

More on this later.

btw - One of the early granddaddy's of Progressivism (which was called Fabian socialism in England) was George Bernard Shaw. I know you can't get streaming video, so here is a post I made before with a partial transcription. It shows the mentality well of treating a human being like a cog in a collective machine:

Shaw had some harsh things to say about those who consume more than they produce, too:

http://youtu.be/hQvsf2MUKRQ

I could have found a better video, I suppose, but the ones I did find on YouTube have been edited all out of shape. So I chose the one with the most views (under the idea that it will most likely not be removed). In the video above, Shaw's appearance has parts edited out, so here is the full quote (from Wikipedia:

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.

There are those who think this, and his famous call for the development of a humane killing gas to be used in gas chambers (before WWII) was tongue-in-cheek, but as far as I know, he never said or intimated it was humor. I, myself, am inclined to take him at his word.

Michael

Once you start looking at the actual words of Progressives and trace their rebrandings, you will start getting creeped out. There's a ton of stuff, too. Really, really nasty stuff, The weird part is that they don't hide it. They just throw up some rebranding when the public gets pissed. And people swallow it until they start seeing the results.

But by then, the Progressives and taken some more babysteps.

btw - I believe in progress. There has been a progress of freedom, from formal slavery, then from Jim Crow laws, now from racism, for example, that I fully support. Women's suffrage to women in the workplace, too. I'm for all that.

But equal justice is a far better term than social justice (or egalitarianism) for the progress I support. It is much more precise in terms of individual sovereignty as opposed to individual sacrifice of rights for the "common good.".

Technocrats don't like this, though. They can only "perfect" sovereign individuals one at a time. It's far more efficient from their view to have a "common good" to make a collective they can experiment with. Thus they can perfect whole groups of individuals at one whack. The bitch is when you fall within that collective. The funny part is the technocrats never seem to.

Michael

[Selene]

I advocate “social justice”, meaning that the concept of justice should be applied to all of society, not only to select demographics. That seems a no-brainer to me.

But no, it doesn’t mean taking from one to give to the other. That’s not justice, that’s theft. And I oppose the theft of liberty as much as I oppose the theft of capital or material.

Interesting.

However, since you evaded answering my simple question about how you "heard" about Fluke, I will ask you how you perceive a societal, or, governmental structure that would accomplish the "application" of "justice" to "all of society?"

Is this a Platonic concept?

Additionally, since I believe you stated that you are a "determinist." Would that not allow you to preclude that each citizen under your regime would be in their pre-determined social strata?

As I remember Calverra, leader of the looters in the Magnificent Seven explaining to Chris[Yul Brenner], "I ask you, if God did not want them shorn, why did he make them sheep?"

Hopefully, you will answer without evasions.

A...

[KacyRay]

I advocate “social justice”, meaning that the concept of justice should be applied to all of society, not only to select demographics. That seems a no-brainer to me.

But no, it doesn’t mean taking from one to give to the other. That’s not justice, that’s theft. And I oppose the theft of liberty as much as I oppose the theft of capital or material.

Interesting.

However, since you evaded answering my simple question about how you "heard" about Fluke, I will ask you how you perceive a societal, or, governmental structure that would accomplish the "application" of "justice" to "all of society?"

Is this a Platonic concept?

Additionally, since I believe you stated that you are a "determinist." Would that not allow you to preclude that each citizen under your regime would be in their pre-determined social strata?

As I remember Calverra, leader of the looters in the Magnificent Seven explaining to Chris[Yul Brenner], "I ask you, if God did not want them shorn, why did he make them sheep?"

Hopefully, you will answer without evasions.

A...

“However, since you evaded answering my simple question about how you "heard" about Fluke"”

I don’t remember exactly how I heard that story. It was a couple years ago, I think. I’m sure I saw it on the news, like everyone else.

"I will ask you how you perceive a societal, or, governmental structure that would accomplish the "application" of "justice" to "all of society?"

As far as justice… that’s a pretty big question. A few bullet points would be:

- Discrimination by any government agency is prohibited. This means all government jobs are available to all qualified individuals.

- Men are women are treated equally where child support and custody issues are concerned.

- Any consenting adults can get married.

- Everyone pays the same tax rate.

