Oh, you are funny. Ad hominem is so fun, isn't it?
>>Parochialism means narrowness of thought. Stick with what I said.
>
>King Lear, do you suppose you could possibly be snottier? this didn't quite
>do it for me. i like it *really* pissy. next time you'll do better, i'm
>sure.
>
>also, if you could possibly point out precisely how what i typed differed
>in any way whatsoever from your sticky definition, i'd sure appreciate it.
I said "Parochialism invites co-optation.". You asked "how is this a direct causal link?" I never said anything about a "direct causal link".
>so which is it? or are these related somehow? is it narrowness of
>thought that invites the co-optation because when you think narrowly, then
>you're more likely to take monies from a benefactor? or is it simply
>accepting financing from a benefactor that's the problem? how are the two
>related? i'm not quite sure how one leads to the other dear King. that
>was my question. pretty straightforward the first time.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would have understood that I was saying that it was not taking money from benefactors that was the problem. It was taking money from a benefactor which might be part of the cause of the problem in the first place.
It really would help if you would just read the text I write and drop the juvenile ad hominem.
>>said, again, "Parochialism invites co-optation", I didn't say "partial
>>parochialism", I didn't say "causes".
>
>and a fine example of a retrospective "this is what i meant girly so get
>off my case i don't want to answer your questions" to boot!
I could care less if you are a girly.
>this partial parochialism bizzo, don't get it? how would this be possible?
> partially narrow in one's views..hmmm. another stumper. now, mr. sticky
>definitions, do you suppose that if you are only partially narrow in your
>views then you could no longer be labelled parochial? why not call it
>partially broad in one's views?
I was talking about parochial thinking and what I thought that entailed. You retorted, irrelevantly, that "there are plenty [of organizers who aren't" parochial. I simply was saying that I'm not talking about groups of people who may see some things clearly. I'm talking about those who raise bogus objections to "theorizing" and think that "thinking globally" is a distraction from more important concerns. I'm fully aware that some activists don't suffer from this disease.
>If you do this, you will often miss the trail of blood
>>leading up to the corporate helping hand, and this goes for idiots who
>>bray against the "paralysis of analysis" as well as the less
>>insulting and perhaps better-intentioned.
>
>well, again, i do believe you're avoiding my question. is there a place to
>'fight the power' outside of power. where ya gonna get the money from? eh?
Grassroots organizing. Money does not, in my book anyway, always mean evil. I'm simply urging a very broad look at where the money comes from.
>>Free speech was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Free speech was
>>squelched viciously from the get go and was only won by working people
>>after a long struggle.
>
>well no kidding. this is *precisely* the point. ...
No, your point was that in response to Doug's claim that the "the Constitution and myriad state and local laws are also extremely effective barriers to generating a greater breadth of political thought and action." You said "dunno. free speech was pretty helpful." Clearly, you were the one implying free speech arose from the Constitution. If you'd like to change your mind, just say so and be honest about it.
>We can
>>speak freely because of the hundreds and thousands of people who lost
>>or risked their lives in an anonymous struggle against tyranny which
>>bolstered its brutality with appeals to the Constitution, not to
>>mention the flag and other symbols of hate.
>
>oh, yes, indeed. of course, why didn't i think of this: an historical
>narrative, a story of the truth of the struggle, the blood, sweat and tears
>that guarantee those freedoms etc. as opposed to symbols like the flag.
>now tell me, how is the story you tell different from the story that the
>flag tells? not how they substantively differ, but in the way they
>operate, the mechanisms through which you'd distill these truths of the
>struggle to everyone. how would you ensure that everyone gets it right?
I would tell a factual history, sort of like Howard Zinn. There's a difference between a work of history and the flag. I'm not interested in distilling truths into symbols like the flag. I think it is dangerous and ultimately destructive.
>>>1. appeal to the constitution is pretty powerful stuff, symbolically. you
>>>can use it to your advantage. ...
>>
>>I abhor appeals to patriotism and other forms of fake solidarity. Our
>>rights were not given to us by anyone, land-dweller or deity.
>>Locating our rights in the Constitution is to abdicate the most
>>valuable claim we have: we are humans with intrinsic rights to
>>associate with whom we please, speak freely, etc.
>
>and what would you have had martin luther king do? langston hughes? now
>he wrote some mighty fine poetry denouncing the communist org that he
>belonged to as, similarly, perpetuating a 'fake solidarity'
King was a latecomer to the Civil Rights movement, and not someone I rever. King should have spoken plainly without appeals to the flag.
>>"Contaminated" ... really. A document prepared in secret by the
>>richest of the rich and their scribblers, ratified by only a tiny
>>fraction of the population, and it's merely "contaminated".
>
>why don't you answer my question rather than quibbling over my choice of
>words, as whimsical as you might find them. i think that's more productive
>don't you? or perhaps productivity and collaboration and working through
>an issue in some semblance of civil discussion isn't what you really want?
I see the Constitution as fatally flawed as a basis for human justice. You see it as merely "contaminated". I think a decent document would begin with democratic deliberation. If you meant something other than "contaminated", you should have said so.
>cordelia wrote:
>
>>>parochialism may well be inescapable and it may not be a bad thing. there
>>>is something wrong with the opposite, too --doncha think? people learn to
>>>be moral people in situated contexts. they then learn to be more universal
>>>as they acquire abstract thought. ...
>
>to which King Lear replied:
>
>>People are well-equipped by 8th grade for the abstract thought needed
>>to understand most things of importance in public life. There's no
>>excuse for adults to eschew it and to pass on to others this mode of
>>thought.
>
>perhaps you could explain exactly how what you wrote has anything
>whatsoever to do with what i wrote?
If you think "parochialism ... may not be a bad thing" that's one thing with which I disagree, and to which the above was a reply.
>>>simple, not easy. damn good thing too, i think. the question is, William,
>>>how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something
>>>abstract, distant, big? ...
>>
>>When I read Noam Chomsky, I feel he brings in the broad picture quite
>>effectively. Ditto with Doug, Michael Perelman, and many others. I
>>think it's a matter of getting these sorts of things in front of
>>people's faces early enough in their lives so they can shield
>>themselves from the vast torrent of deceit.
>
>well yes, i'll even buy this at the discount you're selling it at because
>it seems you just want to say something regardless of whether it has
>anything to do with what i typed, King Lear. ...
You asked "how do you propose to get people to commit to themselves to something abstract, distant, big?" To which I proposed something I felt useful. And you say I'm writing things that have nothing to do with what you typed. Why did you ask the question, then?
>>Again, I think symbolism is poison to critical thought. We've got
>>enough symbols intruding upon our minds. Let's leave them out.
>>
>>I find Thomas Ferguson's theories on democratic action careful, lucid,
>>properly narrow in scope, and extremely illuminating. Several other
>>folks have done some good work in domains near his that I find
>>useful as well.
>
>well i's afraid i don't care for the invocation of these symbolic figures
>to stand in for your meaning. i mean chomsky, henwood, ferguson....these
>are the new heroes to replace the washingtons eh? kewl by me, but i think
>you might want to just give a wee bit of thought to this: i'd argue that
>you are simply constructing a new cannon of stories, narratives, founding
>tracts, manifestos, and heros to replace the ones you despise.
These are not symbolic figures. If you weren't so interested in puerile ad hominem, I'm sure you could find their writings in the local library or bookstore.
Bill