Just for Reference
These are a series of comments and an exchange from another blog to which I have often contributed and largely been in agreement with. I have been told these (my comments) 'overstepped the mark'. As I point out I am not one to come to the defence of Orbán or the modern Fidesz, far from it, but I am one to call a spade 'a spade'. Even if that results in someone accusing me of lacking imagination or "affected erudition".
"Philippus aunswered, that the Macedonians wer feloes of no fyne witte in their termes but altogether grosse, clubbyshe, and rusticall, as they whiche had not the witte to calle a spade by any other name then a spade." Nicolas Udall's 'Apophthegmes, that is to saie, prompte saiynges.' (translated in 1542) based on Erasmus's work 'Apophthegmatum opus' itself a translation of the earlier work Plutarch's Apophthegmata' (178 BC)You decide:
Language of Fear: Fidesz communication (I)
Whilst "Élet és Irodalom" is one of the few rags that bothers to live up to the epithet journalism, the general tone and language of this piece is recursively referential. Meaning, overblown drama.
Vandorlo: "The language used by Fidesz is the language of opposition, intended to disturb, create unrest, uneasiness, doubt.Any party would engage in this."
I'm afraid, you are mistaken. This is no ordinary language of an opposition party.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May13, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Eva,
Why do you not engage any of Vándorló's specific arguments/points? To simply state the opposite is completely silly.
He taken the time and thought to craft a cogent comment and you,a Ph.D, deem it sufficient to stubbornly write:
***I'm afraid, you are mistaken. This is no ordinary language of an opposition party.***
Pathetic.
-Sündisznó AKA as that warty amphibian...
Posted by: Sündisznó | May13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
@Julianna Gulden
In the interests of full disclosure -- which Hun. political parties have you worked for?
-Sündisznó
Posted by: Sündisznó | May13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Sundiszo: "Why do you not engage any of Vándorló's specific arguments/points? To simply state the opposite is completely silly."
I'm afraid that I don't have enough time to go into all the details. Moreover, I don't see the point.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May13, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Your response reminds me of Sackville West's observation that
"There is no such thing as conversation, just intersecting monologues, that is all"
Not responding would have been more appropriate and less rude.
But really, it is you who are wrong. In the UK the conservatives ran a poster campaign against Blair (when he was in power) in which his countenance was replaced with devilish eyes. Their linguistic fear campaign was just at the same level. There are plenty of other examples in the US too.
I don't simply object to the argument about language but also to content. The claim that the party in power has been frozen in fear of future retribution is simply ridiculous. Take a step back.
I also point out that the government while in power has failed to hold anyone accountable for their actions etc...
I am afraid that even in all your years in the wilderness you are still completely Hungarian. Your bias towards you own beliefs simply cripples you from taking a balanced approach.
So, before you carry on in the same vein let's save ourselves some time and reflect on those that have expressed this impasse much more eruditely:
Monty Python's Argument Clinic
(M= Man looking for an argument
A= Arguer)M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M:Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A:Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic
gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Posted by: Vándorló| May13, 2008 at 01:54 PM
Vandorlo: "Your response reminds me of Sackville West's observation that "There is no such thing as conversation, just intersecting monologues, that is all". Not responding would have been more appropriate and less rude."
No, my friend. If you claim that this is normal language from an opposition party then it's not my job to prove anything. It is your job to bring domestic and foreign examples to bolster your contention. If you find Republican politicians' calling Democrats"pukes" and "sick," or vica versa, then I will be satisfied.
Otherwise, rude or not, your text following your introductory sentence had nothing to do with the topic on hand.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May13, 2008 at 02:04 PM
@Eva: "your text following your introductory sentence had nothing to do with the topic on hand."
So to help you join the dots where you only see non-sequiturs...
I said "the most disturbing and misguided accusation of the piece is that this government has been frozen in action in the fear of the necromancy of Orbán's future reign of terror. That isa pathetic excuse for political and fiscal impotence."
In response to you relating that: "The left got stuck somewhere. In my opinion their problem is that in the last seven years they have been terrified of you. Ever since 2002 basically all their actions have been motivated by the pathological fear of the return of Viktor Orbán. And over the years they got to the point that they sacrificed Hungary on the altar of their paranoia."
And your remarking that this was "I found both insightful and scary"
Moving on...
You go on to relate that "There is certainly a fear of Orbán's return because the socialists and the liberals are convinced that the returning Fidesz leaders would use undemocratic methods and would take vengeance on their political opponents whom they consider their enemies. Their fears are not unfounded"
I make the enormous leap of reasoning to assert that the parties collude with each other to ensure that no-one is ever really called accountable for their actions, save for losing their cushy jobs and expense accounts.
I express this idea in this way: "it also fails to explain the obvious collusion of all parties in covering up thefts during Fidesz's last reign. How else is it that all legal cases of theft and misappropriation of funds, no matter how well founded, have gone unpunished? Without one person being held accountable. How is it Happy Kft got off scot free. Why is it that this government implicitly (and hence fairly explicitly) allowed the authorities to sit on a number of water tight cases until they all passed their legal limit for prosecution."
To spell it out further. I assert that there is no real fear, no basis for fear, because, by not actually convicting people, but having the information collected and ready future coercion devices(aka., blackmail) they, the Socialists, have nothing to fear.
Can you really live in fear of retribution when you yourself have aided and abetted these people, their friends and supporters.
I agree that the language used by political parties here is appalling and not what you would expect or hear in the US, UK or most of Europe. But I also say that the language of abuse and counter abuse is much much stronger in Hungarian culture in general,which is why I opine that: "Hungarians live in a daily maelstrom of fear, recrimination and caustic disbelief (most of itself generated) that raises the significance threshold barrier.There is no amount of caulking against the general level of misinformation, gossip and foul-play."
All you have done in these last two posts is provided a poorly reasoned example of why this government has failed to lead and take any meaningful action. You have done this whilst attempting to blame everyone else apart from the people in government. This apparently doesn't make you feel at all uneasy.
Those who pick themselves to represent res publica have to bear the responsibility for their own failings even in the light of unfavourable and uncomfortable conditions.
As Cicero, wrote in 'De re publica' (1st century BC):
"Those apologies, therefore, which undertake to furnish us with an easy excuse for living in selfish inactivity, are certainly not worth hearing. They tell us that to meddle with public affairs and popular demagogues, incapable of all goodness, with whom it is disgraceful to mix; and to struggle with the passions of the in sensate multitude, is a most miserable and hazardous life. On which account, no wise man will take the reins, since he cannot restrain the insane and unregulated movements of the lower orders.Nor is it acting like a gentleman (say they) thus to contend with antagonists so unwashed and so unrefined (impuris atque immanibus adversariis) or subject yourself to the lashings of contumely, of which the wisest will always have most to bear. As if to virtuous,brave, and magnanimous men, there could be a juster reason for seeking the government than this, that we should not be subjected to scoundrels, nor suffer the commonwealth to be distracted by them,lest we should discover, too late, when we desire to save her, that we are without the power."
This he wrote in the form of a Socratic dialogue.
Are you at all familiar with the concept from your time in your ivory tower?
Posted by: Vándorló| May13, 2008 at 04:27 PM
To Vandorlo. This is a blog and not a discussing group. Blog is an internet diary. I answered some of the comments because I found them either useful or interesting. But I am not going to sit down with you arguing about the merit of Szilagyi's article or my reactions to it. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Posted by: Eva S. Balogh | May13, 2008 at 04:40 PM
quod erat demonstrandum
Posted by: Vándorló| May13, 2008 at 04:56 PM
Language of Fear: Fidesz communication (II)
@Dumneazu: "The declining tenor of comments in the last posting"...
Perhaps you can humour us then, by answering or at least replaying to the points I make in those comments. And what you actually mean by 'declining tenor', do you mean intellectually inferior, disagreeable, contumely, pugnacious...?
While you liberally both go ahead and abuse the defame the term liberal for you own ends (because irony-of-irony I consider myself a socialist and a liberal), you can't both take the high ground simple by pointing os nasale upwards and claiming you only want to pick and choose what you want to hear.
What is more Anna Szilágyi's "fascinating study",particularly as related in this post is simply a regurgitation and description of classic rhetorical devices. The are certainly not peculiar to Fidesz or Orbán. In fact, in most parts they are very characteristic of New Labour in the UK.
All she describes is the modern marketing and management process of a political party and political message.
So Dumneazu since you have bothered to read my comments and Eva'sresponses and declare mine of a 'declining tenor' perhaps you can have the decency to back up that comment by stating exactly what you mean and why you said it.
Posted by: Vándorló| May14, 2008 at 01:48 AM
What point, Vandorlo? Quoting entire Monty Python monologues orcut-and-pasting Cicero doesn't make your argument any more"logical." And yes, I find the intentional pugnaciousness out of place in a discussion. The affected "erudition" ofyour responses comes off merely as an insincere and statements suchas "I am afraid that even in all your years in the wilderness you are still completely Hungarian" come off as far more offensive than you seem to realize.
Posted by: Dumneazu | May14, 2008 at 05:07 AM
@Dumneazu
OK, let's help you too. I'll just pick two, one from you, one from Eva.
First Eva claimed by response was a non-sequitur to which I took the trouble to point out and join the dots.
Just picking one part of this from her original claims (or relating the claims of others):
'"your text following your introductory sentence had nothing to do with the topic on hand."
So to help you join the dots where you only see non-sequiturs...
I said "the most disturbing and misguided accusation of the piece is that this government has been frozen in action in the fear of the necromancy of Orbán's future reign of terror. That is apathetic excuse for political and fiscal impotence."
In response to you relating that: "The left got stuck somewhere. In my opinion their problem is that in the last seven years they have been terrified of you. Ever since 2002 basically all their actions have been motivated by the pathological fear of the return of Viktor Orbán. And over the years they got to the point that they sacrificed Hungary on the altar of their paranoia."'
And yes, strangely I didn't know those quotes verbatim, but I at least have read the sources and choose to deploy them to back upmy point.
The Monty Python was too point out that I do not take myself that seriously, but the sketch makes an important point. That is, simply contradicting someone is not an argument. Argument meaning a logical and connected series of statements/propositions, not the meaning of disagreement (though that is true in this case also).
The Cicero quote is a case in point as in touch on and answers most of the claims that Eva makes about the use of language and the base nature of political discourse and life. It also answers the implicit claim that this government can be excused their impotence through their fear of the future retribution of the opposition. What really don't you understand in that line of reasoning and what is illogical about this for you?
Secondly, from you, you state that: "The declining tenor of comments in the last posting, although by now somewhat predictable,simply tends to amplify the validity of much of Szilágyi's arguments"
You like Eva rely on implicit argument rather than making your point clearly, something the piece claims is the common trick of the opposition - projecting one's faults on others. You both have either no insight, irony or humour about your own ability to reason.
So, dissecting what you said into clear statements you make three claims in that one sentence all which you need to answer. These are:
1. There is/was a 'declining tenor' to the comments. As I previously asked and repeat, what do you mean by this. Obviously itis snotty talk for declining quality, so please justify that claim.
2. That this 'declining tenor' is 'by now somewhat predictable'. Predictable in what way. I have to date largely agreed with much of what Eva has written. On this point I disagree and take the trouble to point out the basis for my antithetical stance. Can you really predict what I believe and say. I really don't know myself until I am engaged in a conversation. And I really am open to reason,argument and persuasion. I am not open to an all in head-nodding-fest.
3. That this 'by now somewhat predictable''declining tenor' 'simply tends to amplify the validity of much of Szilágyi's arguments.' This you have yet to prove. If you can provide an answer to the question I posed to Eva (and repeated to you above) you might have a basis to make this claim. Without backing up your statement this is simply contradiction and gainsay.
Finally, on the education issue I will pull my trump card. My first and primary degree is cognitive psychology in which I specialised in legal discourse and rhetorical devices form is-attribution, disinformation and subversion.
When you have bothered to answer my questions I will start to provide a proper scientific analysis of the discourse as all of this content is simply a watered down version of that in the cognitive psychology and linguistic literature.
n.b. "I am afraid that even in all your years in the wilderness you are still completely Hungarian" is a statement of fact and completely justifiable given the tone, manner and level of response.
To repeat a final time. It is disturbing and ironic that the language used by Eva and the obfuscation tactics are exactly those used in the piece that she so highly praises for its insight.
p.s. I am sincere in what I write, which is why I take the time to write it. Really, just provide an argument and you will see.
Posted by: Vándorló| May14, 2008 at 06:13 AM
Footnote
Just to explain that as part of my work I build and tailor search engines, which includes web crawlers, indexers etc... This means I archive websites, databases etc on almost a daily basis. This further means that in the last 12 months I have started to archive any website I am interested in.
This has the saving grace that I can always recover material and content that would otherwise be lost through other agents' actions (intentional or more often accidental).
For those who wish to do the same the simplest approach is using a Unix/Linux command 'wget'. If you use windows you should download Cygwin which will give you some of the commands and functionality of linux/unix. As webpages are often written using php, asp, jsp... you can force wget to recursively crawl and save these pages as html. The full command to crawl and archive a website would be.
wget -rFE www.thewebsiteyouwanttosave.com
The language used by Fidesz is the language of opposition,intended to disturb, create unrest, uneasiness, doubt. Any party would engage in this.
What is more, Hungarians live in a daily maelstrom of fear,recrimination and caustic disbelief (most of it self generated) that raises the significance threshold barrier. There is no amount of caulking against the general level of misinformation, gossip and foul-play.
But no matter what, the most disturbing and misguided accusation of the piece is that this government has been frozen in action in the fear of the necromancy of Orbán's future reign of terror.That is a pathetic excuse for political and fiscal impotence.
What is more it fails to explain how under this government so much theft and mismanagement from Kóka and other cronies has been allowed to continue.
Further, it also fails to explain the obvious collusion of all parties in covering up thefts during Fidesz's last reign. How else is it that all legal cases of theft and misappropriation of funds,no matter how well founded, have gone unpunished? Without one person being held accountable. How is it Happy Kft got off scot free. Why is it that this government implicitly (and hence fairly explicitly) allowed the authorities to sit on a number of water tight cases until they all passed their legal limit for prosecution.
I don't buy any of this language nonsense. All parties have helped each other in gorging on the pie and making excuses for each others appalling greed.
Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Vándorló| May13, 2008 at 07:36 AM