Intellectuals, Elitists, and Public Discourse

This is the first of three entries on related concepts.


Intellectuals
After a discussion he had with Noam Chomsky, Pete Dominick(on his Sirius/XM program Stand Up!) wondered aloud and discussed with his producer why intellectuals aren't given the platform they once were, and much of the discussion revolved around the anti-intellectualism, cynical political framing of issues, and people being distracted and uncaring toward matters of politics.  I sent a couple tweets on the matter, among them "Chomsky and other intellectuals are not palatable because, in part, that inability to 'talk to the level' of the audience." and "It's not talking down inherently, but can easily come across as exactly that.".

To elaborate, I'm saying that for someone to be considered an intellectual by at-large society, they must not only be considered a luminary of the tighter community of their own background or chosen pursuit, but by the actual at-large community.  For this to occur, the person must be more than intelligent.  Their points and perspective must be coherently perceived by more than those people already in agreement.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a person who I would feel safe saying most people who recognize his name would say he is an intellectual, and if they know his field would also consider him a relatively trustworthy source of information and opinion on matters relating to, at least, his field and in some cases more than that.  To be fair, Tyson's field of expertise is generally one that doesn't lend itself easily to liberal vs conservative stereotypes, but much more important is his ability to communicate and connect with people.  He is enthusiastic and friendly, unoffended but assertive, he motions with his hands and is animated in his body language.  He also tends to not get caught up in necessarily using complicated words.  This is not to say he dumbs things down, or doesn't use large words or get into minutia for a point he is making, but in general I think his language, which is easy to understand and relate to, and his favorable disposition both contribute to people liking him and respecting him.  Is he the most knowledgeable person in his field?  Tyson would probably not say say so, anyway.  But that matters little in the broader perception and public acknowledgment of the points he makes and issues he weighs in on, because he is the person more people identify credibility with.  He might make arguments from more cerebral people and those arguments are bolstered from his style of communication.

Compare this with Chomsky:  Granted, much of what he addresses is political and also his target audience are people who've read his books or are otherwise already familiar with his perspectives.  He is cerebral, perhaps overly thoughtful for his energy, and does tend to also use a wide vocabulary and even jargon which the average listener or viewer or audience member, unless already familiar with the concepts he speaks of, isn't going to easily follow.  This isn't an altogether bad trait, as it can engender a better informed specific community in which he is held in high regard.  However, I don't think Chomsky is as effective as he could be or  held in as high a regard in broader society as he could be, and what has become the popularized way for public policy to be discussed in the media where aggressiveness and argument-oriented wittiness are the prized manner of discourse.

In summary, all of this isn't to say style and medium should overwhelm the content of the idea a person is attempting to convey.  Rather, they must both exist for the other to matter.  Good ideas only rise to the top when people are able to understand and effectively spread it to others. Further, perhaps as much as ever, our attention spans and programming demand an engaging and entertaining experience.  So if the leaders and spokespeople are not the best at not only energizing their own adherents, it only serves the best interest of the organization, the ideology, and ideally the public interest for there to be followers or like-minds to attempt to make an argument for the same thing but in a different way, to avoid misunderstandings and fundamentally just contribute another voice to the public discourse.

*Edited on 8/4/12 for better clarity

An Exchange on Civility

This post is found, in part, on this Republican subreddit entry.




The submission linked to an image which attempts to convey the indignation felt by the Republicans in this forum about arguing or disagreeing with liberals.

Since I'm not one to generally let stuff go without tossing out my thoughts on it, I posted a response which, unfortunately, didn't garner a response from the original poster of the picture.  It did, however, get me a little bit of anger from someone who read previous posts of mine and thought I was being hypocritical.  I'll attempt to do an effective job pasting in the exchange below.


My response to the post:

"For what it's worth, I've been told I'm a liberal though I'm enough of a hipster to dislike being put into any particular ideological brand and prefer to try to think pragmatically.

On that note, I do not hate all Republicans. I do not hate all conservatives, (L)libertarians, minarchists, Democrats, Greens, Constitutionalists or progressives or any other ideological or political affiliation. I would venture to say that I don't hate any of them, nor any individual person.

I hate discord. I hate apathy, antipathy, presumptions of malevolence and distinctions so bold and bifurcated that there is only right and wrong. Our method of government is one of those which puts on high the idea that we can discuss and, via rhetoric and not might, come to solutions for the real world problems we must face. Because there are supporters and people who believe in a particular policy, that therefore makes it a viable policy prescription, whether it be a federation of near-independent states or a massive federal arm with satellite states holding little power. Our government is what we make of it and the brass tacks is how we discuss the matters with one another and how we motivate the supporters for various positions to demonstrate their will in the political system.

I suppose that makes me, in some ways, a filthy free love hippie because I think civil discourse is preferable over polemic, and that no problem is one that we shouldn't approach in this way. I don't think it's a utopia for that to be the standard, as it's demonstrably obvious that it can be frustrating, grating and painful to have to endure the slowness and unpredictability that having free and open discussions in our society necessitates. Moreover, those who disagree with me are still my brothers and sisters in this nation, and that at most means we are adversaries. At worst we are opponents on a field that we both not only must, but should because we all were and are created as equals. You and I both have a vested interest in seeing our neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, regions and country do well.

For that I thank you and I will always make the best attempts to assume good intentions on the part of those who disagree with me, though I am significantly less than perfect in that regard."

User GeneralPudding responded with the following:

" I suppose that makes me, in some ways, a filthy free love hippie because I think civil discourse is preferable over polemic, and that no problem is one that we shouldn't approach in this way.

That's funny coming from a guy who, not just 5 days ago, wrote this:


We don't need to play their market games with boycotts to defeat the opinion and outlook of a person like Limbaugh. We don't need to actively splinter and divide his audience and constituency the way he does ours with fear, uncertainty and doubt. We don't need to compete. That's their values and tactics and methods. We can go on his turf, play by his rules, with half our brain tied behind our back and still win in rhetorical sport. Because we really are the ones that are right, and it's a matter of putting it in words and values and principles more people can understand and relate to.

so yeah, you like "civil discourse" and "free and open discussions", except when it's from talk radio conservatives like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity...."

The linked comment Pudding is quoting is from one I made regarding my opinion that while boycotts can be effective in some instances for affecting change, the outcry and subsequent advertiser pullouts from Rush Limbaugh's show in the aftermath of his fiendish remarks on Sandra Fluke would not ultimately be positive because they would only last as long as public attention was on the matter(which time seems to have borne out as true since advertisers have begun returning to his program) and more importantly, Limbaugh's listeners would perceive the boycott as an attack on conservatism, his rights and an insult to all of their opinions on women, regardless of whether these things are true or intended.  That comment is quoted entirely in the Boycotting Ideological Leaders post just put up a few moments ago.

In any event, I responded as follows:

"Ya know you're absolutely correct, I probably do engage in hyperbolic language and it's something I must try to keep in check. I try to account for my tendency to be 'overly passionate' or my screeds with such portions of my post as this, which you neglected to quote.

For that I thank you and I will always make the best attempts to assume good intentions on the part of those who disagree with me, though I am significantly less than perfect in that regard.(emphasis mine)

If it pleases you, GeneralPudding, I will explain my verbiage and I honestly don't think there's anything wrong or even offensive with what I said. However, if I was unfair or stereotyping with what I said, do point out my hypocrisies or contradictions so that I may learn from my generalizations.

First, for those who didn't click the link for whatever reason(or read my rather lengthy rambling, since I do tend to do that), the quoted portion of my post comes from a dissenting post in /r/politics regarding the boycott of Rush Limbaugh's advertisers. To summarize, I don't think a boycott of Proflowers/Carbonite/Legalzoom/Any-other-advertiser is the appropriate way to address Limbaugh's influence on the conservative dialogue, or via that, the Republican party and its priorities in our country.

From my perspective, it is admitting defeat in the rhetorical play-field which is our ongoing and perpetual national political discussion to resort to a boycott. I've met many a liberal/progressive who feel it's not even worth it to call into Limbaugh(/Hannity/Levin/Beck/Ingraham/Miller/I'm sure in this sub many of you have favorites and less-favored political commentators which you like or dislike for your own individual reasons) because 'the game is rigged' due to it being a conservative-run program which often does advertise for organizations such as Hillsdale College or the Heritage Foundation or other similarly minded outfits.

I say bullshit, and if 'we' are right, and by we I mean liberals/progressives/environmentalists/feminists/Democrats (again, I realize some of these broad groups do overlap with libertarians/conservationalists/conseratives/Republicans depending on a particular issue, but I am grossly generalizing for the sake of my ongoing rantble), then 'we' ought be able to find someone amongst our ilk which can operate on a level to 'hang with' those talented and high-paid personalities on the radio.

Sure, we've our own programs such as The Daily Show or Colbert Report, but those programs aren't watched by conservatives or Republicans the way they are liberals or Democrats(just like most libs or Dems don't actually listen to Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly but will observe the soundbites of the programs and will be utterly, totally, shocked by what they hear) and therefore the only way our ideological leaders(which aren't even our political leaders on either side, mind-blowingly) don't have much to do with one another aside from their respective listeners arguing around the water cooler, dinner table or construction site.

Instead(and here's where I finally start breaking down my comment quoted by GeneralPudding), we ought to demonstrate those values we are sometimes lampooned for in our approach to 'playing the very serious game and sport' of politics:


We don't need to play their market games with boycotts to defeat the opinion and outlook of a person like Limbaugh

Liberals don't need to, and really shouldn't, utilize the free market to express their contempt for the opinion and outlook of Rush Limbaugh. I realize I sort of addressed this point in an earlier paragraph. No, I'm not going to go back and edit my post because....just because I'm on a riff here, dammit.

We don't need to actively splinter and divide his audience and constituency the way he does ours with fear, uncertainty and doubt.

My personal opinion is that Limbaugh and other public figures of conservative media apply an all-too-combative tone to their rhetoric which is perfectly fine when it comes to discussing matters relating to people or organizations which are outside our own political environment. But when talking about things with our fellow citizenry? I think it's at the least poor form to practice such caricatures of liberals as malevolent forces seeking to do harm to others. But it's profitable via drawing many listeners, and more importantly, he and others on the air do absolutely make very strong arguments which listeners can then use in their daily discussions with liberal friends/coworkers/etc. *See the linked post for more on that point.

That's their values and tactics and methods. We can go on his turf, play by his rules, with half our brain tied behind our back and still win in rhetorical sport. Because we really are the ones that are right, and it's a matter of putting it in words and values and principles more people can understand and relate to.

This refers to, again, the polemic and pretty obvious(in my view) demonization of liberals on these programs which serves little for constructive public discourse of very important issues. I think it's just as unproductive as it is for Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann to smirk and say conservatives are stupid or heartless or malevolent for holding the views or positions on policy that they do.

Now to be sure, I'm sure there can be other quotes by me which can be found which belie my intent and positions. Read my various comments and I'm confident that you'll come away with an impression which is not that which is given by a selective quote, as many people like to say, 'taken out of context'.

Thanks for reading all of this if you did!"


Doubly so for anyone getting through all of that, and while I have yet to post the reason I feel the need to have a blog specifically for my own views on matters and views on the ways others in public express their views about not just issue but one another, it's probably becoming apparent that when it comes to having an opinion, I'm rather open to differing perspectives so long as a tenant of that perspective isn't to assume all those disagreeing are stupid or evil and must be conquered and scattered.

Cutting Our Hair, Flip Flopping and Evolving

Portions of this entry appear on this submission to the Republican subreddit.


Much has been made this past week over a couple things.  One is the current president's change to publicly supporting/endorsing what supporters call marriage equality and critics call gay marriage.  Another is an alleged incident in which former governor Romney, either assisted or encouraged by a group of fellow classmates, held down a long-haired man and forcibly cut off some portion of his hair.

Firstly, almost all of the outrage directed toward Romney for this incident has been focused through the lens of this man, John Lauber, being potentially gay and that was the motivating factor in this action.  For his part, the presumptive Republican nominee states that while he doesn't remember this particular he did do many things which were stupid when younger.  He also says that the sexual orientation of Lauber was not a motivating factor and in fact was not something even that was considered at that point in time. To play devil's advocate even if such language was used in reference to Lauber it doesn't mean those calling him that were anti-homosexual. At least in my own personal experience epithets such as 'fag' or even the use of the word gay has taken on a derisive, negative connotation in common parlance. Uses of the word, if they were in this case, may have been simply to harass Lauber simply because he was outside their comfort zone, outside their mainstream. Why it doesn't matter to me personally whether the supposed attack was motivated by Lauber's assumed or actual sexual orientation is because bullying is wrong and should be pointed out and stopped no matter what the rationalization is, and I hope if any message may be taken from this entry it be that. As far as the political side goes, if this story is true I think it extremely important for Romney to articulate how he has grown from that point in time and how he has come to be a more mature and accepting man either as a result of it, of his faith, or whatever catalyst in his own personal life which made that happen. To change one's opinion on this matter is an excellent example of a change in heart or opinion on a matter which is due to a maturation of an individual, and not one born or craven or cynical political posturing.

This leads me to the next point, which is President Obama's recent change in support for marriage equality, and some who characterize it alternatively as flip flopping akin to a position on regulations or an evolution or change in honest opinion by him.

