| Subject: were you off today? |
Author:
pa
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/11/04 7:12:19pm
In reply to:
pjk
's message, "Re: ¡fun link!" on 11/11/04 1:15:50pm
>
>But to the question of "purple" … we once again run
>into the difficulties of common usages like
>“conservative” “liberal” “left” “right” “free-market”
>“socialism” “democrat” “republican” and so on. Are
>these terms useless?
no, but when a state votes 48% for Kerry and %50% for Bush classifying that state Red is a misnomer in the context I placed it....Kerry supporters suddenly feeling like they are living in ...as I put it....redneckville...
Appearing to facilitate
>conversation, do they actually impede understanding?
it depends on the inherent complexity compared to the intensity of generalization.
How does
>anyone convey a thought simply that necessarily
>pertains to very complex and subtle states of being
>sometimes in flux as well?
by noting the complexity...if one is interested in having an in-depth conversation ....if the poster is merely venting on the VOY and they don't wish to engage...they don't want anyone to offer a perpendicular perspective, etc. it should be implied somehow...during or after the post...even silence can serve as an indicator...you perhaps have the greatest task here as the rest of us have mates who critique off of the VOY about the VOY?
Can we agree that there is
>a time and a place?
I think some of us can and do....you seem to be the focal point of many of the struggles...what do you think the problem is?
>When people speak of blue or red or purple states some
>may or may not do so with the understanding that it is
>not as simple as black and white or even the all
>encompassing yet relatively meaningless gray. To
>assume one way or the other perhaps reveals more about
>the assum-er’s level of respect for the speaker, and
>not necessarily an objective reality of the speaker’s
>understanding.
I disagree...it may in fact imply a desire from the audience to engage critically with the poster....which (to me)pays ultimate respect...
It would seem that in regular
>day-to-day discourse humans have historically not
>always found it necessary to add caveats and
>qualifiers, in other words, the need to say: “Red
>states are really not red. The republican party is
>not monolithic in its views.
yes, in day to day discourse I agree...which is why the VOY is the opposite (for me) from day to day discourse....the intimacy and tangiblenesss of the written word hopefully encourages us to engage more critically than we would with folks walking into the gallery, chatting in the hall between classes, waiting in line at the water fountain, with peers between meetings, etc....
When does a red state
>become purple? Isn’t the cutoff a bit arbitray
>between red and purple?
(see U. of Michigan site)
to me personally much less capricious than your statement: it seems most of the states that are double digit pro-bush are the ones who are most dependent on the hardwork of the blue staters.
Would it not be better and
>truly intellectual to delineate 80 different shades of
>pastel according to metrics that reflect the complex
>mix of views concerning the economy, healthcare, the
>environment, foreign policy, religion, etc.?
I'm sure Karl Rove found some IT expert to do this!:)(was it Geo?)
Can we agree we
>do not live in this world when it concerns the vast
>array of topics that interest us?
no, I won't agree to this at all.
>Phantasmagoria or question of time-space
>practicalities concerning language?
I stand by my previous statement...calling the red states red and the blue states blue is an illusion.In terms of time-space practicalities concerning language I think you have spent a lot of time and space defending why you don't have the time and are not in the space to engage more explicitly.....you don't have to defend this....if you don't want to have folks engage...just say so.....
>To call people “chatterers” and “misguided” when using
>words like “liberal” or “socialist” or even
>“republican” is to dismiss the vast majority of
>commentators of all stripes and colors who look for
>correlations be they strong or weak.
I checked my previous post...I didn't call people chatterers and misquided when using words like liberal or socialist or even republican....I didn't once use any of these other words ...(so I don't really understand what you are saying here)it seems to me that on the VOY you have the greatest predilection to dismiss other VOYers resources, i.e. commentators....you certainly don't seem to feel any anguish over this....you feel correct in your analysis....why is it a problem if others do this with your resources (or lack of resources?)If you don't wish to engage at that moment....you just want to vent....just let us know...I certainly wouldn't interfere with that...but you kind of invited us aboard on your starter message...
That the correlation compares
>southerners to northerners unfavorably does not, in
>and of itself, mean that it is misguided.
If you think this is my point, then my communications haven't been efficient....my desire to distance myself from these correlations floating out there on the web is based on my sense that the isolation and measurement of the variables is highly suspect.
One can
>easily point to northern hypocrisies and darker
>intentions when it took on the south over slavery,
>(the purpling of the issue) but at the end of the day,
>which side would you rather be on?
Your leap here is curious....is this intended analogy your intended point....with the correlations?
pa
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 