How do we fight illuminati like this?

[The Facts]

This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by The Facts

This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

So you're not so far behind the times and feel the indignation and need to 'fight' something. What the Koch brothers do with their family wealth has been known for many, many years and is hardly a secret.

Secondly, when you come up with a plan please come back on the Board and post so the rest of us can get some ideas about what to do about George Soros and ACORN.

Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.

Not any more. Where have you been?

[The Facts]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

So you're not so far behind the times and feel the indignation and need to 'fight' something. What the Koch brothers do with their family wealth has been known for many, many years and is hardly a secret.

Secondly, when you come up with a plan please come back on the Board and post so the rest of us can get some ideas about what to do about George Soros and ACORN.

Oh wait, ACORN uses our tax money to advance their agenda....not their own. Never mind.

Let me guess ... I should read Faux news instead. LOL

Yeah, I'm sure it's "no secret" that's why the article is titled "Covert" and why people are afraid to go on record about them, being "underground."

And George Soros is a patriot trying to IMPROVE america and make it better, not just trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.

This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.

[Bricker]

Do the brothers use the 17/23 concurrence?

[Kobal2]

OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by The Facts

This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.

With all due respect, this progressive must point out that you cannot enforce that the thread is "for progressives". It's on "Great Debates", but also it will attract just simple opposition contradiction.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

OP to tu quoque in one. Nice.

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation.

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Bricker

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation.

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs. He merely said "It's old news, besides your guy does it too". There was no defense of Soros or mention of patriotism at that point.

Yeah, I know, my post came after TheFacts's one which is ... yeah. I swear to Aïsha I had it typed sooner, I just went back and forth on whether I should suggest we setup a Fallacy Bingo in GD or not for a while, before figuring it wasn't that funny.
It just goes to show that snark's all about timing.

[foolsguinea]

Actually, I hadn't thought of calling them Illuminati. That might help. Hey, are they in fact Bilderbergers?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs.

Well, I agree that IdahoMuleMan's post is not a shining example of persuasive debate either, but a charitable reader may discern a gleam of an actual rebuttal in it. It would have helped his case to more clearly identify his attack on equivocation (if, indeed, that is what he intended to do).

But as you say, snark has its own rules, and only rarely do they intersect with those of the rhetors.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by The Facts

This thread is for progressives go sell your BS elsewhere.

Posters, (even Original Posters) do not control who will participate in threads.

Telling another poster to "sell. . . BS" is inappropriate in Great Debates.

This thread seems much more suited to The BBQ Pit than to Great Debates. I will give you an opportunity to post an actual thesis to debate. If one is not forthcoming, I will move the thread for you.


[/Moderating ]

[IdahoMauleMan]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Note however that IdahoMauleMan (whose post it is I was making light of) has not disputed the lack of ethics or reprehensibility or whatever of the Kochs. He merely said "It's old news, besides your guy does it too". There was no defense of Soros or mention of patriotism at that point.

Yeah, I know, my post came after TheFacts's one which is ... yeah. I swear to Aïsha I had it typed sooner, I just went back and forth on whether I should suggest we setup a Fallacy Bingo in GD or not for a while, before figuring it wasn't that funny.
It just goes to show that snark's all about timing.

Agreed. And well-played, sir. Very well played.

No, here was the point behind my snark....

1. I read something in the New Yorker that cast a libertarian in a poor light. Which is a tautalogical truism, of course. As Hendrik Hertzberg would confirm.

2. Shock and indignation follows. A call to action must be made, and immediately. This is an outrage.

3. Of course, what the Koch's due with their money has been known for decades.

[Snark #1 coming] So are you outraged only now, since you read it in the latest New Yorker? Millions of people have been aware of this for a long time. Why outrage only now?

Are your behaviors and mood controlled that much by a single publication? That implies if an editor, or a particular columnist, has an agenda to promote....and a particular time and place to promote it (say, just before an election or an important vote in Congress) they can easily pull your strings - and the strings of those like you - by printing something in a magazine. Even though it's already been known for a long time.

4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?

But let's leave that aside for now, since that's a deeper political discussion often covered in other threads.

5. [Snark #2 coming...] And yes, the Soros/ACORN comment was pretty much as you say. With a special little topper at the end, since ACORN's antics are often held up by more conservative elements as the Koch-equivalent bane of their existence. But unlike the Kochs, who are spending their own money, ACORN (until recently) had signficant funding from the public purse.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Bricker

*sigh*

No.

Not tu quoque.

If Action X, practiced by Actor A, is called "patriotism," and Action X practiced by Actor B is called "trying to control society," this is potentially the fallacy of equivocation.

There is a fallacy called tu quoque, a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. Tu quoque happens when an accusation is rebutted with some variant of, "Well, you do it too."

I know this is kind of a subtle distinction, but in order to discover if the tu quoque fallacy is in play, you must ask yourself, "What is the inference to be drawn by bringing up the conduct of the speaker?" If it's merely that the speaker is bad, or hypocritical, then you have identified a tu quoque fallacy. But here, there is no such inference: as the OP acknowledges himself, the true complaint is not a wealthy person spending money to encourage social or legal change. The true complaint is that the change being sought is conservative (or as the OP puts it, "...trying to use it to hurt poor people and make himself richer.")

