Helen_Wheels has been the undisputed queen of the lefties and the embodiment of the spirit of F9/11 on IMDb’s F9/11 board before the elections, furiously and passionately exposing the liars and defending the facts with sharp wit and tremendous talent. Everything was so obvious then. We believed in it all. We lost. Then came Waldo, a charismatic and atypical “not exactly nihilistic” young conservative, whose lunatic star began to rise after we all dived into the absurd and who set out on a strange reconciliation mission… I've had the honor to be Helen’s favorite sidekick, then Waldo’s favorite liberal. Politically, I'm on Helen’s side. Philosophically, I'm on Waldo's. To me they are the two most honest and brightest minds among this board’s numerous posters.
I asked them to marry.
Here is the result.WALDODo what I have done. Embrace the madness. We don't have truth, we have opinion, things that support that opinion, and everything else be damned. This is all a personal battle to merely exhaust the other side (no matter what side you are on). We don't think first. We feel first. Okay? We FEEL. After that initial feeling or personal instinct, we begin to THINK in order to support what we FEEL is right. This sets us on a path. Barring any major "shock" to our system, we never stray from that path. So 'mills' and 'GayIthican' will probably never be on the same path. You mentioned posting links. DON'T. I have come to the conclusion that it is one of the most pointless things in the world. It is a trap. It leads nowhere. Linking is simply the THINKING we do, after the initial FEELING we have, a feeling which is different from the other side's. And for a piece
PARODOXICAL proof that links are pointless, lead nowhere, and exist to simply perpetuate an endless black hole of exhaustive attrition, I give you the LINK that WE ALL contribute to: The message board for F911.
WALDO
TRUTH R.I.P.Look by dead truth, I don't mean nonexistent truth. I mean unattainable truth. We cannot get to it. We cannot have conversations like the following and still have truth:
1: He lies.
2: No he tells the truth.
1: Ok he does not lie but he deceives.
2: No he does not. What is a "deceit" anyway?
1: He takes things out of context, combines images in a misleading way, insinuates irresponsibly, manipulates, and ignores other important information.
2: Those are not deceptions. He is simply opining. He is occasionally exaggerating. He is a satirist comedian. He balances out some media I don't like. What about the lies from your favorite politicians? You are nitpicking. He makes a good "overall" point, so what if he cuts a few corners?
1: You know that you would not let any filmmaker with an opposing viewpoint get away with similar tactics.
2: That is just it, those filmmakers have wrong viewpoints. Such a filmmaker LIES.
1: No he tells the truth.
2: Ok he does not lie but he deceives.
1: No he does not. What is a "deceit" anyway?
2: He takes things out of context, combines images in a misleading way, insinuates irresponsibly, manipulates, and ignores other important information.
1: Those are not deceptions. He is simply opining. He is occasionally exaggerating. He is a satirist comedian. He balances out some media I don't like. What about the lies from your favorite politicians? You are nitpicking. He makes a good "overall" point, so what if he cuts a few corners?
2: You know that you would not let any filmmaker with an opposing viewpoint get away with similar tactics.
1: That is just it, those filmmakers have wrong viewpoints. Such a filmmaker LIES.
...ad infinitum...Notice how 1 and 2 reversed roles in the middle and will continue to do this forever (why does Waldo not debate 99% of posters too often anymore?) This is not possible to manage. This is not sane. The lines have been drawn. The stakes are too high. The media and other sources of information bombard us 24/7 at the speed of light. This is emotional. This is personal. This is war. The goal is not to find the truth. It is to own it. To capture it. To destroy the other guy because he cannot possibly have the truth and deny it from you. The goal is to win and this is a zero sum game. At the end, even if you are wrong and the truth is not with you, it matters not: truth is not with your opponent either. He is down. You are the last man standing. In other words, forget about trying to get to the truth. There will be no witnesses to confirm you got there. You will be the only one there. You knocked out everyone else. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make a sound? Well, sure it does but does anyone really care?
HELEN_WHEELS (on Waldo’s approach)Worse than shooting down the truth, it shuts down communication and the opportunity to grow. It's also a distancing mechanism, as mockery and disdain keeps one at a safe assured distance from ever having to identify with or understand opinions from either side. It effectively negates further discussion through telegraphing to everyone else that the mocker has deemed further discussion on the subject unworthy and fruitless.
Whatever potential an idea had to grow into something meaningful, even if it stemmed from the most meaningless or ridiculous of postulates, is completely destroyed at the point of arrival. The passive side of the bully's aggressive tactics used to quell thought and conversation (but equally dismissive), the desired outcome is still the same: no more discussion. Whether that's the desired or intended result - and it may very well may not be - it's exactly what happens 9 out of 10 times.
And even when the approach is used across the political spectrum with a sense of fair play involved, indicating a lack of bias, it's still destruction and eradication of discussion.
I feel the same way about posting links or rather, being against posting them - it's again a destruction mechanism rather than a position of enlightenment. Even if a link is far afield from the mainstream in either direction, truth isn't found through ignoring the links all together; it's found through consideration and synthesis of both sides. Some piece of a Washington Times article reflects reality, as does some part of an article at Common Dreams. Of course, a person is always going to fall back on personal preference or prejudices, consciously or unconsciously, when deciding what to keep and what to reject in his worldview.
Despite that fact, the other option is a negative - to not seek truth or enlightenment at all, out of a belief that you'll never find anything 100 percent without value judgment and fiction-based additives. I reject the destruction of discussion and the willingness to embrace nothing over content, simply because the content is flawed. It's the same as rejecting love because the person it's felt for (or sent from) is flawed. Reducing and depleting it aren't preferable to simply having more of it in myriad forms, or even examining the wealth of it for purposes of growth and pleasure, rather than questing for absolute truth.
WALDODiscussion?
Opportunity to grow?
9 times out of 10?
Well Helen, I am not against discussion at all. However in the times we live in, discussions such as the ones we have here on the IMDb simply take the form of destruction, of cancelling one another out.
As for growth, monitor these boards carefully Helen. 9 times out od 10, a poster does not grow personally or as a thinker. What grows is his ability to destroy the other side. After all, it does not really matter what the truth is in the times we live in does it? In these times of lighting-fast bombardment of data and information and opinion. The stakes are too high and the battles too personal aren't they? No, it seems to me that the objective is not to find the truth but to win the battle. To be the last man standing.
Take a good read of these boards, Helen. The F911 board alone, will do. It is the apotheosis of what debate and "discussion" have become in these wonderful times in which we live. I believe it results in more of a numbing of the senses than a livening of them. The fact that you believe that your views are the truth (and I believe the same thing about mine) is irrelevant.
HELEN_WHEELSOriginally Posted by Waldo
What grows is his ability to destroy the other side.
Evidence would point to the contrary, actually. Take the ever-growing friendships between people across the lines...for instance, that of you and fear. There's a friendship borne from two very opposite minds, and (from the outside, anyway) appears to be one that's been nurtured, and one in which a (perhaps grudging) respect of the other side has won out with both individuals. It's not just evinced by you two; there are others whose politics are not aligned on every issue and yet points exist on which their opinions converge, or their beliefs are challenged due to an evolving quasi-relationship across cable and text. Consider too, the alternatives -- a void of discussion, a board full of food fight and sex threads. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with those kinds of threads or having fun. Just that many people who signed on to this board - and yes me included but it's impossible to believe there aren't more - signed on for the purposes of discussion. It gets heated and extreme, but the majority of discussions have something in the way of decent context to offer. To eradicate them simply because they cannot ever prove absolute truth, or change minds, is like saying one should stop listening to music completely because Mozart never constructed the perfect symphony.
As an aside, people often ask if I've something to prove on here, or think I'm "changing anyone's mind." It's always an interesting question, and one worth considering anew whenever it's raised. The answer, thus far, is no. Should it become "yes" in the future, I'll cease to post completely - anywhere - because it will have become work. For now, as before, it's the odd joy of sharing that fuels the desire to post, a wish to connect with people. Unfortunately, often disaster ensues. But even that is just messy, complicated life and has some value. I've never given up trying to forge connections in life, even if it's sometimes proven as fruitful, and painful, as bashing my head into a wall. It's really about connecting, appreciating it for whatever it's worth, and the positive mojo that comes from having a meaningful interaction - or even the potential of one.
Originally Posted by Waldo
After all, it does not really matter what the truth is in the times we live in does it? In these times of lighting-fast bombardment of data and information and opinion. The stakes are too high and the battles too personal aren't they? No, it seems to me that the objective is not to find the truth but to win the battle. To be the last man standing.
Okay, rhetorical questions notwithstanding, there most certainly is truth. Absolute truth, no. But there's truth, Virginia -- many kinds of truth. In terms of morality, there are baseline rights and wrongs. Perhaps we intellectualize them, rationalize them, wish them away as an adult when they become harder to live by, but every child knows the truth by heart. An innate sense of right and wrong - the reflexive pain and shame that accompany doing the "wrong," and the sigh of relief or sense of pride that comes from doing "the right," is as natural as breathing to most young children. They have it from an age where they couldn't begin to explain what "it" is. They're honest, and when they're not honest, aware that they aren't being truthful.
There is also truth in politics. Not necessarily emanating from those in power whose grasp on truth is only as strong or as tenuous as their constiuency and financial backers allow. But one need only look at potential outcomes, or past outcomes, to see the truth - proven cause and effects, not spin. The greatest friend of truth is time, as someone once said, and one assumes that is because it's laid completely bare only in retrospect. And intellect is never the sole compass for finding truth, because you have to find it by feeling as much as thinking. Which requires a return to childlike feeling as well as childlike inquisitiveness. In order to even approach finding any kind of truth, you have to be open to asking the questions.
By fostering an environment of shutting down questions, rather than encouraging more questioning, the end result will be a self-fulfilling prophecy: there will be no truth. Not because it doesn't exist, but because people don't care enough for it to continue searching, or to separate truth from known and conscious biases. The first step to finding truth, or any kind of enlightenment is to recognize, embrace and then, finally, discard your own biases as much as possible while examining information. Then to consider the communicator's biases, know them, embrace them and then eliminate from the information whatever part of it is created from them. I'm not saying that's an easy task, or even reliably attainable. Just a yardstick that must be attempted consistently and accompanied by feeling, if unearthing real truth is the desired goal.
Originally Posted by Waldo
Take a good read of these boards, Helen. The F911 board alone, will do. It is the apotheosis of what debate and "discussion" have become in these wonderful times in which we live. I believe it results in more of a numbing of the senses than a livening of them.
At this point, I would agree. Without laying blame in any direction, although I do believe conscious or unconscious efforts to effectively eliminate conversation have contributed greatly. Mine included. However, I don't agree that it results in a numbing of the senses for everyone. And in several threads it's still ongoing, and friendly, and full of interesting reading.
The fact that you believe that your views are the truth (and I believe the same thing about mine) is irrelevant.
It seems you may be confusing personal beliefs with truth. While there are several inveterate personal beliefs with which I will never part, they are separate from truth. They are guidelines for living our individual lives, and they do spill over into what moves and drives us all. While I may vehemently support those beliefs, truth is something completely separate, because it doesn't require a specific worldview to exist. It simply is in and of itself. On a very simple level, consider that babies are born and people die. Neither of these events require spin or political context; they are simply the truth.
Sorry for the lengthy response.
WALDOSorry for the late reply Helen.
(...)
Originally Posted by Helen_Wheels
Evidence would point to the contrary, actually. Take the ever-growing friendships between people across the lines...for instance, that of you and fear. There's a friendship borne from two very opposite minds, and (from the outside, anyway) appears to be one that's been nurtured, and one in which a (perhaps grudging) respect of the other side has won out with both individuals. It's not just evinced by you two; there are others whose politics are not aligned on every issue and yet points exist on which their opinions converge, or their beliefs are challenged due to an evolving quasi-relationship across cable and text.
This friendship does not pertain to the issue at hand nor does it contradict my point that what “grows” here is NOT the skill of debate or convincing, but the ability to destroy the other side. Having an intense debate with f&h, for example, will not improve our friendship. It may not hurt it, but it won’t improve it either. We are friends here for the same reason most people on these boards become friends - they find each other interesting or funny on a level that does not offend them. Froggy and I manage to usually get along because we each find the other amusing. Debating fear_and_hate will result in him passionately defending Michael Moore, no matter what I say, and with me advocating a strong, confident foreign policy when it comes to dealing with terrorist sponsoring rogue nations, no matter what he says. In the end of such a debate, we will be as good of friends as we are now, possibly worse, and probably not better. We will, however, be NO closer to the truth.
Originally Posted by Helen_Wheels
Consider too, the alternatives -- a void of discussion, a board full of food fight and sex threads.
I actually consider my food fight thread (which I may bump later) to be 100 times more worthy than any other political thread I (or anyone else) may write. Why? Because laughter is good for the soul, we all eat, food discussions rarely cause arguments only appetites, we get a chance to learn about different dishes and spirits, and we get to use our imaginations in trying to write a new post in such a thread.
Originally Posted by Helen_Wheels
As an aside, people often ask if I've something to prove on here, or think I'm "changing anyone's mind." It's always an interesting question and one worth considering anew whenever it's raised. The answer, thus far, is no. Should it become "yes" in the future, I'll cease to post completely - anywhere - because it will have become work. For now, as before, it's the odd joy of sharing that fuels the desire to post, a wish to connect with people.
I am not against discussion Helen, as you seem to say in a number of places. I personally don’t believe we really engage in discussion here too often, more like destruction. However, I am not against it. I am not against anyone having a discussion and if you notice I occasionally take the bait and give an opinion (sometimes even without the sarcasm). I do it because I am human and that is my nature. I must opine. It is usually best to not ask myself why I am opining and if there is a point. Most of my posts, though, are an “under the radar” commentary on the process itself. It is not really mocking it either. I will roughly use a metaphorical line from Dennis Miller here, but I wish to say that it is not political and I am using it in a different context than he did: basically I look at this board (especially what it used to be), grab the wheel and “steer into the insanity curve.”
But now I am happy that you mentioned a crucial idea. The idea of “changing anyone’s mind.” What is truth Helen? I mean we all agree that the earth is not flat, right? There are a few that probably don’t but the rest of us are so sure that it is round that we have those few committed to the nearest loony bin. Yet, we once thought that it was flat. What happened? Was it a positive, healthy debate that changed our minds? I don’t think so. We had to face up to it eventually. We were hit by reality. We sailed and did not fall off the edge of a plane. The horizon did this and the sunlight did that, and if all of that was not enough, we have pictures of the earth from space and it sure does look round to me. I don’t believe you when you tell me that the stove burns and hurts but I might if I placed my hand on it.
So what is truth? I know it is there. Maybe I even believe that I have found it. Maybe the truth is that it was wrong to go invade Iraq or maybe the truth is that we should also invade Sweden. Many people have strong beliefs either way. Is it appropriate to use the term truth in this case? If I convince everyone that disagrees with me, will it make what I believe more or less true?
2) We don’t begin the thinking process with a THOUGHT. We begin with a FEELING. We feel (on the basis of a personal instinct) what is right. We look at some facts and wait for a feeling to hit, not a thought. A feeling. You feel that George Bush is a repulsive person, lacking all morals, and who illegally invaded a country and brought it misery. I feel… well, differently (let’s not get into specifics for me). After we FEEL on a matter, we begin THINKING on it. We collect our dates, sources, facts, figures, and opinion pieces in order to support that initial feeling we had that something is right or wrong.
Why do we feel this way or that? Who knows? The way we were born, raised, talked to, whoever associated with us, screwed up our minds in one way or another, geography, well it could be anything. There are some issues, Helen, that are unbridgeable. There is no real “convincing” involved. How do minds change on such important, crucial matters (I am talking about the serious stuff). Well, it is the person who changes. Something changes his thought process. If 2 people come from different worlds, one must usually experience some sort of a serious shock to his own self in order to change.
Why do people look at a given situation that is plain to see in front of them and yet disagree? I can think of 2 good reasons:
1) Each person begins to study the issue from a different chronological starting point. Everything is a result of what came before it, right? So if we study a conflict in the world, you will choose to look at the conflict since the events of 1901, and I will choose to start at 1899, and Billy Bob will start to look at it starting at 1923. We know what happened before those points but we chose those points because they are the most important to us. Why? Because… Let us take a nice little scenario. I studied computer science in college so forgive the geeky nature of it; I will try to make it interesting:
2 men are stranded on a deserted island. They divvy up the chores for survival. They hunt for food and chop wood and they ration everything. They count all portions and quantities very carefully. They fight about the numbers all the time even though they agreed on what those numbers should be. Yet why do they fight? Simple. The first man processes numbers in base 10 or decimal (like pretty much all humans outside of my scenario). The second man processes them in base 8 or octal. There are 0-7 digits in his system, not 0-9. They have a big problem getting along. Now one day, the first man goes to get some food and he gets smashed by a rock slide. His friend (yes they are still friends like f&h and I are friends) saves him and nurses him back to health over a long time. However, the rocks were pretty big and the poor victim has lost a lot of his memory and 2 of his fingers. He doesn’t remember basic things like simple arithmetic. He starts to re-educate himself. How does one learn numbers? He first learns to count. How do we teach kids to count? The use their… wait for it… fingers! He has 8. It is easiest for him to think in octal over time. Now, there is peace across the island (that is until they are rescued, learn about the Iraq war, and begin fighting again). Maybe it is true what they say that the only true conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. I don’t doubt that a similar line exists about the reversed process.
Helen, I like debate. I used to actually enjoy taking part in it, believe it or not. I would NOT want to live in a society without a lot of debate, public political discourse, and the venting of opinions and emotions through speech. However, we live in a time where the stakes are so great and so personal that I don’t feel that I personally grow as much from debate as I once did. These days, I feel that debate is like driving a car which is stuck in the mud. The wheels spin, everything gets dirty, and we get absolutely nowhere.
With my posts on this board that SEEM to lack substance, I have maintained better “relationships” on the IMDB boards than I ever did as a debater on this website. I don’t believe you have grown either Helen since the time I first read a post from you. You WERE then the smart, intelligent woman who had writing skills and who hated George Bush. And you ARE today the smart, intelligent woman who has writing skills and who hates George Bush. Maybe you made some friends along the way on this board. However, if it was truth you sought to find for yourself or to show to others, I am afraid you have come to the wrong place.
What is truth? It simply is, like you said. It exists. However, we can’t really get to it. What good is truth if no one can agree on what it is? Truth finds us over time. All of us. Every once in a long while, reality (truth) will slap us in the face and we (almost all of us) will agree on something: the earth is round, fish swim, I am rambling, whatever. But the rest of it is simply up for grabs and we will fight over it until hit by reality.
