Reply With Quote
To be fair, you don't limit your esoteric use of language to sarcastic posts alone.
I think JFK would be considered a conservative these days. (Teddy rolls in grave)
To be fair, you don't limit your esoteric use of language to sarcastic posts alone.
And I never said that progress was occurring in all areas. Given my posting in this forum, I don't see how anyone could say I actually thought that. Also, I specifically stated what areas I think America has backslid in earlier in this thread.
But my comments weren't particularly snarky. Perhaps that's the miscommunication. You said:
And I merely pointed out that our society isn't necessary less civil than before. Then MB and I got into a side discussion about the echo chamber effect, which I think is poorly laid out.I don't see our barbarous, semi-literate yeomanry reinventing conviviality right away, but maybe it's not too much to hope that "civil society" will not be completely obliterated.
On the whole, our argument as I knew it was about civility, and whether society was more or less civil nowadays than yesteryear.
I think that's quite the backhanded version of open hopefulness. Kinda like saying to coworker, "I have hopes that you won't completely this project up."
To me, a comment that hopes our way of life won't be totally obliterated by current society reeks of concern trolling. But again, I'm probably more optimistic than most.
MB scoffed at the idea that America could not always be making progress, seeming to imply that if one claimed progress in an area it was only due to some American mindset, and not to a measurable set of metrics.
Esoteric? Standards must be slipping.
I already agreed that literacy rates were slipping.
You're the wordsmith around here WH, not me. What's a term/word for using more advanced words than the average person would use? Last time I checked, "yeomanry" wasn't in general usage, and neither is "conviviality".
Ostentatious, perhaps? Grandiose? Extravagant?
Fair enough.
The term "civil society" must have thrown you.And I merely pointed out that our society isn't necessary less civil than before. Then MB and I got into a side discussion about the echo chamber effect, which I think is poorly laid out.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Civil_society
That's where you went wrong.
To me, it is a realistic and appropriately hedged hope. I don't take what we got for granted.
MB knew what I meant. So did you.I already agreed that literacy rates were slipping.
You're the wordsmith around here WH, not me. What's a term/word for using more advanced words than the average person would use? Last time I checked, "yeomanry" wasn't in general usage, and neither is "conviviality".
Ostentatious, perhaps? Grandiose? Extravagant?
Would it please you better if I dumbed it down for those not participating in this conversation?
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-06-2010 at 03:18 PM.
I'll gloss a damn word if I think it's too far off the beaten path. Yeoman and convivial hardly strike me as ostentatious, grandiose or extravagant, and even if they are, their exotic glamour is totally pierced by using a dictionary.
Eh, I understood the words, not the sarcastic/mocking/over-the-top intent.
Perhaps. I thought I understood by your comment that you implied that "civil society" was actually more civil (as evidenced by your use of the term "barbarous" in juxtaposition with it.)
From the definition of "civil society" provided, the term seems to encompass so many different aspects as to be near-useless. It's pretty much "society minus government en ies". The definition of society, to me, includes things like churches, professional organizations, and other social clubs.
Fair enough. My glasses are slightly more rose-tinted, but we all come from different perspectives. (With a slight note: one can be grateful without expecting something to end)
Have you read either book?Liberal Fascism/American Taliban
(private)
I've read the reviews. You don't actually expect me to read book-length treatments by Goldberg and Moulitsas, do you?
(shudders)
That's a big problem. The definition of the term now includes NGOs, which are pretty much the exact opposite of what MB (I take it) was referring to.
More or less, that's the standard meaning of the term "civil society."
Sure. One can acknowledge the destructive tendencies of mass culture and still be hopeful.
(echoes of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)
Esoteric much?
Gemeinhardt? WTF do flutes have to do with anything?
It's directly pertinent, you pompous ass.Esoteric much?
C'mon, man. The nomenclature at issue comes from sociology.
What, I can't make reference to actual sociology, when we're talking about sociological terms? That makes me an elitist or something? Was that too recondite?
To be honest, I'm not familiar with the term. All my schooling on sociological topics is self-taught, through books and the net. But the introduction of new terms is how I tend to learn, so by all means, be an elitist.It's directly pertinent, you pompous ass.
C'mon, man. The nomenclature at issue comes from sociology.
What, I can't make reference to actual sociology, when we're talking about sociological terms? That makes me an elitist or something? Was that too recondite?
Why take offense at being elite, WH23? I assume you worked hard for the knowledge you have, why discount or downplay it?
Just read the Wiki entry on it... interesting stuff, althought the boundaries don't seem very clear.
For instance, my participation in the military. One could call it Gemeinshcaft, as I deploy to countries, sometimes in spite of the wishes of my family, and there are a set of shared mores. Defending one's country is probably a point in this category as well.
Of course, the Gesellschaft interpretation is obvious, as it is a job and if the terms weren't somewhat advantageous to me, I would get out.
I'm sure most jobs are some of column A, and some of column B.
I know its trendy to try to be even handed and hate on Markos but he's actually a very smart individual with a ton of good points. I've never heard of the other person so I can't speak for him.
What did the reviews that you read of American Taliban say?
Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is a caracature. It might be politically useful as such, but it's still a caracature.
"Reducing conservatism to fundy wingnuttism is "
... accurate since "true" conservatives (list the ones in Congress for us), and I doubt they were ever anything but front-men for the corps and capitalists, have been overwhelmed, overpowered, and silenced by the fringe, radical wingnuts.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize dusting off some off-the-rack German sociology qualified me for an elite upgrade.Why take offense at being elite, WH23? I assume you worked hard for the knowledge you have, why discount or downplay it?
It didn't occur to me to boast. Anyone else who was awake in class, skimmed the material or happened to be curious all on his own, could've done as much. Offhand allusions are easy.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-07-2010 at 06:58 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
