How to Frame National Debate with Red "Framing" Square

Last month Comrade Red Square gave an interview to Pajamas Media about the heroic struggle of the masses to shake off the reactionary conspiracy of the Dead White Males. We didn't publish it then because this Party organ was busy adapting the current truth to the changing Party line. But that time is over! As one of the most outspoken organs in America, there's a time to speak up, and that time has come! NOW WITH NEW, EXCITING PICTURES! Culture = A Massive Sham Perpetrated by Rich Capitalist Oppressors Laugh all you want at George Lakoff's advice for the Democrats to win by framing the debate and altering the vocabulary. Language is a key battleground in culture wars, and as soon as you step into your opponent's frame of reference and start identifying bad weather as climate change, illiteracy as public education, and freedom as desperate need of care and supervision, you may lose not just the debate but the war, the culture, and your very way of life.

~
A recent People's Cube discussion about PeopleSpeak™ and its ramifications prompted me to take a more serious look at today's culture war, its origins, goals, and legality. Was the culture war based on lies? Is it about oil? Is the surge working? What is the human and material cost of culture war? Is it subject to the Geneva Conventions? Is Rosie O'Donnell a war criminal? Is Al Gore an illegal combatant and was his Live Earth concert a dirty bomb? Many would characterize CNN broadcasts and Oscar Awards as torture, while the other side claims those are perfectly legal techniques devised by strategists to paralyze the enemy's will and weaken their defenses. And finally, why is nobody protesting outside, screaming "Stop the Culture War" and "Bring the Troops Home"?

To find out more I asked my alter ego Comrade Red Square to do an interview for PJM. The celebrated author of PeopleSpeak™ graciously accepted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

OA: When did culture war begin, who started it, and why?

Red Square: According to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, it started as soon as humanity abandoned its blissful ways of communal living, became greedy, and stopped sharing property, spouses, and children. With historical inevitability, the stronger humans became rich by robbing the weaker humans who later became known as the poor. Eventually the rich set up governments so they could continue to rob the poor and protect themselves against the people's wrath. This lead to the creation of nation states that began to attack each other. The poor were hardest hit - they fought wars based on lies, making the rich even richer, oblivious to the fact that the real enemy had always been their own governments.

OA: But how could so many people be so unaware? Was there mass hypnotism involved?

Red Square: You said it, comrade. The oppressed masses suffered from a glaring lack of awareness due to compulsory injections of the opiate for the masses, which is how Marx described religion. God has always been a hand puppet of the ruling classes. But God alone would be powerless if the rich weren't also imposing their cultural hegemony on the unwashed, to keep them at bay by creating the illusion of a homogenous culture. Brainwashed with the false notion of patriotism, the toiling masses continued to fight illegal wars of aggression.

OA: Did you just say that a national culture is an illusion?

Red Square: Illusion doesn't even begin to describe it. It's a massive sham perpetrated on the people by an international conspiracy of the rich. Every true internationalist knows that the so-called cultures are bogus constructs. The supposedly advanced European cultures of France, England, or Germany are historical falsehoods invented by the rich to obscure the division between the nationalist culture of the upper classes and the internationalist culture of the unwashed.

Aristotle invented logic as a tool to subdue the oppressed masses and minorities by imposing the so-called "rationality" as part of the international White male hegemony. The oppressive "reason-oriented" Western societies are the direct result of his conspiratorial efforts.

OA: Did the unwashed resist the imposition of the upper class culture?

Red Square: All the time. Why do you think we call them "the unwashed?" But without the organizing power of the Marxist doctrine, all that resistance was little more than tantrums of a child protesting against wearing an expensive woolen sweater. Karl Marx opened the people's eyes to the criminal conspiracy of the rich who subdued the poor by imposing the so-called "culture" on them. This is what cultural hegemony means. In America, it is known as the oppression of the Dead White European Males - or DWEM.

