Labels

[Magda Hassan]

In life in general one should not ever let others define you. And in the case of these labels as Jan and Charles point out it is used to marginalize and dismiss independent thought by those who seek to control what is permitted. We don't live in a society which encourages or respects a wide variety of opinion. And not enough people are educated to understand the function of the Superstructure and how it reflects the ideology of the dominant class. And the ridiculous 'impartiality' of the controlled media as if all ideas are equal. The only ideas that will ever get a hearing are those that suit tptb. All else is a threat and dismissed. The DPF has never been about so called 'free' speech and allowing all and sundry to have a platform here. We are about serious discussion of deep political matters. Things that should have been discussed and known by all and not hidden. We are not about reheating stale nutrient deficient pap from hired talking heads with lobotomies and shills with out moral compasses and mockingbirds. They have the rest of the media to themselves for that crap. I quite like John Judge's term, at least I think it is his, about co-incidence theorists and conspiracy realists.

[Albert Rossi]

In life in general one should not ever let others define you. And in the case of these labels as Jan and Charles point out it is used to marginalize and dismiss independent thought by those who seek to control what is permitted. We don't live in a society which encourages or respects a wide variety of opinion. And not enough people are educated to understand the function of the Superstructure and how it reflects the ideology of the dominant class. And the ridiculous 'impartiality' of the controlled media as if all ideas are equal. The only ideas that will ever get a hearing are those that suit tptb. All else is a threat and dismissed. The DPF has never been about so called 'free' speech and allowing all and sundry to have a platform here. We are about serious discussion of deep political matters. Things that should have been discussed and known by all and not hidden. We are not about reheating stale nutrient deficient pap from hired talking heads with lobotomies and shills with out moral compasses and mockingbirds. They have the rest of the media to themselves for that crap. I quite like John Judge's term, at least I think it is his, about co-incidence theorists and conspiracy realists.

I agree with you, Magda, about not allowing others to define ("reify") you, and that these labels are meant to marginalize and dismiss independent thought (that's what I meant by "framing"). And my comment about censorship was not meant at all to introduce the idea that one should allow defenders of the official story (lie) to have equal time on this site (I am in complete agreement with DPF's policy in that regard).

My concern was simply with those who, perhaps ingenuously but in good faith, come into the forum proudly announcing themselves as "CTs". Now there are some who believe that if you stand up and say, "I'm an assassination buff, and proud of it", you are being defiant. But in my view, you are just playing their game. It is for that reason I was wondering if there was some way we could at least educate those who, consciously or unconsciously, have assimilated this form of discourse from their engagement elsewhere with those you refer to as hired talking heads with lobotomies, shills and mockingbirds (all suffering from the necrosis Rachel Maddow claims characterizes "conspiracy theorists").

[Magda Hassan]

I agree they are playing by other people's rules and rules in which they never have had and never will have any say. Yes, one of the functions of the DPF is to educate. Maybe an introductory sticky about labeling and framing the discourse etc? Maybe we can all work on this?

[Albert Rossi]

Maybe an introductory sticky about labeling and framing the discourse etc? Maybe we can all work on this?

Sure, perhaps pointing to the thread Jan indicated above, along with some articles and books on the manipulation inherent in terms such as "conspiracy theory".

[Jim DiEugenio]

See, when I was on Coast to Coast and they had that flake in front of me who said Madame Nhu plotted to kill JFK, George Noory asked me about all these conspiracy theories, and I promptly replied with:

"I don't deal with theories. I deal with facts. There are over 2000 footnotes in my book."

That is really the way I feel about it.

And I should have added two things:

1. Unlike the WC, the facts I rely on are reliable. I don't use Markham, or Brennan, or Ruth Paine as a witness.

2. My conclusions then flow from credible evidence. Not manipulated BS.

BY the way, if you have not seen this LA Times story about PBS' upcoming Cold Case: JFK in the LA TImes, you should look it up. McBride sent it to me.

The very first sentence is a perfect example of the framing we are talking about. This is it:"Sorry, conspiracy theorists, modern forensic science shows that John F. Kennedy was likely killed by "one guy with a grudge and a gun' said professor John McAdams during a panel for Nova's new Cold Case" JFK on Wednesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Beverly Hills."

LOL!!! Ha ha ha! John McAdams! PBS has now hit rock bottom.

