Okay, maybe he’s only able to prove his point with strong adjectives. Facts less so.
Worse, Mr. Hayward engages in a dishonest tactic I’ve seen a number of conservatives use: He skips all the substantiation that Krugman supplies — and Krugman supplies a lot of links. (They’re omitted from the first blockquote.) Instead, Hayward quotes the conclusions drawn from the factual material. He then acts as if Krugman had made those assertions without substantiation, that Krugman was making blind statements of opinion. In other words, by guiding the scissors to clip out all the facts, one can pretend that the column is just opinion pulled out of thin air.
So having finished Demolisher’s reading assignment, what have I learned?
- Mr. Hayward, aka Dr. Zero has an irrational hatred of Mr. Krugman. I didn’t need to know this, but I do now. Thank you, Demolisher.
- Demolisher should offer to help Mr. Hayward with his reading comprehension difficulties.
- Argument by adjective is not convincing.
Please share widely!
demolisher says
why you spend time on my posts, and I admit I am starting to feel the tiniest bit bad about it.
<
p>So here’s another article more or less similar to the original, with less adjectives:
<
p>http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
kbusch says
So you want to post comments here but you don’t want people to bother to take them seriously. Okay.
<
p>The Krauthammer article is certainly worth more attention, but it falls into a few errors:
Then he goes on to point to the evidence that the national climate has become decidedly more dangerous. And by the national climate, we don’t mean a few individuals we can accuse of being accessories to a crime. Rather, we mean the whole self-indulgence in incendiary language in talk radio, political discourse, and bloggy ranting on the right.
What liberals like Krugman are asking for (reread his last paragraph) are not accusations, but steps by Republican leaders to address the issue.
david says
to commend KBusch for going above and beyond the call of duty in the service of reality-based commentary. The service he has shown in this instance has been truly extraordinary.
<
p>And no, I am not being sarcastic.
demolisher says
I threw you the article out of some feeling of obligation since you continue to spend so much effort on my posts. Now, more begets more but its not a pattern that I foresee repeating infinitely.
<
p>
<
p>No, not that. I just don’t expect you to take them seriously, based both on pretty much everything you’ve ever said about my posts (and, at some length, me personally), and also on the single minded worldview and (forgive me) arrogantly high handed snark you tend frequently to dispense.
<
p>Although this latest post seems to be a movement in the right direction, in the end it seems to me just another one sided attempt to score points for your team. In posting here I’m not really seeking to improve your writing or reasoning, and I’ve already sort of written it off. I find it too hard (historically) to find the signal.
<
p>Improvements notwithstanding, you still seem to exhibit 0 interest in actually having a real conversation, and hew to the liberal tendency to completely write off opposing views as Wrong, either through ignorance or evil. That is no sound basis for a discussion, let me tell you. (Don’t feel bad: David does the same thing)
<
p>Furthermore, I’d probably say I find it nearly unfathomable that you would credit the opposing side for a significant idea of merit which runs contrary to any current and significant plank of your own team (unless perhaps led there by a faction of the left) (but lo and behold, you’d probably go out and find some specific thing to prove me wrong đŸ™‚ )
<
p>And in so doing you’d continue to surprise me in the attention you lavish on my posts. You might notice, I have actual back and forth conversations with any number of other posters here, you just aren’t one of them. To my view, you are too closed minded, as I’m sure to your view I must be.
<
p>Time is a scarce resource, and I’m not going to spend it conversations that I don’t enjoy or feel that I benefit from at least somewhat. In other words, if you are going to persist in being utterly closed-minded, then we have nothing to gain from each other. Perhaps you feel the same about me, which only doubles the point.
<
p>So why waste the words?
hrs-kevin says
I really don’t understand how you can’t see how you are so often guilty of what you are accusing KBusch of. Furthermore, this comment just seems to be a lame attempt at misdirection rather than responding to any of the points in the comment.
