« Norm Coleman Requested Pardon for Convicted Petters Associate, Frank Vennes | hrebendorf's Blog | The Minnesota Recount Has Begun »
RE: Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy
Today, truthseeker77 published a "comments disabled" post entitled Keith Olbermann and the straw man fallacy. I'm not recommending that you read it. In fact, I didn't read it, and I'm making it a general rule to never read posts that have comments disabled. But after I clicked the link, I realized that when someone posts something that
looks interesting or provocative, I often scroll down to the comments first--before reading the post. I guess sometimes the effect is more interesting to me than the cause. Seeing that grey "COMMENTS DISABLED" thing at the bottom of the post caused me to reach for the Back button before the page had even finished loading.
The futility and arrogance of trying to prevent replies to your public pronouncements should be obvious to all, but apparently it's not. In my opinion, disabling comments is a silly, cowardly practice, and I'd like to see a warning right on the "Recent Reader Posts" list so I could avoid clicking the link in the first place.
At any rate, if you happen to feel the overwhelming urge to read and/or respond to truthseeker77's post, please feel free to use the space below to reply to whatever the hell it was truthseeker77 wrote.
COMMENTS ENABLED
The futility and arrogance of trying to prevent replies to your public pronouncements should be obvious to all, but apparently it's not. In my opinion, disabling comments is a silly, cowardly practice, and I'd like to see a warning right on the "Recent Reader Posts" list so I could avoid clicking the link in the first place.
At any rate, if you happen to feel the overwhelming urge to read and/or respond to truthseeker77's post, please feel free to use the space below to reply to whatever the hell it was truthseeker77 wrote.
COMMENTS ENABLED
Advertisement
Let's hope TS shows up to defend. Disabling is small, cheap.
He's wrong. O'Reilly asked why liberals were not protesting about Prop 8 at some African-American church. But liberal commentators or leaders never argued there was an institutional "black" position, led by some particular church. This because there was not. So there is no target similar to LDS.
O'Reilly: "The African American community came out for Obama."
Olbermann: "Exit polls suggest that first-time voters, the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama, voted against Prop 8 by a 62 to 38 margin."
TS: "O'reilly [sic] at no point tried to "pin the victory" of Proposition 8 on African Americans. Nor did he blame "first-time voters" either."
Statement #1 implies a special turnout for Obama, by a bloc, beyond the recent-history expected level. Maybe Bill-o didn't mean to imply that, but I took it that way at first. BFD.
TS is grasping at straws.
November 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your level of confidence seems to be low, judging by the fact that you are not even sure that O'reilly implied this, yet you claim you "took it that way" at first.
I don't believe you are being honest that you took it that way first.
November 15, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure the phrase implied what I said, but I am not sure BO intended to imply that.
Also irrelevant whether I'm pretending to perceive contrary to BO's intent. He tried to compare incomparables, the diffuse back voting population, and the overtly unified LDS church and some other large congregations. (There were no Afrcian-American church congregations doing the same, that I know of.)
November 15, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one who doesn't appreciate referring to Barack Obama, our President-Elect, as "BO?" Even BHO would be better, but considering the connotation of bo, I think we could figure out a better shortcut:
Barack. Obama. BHO. President Obama. President. After all, before Dubya, (W), all presidents were referred to by nicknames, or last names, right?
Can't we do better than BO? And please don't suggest "44." That sounds so Bushy dynastic. And also, since Barack does not use "Barry," let's not do it either; it wouldn't be respectful.
November 15, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold your fire, I was referring to Bill-O, not BHO.
November 15, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG! BO! BHO! TFW!
November 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I at first appreciated the implications of the acronym of 'BO' when applied to O'Reilly, I think for clarity he should henceforth be referred to as BOR, which distinguishes him clearly from BHO, and has other satisfactory connotations.
November 16, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, BTW, I also don't read posts with comments disabled. There's enough diatribe out there to sift through without subjecting yourself to it here with no recourse to comment.
November 16, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Advice accepted. BOR, the Big Bore.
November 16, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who's BTW?
(Just kidding.)
November 16, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OOOPS! Sorry, but some do refer to Barack as BO, so can we agree not to do that?
November 16, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Especially considering it could cause confusion with Bill O! ;)
November 16, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill-O is now BOR.
