Right-Wing Xenophobia

[glenntinnyc]

Everything's fair in love and politics. But what a person says, and the way he says it, can give you a pretty good idea of his perspective.

Case in point: In the Pete Seeger thread, after making one disagreeable comparison between our House of Representatives and British Parliament, I’m told,

“im sure you could get a visa to move there...”

I don’t dispute it. I could easily get a visa and move to Britain. But one has to ask what would prompt that particular suggestion to my comparison. What was, is, Glenn’s perspective? Where is he coming from? So I make that inquiry, in my own snarky way, and I get



“if the British Parliament is more your style I don't see why you wouldn't want to go there. I get just as frustrated with our politics as anyone else does, but its just tiring to listen to all the crap about how this place does it better or that place does it better etc etc. Either run for office and try and effect some change or move to where it's better.”

I don’t see how from one comparison one could possibly conclude that Parliament is more my style, but the sentence begins with an “if” so I give Glenn a break. But the last sentence in the quote above is not a hypothetical. It’s delivered in the imperative. But I ignore that and merely point out that one doesn’t have to run for office to effect change. One can exercise the First Amendment and speak one’s mind. So Glenn replies

“...feel free to stand on your soap box and shout out your ideas”

I take this to be delivered as a performative in the Austinian sense (e.g. when you say “I promise...” you are not only speaking but promising; that particular speech act is performative). That it is so delivered is consistent with Glenn’s imperial perspective. He delivers ultimatums and grants freedoms, though he is so blind to his own presentation of himself he doesn’t get when I reply, “Thank you, but I don’t require your consent.”

But after some more scuffling around he finally tosses in

“I am also in a position to tell some to shut up, also covered above, and once again they can choose to or not.”

which I take to be a reluctant sort of concession. He still insists he can tell me to shut up, but he now moderates that by saying I can choose not to. He likes the high and mighty sound of the imperative, “Shut up!” But now he admits it has no performative value. Glenn is in no position to invite someone to leave the country, nor is he in a position to grant or deny rights of speech. He can mouth the words, but he has no authority to invoke the performative function of those speech acts.

My view is that all of this is perfectly fine as discussions go on the internet and on HA in particular. I haven't and am not now crying foul. Any body has the right to express the words “Shut up,” but nobody other than the monitors are in a position to invoke the performative function of those words and deliver the command, “Shut up.”

So you don't see how from one comparison a conclusion can be made yet from my one statement you were able to draw your own conclusion? Curious how that works for you but not for others. You were quick to invoke your right to speech, yet once again you have issue when someone does the same thing. Still curious about how that works. That covers the first 2 parts, as to the method in which I speak/spoke, there is nothing in it which implies performative speech. LOL as to you taking something as a concession. For whatever reason you still seem to have zero grasp of the concept of free speech which you so quickly chose to invoke in defense of your statements, please enlighten me as to where i initially told you to shut up? A question was asked and I answered . Conceptually it is called shit or get off the pot although I can see why you may be unfamiliar with it's basic tenants as you have proven to be a tight ass with your constant droning about free speech , and now the addition of how my comments are performative,. I choose however to subscribe to Grice's theory of speech and the 4 maxims. A) Quality- I have been quite truthful and honest. B)Quantity- I have given enough information as to be able to state my points,C) Relation- fairly straightforward here as my comments have all pertained to the comments you made.D)Manner, once again fairly simple- my comments have been direct and lucid with no ambiguity. There now we both brought up mid 20th century English Philosophers that we learned about in undergrad. Your sad attempt at looking smart by referencing Austin underscores what you are all about. Funny how you characterize me as the imperial when it's fairly clear how self important and entitled you think you really are. You threw stones and didn't like them coming back at you. You felt entitled to enter a conversation that was not directed at you, and didn't like when my replies offended your fragile sense of self worth. You say you haven't cried foul, but in fact that is all you have done since you started. Here is a bit of performative speech for you. This discussion is closed.

[trish]

So you don't see how from one comparison a conclusion can be made yet from my one statement you were able to draw your own conclusion? Curious how that works for you but not for others. You were quick to invoke your right to speech, yet once again you have issue when someone does the same thing.

I spoke in declarative and interrogatives. You spoke in imperatives and performatives. Your issue was not with the content of my speech but that I was speaking. Why else suggest I leave the country? Why else complain about the ceaseless yammer of liberal elites? I took issue with the content of your posts. If you look at post #43 of the Seeger thread in which I first mentioned the First Amendment you will find that I did not invoke it, nor did I accuse you of stepping on my rights (after all, the First Amendment doesn't apply to a moderated forum) rather I pointed out that the Amendment provides alternative ways to effect change.

...as to the method in which I speak/spoke, there is nothing in it which implies performative speech.

Except for the very form and content of "...feel free to stand on your soap box and shout out your ideas."

LOL as to you taking something as a concession. For whatever reason you still seem to have zero grasp of the concept of free speech which you so quickly chose to invoke in defense of your statements

Wrong again. See above. I never invoked the First Amendment in our discussion. You do have trouble with performatives don't you? I never accused you of infringing my right to speak. That's all in your head. You're the one constantly droning on about free speech. Go back and read the thread. I essentially said there were First Amendment solutions to effecting change.

You felt entitled to enter a conversation...

You don't think I was entitled to enter your conversation. That says it all.

[martin48]

.......

[Prospero]

Free speech... ahem. "This discussion is closed." Phew... well i hope so for this particular individual while trying to make serious points has constant recourse to abuse of those he is in disagreement with. Not the way to behave....

[glenntinnyc]

I spoke in declarative and interrogatives. You spoke in imperatives and performatives. Your issue was not with the content of my speech but that I was speaking. Why else suggest I leave the country? Why else complain about the ceaseless yammer of liberal elites? I took issue with the content of your posts. If you look at post #43 of the Seeger thread in which I first mentioned the First Amendment you will find that I did not invoke it, nor did I accuse you of stepping on my rights (after all, the First Amendment doesn't apply to a moderated forum) rather I pointed out that the Amendment provides alternative ways to effect change.

Except for the very form and content of "...feel free to stand on your soap box and shout out your ideas."

Wrong again. See above. I never invoked the First Amendment in our discussion. You do have trouble with performatives don't you? I never accused you of infringing my right to speak. That's all in your head. You're the one constantly droning on about free speech. Go back and read the thread. I essentially said there were First Amendment solutions to effecting change.

You don't think I was entitled to enter your conversation. That says it all.

Your are comical at best, By saying you do not need my permission to speak directly implies your freedom to speak which is categorically a first amendment reference, it also clearly implies that you felt I was trying to deny your right to speak which contradicts the statement you made about you not feeling i tried to infringe on your rights, Its all in your head You think you were entiltled does say it all, I made no reference to you, did not address you, yet you commented about a remark a made to someone else directly to me, so yes you felt entitled to enter a conversation you were not a part of, that you can't see that is also comical. Here is some declarative screech, I think you are ridiculous. Here is some interrogative speech. Why don't you realize you come across as whiny and self absorbed and have a tendency to contradict yourself.

[glenntinnyc]

.......

Fuck off

[glenntinnyc]

Free speech... ahem. "This discussion is closed." Phew... well i hope so for this particular individual while trying to make serious points has constant recourse to abuse of those he is in disagreement with. Not the way to behave....

Guess I felt compelled to reply. First and foremost I don't think you know what the definition of abusive actually is. I could as said before give a rats ass if people disagree with me, however I do care when people talk smack, try and come off as victims, make snarky comments then stand behind the it was a joke comment, and in general act indignant when they get called out. Poor behavior begets poor behavior, and while I did not start the mud slinging and name calling, I am happy to oblige if someone cares to go down that path so if you feel compelled to chastise me then perhaps you should look in the mirror and take your own advise about how not to behave.

[thombergeron]

Your are comical at best, By saying you do not need my permission to speak directly implies your freedom to speak which is categorically a first amendment reference, it also clearly implies that you felt I was trying to deny your right to speak which contradicts the statement you made about you not feeling i tried to infringe on your rights, Its all in your head You think you were entiltled does say it all, I made no reference to you, did not address you, yet you commented about a remark a made to someone else directly to me, so yes you felt entitled to enter a conversation you were not a part of, that you can't see that is also comical. Here is some declarative screech, I think you are ridiculous. Here is some interrogative speech. Why don't you realize you come across as whiny and self absorbed and have a tendency to contradict yourself.

Why are right-wingers so persistently flummoxed by the First Amendment? The First Amendment has no relevance at all to a conversation between private individuals in a private forum. It is not legally possible for either party in this conversation to infringe upon the other party's "rights."

[trish]

Fuck off

Yeah martin, fuck off... unless, of course, you don't want too. Glenn doesn't really mean "fuck off", he means .... what is it you mean again, Glenn? Feel free to have the last word, or not.

[broncofan]

Read Thombergeron's post Glenn. As a primer to the 1st amendment, only the government is precluded from regulating speech. In fact, the entire bill of rights applies to the federal government, and to the states through the 14th amendment (except for the right to indictment for capital and infamous crimes and the prohibition against excessive bail contained in the eighth amendment). The bill of rights was not meant to proscribe individual conduct, but rather ensure individual rights against encroachment by the government.

I think Republicans win elections against us because too many of us are as inept at understanding our founding document as they are.