Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Tru' Dat

Posted by codemorse

I hate Doonesbury. There, I've said it! I'm free!

I was always more of a Bloom County fan - I like my politics with funny animals, thank you. But this Doonesbury is pretty insightful.

It's not "funny," per se, but it is spot-on in it's observation. Being a comic strip, it eliminates all the needless words I like to use and gets down to the bare bones of it:


"The 'debate' you're willing to have is always between options of your own choosing."

That's one reason why there's so much "liberal anger" right now. We'd love to join the debate, but our opinions aren't really wanted/valued. What we're expected to do is accept the parameters that Bush sets.

4 Comments:

At 12:27 PM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

Well, in fairness, both sides do it.

Do you want peace or war?
Do you want peace or do you want to kill innocent civilians?
Do you want peace or a bloody civil war?

Some people do it in good faith, and some don't.

Those operating in good faith are not necessarily just trying to frame the debate between options of your own choosing (which is why the analogy is overly simplistic to a fault), but instead are taking the assumed consequences of not taking the advocated action (or non-action) and framing it as the other option.

That's why this stuff doesn't generally impress me. It's no great insight to highlight someone framing a debate between what they assume will happen based on (1) taking a proposed course of action and (2) not taking that proposed course of action.

 
At 11:34 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Ironically, you're doing exactly what Trudeau is complaining about here.

How can we even begin to debate the exclusion of alternate viewpoints when you've set the parameters of that debate to be meaningless?

 
At 6:43 AM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

If I understand where you are coming from (and I'm not sure that I do), I think that's a bit of a stretch.

Trudeau is complaining that the administration "sets up the debate" by offering two (what he considers) faux choices.

My point is simply that both sides do it to excess, and it does not feel particularly insightful anyway.

My observations can only be seen to be "exactly what Trudeau is complaining about here" to the extent any observation that a point is neither persuasive or insightful "exclude[s] ... alternative viewpoints".

In fact, what I am actually doing is exactly not what Trudeau is complaining of here. I specifically acknowledged the point (rather than ignoring it), and merely pointed out that it is neither persuasive nor enlightening.

 
At 8:41 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

Why do you need to be logical?

Isn't logic just needlessly fact-oriented and grounded?

Seriously, you're right in stating that both sides do it, but Bush is currently the one in power, and that makes a difference to me.

I'd argue that, as head of a democratic nation, Bush hasa a responsibility to frame the debate responsibly.

And giving us false choices in that debate renders the exercise useless.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home