David Shemano wrote: >America is not AmeriKa because some professors
write a letter to the college newspaper referencing the Protocols of
the Elder of Zion. <
As far as I can tell, David was responding to my comment on the
attacks on Prof. Walt in Montana. (it was reprinted at the bottom of
David's missive.)
If so, this is crap. I _never_ use the spelling "Amerika" (or, even
worse, "Amerikkka"). That's puerile, just a way the some lefties
talked to each other in a way that keeps non-lefties out of the
conversation.
I was not arguing that "America is Amerikkka" (i.e., some sort of
fascist homeland).[*] No, I was instead arguing that >This is the kind
of thing I was referring to when I referred to a "shit storm."< (BTW,
I usually don't use such words as "shit." I find that they are more
effective when used very sparingly.)
David's missives seem to based on some sort of political dyslexia.
David continues:>How is this different than when Ann Coulter, Henry
Kissinger, etc. appear on a college campus? <
Bill Lear and Michael Perelman had good answers. I just want to add
one point (or rather, restate my original point): in US during the
present era, i.e., what I was talking about, the attacks on Walt, etc.
as being "anti-Semitic," "like Nazis," and so forth is currently part
of the _dominant political culture_. Invite Walt (or whomever) to
speak and there's a vast political infrastructure already there to
launch the shit-storm against him. The organized Likudnik knee is
ready to jerk.
On the other hand, if a war criminal like Kissinger, a silly-but-scary
publicity hound like Coulter, or a racist like Murray is invited, the
infrastructure isn't there. In most places around the US, there will
be no response at all (except liberals and lefties muttering
"how can it get worse?") In a few places (Austin, Madison, Berkeley,
and a handful of others, the sum of which right-wing types hypostatize
into some sort of cabal), the local lefties will try to mobilize to
pass out leaflets and paint up some signs, but it will take energy
away from their more long-term political work. (Besides, they're too
scattered and fighting amongst themselves.)
Then, the pro-Israel and generally conservative infrastructure will
mobilize against _them_. ("Oh, no, you're violating Kissinger's free
speech rights! even though he can easily call up CNN or the White
House and get a hearing! Horrors!") The lefty knee is so weak these
days that even when it jerks, the results are often a bit sad.
>The reason that we are in disagreement is that I don't think you (the
generic you) are conceptualizing that Israel is the one topic
emotional enough for some that Lefty speakers have to suffer what
Conservative speakers put up with on a regular basis. <
I don't know why David can presume to know what I or we think. I, for
one, hate it when people presume to know what I think. Especially
without quoting me directly.
as for >Lefty speakers have to suffer what Conservative speakers put
up with on a regular basis<, that's a matter of fact or non-fact.
I disagree with David's assertion of fact. Nowadays, the President of
the US is a "Conservative," while they have absolute control over the
Fox network and pretty strong control over almost all of the news
media in the US. The dominant political culture is currently
"Conservative," though there's some doubt about what "Conservative"
means.
>Imagine Charles Murray came to your campus to deliver a speech
entitled "Whites Are Smarter Than Blacks." Would you applaud the
invitation and politely attend the lecture and listen intently to what
he had to say? Would you complain if some professor wrote a letter to
the dean complaining that Murrray and his speech were "racist" and not
fitting for a college campus? Would you think it unreasonable if he
was only permitted to speak if an opposing view were presented? I
don't.<
He would not be invited. It goes against the Catholic faith. I don't
make these decisions, so the agnostic viewpoint is not represented. I
don't think I'd object if the creep were invited. I would attend and
then try to ask pointed questions. After all, his viewpoint is
seriously flawed and would fall apart under small pressure.
(BTW, it's a matter of _policy_ at LMU that when someone who's even a
bit controversial is invited to speak, someone else is invited to give
a alternative. When Coulter was invited to speak, some DP hack was
brought it to balance her insanity.
(This policy arose because a few years ago, the GOP presidential
candidate -- George Bush the Greater? -- was invited to speak, but the
DP candidate (Mike Dukakis?) was deliberately not invited, because the
Trustees don't like the DP.)
If/when lefties print up leaflets about Murray and other
"conservatives," they should be more a matter of "truth squad" stuff
than "Murray's a racist! Nyaa Nyaa Nyaa!" That is, the many factual
gaps and logical fallacies of Murray's crap should be made obvious to
all. Murray isn't the enemy as an individual. Rather, it's his ideas
that are the target.
>This is not to say that I applaud Lefties suffering what
Conservatives having to suffer.<
BTW, I don't think that Walt is a "lefty" -- unless being critical of
the Israel and/or its powerful lobby makes one a lefty. The latter is
quite doubtful. After all, George Lincoln Rockwell -- a Conservative?
-- was quite critical of Israel.
>And I don't expect you to agree that there is conceptual equivalence
beween anti-Israel speech and racist speech. But I really believe
that you are fooling yourself if you believe that the issue is "free
expression" as an abstract value and not whose oxe is getting gored.<
I wasn't talking about any "conceptual equivalence" or non-equivalence
of different species of speech. I also wasn't talking about the issue
of "free expression" as a value. I was talking about the right-wing
infrastructure (centered around the Likud Lobby) that is ready,
willing, and able to mobilize to throw poop at anyone who dares to say
negative things about Israel. I was talking about the dominant
political culture in the current era.
The Chicago-school economists (self-styled anti-statist liberals) make
a Big Thing about the need to separate "normative" from "positive"
economics (value vs. fact). What amazes me repeatedly is how often
liberals -- of both the pro-government and anti-government
("libertarian") perspective -- fail to separate these. If I talk
about anti-Zionist opinions unleashing a shit-storm (fact, or alleged
fact), David launches into stuff about my insulting the US of America
or thinking it fascist (calling it "Amerika") and not believing in
free expression and gets into high moral dudgeon (value).
It's like a conversation I had once. Me: "it looks like Slobodan
Milosevich is fighting a civil war against the KLA in Kosovo." The
liberal, upset, blurted: "you think that they are morally
equivalent??" This is a _non sequitur_. While it may be s good at
changing the subject of the discussion, it's an irrational response.
I sort of agree with the Chicago schoolers: it's best to know what's
going on before one jumps in with value judgments and/or moral
reasoning. Of course, it's almost always impossible to totally
separate fact from value, but it's useful to try.
[*] David should note my many futile attempts to convince some
pen-pals that the US is not "fascist."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In an old missive from a couple of days ago, David wrote: >In response
to Jim Devine:
> You really seem insulted simply because I read your post to make an
> Israel-Germany comparison. You also seem to think my interpretation was not
> simply wrong, but irrational. You appear to reach that conclusion because
> you believe a reader should never make any assumptions about the author's
> intention, even though the assumption may be statistically sensible. We are
> going to have to agree to disagree.<
I disagree. Just because something is "statistically sensible" does
_not_ mean that it applies to every individual data point. That is,
even if it turned out to be true _on average_ that "people who
criticize Israel are pro-crypto Nazis" (or whatever), that does not
apply automatically to me. It would not apply to a lot of the folks
off in the tails of the "bell curve" (as it were).
For the lawyerly ears, it's true on average that "it's a bad idea for
drunks to drive cars." But that does not mean that absolutely no
drunks can drive safely or that (in some circumstances) it is always
better for drunks to refrain from driving than the alternative.
To confuse a statistical average with reality for all of the sample
"on the ground" is statistically fallacious. As I said before, it also
goes against the ethical individualism that libertarians (if I
understand them correctly) profess to believe in, i.e., that "we're
all individuals rather than members of some larger category."
Confusing the statistical average with the sample seems an example of
the "Zero Tolerance" nonsense.
Even worse, as Bayesians point out, all statistical inference is based
(in part) on our _a priori_ conceptions. I don't think that it's true
even _on average_ that "all people who criticize Israel are pro-crypto
Nazis." But David starts with the _prior_ that those who criticize
Israel and its excessive influence on US foreign policy are like the
Nazis.[*] Then, it seems, if the data don't fit, he throws them out.
If they do fit, it seems that he remembers them.
This kind of thinking is the basis for superstition. Every once and a
while, I am hit by a foreboding that when I get home from work, I'm
going to find that one of our cats (who's 19 years old) is dead.
Eventually, this foreboding will turn out to be true. Superstitious
people forget about the many times that the foreboding was false and
remember the one time it was true.
Am I insulted? Actually, one of my personality quirks [**] is that I
don't get insulted, except for a short period. Instead, I get tired,
bored, and depressed by _poor communication_: if I am trying to
communicate logically and/or factually, it is upsetting when someone
just doesn't understand.
Yeah, I know. No-one has personality quirks. Instead, we're all simply
representatives of a larger average, a large class of individuals. I
am just an epiphenomenon, a mere reflection on the cave's wall of the
true Form (of "lefties") that exists in God's mind.
[*] this _prior_ isn't David's invention. Rather, it's a product of
the current political and cultural millieu, partly or largely created
by persistent efforts by the vast Likudnik infrastructure that's ready
and willing and able to launch shit-storms against anyone with the
temerity to criticize Israel. Just as Molière's bourgeois gentleman
spoke prose all his life without knowing it, David seems to absorb the
dominant political culture without being conscious of his doing so.
[**] Strictly speaking, it's not a personality quirk. It's more of a
neurological problem, an aspect of my (mild) Asperger Syndrome.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
