Argument Cheats and How to Counter Them
Actually, the second part is what I don't know, and would like someone to explain. There seems to be a class of rhetorical trick that is the usual technique. Here's one example: "When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns." It makes an absurdity out of a sensible issue, mainly by exaggerating and then reversing a point. "So we should let France have a veto over our national security?" "Liberals want to offer psychotherapy for terrorists." "Why do you hate America?"
One of our reflex-slogan specialists here recently asked why a contributing guest had switched from using "global warming" to "climate change". The obvious intent was to make the guest look unsteady, unreliable, unserious, since he can't keep his terms straight. Unfortunately, the guest always used the latter term, as does the International Panel on Climate Change. But it reminded me of an exchange I had with a letter-writer in the Chicago Tribune, in the 90s.
The paper had a small piece about stratospheric ozone depletion. A letter was posted, responding to the piece, complaining that environment activists couldn't keep their story straight, since they had been previously complaining about ozone being a pollutant, due to auto emissions. I wrote, and the paper published, a letter in which I explained the difference. Then it got interesting, since the original letter-writer wrote to me, defending himself by saying he was in fact a chemist and climate scientist. He had disagreements with the consensus on acid rain, and was apparently just an industry supporter. But the point is he knew full well that high-altitude ozone was necessary, and ground-level ozone a lung-damaging pollutant. He just cheated.
This brings to mind Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo, "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control", in which he
listed positive and negative terms that should be employed as much as possible,
using the positives for one's own side and the negatives for the other guys.
( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm
)
If Orwell was right,
that sloppy writing could discourage clear thinking, then what is the effect of
deliberate cheating? Does it eventually make these folks so trapped by their
rhetorical flamethrower that they talk themselves into factual corners?
The Tea Baggers are
so funny because they have the very representation the originals lacked, and
also because the original complaint was about a preferential tax cut for the
dominating East India Company. John Boehner tries to dismiss regulating CO2 by
first scoffing at how could something we breathe out be a carcinogen (it isn't
claimed to be), and then mentioning cow farts, (which are methane, and have
presumably been a feature of life on Earth for a while now).
A recent example of the turnaround trick was a
caller to Stephanie Miller, who pointed out that downed Blackhawk pilots in
Somalia were tortured, so our previous policy didn't protect our soldiers.
Therefore it's OK to torture, since we have nothing to lose.
Rush pointed out
that because McCain broke during his interrogations in North Vietnam, torture
works. Works in what way not mentioned, since it worked to make McCain say
things he didn't believe to be true.
What's your most
annoying rhetorical dodge? And how to best counter it?
Darn! I thought you had the answer!!!!
Rec'd for the Title!
April 20, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, 2nd try. Not an answer though.
Seems to me you've put your finger on it when you call it cheating. And here's our problem. We're not cheaters. We don't think like cheaters. We don't think like torturers. We don't think like sociopaths.
Our problem is we're honest. We debate honestly.
It is helpful, Tom, to see that you too are frustrated by the "argument cheats" - I feel better already, just knowing I'm not alone.
I honestly think it was helpful when Aunt Sam and I had these "recycling blogs" - where anyone could post a cheating type comment or a link to it. It honestly did seem to have a bit of an effect. Because it means that instead of the "argument cheat" being able to derail a comment thread, they are instead "outed" in a public place. TPM management even used that a time or two to decide that someone maybe wasn't abiding by the terms of use.
And that is a possible way to counter many types of argument cheats. Indeed, placing them there makes it abundantly clear how illogical such comments are. For some reason the illogic stands out more clearly that way.
Just a thought. So when they make a statement that ties your neurons into knots, you just reply that you've "recycled" the comment for them over on the other blog!
April 20, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it cheating to point out that enemies have tortured US soldiers for many years, Japanese,German, VC and NVA, China, North Korea, and USSR all participated in the torture of US soldiers, so our policy did not protect any of them. It is also absurd to expect terrorists, whose main goal is to incite terror, to disavow torture. Now, from our perspective, it is very different to torture a prisoner into making a false confession versus telling the location of where a bomb was planted. It is also easy to verify - was there a bomb found there? It has been reported that numerous plots were foiled as a result of interrogations and info obtained from waterboarding. Lives were saved. Thats the difference.
April 20, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure where you get USSR ever holding any US soldiers. There was no regular policy of torture by Germans, especially our officers. Japanese abused soldiers terribly, but mostly we associate forcing tortures with NVA and N. Korea.
The point is mainly that 1) torture is known to be useless except for forcing confessions, and 2) we can't be upset about inhumane treatment of our soldiers if we aren't humane. The assertion that plots were foiled by torturing recent detainees is unfounded and you have no evidence for it.
I notice you avoid the other examples.
April 20, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you also ignore the well-known and desperate preference on the part of surrendering German soldiers in WW II to end up in our hands instead of the Russians.
April 20, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
US soldiers were reportedly transferred into USSR from Vietnam in some cases. Not sure what the Germans wanting to surrender to us instead of Russians proves at all. As to some of your other examples, cow farts are cited as a GW cause, and the EPA is proposing regulating and taxing dairy farmers.
As far as lying goes, how about the Obama administration claiming 90% of guns in Mexican crimes are from the US? That number is derrived by taking the 25,000 guns seized in Mexico, ignoring the 18,000 that are known to come from other sources (South America, Middle East, China) and looking only at the 6000 sent to the US to be traced. Of that 6000, 90% are from the US. The total is only 17% however, but Obama skews the facts to make his point.
April 20, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methane is not CO2, so Boehner was either confused or not responsive. Methane is not persistent in the atmosphere, since it is reactive. It reaches equilibrium quickly, whereas CO2 does not. Its low reactivity means it persists for a century or so before being cycled through the ocean and crust.
Germans knew they would be treated badly by the Russians, mainly because the Russians were out for revenge after the brutal treatment they received from Germany.
Fair to point out the small sample used by the administration, but it is correct that of those traced the 90% number is valid. I'm not complaining about this kind of presentation of facts, which is amenable to argument, but the silly points like Rush made about McCain.
April 20, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why they can't make their point by using the true number of 17%, but they choose to lie instead.
Regarding methane, it is listed as a greenhouse gas, and the EPA does want to tax and regulate it. I'm busy right now but later I will post for you studies that show CO2 is resident for only 6 to 10 years, not the 100 or more claimed by GW proponents. (These are actual, real scientific studies, some done long ago)
April 20, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck changing chemistry.
April 20, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is just one citation
The IPCC puts the residence time of CO2 at "5 to 200 yr" with the note, "No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes." IPCC, Climate Change 2001, ¶C.1, p. 38.
Note: 5 to 200 is a pretty large range!!!
Gat et al in "Environmental Isotopes in the Hydrological Cycle, Principles and Applications", Volume II: Atmospheric Water, Chapter 1, The Atmosphere, p. 1, place the residence time of CO2 at 4 years. See http://www.iaea.org/programmes/ripc/ih/volumes/volume2.htm .
I had an article that listed more than half a dozen studies, back to the early 50's that put the time between 5 to 10 years. When I find that I'll post it too.
April 20, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll yield on persistence of CO2. But the point holds, Boehner was either confused or trying to confuse. CO2 is not claimed as a carcinogen, and cow farts are not CO2.
April 20, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're surprised that a politician (from either party) is either clueless or intentionally distorting facts? Find me one that isn't a liar or a fool.
April 20, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
re persistence, how is "6 to 10" at all close to "5 to 200" which averages roughly to your 100?
Why did you give in on that point? Your correspondent is simply demonstrating cheating and you're letting him/her get away with it. Bait and switch?
April 20, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I won't. For one, that's a dead link you gave.
For another, stable isotopes (carbon isotopes in particular) are a way to quantitatively calculate fluxes and residence time (T= reservoir/flux). Between the surface ocean, land plants, soil,and fossil fuel fluxes, an average of 3 x10^15g/yr of CO2 is added every year to the atmosphere (refs include Sharp 2007). Residence time is at the low end of what you state (about 4 years) according to carbon fluxes and my own back of the envelope scribble.
But so what? The carbon isotopes in the atmosphere are steadily marching toward the average value of fossil fuels (atm was -6.7 permille in 1956, was -7.9 in 1982 and is below 8 now; fossil fuels have a value of -23). Also the concentration CO2 in the atmosphere is steadily increasing (Keeling curve).
Trying to paint a problem in residence time calculations is to highlight an ambiguity that is unrelated to the real problem: The atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 is rising and our oceans and plants aren't keeping up with the removal.
April 21, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dog, please give me a cite for the "well known" source of Narco guns being from SA, ME and China. I've been searching for this, and the only thing I can find is a piece in Stratfords that makes a similar claim, with nothing to back it up.
What's known for sure is that, besides the weapons that derive from the open US gun market, the Narcos are obtaining a large amount of weapons from the Mexican military and police. Korean grenades, for example. It's the "dirty little truth" that both countries, Mx & US, are repressing. Mexico because it shows how insecure their police and army is, and the US because these weapons are legally exported to Mx via State's Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program, which hasn't been properly monitored for several years now.
I haven't found a single news article or report that corroborates the alleged sources of weapons - say, for instance - an illegal arms seizure in Chiapas or Quintanna Roo. Not surprising - clandestine flights from SA that land in Mexico are hauling the more lucrative cargo, drugs.
April 21, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's cheating America's very soul.
When did our referent standard for proper behavior become the actions of our enemies?
We Are Americans, and Supposed To Be Better Than The Rest, but you will to drag down into the gutter.
April 20, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
theCleverBulldog,
It is cheating because the objective of such policy is to sustain civility over barbarism, and basic revenge against terrorists defeats that purpose and foils objective.
Simply stating that it "has been reported," falls short of any real support for your assertion that lives were saved. You could start with what has been reported, and by whom.
April 21, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go look at this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Three of the most commonly used are:
Ad Hominem: an argument that attacks the person who holds a view or advances an argument, rather than commenting on the view or responding to the argument.
and
Fallacy of necessity: a degree of unwarranted necessity is placed in the conclusion based on the necessity of one or more of its premises.
and
False compromise/middle ground: asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct
April 20, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wiki dodge.
April 21, 2009 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re-read Ad Hominem
April 21, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, why do you hate America?
April 20, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He used to hate just Indiana, but then he found out that everyone did.
April 20, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hate Commie fag Islamo-fascist terrorist symps.
I've been reading about McCarthy during the Korean War---"If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you've got to be a Communist or a cocksucker."--McCarthy to two reporters, pp 385,
"The Coldest Winter", Halberstam.
Senator Taft advised McCarthy to not worry about accuracy, like Ted Olsen advised David Brock to go ahead with wholly unfounded accusations against Anita Hill.
Our cheating tends to be in the humor department, like Stephanie Miller tweaking a torture apologist by asking "So it's only torture if you use a broomstick?"
April 20, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, you might also look around:
Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric
April 20, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was hoping someone could do that for me.
April 20, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cheater cheats because he can not win by honest and true means.He must win at all cost by any means to hold the prize.The prize of the argument is the validity and truth of the argument.If my argument fails then my beliefs and or my facts are not true.A failed argument means something must change if I am going to stay with this argument,either the false belief I hold or the true facts.To change belief means I must change, but facts are outside of me and are less painful to change.I will choose the path of least pain and cheat myself of truth and maturity. I will bend the facts, realign them,set them at an angle that lines up with my view, my beliefs.Now my argument appears to stand but it is a mirage made for my own comfort.
The only way I see to counter this cheating is to preserve the true facts against all attacks, over and over again until the mirage evaporates in the sunlight.The truth will set you free, painful as it may be.
Glen Beck says through crocodile tears, "I dont care if what you believe is right, just believe in something." This is cheating the argument,it is an attempt to validate wrong beliefs, his beliefs.The only true fact in his statement, his argument is, "I dont care."
Truth and proper facts make all the difference in the world if my argument is "I can fly and I have the facts to prove it. See those birds up there, that's my proof that flight is possible." So having cheated myself of the truth and facts, I will and go jump off a skyscraper to show you.
April 20, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a great addition here, DonDi!
How about we use your idea together with the recycling blog? Sanity in your thoughts. The insanity for recycling.
April 20, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the most effective argument cheats utilize some variant of passive aggression in their presentation. The desired effect of this, (by the cheat), is to transfer blame onto his detractors, and concurrently shift the focus of the argument to a different, 'safer' arena, wherein the cheat is 'off the hook', and the discussion is now centered on [the failings of] his/her adversaries. TheraP and any other number of commenters are undoubtedly more qualified than I to discuss how to 'counter them', but I will say from my own personal experience, that direct confrontation is often the most effective strategy. By that, I mean, spelling out what I perceive to be the operative mechanism put in play by the cheat, how it is a misdirection by the cheat, and calling out the motivation of the cheat as to why he/she doesn't want to have an honest discussion. In doing so we get to shine a light on the neuroses, (or psychoses), at play in the cheat's universe. Either way, the original direction of the discussion is derailed, but in the latter scenario, we enjoy the pleasure of watching the cheat/passive aggressive twist and turn as he/she attempts to extract him/herself from the trap they so effectively built. I'm just guessing here.
April 20, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP Im not sure I understand,but whatever you want to do or need from me is agreeable to me.
April 20, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was talking in the abstract. You are very patient. You are apparently willing to try over and over to present the facts. I was just saying that I (or someone) could "assist" you by also "recycling" the nonsensical stuff you'd be trying to counter.
Sorry for being confusing in my comment. It was really a compliment to you and an admission on my part that I don't have your stamina to just keep plugging away with the facts - once I see the person is ready to prove they can fly off a building.
Hope that clarifies things.
April 20, 2009 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP My son had 3 hard years with mental problems,paranoid schizophrenia.Its hard to keep presenting reality in the face of the illusions created by this disorder, but you have to, day after day.Trying to hold on to them, to keep one hand in this world.Until the day comes when they can finally come all the way back.He has been doing well for 3 years now,even has his own apartment. They found the right medicine to help him.If I have patience its because I learned it from my wife who showed our son such tender and persistent patience.
April 21, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have tremendous compassion for what you two must have been going through. Just keep hanging in there. Sounds like he's doing "well" - under the circumstances.
April 21, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rhetorical dodge :Coupling mutually exclusive arguments.
From industry: When Jack Goeken first announced a plan to put phones on airliners his idea was to put one next to the galley. An industry analyst claimed:
A. There was no demand , and
B. The Cabin staff would object to having a line of passengers waiting to use it.
April 20, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely something I've harped on in the past 6 months because I see it so much:
"Bulverism"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
April 20, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, as defined by C.S. Lewis, that's an esoteric one. Mike, I've noticed that you have this odd talent for attracting really fancy trolling... :-)
April 21, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Bulverists abound. But pointing out the fallacy to the Bulverist wouldn't deter them in the least (they would only Bulverize that).
No, the only counter to a Bulverism is a reverse Bulverism. Accuse them of only making that claim against you out of some silly irrelevant motive (like "You only say that because you hate Amer- er, Indiana").
April 21, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, the Straw Man is huge.
It's hard to say sometimes whether what looks like a Straw Man argument is ignorance giving the appearance of intentional straw construction.
Either way, if an opponent's position is misstated, poorly represented or set-up with some other deficiency and then shot down, it is Straw.
April 20, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one: Gay marriage threatens real marriage.
April 20, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, ...um.... counter argument: argue against the definition of traditional marriage instead of arguing in support of gay marriage.
April 21, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
My favorite argument cheat: rather than addressing the substance of a criticism, claiming that the source has a vendetta or personal grudge against Obama. Totally illogical mode of argument which allows people to turn serious policy disputes (like economic policy for Krugman or civil liberties for Glenn Greenwald) into personality games.
How to best counter it? Focus it back on the issue at hand. What specific criticisms do you have about their positions, or what specifically are you defending about the Administration's policy? If your only criticism is about the method of the crtics' argument (they are shrill, they don't like or get Obama), you are conceding the substance of the policy argument.
April 21, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That'd be a good point if it were coming from someone who didn't hate Obama so much.
April 21, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
hah, but careful, there may be children reading.
April 21, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
:~) Did I mention I missed you Q? I take it back.
April 21, 2009 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ume.. melikes.
April 21, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And sometimes you just have to admit that some cases are pretty hopeless on that front? :-) (got lucky googling to find that.)
April 21, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that was an interesting, and I dare say, bizarre, little excursion into argument cheating. I'd say Dij/Des 'focused it back on the issue at hand rather effectively here.
April 21, 2009 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you went for the king of the argument cheats! By the way AA, I've done some detective work with Teh Google and discovered that you don't even appraise art and have velvet Elvis paintings adorning your foyer. So obviously I'll have to disregard your informative posts in light of this massive fraud :)
April 21, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well dammit Dij, why didn't you say you were a white guy earlier? Suddenly, all your arguments make sense, and I find myself in complete agreement.
Now. Let's go golfing. We can talk about how misunderstood we are.
April 21, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Golfers are well-known liars. In fact, the art of believable lying is taught alongside Sand Trap Excuses 101 and Water Obstacles Recovery 102. (The ball would have made it over the water, except the alligator jumped 45 feet in the air and ate it first.)
April 21, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A dung beetle rolled my ball into the sand dunes.
April 21, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah Ha. And here is a really bad lie.
April 21, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still laughing. How did you ever find that?
April 22, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vaguely remembered seeing it and Google came through!
April 22, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fallacy&btnG=Search
April 21, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, there are soooo many. I'm not sure I even want to think about it, I feel a little like Scarlett O'Hara on this issue....
Virtually all of it, all the rhetorical tricks and logical fallacies, etc., it's just a game isn't it? A form of entertainment? What other purpose is there? They know going in they are not going to end up convincing hardly anyone. The only non-entertainment reason I can think of at the moment--beside preaching to choir, maybe to reinforce their own preconceptions, to practice them in their mind?
Always my reaction is that it's such a waste unless they are really enjoying themselves. If it raises their blood pressure, or they are getting angry, they are not enjoying it, it just seems so stupid.
But then...I just came up with something that I think might be bigger than that, and reflects on the dangers of the way we end up thinking when we read these games day after day.
I was reading the paper at the same time I looked at your thread (when on dial-up, I read paper while waiting for the page to load.) And it was this article:
New Looks at the Fields of Death for Jews
And I thought: day in, day out, reading on internet forums like this one, you read people claiming this or that country or this or that group that they love to hate for one reason or another is doing something as bad as the Holocaust. I'm skeptical, I'm cynical, I know my history, but even I am not immune to that constant barrage, combined with the constant pop culture Holocaust depictions that still are pervasive. BECAUSE the main reading that I did on what really happened during the Holocaust was so long ago, and I don't read more, I think I know enough. But when the new information in one's head eventually pushes back some of the old, and you can't help being influenced, affected, and you start to think the Holocaust wasn't so different from other horrible things mankind has done.
Suggestion to all: refresh your memory, read the article (it's not that long.) And try to remember not to let constant false comparisons, used for rhetorical effect, play havoc with your brain.
April 21, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like a kick in the balls. One does not do it in order to make one stronger, but rather simply to disable the adversary.
Similarly, argument cheaters draw upon a faith that it is better to be "right" than smart. In other words, it is more important to "win" an argument (ie, drown out, or otherwise disable, an opposing argument) than to move the discourse forward with any genuine debate.
April 21, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
My most annoying is the claim that because we have had periods of increased heat and periods of increased CO2 in the past we don't need to worry about the effects of either now. What CO2 does is block the escape of heat like the way rolling up a window of a car does. So the phony argument goes like this: I had the kids in the car with the windows up(in the winter) and I had the kids in the car when the temperature was 75 so what's the problem with having the kids in the car with the windows up when the temperature is 75?
Having excess heat and excess CO2 at the same time is apt to make a real mess of the planet.
April 21, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom, hold Sam Clemons accountable for this rhetorical crises:
"I took to drinking as a toothache preventative. It works - I've never had a toothache." - Mark Twain
April 21, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something about Twain that stuck with me was his dismay on learning how hurt the original writer of the "Mark Twain!" column was, after he and a couple of young pilots and apprentices wrote in, mocking the old fellow. It accounts partly for him using the phrase as his nom de plume. I place it alongside Orwell's advice to break any rule of writing, rather than say something barbarous.
April 21, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about the attacks that we are "too friendly here" or "this is a political blog and you're not allowed to post anything but politics"?
April 21, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course we ignore the first and no one is really bothered by the second, since the topic that is often more interesting than politics is the way we talk about politics.
April 21, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
April 21, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks all, and sorry I didn't keep at the puppy. He dodged the main point, and I tried to escape the sidetracking.
April 21, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we please distinguish any rhetoric about puppies? The dodger you are referring to is a bulldog, puppy or not. Thank you. :-)
April 21, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll call him the pit bull with lipstick. (Or is that shooter242?)
April 21, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
is not cheating.
its playing to the fears ,bigotry and ignorance of people.
and since its never about truth it can be as silly as possible because it is only meant to keep the division alive, not to make sense of an argument.
April 21, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I do with argument cheats is call them liars, loud and clear, right to their faces. The dialog usually ends right there but I could care less. After all, a dialog is pointless if one accepts a precondition that lies are allowed. It is stupid to knowlingly formulate an agreement based upon a lie. It becomes a capitulation to a falsehood rather than an agreement.
April 21, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a taste of being sort of thrown out of the kool kids table a few weeks ago when I fell into the discussion about "Sluts" - how there's no such thing actually - and I have to say that it was chastening to have the tables turned on me like that.
I was accused of just being a reactionary and a "concern troll" (Not sure what that means but...)
So maybe it's time for me to engage in Maoist self criticism so as to get my TPM streed cred back. Here's my aesthetic for blog posting. It's less rhetorical or ideological than a kind of 'ethic.'
1. Candor trumps cliches. Anyone can spout a party line...badly. Some do it better, but I PERSONALLY am most 'disarmed' by candor. Personal stories, sincerely relayed, do more to sketch out a person's psyche than allegiance to dogma.
2. To get all Richard Rorty pragmatic, let's throw out the notion of 'truth' and instead focus on teasing out the 'interesting' debates.
A: Debates between Jesus and Satan aren't interesting. Debates - discussions really - are most interesting in the INTRAMURAL realm. When someone is on my side enough to not call me a Communist, I may listen - perhaps even be swayed by someone who might assess me as 'socialist.'
B: "Big picture" debates are meaningless, even if rule 2A is followed.
Does the mind rule the body or...y'know. It's literally sophomoric stuff, and I almost hate to say it, but you see this kind of pointless noisemaking all over the right wing. "Libertarian" philosophy and the attendant 'market' ideology have an answer for everything in the abstract, but they tell us nothing of our actual...REAL circumstances we face. When you get into big picture stuff you get into broad metaphysical theories that can't be proven - this is the right wing 'troll's' stock and trade.
3. Republicans are pricks and whores. Evidence? Michelle Bachman, congresscretin from MN.
See the above post. The teabaggin' of last week only confirmed what I've believed since about 2005. This is becoming a kind of chestnut among the left - to respond or not to respond to allegations Obama is a faggy nigro fascist communist. I come solidly down on the side of ignoring or mocking 'arguments' that Obama is a secret fag commie.
Or when you have a demagogue whore like everyone on FOX, what good does it do to 'engage' with them? Their hookers and hustlers. They KNOW they're whores and left the truth behind with their sense of integrity.
Ignore them. Talk to me.
When
April 21, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink