tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post2792510866611581131..comments2023-12-31T03:18:37.403-06:00Comments on "E pur si muove!": The Climate of Hate Theory ExplainedLester Hunthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-44647568154875879102023-06-09T21:13:20.809-05:002023-06-09T21:13:20.809-05:00Thiis was lovely to readThiis was lovely to readSmoothie Recipeshttps://www.smoothiefoodie.com/smoothies/apricot_smoothie_5399575272.shtmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-58097946336764108302011-11-07T21:16:59.332-06:002011-11-07T21:16:59.332-06:00I think these are important questions. Something t...I think these are important questions. Something tells me that your explanation isn't quite right, or that there is a deeper one. I'm not sure you're right about the absence of fear, but possibly. I'm not sure. I need to think about this some more. I suspect that something about all this is rooted (1) in Frankfurt School assumptions about Nazism, and (2) perceptions of Jim Crow. But I'm not clear yet. I recall reading in the biography of Wilhelm Reich many years ago that Reich understood "freedom of speech" as the right to tell the truth, which is readily ascertainable by rational means, and that there was no related right to say things that are *wrong*, or irrational, or rooted in emotion, etc.R. Kevin Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574748611199504184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-8745585372430263732011-01-24T09:49:37.234-06:002011-01-24T09:49:37.234-06:00It seems to me those can't be the right questi...It seems to me those can't be the right questions, for at least two reasons:<br /><br />1. They are phrased in a question-beggingly biased way. I'm not sure what "mainstreamed" rhetoric you have in mind, but I suspect strongly I would regard much of it as not "paranoid" at all, but as rationally angry.<br /><br />2. Once they are cleaned of such emotive language, both questions are easy to answer, and the answer in both cases is "yes." In particular, of course this discourse has effects. It already has. The November election result was an effect, a fairly big one. The question is whether a wide array of rhetoric (including gun metaphors) will have certain specific effects (violent acts).<br /><br />The "gun sight" image is not a visual synechdoche. That's the part/whole one. Did you mean metonymy?Lester Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14746157071827337723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22657443.post-13350866662700545602011-01-24T09:11:54.126-06:002011-01-24T09:11:54.126-06:00Palin's "targeted" districts is a sy...Palin's "targeted" districts is a synecdoche (though I would say a not very good one) of what is considered to be mainstream paranoia on the right, so treating it as if it's supposed to be "the cause" of Loughner's actions is a bit of a strawman. <br /><br />The real questions as I see them are two: (1) Is the paranoid, insurrectionist rhetoric on the right distinctively mainstream (i.e., of a scale not seen on the left)? And (2) can the mainstreaming of such paranoia be expected (in light of its content and of its scale) to have causal effects?<br /><br />I think the answers are <a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/149470/" rel="nofollow">yes</a> and <a rel="nofollow">yes</a>. But more importantly I think we need to at least get the questions right.Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.com