So in debate terms, the onus now falls to the OP to draw a principled distinction between Soros and the Koches.

You guys are both way off.

The OP isn't directly criticizing Koch Brothers, nor is IdahoMauleMan drawing that sort of comparison. So what resulted was damn lot of imputing. It seems the correct thing to do would have been to ASK the OP for clarification of his beliefs BEFORE assigning a pre-set to them.

The OP specifically says what they are doing isn't illegal, nor does he suggest it should be. The way I read it is that the OP finds this particular tactic highly effective--billionaires using their money to manipulate a grass roots conservative movement. With this in mind, he/she is curious to consider how the progressive movement might counter this. Should billionaire liberals dupe the gullible working class? Should they develop a propaganda machine in the form of a news organization? Or perhaps they should send the DOJ after political opponents, maybe use the special prosecutor.

In other words, lots to discuss without getting all bitchy.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?

The Koch brother's, as far as I understand*, are spending their own money to [successfully?] push a conservative/libertarian agenda. The end goal being to elect conservative/libertarian politicians who will enact conservative/libertarian policies.

Someone who doesn't want those policies would thus have to *fight* to prevent it, or as Palin would say, "Lock and load."

It shouldn't surprise you to hear that there is a portion of Americans that would prefer a progressive platform and are *fighting* to achieve that goal.

The question posed in the OP is thus: how does the liberal/progressive movement counteract this conservative/libertarian push?

To answer your rebuttal, killing ACORN required a guy pretending to be a journalist, fake some footage, dress up in a pimp costume, and steeling some underpants.

Essentially, after the last election some conservative/libertarians read an article in [insert conservative/libertarian publication] about how ACORN successfully got poor urban blacks to vote {for Obama}. This caused *outrage* and the question was asked, "how do we fight this." There answer was James O'Keefe.

*I hadn't heard of them until now.

[Illuminatiprimus]

I'd just like to point out that I had nothing to do with this.

Thanks.

[elbows]

Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elbows

Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Really?

It should be illegal for someone to say, "Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and he's a Muslim?"

[elucidator]

ACORN helped to empower the downtrodden. The Koch Brothers help those who do the trodding. Its not quite that simple, but close enough for rock and roll.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by The Facts

This article in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

Exposes a pair of billionaire brothers who are basically bankrolling political extremism. They pretty much paid for the Tea Partys, and now have pretty much bought what is supposed to be a public university." If seems like they manage to not do anything that's technically illegal, but clearly they are trying to use their money to spread their ideology and control society. How should progressives fight this?

Wait, these billionaire brothers are RWs. Aren't the Illuminati LWs fnord? The originals were (for their time).

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Do the brothers use the 17/23 concurrence?

In the interest of precision, I believe you mean "correlation".



Anyway, the best response is awareness and education.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by elbows

Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

4. Leaving aside the point of environmental regulation for the moment, since it involves externalities, I find it humurous on its face (but I'm sure I'm the only one on the SDMB) that someone feels the need to 'fight' a group that is expending resources to encourage the limited role of government.

That is, they are spending their own money to promote the idea of more personal freedom. What exactly do the indignant progressives feel the need to 'fight' for? To have more of their lives controlled by government officials?

Except for the fags, of course, we need to prevent them from getting married. Oh, and women, can't let them have abortions. And must make sure that the drug companies are safe from people importing prescription drugs from Canada. And marijuana doesn't count as a personal freedom because it's just a bunch of hippies, and must make sure that we can't have sex on TV (violence is OK). Oh, and lets make sure that we continue to shift money from progressive states so conservative states so that the conservatives have leisure time to complain about the government. And make sure that the govt stays out of Medicare.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

No no, see, conservatives hate people, so it's okay to hate them.

The way Nazi's were bad, so it's okay to hate them.

Wait, but then, those people become the haters, so I guess it's okay to hate both groups.

How about it's okay to hate people that hate other people, but not okay to hate people that don' hate other people. Seems easy enough.

[horhay_achoa]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

Except for the fags, of course, we need to prevent them from getting married. Oh, and women, can't let them have abortions. And must make sure that the drug companies are safe from people importing prescription drugs from Canada. And marijuana doesn't count as a personal freedom because it's just a bunch of hippies, and must make sure that we can't have sex on TV (violence is OK). Oh, and lets make sure that we continue to shift money from progressive states so conservative states so that the conservatives have leisure time to complain about the government. And make sure that the govt stays out of Medicare.

I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

[elucidator]

A suggestion to the OP? That he petition the Luminous Ones to change the title of the thread, since its commonly assumed that "Illuminati" references are a clear indication of a "joke" thread?

[John Mace]

Right wing illuminati problem? Who you gonna call? George Soros!

[BrainGlutton]

Anyway, everybody knows what you need to fight Illuminati:

Dolphins!

[Chronos]

I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country... How much of that do they support?

[CurtC]

I need to get a current program - I thought that the Illuminati were progressives.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Anyway, everybody knows what you need to fight Illuminati:

Dolphins!

That's your answer to everything.

[gonzomax]

Those Koch suckers have probably dumped 200 million into political campaigns the last few years. They are anti environmentalist due to the fact they are oilmen who have had lots of spills. They are Libertarians because a lack of rules and regulations would allow them to do whatever they want. They can convince other Libertarians that their motives are not self serving, taty they care about the direction of the country. It works. Libertarians are not the most logical of groups.

[Algorithm]

Originally Posted by horhay_achoa

I think you are confusing Libertarian with Republican. I think most libertarians are in favor of gay marriage, pro-choice, would allow someone to get drugs from wherever they want, would get rid of the FCC (at least the censorship part), and would legalize all drugs.

He was outlining things "progressives" feel the need to fight for. Who they are fighting to get those things was not part of the question nor part of the answer.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Not any more. Where have you been?

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch's (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the "I have mine, screw everyone else" sense of the word.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by elucidator

A suggestion to the OP? That he petition the Luminous Ones to change the title of the thread, since its commonly assumed that "Illuminati" references are a clear indication of a "joke" thread?

Are you suggesting I send this to the The Game Room forum instead of The BBQ Pit?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Are you suggesting I send this to the The Game Room forum instead of The BBQ Pit?

Will we be playing the game where every question gets answered with another question?

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Will we be playing the game where every question gets answered with another question?

Why shouldn't we?

[Smeghead]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

Why shouldn't we?

Who said we shouldn't?

[Drunky Smurf]

The illuminati?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Soooo...the First Amendment is a bad idea?

If we do things your way, then I get to round up the usual suspects on this very board and ship them off to the gulag for hating conservatives. Hmmmm....maybe you're on to something here....

Its not opinions we should try to control, it is the deliberate dissemination of lies.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Libertarians such as who? Remember, the Pauls are constantly praised as being libertarian politicians, probably the most significant libertarian politicians in the country... How much of that do they support?

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

Its not opinions we should try to control, it is the deliberate dissemination of lies.

Ah dear boy, truth is in the eye of the beholder, and reality is just a commodity. One man's lie is another man's means to advertising revenue.

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I would presume that they would at the very least support legalized pot.

Would it make them richer? No

Would it mean fewer poor people being disenfranchised from their vote [from being incarcerated]? Yes

Result: criminalize the hell out of it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by IdahoMauleMan

Firstly, you should read something other than the New Yorker.

God, is this what it's like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can't read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

[emacknight]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

God, is this what it's like to be a modern-day libertarian? You can't read the New Yorker? What if I happen to like their movie reviews?

They're all lies to encourage you to watch movies produced by Liberal Hollywood elitists, which I believe is still controlled by the Jews.

[furt]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

He probably reads the New Yorker, which is sooo yesterday.

With taht said, the quiet influence of the Koch's (promounced like coke) is pretty common knowledge.

They are libertarians in the "I have mine, screw everyone else" sense of the word.

Bullshit. You got a cite for that, or are you making things up?

They are big supporters of the Libertarian Party, which is pro-legalization, pro-immigration, anti-corporate welfare, anti-war, etc.

[Claverhouse]

Originally Posted by elbows

Hate laws. If it's pointedly untrue, and the people spreading it are aware, if it's targeted at a specific demographic, it's hate speech, and a crime. Even just identifying it as such, would go a long way. Put the focus on the 'hate'ful part of what they are doing. Would they continue to walk a fine line? Without a doubt, but much of what's out there, (birthers, he's a muslim crowd), would be silenced. And rightly so.

It's what keeps Anne Coulter choosing her words more carefully, when she's in Canada.

It should be illegal to spread hate, in my opinion.

I quite agree. However this only goes to the effects of the problem, and not the problem itself, which is bad-thinking. Forcibly stopping people from communicating their thoughts to the gullible and innocent --- citizens easily led astray by racist or nazi or sexist or anti-modernist propaganda against their true better natures --- still leaves this faction with bad thoughts which, even if they tell no-one, poisons and endangers the nature of society.

The only answers are Education, firm rigorous education in permitted thought from two years and up, and continuous re-education throughout life to prevent lapses; and the utmost vigilance in rooting out evidence of illiberal thinking. Citizens should be regularly interrogated to confess any doubts or disagreements they might have with state ideology, and punished if any thinking fails to conform. Children should be enrolled to watch their relatives and denounce any failings. Garbage must be rifled through. Watchful cameras installed in every room. Censors should have the power to visit any time of the day or night to force people to justify their thoughts.

These are strong measures, but only thus can we be free.

[JRDelirious]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Wait, these billionaire brothers are RWs. Aren't the Illuminati LWs fnord? The originals were (for their time).

We are not of the Left. We are not of the Right. We are in the Light of Above.

[Mosier]

Whoa, billionaires are spending a bunch of money promoting libertarian political ideology? How surprising!

[Nzinga, Seated]

I finally decided to look up the pronunciation of 'tu quoque'. I never used it in my so-called 'debates' with friends or husband because I didn't know how to say it. This thread got itchin' to use it on their asses again and I decided to finally look it up. Too-quoh-quee. I would have never thought that was the way to say it.

But yeah. All my illuminati peeps, throw your rings up.