November 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Wright still does not explain why Olbermann used stats on first time voters, when O'reilly simply referred to African Americans. Not first time African Americans. Not first time overall voters. But African Americans.
November 15, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, truthseeker77: You know what? You should just give us all a break and enable comments on your original post. Clearly, we're taking you seriously. Clearly, you're part of the community (whether you like it or not). So why not just humble yourself and be part of the fun? We're all guilty. We're all innocent. It's supposed to be a conversation, truthseeker77. Let's absolve each other and get down to business.
November 15, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enable comments in 90% of my posts.
November 15, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why not the other 10%?
November 15, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because 10% of the time he knows he's written something stupid without having to read the comments explaining it to him.
November 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a dodge.
November 15, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to judge what Blll-O said, here is a video of the segment Olbermann was referencing.
The beef I have is O'Reilly trying to startup controversy over it, which is what he was trying to do; he says that there's a "politically correct" component to the protests because the protesters didn't protest in front of a black church. One person tries to explain that it wasn't just the black vote, but O'Reilly chooses (of course) not to listen.
And they were only outside Rick Warren's church, you know, he's only the pastor of a large megachurch and the most outspoken person on Prop 8 besides the Mormons. What, are they supposed to find a black church in the Yellow Pages or something?
I think if TS sees the video, it will help him rethink his opinion.
November 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving aside LieSlinger77's cowardice, does anyone not believe that O'Really is more interested in sowing hostility and discord than getting to the bottom of anything other than his secretary?
It would be quite interesting to see the relative numbers, by county (precinct, if that's possible) in order to know where the votes for or against Prop 8 were, and be able to cross-reference those with the Obama vote. Has anyone looked at that as an info breakout?
November 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. I linked to another post that had 11 recommendation and it was a post about how good it is that we have the option to disable comments. But since I slam Keith Olbermann, I'm a "chicken".
And let's see, Old Grouch. Is there a reason I have to be afraid of you in regard to what you have to say about Olbermann's fallacy?
November 15, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I linked to another post that had 11 recommendation and it was a post about how good it is that we have the option to disable comments.
Even after it's been explained to him more than once, he can't get his head around the fact that the post was widely recommended because people were disagreeing with the post and calling attention to the fact that disabling comments is cowardly.
November 15, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what is amazing? I actually read the comments of this article before I read it. Grrrrreaaaaaaat.
November 15, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suckerrrrr!
November 15, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because those comments make you feel good. Don't you love it when you all agree on virtually everything and pat each other in the back for it?
November 15, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truthseeker77, have you ever considered the possibility that you might be a total Republican dick? Because I have.
November 15, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I found ironic is that TS commits a fallacy in proclaiming that KO committed a particular fallacy. This is only of interest because TS makes a Big Deal about Logical Argument Forms And Fallacies.
As for your topic, I don't like being unable to easily comment on an article at TPM.
November 15, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What fallacy is it that I committed?
November 15, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
pssssssssst.....ts77.
i accidently rec'd your empty quiver post but nevermind that. in the process I discovered that of your 2 "followers", only 1 is visible.
???
November 15, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for providing this space bun kitty...but I make it a point not to read posts where the comments are disabled, so I am unfamiliar with the topic...I thought this site was for grown ups. Isn't TS like...12?
November 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
November 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, God, I love you people.
November 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh. Still started out so sweet and earnest but lately she's been getting a little mouthy.
I just love being a bad influence, don't you?
November 15, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, at least I started. you haven't even started contributing with a comment to the Olbermann fallacy? You have had the opportunity to do so in several threads.
Oh wait, I forgot. My reaction to the reaction to my post is your priority. Figures.
November 15, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truthseeker, why haven't you enabled comments to your post? "Truthseeker?" What kind of idiotic bullshit is that?
November 15, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I was just teasing still. I don't have a lot of interest in Olbermann and I didn't read your post.
November 15, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and just in case you're wondering why I read this post when the title makes it appear that Olbermann is the subject, it's because I read everything the bunnykitty writes. He cracks me up.
November 15, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'm falling on the floor laughing! You guys ARE a bad influence!!!!
(But I have to admit, being mouthy is lots more fun!)
November 16, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, TS77, are you one of those kids in your parents' basement, bloggin' away in your PJ's that Sarah complained about? You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to just repeat yourself so incessantly.
