February 14, 2007

Credulity

Hatched by Dafydd

I'm about as far from being a cynic as it's possible to be and still remain on the planet (Earth to Dennis Kucinich...) I am an extreme optimist; I believe our future is always brighter than our past; I refuse ever to admit defeat, not even when confronted with a setback.

Yet I'm also realistic about human beings and what they're capable of doing, the bad along with the good. In particular, I appear to be a lot more realistic -- read "skeptical" -- about particular kinds of claims than a couple of lawyer friends for whom I have tremendous respect... yet who seem oddly credulous when confronted with specific shaky evidence that calls into question their own ideas.

Let's be clear: I'm saying that when confronted with evidence against their earlier ideas, my friends are a bit too quick to give in, to say they were wrong, than they ought to be. To me, this looks like a lack of confidence in oneself that bespeaks an admirable humility, but may still be counterproductive to a search for the truth.

What (and whom) am I talking about? I refer to Patterico of Patterico's Pontifications and John Hinderaker of Power Line, two of my very favorite bloggers on two of my very favorite blogsites. If you're intrigued, slither on...

Let's start with Patterico, since his case is the clearest -- and the least important in the grand scheme of things, relating only to the execrable Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwen of Shakespeare's Sister -- neither of whom contributes much if anything to the national discourse.

Patterico is appalled that apparently, both Marcotte and McEwen actually resigned because they received (they say) "threats" and "ugly e-mails and comments." I use the word "apparently" accurately, because in fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that they really received anything, or at least not the e-mails seemingly quoted at Firedoglake.

Lefties and liberals make almost a religious fetish out of claiming to have received death threats. They use the claim as a truncheon to attack anyone who disputes any portion of what they argue: 'here's some of the mail I recieved from the Rethuglican hate machine -- now whose side are you on?' The idea, dim as it is, is to contrast the bile the Left spews out with the even more wretched and revolting vile supposedly spewed out by their enemies on the Right, a sort of tu quoque. (That's a fancy French term for "you too!" as in, "you're just the same, only worse.")

The important point is that only the logical argument made against them is known to be real; the threats are never proven -- and could easily be made up. Thus, they shift attention away from a real argument, which they cannot answer, to a fanciful threat, to which they can wax indignant, show brave defiance, and can use to wrench public opinion onto their side.

In this case, Patterico accepts as gospel, never even questioning the veracity, the claim that those "threats" were in fact sent to the bloggers, and were sent by right-wingers. Has he seen the original e-mails? I doubt it; he points to a post at Firedoglake that seemingly quotes a few.

But again, the word "seemingly" means what it means: all we get is a blockquote that could have come from anywhere. For example, I recently received an e-mail that said the following:

Dafydd, you're the most brilliant human being who ever lived; you're much smarter than Einstein, wiser than Solomon, and you bestride the world like a colossus. Your novels are immortal, and will eventually be studied in English Lit classes alongside such other luminaries as Shakespeare and J.K. Rowling. You have changed my own life for the better: I was a career criminal until I read Arthur War Lord and Far Beyond the Wave; now I have repented and devoted my life to charity and public service. God bless you!

Perhaps you doubt I actually received such an e-mail. I give you my word as a gentleman that I did: I just received it today. In fact, about thirty seconds ago... when I sent it to myself.

However, you now have exactly as much evidence I received that e-mail as you do that the gals received obscene e-threats... that is, none at all.

Patterico is a compassionate man, and he has a deep sense of justice. These very virtues, however, can be twisted by lefty orcs in their endless, narcissistic quest to aggrandize themselves with ersatz martyrdom.

Patterico would never make such a mistake in his day job as a prosecutor; his very success indicates he is properly skeptical of miracle exculpatory "evidence" presented by the defense attorney that seems to have a very suspicious or even non-existent provenance... such as an anonymous letter confessing to the crime which is available only as a replica typed by the defense attorney himself (rather like the documents supplied by Bill Burkett that were at the heart of Rathergate).

In his day job, I'm convinced Patterico would dig deeper, would demand to see the originals, would demand sworn testimony -- and would ultimately argue that an anonymous "confession" (or even one attributed to "Joe Smith of St. Louis") is no evidence at all. Heck, it could have been written by the defendant and mailed to himself, just like my hagiographic e-mail above!

I followed Patterico's link to Firedoglake, but I found the "e-mails" were simply typed or pasted into the post; the only thing supposedly proving their authenticity was that they were in blockquotes.

He linked to another blog; I followed that too, and it was the same. Nobody even troubled to post the complete headers, by which persons smarter than I can at least see where the e-mail originated. They didn't even post the return e-address of the e-mailer... and I cannot imagine any court holding that a woman has to respect the privacy right of someone threatening to rape her. (What is the e-mailer going to do -- sue her for revealing his e-mail address?)

And even if we accepted that somebody sent such e-mails... they're so convenient to the Grand Central Liberal Narrative (we are the anointed, we have the vision, anyone who opposes us is a monster who must be destroyed) that it seems very likely to me they got some friend to send the e-mails, just so they could post them on the blog.

There is no indication any of this was turned over to the authorities. No indication that any legal steps at all were taken. For heaven's sake, this could easily fall under Secret Service jurisdiction, as Marcotte and McEwen could argue that they were being threatened in their capacity as campaign officials for John Edwards, presidential candidate.

Yet the kind heart of Patterico simply melted at the idea of these poor women being threatened in such a vile way, and I'm afraid his natural and vocational skepticism flew right out the window. What is most remarkable is that this post of Patterico's follows directly after two other excellent posts -- which exposed another liberal blogger, one with posting privileges on the Liberal Avenger website, as having fabricated sexual content in the (non-sexual) comment of a conservative reader!

The reader posted an innocuous comment at the LA website, arguing against abortion; then somebody with the privilege to edit comments on that site (we don't know exactly who) inserted a three-paragraph, graphic, first-person account of incest -- as if the commenter himself had written it.

Thus, immediately after Patterico had not one but two incisive, lawyerly posts -- each demonstrating that some left-wing blogger fabricated evidence to make it appear that those on the right were sex-crazed loons -- the same Patterico uncritically accepts the claims of even more left-wing bloggers: that sex-crazed loons on the right sent threatening e-mails to Marcotte and McEwen.

I don't get it.

Maybe someone did; it's not impossible. Maybe no one did: that's just as likely. The putative "evidence" they supply certainly doesn't tell us one way or another. And given the demonstrated penchant on the part of both women to invent straw-man attacks, demonize Republicans and the religious, and the unhealthy fascination of both women with the sexual organs... I'm simply not willing to extend them the same benefit of the doubt I give, e.g., Michelle Malkin.

(Malkin also claims to have received obscene, threatening e-mails from lefties; but in Malkin's case, since she has shown herself throughout her career to be sane, rational, and honest, even when we disagree, I believe her.)

The other case involves John Hinderaker... another first-rate lawyer who is ordinarily a very "Missourian" Minnesotan, demanding that those making a claim show us the evidence. John's instance of being what I would characterize as insufficiently skeptical is more subtle; and I must confess, John is clearly in the majority and I the minority.

Here is what John wrote today that so caught my eye; John is speaking about a new Zawahiri audiotape making the rounds:

The audio goes on at considerable length, and much of it is formulaic. But there is also some interesting stuff. As has been noted by others, Zawahiri never mentions Osama bin Laden, and at one point he says that "We have pledged allegiance to the Commander of the Believers, Mulla Muhammad Umar, who is an Afghan." One could infer that bin Laden may be dead, or incapacitated, or perhaps discredited, e.g. because he has given up the fight and is concentrating solely on staying alive. As one who believed for two years that bin Laden was most likely dead--until he came out with his pre-election video in 2004--I'm not jumping to any conclusions. But the facts are suggestive.

As I said, the great majority of people believes that Osama bin Laden is alive and well, living in Waziristan (or Afghanistan, Iran, or Kashmir). I am in a tiny minority that is still skeptical about that claim. Prior to the December, 2001 bombing at Tora Bora during the Afghanistan war, bin Laden issued a constant stream of videos and even met with reporters and others live; but since then, we have heard only audiotapes allegedly from him -- with one exception.

That exception is the very videotape that John referred to... and thereby hangs a tail.

Some politicians are thought to employ voice doubles who give some of their radio speeches for them or handle some of their phone calls. The most famous example is Winston Churchill, who (many claim, though there is no definitive proof) was often so busy running the war that he couldn't take the time -- and certainly not the risk -- to travel to a radio station to give his speeches. He supposedly used impersonator Norman Shelly to repeat some of his parliamentary speeches on radio.

I suspect that many terrorists do the same thing, mostly for security reasons. But that creates a problem later when trying to authenticate some speech (this may even be another reason terrorists would use such voice doubles): the only way to authenticate an audiotape is to compare it to previous "known" voice samples of the speaker. But if some of the earlier supposed control recordings are in fact of the voice double -- then if you get another audiotape from that same double, you can find many earlier tapes that perfectly match the voice on the new one.

The new tape will likely be authenticated, and the CIA will simply gloss over as peculiar the fact that it doesn't match some other earlier tapes.

I strongly suspect this scenario describes what has been happening with Osama bin Laden, and my reason is the lack of any personal contact between bin Laden and any unbiased third party since 2001, coupled with only a single supposedly post-2001 videotape. It would be safe enough to find an American reporter who was anti-Bush enough to keep his mouth shut about where he met bin Laden. Alternatively, if bin Laden were alive and reasonably well, they could meet somewhere that bin Laden never otherwise goes... so even if the reporter did let the beans out of the bag, it wouldn't help locate bin Laden.

Finally, they could just set up a video link over the Internet and allow reporters to ask him questions.

All right, so it's downright peculiar that a garrulous, egocentric lecturer would turn suddenly shy right around the time people think he was killed. But what about that 2004 videotape? Why doesn't that convince me, as it has clearly convinced John?

Its uniqueness, for one: If he can make one, then he can make two; if two, then why not twenty? If he cannot even make a second... then I question whether he could even make the first.

So how was this videotape authenticated? The usual three ways:

  • It's very hard (not impossible) to fake a video image; the person talking sure looks like bin Laden -- and indeed, even I agree that it's a video of Osama bin Laden... though it looks old and oddly faded;
  • The audio matches previous audio declared to be authentic bin Laden (but see above);
  • Finally, the speaker mentioned some recent events, proving that -- unlike other supposed bin Laden videos -- this one actually post-dated 2001.

But there is a serious hole in this evidentiary chain: even if the videotape is really bin Laden, and even if the audio refers to recent (2004) events -- how do we know that the audio matches the video? Well, there is a very easy way to find out, but which I have never heard the CIA having undertaken:

  1. Strip the audio track from the videotape;
  2. Find some Arabic-speaking deaf people who are qualified lip readers;
  3. Show them the video only... and ask them to make written transcripts of what bin Laden's lips are actually saying;
  4. Compare those transcripts to transcripts of the audio and see whether they actually match.

This could be done in one day, and if there were a match, it would completely squelch the idea of a voice double: it's too much to ask that you could find a voice double who was also a perfect visual match for Osama bin Laden.

But -- and this is why I suspect the CIA has not done this -- suppose there were significant mismatches in the two transcripts... and in particular, if all the contemporary references were found only in the audio and none in the video. What would that tell us?

It would be near conclusive proof that bin Laden was dead, or else so mentally or physically incapacitated that he could not even so much as make a videotaped speech. That would be a remarkable turn of events... and it would fit perfectly with what John Hinderaker noted: Ayman Zawahiri, bin Laden's "Number Two," calling on the faithful to follow Mullah Omar, not Osama bin Laden.

In John's case, I think he finds it disquieting being the lone dissenter; I know from personal experience that one begins to feel that "fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong." But of course they can; there are probably fifty million Americans who believe that flying saucers have landed in the United States sometime within the past 70 years. I know there are more than fifty million Americans who believe in ghosts, ESP, and who believe that we can double tax revenues by doubling tax rates.

Being in a minority, even a minority of one, doesn't mean you're wrong; but it does mean you're very likely to doubt yourself... it's just human nature. But what do we really have anent the aliveness of bin Laden? We have a mountain of evidence tending to indicate that he is dead (or as good as dead) -- and in the other pan, we have this one videotape that may or may not prove he was alive in 2004.

