>
>I've repeatedly said that communication is how a statement will be
>understood by listeners, not just what is intended by the speaker. i.e. if
>it is foreseeable that this is how they will understand a statement, you as
>the speaker are causing that understanding. Right?
Sure, and I think activists have a responsibility to communicate in a way taht will be understood the way we want to be understood.
Or does causation only
>apply to people you disagree with?
A very interesting philosophical question. Davidson would say yes. I disagree.
>
>As I specifically noted, because many leftists assume that public policy is
>undemocratic, their intent when they blame US government policy may not be
>to blame the American public as a whole, but that is how it is understood
>by
>a large number of people.
Some, indeed, many. But it's a well-supported sociological fact that most people think they don't have much control over the government, and this is born out by all of our personal experience as well. You don't want to start out with Death to fascist Amerikkka! But my experience is that if you pitch things right, and appewal to people's knowledge taht the government is run by special interests, they will listen and not be offended personally.
And you're right- I think the working class does
>have influence on policy, including foreign policy. That's where I
>disagree
>with lots of people on this list.
OK, we disagree. The effect of public opiunion in generl and activism in particular on foreign policy was a special interest of mine when I was doing poli sci. I found a lot of empirical support for the idea that foreign policy is very insulated from public pressure, and little if any nonanecfotal support for the contrary propositioon. What basis do you have for your belief?
>
>>As for cutting my losses, sorry, in this case I see a really insulated set
>of leftists who, despite empirical evidence of massive public rejection of
>any attempt to "explain" 9-11, act as if of course there is such a useful
>explanation.
I'm with Kelly. I don't see this rejection. I have talked to scores of people in random venues in Chicago about this since it happened, and every single solitary one of them found it reasonable to say that (a) nthis way very evil, (b) it's something to do with the way we throw our weight around and piss people off, and especially with US support for the occupation of Palestine; (c) whether or not it would be a good idea to kill OBL and his immediate entourage, it would be wicked and stupid to massacre a bunch of innocent Afghans to get him. I found no dissent from these propositions, apart from some people at my synagogue. I don't believe the public shares your views.
>
>It's kind of odd- I argue that is is perfectly reasonable for the left to
>promote global justice and he end of regional conflicts as good prevention
>to lessen the strength of terrorist networks in the future, but because I
>think arguing for a tight causal chain between US policy and this
>particular
>act is both weak intellectually and politically, I get labelled as a
>democratic party apologist (kind of bizarre on this particular issue since
>the policies in question were pretty bipartisan.
Not by me.
>I may be loopy or deranged by the events, but it's a pretty broadly shared
>loopiness.
>
>
I don't believe it.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp