THE GREAT DEBATE 11/18/07
(32 downloads)Download this episode (58 min)
WARNING: This episode contains topics, discussions, and language that may be considered offensive by some. The rest of you are probably not whiny babies, so you’ll be ok.The whole gang is back for this all out insult-fest. Our beer this week pleases three out of four, with Doug being the lone hold-out. Doug tells a story, which leads to a mini-debate on the war and those that protest it.
What is it to be offended in America? The “PCC” (Politically Correct Commission) is out there, but who are they, how do they choose what is offensive, and what do they want? Karli tells us that she doesn’t understand “being offended”…so Doug and Nate try their best to “educate” her on this difficult subject.
This Day in History is actually ok. Lots of great things happened. Really. Also AJ, in his most-quiet performance, waits until the almost end of the show to tell both a “fun” story and a very very very bad joke.
15 Comments:
Doug - isn't your daughter the definition of supporting the troops without supporting the war? These guys who enlisted in the military hoping they would not have to go to war are scam artists? And they are getting what they deserve? Wow! That's like supporting the war without supporting the troops. And do you really not see the difference between Clinton sending a few missiles into Iraq and a four and a half year occupation with no end in sight? Do you honestly think that the people who are protesting are just pissed at Bush and unaffected by the fact that almost 4000 American kids have been killed over a war based on a series of lies? Or that tens of thousands more Iraqis have been killed? Jesus Christ, man! And to think that all of this started over some thin mints.
I love the idea of four white midwesterners complaining about political correctness. Like you would really like the opportunity to say more offensive and racist things but feel unfairly constrained by the PCC. Someone calling you a "cracker" is giggle-worthy until you are in a position of weakness - see how you feel when you are surrounded by another race. As a white person myself, I can tell you that one of the most offensive things I have been called is "racist." And, having called Doug a racist before, I would assume that it offended him, too. Being offendsive is about power, and political correctness is about protecting the powerless. The word "nigger," like the words "cunt" or "faggot," takes the air out of the room because it is a verbal slap in the face without parallel. White people don't get to redefine the word "nigger." You should be thankful that your audience is limited to a bunch of midwestern white people, because this is truly shocking. Call me a whiny baby if you want, but the four of you have no idea what the hell you are talking about with this. You even make the word "bling" sound racist! Political correctness is about being aware that words can be vile and that, when used by those in power against those not in power, words can be offensive and worse.
I think your next episode should be about the Holocaust and how, during times of war, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. And, if you can believe it, I wrote that before the guard tower joke. Holy shit, you actually have a discussion about the Holocaust!! I am amazing!
A "giant plethora?"
I have decided to take you up on your opportunity to invite listeners. I think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would help expand your audience :)
Can I order some Trefoils?
Todd-
I agree it was a little unfair to have four midwestern white people bred from upper-middle lcass home talk about political correctness and how it unfairly impacts us. That may not have been the best way to approach it. I think waht was meant to be conveyed was our fear that PC would eventually constrain us to the point that we could no longer celebrate the differences among us. We are different and there is no sense in suggesting that we are all the same. How we tangented to were we did go with the conversation I have no idea and I sincerly apologize to anyone that was offended by our conversation, it was not our intention.
As far as Doug's little tantrum in the beginning, I found that it's a lot easier to just let him go off sometimes when he's had a bad day, then give him a warm glass of milk and read him a story. He seems to calm down after that. Maybe if people are lucky we'll post pictures of me tucking Doug into bed.
Thanks for listening.
So, I was wondering if I could get a definition of what a pinko commie is...I really think I might be one, if it is someone who disagrees with the war and with the institution of scouts.
Wow do I disagree with you on the war. First of all, I don't think "most" people in the military signed up after 9/11 to defend their country. I think *some* did. And some are career military who were in it before the war started. And many are reservists, and many more are kids without many options in their lives who are joining the military as a last resort.
Now, speaking as someone who currently has a brother-in-law in Iraq, who had another brother-in-law in Iraq, and just had a very interesting conversation with a career navy cousin-in-law at the last family party, here's how you support the troops without supporting the war: you support them as people, not as mindless war-machine automaton robots sent over there to do the President's bidding. You support John Anderson, age 40, father of Cooper, husband of Tanya, who likes running and traveling. You support them so much that you want to see them alive and in one piece rather than blown to bits to protect someone else's oilfield and Halliburton's bottom line. You realize that when the war ends, they can come home and be the people they are - the people they WANT to be, so you support the end of the war. You really think the guys over there who are on their second and third tours want the war to drag on so they can go another round or two? Or do you think they'd rather be home with their families. Jesus Christ, indeed.
