Monday, July 30, 2007

Fallacies and sophomoric irony (courtesy of a DU Emo-Crat)

"I am typical of those who get all of their information from the mainstream media, and news networks like CNN and FOX-News."

Who obtains all their info. from those sources, Ms. Athena of DU? Some evidence might be useful, or at least specific targets. That's a sweeping generalization, as well as straw man fallacy (create this imaginary "conservative," and then shoot him down. There are such creatures--so why not instead use a real conservative as a target? Like Al Gore, supporter of NRA, capitalist, anti-union, and abortion opponent (at least for a few years).

Sehr schoen slidin'

(Vinnie M., Ace)

I know that we must stay in Iraq until we win. I have never heard an explanation of exactly what winning is, but I was probably just out of the room the times it’s been explained.

I know that things are going well in Iraq because the president says so, and he’s in a position to know better than anyone

This does not quite reach the average high school junior's attempt at wit or satire. Perhaps she's describing someone she knows, her family or something. Not only another straw man fallacy (who is this person?), but inept. None of these wannabe-Voltaires have ever bothered even with the cliffsnotes to Candide. Not only that, begs the question of what the consequences of pulling out of Iraq will be. It's hardly a slam-dunk that pulling out will result in instant peace for those phunn-loving Iraqi shiietes and sunnis. So it's more unfounded ideology done via crude rhetorical manipulation, a sort of caricature of conservativism (it's debatable whether the "Redneck Conservative" from central casting who liberals love to attack really embodies true conservatism--. Giuliani ain't Fred Thompson, and vice versa. And however f-ed Giuliani may be, he's taken on organized crime to some extent. And he realizes the dangers of muslim hysteria. Maybe Rudy could RICO DU).

"I know that the oil companies have our best interests at heart, and will put their astoundingly high profits to good use for the betterment of all Americans. If that wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t waste all that money on commercials to tell us so."

This is a bit closer to something like political satire, but still broad and unspecified. Point at some real targets: Petroleum execs, Exxon, etc. Or STFU.

"""""I know that the president and vice president have often been accused of doing things they are not allowed to do. But in every case, they have assured the nation that they checked, and found that they are perfectly within their rights to do anything they want to.""""""

Get a badge. They may have done horrible things, or maybe not. They were voted into office (and 2004 vote fraud accusations from Dems were shown to be unfounded) Had the demos not stood in the way of some Naderian-like communication reforms for years, perhaps the BushCo boys would have been kept on a wire, and a lot of deceit would have been prevented. Come to think, keeping the Feinsteinian right on a wire may not be such a bad idea either.

""""I know that Alberto Gonzales is an honest, trustworthy man, because he wouldn’t have made it all the way to being the Attorney General if he wasn’t. I cannot explain why his testimony on any number of topics has been contradicted over and over – sometimes by others, sometimes by way of documents, and sometimes by his own words – but I am sure it is simply the result of his political enemies trying to make him look bad."""

See the above comment, and perhaps read up on the Wash. St. election of 2004, illegal immigration, and a bit on the Rothchilds........

""""I know that our elections are fair and honest, because if they weren’t, that big a news story would be all over the TV.""""

You got a point there. Like those suspicious elections in El Lay, when ex-communist Jefe Villagarosa mysteriously went to victory in many middle and upper-class caucasian neighborhoods. More obvious simplifications, guilt by insinuation. About like some 3rd rate Bolshevik hack of the 1920s ranting about the bourgeois.

"""""I know that all Muslims are potential terrorists and should be watched closely – even those who are American citizens. Just because they have lived here for generations does not place them above suspicion, unlike white Christians who are incapable of fanaticism in the name of religion.""""""

Whoa. Now you must be quoting your relatives out in the swamps of Louisiana or something. Straw man, continued. And of course more BS Emo-crat ideology (that muslims are not terrorists: hah. tell that to some New Yorkers living around the WTC---what used to be known as the WTC).

"""""I know that Barack Obama should never be elected president because his middle name is Hussein, which in and of itself indicates that he is not to be trusted."""""

Jefferson might agree with that, Daisy Mae.


"""""I know that no matter how bad things seem to be in our great nation, things are actually going just great because if they weren’t, TV news personalities wouldn’t be as perky and chipper as they always are.

But mostly I know that when someone tries to tell me that there are facts on the internet that don’t get covered by the mainstream media, they are just trying to confuse me – and I am never going to allow myself to be confused by the facts.""""""

That's rather amusing, since "liberals" (in name only, really) own and control most mainstream media, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, most cable. Fox IS a joke; but then so is ABC. CBS is more or less part of Rothschilds, Inc. Either way, more ideology by suggestion: the totalitarian's method (as Orwell, no fan of agit-prop of links oder rechts, himself realized). Now try say Candide 10 times, a bit of Swift, Bierce, Twain, and Orwell, and start over.........................


Anonymous said...

You touch on some good points but I think you might be taking the poster a little too seriously. Sounds to me like she's just having some fun pretending to be the standard American idiot.

J said...

I realize that it wasn't intended to be some profound political statement. But then hardly anything on DU is. Obviously as an argument it carries no weight (but it should be noted that the straw-man fallacy is rather common to blogland---the blog-hack creates imaginary scenarios or characters and then attacks them, instead of the real issue).

As satire it's sort of juvenile, or at least generalized and bland, according to my taste. There are American conservative idiots to be sure (i.e. baptists). Yet I think a lot of the DU or Kos ID politics (like the current scandal with O'Reilly on KOS) backfires. The person who stoops to making fun of hick conservatives or biblethumpers (while we should make fun of them, especially the Romney 'bots) uses the same tactics that rightist pundits use. The old National Lampoon or original SNL or Onion or osiris forbid, Monty Python, were quite a bit more sophisticated in terms of poli-satire than these new left sites, which seem so PC and overly sensitive. I wager some bright young Terry Gilliam would be given a troll stamp and his caca cookie recipe at Kos, as would HS Thompson.

I also take issue with her sort of "loaded irony", such as the implication that we need not worry about muslim terrorism, or that Obama's just a decent guy, etc. Anyone as beloved by the media and corporations as Obama must be doing something wrong.

J said...

The points on Xtianity were also sort of puzzling, since both Hillary and Obama have done nearly as much biblethumping as the rightists have. Secularists are, I believe, sort of faced with a difficult choice in this next Prez campaign. Edwards sort of appears to be secularist, and one might say the Jeffersonian choice, but I don't think the Demo hive will go for him, certainly not in urban areas. Who would Rich. Dawkins support? I doubt he's for Hill or BO. Whatev.

And some of us who read Dawkins (or Hitchens) with some approval may have noted that both Kos and DU are not too friendly to skeptics--- or atheists. I think there are some muslims in the back-rooms of both sites, or they are the Clinton like xtians. Or so it seems.

(ah and the staff of Contingencies notes that New Worlds has posted something on "JG." Interesting, and not the worst writing. Alas those grand Grateful Dead summer spectacles are no more.

However Contingencies also notes that one NW Regular aka B-ron (hardly a Deadhead, either) has, as usual made some typical nearly-libellous allusions to "madness and breakdown." Let's just say anyone who thinks RA Heinlein--supporter of Reagan, and Reagan's Star War missile defense system, one-time crony of L-Ron, lover of all things Militaristic--to be some leftist or beatnik, or even "Jeffersonian" has gone beyond madness into psychosis....... RAH spewed some interesting and scientifically informed pulp, but he was no liberal, and no genius scribe ala Pynchon, or even ...WS Burroughs..........

Anonymous said...

Glad you liked it.

J said...

De nada. It's rather amusing you post here, and we aren't posted at NW, isn't it.

Btw, I doubt all that "trolling" is mine. Yes when I see a spammed-in Jack Handy-like Deep Thought of the Day from your fave Visionious, I have on occasion written something critical. I can't believe you allow Visionious and other NWers to continually invoke their favorite, preacherly-like weighted-words ("immoral," "evil," good, even Us vs Them, Oneness, etc.), or to post things (like the Bowen rant, or the prison-camp paranoia) which are not capable of verification (lacking evidence, aquaintance with facts, etc--see my post on "Righteous Indignation 101" for more on Bowens' manipulation). I also note how he has for a few months depicted me as some radical rightist. Hah. I've never been in GOP. I support higher taxes on the wealthy, and other somewhat liberal policies. I voted Kerry; and take issue with Bushco's handling of the war, and with Big oil. I do however read the "opposition" from time to time (like Mr. Hitchens), after being nauseated at Kos and other J-Edgar. com sites, and think the 911 conspiracy claims were BS, as do quite a few non-conservatives. Moreover I've never championed an old-school Nixonian like Heinlein. So it goes.

Anonymous said...

"...It's rather amusing you post here, and we aren't posted at NW..."

I expect to be canned as soon as I get hostile and offensive and loyal Contingencies posters feel harassed and threatened by my behavior. Should they email you offline saying that this Max guy is driving them nuts I will not be surprised to find my posting rights forfeited.

J said...

In terms of hits, I suspect the Cont. average is close to that of NW (regretfully I have had to purge a few Cont. renegades who were prone to quoting their favorite Broadway musical as support for political ideas): of course you do have one poster at NW, BiPolar-onious (Abbie Hoffman and Heinlein: ahhh yeahhhh!) responsible for what 90% of the daily Deep Thoughts who sort of skews the data.

I find it amusing you received complaints from posters at NW (other than ol B.P.-Ron), since you have had comment moderation in place at least for a year (I never saw NW until last August or so). The person who complains (you?) may simply delete. I have harrassed NO one, man. Pointing out a poorly reasoned argument, or a great generalization, or the use of emotional and manipulative language is not harrassment. Being called a nazi or xtian (when one is neither) IS harrassment.

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe this will be taken as crossing into "hostile and offensive," but I hope not. Your latest accusation of plagiarism falls far short of the mark.

"NO quotes, and original writers/URLs not credited = plagiarism. Not that that has ever bothered Joan of Arconius."

Not only was the excerpt placed in a quote box, but it was preceded by: "By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted July 30, 2007."

Seems like fairly diligent sourcing to me. I do like "Joan of Arconius" though. You're on a roll with those insulting appellations. Going for the Don Rickles of the blogosphere?

Anonymous said...

"Being called a nazi or xtian (when one is neither) IS harrassment."

Yep. I know how that feels. Same with fraud, stalinist, hypocrite, narcissist, Nixonian stoner (I like that one)... the list could go on for a while.

Anonymous said...

What's with the "cheka" stuff? I can't find it on urban dictionary. I do like Czech culture- but I don't think that's what you're going for.

J said...

Better hecklers than , well, Nixonian stoners. If you note, that was posted in the comment box following a post (pointing to Brad something hacking the vote , etc.) which has no quotes, and the language appears to be written by JoanOfArconius but when clicking to the site, the language is found to have been written by Mr. Brad. While it is only a comment box, and only attached to another of St. B-ron's 10 posts a day or whatever, it is technically plagiarism without quotation marks. There are quite a few other instances of that on NW (I realize that some bloggers overlook perfect citation form (forgetting writer's name, title of book, article, or URL, etc.), but quotation marks should ALWAYS be included. I wager Brad would agree).

I don't have an axe to grind really. Or at least my axe hardly matches that of St. BB--or apparently of you, with your "he will never again taint my site," etc.. I don't have much to add to your daily spam. However I do recall your nearly interesting discussion on Dawkins (I recently obtained a copy of The God Delusion, and am reading about skyhooks, cranes,. etc. I also read Dennett's work ), and think you sort of wimped out on that--perhaps due to some pressure from NWers. Whatever. (and I NEVER supported creationism--that was another lie of BB---I in fact was quoting SJ Gould and his thoughts on evolution approvingly. I am against the moronic anti-Darwinian fundies and the new earth BS. I did mention the Design argument, which is not necessarily Xtian or even anti-Darwinist--that is accepted argumentation style: take on the rebuttals; yet I never supported the Intelligent Design People (see my latest post), and in fact posted counter-arguments to the design analogy. Yeah another tempest in a blog-pot, but my points were all misconstrued or misunderstood.

Anonymous said...

', with your "he will never again taint my site,..."'

'tis poor form to place a paraphrase in quotes, is it not?

J said...

The Cheka:

The early KGB, organized by Lenin, Trotsky, young Stalin, after the October Revolution. Nasty Red cops. Ended the freedom of the press; cracked down on dissenters (including leftist and socialist ones), began the purges and gulags, and in fact after the attempt on VIL"s life, started to kill people. Yeah's it's a bit of "hyperbole," but the control of information and elimination of dissent one sees on many blog sites (even supposed liberal ones such as good old DailyKOS--or on a modest scale, NW) has a certain Cheka-like aspect to it. The nazis also did similar things when coming into power: strict censorship, control of press, breaking up meetings, etc. BushCo has a certain Cheka aspect obviously, with his unauthorized wiretapping, warrantless searches, as does the Patriot Act, which nearly all those freedom loving Democrats signed off on.

J said...

Really McMax, I am through posting, or even trolling on NW. I am pretty burnt out on blogging altogether, but have a few days of free time, and have been indulging. Blogs are mostly hype, and overrated as a type of serious writing.

BlogSpeak itself tends to be colloquial, imprecise, and generalized, chockful of fallacies: that's the nature of the beast. Bierce termed slang "the grunt of the human hog," and blogland consists mainly of Grunt.coms.

I don't think your post was entirely accurate. But it brought back some pleasant, or mostly pleasant memories. However I believe your Palonius has stirred up a great deal of bad joss. I may have as well (as have you), but his rating on the BadJossometer
surpasses all of us. I hope when he starts stumping for Mitt Romney you will consider canning him...........


Anonymous said...

"I hope when he starts stumping for Mitt Romney you will consider canning him..........."


J said...

Cool. You draw the line somewhere. I also noted Gruntonious's latest decoration (er, distraction) on NW: not sure what he intends, but like many confused rightists (and emotional leftists as well), he continually commits the fallacy of false dichotomy (sort of what you meant by "Us. vs Them"---so Waters relies on a fallacy for his tune). Otherwise known as "either, or" fallacy. In fact if you go through NW's you will note it all over the place. Here's some paraphrases of BB's sophomoric beauties :

"You either agree with my claims that 911 was a conspiracy organized by the US Govt. OR you're a stinking Cheney supporter!" (hah. see Sam Harri's writing on that, geniusonius)

"You either are completely opposed to the War Effort, or you're supporting Gitmo, murder and the stinking Bushcovite dogs!" (forgetting that nearly all his favorite dems signed off on war--like Pelosi, Kerry, Hill, DiFi etc.)

"You either approve of Obama (and Hill.), or you're a member of the Klan or a nazi". (BS.)

"""You either think Heinlein's the greatest, or you don't know crap about sci-fi"" (which is a complete contradiction of BB's stated liberalism, since RAH was a hawk, even to the right of the Nixonians--see my latest post, and micro-research).

""You either are a muscle-man macho romantic, or an effeminate girly man"""" (one of BB's more Schwarzeneggerian like stupidities. And his occasional gay insinuations are right out of the Ahhnuld or Rush Lim. or Old Nixonian handbook: used against Gray Davis in the Recall. Let's ask HulkRon whether he supported Girly-man Gray in the Recall, and see what sort of Dem he izz)

""You are either support Dems and are Good, OR GOP and you are Bad, and if you support GOP ever, you're a born again xtian, and capitalist" ( fallacy with bogus warrant. One might hate xtians, and even hate conservatives, and corporate capitalism, and yet feel that some GOP politician would be superior to say a socialist. Given McCain vs. Obama, I'd definitely choose McCain, and yet not attend sunday school (unlike Nixonius), or join the GOP).

"Either you agree with Gore's ideas on global warming, or you're a right wing dogmatist. (BS. The science associated with global warming has NOT been conclusively established. There is not a consensus in the IPCC. And Al Gore's about as close to science as like his censor wife Tipper is (not). Moreover, it's debatable whether Gore is a liberal. Pro NRA, against abortion, pro-capitalist, etc. See Counterpunch).

If you had read the fine print in even old RA Wilson's texts you might have realized logic IS important (as is fact-based, non-emotional writing), and helps one avoid all these cheap fallacies--which is to say, the real progressive avoids the manipulations (fallacies can be put to use, that is, if you know how to. Ad people do) and character attacks that many of the KOS and DU people specialize in (some rightists do of course as well: you either are a GOPer, or supporting communism, terrorism, etc.).

Moreover, RAW was no vegetarian, and he supported the NRA, legalization of drugs. He also opposed feminist tyranny (sounds odd, unless you've worked in a few school districts), as well as rightist and statist tyranny (and there are boo-coo dems in the Fed, btw. Something most paranoiacs overlook. ).

Verstehen zee das? Gut.

J said...

I also note your cheesy nazi pal B-ron is lying again, and insinuating that I am "homophobic" when I am not. Like most bogus "liberals" he mistakes his ENDLESS ID POLITICS for like some type of thinking.

He's a psycho, man. Not a progressive. hear me yet? I suspect he's in Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Associated Baptist White trash Hicks for Jeee-sus or something. I don't think he can read.

I've never been in the GOP, either, unlike him (a Schwarzenegger supporter, at one time. And lover of the arch-militarist and Nixonian, RA Heinlein). Indeed I'm about to file papers on the drug-addicted, steroid-using piece of white trash shit.

Custom Search

Blog Archive