|
|
|
August 10, 2005
Every tired corpuscle makes me laugh -- till it hurts!
Via Michael Totten (guest blogging at InstaPundit), I found another gem from James Wolcott: The fact is that by subscribing to Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq with every corpuscle of your tired body you've made common cause with Republican conservatives, neoconservatives, and Christian fundamentalists who are dedicated to destroying those parcels of liberalism on which you stake your tiny claims of pride.Michael Totten replies that replies that politics is not binary, and while I agree, I'm glad Wolcott has once again provided some much needed humor. Now I get to play reverse-Wolcott, and rephrase what he said: The fact is that by opposing Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq with every corpuscle of your tired body you've made common cause with the Revolutionary Communist Party, Hezbollah, al Qaida, and assorted Islamic fundamentalists who are dedicated to destroying those parcels of freedom on which you stake your tiny claims to be an American.But let me confess -- I really don't think that. It's pitifully bad logic. If "making common cause" in supporting a war is to be so interpreted, then every free market Republican who supported World War II favored New Deal socialism, and every Democrat who supported the Vietnam War was in cahoots with the Watergate burglars. And so on. It's fun to lump people together though, and I think it's become a trend. Increasingly, moderates are being lumped in with people who aren't moderate, while radicals are being repackaged as moderates, and lumped together. It all makes sense, in an odd sort of way. In my long response yesterday to Wayne Pacelle's anti-cloning editorial, my point was not so much to dispute what I consider an absurd idea, but to highlight the fact that Pacelle is a radical who is being repackaged as mainstream, as moderate. Looking back at the piece, I don't think it was funny enough. Whether it's humorous or not, a similar case can be made about the constant attempts to portray Islamic radicals as moderates. How to make it funny is similarly challenging, I'm afraid. With his "common cause" argument, Wolcott at least identified the core argument: that support for the War in Iraq really ought to put all war supporters into the same category as right wing nuts. From there it's not all that great of a leap to simply declare that they are right wing nuts. An example of that was the recent ad hominem lumping of Glenn Reynolds, Eugene Volokh, Dean Esmay, and Jeff Jarvis (moderates by any normal American standard) in with the Nazis (and Volkischer Beobachter) via favorite leftist targets Charles Johnson and Michelle Malkin. The whole group was of course either stupid, evil, had tits, or perhaps questionable sexuality. While half the bloggers would fall into the conservative category, none of the group are actually radicals (not if their views are compared to the voting public at large). I can't dismiss this as the work of a single anonymous blogger, because the post was linked with approval by the big guys on the left. The problem is, now I can't use that example, because the author has since apologized, explaining that the post was intended as humor, which means I am not allowed to take it seriously. But James Wolcott still takes himself seriously, even if the business of making moderates into radicals is considered a joke by others. Remember, as Beautiful Atrocities observed, some day we'll all get to be Hitler. (Not Glenn Reynolds, though, whose Mussolini ties have been exposed for all the world to see.) Not that I'm one to mind playful Nazi comparisons, but I also see that the anonymous jokester who had fun turning moderate bloggers into Nazis is upset about the lack of humor in the right wing of the blogosphere: Is there a genetic link between humor and political outlook? Is there just some birth defect that prevents right-wingers from being funny?I should ask Frank J.. Or perhaps Jeff Goldstein. Or maybe even Jeff Percifield. But, seriously, let's get serious. The anonymous humorist goes on to seriously argue that there's a connection between a lack of humor and, um, a lack of humor, and that all humor is liberalism (and if I am reading this right, that all that which is not liberal, while it may be funny, is not humor): In my apology yesterday, I sarcastically asserted there was such a connection, but now I think I may have been right at that. Perhaps people who are born with a natural disposition to see the humor in life, and to be able to laugh at themselves, may develop a sense of empathy and compassion that leads them to liberalism. The key to successful humor, after all, is to be able to see things from other people's perspectives - a liberal trait that conservatives deride variously as "relativism" or "objectively pro-terrorist".I don't know. I'm an admitted relativist, and I just hate to think that my attempts to understand the thinking of some of the various terrorists, socialists, people who hate gay gun nuts, and assorted moral conservatives who perplex me -- I sometimes call them the "religious right" while Steven Malcolm Anderson calls them "moral collectivists" -- that all of this might make me "objectively pro-terrorist." Well then, I guess I'm feeling objectively guilty! It must all be in the genes: So conservatives may have a genetic makeup that makes them less able to appreciate what's funny, and consequently take themselves very seriously and see the world as a dour, threatening place, with all these other people having a good time and laughing - sometimes at them. This explains a lot, I think, and deserves further research.(Actually, I think there's already been some research in that area.) I plead guilty to seeing the world as a dour, threatening place, but sometimes that makes me laugh at it. (Or vomit while laughing at it.) I mean, can't we all see the humor in this?  Maybe I should question my premise that the world is a dour and threatening place. Because after all, if these guys can have such a good time slicing their heads open in front of a portrait of that funny old bearded man, well, I shouldn't be such a stick in the mud!