November 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the deal in California? Blacks have to go to designated churches? And gays can't marry? It's like a West Coast Mississippi.
November 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
California is at least two states - Southern California and Northern California. Southern California is very conservative. Northern California is left-leaning. This election was all about fear-mongering by churches including the Mormons, who contributed almost half of the funding for Proposition 8, the Catholic Church, who preached for Proposition 8, and evangelicals like Saddleback Church who got Proposition 8 passed.
It wasn't the black churches that were posting dozens of Yes on 8 signs on every street corner. It wasn't black churches that were calling my home and demanding to know how we were voting on Proposition 8 - it was the Mormons. It wasn't black churches that were funding the constant ads that warned that if Proposition 8 wasn't passed, kindergarten students would be taught about gay sex. It was the Mormons. That is why gays are protesting the Mormons, not the black churches.
November 15, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read TS77's comment, and it seems to be a straw man argument in itself. He seems to be using the difference between 'first time' voters and 'African American' voters, while ignoring the fact that many of the first-time voters WERE African American voters.
November 15, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean? Where did you find stats on the racial breakdown of first-time voters among those who voted on the Prop 8 measure?
By the way, nationally black turnout was 13% opposed to 11% in '04. A small increase. And even if the increase had been huge, Olbermann would have used statistics for African Americans, period. Don't you think?
November 15, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go getting all logical on us.
November 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very humorous that the bunny gets so worked up about someone who chooses to disable comments. You guys are calling him names like "cowardly", etc. You sound like you're all in grade school and having a fight on the playground calling each other names.
The TPM site (which he didn't build himself) gives you the option to enable or disable comments. He has the right to do what he wants.
November 16, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has the right pull a blanket over his head and cry himself to sleep. But will he exercise that right?
November 16, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My take:
1. O'Reilly says that the black vote on Proposition 8 was "_the_ deciding factor". (He repeats this several times.)
2. O'Reilly then asks why protesters aren't protesting in front of African-American churches, and instead focusing their efforts on Rick Warren's church.
3. O'Reilly then hypothesizes an answer to his own question, saying that to protest in front of African-American churches would be seen as diminishing their "PC cred" because (among other reasons, perhaps) the African-American community "came out for Obama".
I believe that O'Reilly's statement in point #1 is at best meaningless, and at worst false. Had the passing of Prop 8 been decided by a one-vote margin, *every* yea vote could be considered to be "_the_ deciding factor". Similarly, every bloc of ~700,000 yea voters lays equal claim to being "_the_ deciding factor" in this vote. (And, as such, it makes no sense to use the definite article "the" in this situation, much less to emphasize it as O'Reilly does.)
That's the "meaningless" scenario. The "false" scenario is the one Keith Olbermann describes, and I believe he's on point. The only way that using the phrase "_the_ deciding factor" would makes sense, to me, is if Proposition 8 would under "normal" circumstances have failed, but an external event caused enough votes to be cast in favor of Proposition 8 to overcome the deficit. In this case, the external event is the candidacy of Barack Obama, and the resulting increased turnout among African-Americans.
More plainly put, "the increased level of turnout among African-Americans was _the_ deciding factor in the passage of Proposition 8" is at least a statement to which one can ascribe truth or falsity, and I think it's not an unreasonable interpretation of Bill O'Reilly's elliptical statement. So, in my assessment, Bill O'Reilly was either making the argument that Keith was criticizing him for, or he was making no argument at all.
(Sidebar: How much money did African-American churches spend on anti-Prop 8 ads? Maybe *that* would have had something to do with their protesting choice? Hmmm? Yeesh.)
November 16, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This place has turned to shit.
November 16, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
But quinn, out of shit grows beautiful flowers. Carrots too.
November 16, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
But if you eat carrots grown in shit you'll get Salmonella. Look at what happened to the spinach! YUK!
November 16, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this has been fun, hasn't it? You guys all realize that this post never should have made the Recommended list at all, right? *:o)
G'night, you crazy critters. You rock my world. (Even you, truthseeker77.)
November 16, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post is a giant step for comment disablement.
November 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that means you read all the comments, hmmmmmm?
Otherwise, how could you make that pronouncement, hmmmmm?
How do you spell hypocrite?
November 16, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink