Is Bud Light Right And I'm Wrong?

[Dill]

(06-16-2023, 03:38 PM)Leon Wrote: thanks. im not even saying dill an lidicus are bad folks. im just saying i think they try to come off like they are way smarter than the rest of us an i think they have been programmed by left thinking. maybe they just act that way cause they need to feel right and superior to feel good about there left ideas. idk

i am interested to know the real education or jobs of both to see why they come of that way or how they might be programmed. ive got told the bellsnikel aint quite the same so i went back and look thru alot of his posts and im sorry. but he just comes off like a know it all on about everthing he talks about. it just feels like hes trying way to hard to impress folks and act like he knows more. theres also pally who always has to act moral superior to all other folks even though his ideas are just left propaganda and he has no high ground at all. gino falls into that to even though he cant see how terrible his thinking is and its hard to take him serious

i just dont like that certain folks want to act these ways or put themselves over other folks. just a rant i guess.

I think we can say for sure that Dill's "programming" has involved an orientation towards learning and intellectual inquiry based upon dialogue and shared standards of logic and evidence, which has been around since the Greeks. But some call that "education," not programming, given its emphasis on understanding others' views and how they came to be, and not simply marking their agreement or disagreement with one's own, end of story. Worse, Dill's spent decades studying political history from ancient times to the present, the kind of thing taught less and less now because people think it won't get them a job. It may be tempting for Dill types to use that knowledge sometimes. The question you raise is--could that use ever be legitimate in a public forum, where some may not share it? What would be grounds for excluding it--other than that it may undermine what some just want to believe?

We live in a society which is pretty much center/right liberal and our education reflects that, so one has to go outside the mainstream to get actual leftist perspectives. One has then a chance to view that society from within both liberal and leftist perspectives. At that point then, a lot of mainstream education begins to look like "programming." 

There is a lot that ol' Dill doesn't know about finance and computers and communications and many other things that he doesn't chip in on. But he's made a point of listening to other's perspectives--including yours. 

A while back we were discussing the Durham Report. Speaking as Dill rather than for him, I actually read the whole thing, and what I could of the heavily redacted IGA report. Part of my motivation for doing what was that some people were making claims about the Report I knew could not be true, and they were following what their trusted right wing sources said about it instead of reading the report themselves.

I used quotations from the Durham Report to challenge what they were saying. And in using evidence like that, I was also opening up my argument to cross examination and fact-checking by others. If I were wrong, people could demonstrate it. Would that be an example of me being a know-it-all? You couldn't view my opponents as not knowing what they are talking about and "programmed" by right wing views? Same thing happened a couple years back when the Barr disinformed us about the Mueller Report. I read it and argued with people who trusted Barr over the actual report. Assuming that I am quoting these reports accurately and my opponents can't refute my points, you don't see such contribution to discussion as valuable or useful? Accuracy and correct representation of reports are secondary to something else? Or is "accuracy" more about having the right beliefs and feelings? 

I ask because if I take the time to learn about a subject and use that knowledge in political discussion then I am curious as to what effect it has. If I understand you, you think my posts are not to inform or to refute disinformation but to "come off as way smarter." Like I don't really care if people have an accurate summary of what CRT is really about and whether the Right has embarked on a very successful disinformation campaign about it. The important thing is not that people understand how that manipulation leads to unjust policy results, but that I "impress folks"? 

Also, I spend a lot of time learning what the "other side" says and thinks about political issues. When I do that, I find that they often have not read primary texts like the abovementioned, and also that they self-censure news and commentary from the other side because it is "fake." They allow their selected authorities, from Rush limbaugh to Hannity to Trump, explain events for them. So I am wondering why I should be described as "programmed" by "propaganda" and not the other way around?  

How do we decide whether someone else has been "programmed" by "propaganda"? If it is because they disagree with us, and we don't want to understand their views, why doesn't that make us the "programmed" ones.