HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » How Right-Wingers Scam Pe...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 05:16 AM

 

How Right-Wingers Scam People Into Buying Their Toxic Philosophy

By George Lakoff. As clear and concise an explanation as I've ever read. With the best rationale, and "explainability" I've read in a long time.

http://www.alternet.org/story/156057/george_lakoff%3A_how_right-wingers_scam_people_into_buying_their_toxic_philosophy_?akid=9003.1077804.0q4moz&rd=1&t=5

10 replies, 2259 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply How Right-Wingers Scam People Into Buying Their Toxic Philosophy (Original post)
cbrer Jun 2012 OP
DonCoquixote Jun 2012 #1
Scootaloo Jun 2012 #2
postulater Jun 2012 #3
cbrer Jun 2012 #4
Surya Gayatri Jun 2012 #5
Iggy Jun 2012 #6
Scuba Jun 2012 #7
Martin Eden Jun 2012 #8
meow2u3 Jun 2012 #9
Populist_Prole Jun 2012 #10

Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 05:28 AM

1. a key point

"There has been more and more of an audience for conservatism because those ideas become stronger in the brain because of the media control of the Right. Itís not illegitimate media control. The Left could do just as well but they donít because they donít know how to speak in moral terms."

Actually, we can, but we infight so much we refuse to. Some people use Christian Morality, the atheists yell. Some people quote Marx, the Christians yell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 05:47 AM

2. Actually, we speak in ETHICAL terms

There's a world of difference between ethics and morals.

The trouble is, ethics are pretty complex, whereas morals are usually really simple. Discussing ethics can take forever, discussing morals mostly consists of finger-pointing and yelling.

However, ethics are almost always universal in human societies; they're rooted in instinct, it seems, since every culture has the same ethical standards. Where morals come in is usually to MAKE EXCEPTIONS to ethical standards.

Ethics: "it's wrong to kill a person for no needful reason."
Morals: "Picking up sticks on the lord's day is a good reason; KILL HIM!"

Morality is largely little more than another category of tribal identifier; and the place people trip up is that tribalism is also instinctive on some level. We're a clannish species. So both sets of instincts; ethical behavior to humans, and tribalism, both "feel right" to people... Morality usually comes out ahead simply because a, it's simpler to understand, and b, it usually turns into "do what I damn well want"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:53 AM

3. Helpful insight, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 07:22 AM

4. "discussing morals mostly consists of finger-pointing and yelling."

 

Do you always speak with such clarity and conciseness?

Thank you for simplifying a complex comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 08:09 AM

5. Very interesting and well said, scootaloo...ethical arguments are by nature

complex and nuanced--the stuff of finely honed philosophical discourse, not easily encapsulated in a 30 sec. sound-bite.

Ergo, such arguments cannot be easily reduced to talking points or slogans and they require a certain level of educational achievement and intellectual acumen to be absorbed.

Moral maxims and aphorisms are, OTOH, the distillate of ethical thought processes.

Our present-day dilemma is that the ethical under-pinnings which inform the morals of the self-styled "Moral Majority" have been tainted by selfishness and greed.

The judeo-christian ethic and older ethical systems such as the Vedas and Buddhist teachings have been superseded in post-modern 20th century "morality".

The "Golden Rule", which exists in some form in all human societies has been supplanted by the Ayn Randian aphorisms: "Greed is good" and "I've got mine, screw you".

Rand's writings are essentially nothing but skewed and distorted ethical treatises, which have been eagerly adopted by the neo-conservative movement.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 08:55 AM

6. "Don't Complain About the Media, _Become_ the Media!"

 

Jello Biafra.

until progressives get this, and start creating better/smarter/more prolific propaganda to counter all of the
BS on tee vee and radio-- we're going nowhere.

the Fourth Estate as far as mainstream media is dead, it's been dead for years. time to move on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 09:01 AM

7. Good read, K&R.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 09:59 AM

8. Bookmarked for later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 10:01 AM

9. You can't reach conservatives using reason and ethics

Conservatives' morality is based on selfishness, so for a liberal or moderate to reach a conservative, you have to appeal to their self-interests. Question is, how do you do it? Emotional appeal. In other words, conservatives are selfish rebels at heart.

In other words, instead of emphasizing the common good argument of progressive morality, which doesn't register with conservatives, you have to use language that directly appeals to their selfish interests.

Here's an example regarding the health care law. How would they would feel if they, or one of theirs, had gotten sick, had their insurance company summarily drop their coverage behind their backs, and had to sit for years in debtor's prison because they couldn't pay a $500,000 hospital bill? That's how you have to frame the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Original post)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 12:38 PM

10. Yes I enjoyed this very much

Comparing his observations to my conservative friends and acquaintances, quite on the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread