Labels

[Albert Rossi]

Hi all. Since I am relatively new here, I would like to ask a question. How do people feel about these acronyms that are used on other forums, such as jfkassassination.alt (which I had the misfortune of finding first back in 2010 when I had just become aware of all the internet activity on JFK): LNs, CTers, etc. If it were up to me, I would discourage their use here. The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing, even if "appropriated" by the group they are meant to designate. My interest in crimes against democracy has nothing to do with belonging to a category, or a "team", like being a Democrat or Republican or rooting for the Yankees or the Red Sox. I find being called a "CTer" nearly as offensive as being called an "assassination buff" (what does such a person do, build model assassinations in the garage?).

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

(what does such a person do, build model assassinations in the garage?).[/QUOTE]

When in Berne...

[Jan Klimkowski]

Hi all. Since I am relatively new here, I would like to ask a question. How do people feel about these acronyms that are used on other forums, such as jfkassassination.alt (which I had the misfortune of finding first back in 2010 when I had just become aware of all the internet activity on JFK): LNs, CTers, etc. If it were up to me, I would discourage their use here. The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing, even if "appropriated" by the group they are meant to designate. My interest in crimes against democracy has nothing to do with belonging to a category, or a "team", like being a Democrat or Republican or rooting for the Yankees or the Red Sox. I find being called a "CTer" nearly as offensive as being called an "assassination buff" (what does such a person do, build model assassinations in the garage?).

I agree with every word.

These frames are usually created by the enemy.

A prime example is the ridiculous "Truther", which is a label deliberately created to discredit those who perform original research into 9/11.

As for "Conspiracy Theory", it's the grandaddy of psyops. See here.

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

Much has been written by Jan, myself, and a broad range of colleagues -- both on DPF and, over the past 20 years, in print and electronic media -- on the deep political origins of operations to perpetuate usage of the terms "conspiracy theorist," "assassination buff," and "conspiracist."

First and foremost, repeated use of the "CT v. LNer" parallel construction reinforces the fallacy that there exists legitimate doubt in relation to the basic nature of the assassination of JFK. Further, it implies that the LN "argument" is in all respects worthy of respect as an honestly posed, logically defensible point of view supported by uncontested evidence.

The offense you take at being labeled a conspiracy theorist is understandable and wholly justified. Such terms are designed to marginalize and demonize members of our community of honorable JFK assassination students and scholars.

In being so targeted, we are in good and noble company. My thoughts turn immediately to those labeled "nigger lovers" from the birth of American Abolitionism, to the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, to this very day.

As I wrote in my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins," we are obliged to define ourselves lest the enemy define us:

"We are the Lakota of AIM. We are the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong of Tet. We are the Palestinians - of Sabra and Shatila. We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters."

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

In noting that, "The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing", you hit the nail squarely on the head.

[Albert Rossi]

Albert,

Much has been written by Jan, myself, and a broad range of colleagues -- both on DPF and, over the past 20 years, in print and electronic media -- on the deep political origins of operations to perpetuate usage of the terms "conspiracy theorist," "assassination buff," and "conspiracist."

First and foremost, repeated use of the "CT v. LNer" parallel construction reinforces the fallacy that there exists legitimate doubt in relation to the basic nature of the assassination of JFK. Further, it implies that the LN "argument" is in all respects worthy of respect as an honestly posed, logically defensible point of view supported by uncontested evidence.

The offense you take at being labeled a conspiracy theorist is understandable and wholly justified. Such terms are designed to marginalize and demonize members of our community of honorable JFK assassination students and scholars.

In being so targeted, we are in good and noble company. My thoughts turn immediately to those labeled "nigger lovers" from the birth of American Abolitionism, to the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, to this very day.

As I wrote in my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins," we are obliged to define ourselves lest the enemy define us:

"We are the Lakota of AIM. We are the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong of Tet. We are the Palestinians - of Sabra and Shatila. We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters."

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

In noting that, "The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing", you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Thank you Charles for confirming this (and reminding me of your essay, which I have indeed read; I have also read "From Truth to Justice: A Road Less Traveled", in Assassination Research 1.1, which conveys the same powerful urgency).

There is indeed demonization involved here, but, as you say, the most insidious part of it is like what the mass media does: neutralizes the position of the mathematician who proves that pi is a transcendental number by inviting somebody on a "balanced panel discussion" to claim that pi is rational.

But beyond that, I do not in general like labels. They reify positions in order to close off thought, let alone discussion. One of my favorite JFK quotations (at least I believe it is attributed to him): "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

[Albert Rossi]

Albert,

Much has been written by Jan, myself, and a broad range of colleagues -- both on DPF and, over the past 20 years, in print and electronic media -- on the deep political origins of operations to perpetuate usage of the terms "conspiracy theorist," "assassination buff," and "conspiracist."

First and foremost, repeated use of the "CT v. LNer" parallel construction reinforces the fallacy that there exists legitimate doubt in relation to the basic nature of the assassination of JFK. Further, it implies that the LN "argument" is in all respects worthy of respect as an honestly posed, logically defensible point of view supported by uncontested evidence.

The offense you take at being labeled a conspiracy theorist is understandable and wholly justified. Such terms are designed to marginalize and demonize members of our community of honorable JFK assassination students and scholars.

In being so targeted, we are in good and noble company. My thoughts turn immediately to those labeled "nigger lovers" from the birth of American Abolitionism, to the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, to this very day.

As I wrote in my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins," we are obliged to define ourselves lest the enemy define us:

"We are the Lakota of AIM. We are the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong of Tet. We are the Palestinians - of Sabra and Shatila. We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters."

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

In noting that, "The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing", you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Thank you Charles for confirming this (and reminding me of your essay, which I have indeed read; I have also read "From Truth to Justice: A Road Less Traveled", in Assassination Research 1.1, which conveys the same powerful urgency).

There is indeed demonization involved here, but, as you say, the most insidious part of it is like what the mass media does: neutralizes the position of the mathematician who proves that pi is a transcendental number by inviting somebody on a "balanced panel discussion" to claim that pi is rational.

But beyond that, I do not in general like labels. They reify positions in order to close off thought, let alone discussion. One of my favorite JFK quotations (at least I believe it is attributed to him): "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

I guess what I was asking, too, was, short of practicing censorship, would it not be worthwhile to tell newcomers to DPF of this view, so that they will not transfer here automatically that usage practiced on other forums?

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

Much has been written by Jan, myself, and a broad range of colleagues -- both on DPF and, over the past 20 years, in print and electronic media -- on the deep political origins of operations to perpetuate usage of the terms "conspiracy theorist," "assassination buff," and "conspiracist."

First and foremost, repeated use of the "CT v. LNer" parallel construction reinforces the fallacy that there exists legitimate doubt in relation to the basic nature of the assassination of JFK. Further, it implies that the LN "argument" is in all respects worthy of respect as an honestly posed, logically defensible point of view supported by uncontested evidence.

The offense you take at being labeled a conspiracy theorist is understandable and wholly justified. Such terms are designed to marginalize and demonize members of our community of honorable JFK assassination students and scholars.

In being so targeted, we are in good and noble company. My thoughts turn immediately to those labeled "nigger lovers" from the birth of American Abolitionism, to the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, to this very day.

As I wrote in my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins," we are obliged to define ourselves lest the enemy define us:

"We are the Lakota of AIM. We are the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong of Tet. We are the Palestinians - of Sabra and Shatila. We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters."

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

In noting that, "The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing", you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Thank you Charles for confirming this (and reminding me of your essay, which I have indeed read; I have also read "From Truth to Justice: A Road Less Traveled", in Assassination Research 1.1, which conveys the same powerful urgency).

There is indeed demonization involved here, but, as you say, the most insidious part of it is like what the mass media does: neutralizes the position of the mathematician who proves that pi is a transcendental number by inviting somebody on a "balanced panel discussion" to claim that pi is rational.

But beyond that, I do not in general like labels. They reify positions in order to close off thought, let alone discussion. One of my favorite JFK quotations (at least I believe it is attributed to him): "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

I guess what I was asking, too, was, short of practicing censorship, would it not be worthwhile to tell newcomers to DPF of this view, so that they will not transfer here automatically that usage practiced on other forums?

Interesting.

Perhaps we could create and pin a Tutorial thread in which newcomers could review this and similar issues.

As for the practice of censorship: It may be argued that the refusal of DPF owners to publish defenses of the Warren Commission's findings constitutes a form thereof.

However, we are under no obligations whatsoever to support the spread of lies, disinformation, misinformation, or other forms of enemy propaganda. For this is war.

After all, I can't imagine the NYT publishing press releases from Al Qaeda (even if Al Qaeda existed).

Then again ...

Okay ... bad analogy.

[Jim DiEugenio]

What this framing does is dodge the question..

Which is this: It is the other side that is full of theories.

The main one is the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Then there is: How did Oswald traverse 9 blocks in six minutes?

Then there is: How does an exit wound leave a smaller hole than an entrance wound?

Then there is: How did Oswald fly down those stairs without Adams or Styles seeing him?

Then there is: What happened to the hole in the back of Kennedy's skull?

Then there is: How could Oswald fire three shots and get two direct hits in six seconds when in fact, he was a poor shot?

It goes on and on. And what the CT label does is dispose of all that.

The problem is not us, its the evidence that the other side has to distort or lie about. Examples abound like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Gus Russo, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather etc.

BY the way, the new culprit is PBS. If you can comprehend it they have a show coming up called "Cold Case: JFK" in which they are going to, for the zilionth time, try to show the Single Bullet Fantasy is possible. I mean, really, first Posner, then Dale Myers, now--drum roll please--JOHN FRIGGIN' MCADAMS!

That was not a typo. He was one of the guys touting this thing for Nova on the publicity bus.

PBS has gone so downhill of late. I mean it started during the Reagan years. It got worse and worse during the two Bushes. And it did not get better during the pseudo Dems, Clinton/Obama. Bruce Ramer, a Republican entertainment lawyer served on the CPB for a long time. So now, PBS gives us the demented, lying, pathological Marquette professor.

Incredible.

[Albert Rossi]

PBS has gone so downhill of late. I mean it started during the Reagan years. It got worse and worse during the two Bushes. And it did not get better during the pseudo Dems, Clinton/Obama. Bruce Ramer, a Republican entertainment lawyer served on the CPB for a long time. So now, PBS gives us the demented, lying, pathological Marquette professor.
Incredible.

It seems to me that this is in part a consequence of the fact that since the period you mention (the 80s), the NPR and PBS budgets have been under constant attack in Congress. I don't know for a fact that this is the result of an attempt to "pacify" their opponents, but it sure looks like it.

[Charles Drago]

What this framing does is dodge the question..

I'm not sure I can agree with you -- at least until you share your understanding of "the frame" and "framing."

Thanks,

Charles