American election.

[tillingborn]

Do we not agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative, Christian/atheist and the like?

"Antipodean caricatures"? Well, with that wording, you've skewed your question to favour the conclusion you'd perhaps like.

The truth is that some such oppositions exist on a scale, so you would be right about them.

What is so difficult about simply acknowledging that, at least on one point, we agree?

[Immanuel Can]

"Antipodean caricatures"? Well, with that wording, you've skewed your question to favour the conclusion you'd perhaps like.

The truth is that some such oppositions exist on a scale, so you would be right about them.

What is so difficult about simply acknowledging that, at least on one point, we agree?

It's not difficult if you don't introduce into the premise anything that makes agreement unreasonable.

[tillingborn]

"Antipodean caricatures"? Well, with that wording, you've skewed your question to favour the conclusion you'd perhaps like.

The truth is that some such oppositions exist on a scale, so you would be right about them.

What is so difficult about simply acknowledging that, at least on one point, we agree?

It's not difficult if you don't introduce into the premise anything that makes agreement unreasonable.

Here again is the original question:

Do we not agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative, Christian/atheist and the like?

I note that in your earlier post you say:

Other polarities are genuine opposites...things you either are, or are not. One cannot be "a little bit pregnant," for example. One also cannot be "a little bit dead," or "a little bit Christian."

If your objection to 'antipodean caricatures' is that one is either fully Christian or not at all, could we agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative? If you simply don't like the phrase 'antipodean caricatures', I am open to suggestions for an alternative.

[Immanuel Can]

If your objection to 'antipodean caricatures' is that one is either fully Christian or not at all, could we agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative?

It's obvious, though that your characterization of the journalism/propagandist dichotomy is not accurate, so long as we think journalism is a profession to which any ethics should apply.

If you're happy to say that journalism/propagandist is merely "potato/potahto" so to speak, that may be your view. It's not mine. I still expect anybody who poses as a journalist to know he's making a claim to following at least minimal ethics of integrity, transparency and truth-telling. I do not expect any such thing of a propagandist. And I suspect that if you can locate any difference between the two terms in your own thinking, it will be much the same: a "journalist" will attempt to be objective and tell the whole truth; a "propagandist" is somebody who has no such intentions, but deliberately sets out to manipulate facts to his ideological or personal purposes. Woodward and Bernstein are not Goebbels, and the The Daily News is not Pravda.

Kant would have this insight on it: that a journalist who knowingly lies, misrepresents, distorts or suppresses truth is engaged in a performative inconsistency. That is, he relies on the illusion of his truthfulness, even while propagating lies. He exist parasitically, so to speak, on people's expectation that he will reveal the truth to them. So he is in bad conscience. On the other hand, the journalist who tells the truth so far as he knows it is not in bad conscience. Nobody expects him to tell more, or other, than he really knows. So even though his account will always be somewhat perspectival, he's not a propagandist. He's an honest witness to events, albeit from a single perspective.

[Belinda]

If your objection to 'antipodean caricatures' is that one is either fully Christian or not at all, could we agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative?

It's obvious, though that your characterization of the journalism/propagandist dichotomy is not accurate, so long as we think journalism is a profession to which any ethics should apply.

If you're happy to say that journalism/propagandist is merely "potato/potahto" so to speak, that may be your view. It's not mine. I still expect anybody who poses as a journalist to know he's making a claim to following at least minimal ethics of integrity, transparency and truth-telling. I do not expect any such thing of a propagandist. And I suspect that if you can locate any difference between the two terms in your own thinking, it will be much the same: a "journalist" will attempt to be objective and tell the whole truth; a "propagandist" is somebody who has no such intentions, but deliberately sets out to manipulate facts to his ideological or personal purposes. Woodward and Bernstein are not Goebbels, and the The Daily News is not Pravda.

Kant would have this insight on it: that a journalist who knowingly lies, misrepresents, distorts or suppresses truth is engaged in a performative inconsistency. That is, he relies on the illusion of his truthfulness, even while propagating lies. He exist parasitically, so to speak, on people's expectation that he will reveal the truth to them. So he is in bad conscience. On the other hand, the journalist who tells the truth so far as he knows it is not in bad conscience. Nobody expects him to tell more, or other, than he really knows. So even though his account will always be somewhat perspectival, he's not a propagandist. He's an honest witness to events, albeit from a single perspective.

Of course you are right. Immanuel Can! However what matters is how to tell the honest sheep from the dishonest goats. I follow a newspaper where the journalists are not paid by a capitalist owner.

[tillingborn]

If your objection to 'antipodean caricatures' is that one is either fully Christian or not at all, could we agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative?

It's obvious, though that your characterization of the journalism/propagandist dichotomy is not accurate, so long as we think journalism is a profession to which any ethics should apply.

So just as one is either fully Christian or not at all, so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all. Would journalist/liar be a more appropriate dichotomy? The point is not the labels, it is your unforgiving division of Christian/not Christian, journalist/not journalist which is not only crude, but antithetical to the Christian message of divine love and mercy. We disagree.
What then of environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative?

[Immanuel Can]

I follow a newspaper where the journalists are not paid by a capitalist owner.

So it's a non-profit paper? Which one is that?

[Immanuel Can]

If your objection to 'antipodean caricatures' is that one is either fully Christian or not at all, could we agree that human beings are more intricate than the antipodean caricatures of journalist/propagandist, environment manager/Environmentalist, leftist/conservative?

It's obvious, though that your characterization of the journalism/propagandist dichotomy is not accurate, so long as we think journalism is a profession to which any ethics should apply.

So just as one is either fully Christian or not at all, so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all.

Not only is this NOT what I said, in some ways it's actually quite the opposite of what I said.

You'd best go back and read more carefully, I guess.

You know, you've got to stop that habit.

Let's agree to this: we need to listen to each other. If we're going to do that, we have to stop rewriting what the other has said, adding in something sinister or manifestly excessive, and then reacting to that. We'll communicate better when we limit our summations of the other's views to questions, not declaratives: when we ask, "I'm hearing you say X, and wonder if that's what you mean," rather than saying, "So you think X," and then reacting against X.

[Belinda]

I follow a newspaper where the journalists are not paid by a capitalist owner.

So it's a non-profit paper? Which one is that?

Voluntary subscriptions help to keep The Guardian afloat.There is no owner who profits from populism.

[Immanuel Can]

Voluntary subscriptions help to keep The Guardian afloat.

The Guardian as a non-profit, devoted only to the good of the public? That is an interesting idea.

Well, The Guardian calls itself 'the world's leading liberal voice." And it's owned by a conglomerate called "Guardian Media Group," a subsidiary of Scott Trust Limited, formed to evade death duties and inheritance tax, according to its own website. It has generally supported "Labour," the political party, and of Jeremy Corbin; so it's got Socialist leanings. Some members of its board are ex-financiers, and it is the single biggest recipient of HSBC advertising revenue, among the major British papers.

So we might say The Guardian is somewhat better than some, perhaps. But it's far from non-partisan, and far from unentangled with Capitalism.

[henry quirk]

Voluntary subscriptions help to keep The Guardian afloat.

The Guardian as a non-profit, devoted only to the good of the public? That is an interesting idea.

Well, The Guardian calls itself 'the world's leading liberal voice." And it's owned by a conglomerate called "Guardian Media Group," a subsidiary of Scott Trust Limited, formed to evade death duties and inheritance tax, according to its own website. It has generally supported "Labour," the political party, and of Jeremy Corbin; so it's got Socialist leanings. Some members of its board are ex-financiers, and it is the single biggest recipient of HSBC advertising revenue, among the major British papers.

So we might say The Guardian is somewhat better than some, perhaps. But it's far from non-partisan, and far from unentangled with Capitalism.

and: let's not forget, folks like B are the ones supposedly footin' the guardian's bill...if this is truly the case, how likely is it the paper is gonna consistently print sumthin' its subscribers might dislike? consistently print sumthin' subscribers dislike and the guardian might very well end up with fewer subscribers

[tillingborn]

It's obvious, though that your characterization of the journalism/propagandist dichotomy is not accurate, so long as we think journalism is a profession to which any ethics should apply.

So just as one is either fully Christian or not at all, so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all.

Not only is this NOT what I said, in some ways it's actually quite the opposite of what I said.

You'd best go back and read more carefully, I guess.

You know, you've got to stop that habit.

Let's agree to this: we need to listen to each other. If we're going to do that, we have to stop rewriting what the other has said, adding in something sinister or manifestly excessive, and then reacting to that. We'll communicate better when we limit our summations of the other's views to questions, not declaratives: when we ask, "I'm hearing you say X, and wonder if that's what you mean," rather than saying, "So you think X," and then reacting against X.

I was thinking in particular of this:

One also cannot be "a little bit dead," or "a little bit Christian."

I'm hearing you say one cannot be a little bit Christian, and wonder if that's what you mean. As for having "to stop rewriting what the other has said", I have only recently pointed out that the only specific example you cited turned out not to be true:

But I do notice you tend to misread what I say, then put it in words I never used, and then overreact.

Your record in that respect isn't good. The one example you have given:

"Irrationally"? Hmmm. That's not a word I used.

turned out to be false:

So I want environmental management to succeed...but Environmentalism is something quite different: it's a kind of irrational ideology. And you can see it's irrational, because it embraces "solutions" that are actually harmful to the environment, and declares them "green."

I understand that you think some of my language, 'antipodean caricatures' for example, is inappropriate, and I have tried to temper it, even soliciting alternative suggestions. Having taken your advice and gone back and read more carefully; there is nothing I found that persuades me I must change my opinion. I think if we are to communicate successfully, in addition to being more attentive, we have to take ownership of what we in fact say.

[Immanuel Can]

As for having "to stop rewriting what the other has said"...

Let's have two example, shall we?

One was this:

...so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all.

The previous one was this:

Are we to believe that anything labelled 'organic' is the product either of racketeers or quasi-religious leftist ideologues?

Emphasis mine, to show the case. In the former one, you tired to rewrite me as saying there was no gradient in the matter of journalistic ethics, which was the very opposite of what I had said. In the second one, you actually had to insert the phrase "quasi-religious leftist ideologues" into the context completely.

That's what I'm suggesting you quit doing.

Then you wrote:

Your record in that respect isn't good. The one example you have given:

"Irrationally"? Hmmm. That's not a word I used.

turned out to be false:

So I want environmental management to succeed...but Environmentalism is something quite different: it's a kind of irrational ideology. And you can see it's irrational, because it embraces "solutions" that are actually harmful to the environment, and declares them "green."

"Now, what's wrong with that?" you will no doubt complain.

Quite simply, that you can see from your own example that I used the term 'irrational" to apply to environmentalist ideology, and particularly to its feature of adopting measures that are environmentally-destructive -- which, if true, would absolutely justify the term "irrational," since destroying the environment does not rationalize with saving it.

But when you repeated it back to me, in your next message, it was in the context of suggesting I said environmentalists themselves as persons, were "irrational."

There it is again.

If you insist on doing that, then talking to you becomes a bit like the famous "So you're saying..." interview between Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman. You seem to like to say, "So you're saying..." and then turning a well-considered phase into something more extreme, just so you can react.

It's a rather simple stratagem, actually, and one I hope you're adopting accidentally. But I see no reason to accept the specious rewriting of my own words as if they were representative of opinions I actually expressed.

[attofishpi]

As for having "to stop rewriting what the other has said"...

Let's have two example, shall we?

One was this:

...so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all.

The previous one was this:

Are we to believe that anything labelled 'organic' is the product either of racketeers or quasi-religious leftist ideologues?

Emphasis mine, to show the case. In the former one, you tired to rewrite me as saying there was no gradient in the matter of journalistic ethics, which was the very opposite of what I had said. In the second one, you actually had to insert the phrase "quasi-religious leftist ideologues" into the context completely.

That's what I'm suggesting you quit doing.

Then you wrote:

Your record in that respect isn't good. The one example you have given:

"Irrationally"? Hmmm. That's not a word I used.

turned out to be false:

So I want environmental management to succeed...but Environmentalism is something quite different: it's a kind of irrational ideology. And you can see it's irrational, because it embraces "solutions" that are actually harmful to the environment, and declares them "green."

"Now, what's wrong with that?" you will no doubt complain.

Quite simply, that you can see from your own example that I used the term 'irrational" to apply to environmentalist ideology, and particularly to its feature of adopting measures that are environmentally-destructive -- which, if true, would absolutely justify the term "irrational," since destroying the environment does not rationalize with saving it.

But when you repeated it back to me, in your next message, it was in the context of suggesting I said environmentalists themselves as persons, were "irrational."

There it is again.

If you insist on doing that, then talking to you becomes a bit like the famous "So you're saying..." interview between Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman. You seem to like to say, "So you're saying..." and then turning a well-considered phase into something more extreme, just so you can react.

It's a rather simple stratagem, actually, and one I hope you're adopting accidentally. But I see no reason to accept the specious rewriting of my own words as if they were representative of opinions I actually expressed.

It becomes RIDICLULE_US

When people start arguing about the other people and THEIR ideologies rather than, the argument at hand.

(of which in this case I have little idea about - so carry on) - Jordan Peterson and that Jew woteva his name is - quite enjoy those two kickin off tho.

[tillingborn]

As for having "to stop rewriting what the other has said"...

Let's have two example, shall we?

One was this:

...so to qualify as a journalist, one is fully honest or not at all.

Has it genuinely escaped your memory that we argued this over 20 pages? More disturbingly, have you forgotten that just this afternoon you wrote:

a "journalist" will attempt to be objective and tell the whole truth; a "propagandist" is somebody who has no such intentions

I'm hearing you say that a "journalist" will attempt to be objective and tell the whole truth; a "propagandist" is somebody who has no such intentions, and wonder if that's what you mean.

The previous one was this:

Are we to believe that anything labelled 'organic' is the product either of racketeers or quasi-religious leftist ideologues?

Emphasis mine, to show the case. In the former one, you tired to rewrite me as saying there was no gradient in the matter of journalistic ethics, which was the very opposite of what I had said. In the second one, you actually had to insert the phrase "quasi-religious leftist ideologues" into the context completely.
That's what I'm suggesting you quit doing.

That's from here:

That's what makes the difference between "environmental management" (rational, scientific, measured action) and "Environmentalism" (the quasi-religious ideology of the Left).

I shan't labour the point further, but it was your suggestion: I'm hearing you say that there is a quasi-religious ideology of the Left and wonder if that's what you mean.

Then you wrote:

Your record in that respect isn't good. The one example you have given:turned out to be false:

"Now, what's wrong with that?" you will no doubt complain.

Quite simply, that you can see from your own example that I used the term 'irrational" to apply to environmentalist ideology, and particularly to its feature of adopting measures that are environmentally-destructive -- which, if true, would absolutely justify the term "irrational," since destroying the environment does not rationalize with saving it.

But when you repeated it back to me, in your next message, it was in the context of suggesting I said environmentalists themselves as persons, were "irrational."

Here's the thing: I get that you are claiming that an ideology can be irrational without anyone adopting it, but I really don't think it is coherent to also attribute "adopting measures that are environmentally-destructive" to an ideology. That is what people do. And yes, I also appreciate that doing something irrational, such as "adopting measures that are environmentally-destructive", doesn't render every other thing done by that actor irrational. That after all, would be ad hominem.

There it is again.

If you insist on doing that, then talking to you becomes a bit like the famous "So you're saying..." interview between Jordan Peterson and Kathy Newman. You seem to like to say, "So you're saying..." and then turning a well-considered phase into something more extreme, just so you can react.

It's a rather simple stratagem, actually, and one I hope you're adopting accidentally. But I see no reason to accept the specious rewriting of my own words as if they were representative of opinions I actually expressed.

Nor should you. Nor should you deny saying what you demonstrably said.