Comments on Mixing Memory: The Value of Mud

I must protest. The majority of Nazis were just or...

2005-01-30T10:11:00.000-06:00

I must protest. The majority of Nazis were just ordinary people, German patriots, and bureaucrats. Most Nazis are not goose-stepping, Jew-hating mass-murderers, and when you attack the position because it's held by people who don't deserve civility, you attack everyone who holds it. In doing so, you risk alienating an entire nation of people.

You also think it's OK to attack homophobes. But huge numbers of people detest homosexuals, and they aren't all named Rev. Phelps. By declaring open season on gay-haters, don't you risk firing up the opposition?

So here's the problem. I don't assume that most people are evil or intractably stupid. But I think you would agree that there are ideas that are evil or stupid. Do you agree that we should be vigorous and uncompromising in our criticisms of these ideas or not?

Is it good strategy to declare Naziism evil? Is it proper for scholars to dig up old Nazi documents and show that the leadership was corrupt and committed to atrocity? Is it right for the Discovery Channel to keep showing those old black-and-white movies of skeletal Jewish victims in concentration camps, and are we right to condemn the perpetrators in the harshest possible language? There are kindly old German grandfathers right now who were members of the Nazi party after all, who are made uncomfortable and embarrassed by that kind of thing.

And what about creationism? It ought to be fair to call it a stupid idea...it is a stupid idea. And those people who continue to cling to it? They are know-nothings. What do we gain by reining back and avoiding stating the truth? Nothing. It does make the know-nothings more comfortable in their ignorance, though.

Posted by PZ Myers

I'm not sure Creationism actually is simpler than ...

2005-01-15T00:59:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure Creationism actually is simpler than evolution. But it rather depends upon what data you are trying to account for.

Posted by Clark

IMO a large part of the problem is that so many pe...

2005-01-14T23:32:00.000-06:00

IMO a large part of the problem is that so many people actively prefer a simple story to a complicated one. Creationism is definitely simpler than evolution; and, unfortunately, neo-conservatism is much simpler than liberalism. The greatest advantage Limbaugh and his ilk have is that they can all agree on a few simple talking points. As for the Democrats, you know what Will Rogers said.

Posted by wmr

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Rather I think ...

2005-01-14T20:42:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Rather I think that the public by and large doesn't trust the media in general. It is far from being an uncritical acceptance. Rather it is a hypercritical view. One ends up accepting information, but can't really say why, since there is nothing to trust. Into such a situation both pundits on the left and right can have a field day. (I hardly think the Limbaugh effect is only found in the right - indeed Leiter and others seem to explicitly be embracing it as best they can)

The implication of this distrust is the strengthening of Chris' point. If you don't trust the media you trust what you already have reason to believe. This has the effect of merely strengthening your pre-conceptions. The lack of some "objective" way to discern truth then entails going to media that preaches to the choir.

Posted by Clark

Great piece Chris. I agree with Clarke's statemen...

2005-01-14T19:25:00.000-06:00

Great piece Chris. I agree with Clarke's statements that "there is a near religious zeal to (Limbaugh's and Hannity's) politics," which has the effect of "evangelical sermonizing."

And the reason I fear this is because most Americans have adopted an uncritical stance to information they acquire from the mainstream media and various political talk show hosts. I think they unconsciously reason something along these lines:
1) Limbaugh and Hannity are on broadcast TV and have their own political talk shows.
2) Broadcast TV presents legitimate news and information.
3) Limbaugh and Hannity are on broadcast TV.
4) Therefore, Limbaugh and Hannity must be legitmitate themselves and must present legitimate news and information.

Although 2),3),and 4) seem highly dubious to us, and although 2) appears to be the foundation for all this nonsense, I suspect it will be extremely difficult to persuade many Americans of 2)'s falsehood.

So, even though more politically and scientifically aware citizens are unlikely to change their minds due to Limbaugh's nonsense, I think plenty of Americans could flip the channel to Limbaugh's show, grow attracted to the hysterical, but emotionally appealing presentation of foundationless opinions, and walk away "converted." And, it all stems from the notion that "mainstream TV presents legitimate information."

Personally, I can't think of any practical ways to change that disturbing notion. But you smart guys can?

Posted by Concerned US Citizen

I'd quibble only on one point. I actually think t...

2005-01-14T18:42:00.000-06:00

I'd quibble only on one point. I actually think there is a kind of missionary zeal to Limbaugh and others. Further they make a big deal when they "convert" a liberal to a conservative. Both Hannity and Limbaugh seem to give privilege to liberal callers as well. (Of course they often aren't terribly fair to the callers) But I really do think that they aren't just trying to preach to the choir. Far from it. While I fear I may end up making use or Leiter's metaphor, I think there is a near religious zeal to their politics. It is a kind of evangelical sermonizing and attempt at conversion. (Meaning evangelical in the generic sense and not the religious movement)

Posted by Clark