As per the "modern forensic science" I mean this is now the fourth time we have heard this. FIrst there was Posner and his FAA bit. THen there was Dale M and his lying computer simulation. THen there was Gary Mack with his unintentionally hilarious Inside the Target Car. Now we have John McAdams?

But note that sentence structure. It leads with "conspiracy theorists" being wrong. Not with the data or means by which the experiment was done. They know if that was given out teh show would be dead before it started. Like Max Holland's BS with the early bullet which the show's producers knew was bogus before they televised it.

Pity the country that has John McAdams on PBS talking about the JFK case.

BTW, I close Reclaiming Parkland with Newton Minow's great "vast wasteland" speech about TV in 1961. That seemed very appropriate. Now even more.

[Albert Rossi]

Jim, let me recount a little a story. My first year in high school I thought I'd join the debate team because I thought it meant really taking controversial topics apart and defending a point of view on the basis of facts and perhaps competing interpretations of them. I was educated very quickly that this was not scientific or philosophical debate, but it was rather preparing kids to think like lawyers. Which means, leaving out what doesn't help the case, in the best scenario, and distorting and even making up evidence in the worst. And the judges were not concerned with any form of verification. You could stand up and quote from some non-existent study or article, and that would not matter as much as whether you could score points by flustering your opponent. Needless to say, I lasted only a short time on the team, and never returned. It also pretty much colored how I viewed "debates" on the mass media.

I despair of ever winning against these guys. They don't care about facts. And I seriously don't know what it would take to alter the rules of the game. But I do admire those with the persistence to keep going back in the ring.

[Albert Rossi]

The very first sentence is a perfect example of the framing we are talking about. This is it:"Sorry, conspiracy theorists, modern forensic science shows that John F. Kennedy was likely killed by "one guy with a grudge and a gun' said professor John McAdams during a panel for Nova's new Cold Case" JFK on Wednesday at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in Beverly Hills."

This is the other tactic. Take the wind out of the sails by claiming to have the kind of evidentiary support the critics usually muster against the official lie. Here, "modern forensic science". In the case of Mortal Error Redivivus, it's an examination of "all the declassified ARRB documents". Of course, it's insidious, but it's a well-known technique. It p's me off, but it is to be expected. The problem is the public has no way of knowing. Smoke in their eyes. And that's what they depend on. But how do you defeat that?

[Tracy Riddle]

Labels are a form of short-hand; it's what humans do. It makes the world less complicated. The corporate media love it, because it reduces every debate to the level of a football game or episode of American Idol. :cheer:

We could call ourselves "Warren Commission critics" or "assassination researchers" and the other side "Warren Commission supporters," but in the heat of internet battle it's easier to have Team CTer vs. Team LNer. No, I don't like it, but if I were to list all the things homo sapiens do that I don't approve of, this would be a very long post.

Jim, at least they didn't invite David Von Pein. It's going to be a difficult four months. But then it will be over and most Americans will go back to business as usual, and again focus their attention on their favorite celebrities and techno-gadgets.

[Albert Rossi]

We could call ourselves "Warren Commission critics" or "assassination researchers" and the other side "Warren Commission supporters," but in the heat of internet battle it's easier to have Team CTer vs. Team LNer. No, I don't like it, but if I were to list all the things homo sapiens do that I don't approve of, this would be a very long post.

I understand that shorthand is sometimes necessary, and that abstraction (using a group concept to capture common characteristics) in one sense actually underlies thought. But I think Jim gets it right when he notes the rhetorical strategy involved: "sorry, conspiracy theorists" immediately conveys the most important part of the message: disparagement of anyone who would think the opposite; or to borrow from speech act theory, the illocutionary is more significant than what the apparent subject of the sentence is.

Yes, there are many, many things worse. But little concessions can also add up.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Its important because this bas been the meme they have used to reduce the whole argument down to nothing.

And Hanks used it to when he was on TV and said the film would make a lot of conspiracy theorists angry.

Here is a guy who went out and bought Reclaiming History without reading it. On the recommendation of an actor, Bill Paxton.

These are points that need to be elucidated. Because its things like this that have been used by the other side to reduce debate in this country to the level of a circus sideshow.

I am writing about McAdams right now. I am doing a two parter for CTKA. I wish I could be in his office with a camera as he reads it.