Since the CT comments are down, I'll post here what I wanted to post there:
Are broad categories useful? Are generalizations useful? Yes and no.
I am a Red Sox fan. And I am not (I hope) a bitter, pessimistic, jerk. There's a great deal of truth, however, to the statement "Red Sox fans are bitter, pessimistic jerks." If a friend asked were considering becoming the manager of the Red Sox, that's the advice I'd give him. Here, both the category and generalization are rendered useful by context.
The context in which the generalizations "left" and "right" are most often used, unfortunately, is in a genre one might call "political light entertainment." Or at least that's the intellectual genre: they also appear in fundraising. (standard letter in my mailbox: "the left/right is trying to undermine marriage/outlaw abortion, please give!").
If we mistake political light entertainment for argument, then generalizations will seem inadequate, and even offensive. The better course is to recognize that nothing like an argument is going on. Instead we should regard "the left" and "the right" as markers of genre almost as reliable as "Once upon a time."
But what if "political light entertainment" seems to be the best we can do?
Was I the only one who thought the Presidential debates seemed a bit too much like yet another reality tv series? Only, unlike on the shows made for purely entertainment purposes, it was never really going to matter to most people which of the candidates won.
This is a mechanism that's a staple of all the right-wing radio heads. Whenever there is nothing else they want to blather about, they pull an obscure item X from anywhere (step 1: collect underwear) and bubble it up for a few minutes (step 2: ???). Ultimately, the result is that X is symptomatic of the 'left' and integrated into the policies of the 'Democrat' party and you should hate them (step 3: profit).
baa, is your response essentially "you would be right if Reynolds were to be taken seriously"? How I feel about this depends on my mood-- I mean, he sees himself as serious, and many readers do, and so sometimes I do feel an urge to point out that he's, well, not correct. It's a waste of time, as JH says.
Ted: yes. Also, consequentialism is true, but there's an evil demon who creates suffering to the extent that we fail to believe in the moral theory of WD Ross.
The reasonable side of me would like to note this from Keith Ellis from the CT comment thread:
I don't think we should underestimate the near-universal human tendency toward confirmation bias with regard to the opposition. When you're opposed to someone, when you don't like them, you see only the worst.
Maybe not profound or original, but everyone in blogdom should say it to themselves at least five times a day.
The less reasonable side of me loves this, from paul in that thread.
an absurd and borderline-traitorous speech
the White House should define "what's out of bounds in dissent on Iraq."
I'm tired of this shit. If Reynolds or Sully or Barnes or any of the yahoos who comment here think someone is commiting treason then CALL THE FUCKING COPS.
Since the CT comments are down, I'll post here what I wanted to post there:
Are broad categories useful? Are generalizations useful? Yes and no.
I am a Red Sox fan. And I am not (I hope) a bitter, pessimistic, jerk. There's a great deal of truth, however, to the statement "Red Sox fans are bitter, pessimistic jerks." If a friend asked were considering becoming the manager of the Red Sox, that's the advice I'd give him. Here, both the category and generalization are rendered useful by context.
The context in which the generalizations "left" and "right" are most often used, unfortunately, is in a genre one might call "political light entertainment." Or at least that's the intellectual genre: they also appear in fundraising. (standard letter in my mailbox: "the left/right is trying to undermine marriage/outlaw abortion, please give!").
If we mistake political light entertainment for argument, then generalizations will seem inadequate, and even offensive. The better course is to recognize that nothing like an argument is going on. Instead we should regard "the left" and "the right" as markers of genre almost as reliable as "Once upon a time."
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 11:37 AM
But what if "political light entertainment" seems to be the best we can do?
Was I the only one who thought the Presidential debates seemed a bit too much like yet another reality tv series? Only, unlike on the shows made for purely entertainment purposes, it was never really going to matter to most people which of the candidates won.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 11:51 AM
This is a mechanism that's a staple of all the right-wing radio heads. Whenever there is nothing else they want to blather about, they pull an obscure item X from anywhere (step 1: collect underwear) and bubble it up for a few minutes (step 2: ???). Ultimately, the result is that X is symptomatic of the 'left' and integrated into the policies of the 'Democrat' party and you should hate them (step 3: profit).
Posted by Miller | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 11:56 AM
Doesn't all this anti-Insty invective serve merely to raise Insty's standing in the circles where he exerts an influence?
Posted by Ted H. | Link to this comment | 02- 4-05 1:32 PM
baa, is your response essentially "you would be right if Reynolds were to be taken seriously"? How I feel about this depends on my mood-- I mean, he sees himself as serious, and many readers do, and so sometimes I do feel an urge to point out that he's, well, not correct. It's a waste of time, as JH says.
Ted: yes. Also, consequentialism is true, but there's an evil demon who creates suffering to the extent that we fail to believe in the moral theory of WD Ross.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 02- 5-05 4:02 AM
The reasonable side of me would like to note this from Keith Ellis from the CT comment thread:
Maybe not profound or original, but everyone in blogdom should say it to themselves at least five times a day.
The less reasonable side of me loves this, from paul in that thread.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 02- 5-05 9:42 AM
Keith Ellis is generally to be admired for his reasonableness and more-or-less unflappable nature, in fact.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 5-05 9:47 AM