To some, and unfortunately it pretty much goes 'both' ways on the ideological spectrum, any change in positions or opinions is deserved of the term. Conservatives and/or Republicans will say Obama's flip-flopping on things such as marriage equality or on matters of national security(and there are those especially among the OWS group that will actually say the same thing), and liberals and/or Democrats will say Romney's flip-flopped on things(and many of the more values-based and libertarian portions of his own constituency will say the same thing).

I don't think either of them are necessarily flip flopping. They may be changing their opinions cravenly for political expediency, or perhaps they had the newer position all along and the previous one was the cop out. Maybe he did it only because Biden and other administration officials had already let the horse out of the barn and it's a political face-saving gesture. Because it's so damn difficult to know what is actually in the mind and soul of someone, though, unless there's some sort of evidence which cements that a change was other than what is publicly stated to be the case, it's unproductive to muse about the 'true' motivations behind that change.

Evolving is sort of a sterile term for what many, if not all of us, do throughout our lives as we are raised, come into our own, and mature(at least in our own minds) in our perspective on issues that confront our heads and hearts. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a change of heart on a subject; even people sharing identical values and principles can have different interpretations on what those things mean in their application to the real world. What I'm disappointed with is that because there's the hostility to this and therefore our elected officials are very averse to changing their minds when confronted with different facts or something which challenges their position, or when they do they don't like to elaborate on the whys or hows or considerations they went through. This includes the recent change in publicly stated position by the current president on gay marriage/marriage equality. He went into it a little bit, but for as long as it's been discussed on the radio television and print, in campaign ads, and gatherings of friends family and coworkers, having too much put out there by a man who identifies as someone who has changed their mind on the issue is simply not possible.

As always, thank you for your time and your consideration of my thoughts and if you think we may benefit from a discourse, please leave a comment and we can engage to better understand the situation together.

Online Anonymity

Posted originally to Lord Blizzard's Google+ post.

     As near as I can tell there are at least two major perspectives of anonymity on the internet. Neither, as far as I know, really predate the other but at different times they've served a productive purpose. I'm not going to attempt to create a timeline, but clearly at the nascence of ARPANET the idea of anonymity for such a purpose was not practicable, if discussed much at all.

     Anyway, on one side there are the proponents of a anonymized internet. They'll point to the freedom this engenders, the openness of sharing information and ideas in a way that might not otherwise be possible in the physical world due to fear of repercussions or cultural stigma. Consider, as an example, posts on a site such as reddit with the leading phrase 'Get your throwaways ready..'. If a networking site allows for accounts which are not linked to a specific, real-world identity, it can encourage a greater participation in discourse because people have little to worry about in regard to consequences for the things they may say.

     On the other(another?) side, there is the idea that total anonymity on the internet is both a pipe dream as well as immature or poor implementation of a system because total anonymity can encourage irresponsible behavior on the internet and it is much less reliable for data mining for advertising purposes, something which the modern internet is highly dependent upon.
It's a pipe dream because there are any number of ways, even without a Google+ profile requirement, that an individual can be tracked down on the internet based on their activity.

     It can encourage irresponsible behavior such as malicious bullying and trolling when a person feels impunity to act however they like, regardless the harmful consequences(what's called in pop media cyber bullying).
It's much less reliable for data mining for advertising purposes because comparably speaking Lord Blizzard living on Naboo who has two kids, a wife and an apprentice is much more of a concrete item to utilize in good targeted advertising than +Lord Blizzard of who knows where doing who knows what about who knows where and who and whatever(I realize from looking at your about: page you do give information about your real-world location so you don't fall into these cookie-cut extremes).

     As much as we might like for the internet to remain free as in speech and open and free as in beer all while maintaining total anonymity, massive server farms cannot at this time pay for themselves and the paradigm the internet is in right now is that of advertising, and the better the goes-ins for generating targeting ads the better the goes-outs. Google is, if not a hub for this kind of activity and commerce, the epicenter for it. In that vein, we'd do well to remember the 800 pound gorilla that Google is competing with in the social networking realm, Facebook. Their current value(when they go public) is based entirely around this premise that they have much more intimate information for their users than, say, Google does. It's entirely understandable, if not condonable, that Google would be seeking to correlate the massive data they already have with much more specific, real-world identities. I can sympathize that Google could and perhaps should seek the 'higher' ground with being more permissive about pseudonyms so we as a global society can have as much of an open discussion of all items as possible, but I do not begrudge them one bit for the path they have chosen for their social networking platform because of the many pragmatic considerations incumbent upon them. As much as it may come off as a mean thing to say, at least at this time there are many other outlets and venues for you to retain your anonymity when consuming or creating on the internet.