posted by Eric on 08.10.05 at 05:02 PM
Comments
Steven thank you. I put more work into that post than the "throwaway" about Mick Jagger, and now I'm watching that one draw all the hits. Nothing fair about it. I'm glad it pleased you. (I consider you one of the wittiest denizens of the blogosphere.) Eric Scheie · August 11, 2005 07:09 PM Dear Eric: Thank you! As for my wit, though, I have to say that Egyptian joke about the lettuce is getting a little old (about 4000 years old!). Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 11, 2005 09:40 PM To paraphrase some of the late-comers to Totten's discussion of Wolcott, I wouldn't mess with Wolcott if I were you. I mean, that guy can write. All utter crap, of course, but he's got skillz. So be careful, he might say something dismissive about you. Slartibartfast · August 15, 2005 07:18 AM After waking up a bit, I'd like to strike the "all utter crap" bit above, and replace it with something to the effect that writing utter crap with excellent technique still doesn't address the odor problem. I don't write for a living, so with me you get your money's worth. Slartibartfast · August 15, 2005 08:39 AM Wolcott's a much better writer than I am, and I'm sure that if he wanted to he could write more dismissively about me than I could about him (although I'm equally sure he considers me beneath his dignity -- not even up to the level of a gnat.) Barbra Streisand is a much better singer than I am (and John Lennon was a better writer AND singer). Possessing skills is not the same thing as possessing the truth, or of being right. Not that I have any illusions; for example I could never hope -- either musically or verbally -- to counter the nonsense in the song "Imagine." But that does not make "Imagine" right. And Wolcott's writing ability doesn't breathe truth into what he writes. Eric Scheie · August 15, 2005 08:47 AM "Possessing skills is not the same thing as possessing the truth, or of being right" Ah. the soft bigotry of low abilities rears its unpretty head. Not possessing Wolcott's writing ability is also not a virtue, Eric, nor does it give you a unique view of the top of the Mountain of Truth. Not possessing Lennon's song writing abilities doesn't make you the one person on the planet capable of delivering the unimpeachable verdict that a song by him is "nonsense." What is "nonsense" to you is not objectively nonsense by definition. You would have it otherwise. So, it's an odd thing, but in this stalemated world of words and ideas, the leg up in the battle for hearts and minds tends to go to those with the better skills at communication. Doesn't make them right, just more likely to be listened to. Nash · August 15, 2005 01:44 PM I'm afraid you're disputing words and ideas that aren't mine. I didn't I say that "Imagine" was "objectively nonsense by definition." Nor did I lay claim to a unique view of the top of the "Mountain of Truth." And while I don't claim to be fighting "the battle for hearts and minds," I don't think that characterizing a simple, logical statement as "bigotry" is the best way to get your "leg up." Then again, maybe it is. Eric Scheie · August 15, 2005 03:25 PM Oh my, what gibberish. 1. Did you say that "Imagine" contained nonsense or not? 2. Has the expression "The soft bigotry of low expectations" been used in the past few years? 3. Is that an offensive or acceptable construct for you? 3. Could it be possible that I was using a similar construct as a cliche (already hackneyed) and an attempt, albeit poor, to communicate while also entertaining? 4. Isn't anyone who makes arguments one way or the other fighting a battle for hearts and minds at some level? Or do you do it exclusively for your health? That's my shot at a leg up this time, just to ask some questions seeking honest answers. Nash · August 15, 2005 03:59 PM I should have acknowledged that you did not claim a unique view of the truth. I'd note however that the form of your comment on Wolcott might be read to suggest that if Wolcott doesn't own the truth by virtue of his communication skills, maybe you thought you did. And fwiw, don't sell yourself short. Your communication skills were good enough to get a rise out of me, at the least. Nash · August 15, 2005 04:02 PM Too many questions! 1. Did you say that "Imagine" contained nonsense or not? Yes, but my assertion that it contains nonsense is a far cry from saying it's "objectively nonsense by definition." I would never assert such a thing, as I could write hundreds of words hoping to prove that it contains nonsense, and that would still not prove it to any objective standard. 2. Has the expression "The soft bigotry of low expectations" been used in the past few years? I'm well aware of Rodney Paige's speech, and President Bush's references to it. The idea is that it harms children to expect little of them, and presumes their defectiveness (a form of bigotry). I didn't think you meant to attribute such a mindset to me, but if you did, then I must object even more strenuously, because I think that it's wrong to treat children that way. 3. Is that an offensive or acceptable construct for you? Offensive? I wouldn't go that far; I just didn't like the argument. Acceptable? Hey, in this blog the only stuff that's unacceptable is the stuff that would get the blog content filtered. (Seven or so words.) 3. Could it be possible that I was using a similar construct as a cliche (already hackneyed) and an attempt, albeit poor, to communicate while also entertaining? Could be. I do stuff like that all the time, as a lot of people have reminded me. 4. Isn't anyone who makes arguments one way or the other fighting a battle for hearts and minds at some level? Or do you do it exclusively for your health? I'd hate to think of myself as doing that, because if I battled for (and won) other people's hearts and minds, I might incur a dreadful responsibility. But my health? Come on, now. I do 120 pushups and fifty chinups a day -- but mainly so I can stay healthy enough to blog. :) Eric Scheie · August 15, 2005 04:31 PM Eric, I appreciate the response. One additional comment. I fully agree with you about actually winning hearts and minds being a dreadful responsibility. But, every time we communicate, we are attempting to do just that, whether we realize it or not. Your noting the awful responsibility it carries is encouraging--I think if more people realized that along with the fun comes the responsibility for our words, we'd choose them more carefully. So, thanks for allowing me to scattershot complain into your blog. I'll stick around and keep reading if you don't mind. Nash · August 15, 2005 04:49 PM Thanks for coming, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. (It happens a lot on the Internet....) Eric Scheie · August 15, 2005 06:14 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Extremely interesting once again. This post is too good for me.
Thank you once again for mentioning my name. I wish my name was Spiro Agnew or Reginald Firehammer, but I'll stick to the name on my birth certificate for now to honor my ancestors.
What has humor to do with empathy or compassion? Most humor is satirical, sardonic, sarcastic, sadistic, and/or disgusting. Mine is anyway, what little of it I may have, and most of the humor that I have encountered. Very few Leftists today have the slightest scintilla of empathy or compassion (except for terrorists) or humor. Most Leftists today are too busy glumly looking for signs of "oppression" in Western culture to permit themselves to laugh at anything, and certainly not to laugh at or think about the innumerable fallacies in their own ideology. There is pure "nonsense" humor such as puns or the kinds of paradoxes found in Alice in Wonderland, but those, it has been observed, are enjoyed mostly the more traditional types of people, e.g., G. K. Chesterton.
Myself, I am subjectively and objectively anti-terrorist, and opposed to all collectivism, moral and amoral. While I see things from the perspective of Wanda as well as of Dawn, I am an absolutist. Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness.