2020-12-22
2020-12-16
Whataboutism
Whataboutism is a funny thing. When used as originally conceived (as defined in the graphic), it is a moral atrocity. Recent use of this term has morphed to include asking “what about” when examining rank hypocritical behavior - an attempt by the asker to question the veracity or morality of current behaviors considering past behaviors.
Even with this modern twist, it is terrible argumentation. We should base our support for or against an idea on something more substantive than, “well he did it too.” But we always want to employ it. Probably because in our day-to-day lives we could never be so wildly hypocritical.
Politicians seem to have absolutely no compunction about naked hypocrisy. They display no shame about having done the thing they are now seemingly so morally enraged about. This sort of behavior tweaks our spidey sense. It is so disconnected from what most of us perceive as a normal moral baseline that it messes with our moral gyroscopes.
And when others defend the demagogic behaviors of these pols, our sense of decency cries out about the grotesque double standard. It is as though we are constantly trying to assure ourselves that the person we are engaged with isn’t a complete psychopath. I mean, if they can’t see the clear double standard, we wonder if they are thoroughgoing inveterate liars or actually that naively blind. Either way, it is not the sort of signal that screams honest broker. At a gut level, it is very disconcerting to us when somebody can’t see the beam in their own eye. So even though whataboutism is crummy disputation, it is a sort of litmus test of good faith and serves an important purpose.
Trump supporters are therefore correct in pointing out that many on the left who are now pulling their skirts over their heads about egregious attempts at jiggering an election by seeking faithless electors in the electoral college are the very same people who were pushing for faithless electors four years ago to seat Hillary Clinton in what they claimed was an illegitimate election. This level of gaslighting and rank hypocrisy is infuriating and morally obtuse.
But what the Trump supporters are wrong about this episode is that this does not therefore create a permission structure for reprehensible behavior. Just because somebody did something horrible does not therefore mean you too can do something horrible. The hope is that societies should be better than that.
Whataboutism is only useful when the recipient is capable of self-reflection and moral rectification. That is perhaps the hope of everyone wh;l employs whataboutism in an argument. When met with a who cares attitude or responses like, “It was a debate,” to sweep away prevarications and double standards, it can very easily turn into a permission structure that allows for bad behaviors because it feels like the other is operating in bad faith or is just outright cheating the unspoken moral arrangement. Once that door has been opened, it is very hard to close it since everyone then feels like they have to cheat to move forward. And quite honestly, when there are very few repercussions, you would be a fool not to.
Cheat to win is a lot like a pyramid scheme in that it is a great slogan that works well for the first few. But once everyone else catches on and adopts that montra, then everyone loses and societies collapse.
At its best, whataboutism is the last ditch effort of those who have not given up all hope. We should pay attention to it. When used in good faith to elicit self-reflection and to engage moral compunction (rather than as a tactic to excuse behavior as done by despots), it really can be a canary in the coal mine. The next step is to just say, “Fuck it. I’m cheating too.”
2020-12-04
The Coming Environmental Disaster
For about 10 months now we have been watching public officials openly flip and flop and prevaricate with little or no shame. From locations as diverse as French laundromats, they have violated their own diktats with reckless disregard. Their actions have resulted in great damage to the economy and brought about the failure of countless businesses. All of this has been dismissed as collateral damage and the regrettable - albeit, unavoidable - side effects of fighting a pandemic. All the while, these open hypocrites have been poo-pooing the damage done by their meddling while acting as though the entire edifice of science supports their every whim. They turn an ounce of truth into a pound of overreaching cure. If you didn't think demagoguery could bring us this far, well now you have learned what the founding documents sought to push against.
Enter climate change. Do you think that, given what these demagogic prevaricating pols have learned thus far, that there will be any restraint to imposing draconian solutions while cloaked in the liturgical vestments of climate change? Even the IPCC acknowledges that if the most oppressive Kyoto-cap and trade-Paris solutions are implemented, only negligible reductions in greenhouse gases will result. But it comes at the cost of devastating economies - which will lead to far greater environmental damage.
But who will win in such an Orwellian power grab? Not the individual or small business but rather large corporations and the wealthy. Just as with covid, the ruling class doesn't care how much damage is done to your livelihood, the poor, minorities, the sick, or whoever as they, with religious fervor, spool up legitimate issues into apocalyptic catastrophes that only they can fix. And oddly, the only fix is more government control and power for them.
If you don't think we are going to see this dress rehearsal replayed over the next four years with John Kerry and his lackeys shame-fucking each and every one of you that dares to ask a question, you are either rooting for statism or you are unquestioningly naive.
2020-08-25
Policy Over Person
What if we stopped voting for a personality and started voting for policies? What if the stuff on the ballot was a referendum on policy ballot measures with a price tag?
Then it wouldn't matter as much who was in office since they would just have a mandate to enact the policies. So rather than voting for a lobbyist with an ego, we would hire a CEO - sort of like a city manager. THEIR policy preferences wouldn't matter as much.
The way it is now, we typically vote for the lesser of two evils. That means there is likely a lot of policy BS in their baggage that we may not want. We could hire an affable CEO that throws nice parties rather than somebody who keeps trying to reinvent the country her image.
2020-08-14
2020-08-07
2020-06-12
Confederate Flag
This will certainly trigger most of you because y'all are not accustomed to thinking freely and considering ideas outside your dogma. Truthfully, just the sight of this flag has probably already triggered half of you. But what the hell, let's do a thought experiment, kids...
If the "N" word can be repurposed from the horrible racist slur that it is to a term of endearment by newer generations of black youths, is it at least possible that young southerners aren't using the #confederateflag as an open confession of racism?
And now I'll provide the 10,000 caveats required whenever one actually has an open mind and muses aloud about issues.
I, personally, would never display this flag because it does carry an extraordinary amount of symbolic pain that is rightly associated with this flag. And since I'm a fairly nice guy and have respect for other's opinions and feelings, I am accommodating in that way. I reserve the "Grow a sack" responses for the American flag.
I think that we can all agree that it is maddening that the swastika was placed off-limits because of its use by the Nazis. The Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who used this as a meaningful symbol in the past have had it forever stolen from them. Similarly, because of its use as a symbol for the KKK and white supremacists, I can understand the pangs of 'wtf' that someone might have associated with seeing the Confederate flag displayed.
But the left is equally as guilty on such matters. The difference is that the media just looks the other way because they are either cheerleading on behalf of or are quietly supportive of the left's agenda. "How so," you ask. Anyone walking around with a hammer and sickle, Mao or Che t-shirt is guilty of the same indecency or worse. In the case of Mao, millions were slaughtered in the name of socialism. And Che was a cold-blooded murderer. None of these traits should be aspirational but should we immediately assume that the wearer is broadcasting their love of slaughter and genocide?
But the left poo-poos the atrocities as minor inconveniences and cranes to see some thin sliver of shared ideology to justify their symbolic insolence. Why don't they do this with the southern cross? Because anyone they agree with gets the benefit of the doubt and all others are imputed the worst possible motives.
If a Che shirt is ok, would a Chauvin shirt be equally ok? Would you be satisfied with excuse-making like, "Well, he was for law and order. And I like that part but not those icky parts." I doubt it.
As for whether it should be displayed on government buildings, I say no. Just like I don't want a Christian flag atop the capitol, I don't want this either. Sure, Christianity was largely responsible for the formulation and implementation of many of the better aspects of the American political system, but I don't want the government facilities to be hijacked by any group. So keep the flags, rainbow spotlighting, and all other issue related expressions at your church, club, house, or wherever.
All things considered, I am sympathetic to those who would like to relegate the Confederate flag to museums. But if you want to fly it at your house or from your pickup, have at it - 1A says you can. And if you want to wear a Che t-shirt, giddyup. In both cases, you are sending purposeful messages and I am gleaning a snippet of insight about what you believe. I might wonder about such choices, but I'll carefully place that puzzle piece in the larger milieu of your life and behaviors and not dismiss you offhand as a racist or a murderous butcher.
I hope that everyone else will do the same.
2020-03-13
Bloomberg Influencing 2020 Election
Imagine a guy who runs a worldwide news organization that censors news that is critical of China, who spent $275M on ads against the sitting POTUS and about 1/2 billion dollars to disrupt and influence the US presidential election.
But we won’t call that collusion.
Biden 2020 PushUp Challenge
Apparently, it’s not that outrageous to be a threatening lout that responds to challenges with aggression since the current frontrunner’s frequent response to inquiry is name-calling, threats, finger-pointing, Putinesque challenges to feats of strength and taunts to fight. Isn’t this supposed to be the wrong temperament for the occupant of the White House? Or were those just the musings of a bunch of lying dog-faced pony soldiers?
2020-01-29
2020-01-06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)