Patrick, I can see why you’d be bothered by the Hitler Argument or Hitler Analogy. I’ll point you to Godwin’s Law. In effect, you’re proving your own point. Well done!

I suppose I have a lot to address here, so bear with me…

In regards to your analogy concerning Osama Bin Laden:

My purpose was to simply disagree with your method, not necessarily your point (which you alluded to in one of your earlier posts.) I offered an alternative method to asserting your point, which was to use “accessibility” as the foundation, rather than the all too often used “Hitler argument.”

If I may elaborate on the Hitler argument for a bit:

This is a truly troubling paradigm that exists with in the discourse of the modern day. In an attempt to really solidify one’s point, there seems to be a desire to use the most concrete example of evil that is socially known. For the last eight years, the battle cry from the extreme left has been to compare Bush to Hitler, or just to simply compare him to the Nazis. To use the term of this particular thread, this argument is first and foremost, “intellectual lazy.” Its comparing two different times in history, it compares two men that are not comparable, it compares two systems that are not comparable, and it serves to undermine the true evil that existed in Nazi Germany.

Bush is not the only victim of the “Hitler Analogy.” Many conservatives use Stalin as their scapegoat for any liberal who is a little too left leaning for their liking. In fact the right has been so good with creating a monster out of communism, that just the word itself is a curse word. Earlier in this thread, Duli was expressing his concern that Obama was being called a “communist” by Severin. The question that comes up immediately is “why is being called a communist a bad thing?” The answer is fairly simple, communism has been effectively destroyed in the minds of mainstream America. Obama does in fact, support some policies that have some communistic tendencies, or socialist tendencies if that makes you feel better. Why should we shy away from labeling policies as they are? Communism is not bad, capitalism is not bad, there just systems, they do not have motives inherently built into them. These systems are just run by people, who’s nature is to be selfish, and thus pervert their existence. What exists now in the world is an ever-evolving system that tries to correct the flaws of each ideology (capitalism and communism) through statutory means (not possible, by the way).

So David, with regards to your analogy, I was fearful of the infinite regress of the “Hitler argument”, and wanted to re-direct the discussion to avoid the inevitable intellectual war of attrition.

David, I don’t know if there is a limit that can I type on these posts, so I will continue on another post to address the discussion that you and Whyzelle have gotten into.

But how would you have Jay address this problematic “seriousness”? Would you have him begin every broadcast with a disclaimer that everything he says is simply his own opinion? That seems redundant. Even Orson Welles began and ended his famous Halloween 1938 broadcast with a disclaimer, but listeners panicked.

Despite the mellifluous authority with which Jay speaks, his opinion is just that. This may seem uncompassionate, but I am more inclined to blame the gullible, especially in the Information Age.

Whyzelle: Laughing and thinking are good things, and if that’s what most of Jay’s audience are doing then I wouldn’t have a problem. What worries me is that the vast majority of his callers seem to take his comments not with a grain of salt but with the seriousness normally reserved for the communal wafer.

Al Capone was indicted for tax evasion.

But before Patrick attacks me for comparing Jay Severin to one of the most notorious gangsters of memory, I do not believe that Jay is dangerous.

Despite the liberal guilt I instantly feel when any white person makes an offensive comment directed toward a non-white person or group, I have to confess that Jay makes me laugh. He also makes me think.

Of course, I’m smart enough to take everything he says with a healthy grain of salt (as we should all do with everyone)…

I do agree that discourse need not be linear and that there is something valuable
in being inspired (or offended) enough to come home and discuss with friends and family what someone has said. However I have a feeling that we are not speaking
of the same person at this present moment. Let me elaborate.

Jay did expose me to ideas that did shake some of my core beliefs. For example, given
my background, I found it astounding and enlightening that one could believe that
government cannot be an agent of social change. It was a fundamental assumption
and I do credit Jay for helping me at least consider that option. I now fully embrace
it.

However, this is not the same Jay that called Barack Obama a “dangerous Muslim socialist” and made such enormously offensive (and patently false) statements
about people from Mexico. Having the bully pulpit means you have a responsibility.
You cannot use that to spread hate. It is a simple concept really and transcends the fact
whether your comments inspire or provoke debate.

On retrospect, I think my comments to Susan (and perhaps to you) were too harsh
and showed little thought and no respect. I am actually not like that at all in real life
and I take back what I said, with full apologies. (Unfortunately, its harder to retract
what one writes when it is on the net).

“I actually see a big difference between my bin Laden argument and Jay’s usual tactics. I created a hypothetical to prove a point — a point, by the way, that you seem to agree with. Hypotheticals are not in themselves manipulative; however, posing a hypothetical and then objecting to a variation of the same hypothetical on the grounds that it’s unrealistic is. (You read my recent blog about that, right?)”

I apologize, but I am having some trouble fully understanding what your saying here…do you think you could elaborate? or perhaps explain it in a different way. I am just pretty dumb, and I need some clarification before I proceed with a reply.

Second, I fail to see how acting the way you criticize Jay for acting separates you in anyway. Saying that you should be able to insult others because Jay does it its laughably ignorant. This is a rampant problem with a lot pf people actually. They become so enraged by “bad behavior” that they lose sight of proper behavior themselves when it comes offering a critique.

As far your improperly formed argument?

In your original post on the thread that you have still not responded to, you claim that Jay cannot possibly engender any type of discourse. Its abundantly clear that you either do not understand the full spectrum of the term “discourse” or you are simply blinded by your animosity toward Jay. Either way, the very discussion that you and I are having is a discourse created by your best friend. You were mistaken when considering discourse as a simple, linear forum of discussion. Please take some time to re-read the other thread so you can adequately respond, it would aid in no longer retarding this discussion, thank you in advance.

Certainly, one does not have the time to listen to every word out of Jay’s mouth from 3-7 every weekday. However, I did not say you cannot form ANY opinion about Jay, I said you cannot form “universalized” opinions about Jay, because you are only listening to a piece of the puzzle. Thats all, strict logic. Again, its very important that you take your time when reading comments, and take even more time thinking about the way in which you will respond.