<
p>It seems to me you are only interested in discussion if you think you are winning. I can’t really blame you, who enjoys having their flawed arguments pointed out to them? Surely you realize this is a progressive web site and surely you know that much of what you post here is going to be subject to criticism. So why whine about it?
demolisher says
“not interested”
<
p>also, I freely admitted that I probably look closed minded to Kbusch.
<
p>If it makes you feel better to think that I am not up to the task of debating KB, then by all means, do.
<
p>On the other hand, I’ll have a conversation or a debate with most anyone around here, and I frequently do. Just have to draw the line someplace.
ryepower12 says
Everything you’ve done and said in this thread indicates something more than appearance. Maybe you should work on that?
hrs-kevin says
It seems to me that you would rather tell yourself that your opponents are “close minded” than admit you are wrong on any point. It makes you feel like you have somehow refuted their arguments but without having to do the work of actually doing so (if that is even possible).
<
p>Why did you even post the link to the Krauthammer article if you didn’t want to discuss it?
<
p>I know that you dearly want people who make you look bad to stop responding to your posts and comments, but that is just not going to happen, so there is no point in asking for it. The purpose of this site is not to provide easy-to-defeat liberal strawmen for you to joust with. If you don’t like being contradicted, then don’t post inflammatory, logically-flawed or factually incorrect arguments.
demolisher says
First, because its so whiny.
<
p>Second, because i am normally quite happy to ignore most of KB’s comments with no further fuss, but in this particular case I felt sort of – obliged? guilty in a way – to respond. Odd, I know. Which then called it out for you guys to rally round the standard. Three cheers for the monopoly of wisdom which is progressivism, and all of that.
<
p>Look HR, Rye, KB: please, do think that I am overwhelmed by the power of KB’s rhetorical prowess. That works for me.
ryepower12 says
the fact that you can’t grow up, admit you were wrong and just move on is what’s appearing ‘whiny’ to me.
<
p>
<
p>The thing about KB is he uses his words in a very spartan way. There’s not a whole lot of “rhetorical prowess” involved: if he finds a hole, he’ll comment on it. Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong. If he’s wrong, find his flaws.
<
p>You aren’t overwhelmed by his rhetorical prowess, you’re overwhelmed by having to overcome your own flawed opinions when confronted with other people’s facts, and you’re either too dug in to ever admit that you’re wrong, or you don’t actually think you could ever be so.
hrs-kevin says
you still haven’t responded to KBusch’s comment. If you want to engage in a rational discussion, then respond to the comment instead of continuing to misdirect.
ryepower12 says
<
p>Pot calling the kettle black, anyone?
kbusch says
Perhaps it is true that I’ve read you more than you’d like. You arrived here from a blog named Anti-Venom referencing a poem you wrote. Venom, in this context, meant liberalism. The handle you chose was not Mr-Alternative-Point-Of-View-Seeking-To-Have-Good-Discussions. It was and is “demolisher”, i.e., your goal is transparently not to have a meeting of the open minds. It is to win arguments decisively, to crush liberalism beneath the foot of your logic — or failing that — your gift for name calling.
<
p>And yes, in answer to that project, I offer you snark, high snark, sharp snark, and extra helpings of it. You’re welcomed.
<
p>I am also open to being completely fair to conservatives that visit. You guys are in the minority here. We’ll pile up on you. Some of you will riddle your comments with 3s and 4s. I’m willing to defend conservatives offering reasoned arguments.
<
p>Consider my recent response to you on another thread. Your original comment was harsh and unsympathetic. There are plenty of ways of stating the point you were attempting to make, but you almost went out of your way to choose the harshest. In my response, I acknowledged the logic of what you were saying.
<
p>Did anyone else?
hesterprynne says
For anyone who’d like to appreciate KBusch’s excellent point about Mr. Hayward’s overreliance on the adjectival and adverbial forms without the tedium of reading the Human Events essay, a word cloud of the adjectives and adverbs Hayward himself used there (as opposed to quoting from Paul Krugman).
mr-lynne says
… ‘beyond-the-call’ heavy lifting. I can’t tell you how many times I start thinking of writing posts that get into the details of such assertions only to give up on the basis of ‘I-don’t-have-time-for-this-s#|t’.
kbusch says
Thank you, Mr. Lynne. Here’s how you can return the favor. I have a question for you.
<
p>One of the things that I wanted was a name for Hayward’s tactic in the Human Events article. I’ve seen this tactic a lot. Climate change deniers, for example, often pretend that it is the predilections of scientists — not their data or models — that lead them to their conclusions. I have seen such critics pretend that scientists were merely functioning as opinionated blowhards.
<
p>Yes, it’s a species of anti-intellectualism, of irrationality, and of misrepresentation, but it is a specific species of all those things. It deserves a name. What is it?
paulsimmons says
<
p>Screed?
mr-lynne says
… more time into this later, but for now what you’re describing is that Hayward accuses (explicitly or implicitly, honestly or dishonestly) the scientists of confirmation bias. At least that is the word often used to describe when predilections have more to do with conclusions than an objective reading of data. Of course, in science, the check against confirmation bias is that everyone gets to second guess your case. So when the vast majority of scientists start to coalesce around a position, accusations of general confirmation bias grow weak.
<
p>I’d also make the point that when one accuses confirmation bias, one can be sincere or insincere. A sincere accusation of confirmation bias isn’t a tactic so much as an assertion from observation (correct or incorrect). An insincere accusation of confirmation bias would be a rhetorical tactic. I think the way to spot the latter would be if the accusation were too commonly implemented by the accuser against too many people on too many subjects. Of course a possible alternative to insincerity in this case might be a sincere POV that is narcissistic and possibly paranoid.
mr-lynne says
… “Krugman of confirmation bias.” As a tactic it could also be considered a variation of ad hominem in that the point here is to discredit the person – in this case on the basis that their whole thought process is invalid. The pernicious thing is that in a way it is correct – sources from people that regularly employ flawed thinking should be avoided. The difference here is that real confirmation bias should be demonstrated, not merely asserted. This is usually done by showing that the data lead to a different conclusion (example here).
edgarthearmenian says
Would you guys really be happier without people like demolisher, JohnD and I around to knock heads with?? I just can’t imagine what satisfaction you would get from yessing each other to death. Also, by using us as foils you get to assume your intellectual and moral superiority.
david says
and PP and JoeTS and a few others genuinely add to the debate around here. BMG is much better for your presence.
<
p>demolisher, well….
demolisher says
aww shucks David, you guys are too nice
hesterprynne says
The first is modern “gnosticism,” described by Eric Voegelin as a “type of thinking that claims absolute cognitive mastery of reality. Relying as it does on a claim to gnosis, gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.”
<
p>The second is “revelational positivism” (for which Wikipedia has no entry). The “positivism” aspect of this term is largely identical to gnosticism as defined above. The “revelational” aspect means that Biblical prooftexts (as in, global warming is a fallacy because after the flood God said that he would never again destroy the earth, Genesis 8:21-22), can be called upon if needed to innoculate a theory from any criticism, scientific or otherwise, as was discussed recently in this BMG thread. The term originated with theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was put to death by the Nazi regime in 1945 for plotting to assassinate Adolf Hitler. It’s useful for describing the kind of Biblical fundamentalism that insists on historical (and therefore largely scientific) grounds that the earth was created in 4004 B.C.
petr says
I just made that up… but it fits… When it shows up in the DSM-V, I want credit to go to Krauthammer.
<
p>
<
p>Hayward’s just proposing an idea (prospection) about what he would expect himself to do and how he would expect himself to behave if he was in Krugmans place (homomorphism). It is not possible for him to believe in straight up moral indignation rather his only template for behaviour is the echo chamber he lives, and makes his living, in, and which provides for him a prismatic lens upon which all indignation turns political and in which all politics turns harmful. If Hayward was a scientist, it would be no different, he’d make whatever claim or actions necessary to get his pre-determined answers and he simply can’t believe that this is not the case for actual scientists.
<
p>In essence, Hayward is trying to claim the moral high-ground by amoral use of his own immorality.
<
p>Demolisher, it should be noted, does not fall into this mode: he merely values his anger more than he values his intelligence. If he gave up the one, he’d make better use of the other.
kbusch says
Thank you.
mark-bail says
rhetorical strategies that the Right relies on to “argue.” They are primarily fallacies, i.e. faulty inferencing, that dumb down political discourse and poison our democracy.
<
p>The bedrock fallacy of the Right is the ad hominemfallacy.
The argument shifts away from the validity of, say, Paul Krugman’s being right or wrong, and to Paul Krugman being Paul Krugman. There is no need to consider his argument. He and his argument are dismissed by who he is.
<
p>The ad hominem fallacy also works as a red herring distracting attention from whatever truth may be at issue. It also provides a basis for another favorite fallacy of the Right: Guilt by Association. Bill Ayers, for example, was brought up as a left-wing terrorist during the 2008 campaign. Michael Moore is also used for smears. He’s brought up all the time to characterize other liberals.
<
p>KBusch points out another rhetorical strategy of the Right: mischaracterization of the opponent’s position. In point of fact, Krugman did not “race” to put up a blog post at all. Dr. Zero, or whatever he’s called, failed to realize he was reading Krugman’s column online, not his blog. The shooting was on Saturday and the column appeared on Monday. If he were really in a race to write about the shooting, he could have blogged about it earlier. His blog posts often serve as partial rough drafts for his columns. It is technically true that Krugman published something “within hours,” if that’s what you mean by 48 hours. You could also say he published something within minutes of the tragic event–17,280 minutes, that is.
<
p>Krugman is hated by the Right because he’s intelligible. He’s good at explaining liberal positions in a way that people can understand, a way that makes sense. The Right doesn’t honestly take on opponent’s arguments; the best they can do is attack their beliefs; even then, it’s easier to attack the opponent. It takes no thinking. Making America stupid serves the purposes of the Right, so they keep it up.
kbusch says
Krugman did put up a blog post shortly after the assassination attempt. To say he “raced” to put it up is unfair given how frequently Krugman posts.
Agreed, the Right very much indulges in ad hominem attacks and follows the Limbaugh rules of evidence.
<
p>By one perspective this is a sign of their tendency toward tribalism, but there’s a more charitable perspective, too. One could say that it is moral concerns that divide Left from Right. Each side sees the other as immoral. I’m reminded of cases in which some liberal or other has done an act of great courage or patriotism and you can read conservatives thinking the person was conservative. To them conservative equals good. To us, perhaps, being liberal is a prerequisite to being good.
<
p>So if you had that point of view, nothing Krugman — or Obama or Patrick — says should be trusted. They’re morally flawed.
mark-bail says
I didn’t go back far enough, and I must have had enough of a life Saturday to not go on the internet.
<
p>Krugman was also prescient on the Right’s response:
<
p>The relationship between a climate of hate and crazy people is more complicated, I think, than Krugman acknowledges, but how the Right’s rhetoric makes America a better, safer place is beyond me.
marc-davidson says
and many “progressives” are as guilty of the same tribal tendencies as we tend to associate with the right.
A good example is the way Democrats have tended to defend Obama for policy making that they were up in arms about when GWB was in office.
Most folks who comment on this site are open-minded and want to have their views challenged. Unfortunately there are occasions when the incivility and BS meters are remarkably high. Generally these comments, whether from the left or right, are called out.
mark-bail says
was during the Presidential primary. Many people supporting Obama were not tolerant of those of us who hadn’t seen the light (such as I, and I think, Ryan). I eventually and enthusiastically supported Obama, but I’ve also been critical of his Presidency.