- All businesses pay the same tax rate – even churches.

- The penalty for deliberately filing a false criminal accusation is equal to the penalty that the accused would have incurred had they been found guilty. This also applies to prosecutorial misconduct.

- Private property is exactly that – private property. If you own a store and you don’t want atheists in your store, you have the right not to do business with atheists (or whomever).

I mean, those are just some random bullet points off the top of my head. Obviously it would require a complete overhaul of our current system. I think the founders had it right, but we’ve strayed pretty far from the principles of liberty on which our country was founded.

“Is this a Platonic concept?”

Dunno. Is it?

“Additionally, since I believe you stated that you are a "determinist." Would that not allow you to preclude that each citizen under your regime would be in their pre-determined social strata?”

My regime? Thanks for not poisoning the well on that one, man.

You clearly aren’t understanding what I’m talking about when I state my belief in ultimate determinism. I’ve explained it at length, but in short – all arguments that I’ve ever heard in favor of free will come down to either mysticism or special pleading.

If you have an argument that doesn’t rely on one of those two fallacies, I’m glad to hear it. But I know this – if A=A and matter (to include energy, atoms, protons, etc) has no choice in how it behaves, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that those non-volitional elements somehow magically combine, in one place and in one place only, to suddenly, miraculously create an object that violates that principle.

Take a bunch of matter that has no choice in how it acts, put it together in your magic cauldron… say abracadabra… and voila! Suddenly you get a magic pocket of existence where A=A does not apply. In the mysterious inner-mechanisms of our magic brains, A=whatever-we-want-it-to-equal. And we, unlike any other object in the universe, have the power of choice. Isn’t that lucky for us?

Carl Sagan once said that the history of mankind is a history of demotions - first starting out as the only place in the universe, then only at the center of the universe, then only at the center of the solar system, then only one of many planets orbiting the sun, then our sun is only one of many orbiting a galaxy, then our galaxy was only one of many in the universe... you get the point. But still, we seem to be reluctant to accept that we, like *every other freaking thing in the universe*, operate exactly as we must.

Now, I realize that we feel like we’re making choices. Sure, it appears to us that everything we do is an option that we could otherwise have declined. I am not disputing that. And that applies to me as well. I realize that if I make certain decisions (or what appear to be decisions) that certain consequences will take place. My mind tells me that. I can sense it.

But if you take a step back, you realize that I wasn’t involved in creating a situation in which my mind was able to tell me that. I was born that way, and I had no part in that decision. That “sense” was conferred upon me by reality - those electrical pulses and bits and pieces that make up my brain. To those on whom it was not conferred, a different course of action would be chosen. And for them, the sense to take that action, while appearing to originate from their mind, was actually not placed into their mind by any doing of their own either.

Whatever mechanisms in our brains provoke the choices we make and the external influences that steer the courses of our lives… those mechanisms and influences were not chosen by us. In fact, they were not chosen by anyone at all… they are simply what they are. A is A.

And if you extrapolate that reality back far enough, you eventually get to the big bang.

“Hopefully, you will answer without evasions.”

It's because your questions are highly intimidating.

Just kidding... yeah, I being a bit of rascal with the George Soros bit.

[Selene]

KacyRay:

Thanks for answering. I think we both have an edgy manner of asking questions.

As far as justice… that’s a pretty big question. A few bullet points would be:

- Discrimination by any government agency is prohibited. This means all government jobs are available to all qualified individuals.

- Men are women are treated equally where child support and custody issues are concerned.

- Any consenting adults can get married.

- Everyone pays the same tax rate.

- All businesses pay the same tax rate – even churches.

- The penalty for deliberately filing a false criminal accusation is equal to the penalty that the accused would have incurred had they been found guilty. This also applies to prosecutorial misconduct.

- Private property is exactly that – private property. If you own a store and you don’t want atheists in your store, you have the right not to do business with atheists (or whomever).

I mean, those are just some random bullet points off the top of my head. Obviously it would require a complete overhaul of our current system. I think the founders had it right, but we’ve strayed pretty far from the principles of liberty on which our country was founded.

Now that is a clear exposition and certainly not Platonic which was my "regime" dig.

I have an innate rejection of "determinism." Are you familiar with B. F. Skinner and his behavioralism theories?

Essentially, he opined that if he could discover all the forces that are acting on a given decision, i.e., the tossing of a coin, he could predict with certainty what would happen. He then extrapolated that concept into a behavioralist theory regarding humans.

See:

He was a firm believer of the idea that human free will was actually an illusion and any human action was the result of the consequences of that same action. If the consequences were bad, there was a high chance that the action would not be repeated; however if the consequences were good, the actions that lead to it would be reinforced.^[6] He called this the principle of reinforcement.^[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

And:

Unlike less austere behaviorism, it does not accept private events such as thinking, perceptions, and unobservable emotions in a causal account of an organism's behavior:

The position can be stated as follows: what is felt or introspectively observed is not some nonphysical world of

consciousness

, mind, or mental life but the observer's own body. This does not mean, as I shall show later, that introspection is a kind of psychological research, nor does it mean (and this is the heart of the argument) that what are felt or introspectively observed are the causes of the behavior. An organism behaves as it does because of its current structure, but most of this is out of reach of introspection. At the moment we must content ourselves, as the methodological behaviorist insists, with a person's genetic and environment histories. What are introspectively observed are certain collateral products of those histories.

...

In this way we repair the major damage wrought by

mentalism

. When what a person does [is] attributed to what is going on inside him, investigation is brought to an end. Why explain the explanation? For twenty five hundred years people have been preoccupied with feelings and mental life, but only recently has any interest been shown in a more precise analysis of the role of the environment. Ignorance of that role led in the first place to mental fictions, and it has been perpetuated by the explanatory practices to which they gave rise.

[

22

]

My apologies for the regime remark.

A...

[Serapis Bey]

Now that I know you run a discussion place and have for some time, I'm beginning to understand why the polemical dichotomy frame kept repeating in your comments, especially with the Soros-media-jargon. It's a habit and probably some well-worn arguments and narratives.

And that's OK. I just couldn't figure it out.

You're jumping the gun here, Mike.

Kacy started his discussion group a few months ago, but RB and I had been upbraiding him for YEARS over his clearly lopsided attempt at "fair and balanced."

[KacyRay]

Hold on SB - at what point have I ever characterized my FB page as "Fair and balanced"? Is this another strawman you can assail?

I, like probably everyone else in the world, use my FB page to share MY thoughts about issues I find relevant. I welcome comments from anyone and everyone on those thoughts, and I do enjoy witty and edgy banter.

The discussion group has only one relevant feature that makes it different from my wall - it is insulated. That means that my mother-in-law, my ex-girlfriends mother who is easily offended, my religiously sensitive friends and family et cetera do not have to listen to my every thought. It also serves that purpose for the other members of the group as well.

As I've stated over and over - that is the only functional difference between my wall and my discussion group. (One technical advantage is that I can also bring in people who are not on my friends list - OLers for example - but that's just an added bonus).

I've never claimed to be "fair and balanced" in my own damn discussion group. I do not give equal time or equal treatment to alarmism and irrationality. I lambaste pundits and politicians that I feel deserve it. I speak my mind about current events and invite other to speak theirs. Is this clear enough for you?

If not, keep on choppin' away at that strawman.

[Robert Baratheon]

Kacy, at least answer this single question that I have heard you, yourself, ask of theists in debates many times: what evidence would it take to convince you?

What evidence would it take to convince you that your social-media behavior is furthering the Progressive cause - which you now recognize you don't actually support - by parroting their talking points and circulating their propaganda videos?

We know that someone who has known you for well over a decade telling you isn't enough.

We know that your best friend telling you isn't enough.

We know that a fair-minded forum moderator telling you isn't enough.

Do you see how this is fitting the same pattern as the fundies you love to attack denying that evolution is real, against the weight of all evidence in the fossil record, or denying that medicine can cure people without God's love, which there is no way to disprove?

Tell us - what evidence would convince you?

[dennislmay]

Kacy, at least answer this single question that I have heard you, yourself, ask of theists in debates many times: what evidence would it take to convince you?

What evidence would it take to convince you that your social-media behavior is furthering the Progressive cause - which you now recognize you don't actually support - by parroting their talking points and circulating their propaganda videos?

We know that someone who has known you for well over a decade telling you isn't enough.

We know that your best friend telling you isn't enough.

We know that a fair-minded forum moderator telling you isn't enough.

Do you see how this is fitting the same pattern as the fundies you love to attack denying that evolution is real, against the weight of all evidence in the fossil record, or denying that medicine can cure people without God's love, which there is no way to disprove?

Tell us - what evidence would convince you?

That's what happens if you only get your news from Soros funded and/or government sources - the Progressive talking points 24/7/365.

Dennis

[KacyRay]

So... Jobless claims fall to a 5-year low. Is this one of those George Soros talking points?

Because when I post things like that in my social media, I use it specifically to demonstrate that the claims of impending doom and financial collapse are a bit, eh... misguided?

Oh, but it's a George Soros talking point, so that means it cant be entered into the record, right?

I'm wondering... is "George Soros Talking Point^™" defined as "any information that contradicts alarmist claims of impending socialist takeover or full economic collapse"? Because I'm beginning to believe that's what the phrase is used to signify.

You see, during the last election, I had plenty of folks telling me how awful things would immediately get if Obama were re-elected. But they haven't. In fact, things have - by all available indications - gotten better.

When confronted with this information, those who predicted otherwise retort with one of the following:

- All the indicators you are looking at don't tell the full story. In reality, we're screwed.

- The media is lying. In reality, we're screwed.

- You're only believing what George Soros wants you to believe. In reality, we're screwed.

- Yeah, maybe things are getting better now, but in the long run, it's all gonna collapse. In reality, we're screwed.

- Blah blah blah I can't hear you... In reality, we're screwed.

Of course, the "George Soros Talking Points - GSTP^™ - line seems like little more than an ad hom, whisking away the information based on its source. SB in particular spends copious time complaining about where I get my information from - very little (if any) addressing the actual information.

When I see a video clip of a preacher or politician saying something that I disagree with, it matters very little to me who provided me with the video (so long as the video itself isn't manipulated).

"That's what happens if you only get your news from Soros funded and/or government sources - the Progressive talking points 24/7/365. - Dennis"

Dennis, weren't you the one just a week ago chiding someone else for cutting themselves off from information sources? Sounds to me like you're as selective as anyone.

So... what's the deal? Is it true that jobless claims are down? If so, is it okay that I pulled that information from CNN? If not, how do you know? Or is it true but somehow doesn't indicate a strengthening economy? What's the deal with this? I'm offering up a true GSTP^™ for you to school me on here. Fire away!

[caroljane]

Kacy, that was a very sensible post.

[KacyRay]

Thanks!

[Serapis Bey]

SB in particular spends copious time complaining about where I get my information from - very little (if any) addressing the actual information.

When I see a video clip of a preacher or politician saying something that I disagree with, it matters very little to me who provided me with the video (so long as the video itself isn't manipulated).

That's a lie. I believe RB and I tried to open your mind to the larger question of sources and funding maybe 3 or 4 times, and that was long ago (something like years). When it became clear that you would not concern yourself with such things, he and I focused on debating the topics on the merits.

I do recall however a certain video of Pat Robertson you once posted, along with the usual sneering and smug commentary. Strangely enough, both RB and I actually agreed with the point he was making, and we arrived at our view independently (or perhaps it was that MindMeld of ours ).

Your response? "Man, when you find yourself agreeing with someone like Pat Robertson, you really ought question your sanity." (paraphrased)

Nice example of Free Thinking there, Mr. Reason.

[KacyRay]

SB in particular spends copious time complaining about where I get my information from - very little (if any) addressing the actual information.

When I see a video clip of a preacher or politician saying something that I disagree with, it matters very little to me who provided me with the video (so long as the video itself isn't manipulated).

That's a lie. I believe RB and I tried to open your mind to the larger question of sources and funding maybe 3 or 4 times, and that was long ago (something like years). When it became clear that you would not concern yourself with such things, he and I focused on debating the topics on the merits.

I do recall however a certain video of Pat Robertson you once posted, along with the usual sneering and smug commentary. Strangely enough, both RB and I actually agreed with the point he was making, and we arrived at our view independently (or perhaps it was that MindMeld of ours ).

Your response? "Man, when you find yourself agreeing with someone like Pat Robertson, you really ought question your sanity." (paraphrased)

Nice example of Free Thinking there, Mr. Reason.

Years ago this may have been true, but not for a very long time. And I wasn't talking about years ago. I was speaking in the present tense.

I remember the Pat Robertson video.... it was on the issue of the subordination of women to men. And I stand by what I said - he was preaching an iron-age ethic of patriarchy. And you agreed with it. And I think that should embarrass you. And any time Pat Robertson preaches iron-age values and you agree with them, that should give you pause for reflection, if nothing else.

I see it's time to add another entry into SB's personal dictionary:

Smug - adj. The confident expression of a thought or opinion with which I entirely disagree

[Serapis Bey]

Hold on SB - at what point have I ever characterized my FB page as "Fair and balanced"? Is this another strawman you can assail?

No.

You are correct: you never did use the phrase "fair and balanced" to decribe your online activity. But I have to follow Mike here and note that once again you are more concerned with the words than with the behavior they are attempting to describe (it's easy to win arguments with hairsplitting pedantry.)

In this case, my use of the phrase was meant to refer to the Great Debates that you, me and RB used to have over your obvious bias against conservatives in spite of your claims of being a libertarian. Time and time again when we would raise the issue you would clarify that you were not a liberal, that you were a libertarian, and even more fundamentally that you were an Advocate of Reason. You claimed no bias or slant, just the righteous pursuit and mockery of irrationality and injustice in the world -- "let the cards fall where they may"

The recent discussion in this thread should demonstrate to any casual observer that RB and I were not imagining things.

In furtherance of my point, I would draw your attention to the debates you and I had long before you began your crusade against conservatives and Tea Partiers on Facebook. This was back when The Daily Show was just beginning its rise to success. You were immediately a big fan, while I had some nagging reservations. I didn't particularly like what I saw to be an obvious leftist bias to the show. You honestly had no idea what I was talking about. You saw no bias. As our debates grew more involved, your repeated defense of the show was that the show was a satire and was meant to mock stupidity in general. You pointed out that Jon Stewart also mocked Democrats on occasion.

Then came the day when you posted a Facebook update to PROVE that The Daily Show was not biased -- the link had to do with a Jon Stewart bit where he mocked President Obama for something he had done. I pointed out to you, no doubt to your chagrin, that they were mocking him for not being leftist enough. In the ensuing thread, one of your sharper Progressive friends (Melissa I believe), in the process of arguing a larger point with me, inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. She said, "I don't know ANYONE who denies that The Daily Show is biased towards the left." Her intention was to follow that up with a jab about how Fox News is similarly biased to the right. Your attempt to square the circle in your reply was fun to watch.

"If not, keep on choppin' away at that strawman."

No strawman here. Just the relentless activity of acute perception.

[Robert Baratheon]

So... Jobless claims fall to a 5-year low. Is this one of those George Soros talking points?

...

So... what's the deal? Is it true that jobless claims are down? If so, is it okay that I pulled that information from CNN? If not, how do you know? Or is it true but somehow doesn't indicate a strengthening economy? What's the deal with this? I'm offering up a true GSTP for you to school me on here. Fire away!

Kacy, I don't dispute that the economy may be improving, which can itself mean different things to different people. However, here are some things you may wish to consider before using such numbers as an indication of economic growth:

• Individuals only receive unemployment benefits (jobless claims) for a fixed period of time (1-2 years) before they are kicked off of unemployment.
• Individuals who go on SSI/SSDI or other welfare programs are not counted in jobless claims numbers. The number of SSI/SSDI recipients has skyrocketed under the Obama administration, now over 5% of the working-age population, an all-time high.
• Individuals who find part-time work but wish to work full-time, are not counted in jobless claims numbers.
• Individuals who simply give up looking for work are not included in jobless claims numbers.

Over any prolonged recession (e.g., 5 years), even if the economy simply remains stagnant, the jobless claims rate is destined to fall because of the way it is calculated. One particularly telling example is that Rhode Island's unemployment rate has decreased dramatically over the past 5 years from over 12% to around 9%. This has occurred while the number of working Rhode Islanders has significantly dropped. By any meaningful measure, the Rhode Island economy has actually gotten worse.