The question is returned: if there is no VALID reason why such an analysis should not be undertaken by this list (and I cannot conceive of one - can anyone here?), and a solid and substantial list-purpose reason why it should indeed be undertaken, then why has it not happened here in the last four years, despite all my urging? I have to conclude that it is due to the anti-US - and specifically, anti-Bush - stance of a solid majority of the list members.
You many want to re-examine your logic here. I don't think your conclusion remotely follows.
Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion. You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general. So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason?
I have a suggestion: add a supercategory titled "critical analysis of memeplexes", with subdivisions - including, among others, critical analysis of racist memeplexes, critical analysis of sexist memeplexes, critical analysis of constitutional democracy memeplexes, critical analysis of Communist memeplexes, critical analysis of Classical fascist (Nazi) memeplexes, critical analysis of jingoistic (superpatriot) memeplexes, critical analysis of anti-American memeplexes, critical analysis of anti-Semitic memeplexes, critical examination of anti-Christian memeplexes, critical examination of Islamophobic memeplexes, critical examination of Atheist memeplexes, critical analysis of Pagan memeplexes, critical analysis of Eastern Religious (Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc.) memeplexes, critical analysis of Zionist memeplexes, critical analysis of Christian memeplexes and critical analysis of Islamofascist (Wahhab-Qutb) memeplexes, within which such critical analysis may be undertaken. Then list members can engage the memeplexes of their choice in said critical analysis, and the various aforementioned analyses will both be readily accessible by list members and available for elaboration, modification and improvement, each in its totality.
Of course, some of these memeplexes overlap; in such cases, pointers to complementary critiques found in other categories can be added by the contributer.
Just my off-the-cuff bullshit response . . . on the most cursory reading of course . . . that sounds like an awful lot of free work you are asking for. You want to be the primary recruiter, Joe?
It would appear, from one of the main avowed purposes of the list (collection and critical analysis of various and sundry major memeplexes), that this would be USEFUL and VALUABLE work that list members supposedly would WANT to do, for personal discovery and the augmentation of the personal understanding of these memeplexes, for the expansion and dissemination of memetic knowledge, capability and critique, and for the advancement of applied memetics via its employment concerning these, and other, memesets, as well as to fulfill one of the main raison d'etre's (reasons for being) of the list. Of course, in some member cases, I could be wrong...
It is, IMHO, vastly preferable to solely pursuing a non-memetics-specific cyberkaffeklatch, of which there are many on the net (even though there's no reason why that social diversion could not also concurrently continue).
People would recruit themselves, and collaborate in the creation, elaboration, and tweaking/honing of the critiques. They would critique not only the memesets in question, but also each others' work on them, and the precision, concision, comprehensiveness and logical, historical and empirical correctness of the critiques would, one would hope, Darwinianly evolve right up their respective fitness landscape gradients. It would be kinda like building our own memeplex Wikipedia.
And pursuing this task could possibly attract greater attention to the CoV and incline new members to join it, and add their own contributions; it has been well and truly said (Field of Dreams) that 'if you build it, they will come...' It could really be the beginning of something...er...um...BIG.
You see something undone and ask why should we do it; I see the same thing undone, list several reasons why we should do it, and ask, why not; why DON'T we do it, why SHOULDN'T we? I think it would be a GOOD THING to do; not for just ourselves (although I think it would be good practice for honing our memetic, cognitive and critical skills), but also for the field of memetics at large - and if we're lucky and good at what we do, perhaps beyond that, to (cue triumphant creschendo) (gasp!) greater global understanding and civilizational cooperation and advancement. And what would we be doing here, instead of this, otherwise? Anything any LESS foolish, timewasting and purposeless?
(Cue "I want to change the world...but I don't know what to do...). Maybe this. Just maybe. And I think maybe just may be worth the effort.
I have a suggestion: add a supercategory titled "critical analysis of memeplexes", with subdivisions - including, among others, critical analysis of racist memeplexes,
Adding categories isn't necessary when this category "Evolution and Memetics" will do just fine. Feel free to start new threads.
Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion. You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general. So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason?
I can't think of anyone who has posted to this forum that is generally anti-USA. Those who have criticized Bush have never defended the actions of the criminals Bush is (supposed to be) fighting.
Here are some possible conclusions you have failed to imagine: 1) it is in fact not the purpose of this forum to discuss Islamofascism 2) maybe no one has the time or interest to do so 3) maybe those who do are discussing it in a more relevant forum 4) perhaps those that would like to discuss it are scared away by the flame wars that typically arise
I'm sure there are many other possibilities, need I go on?
Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion. You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general. So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason?
I can't think of anyone who has posted to this forum that is generally anti-USA. Those who have criticized Bush have never defended the actions of the criminals Bush is (supposed to be) fighting.
Here are some possible conclusions you have failed to imagine: 1) it is in fact not the purpose of this forum to discuss Islamofascism
But Islamofascism is a memeplex, and a particularly nasty one at that. It would seem to be solidly within the list purview to discuss it.
2) maybe no one has the time or interest to do so
Maybe; although one wonders why, considering that the critical analysis of memeplexes is one of this list's reasons for being, and one that is so contemporarily threatening would seem to be crying and stamping its feet for list attention.
3) maybe those who do are discussing it in a more relevant forum
And that would be...?
4) perhaps those that would like to discuss it are scared away by the flame wars that typically arise
Flames DO seem to be directed at those who attempt to initiate such studies, true...but perhaps we could all rise above such pettiness...and perhaps not. We won't know until we give it a good committed try...
I'm sure there are many other possibilities, need I go on?
Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion. You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general. So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason?
I can't think of anyone who has posted to this forum that is generally anti-USA. Those who have criticized Bush have never defended the actions of the criminals Bush is (supposed to be) fighting.
Here are some possible conclusions you have failed to imagine: 1) it is in fact not the purpose of this forum to discuss Islamofascism
But Islamofascism is a memeplex, and a particularly nasty one at that. It would seem to be solidly within the list purview to discuss it.
2) maybe no one has the time or interest to do so
Maybe; although one wonders why, considering that the critical analysis of memeplexes is one of this list's reasons for being, and one that is so contemporarily threatening would seem to be crying and stamping its feet for list attention.
3) maybe those who do are discussing it in a more relevant forum
And that would be...?
4) perhaps those that would like to discuss it are scared away by the flame wars that typically arise
Flames DO seem to be directed at those who attempt to initiate such studies, true...but perhaps we could all rise above such pettiness...and perhaps not. We won't know until we give it a good committed try...
I'm sure there are many other possibilities, need I go on?
Please do.
I don't think Lucifer needs to go on, but since you seem to crave lots of undeserved attention, I will name just one more possibility if it will get you to either 1: STFU, or 2: stop asking other people to think for you when you obviously have no interest in doing so for youself.
The last and possibly best explanation is that there is nothing about Islamo-fascism discernable either from an academic point of view, or first hand experience, or both, that isn't already generally known, but that the people currently engaged with the problem (the Bush administration) completely lack the competance to win this game. It is after all a war of intelligence, and intelligence was the first resource this administration was willing to sacrifice completely to cling to their ill-gotten power. Current events (the indictment of Libby) only provide yet one more in a long list of examples of this continuing pattern. Ideology is no substitute for intelligence, and yet this administration continues to believe so despite all objective signs of this complete failure. That to me is the far more interesting self-destructive memeplex to study, an ideology that continues to spectacularly fail and yet still persists. A truly parasitic memetic phenomenon. There is no mystery to Islamofacism, as they continue to prevail in ever greater numbers of successful terrorist attacks worldwide. It concerns me to say so certainly that we are getting our asses kicked, but reality is compelling that way, and it is directly related to our (US) current incompetance of leadership. It seems that they are counting on the rapture or some other strange silliness to deliver them from themselves.
In any case, as some chatters have pointed out in our chat channels, it is really amazing that yet another unrelated thread gets turned into yet another thread of memebotic apologetics for an administration that has no more real excuses. But this seems the constantly recurring theme for Joe lately. Now it seems he expects others to fill the gaps in his own credibility where he has completely lost it.
« Last Edit: 2005-11-01 00:32:33 by Jake Sapiens »
I gather, Jake, that your reply means that you will not participate in such an endeavor? Oh, well...
In case you haven't noticed, BTW, we ARE winning against the Islamofascists, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan (not to mention also in Lebanon, which underwent a successful indigenous democratic revolt, supported by Lebanese Christians and Muslims alike, against occupation by Syria, and in some other areas where the meme of democratic self-rule is beginning to spread from Iraq and Afghanistan by osmosis - the initiation of popular votes in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt comes to mind). The frequency and severity of attacks against our troops continue to decline, our new military casualties occur at an ever decreasing pace, and the letters between Zawahiri and Zarqawi reflect their dismay at this turn of events. The military training of indigenous forces proceeds apace in both countries, and each democratic vote in those countries is marred by less violence and includes more voter participation than the one before, as we continue to approach the day when we can indeed, unlike as we did in Vietnam, remove most of our troops while still leaving in place constitutional democracies capable of protecting both themselves and the lives and new freedoms of their citizens - which is good news both for us and for them. Finally, after many years, under all sorts of administrations, of preaching constitutional democracy whilst propping up despots, we're ridding ourselves of that nasty political contradiction, and oppressed people around world are sitting up, taking notice, and in some cases even joining in. I'm guessing - correct me if I'm wrong - that you might have been too mesmerized by the 'if it bleeds, it leads' and 'if it's good news for the US, it might reflect favorably upon the Bush administration, so it's not news at all' reportage, all-too-regrettably common among the mainstream media, to have divined this. I sincerely hope that you do not consider these revelations to be bad news...of course, there hasn't seemed to have been much news at all coming out of those areas lately as far as the mainstream media is concerned (you'd have had to pay really close attention to the mainstream media to even know that a national and overwhelmingly constitution-ratifying vote was recently held in Iraq, with another vote, to select people to fill the positions contained in that constitution, to come in December), and in their case, no news is good news.
And Jake, if you care to remember (or just look at page 1 of this thread to refresh your memory), it was you who hijacked this thread, which I started, and which was entirely about understanding the particular contradictions and flaws contained within the recently mutated and profoundly troubling 'intelligent design' variant of the creationist memeplex so that we might more effectively co-evolve counters to it, by misrepresenting me for gratuitous ad hominem slagging purposes (since you seem to fallaciously consider the term 'neo-con' to be a slur implying creationist and socially reactionary leanings) - slagging I have not returned - and won't. But neither will I STFU, as you so politely requested (since you're in no position to make it a demand). My speech is not yours to muzzle, Jake. Try living with that fact. Neither is my credibility something that you are feree to grant or withhold - except vis-a-vis yourself, of course. But please feel free to continue with your own speech; nothing I could say about you reveals as much to others about you as what you say to and about me. Who is it here who seems to 'lose it' and ad hominem attack me every time I don't toe your apparent omni-issue Bush-hating party line and dare to present differing, but well-supported, views on the foreign policy plane (we are, after all, in substantial agreement on the plane of domestic social policy)? Name-calling is a poor substitute for logical or empirical/evidential refutation.
I don't choose to form my opinions on issues based upon either agreement with or opposition to the opinions of others regarding those issues concerning which I am forming opinions, but rather upon the basis of my own investigation and weighing of the evidence for and against those opinions I either run into or create and entertain, and am quite subtle and sophisticated enough to agree with someone on one issue and disagree with them on another, to varying degrees. Oh, and Jake; I think quite well for myself (just check out the archives, like, say, the Best of Virus?); I was just offering an opportunity for others here to join in for a little collaborative thinking on a common task - many heads proverbially being better than one, and all that. But it's OK with me if you'd prefer not to personally do any thinking on those issues to assist in or contribute to that task yourself.
I do notice that you began to be a little nicer to me until Lucifer began raising some objections, and then you reverted to long-established form (it's not slagging to point out that the other person has typically indulged in slagging one, especially when the evidence in the previous post is so blatant)...
Taking the high road without you, Joe
PS: And, yes, Lucifer, I will endeavor to begin a thread specifically for the purpose of analyzing the Islamofascist memeplex. Others are free to contribute to it, or to begin their own threads studying other memeplexes which they would prefer to analyze. Thanx for the invite, whether it was reluctantly or enthusiastically extended. SOMEONE needs to attempt to perpetrate some actual memetics around here! And all who are genuinely interested in attempting to advance our understanding of the Islamofascist memeplex are invited to participate...
I'm guessing you won't because you can't. Dismissing or ignoring a personally unpalatable yet stubbornly persistent and maddeningly sensible contention is EVER so much easier than actually attempting a refutation by logic or counterexample, now isn't it? And it avoids stressing one out via that nasty ol' cognitive dissonance...
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
Re:Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win
« Reply #28 on: 2005-11-01 06:37:47 »
[Blunderov] "...considering that the critical analysis of memeplexes is one of this list's reasons for being, and one that is so contemporarily threatening would seem to be crying and stamping its feet for list attention."
One gathers that the instruction has come down from on high to pimp the "talking points." All is prepared and the chimp has been trained to say "islamo-fascism" in public - fly my meme-bots, fly!
The scope of "terr'r", we note, has been subtley broadened to allow Islamic states as well as organizations to fall within the crosshairs. Watch out Iran.
Did Salamantis mention Iran yet? I bet that if he didn't, he will very soon.
Geez! Talk about paranoia! Do you actually believe that I'm some sorta Bushite plant, considering that I was a majot contributor to this list WAAY before he began his FIRST term? That chimp ain't no chump as far as spreading constitutional democracy memes, though (see Lebanese Druse boss Walid Jumblatt's 'the democratic vote in Iraq is the equivalent of tearing down the Middle Eastern Berlin Wall' speech); you might even have to call him a champ at it...although he is most DEFINITELY chumpish concerning his domestic social agenda (Id've much preferred Kerry's), and both of their fiscal templates sucked on dry ice, for differing reasons (Kerry's tax and spend vs. Bush's borrow and spend - that's an area where Clinton had it over on BOTH of them).
You're gonna have to do better than THAT blunderful ad hominem.
At least I know you register a little news now and then. BTW: how DID you like the Iran prez's recent 'wipe the US and Israel off the map' speech?
And some terrorism in location A is indeed state B sponsored, and some of it even by Iran, no less - they're called Hizbullah, and control Lebanon's Bekaa valley - or didncha know that?