OA: So the culture war can be described as a struggle of the masses to take off an expensive woolen sweater made for them by the Dead White Males, with the ruling classes scolding them and pulling the sweater back on?

Red Square: That visual is disturbing. I prefer the traditional image of the struggling unwashed masses at the bottom with the Dead White Males on top, being shaken off.

OA: What happens after the masses shake off the Dead White Males, or pull off that expensive sweater? What is your ultimate goal?

Red Square: Our goal is progress, which is the return to blissful communal living and sharing of all property, spouses, and children, without greed, weapons, or polluting tools - the way we were before the rich ruined it for us when they decided to stop sharing.

OA: That sounds like communism. Is progress another word for communism?

Red Square: It's beautiful, isn't it? Call it what you want, I'd still love it. But calling it "communism" will help the rich to frame the debate in their favor. We can reframe the debate by using the word "progress." Everybody likes progress. This word opens up people's minds and activates the models of hope, prosperity, and adventure. Then, while this model is active for them, we link it to our own goals and methods. We might as well call it chocolate, except Mayor Nagin already framed that one. See, our enemies are no longer in control of the language. They used to control it, but now it's our turn. To win, we must frame the debate with word proxies that best reflect the current truth situation.

OA: What else must you do to win?

Red Square: We must replace the culture of oppression with the culture of being oppressed. But some masses are more unwashed than others. Some are so unwashed, they can't even tell when they are being Dead-White-Maled. This is where the progressive community comes in, armed with the Marxist doctrine of culture war - only we don't call it "Marxist," we call it "empowering." We are the people's vanguard in charge of organizing, representing, raising awareness, and shifting the paradigm.

OA: If communism is progress and Marxism is empowering, why haven't you won already? What's holding you back?

Red Square: Rich capitalist oppressors. They are disciplined, proactive, and organized around their struggle to protect the reactionary legacy of the Dead White Males. Despite our best efforts to raise awareness, the capitalists keep lowering it down. Every time we shift the paradigm they put it back where it was. They never miss a chance to impose more of their hegemony on the unwashed. To keep up with the resistance, we must be twice as vigilant, disciplined, and proactive.

OA: What inspires you in this struggle?

Red Square: The children. We do it all for them. They must be spared the unfiltered legacy of the Dead White Males. Corrected remakes and adaptations by progressive Hollywood filmmakers have been helpful. I'd say we're half way there.

OA: What makes you so sure you will win?

Red Square: Karl Marx said it is historically inevitable. Who are we to argue?

OA: When do you expect it to happen?

Red Square: We always hope it will happen next Tuesday. But it may last until the next presidency. In classical terms, class struggle will not end until the progressive international movement results in placing the oppressed at the top and the oppressors at the bottom.

OA: That doesn't sound like a recipe for peace. What if the former oppressors are unhappy and decide to fight?

Red Square: When guns are outlawed, that'll be irrelevant. The progressive community has no use for their carbon-based lives.

OA: Are you going to kill all those people?

Red Square: I would reframe that. Words like "killing, repressions, deportations, and death camps" have a negative ring in the current oppressive DWEM culture. It is advisable that for the time being we use kinder, gentler terms like "tax, redistribute, subsidize, and raise awareness." Framing the debate with word proxies is a way to win this war for the unwashed masses.

OA: I trust you keep your proletarian shovel in good repair, displayed prominently on the wall of your hovel right next to your hammer and sickle.

Red Square: Oh yes. We must keep our shovels sharp for the Party if we are to bring about the The Progressive World of Next Tuesday™. In fact, a well-versed comrade like you should write for the People's Cube. Why don't you join our Groupthink and participate in highly re-educational discussions with Commissars and Politburo Members? They will tell you what to think.

OA: Thank you, Comrade Red Square. And thank you very much for the interview.

Red Square: It was my pleasure to raise awareness among the confused PJM readers. Here, I brought you a list of Party-approved word proxies widely used by the progressive news media to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception for the next election. Put it to good use; I have more at the headquarters.

Comrade Red Square's list of Party-approved word proxies to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception. economic boom -> recession (when a Republican is President) economic bubble -> golden age (when a Democrat is President) free country -> oppressive regime oppressive regime -> workers' paradise electoral process -> failing democracy socialist dictatorship -> will of the people export of capitalist democracy -> imperialist war for oil export of communist revolution -> true democracy terrorists -> freedom fighters freedom fighters -> imperialist occupiers, rapists and murderers rambling communist thug -> idealistic romantic dreamer hard-working productive individual -> corporate fascist lowering standards -> raising awareness degeneracy -> striving urban culture human excrement -> thought-provoking art destruction of the family -> social progress clinical paranoia -> outstanding filmmaking failing government program -> need to increase funding destroying a perfectly good economy -> care for the downtrodden improving the lives of the downtrodden through innovation -> selfish greed truth telling -> hate speech hate speech -> sensitivity training targeting terrorists -> indiscriminate murder of civilians indiscriminate murder of civilians -> resistance to imperialism protecting the innocent -> racial profiling racial profiling -> affirmative action partisan lies -> unbiased news reporting unbiased news reporting -> fascist corporate media fascist stormtrooper tactics -> proactive approach to progress proactive approach to progress -> destruction of the planet with industries living human being -> carbon polluter dead human being -> Democrat voter

 

Another take on the historic photo, as a separate installment.

A NOTE TO PROGRESSIVE COMRADES WHO MAY INQUIRE ABOUT THE MEANING OF THIS SEQUENCE: It reflects the popular progressive belief that communism was a good idea in general, but it didn't work out because Stalin distorted Lenin's brilliant plan - solely as a result of his own stupidity, viciousness, and megalomania. Observe a cigarette in Stalin's hand. He was a dedicated smoker, while Lenin only tried smoking once as a little boy, but then quit and never tried again. But that's not what killed him.

 

I like Stalin. He's cute. And boy, could he frame a debate.
 

Can't we all just call the Republicans and Libertarians "Reichwing Cryptofascists"?
It's catchy. I get signals all the time from the masses saying the same thing.
Of course, we can just boil it down to "fascist". It's worked for 62 years.
 

According to Constitutional Scholar and Party Academician Otis, I have the constitutional right to get laid by really, really hot women:

Quote:

I've found the actual word "sex" in the Constitution. Amendment XIX reads:

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY THE UNITED STATES OR BY ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF SEX.

Just as a woman is being denied the RIGHT TO PRIVACY if she can't get an abortion on demand, there's no denying that you are being DENIED OR ABRIDGED ON ACCOUNT OF SEX.

Therefor you have the constitutional right to "get laid by really, really hot women..." And, in fact, since this is in the US Constitution your situation is a Federal matter and thus enforceable in Federal Court all the way up to the Supreme Court. As your Constitutional Scholar I advise you: If you are denied sex by a really, really hot woman tell her she is violating the law of the land and you are going to contact the authorities. It is your right.

THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO.

Comrade Otis
Constitutional Scholar
Karl Marx Treatment Center
I'll meet you in Potyomkingrad, the bright shining city on the crater!


With this Constitutional mandate firmly in hand, I request an introduction to the absolutely smokin' comrade modeling the Framing Square. (No comrade Red Square. Not you. The other framing model.)
 

Red Square, what can I say? That was brilliant! Superb! You have framed the debate in a manner that no right thinking, imperialistic rationalist can hope to counter. If there is one thing we progressives know, it is how to frame people and ideas.

I also wish to agree with the assessment of Comrade Brain in a Jar, that the model we sent from the Pup's Party Pleasure Palace was an excellent touch, and as one who has touched her, I am on firm ground. It is sad that Comrade Brain in a Jar can only imagine such a touch, but then he has given all he has for the Party and is to be saluted.
 

Red Square

It reflects the popular progressive belief that communism was a good idea in general, but it didn't work out because Stalin distorted Lenin's brilliant plan - solely as a result of his own stupidity, viciousness, and megalomania. Observe a cigarette in Stalin's hand. He was a dedicated smoker, while Lenin only tried smoking once as a little boy, but then quit and never tried again. But that's not what killed him.

Comrade Red Square, I simply can not allow this oft repeated fairy tale to go unchallenged. Comrade Lenin and I were as close as two links in a chain, a strong chain Comrade. The fact is that I would have never done the things that I did were it not sanctioned by the wishes of Comrade Lenin. He had the vision to see what would be needed to bring the Motherland into the modern world and fight the fascists that we of course foresaw decades in advance. In fact, it was Comrade Lenin that got me to love a good cigar. I merely wished to point out some of the errors that continue to be said about my glorious and heroic development of the Motherland into a power that put fear in the hearts of the Fascists and the Amerikan imperialists. In fact, it it a little known fact that it was I that designed the glorious rocket that sent our own dear Laika into orbit! Bet you didn't know that!
 

Quote:

It is sad that Comrade Brain in a Jar can only imagine such a touch, but then he has given all he has for the Party and is to be saluted.


Comrade Pup, I have a FANTASTIC sex life...that is to say, it consists entirely of fantasies.
 

Aw shucks, Uncle Iosif, and here I thought this would make a great comic strip. Every day on the funny pages, that same photo of you and Lenin. It's more compelling than Garfield, funnier than the girls in Apartment 3-G, edgier than the Family Circus; and when you put it up against Doonesbury--why, I'll bet TWICE as many newspapers will refuse to run it, and you won't even need a controversial subject/story arc to make them censor it, either.
 

Not to worry my dear Commissarka Pinkie! I too enjoyed the humorous photos and the hilarious lines Comrade Red Square thought up. See? That is yet another falsehood that has been spread by wreckers and collaborists over the years, that I, Stalin, have no sense of humor. I was merely trying to expose some of the lies told about the Savior of the Fatherland. But I can certainly enjoy a good joke! Oh, the times I used to have with Beria! He was such a funny man. We used to hold the best Show Trials. People would stand in line for days to get in, though of course they stood in line for days for just about anything, but enough of that. You can't imagine how much fun we had after the show trial when we would then tell the convicted that we were just kidding, and were going to release them. Then just about the time they would be crying and kissing our hands, a guard would put them out of their misery with just a single shot. Talk about laughs! They just don't do Show Trials like we did anymore, except perhaps Off Dzerzhinsky in North Korea.
 

OK, here's a joke about Stalin and Marshal Zhukov who commanded the Soviet Army in WWII. It sounds better when narrated in Stalin's cheerful and slow Georgian accent familiar to all Soviets from the war movies that showed him during his meetings with the Chiefs of Staff.

1941.

STALIN: Comrades Chiefs of Staff! Hitler has betrayed our trust and invaded our borders. But the infinite trust that the Soviet people have in the Party and in me personally shall allow us to lead them to a decisive victory. You can all go now. Marshal Zhukov, I'll ask you to stay with me. Comrade Zhukov, why didn't we put you against the wall with all the others in 1937?
ZHUKOV: I don't know, Comrade Stalin.
STALIN: It's odd, isn't it? You are dismissed, for now.

1943.

STALIN: The war has reached a turning point under Stalingrad. The infinite trust that the Soviet people have in the Party and in me personally has allowed them to reach the ultimate heights of heroism. A decisive victory is now around the corner. You can all go now. Marshal Zhukov, I'll ask you to stay with me. Comrade Zhukov, why didn't we put you against the wall with all the others in 1937?
ZHUKOV: I honestly don't know, Comrade Stalin.
STALIN: Any ideas? No? I still find it very odd. You are dismissed, for now.

1945.

STALIN: The war has gloriously ended in Berlin with full capitulation of the enemy. The infinite trust that the Soviet people have in the Party and in me personally has allowed them to defeat the most vicious foe the world has ever known. But even in the most difficult times we didn't lose our cheerful sense of humor. Isn't that right, Comrade Zhukov?
 

Ivan Betinov

According to Constitutional Scholar and Party Academician Otis, I have the constitutional right to get laid by really, really hot women: With this Constitutional mandate firmly in hand, I request an introduction to the absolutely smokin' comrade modeling the Framing Square. (No comrade Red Square. Not you. The other framing model.)

Comrade Betinov, you should be ashamed of yourself for quoting from this insidious and counterproductive document! Beet rations are curtailed for a week! Now watch in agony as these glorious comrades demonstrate how to frame the debate (I am still unclear what the meaning of "Can't Get No Satisfaction" is, but it certainly sounds like a revolutionary theme. Perhaps it is akin to "the greatest good for the greatest number" or "from each according to his abundance to each according to his need" or other party-approved slogans). Hokay. Now watch video... make glorious stain for progressive party cleaners!!!!!


 

Oh, and I'm glad that the party is so open-minded as to allow all shapes and geodesic forms to be called "squares". It would be entirely exclusive if you used such hateful terms as "rhombus" "trapezoid" "dodecahedron" and "isosceles triangle" to exclude some shapes from having equal access to the rights of squares. Thank you, Red, for not being too tangential in this matter and instead drawing the correct line and offering us the right angle.


 

AbecedariusRex

Oh, and I'm glad that the party is so open-minded as to allow all shapes and geodesic forms to be called "squares". It would be entirely exclusive if you used such hateful terms as "rhombus" "trapezoid" "dodecahedron" and "isosceles triangle" to exclude some shapes from having equal access to the rights of squares. Thank you, Red, for not being too tangential in this matter and instead drawing the correct line and offering us the right angle.

Just how far behind are you Comrade? All these geometric shapes that you refer to are so named by the number of sides are they not? The PeoplesMath™ has already shown that all numbers are equal.
 

A glorious tale Comrade Red Square! Yes, that Zukhov was also a man of great humor. Did you ever hear this true tale?

Once I invited several Marshals of the Soviet Union and ordered them to wrestle in front of me on a carpet. Marshal Tukhachevsky won all rounds. This angered me. So I ordered to summon Marshal Timoshenko who was a very big man.

Timoshenko arrived and easily overpowered Tukhachevsky. As Tukhachevsky fell to the carpet, he hit his head. Timoshenko, putting in order his uniform, loudly expressed regret.

"Don't worry, comrade Timoshenko," I said. "He will not need his head any longer."
 

Right on! Actually I was also hoping someone would continue a list of Party-approved word proxies to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception. Such attempts have been made on another thread but I forgot which one.
 

 

No culture war for oil!

No illegal war on poverty!
 

Red Square

Right on! Actually I was also hoping someone would continue a list of Party-approved word proxies to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception. Such attempts have been made on another thread but I forgot which one.

War on poverty -> campaign contributions
Fairly tale -> Democratic National Platform
child molestation -> no child left behind
assisted suicide -> death squads
 

Commissar Pupovich

Red Square

Right on! Actually I was also hoping someone would continue a list of Party-approved word proxies to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception. Such attempts have been made on another thread but I forgot which one.

War on poverty -> campaign contributions
Fairly tale -> Democratic National Platform
child molestation -> no child left behind
assisted suicide -> death squads

CIA -> KGB
FBI -> KGB
ATF -> KGB
Homeland Security -> KGB
Politician-> Crook, Idiot, Pompous Ass, Elitist, Smarmy, John McCaine
or all of the above.
Border Patrol -> Priceless
 

"Speakers of Truth to Power" replaces "Left Wing Demagogue" (i.e.Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnel, Tom Cruise, George Clooney, and etc.)
"Consensus" replaces "Political scientific opinion arrived at without factual data"
"George Soros" replaces "Ex-Nazi collaborator"
 

Quote:

Thank you, Red, for not being too tangential in this matter and instead drawing the correct line and offering us the right angle.


Further proof of the Bsh-Cheney propaganda mill at work: Why, comrades, must we labor under the oppressive lash of the RIGHT angle when we use geometry? Why is there not a LEFT angle? Damn the DWEMs and their insidious indoctrination of the youth!
 

Left to their own devices, the right will leave us left out in the cold, straight through armageddon. Lets go full circle on the right and square the round hole the right keeps hammering us into.
 

Important update:

For best framing practices see AmericansWhoTellTheTruth.org - a site that features a portrait collection of prominent American debate framers and a book by progressive artist Robert Shetterly, which is being distributed to public schools. Detractors may call it "An Idiot's Guide To Lying" - but we all know that "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" (V. Lenin).

Most of you already know that the word for TRUTH in the Mother tongue is PRAVDA. That was also the name of the USSR's main Party Organ, founded by Lenin. The tradition of framing the debate by calling shifting opinions "The Truth" is still alive today in America.

Back in the glorious Soviet times, many progressive Americans used to tell Pravda spies horrible stories of oppression in the United States. The stories were eagerly translated and reprinted in the Motherland and beyond, and the pravda-tellers were properly rewarded, both morally and materially. Whenever an American communist saw a sign of a criminal conspiracy by the ruling classes, the first impulse was: "That's it, I'm tellin' Pravda (The Truth)." The USSR is no more, but Pravda lives.



The ultimate debate-framing technique was exercised by the Soviet communists who named their main Party organ "The Truth" - PRAVDA.

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1716



Toiling collective farmers take a break in the fields to suck up the current truth from fresh issue of Pravda with Stalin's portrait on the front page.
 

 

Yes Comrade Red Square.
 

The 1960's version of "The Time Machine" is on TCM right now. Man, I wish I was an Eloi! Everything provided for you, never have to work, perfect climate, really cool clothes, all provided by the government. And at the modest price of a few of the herd culled to feed the government every night.
 

Hillary Clinton -> Ballistic Nipple

Comrade Bubalasky - we moved your post with Coulter's video to a separate topic on the People's Blog, where it has already received a few comments. Please make a note of it.

The Propaganda Department
 

Red Square

Party-approved word proxies to frame the debate and foster a shift in public perception.

Street Corner Crack Dealer -> Unaccredited Pharmacist
Productive Citizen -> Capitalist Pig
Capitalist Pig -> Free-Market Fundamentalist
Personal Income Rising at 6% Annual Rate -> Shifts In The Growth Rate
5% Unemployment Rate -> Economic Downturn
Economic Downturn -> Recession

-Mikhail
 

Microsoft -> Evil kkkapitalist corporation that is fueling the PC business and thus destroying the glorious people friendly and technologically superior Mac.


 

WARNING: Anyone who wants to digress into framing the "Mac vs PC" debate please do it in the specially designated padded area titled

Mac vs. PC Shootout: Will It Turn Into A Civil War?

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1079


I reposted Betty's video there.
 

President = Bastard
(approved by future president H.R. Clinton)


 

"When I am elected Empress for life, all Americans shall suckle me. I have 300,000,000 nipples." MTE
 

Eeewwww....
 

Commissar Theocritus

"When I am elected Empress for life, all Americans shall suckle me. I have 300,000,000 nipples." MTE

Would this constitute universal health care?
 

Universal, yes. Healthy, no. But then neither is Britain's NHS.
 

Red Square

A NOTE TO PROGRESSIVE COMRADES WHO MAY INQUIRE ABOUT THE MEANING OF THIS SEQUENCE: It reflects the popular progressive belief that communism was a good idea in general, but it didn't work out because Stalin distorted Lenin's brilliant plan - solely as a result of his own stupidity, viciousness, and megalomania. tried again.

Essentially, the original version of the argument that "Communism has never failed because real Communism has never been established". Each time a reichwing christofascist says "Yeah, that worked out pretty well in (Cuba, China, North Korea, Central America, S.E. Asia), didn't it?", a Progressive True Believer (who by the way, will almost never claim to be a Communist) will go into a "Yeah but..." defense that usually blames outside influences (the U.S.) and/or mismanagement by internal forces that were not true to Marxist Ideals.
 

By all means let us try strong communism. 100,000,000 bodies are not enough, obviously, so let us try 1,000,000,000. And if that's not enough another billion or so. When only 1,000 people are left on earth, all of them guards spaced too far apart to guard each other, we can declare the communism has succeeded.
 

George Lakoff the Godfather of Framing the Debate (mentor to Red Square) calls it quits.

“The Rockridge Era Ends”

Quote:

The Rockridge Institute was founded with a mission: to teach Americans about the role of values and framing in political debate, and to help progressives equalize the framing advantages enjoyed by conservatives. With your help, Rockridge has done more than any small think tank could be expected to do. About 1,000 of you have donated to support our efforts. More than 8,000 have registered as members of Rockridge Nation to engage actively with us. And hundreds of thousands, both in the US and abroad, have bought our books and used our materials. If you are one of those hundreds of thousands, political discourse will now look different to you. As you read the newspapers and the blogs and watch TV, you can see the effects of our work everywhere. Your support has made that possible. For this and so much more, you have our complete admiration and gratitude.
Nonetheless, the Rockridge era will come to an end on April 30.
 

Thanks for the link. As I read the full Rockridge message I became nauseous at the sight of the depth of the moral and intellectual void into which these "educated fools" and "useful geniuses" are trying to push us. Right there they have stated so many false and contradictory premises that it would take months to untangle them. Overall it sounded like a parody of progressive idiocy of the People's Cube variety. It would be funny if it weren't scary.

Why make up improbable horror situations in books and movies? If I were to write a horror story I'd make one about the Rockridge Institute and the "community" they created, of soulless liars, paranoid conspirators, Dr. Mengele style scientists. The only comic relief in that story would be the depiction of spouses cheating on each other and applying "top-to-bottom issue framing" and "value-based modes of reasoning" in the ensuing debates as they try to prove their "innocence" to their "life partners" who have also attended the workshops and are as skilled in framing the debate and morally depraved as their low-life scheming better halves.

All I need now is a conservative foundation to give me a "large, multi-year block grant" to write that book.

But I'm surprised the Rockridge Institute didn't get any money from George Soros. Or was their research too low even for the creatures of the nether world at the Open Society Institute?
 

What I've noticed is that liberals don't really frame a debate: they restate a platitude and when you insist on proof, they attempt to divert you, especially with ad-hominem attacks, many of them projection. "Why are you so angry?" and "Why do you spend so much energy on this?"

The latter one assuming that the argument was won and you're merely being fractious. I have literally had them get quite hysterical when boxed in.

Liberalism is nothing but a set of attitudes posturing as thought, supported by the circle-jerk of mutual admiration of their own conspicuous compassion.
 

Old news but I thought it was worth a bump

http://americanswhotellthetruth.org/pgs/portraits/Van_Jones.php


 

Ah, Pinkie, thank you.

Quote:

It has been credited with a 30% drop in the total number of youth incarcerated in California.
I believe I read that California courts have ordered the release of prisoners owing to "inhumane" conditions. That might do it too.

Quote:

Additionally Jones sits on numerous governing boards, and following Hurricane Katrina co-founded the largest online activist community addressing Black issues.
Gasp! Be still, my beating heart! An on-line community, and activist, addressing Black issues? That must be so much more useful than, oh, rebuilding houses or handing out food.

But I have a question. If the houses are destroyed, how will the community be accessed?

Smartphones?