 |
| Comments on "Intellectual Thugs" |
|
 | Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 0:47:08 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Aaron Davies
E-mail: agd12(at)columbia.edu
I expected as much from Laura Ingraham. Nick's naivete in your announcement Monday was touching, if a little surprising. Talk radio hosts aren't exactly in the business of being fair.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 5:40:57 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
Nick and Noodlefood have done the right thing by exposing the appeal to force of these fundamentalists. The threats of Laura Ingraham and 126 of her fellow faithful (until Nick shut down the comments section of his blog) reveal their lack of confidence in their positions. By rejecting reason, faith must always resort to force. It has always done so in history (observe all the religious wars and persecutions), and it will do so again in this country to the extent these people gain political power.
Kudos to Nick for exposing this truth for many others to see.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 6:45:39 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Ryan C
URL: http://ryantheegoist.blogspot.com/
These people, as I stated in my own blog, are no better than the Muslim fundamentalist dogs of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Thank goodness they aren't in power.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 7:03:06 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: jonathan blaze
E-mail: j(at)blaze.com
Laura Ingraham is a vile human being. The sad thing is that her dumbed-down personality is most likely a ploy to appeal to the mouth-breathers who listen to her show and buy her books. At one point in her life, she was a clerk for a Supreme Court justice, a position only available to the sharpest legal minds in the country. But it looks like she traded in reason for a fat paycheck.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 7:15:26 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
If Objectivism is to continue to make inroads into the culture, it will be necessary to discover who the "civilized adults" are and who are not. Civilized adults who can agree to disagree with us can facilitate the spread of Objectivism by engaging us in reasonable discourse - it will be appropriate to continue engage in dialog with them. Those who engage in intellectual thuggery need to be identified and condemned. Aside from that, I see no need to engage with such people.
Unfortunately, the process of sorting out which is which can get ugly, as we've seen with Nick Provenzo's experience.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 7:19:24 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
Sorry - that should have been "continue to engage".
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 7:38:06 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: steven
You crush them with your own devastating criticisms, Diana? That doesn't sound like a very effective way to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong. How about you politely correct and instruct them, with the aim of convincing them that they haven't given the proper amount of consideration to your (correct) point of view?
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 7:52:33 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: tbshoe1927(at)yahoo.com
"[Ingram's] method of debate was that of a gang leader seeking to impress her minions by intimidation, not that of a respectable intellectual concerned with airing out ideas in pursuit of knowledge. Given that, Nick deserves a good bit of credit for conducting himself as well as he did."
This is how a great deal of debate, especially in talk radio, is conducted. All you have to do is watch a few minutes of Bill O'Reily's program to see more examples of this. Even if I happen to agree with his position on a point being discussed on a particular show, his treatment of guests with opposing views is usually disgraceful, and very similar to what you describe above, Diana. And from everything I've heard, this was frequently the treatment Ayn Rand got after "Atlas Shrugged" was published, fifty years ago. She was accused, both in print and in her presence, of being a Nazi, of wanting to send opponents to gas chambers, of advocating Social Darwinism to kill off the less able, of wanting to destroy all basis for morality itself, etc.
I think that if Objectivism does start to make serious inroads into the cultural and intellectual life of the country, we will see smear campaigns and attacks in the future that will make the stuff Ingram and O'Reily pull now look tame.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 8:34:45 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: John Drake
E-mail: tryreason(at)gmail.com
URL: http://trhome.blogspot.com
So much hate from members of a supposed peaceful religion. Hate speech?
Barbara Simpson, Laura Ingraham, and the hundreds of commenters on Nick's article show quite clearly that they have not moved beyond the Dark Ages.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 8:59:41 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo(at)capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www.capitalismcenter.org
> Nick's naivete in your announcement Monday was touching, if a little surprising.
That would be a misread. I was not the least bit surprised by the likes of Laura Ingraham; nevertheless, I was utterly appalled by her slovenly conduct. Someone with the kind of legal training Ingraham has received should be aware of a sophist's tactics--and they should not be inclined to use them.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 9:45:21 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I think Nick may be overoptimistic about legal training's effects. Lawyers are advocates; their business is to win cases. It's all too easy for them to fall into using arguments that are good enough to persuade the average juror, and not any better. I'm not saying that all lawyers argue that way, or have those goals, but a nontrivial number do.
Such low standards are more widespread, of course. I remember reading one of C. S. Lewis's arguments for Christianity, that says, in effect, "Jesus said he was God. Now, either he was insane and deluded; or he was deliberately lying; or he was telling the truth, and he was God. You can't say, 'Jesus was a great moral teacher, but not God,' because neither a lunatic nor a liar can be a great moral teacher." And I thought that that was an awfully quick and easy argument, one that ignored the whole question of cultural differences between the ancient Near East (heavily impacted by Greek and Roman culture, with its ideas of apotheosis) and modern Britain. It struck me that Lewis argued like a lawyer, producing arguments that were good enough for his popular audience but not for any serious critical thinker. That is, of course, something of a negative stereotype of lawyers, but not a wholly unfounded one.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 10:31:12 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Dismuke
E-mail: dismuke(at)dismuke.org
URL: http://RadioDismuke.com
Diana wrote"
"You allow someone to explain their views. You ask them tough questions about the reasons for and implications of those views. The whole time, you allow them to speak for themselves. You represent their views fairly. And then you crush them with your own devastating criticisms, always politely given. You allow them to reply, and then you crush them again. That's what any decent radio talk show host -- and any respectable intellectual -- does in debate."
