I have been a fan of George Lakoff for quite a few years now, because of his insights into ‘framing,’ into using language to facilitate making moral and political argument.He argued that conservatives spent millions on precisely that kind of linguistic infrastructure to make sure they didn’t miss a trick when it came to political advantage. Lakoff created the Rockridge Institute to try to offset some of that advantage, since liberals were not so flush with financial resources that we could fund activities like that. Too, we could never agree on the importance of doing it, when so many (of what we regard as) more important things could better use the funds. And, in fact, his brainchild died a relatively quick death, closing its doors in 2008. I don’t remember the justification for its passing, but I think it was lack of funding.
As a liberal warrior in the deep red South, I appreciated (and appreciate) Lakoff’s work (and that of his Rockridge fellows), but there seems to me to be more in play. We get frustrated by the way facts are so easily glossed over and discarded, but elements of the same thing have always been present. In ways, I have fought it all of my life.
More below.
Top Comments recognizes the previous day's Top Mojo and strives to promote each day's outstanding comments through nominations made by Kossacks like you. Please send comments (before 9:30pm ET) by email to topcomments@gmail.com or by our KosMail message board.
I attended a very rigorous liberal arts institution, much earlier in life. The professors were quite brilliant and aggressive. They cared a great deal about elements of bias in our thinking. I always found it shocking, then, that it was ostensibly a Christian institution. Few of them would admit to having a divergent perspective, and few were comfortable speaking about matters of faith.
Faith in the South is a ‘funny’ thing (not ha ha funny). Very few of the ‘faithful’ will converse openly about faith elements, because so many have been told that one of the greatest ‘sins’ one can commit is to question (or to allow to be questioned) one’s faith. A high percentage of them simply lack the confidence to talk openly about it. They don’t know their own spiritual tradition and foundation that well, nor do they really care to. They’re ‘saved,’ and that’s really all that matters to them.
But in providing the political foundation for conservatism, the conservative think tanks very deftly rolled faith into every element of their world view. That means that, no matter what issue you discuss, no matter how deftly you ‘frame’ your arguments, you will very quickly come upon the brick wall that is their ‘faith.’
So why is this so maddening?
In his remarkable book, Der Steppenwolf, Hermann Hesse created a flawed hero of phenomenal intellectual prowess, a fellow named Harry Haller. Haller was a loner in his later years, struggling with the world he had created around himself. In his rare forays into the outer world, he met a stunning woman named Hermine, who became a mentor to him into the life of the senses, into the social. And one of the assignments she gave him was to woo a beautiful young woman named Maria.
Terrified, Harry demurred, saying she’d laugh at him if he tried. Hermine called him a coward, and informed him that being laughed at was the ante, when one approached a woman.
Ante! That’s it! We can have conversations with the ‘faithful.’ They want us to be open-minded about the things they say, but the ante is different. Because of their faith, they cannot and will not reciprocate in kind.
Maddening! I find it cowardly and intellectually dishonest. I will write more about it. By all means share any thoughts you have!
Hope everyone is well tonight! On to tonight’s comments! Collected and formatted by brillig!
TOP COMMENTS
Brillig's ObDisclaimer: The decision to publish each nomination lies with the evening's Diarist and/or Comment Formatter. My evenings at the helm, I try reeeeallllyy hard to publish everything without regard to content. I really do, even when I disagree personally with any given nomination. "TopCommentness" lies in the eyes of the nominator and of you, the reader - I leave the decision to you. I do not publish self-nominations (ie your own comments) and if I ruled the world, we'd all build community, supporting and uplifting instead of tearing our fellow Kossacks down. Please remember that comment inclusion in Top Comments does not constitute support or endorsement by diarist, formatter, Top Comments writers or DailyKos. Questions, complaints or comments? Contact brillig.
From belinda ridgewood:
While I am nominating a specific comment by boran2 (this one in Tom Tomorrow's comic about Giuliani), this is perhaps as much a recognition of a body of work. So many times, I have opened the cartoon of the day (and sometimes other diaries too) and found some little subtle, dry one-liner from boran2 in the comments. I just want to say that I appreciate them!
From gizmo59:
angry marmot modifies Louis XV's famous prediction (Apres moi, le deluge) to fit Mitt Romney and the current political milieu, now that his secret Twitter identity (Pierre Delecto) has been exposed. From Hunter's front page post on the topic.
From siab:
This comment by Skookum is an eleven out of ten on the "made you think!" scale. From Wendy in FL's diary The Strange Alliances of Tulsi Gabbard: Bill Browder and others highlight odd affinities.
TOP MOJO
Top Mojo for yesterday, October 20th 2019, first comments and tip jars excluded. Thank you mik for the mojo magic! For those of you interested in How Top Mojo Works, please see his diary on FAQing Top Mojo.
Top Pictures
Top Pictures for yesterday, October 20th 2019. Click any picture to be taken to the full comment or picture. Thank you jotter!