Slander in Modern Culture

With the race for the White House developing momentum, we are gearing up to see what looks like one of the most negative campaigns in the history of US presidential elections. With over $150 million in campaign contributions, President Bush is seated at the helm of an advertising juggernaut that threatens to unleash wave after wave of negative advertizing targeting John Kerry. When you reflect on the fact that Kerry is a decorated war veteran with a history of remarkable political accomplishments, while Bush has a history of lying to the public and slandering his political opponents in the most ruthless manner imaginable, the sheer offensiveness of the Bush campaign for Presidency becomes apparent. What's really interesting is that John McCain, another Vietnam veteran, has risen to Kerry's defense. There's even talk of McCain, a Republican, running for the Vice-Presidency alongside Kerry. I guess McCain knows what it feels like to be the butt of the George W. Bush slander machine, having experienced it when he ran against Bush for the GOP ticket in 2000.

Anyway, I have this theory about why more and more people these days seem to be able to successfully resort to slander as a political tool--bad-mouthing their enemies in an attempt to get their way. Basically, it seems that in modern society, people are becoming more and more insulated from real life experience. People find themselves trapped inside cocoons of isolation from the real world, their only windows to the real world being what the media tells them via TV, radio, the internet, etc. As such, it seems, slander becomes a more and more viable option as a political tool because most people can't tell the difference, it seems, between truth and lies! Because most people don't seem to have the real life experience to be able to make out the difference!

As such, a slick liar like George W. Bush, backed by a multi-million dollar advertising machine, can run down a war hero and political idealist like John Kerry and get away with it! Is that sick or what?

Yoda?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Hmm...fiercly anti-Republican sentiment...high rhetoric-to-fact ratio...paragraphs just begging to be broken up into smaller pieces...

...Django?

You make it sound as if negative campaigning was born with the Bush administration. In reality, it's something employed by both parties and virtually every candidate. The only exceptions are that some are less explicit or direct than others.

You've also, it seems, made the mistake of labeling any negative comment as "slander." I've yet to see any television ads "slandering" Kerry. They're critical of him, sure, but this IS a Presidential campaign, and last I checked, Kerry and other elements of the Democratic party were releasing far more spiteful attacks. Bush's ads and statements have never, ever, ever exhibited anywhere near the amount of venom and personal hatred as the ones directed at him. There's simply no comparison. When juxtaposed with the vitriol he's been met with, Bush's response looks positively benign.


I've heard much hullabaloo about all this, but it seems quite blown out of proportion to me. I've heard this accusation many times, but have yet to get anything even resembling specifics out of any of the accusers.

Also, McCain has made it quite clear that he will not be leaving the Republican party, and the possibility of a Kerry/McCain ticket has been all but ruled out.

Furthermore, "risen to Kerry's defense" is highly misleading. McCain has always appeared to me to be a very reasonable, principled man, and as such he is not above agreeing with men like Kerry when they happen to be right. However, he is not a Kerry supporter, and doubtless has many disagreements with him. The fact that he has backed him on highly specific issues is a testament to his open-mindedness and integrity, and not to John Kerry's alleged victimhood.


This doesn't make any sense to me. How would watching less TV or not browsing the Internet help people become more informed? Such mediums are virtually the only way for most citizens to find out what each candidate has to say for themselves.

Limiting yourself to direct, firsthand experience from your immediate physical surroundings is far more deserving of the "cocoons of isolation" description than considering various media reports.

Watching the news less will not enhance your ability to discern slander from valid criticism. Only active research and education can change that, and ignoring media outlets is ultimately counterproductive to those aims.


Uh, John Kerry is also in the possession "multi-million dollar advertising machine," though I fail to see how being a successful fundraiser speaks to the validity of a candidate's policies.

As for "political idealist" -- only someone completely blinded by their hatred for Bush could genuinely believe that such a term accurately describes John Kerry. Kerry supporters have no reasonable choice but to acknowledge that he is, without a doubt, a Washington insider, and a career politician who has made an undeniable habit of appealing to whichever position seems most likely to propel him forward. He is not an idealist; he is an opportunist.

This is, presumably, why his election is based far more on criticism of Bush than on touting his own record. This is also why "electability" was routinely cited as the primary reason for his victories in the Democratic primaries. Kerry knows that what support he has he has simply because he's not George W. Bush. When a political party starts claiming that "anyone" is better than their opponent, you know they've left the path of reason.

Once again, my Jedi instincts serve me well...

thoughtprovoker is, indeed, Django. While our friend Uday was not foolish enough to register under the same email address (as he did the last time he pretended to be someone else), he was foolish enough to log in with this username under two different IP addresses which match the same basic area as ones he used to log in under the "Django" username.

A bit of perusal through his short post history yields the kind of posting habits easily recognizable to those familiar with his style. Such as: posting goofy pictures, using lots of exclamation points, talking about crappy "Rocky" sequels, and saying "lol" a lot. He also registered just 2 weeks after the "Django" username was banned.

And, of course, there's the fact that this thread is precisely the kind of thing he'd post.

Anyone else oddly depressed by his refusal to take a hint?

What are you going to do about it? So far, he hasn't done anything wrong, actually Peter and I both gave him positive reputation for some rather well written and insightful posts. Yet now, he's starting to become political again, which gives me pause for consideration on whether he will revert to his old ways. Especially since he's been found out. Can you allow him a back door entry after a year of abuse? I don't think so personally. Again, what are you going to do about it?

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Good question. One of the reasons I posted the evidence is so that the community as a whole can determine what to do about this.

The idea of letting a banned member "back in" has never really bothered me much, because if they start acting in the manner which got them banned, we'll just ban them again, and if they don't, then what harm are they doing? But, as you've noted, we're seeing the beginnings of the same kind of thing which caused suck a ruckus in the first place.

My first instinct in such situations is generally to give the person a second chance, but in this case, the user in question has already had several. I vote to ban. Anyone second that emotion?

I've got your back if that's what you want to do.

Ooooh, I had no idea... !!! Actually, I did think that his post about Bush was a bit too unobjective, but no.. I had no idea!

Thank you, o great jedi master!

Been depressed by that moral vacuum for a freaking year now. If he continues I'm gonna take aim at him.

Hmm... Yoda, you are obviously well respected as forum administrator, but I think you are becoming a bit obsessive about Django. You raise some interesting points, and I will be sure to address them soon enough. I hope we can engage in a constructive debate focussing on the issues rather than making slanted accusations at one another! All the best to you!

Piddzilla, thanks for your support and encouragement so far! I hope I continue to enjoy your backing in the future. I think you have pretty clearly demonstrated that you think my input to be worthwhile so far... I hope I can convince you to continue to endorse me with your comments and insights in the future.

Same goes to you, Lord Slaytan, and to all the others who have encouraged and supported me so far. Thanks for the input! I'll continue to make worthwhile comments as long as I can!

Here's hoping for a thought-provoking exchange of fresh and original ideas!

Any doubts now?

Can him.

I beg your pardon?


Can, Fry, Cut into pieces and commit to a pot of boiling oil. Clear enough?

Umm...ban him now please! He is obviously Django! That post is reminiscent of all the other posts where he pretended to be someone else! It’s funny that he calls Yoda obsessive since this is the only post since Django’s banning where Yoda has mentioned him! It is Django, he is denying it, he hasn’t changed! BAN HIM QUICKLY BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF HAND!

You're not fooling anyone. It's about time you got on with your life.

Banned (again).

Thank you!

Thank you 'O Wise One...

__________________

Why doesn't it say 'BANNED' under his name?

Well, he was on my blocklist first as Django. Then as Thoughtprovoker. Now he's banned - AGAIN!!! Keep him banned. For me, for all of us....before he commits additional MoFo hell.

hmmmm.....

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

I second that hmmmm.....

__________________
Mr M Rides Again

MoFo Survivor - r3port3r66 wins!!!!!!