If alive and reasonably well, he could easily prove it; he and al-Qaeda have every incentive to do so -- which is why they keep trying to prove it by weird "proxy" evidence. But they haven't done any of the most obvious things to prove it once and for all.

So until I see better evidence than one dubious videotape, I will not throw out every other piece of evidence that points towards him being dead or completely incapacitated. At the very least, let's not only "authenticate" the audio but also show that the audio matches the video of bin Laden's lips as he speaks. It's not that hard to check.

I understand why John, who was as vocal as I saying he thought Osama bin Laden was dead, now doesn't want to go out on a limb after the videotape. I think it's the "once bitten, twice shy" syndrome, rather than a rational examination of the preponderance of the evidence. That is, I think John is now credulously accepting the conventional wisdom because it's just too painful to be a lone rebel.

But that isn't a good reason. John really is smarter than those metaphorical "fifty million Frenchmen," and he shouldn't let their intellectual limitations determine his position on any issue at all.

Credulity: it's a killer. It's a killer because there is no end of people willing, even eager, to play upon the credulity that everybody, even the most confirmed skeptic, cannot help but have.

Because I know I am as credulous as the next guy, I make a point of rethinking everything I think I know, as often as I can. I am almost obsessive about epistemology, the philosophy of "how we know what we know." I always want to know the provenance of supposed evidence... who said it, how was it propagated, what is the likelihood that it was altered in transmission (for example, when somebody paraphrases what somebody else said). And I always ask, "what other reasonable interpretations or conclusions can we draw from the same set of observations?"

When I do, I'm often surprised at how much "evidence" I, myself have accepted on faith... faith that may very well be misplaced. In my own case, I can rely upon my own ego, whose size approximates that of the Lesser Magellanic Cloud. But such monstrous vanity as I boast can be very difficult for ordinary, humble, decent, intelligent guys like Patterico and John Hinderaker to emulate... which is probably a good thing.

But it does lead to difficulty when dealing with the comic-book supervillains we find on the Left. (All right, time for me to stop monologuing!)

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, February 14, 2007, at the time of 5:51 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1788

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Credulity:

» "ersatz martyrdom" from Random Jottings
Dafydd points out something I've also noticed. The way left-leaning public figures, when pressed about something, always claim to have received e-mail death threats... ...Lefties and liberals make almost a religious fetish out of claiming to have rece... [Read More]

Tracked on February 15, 2007 1:37 PM

» Dafydd ab Hugh moves on from Making Light
I've tried to write about this a couple of times since I heard the story from Michael Berube, but I... [Read More]

Tracked on February 15, 2007 1:56 PM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

I'm about as far from being a cynic as it's possible to be and still remain on the planet (Earth to Dennis Kucinich...)

Life on Planet Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison...

;-)

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 14, 2007 7:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Hmmm... I'm tempted to label your arguements as "Conspiracy Theories" and thus reject them, except that they don't have the main necessary ingredient: A Cabal of people who know the truth and have perfect security over said truth. Your arguements rely upon the idea that the 'Authorities' are just lazy.

Not THAT'S something I can believe in!

I'd like to see the Video Tape checked with lip readers... if such people exist in that Culture. May be considered 'too forward' or whatever; I've no idea, but I'm rarely suprised at the lenghts that are gone to in order to protect the fragile feelings of the Radical Muslim Leaders.

As for cynic vs optimist: If you are an optimist about a belief, aren't you nearly by definition a cynic of it's unbelievers? For example, if you are optimistic about our current economy, wouldn't you be cynical of anybody who is seeing doom and gloom around every corner? Course, that may have been your point...

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 14, 2007 7:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Someone once said something like:

Keep it simple...

Humble me forgets the actual quote, but its been around for at least decades.

Prison helps one go back to the rather simple Rules of Mother Nature...as in:

1) Live or die
2) Kill or be killed
3) Lay down and become a Prison Punk (AKA a 'sex-change' without surgery...snicker)

We live on Planet Earth...well, most of you reading this here do, and Mother Nature runs the show. Humans are dreaming, if they think otherwise, in my Humble Low and Ignorant insane opinion.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 14, 2007 8:24 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Dafydd,

I suppose it's possible that these people fabricated this stuff, but I doubt it. From what I know of McEwan, she seems like a decent and honest person. There's no reason for me to doubt what she says.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 14, 2007 8:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

And yet she wrote this:

Today, President Bush called the Pope a “champion of human dignity,” and if you were poor, suffering under Soviet tyranny in Eastern Europe, or facing the death penalty, you’d probably agree. But if you were gay, or a victim of a priest who sexually assaulted you, or a woman who wanted to be a good Catholic and leave an unhappy marriage or have a career that wasn’t interrupted repeatedly by childbirth, or a priest wrestling with celibacy, or a pregnant victim of rape or incest, you’d probably disagree, because the Pope didn’t particularly care about your dignity, your needs, or the realities of your life. The same, of course, can be said for Bush -- and then some -- so it’s no wonder he views the Pope that way.

Which is not as in-your-face as a Marcott piece would be, but it's every bit as bigotted against Catholics.

It's also largely fabricated, because the Church does, in fact, care deeply about these issues... and even spends a lot of money ministering to, e.g., "a pregnant victim of rape or incest."

They just don't support what they see as killing a baby.

Thus, nearly all this argument is a big, crispy straw man, the only function of which is to spit upon the Pope, the Church, and all believing Catholics as backward, uncaring louts who laugh at the terrible problems of others. It's every bit as despicable as what Marcott wrote... just not quite as crude.

And she too is a raging feminist; she too used the phrase "Christofascist," which compares every conservative Christian to Musab Zarqawi; she too calls everyone who opposes same-sex marriage a bigot and a homophobe.

Frankly, I think she is every bit as likely to fabricate evidence... but only for the best of causes, you understand. Thus, her attack on the Pope above is not actually a lie; it's fake but accurate.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 14, 2007 9:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

I have no trouble believing that she might have received some type of threats because I've seen such things in comment threads. Granted that mostly they were made by those on the left, but there is no reason to believe that all nuts are on the left even though they seem to have more than their share of such lovely people as Randi Rhodes. Yet, like you, I would like at least a little proof of it before simply accepting what they say since in many instances their record is less than stellar when it comes to truthfulness.
What I do find interesting is that once again it is not her fault and instead is the fault of those evil people who were upset over what she said. I find it amusing that according to those on the left, they never say anything offensive. It is always the fault of those who read it. Well sorry, but I don't believe they didn't intend to be offensive. Both Marcott and McEwen would need to convince me that they are beyond stupid for me to believe that they are such poor writers that they didn't know their words were offensive. Frankly they use words far too well for me to believe they didn't realize that their words would be offensive, and now that people are complaining, they try to put the blame on others saying we didn't mean to offend, implying that it the offended people's fault for mis-understanding them. I might accept that for a single post, but when it continues time after time, then I am forced to believe they knew exactly what they were doing.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 12:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I don't now if these people got threats or not, but so far no one has made a movie about them being killed, or publicly demanded that they be put in jail or any of the other stuff I see from lefties all day every day. In fact I have been threatened myself before. It comes with the territory. It does not make it ok, but shooting your mouth off and then whining about pissed off people saying scarey things to you is a tad ironic coming from someone on the left.

As for Bin Laden, I have thought the man was dead for years. Otherwise we would be seeing him like we see that big mouthed Zawahiri blah blah blah.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 2:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: Steelhand

When one of my favorite three bloggers comments about the other two, I feel bound to chime in. Perhaps I am jaded by the frequency of charges of hateful e-mails from anti-secularists, and visible proof of the same from the left. Perhaps my view of the depravity of human nature colored by my Christian background leaves me with little doubt about the depths to which some will sink.

Nonetheless, I accepted as factual that hateful e-mails were sent to Ms. Marcotte and Ms. McEwen. Perhaps that was rash. However, the existence of any small number of nuts who would take the time to write such trash in no way detracts from the issue. John Edwards showed little sense in hiring these two bloggers to work for his campaign without doing some research on their paper trail. Whoever suggested them to him did his campaign a grave disservice.

