Chapter Thirteen: Hysterical Blindness Hear that? It's the sound of the world's largest gathering of yodellers breaking a world's record. That had to violate a weapons treaty somewhere. I was sad to learn that Satire Wire will no longer be updated. Arts and Letters Daily also went the way of all web-flesh this week, although a new Philosophy and Literature news site is trying hard to fill the gap. Worst of all, The Healing Power of Obnoxiousness has vanished, leaving only a cryptic page in its wake. There is, however, a movement to bring it back. I hope they succeed. HPO's author Paul T. Riddell is that rare bird who drafts his fiery opinions in a thouroghly insulting yet enlightening manner. And speaking of opinions: the other night I was channel surfing and came across the Mike Barnicle show on MSNBC. I had the sound down, but the lower-third graphic read "Should CBS Fire Andy Rooney?" Given the past friction between these two men, the rubber-necker in me turned the sound up. I did not catch all the details but apparently Rooney recently made a comment on 60 Minutes that he doesn't approve of women doing the play-by-play for televised football. He made it quite clear that he has no problem with women sports reporters or sideline interviewers, but he feels that announcing a game should be reserved for someone who has actually played it. I was about to change the channel (having a palpable lack of interest in football, its coverage, or what Andy Rooney thinks) when Barnicle started talking to a woman. I don't recall her name or who she represented, but she began a rant about the comment being denigrating to women, then added that CBS advertisers should consider if they want to spend money on a network that would allow the expression of such a bigotted sentiment. When Barnicle pointed out that Rooney was making an editorial comment, she responded with "certain opinions should not be aired." She said this with a straight and somber face. I have long thought that when an unpopular viewpoint surfaces it should be given a forum to express itself fully before the usual chastizements begin. The majority of so-called "controversial" issues would be a lot less heated if all the facts were on the table. For example, in all the news stories and specials I've seen about neo-nazis and white supremicists (all pillars of wisdom, to be sure) I have never heard a reporter ask for an explanation as to why these beliefs exist. The offending parties are lumped into the white trash/hatemonger generalization pile, as if that was sufficient cause for their beliefs instead of a result, and that is the end of the subject. Why not let them explain in detail the string of twisted biblical apocrypha and backward-engineered racial mythologies that "support" their claim of superiority? I think they'd appear a lot less scary to most people. If anything it'd be good for a chuckle. In a somewhat rational society an ugly idea would be dissected and invalidated before being discarded. Those who hold the beliefs in question would be expected to explain the basis for their viewpoint and why it is valid. If their explanation doesn't hold up they can be laughed off stage. Instead the idea itself is deemed "dangerous", quickly ponced upon by self-appointed thought police with fervent dementia and driven back into the underground, where it can fester, grow uglier, and harbor a justified sense of persecution and disillusionment. This outright stampede to judgment has been a common strategy for protest over the last decade. A pair of high profile button-pushing incidents that illustrate this were the publication of The Bell Curve and the circuit court ruling on the phrase "Under God" in the pledge. In both cases the loudest voices were the ones frantically drowning out any attempt at understanding. The offending ideas were demonized and branded as rubbish, and serious attempts to discredit the actual meat of the ideas were buried in the bowels of obscure publications and websites, not in the mainstream where they might have garnered some credence. The result in both cases was not a discussion of issues but a choir of insufferable, self-agrandising scenery-chewers mugging for the cameras like the late, great James Gregory in The Manchurian Candidate (only not quite as cool). This trait has been adopted by the man-on-the-street as well. I regularly encounter people who so vehimently criticize and obstinately condemn ideas they "don't like" with an inhuman tenacity because it endangers their dark little mindset. The very idea of soiling their brains by researching what fuels the opposing opinion is an insult to their being. As an atheist and a student of Objectivism I've been on the business end of this kind of "I'm not going to argue with you because you're wrong" dismissal many times. My tolerance for this species of idiocy has been worn away. And I am not talking about religious fanatics here, either, the kind who plunge their fingers into their ears and loudly sing That Old Rugged Cross whenever you threaten to disturb their fairy world. No, unfortunately I mean educated people; folks who can dress themselves in coordinating colors every morning, have mastered simple domestic skills like toaster and can-opener operation, and manage to urinate without the help of an underpaid nursing student. On first glance these good people appear to have most neurons firing, but get 'em in a discussion of anything remotely controversial and whammo, the pre-fab ideologies slam down like the blast-doors on the Death Star. (Which segues nicely to the fact that this kind of militant braggartism has been quite common among, forgive me my brothers, the online "geek" community where "flaming" and attacking those with differnent tastes for no good reason has been going on for years. Alas, if only it could have been contained there.) Such tacit dismissal of an idea solely on its surface without even a cursory plumb of its depths has become an increasingly acceptable and even popular means of displaying one's moral certainty. Where once discourse and meticulous analysis were the cornerstones of criticism, the gentle art now rests on ad hominem insults and a string of oblique twenty-dollar words that say, effectively, "talk to the hand." A perusal of the news channels reveals a standardized formula for what passes as debate: take a loudmouth from either side of an issue (cuz issues can only have two sides, y'know), let them string together a series of jingoistic reasons why the other is insipid for holding their opinion, and throw in some out-of-context statistics so the director can put up full-screen graphic once in a while. This stuff sells. People watch it and form opinions from it. They don't need to integrate or interpret the data because it is dispensed in single-serving rhetorical pellets for ease of digestion. This mental toejam accumulates between the frontal lobes and dulls the urge to analyze anything. (Fox News Channel calls this "fair and balanced coverage") This is not isolated to pundits. A scan of any number of popular news and blog sites show politicians, professors, commentators, and other cultural speakers trumpeting the primacy of their viewpoint by calling for the wholesale turning of a deaf ear to other opinions. They reach the height of unprincipled arrogance by holding up the fact that They Are Right as the only proof needed that Others Are Wrong. These are the people who introduce concepts into the mainstream, who dictate what our universities teach, who influence the philosophical climate, whose job it once was to stimulate the intellect instead of inciting blind, reactionary rancor and hostility. Make no mistake: they are The Problem, regardess of what side of the argument they are on. Those who embrace and encourage such tactics in the marketplace of ideas are the enemy. They are guilty of fostering an environment where an ignorant, uninformed culture can flourish. They have abetted the dissemination of gullibility. They breed nihilism and apathy. They seek out and destroy thought. They are the monsters produced by the sleep of reason. They exist on the same ethical plain as creationists, pro-lifers, tyrants, dictators, cult leaders, tin gods, and any other mouthpiece determined to entrench their sacrosanct principles by eliminating access to opposing viewpoints instead of defending them openly. They should be unconditionally dismissed. New Stuff: I have been checking all week to see if I have, in fact, slipped through a spacetime anomaly. There is evidence that I am currently in a parallel universe. You see, National Review has posted a commentary story about the new Spock's Beard disc, and I know that couldn't happen on my world. Strangely enough the day after I saw the review, bandleader Neal Morse announced his departure. Coincidence? I made the mistake of telling Jennifer that there is a Swizzle Stick Collectors Convention in Vegas next year. Guess where I'm going? Space.com has a interesting story on the possibility of extrasolar moons 'round all them gas giants they've been finding. "I'm Mister Heat Miser..." The British Army is using bees to find landmines. Wasn't that the plot of an old Avengers episode? Read Fairy Tales for the Erudite. Quite funny. Ideomancer has a very good interview with Greg Bear. The murder trial in Wichita is getting squat for press coverage but gawdammit we gotta let the people know Spongebob is gay! What next? Are they gonna notice that the Powerpuff Girls are constantly beating up a monkey with a phallic symbol for a helmet, spend their free time trying to placate their ineffectual, single father and refer to the devil only as Him?. The San Francisco Gate ran a story on some folks who view murder as art. Hmmm. They also ran a story called Catholic Cheerleders of Doom, which you will now investigate for the title alone. Ciao for now. JP |
Eager Anticipations: The Great International Beer Festival in Providence Dita Von Teese in Playboy The Leonid Meteors Egyptian Exhibit at Boston Science Warren Ellis' Global Frequency A new Nancy Kress novel Tadao Ando Exhibit at Clark Art A new Jonathan Carroll novel. New Discs and/or Tours by The Super Mega Fest in Boston Alan Moore's Magic Words Another Line of Todd McFarlane/Clive Barker Tortured Souls figures. The SFX Expo in Boston DaVinci Drawings at The MET Conventions 2003: The 2004 World Science Fiction Convention returns to Boston. Currently in My Various Stereos: Legendary Pink Dots 9 Lives to Wonder Bethany Curve Gold Cranes Future Songs Nitzer Ebb Showtime Genesis Foxtrot Donald Fagan The Kamikiriad Ozric Tentacles Complete BBC Sessions The Starlings Too Many Days Clan of Xymox Hidden Faces Bill Nelson The Strangest Things Jaz Coleman Symphony No. 1 Djam Karet The Devouring The Pixies Doolittle |
Eager Anticipations: The Great International Beer Festival in Providence Dita Von Teese in Playboy The Leonid Meteors Egyptian Exhibit at Boston Science Warren Ellis' Global Frequency A new Nancy Kress novel Tadao Ando Exhibit at Clark Art A new Jonathan Carroll novel. New Discs and/or Tours by The Super Mega Fest in Boston Alan Moore's Magic Words Another Line of Todd McFarlane/Clive Barker Tortured Souls figures. The SFX Expo in Boston DaVinci Drawings at The MET Conventions 2003: The 2004 World Science Fiction Convention returns to Boston. Currently in My Various Stereos: Legendary Pink Dots 9 Lives to Wonder Bethany Curve Gold Cranes Future Songs Nitzer Ebb Showtime Genesis Foxtrot Donald Fagan The Kamikiriad Ozric Tentacles Complete BBC Sessions The Starlings Too Many Days Clan of Xymox Hidden Faces Bill Nelson The Strangest Things Jaz Coleman Symphony No. 1 Djam Karet The Devouring The Pixies Doolittle |
Chapter Thirteen: Hysterical Blindness Hear that? It's the sound of the world's largest gathering of yodellers breaking a world's record. That had to violate a weapons treaty somewhere. I was sad to learn that Satire Wire will no longer be updated. Arts and Letters Daily also went the way of all web-flesh this week, although a new Philosophy and Literature news site is trying hard to fill the gap. Worst of all, The Healing Power of Obnoxiousness has vanished, leaving only a cryptic page in its wake. There is, however, a movement to bring it back. I hope they succeed. HPO's author Paul T. Riddell is that rare bird who drafts his fiery opinions in a thouroghly insulting yet enlightening manner. And speaking of opinions: the other night I was channel surfing and came across the Mike Barnicle show on MSNBC. I had the sound down, but the lower-third graphic read "Should CBS Fire Andy Rooney?" Given the past friction between these two men, the rubber-necker in me turned the sound up. I did not catch all the details but apparently Rooney recently made a comment on 60 Minutes that he doesn't approve of women doing the play-by-play for televised football. He made it quite clear that he has no problem with women sports reporters or sideline interviewers, but he feels that announcing a game should be reserved for someone who has actually played it. I was about to change the channel (having a palpable lack of interest in football, its coverage, or what Andy Rooney thinks) when Barnicle started talking to a woman. I don't recall her name or who she represented, but she began a rant about the comment being denigrating to women, then added that CBS advertisers should consider if they want to spend money on a network that would allow the expression of such a bigotted sentiment. When Barnicle pointed out that Rooney was making an editorial comment, she responded with "certain opinions should not be aired." She said this with a straight and somber face. I have long thought that when an unpopular viewpoint surfaces it should be given a forum to express itself fully before the usual chastizements begin. The majority of so-called "controversial" issues would be a lot less heated if all the facts were on the table. For example, in all the news stories and specials I've seen about neo-nazis and white supremicists (all pillars of wisdom, to be sure) I have never heard a reporter ask for an explanation as to why these beliefs exist. The offending parties are lumped into the white trash/hatemonger generalization pile, as if that was sufficient cause for their beliefs instead of a result, and that is the end of the subject. Why not let them explain in detail the string of twisted biblical apocrypha and backward-engineered racial mythologies that "support" their claim of superiority? I think they'd appear a lot less scary to most people. If anything it'd be good for a chuckle. In a somewhat rational society an ugly idea would be dissected and invalidated before being discarded. Those who hold the beliefs in question would be expected to explain the basis for their viewpoint and why it is valid. If their explanation doesn't hold up they can be laughed off stage. Instead the idea itself is deemed "dangerous", quickly ponced upon by self-appointed thought police with fervent dementia and driven back into the underground, where it can fester, grow uglier, and harbor a justified sense of persecution and disillusionment. This outright stampede to judgment has been a common strategy for protest over the last decade. A pair of high profile button-pushing incidents that illustrate this were the publication of The Bell Curve and the circuit court ruling on the phrase "Under God" in the pledge. In both cases the loudest voices were the ones frantically drowning out any attempt at understanding. The offending ideas were demonized and branded as rubbish, and serious attempts to discredit the actual meat of the ideas were buried in the bowels of obscure publications and websites, not in the mainstream where they might have garnered some credence. The result in both cases was not a discussion of issues but a choir of insufferable, self-agrandising scenery-chewers mugging for the cameras like the late, great James Gregory in The Manchurian Candidate (only not quite as cool). This trait has been adopted by the man-on-the-street as well. I regularly encounter people who so vehimently criticize and obstinately condemn ideas they "don't like" with an inhuman tenacity because it endangers their dark little mindset. The very idea of soiling their brains by researching what fuels the opposing opinion is an insult to their being. As an atheist and a student of Objectivism I've been on the business end of this kind of "I'm not going to argue with you because you're wrong" dismissal many times. My tolerance for this species of idiocy has been worn away. And I am not talking about religious fanatics here, either, the kind who plunge their fingers into their ears and loudly sing That Old Rugged Cross whenever you threaten to disturb their fairy world. No, unfortunately I mean educated people; folks who can dress themselves in coordinating colors every morning, have mastered simple domestic skills like toaster and can-opener operation, and manage to urinate without the help of an underpaid nursing student. On first glance these good people appear to have most neurons firing, but get 'em in a discussion of anything remotely controversial and whammo, the pre-fab ideologies slam down like the blast-doors on the Death Star. (Which segues nicely to the fact that this kind of militant braggartism has been quite common among, forgive me my brothers, the online "geek" community where "flaming" and attacking those with differnent tastes for no good reason has been going on for years. Alas, if only it could have been contained there.) Such tacit dismissal of an idea solely on its surface without even a cursory plumb of its depths has become an increasingly acceptable and even popular means of displaying one's moral certainty. Where once discourse and meticulous analysis were the cornerstones of criticism, the gentle art now rests on ad hominem insults and a string of oblique twenty-dollar words that say, effectively, "talk to the hand." A perusal of the news channels reveals a standardized formula for what passes as debate: take a loudmouth from either side of an issue (cuz issues can only have two sides, y'know), let them string together a series of jingoistic reasons why the other is insipid for holding their opinion, and throw in some out-of-context statistics so the director can put up full-screen graphic once in a while. This stuff sells. People watch it and form opinions from it. They don't need to integrate or interpret the data because it is dispensed in single-serving rhetorical pellets for ease of digestion. This mental toejam accumulates between the frontal lobes and dulls the urge to analyze anything. (Fox News Channel calls this "fair and balanced coverage") This is not isolated to pundits. A scan of any number of popular news and blog sites show politicians, professors, commentators, and other cultural speakers trumpeting the primacy of their viewpoint by calling for the wholesale turning of a deaf ear to other opinions. They reach the height of unprincipled arrogance by holding up the fact that They Are Right as the only proof needed that Others Are Wrong. These are the people who introduce concepts into the mainstream, who dictate what our universities teach, who influence the philosophical climate, whose job it once was to stimulate the intellect instead of inciting blind, reactionary rancor and hostility. Make no mistake: they are The Problem, regardess of what side of the argument they are on. Those who embrace and encourage such tactics in the marketplace of ideas are the enemy. They are guilty of fostering an environment where an ignorant, uninformed culture can flourish. They have abetted the dissemination of gullibility. They breed nihilism and apathy. They seek out and destroy thought. They are the monsters produced by the sleep of reason. They exist on the same ethical plain as creationists, pro-lifers, tyrants, dictators, cult leaders, tin gods, and any other mouthpiece determined to entrench their sacrosanct principles by eliminating access to opposing viewpoints instead of defending them openly. They should be unconditionally dismissed. New Stuff: I have been checking all week to see if I have, in fact, slipped through a spacetime anomaly. There is evidence that I am currently in a parallel universe. You see, National Review has posted a commentary story about the new Spock's Beard disc, and I know that couldn't happen on my world. Strangely enough the day after I saw the review, bandleader Neal Morse announced his departure. Coincidence? I made the mistake of telling Jennifer that there is a Swizzle Stick Collectors Convention in Vegas next year. Guess where I'm going? Space.com has a interesting story on the possibility of extrasolar moons 'round all them gas giants they've been finding. "I'm Mister Heat Miser..." The British Army is using bees to find landmines. Wasn't that the plot of an old Avengers episode? Read Fairy Tales for the Erudite. Quite funny. Ideomancer has a very good interview with Greg Bear. The murder trial in Wichita is getting squat for press coverage but gawdammit we gotta let the people know Spongebob is gay! What next? Are they gonna notice that the Powerpuff Girls are constantly beating up a monkey with a phallic symbol for a helmet, spend their free time trying to placate their ineffectual, single father and refer to the devil only as Him?. The San Francisco Gate ran a story on some folks who view murder as art. Hmmm. They also ran a story called Catholic Cheerleders of Doom, which you will now investigate for the title alone. Ciao for now. JP |
