Subject:
|
Re: Freedom from information
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:13:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > With due respect, John, what book would you call "worthy" of the award?
>
> Well, let's back up a moment. I am suspicious of anything such as a "book of
> the year" award, *especially* if it is open to a public vote. What the public
> likes is often quite silly and rarely serious. I would hope that a winner of
> such an award would be a more thoughtful and meaningful work. But having said
> all of that, I think such an award itself is rather silly, unless the criteria
> for the winner were objective (sales, for example).
Hey, that was a pretty good answer.
So your complaint is a comment on the award process itself, rather than on
which book received the award? I can accept that.
> I have seen some of [Moore's] work and read some of his work. Life is short,
> and spending much time on him is time I will never get back...
Maybe, but it's also useful to Know Thine Enemy!
> Even from the title "Stupid
> White Men" alone-- I mean, what if I decided to write a book entitled "Stupid
> Black Men"? I would be labeled a racist and bigot from the git-go. There is
> no difference in kind from *his* title, but his work is "book of the year".
> (Reminds me of another literary giant's work entilted "Rush Limbaugh is a Big
> Fat Idiot" by Al Franken). The duplicity is irrational, the hatred is ugly,
> and the whole thing disgusts me.
Let's leave Franken aside for a moment, since his work is distinct from
Moore's and should be addressed separately (which I'm happy to do!).
Moore's title was chosen for irony, since he himself is of course a white
man. It's also something of a jab at an intellectual fad of the late 80's
and 90's. Specifically, many philosphers, poets, and political figures
dating from the Renaissance and after were commonly decried as "old [dead]
white guys," as if the fact of their age, life-status, and gender had
something to do with their correctness. Moore's title capitalizes on that
misguided trend, tweaking it to apply to current figures. It all depends on
whether you accept the irony or not.
As far as duplicity or hatred goes, the Liberal Left hardly has the market
cornered! Limbaugh, Liddy, Gallagher, Reagan, Buchannan et al spew more
than their fair share of the same.
Moore is sufficiently far to the left to have knowingly become something
of a caricature, but many of his points are sound even if his specifics are
a little shaky. Say whatever you want to about his shoddy fact-checking; I
won't defend him on that ground, because it's inexcusable.
> The tired polemic of class warfare and race baiting offers nothing new, but
> merely rouses emotions that obfuscate truth and reason-- 2 casualties all too
> often a part of his work and the Left in general.
I've noticed, especially lately, that it is the Right that beats the drum
of Class Warfare more often than anyone, just as it is the Right that so
often raises the spectre of some "Conspiracy" or other. The problem,
rhetorically speaking, is that the Conservative pundits then attack the
issue of class warfare or hidden conspiracy as ridiculous, as if either of
those was the charge put forth by the Left in the first place! That's
classic Straw Man argument, and it's a fallacy.
> The irony is that MM is a white millionaire, and the bottom line is that I
> have had enough of Leftists telling me how bad, stupid, racist, greedy,
> imperialist, etc I am.
Be careful of painting with too broad a brush. Moore's complaint is not
with millionaires but with corporate CEO's who earn their millions by
downsizing middleclass workers into unemployment and poverty, or who receive
hundreds of millions of dollars while the company screws its low-level
employees out of basic wage equity. He's also an award-winning,
card-carrying member of the NRA who rightly identifies the NRA as a puppet
of the huge corporate firearms industry.
If you really are a stupid, racist, greedy imperialist, then you should be
condemned for it, and it doesn't matter if your acccuser is wealthy or
impoverished. If you are not a stupid, racist, greedy imperialist, then
your accuser is incorrect whether he's rich or poor.
If you dismiss Moore's argument simply because you judge him to possess
certain traits similar to those of the people he condemns, then you are
guilty of ad hominem reasoning.
> Let him wallow in his own guilt and self-hatred
> without emotionally dragging everyone else in with him.
Again, this is ad hominem attack and doesn't address Moore's arguments.
You also shouldn't try to pigeonhole your opponent using pop psychology,
since you risk basing your argument entirely on a subjective analysis. For
that matter, even if Moore is wallowing in guilt and self-hatred, many of
his assertions are still true.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) I try...:-) (...) Yes. Reminds me of the People's Choice Awards. I am suspicious of those as well-- I am a believer in relying on the marketplace to define the success of many things. After all, a platinum record sold 1,000,000 (or whatever (...) (22 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) Well, let's back up a moment. I am suspicious of anything such as a "book of the year" award, *especially* if it is open to a public vote. What the public likes is often quite silly and rarely serious. I would hope that a winner of such an (...) (22 years ago, 26-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