Those who speak unpopular opinions are protected from government action against such language. They are not protected from others doing the same, regardless of the hypocrisy of such commenters. The bloggers are unhappy that their comments were "misinterpreted" to be derogatory to Christian believers. I would welcome anyone to show me how they can be interpreted in any other light.

So I side with Patterico in giving credence to their claims of vicious e-mails, because I see no reason to doubt the likelihood that some twisted souls could send such excrible messages. It doesn't validate their claims of victimhood. If real, they should be repudiated by opponents of hateful speech. If false, the bloggers have to live with being liars as well as anti-Catholic bigots. (I somehow doubt that would be a problem for them.)

As to bin Laden, that bugger's been dead so long Grissom couldn't identify him if he were dropped on his desk in Las Vegas.

The above hissed in response by: Steelhand [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 6:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: legaleagle

Alas, while there's no possiblility I could make it all the way through this babbling, paranoid doggerel, at least I stuck with it long enough to come across another Republican loon discovering the joy of using capital letters: Grand Central Liberal Narrative. God, that is just ingenious. I can't wait till it becomes an acronym, like G.W.O.T. and B.D.S. It's so entertaining to watch the Republican mind at work, like a chimpanzee with an infant's toy.

The above hissed in response by: legaleagle [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 7:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

I deal with lawyers, consultants, etc everyday, and I have found that complaining about the tone of a discussion, rather than the content, is usually the last refuge of a scoundrel. Liberals specialize in complaining about tone rather than substance

A questions for Dafydd, powerline guys, et al - are you saying that you have never received insulting, hateful e-mails? Threats of bodily harm? I would be extraordinarily surprised if that were so. And I believe that you are writing significantly more thoughtful and intelligent things than the two liberal bloggers in question. Imagine if you were spewing the hateful crap these two liberal bloggers have been engaged in.

The point is....so? So one (or two, or ten, or ten thousand) people are mentally deranged enough to respond to hate with hate. Is that so surprising? Does that suddenly make what the liberal bloggers do right or proper? As I understand their current argument "When we call Catholics evil rotten people, a few of them respond by threatening us, thereby proving our original thesis that all Catholics are evil and rotten!" Something not quite right there.

Because one buck-tooth neanderthal in Backwater, WI can send a liberal blogger his rape fantasies, what value does that have in weighing their anti-Christian stance? The answer is, none whatsoever. The Internet has made everyone their own publisher. Letter to the editor are a click away.

Now, just to help a brother out....Dafydd, you're the most brilliant human being who ever lived; you're much smarter than Einstein, wiser than Solomon, and you bestride the world like a colossus. Your novels are immortal, and will eventually be studied in English Lit classes alongside such other luminaries as Shakespeare and J.K. Rowling. You have changed my own life for the better: I was a career criminal until I read Arthur War Lord and Far Beyond the Wave; now I have repented and devoted my life to charity and public service. God bless you!

Now you can say you actually recieved such praise from a devoted reader. Maybe even quote it on you masthead.

OBL is RIP. You'd' think some enterprising newspaper would write a fantastic story about this...but why when the Scooter Libby trial is so much more interesting and important to our society?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 7:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

I'll point out that we have seen hoaxes on the left side of the isle of just the sort that Dafydd is considering as a possibility. And worse. Such as vandalizing one's own car, then claiming victim status.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 8:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: BigLeeH

Marcott and McEwen are using a time-honored technique used to get past guard dogs. When cornered they pull out the bright red rubber ball of right-wing death threats and throw it, knowing that the news hounds will not be able to resist chasing after it. It almost always works and it was working here until you came along.

Confronted with the bright red ball you don't wag your tail. Instead, you growl --

Lefties and liberals make almost a religious fetish out of claiming to have received death threats. They use the claim as a truncheon to attack anyone who disputes any portion of what they argue...

... and then, damned if you don't take off after the ball, baying "It's not so red! ...not very bouncy! I think it might be plastic, not rubber!"

If you had kids you would recognize this as the "but Mikey" defense, as in "Yes, I shaved the cat but Mikey put X-Lax in the dog food!" The correct response is to promise to deal with Mikey later or, to return to my other metaphor, to note the direction of the red rubber ball without letting go of that leg clamped between your teeth.

The above hissed in response by: BigLeeH [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 10:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

legaleagle, Speaking of babbling what are you talking about?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 11:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Big D:

A questions for Dafydd, powerline guys, et al - are you saying that you have never received insulting, hateful e-mails? Threats of bodily harm? I would be extraordinarily surprised if that were so. And I believe that you are writing significantly more thoughtful and intelligent things than the two liberal bloggers in question. Imagine if you were spewing the hateful crap these two liberal bloggers have been engaged in.

I have never received any death threats or threats of bodily harm. Sachi has, but she frequents some Japanese bulletin boards, and the threats are no more serious than the drunken ramblings of some alcoholic bum half-passed-out in a bar.

But she has never received any such threats directly by e-mail, phone, or in person.

Again, let me reiterate what I said above: I am not stating as a fact that they did not received such threats; I am saying that I have met very few leftists who will not, when pressed by argument, resort to the Appeal to Pity... in particular, "you must support me; after all, I've received death threats!"

See, here's the thing, Big D: What I find so distasteful and repugnant about such leftists is not that they receive such threats (which I doubt true in all cases), nor even that they're so pugnacious. What turns me off more than anything else is their constant whining about it.

For God's sake, can't they just suck it up? I've never received death threats, but I'm constantly called nasty, vicious, lying names (many who know I am Jewish delight in calling me a Nazi). But so what? When is the last time you read me sniveling about it?

It's of no import; it's certainly not a reason why I'm right and X is wrong, Godwin's law notwithstanding. It's just an irritating irrelevancy.

It's worse than a bad argument; the Appeal to Pity is unseemly. It's a cowardly, sneaky tactic. This is something that drives Sachi nuts, by the way; she calls it "using your own weakness as a weapon."

It's the grandmother who is always saying "go ahead, go out and enjoy yourself; I'll manage somehow alone. I'll just sit here in the dark and suffer."

Suppose the gals did receive threats. So bloody what? Don't bother telling us about it, because we're not interested. Suck it up and fight like a man, for God's sake -- even if you're a woman.

I don't care. My give-a-damn's busted. Fight or don't fight, but don't writhe in the dirt and beg me to surrender because you're such a piteous creature.

It's especially despicable when a radical feminist resorts to such a female failing -- "I'm being threatened! I need a man to protect me!" -- in between ranting about America as evil patriarchy. You can either be a weak, clingy woman or a strong, independent woman: pick one. You can't be both simultaneously.

(This applies equally to men who start as raging feminists but then swiftly appeal to female weakness to defend some female feminist friend or ally -- a Cindy Sheehan, a Hillary Clinton.)

The Appeal to Pity: using one's own weakness as a weapon; that's what the gals did, and I hate that rhetorical trick more than any other. I hate it even more than the Appeal to Violence ("agree with me or I'll beat you up") or the Ad-Hominem ("Bush lied, so vote Democratic").

It's a vile, cowardly trick that simply embarasses everyone and makes normal, decent people recoil in disgust.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 1:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Legaleagle:

Hm...

Alas, while there's no possiblility I could make it all the way through [Appeal to Reading Disability] this babbling, paranoid [Ad Hominem] doggerel [incorrect word], at least I stuck with it long enough [Appeal to Flattery] to come across another Republican loon [Ad Hom, guilt by association] discovering the joy of using capital letters [Appeal to Ridicule]: Grand Central Liberal Narrative. God, that is just ingenious [Appeal to Ridicule]. I can't wait till it becomes an acronym [Argument by Bad Analogy], like G.W.O.T. and B.D.S. It's so entertaining to watch the Republican mind at work [overgeneralization], like a chimpanzee with an infant's toy [Argument by Bad Analogy]. [Entire argument: Proposition false because proponent used capital letters; Red Herring, paralogia.]

Not bad; thirteen logical fallacies in a single paragraph. I doubt I could do better if I tried.

What was your point, exactly?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 2:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Hamilton Lovecraft

she too used the phrase "Christofascist," which compares every conservative Christian to Musab Zarqawi

Does "Islamofascist" compare every conservative Muslim to Zarqawi?

The above hissed in response by: Hamilton Lovecraft [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 3:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

The Appeal to Pity and Agree With Me or I'll Beat You Up combo is otherwise known as the Palestinian two-step.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 5:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Hamilton Lovecraft:

[McEwen] too used the phrase "Christofascist," which compares every conservative Christian to Musab Zarqawi

Does "Islamofascist" compare every conservative Muslim to Zarqawi?

The term "Islamofascist" -- which I do not use -- attempts to contrast ordinary Moslems to jihadis.

Hence, the term "Chrisofascist" would attempt, similarly, to contrast ordinary Christians to "Christian jihadis." There are two problems here:

  1. There are no "Christian jihadis." There is no Christian version of Zarqawi or Zawahiri or bin Laden, for example, nor any Christian version of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, or Ramzi Yusef. There is no Christian Ahmadinejad and no Christian version of al-Qaeda or the Mahdi Militia.
  2. Neither McEwen nor Marcott actually distinguish between (fictional) Christian jihadis and conservative Christians who simply oppose abortion and same-sex marriage.

"Christofascist" is very similar to the phrase "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party," which various Democrats (e.g., Sen. Tim Johnson) have used to refer to conservative Republicans... as if James Inhoffe or Tom Campbell would stone women to death for holding hands in pubilc.

The cumulative effect of using that term but not bothering to restrict it to (non-existent) Christians who blow people up in shopping malls is to identify every conservative Christian with Musab Zarqawi or Muqtada Sadr... to imply that opposing same-sex marriage is roughly equivalent to kidnapping hundreds of innocent people, slitting their throats, and dumping the mutilated bodies in the gutter.

Do you agree with this identification?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 7:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: CayuteKitt

What Marcott did by complaining about threatening e-mails is not intended to garner sympathy....i.e. what she has posted may have been objectionable, but these nasty old e-mails are simply obscene by comparison.

Not at all. What she intends is to deflect the focus and attention away from what she did by pointing the finger at someone/something else's actions which might be more egregious by perceived current standards of social mores.

It's the same thing that the jihadis have done so effectively, which is to use our American cultural mores against us, by accusing us of similar outrages to those which we find abhorrant when exhibited by fellow Americans against each other.

All it is intended to do is to deflect people's attention away from the truly objectionable behaviors and actions which are so evil and cruel as to be unfathomable to most civilized societies, and redirect that attention to the objectionable behaviors du jour of our 'civilized' society's more 'refined' perceptions.

It's a simple slight of hand that the Left and their ilk have perfected since the sixties when they discovered how effectively the technique could be used to make strides in their socialist/communist/marxist game plans.

They look for our standards of ethics which, when violated, cause us to chastise each other. Then they blow up out of proportion similar behaviors to cause us to start chasing each others' tails to make sure we will police each other....seeing as how we can't justify chastising them for things we can't police among ourselves first.

This is pure Twilight Zone insanity, in my opinion, and won't end until we finally call them on it instead of buying into the ruse each and every time. Daffyd has made a very good start here. Let keep the momentum going!

The above hissed in response by: CayuteKitt [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 15, 2007 11:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: ShyGuy

Congratulations! You just got slimed by P&T. (Best of luck selling anything to Tor for the next few years!)

The above hissed in response by: ShyGuy [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 16, 2007 9:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: A Hermit

Of course none of Michelle Malkin's readers would EVER send a death threat would they?

Two words: Chad Castagana...

The above hissed in response by: A Hermit [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2007 7:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

A Hermit:

So when you read this post (assuming you even did -- or could), you thought it boiled down to "no right-winger could ever threaten anybody."

Thus, you decided to refute the post by showing that at least one right-winger was also crazy.

I'm not sure where Michelle Malkin enters into it; presumably, you also decided that any Joe Rightwinger was pretty much the same as any other Joe Rightwinger, and that all Joe Rightwingers read Michelle Malkin as a matter of course -- and that this had some special significance.

Can you try to clarify your point somewhat? How does your example relate to the subject at hand?

For example, I'm Jewish. Some Jews have been threatened. That is not evidence that I, personally, have been threatened (I haven't). Taking that into consideration, please reformulate your comment into a more coherent argument.

Thanks,

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 17, 2007 12:06 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved