That's right! Took me 30 years to learn this, but I'm glad I did.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Go check out “Yes, Minister” or “Yes, Prime Minister” on youtube. It was a hilarious show that ridiculed the British Labour party mercilessly back during Thatchers day.
It is a potential gold mine of ideas for lampooning the Demo-Socialists.
Is there ANY reason the Republicans can’t utilize Alinsky’s tactics against the scumbags?
Great article!
The phrase, “Just not my ears” or “Not my ears”, something similar. Any political cartoonist with a set of balls would have obamaFuhrer crazy.
I feel it is absolutely essential that we defeat and deflect Alinsky-style ridicule. I too think that it ceases to exist when the opposing side refuses to go defensive.
HOWEVER, this article does not mention that there is another phase to the current ridicule style: the THREAT of being called a [racist, homophobe, heartless rich person, etc]. And the reaction nearly everyone has to this threat, which is to move in the direction the threatener intended.
This is now done with “humor.” The court jesters who have mocking down to a science are people like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. The ridicule so cruelly and appear to have such a following that most public figures fear the potential of these men mocking them before they decide what they will do.
I don’t know exactly how to counteract these somewhat more devious ways, but we need to figure it out and instruct every single conservative and Republican, because most of them are as scared to death as boy Alinsky before his mom opened the front window.
“D”s have no moral code. Some “R”s lie and cheat like some politicians but they at least ascribe to a code which makes them accountable. When a member gets caught they boot him out.
When you have no moral code no one can call you a hypocrite. Its a great advantage that the “D”s have. When they get caught all they say is everybody does it or your guys does it and they are off the hook. Its a license to be a scumbag.
Prime example Ted Kennedy. Social degenerate and arguably a murderer yet the “D”s hail him as a hero.
Saving for later
for later reading
It would be a whole lot easier if we could just shoot them and be done with it ... but OK, I’ll try the calm, mature, rational approach.
I think this article really misses the mark, and it doesn’t understand the problem.
The power of ridicule, Alinsky’s point, was not at all about bullies. It was about labeling, minimizing, and removing an opponent/argument from serious consideration by the general populace.
This is the tactic employed against Sarah Palin, most effectively by the late-nights and SNL. The plan was to remove Palin from serious consideration by making her instead and object of scorn IN THE MINDS of the average American.
So, you can’t just act dignified and drive on. You have been branded, and you’ve been branded a comic sideshow....something to be laughed at. Your serious discussion cannot be heard.
That is why Pres. Bush’s decision to remain quiet was so tragically wrong.
So, Saul takes the bully’s tactics and uses them for himself?
What a loser, to become a bully because you got bullied.
The tactic of just refusing to respond to the bully is an incomplete answer to the problem.
You have to respond in the right way.
1) You never, ever answer a question or address an accusation from a bully.
2) Make your own assertions in the form of questions. Whoever asks the questions is in control of the conversation.
This is the way to control bullies. It is amazing how quickly it shuts people up when you do this.
That's right! Took me 30 years to learn this, but I'm glad I did.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
I just watched the Penn & Teller "BS" episode on gun control, and while I was glad that they acknowledged that the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting, I would have preferred that they take a slightly different tack. Rather than arguing that it is intended to allow the overthrow of a legitimate government, I would suggest that it is intended to allow people to defend themselves against a government that sometimes acts illegitimately. The goal isn't to overthrow legitimate government, but rather to protect it.
I wouldn't deny that the Founding Fathers would have probably considered it plausible that liberty might require the overthrow of even a legitimate Constitutional government, but I would regard P&T's talk of overthrowing legitimate government to be way premature, since one can't overthrow legitimate government where none exists.
The Constitution expressly forbids the government or its agents from depriving free persons of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It further forbids unreasonable searches and seizures. Together, these prohibitions mandate that government agents must make reasonable efforts, when conducting a search or seizure, to avoid unnecessarily depriving people of life, liberty, or property.
While there may be some dispute over what is "necessary", there are many cases in which it is abundantly clear that government agents have acted with--at best--wanton disregard for people's property. Can such agents be fairly described as "acting legitimately"? Is there any reason citizens should not be entitled to defend themselves against such "rogue" agents? (nb: I use the quotes around "rogue" because in many cases the agents' superiors approve of their action, but for rhetorical purposes it's best not to say so).
bookmarked
I say use it against them. Code Pinko in particular.
Thanks neverdem.