Political bias and squabbling

[ericbarbour]

Edit: Although there was that book by TJ Coles, which I picked up when I saw a thread about it here (I think it was you that recommended it). I've not read it yet but it looked good and I wanted to support the author. Incidentally, does he make any similar points?

I'm not going to summarize it for you. He self-published which is why it was totally ignored. So help him out and buy a few copies.

[Archer]

Edit: Although there was that book by TJ Coles, which I picked up when I saw a thread about it here (I think it was you that recommended it). I've not read it yet but it looked good and I wanted to support the author. Incidentally, does he make any similar points?

I'm not going to summarize it for you. He self-published which is why it was totally ignored. So help him out and buy a few copies.

That's fine, I was going to read it anyway. I bought one copy but I'm on a shoestring budget here. Thin shoestrings.

[Archer]

[...]
Ultimately though, one has to focus on breaking down the political dialect itself, which I assume he does not do since the word "liberal" is in the very title (I wonder if the publisher demanded that). The language is what makes it all work and the most potent critique would be one that undermines the media's langue de bois. That's the foundation; if you kick that out from under all the crap piled atop it you'd be doing very well indeed.

I'll add a few more comments along these lines. They're not very sharp so forgive me if I'm stating the obvious and for thinking aloud before I actually know what I'm trying to say.

This is a problem I've been considering for some time. There is some prior work, e.g. by Orwell and a few others. He does a good job of characterizing this sort of wooden language and I've found it very helpful in understanding the problem, yet somewhat less so for combating it. For the latter task a generalized characterization of these rhetorical tactics probably isn't strictly necessary, contrary to my earlier, vague assumptions. False rhetoric and bad arguments can probably always be refuted in a straightforward manner. "How do I convince others that this is false?" By making a counterargument, obviously. One need not feel overwhelmed by rhetoric that piles falsehood upon falsehood, nonsense upon nonsense - these are weakpoints. They make one's job easier, not harder.

[Archer]

One thing I'd also like to mention is Wikipedia's tendency to use unfalsifiable accusations when it sets out to block or otherwise reprimand someone for political contributions that conflict with the propaganda du jour. Typically, one is accused of wanting to "right great wrongs" (as if that's even a bad thing), of trolling, or of some other sin. The common denominator is that these accusations are often statements about the user's intent and purpose. When convenient, the discussion is always shifted away from what the editor has actually written and whether or not it is true and refocused upon the editor themselves. I'll include this if I do a larger writeup.