Thank-you, well said. Good luck to you and yours, Erika.
I do agree that Carlos Mencia is not funny, however. Big time.
Potential debate topic: as caucus/primary season approaches, debating the virtues of your candidate of choice? (Go Barack!!)
Another debate topic: washcloths and Filet O' Fish sandwiches are for old people. True or false (I say true).
You should delete this podcast before it ends up in the wrong hands. Seriously.
I'm sorry. I can't take you seriously if you don't leave your name.
Maryland and Historian,
Ok, I should really be doing more on my Thanksgiving, but what the hell. TK, we talked on the phone the other day and you suggested that Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq. While I am not willing to hang the whole argument of deposing a brutal dictator on "16" infamous words, I do want to try and keep myself intellectually honest. I have searched for about 3 hours trying to find credible, documented examples of Bush's lies. You will, I suppose have to assume that I am truly doing this in good faith. I didn't like when Clinton lied to me, and I wouldn't like it (and would admit it) if I found Bush lying to me. I don't like liars.
I also don't like hysterical tirades, which is pretty much all I found in terms of condemning Bush and his "lies".
What I found in support of Bush was actually pretty interesting...
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page271.asp
This is the British Government's homepage I guess. And this specific site is their dossier on Iraq's WMD's and it's overall shady behavior.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html
I am paraphrasing, but this article argues that though documentation may have been forged about the yellow-cake uranium from Niger, Bush didn't lie, and there still seemed to be some pretty good reasons (beyond the fact that he was a jerk) to take out Saddam's regime (For proof that he was a jerk, do a search at the British Gov site on how Saddam treated his own people.)
http://www.bbhq.com/bushlied.htm
This guy makes some interesting observations and a rather bold challenge at the end of the page. I suppose I am kind of asking the same thing. Send me some documented eveidence that Bush lied to get us into Iraq, please.
Further, please understand that I think brutal dictators (with torture rooms and everything), especially ones that are wont to do crazy things like set oil fields on fire, ARE a threat to American interests. I am willing to accept the idea that we were misled into a war, but I think there were lots of other reasons to go AND being misled four years ago doesn't change where we are TODAY, so I cannot accept any argument that simply pushes for immedaite withdrawl.
Doug
Historian,
I just wanted to say a few things. Your relatives are wonderful human beings. I want them to come home in one piece. And you know how I want them to do that?...I want them to kill every Al Queda SOB that even looks at them funny. I want them to blow things ups and kill as many of the enemy as possbile. They volunteered to do this awful job that most of us couldn't stomach doing and I truly and sincerely applaud them for doing so. I mean, I suppose you know better than I, but isn't volunteering for service in the millitary the person they WANT to be?
Also, I think your perception of our military being stocked by men and women who have no other option betrays a pretty anti-millitary stand. I don't think the millitary looks the way John "The Veitnam Veteran" Kerry painted it a few years ago. I mean, if everything is as you paint it, wouldn't it be kind of silly for these "kids" to try and escape from their horrible situations by signing up to go into a warzone?
"Things are so bad here that I would rather be blown up and shot at."
And as a final question, if people didn't sign up to defend their country, what the hell DID they sign up for? The snazzy BDU's?
Doug - I'm not sure I have the energy for the great debate. i zoomed through all the comments for the previous weeks' topics. and i did listen to this most current audio on the war and being PC.
First, I really like the format's potential. By more or less limiting things to one main topic per week, it gives the non-audio players a chance to volley some things for the next several days. (This is the blog format's biggest downfall generally as most hyperbloggers feel compelled by Blogstor, the sinister and left handed ethereal blogmonster who invades their dreams each night threatening them with torment if they fail to start six new topics per day. Therefore by the following day, any real discussion on anything prior is long over, unresolved, and largely unhelpful to anyone who was paying any attention and exerting any (usually thusly wasted) effort as both breadth and depth are simply not options, as its time to move on to the next five or six topics)
Second, I like that people not on the audio want to play too.
But.
The reason I'm not sure I have the energy to come out and play is because I can't be sure this really will amount to much more than one more blog with all the above mentioned trappings, despite the fact that more time is given to discuss. Most people simply won't read long posts. Yet, most people simply won't learn much without mentally engaging long posts, self included.
Its a problem, alright.
Otherwise its still just smart people throwing around soundbites.
And then everybody wonders aloud to themselves, usually in an English, though perhaps sometimes Scottish accent, "I simply can not understand why Todd in Maryland does not agree with me about this or that. He is plainly smarter than I am, so what is this manner of rubbish that prevents him from grasping that which is most immediately and indubitably apparent?" (Then we extinguish our pipe, take off our velvet smoking jacket, lift the needle from the record, and pluck half heartedly at our beard while stumbling out of the parlor and towards the nearest room bearing cheese and sausage...at once aware and unaware of what is really going on).
I'm too old and too tired for soundbites about things that probably really matter. I don't need to read his book to know he's right, I've been living it for 10 or 12 years: How the News Makes Us Dumb: The Death of Wisdom in an Information Society
Eventually we can't remember why we are digging our trench anymore, but out of fear of change and the unknown or patheticness of habit we too often decide maybe we should put down our shovel and wave in a backhoe. But why go to such lengths to dig deeper when we've misplaced the map?
In other words, don't let someone *end* a topic's posts stating they're prepared to go 10 rounds defending something which, being the historian they are, I would be prepared to go, say, perhaps 2 or 3 rounds contending they should know better than to try to defend in the first place :) I'll grant the point was we'd evolve past something – suggesting perhaps an irrelevance to any historical perspectives since the product would be something wholly new (and in that sense I suppose water tight on the grounds of definition alone - completely immune from any attack that based itself in, well, anything from the pasts historical, philosophical, scientific, etc). Still...if one were to try to defend such a notion surely they'd have to agree to common, prior ways of talking about things. So one would imagine the notion could ultimately be attacked in such domains or on such grounds as well.
And much more could be said.
. I need to find my sleep – I left it lying in one of the bedrooms someplace...
Wonderer,
Ok, I must admit, you are plenty smarter than I. I had a hard time following you (the plight of madmen and geniuses everywhere). But if your argument was basically saying that people are too lazy to play post-cast, then why should we bow-down to the lowest common denominator. I would encourage your further participation in a dialogue that, may be limited in it's participants, but promises to be poignant in its content.
Look, you're obviously a guy who has something to say. Why not at least use a safe and familiar forum to say it?
Thanks,
Doug
I'll stick around for a couple weeks at least.
Don't sell yourself short. Sometimes the pleonasm is merely used to hide an unhelpful pedanticalness. But these things have about as much to do with actually being "smart" as intelligence has to do with being wise - far, far less than most people think.
Then there's a third category involved - the bookworm. People who may or may not be smart, may or may not be wise, but they've read everything out there and therefore know everything there is to know about everything. I'm a relatively slow reader and get discouraged. But I had professors in college who knew everything there was to know and still lacked wisdom, and may or may not have been intelligent (I think most were probably very intelligent actually)
And yes, sometimes its just fun to throw around big words to encourage others to crack the dictionary.
Dave the Wonderer,
First of all, are you the Dave I know? Do you know what a "dlubert" is?
Second - I'm interested now. How is the argument for a paradigm shift indefensible? And why do you think a paradigm shift is wholly new? It's not, at all - a shift necessarily implies shifting FROM one way of thinking TO another, meaning the starting point is as necessary as the ending point. What do you think history is if not the study of an endlessly evolving chain of paradigm shifts?
Great Debate,
First of all, I just want to put out there that, no matter how wildly I disagree with you (and I do...about everything...wildly...) I still really enjoy your podcast and I applaud you for putting your views out there and encouraging debate and the give and take of ideas. I hope you know that my wild disagreement with you is purely topical and has nothing to do with you as a person, because you, as a person, rock.
Ok, that said, to quote a post of yours: "want them to kill every Al Queda SOB that even looks at them funny. I want them to blow things ups and kill as many of the enemy as possbile." Ok, where to even start with this...why do you think people become terrorists in the first place? Do you think it might have something to do with fear, oppression, feeling threatened, etc.? So how do you think going over there and killing people is going to help? How does this make you any better than a terrorist? What gives you the right to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? Violence does not work. Period. Peace through War? Wasn't that the slogan of 1984? Violence merely begets more violence. And, out of curiosity, how does this bloodthirsty attitude square with your Christian faith, especially the "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and "forgive seventy times seven" parts? There seems to be a broad cultural trend of religious folks who endorse killing...most puzzling. Those people in the Middle East are not "terrorists" or "Al Quaida SOBs," any more than we are American infidels. They are living, breathing, feeling, bleeding people who have the same wants, needs, and emotions as anybody else. They don't deserve to die any more than you or I do.