Skip to content

POINT: COUNTERPOINT: COUNTER-COUNTERPOINT: The New Transparency

October 4, 2006

Shorter* Falkor:
POINT: It seems wrong to paint enemy combatants invisible so no one can see the evidence that they have been tortured; or see that they are still, in fact, indefinitely detained; or whether they are even real enemy combatants.

Shorter* Gizzard:
COUNTER-POINT: Big deal, the enemy combatants are invisible! Enemy combatants have been declared enemy combatants! So, by definition, they are enemy combatants! Enemy combatants should be painted invisible, tortured and detained indefinitely, because they are the ENEMY!

Shorter* Edict of the 19 Quart Lobster Pot:
COUNTER-COUNTER-POINT: Perception is the vital key to victory in any conflict. The more enemies we render invisible, the fewer enemies remain visible. Thus the threat is diminished. Those who would illuminate the existence of an enemy seek to undermine this perception– in aid of the enemy –and should themselves be considered enemy combatants.

* There are no “longers,” Spot.

The events and characters depicted in this bloggoplay are fictitious. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or bloginary, is purely coincidental… Or is it intentional? I always forget how that goes.

Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. Maf54 from Ken's Kitchen permalink
    October 5, 2006 10:41 AM

    are you getting horny Spot? did you spank Fafblog’s leg yourself ? lol seriously, you need a massage?

  2. mistah charley, ph.d. permalink
    October 5, 2006 10:45 AM

    password: iwlwkIt is a maxim of the symbolic interactionist approach that “Things perceived as real become real in their consequences.”I’m not sure it works the other way, though.And then there’s this potentially-relevant thought: “Of that which one cannot speak, one might at least hum the tune so that it can be faked.” — Pseudo-Wittgenstein

  3. Ken from Ken's Kitchen permalink
    October 6, 2006 10:57 AM

    Q. How many symbolic interactionists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?A. Two. One to screw it in and one to denote the action symbolically and treat the action and the symbolic interactionist who perform it as a symbolic object. Ha ha ha!

  4. Anonymous permalink
    October 7, 2006 12:49 PM

    “How do you like THAT symbolic interaction, buddy?”“Compared to what?”

  5. Ken from Ken's Kitchen permalink
    October 8, 2006 9:28 AM

    A symbolic interactionist walks into a bar and slips on some vomit. Minutes later a tough guy walks into the bar and slips on the vomit as well. The symbolic interactionist says, “I just did that.” The big guy then beats the symbolic interactionist up. Ha ha ha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: