06-20-2023, 03:49 PM
(06-18-2023, 02:32 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.
(06-20-2023, 03:12 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I'm assuming "lidicus" is referring to me, since you've made similar statements previously.
While I'm sure there are areas I can improve upon and weaknesses I may possess in terms of discourse, I always make a concerted effort to be an honest and respectful interlocutor, even in the most contentious of discussions.
I certainly hope that I'm not portraying an air of arrogance or superiority, because that's certainly never what I intend. I do have certain positions and beliefs that I feel are so justified and warranted that I feel opposition to them defies logical rationale and cognitive consistency. In those cases, however, I can always be swayed or forced to reexamine my stances via a sound argument.
I've always found Dill and Belsnickle to be extremely detailed and thoughtful posters, often going out of their way to provide context and nuance to better explain and support their arguments. They're obviously very well-informed on certain topics and do their research on those where they may lack the same level of knowledge. I feel those things should be applauded and encouraged, not attacked and ridicules. The point should always be better, more substantial dialogue -- wouldn't you agree.
Although I don't have the available free time to interact in this forum regularly, there are posters I always enjoy reading when I'm here such as Pally, Crazydawg, Nately -- whom all have differing, but interesting styles. There are others, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately. Even someone like SSF, who I often disagree with, provides some interesting views and arguments that serve as intriguing topics of discussion.
As it pertains to education and being programmed -- I'm a neuropsychologist by profession. I've spent my entire adult life studying, evaluating and addressing issues of the human brain; behavior, mood, emotions, memory, cognition, etc. Outside of my professional field, I've also spent many decades studying philosophy, religion and the awe-inspiring field of biology. I am utterly fascinated by all of these areas, in which I have friends and colleagues that have served as incredible sources of knowledge and information over the years.
The only programming I have been subjected to is an expansion and variation of knowledge. Should that not be the goal we're all looking to continually pursue? In doing so, you'll discover more about how to think -- which will help you make better and more informed decisions about what to think.
lol see this is exactly what i was talking about. look how long winded an hey look how smart i am both these respnses come off. so many words an not anything meanigful. just you 2 being triggered by me an others pointing out you been programmed by your so called education. no one is going to listen to folks like you cause they dont want to read a hole book worth of useless talk about you all being know it alls. real folks living in the real world dont talk like that and dont like that and act likev you 2. sorry if that comes of mean but maybe you all would be better off talking like real folks. then maybe we would actualy listen to something you say. just some friendly advise,