- - -
I think part of why the above is increasingly rare is the emotionalism that is almost all-pervasive in our culture. While this emotionalism is often associated with Cindy Sheehan types and the Angry Left, I don't think there is any corner of our society where it has not spread to. I think that such emotionalism exists on the Right as well. It is just that, for several reasons, the Right has not felt as utterly desperate as the Left has so, as a result, their visible behavior has not been as radicalized as that of the Left.
Under this emotionalism, it is very difficult to engage in debate with someone because, every time the other person speaks, one becomes so morally outraged that that the need to "strike back" is all one can focus on. There is nothing wrong, of course, with moral outrage and with fighting back. But to an emotionalist, "fighting back" usually means little more than the venting of one's emotions.
Now, I will openly admit that I personally have been, to a certain degree, infected by this sort of cultural emotionalism. It is something I have had to be aware of and be careful with since childhood. I would have a very difficult time debating with or interviewing certain people. There are some public figures who make my blood boil the very instant they open their mouths. All I can focus on is: "this is the bastard who wants to jeopardize my life and health and that of everyone I care about by forcing us into socialized medicine and who wants to steal everything I have ever worked." Certainly that justifies moral outrage. But my degree of emotional reaction to such people goes beyond outrage to point to where it is NOT productive. In my defense I will say that 1) I recognize the issue involved and why it is inappropriate and self-destructive to act based on such emotions, 2) in my private life, I will discuss ideas ONLY with people I believe to be more or less intellectually honest and 3) it is not my JOB or even a serious sideline activity of mine to engage in intellectual debate in public.
So I CAN, on a certain level, understand how someone might become so absolutely outraged at ideas that they disagree with and at the mere sight of people who represent such ideas that they FEEL like yelling at the top of their lungs in some sort of demonstration or protest march or venting their emotions by writing hateful comments on someone's blog. I can understand the EMOTION and the DESIRE to vent it out. But what I cannot relate to is the degree that people will ACT on such emotions and not even be able to grasp why doing so is wrong.
Unfortunately, our culture today pretty much encourages this sort of mindset and behavior. For all too many people, ideological opponents are bad guys not because they are wrong but because of the negative emotions that they make one feel. Those negative emotions are taken as an irreducible primary so no thought is given to what brings such emotions on, whether they correspond with the facts or what the other person's context might be. Under such a mindset, if one can just vent such nasty emotions away by the destruction (either intellectually or worse) of one's ideological enemies, then the problem the bad guys represent is solved.
So the nasty blog comments - well, that really doesn't disturb me as much as the reaction by the radio hosts. Obviously, to the degree a hard-core religionist becomes familiar with Objectivism, he is going to have serious moral issues with it. And if he takes his ideas seriously, he might even feel outrage. Given today's emotionalism, it really shouldn't be surprising that a bunch of random yahoos on the Internet vent their emotions in such a way - and "pile on" when they see others having done so. And that it comes from the Right should not really be at all surprising. We are just not as used to it because of the visibility and spectacle of the Angry Left. But the same emotionalism that has completely infected the Left exists on the Right as well.
As for the talk shows - well, in a better culture, before a person could get a national media job, it would be a given that there would be professional standards of objectivity and politeness that one would have to adhere to. There are no such standards left in today's media - not even in the "old media" which is SUPPOSED to have higher standards. Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin with his editorial "sighs" and "gotcha" type questions was downright rude and especially pathetic when compared with his behavior in interviews with the candidates he is sympathetic with. At least the talk show hosts don't pretend to disguise the hostility they feel towards those they disagree with. And most talk show hosts don't have serious training in journalism - most got their start as "radio guys" spinning records. Standards went out the window with the "old media" years ago. And the "new media" is such that it is able to cater to ANY audience imaginable - including audiences that don't WANT standards.
Also, I think what encourages the bad talk show hosts is the very reason why certain people listen to talk radio in the first place. A great many people are sick and tired of the constant barrage of Leftist propaganda and political correctness from the media, from the schools and pretty much everywhere else in the culture. People, I think, correctly, regard as being profoundly UNJUST how everything in the dominant culture is very much stacked in favor of the Left and how people who are not Leftist elitists are sneered at and ridiculed as being a bunch of stupid, backward bumpkins who drink the sort of coffee served in truck stops and gas stations. So when people tune in to talk radio and see the Left being skewered, they feel that a certain act of JUSTICE is taking place and that the Left is finally getting what it deserves. And, indeed, if the host is making intelligent and valid arguments, it IS an act of justice. But this is where the cultural emotionalism comes in. A certain segment of the audience is not able to make a distinction between an intelligent discussion of ideas and something else. All they care about is the emotionalistic satisfaction of hell being delivered to those they dislike - and there are certain hosts such as O'Reilly who seem to specialize in that.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 11:12:29 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Dan G.
Rob, I think that is a good suggestion.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 11:16:48 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Dan G.
In my opinion, one benefit of Nick going onto Ingraham's show is that it forced her to remove her mask of civility. Sure, Nick didn't have a chance of pursuading her or her core of loyal thralls. But then again, there are those who tend to apologise for these savages; Nick just made it that much harder for them to do so.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 12:19:57 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://themethodoflogic.blogspot.com
One striking but typical characteristic of the flood of insane clown posse responses to Nick's site was the hideously inarticulate nature of the emails sent. Though I believe Laura Ingraham is Catholic, usually its the evangelicals who are most fervent in their epistemological prostitution, and as a result, their outrage manifests itself in a vengeful form of stupidity as witnessed above.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 13:06:55 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Roderick Fitts
E-mail: rodfitts(at)gmail.com
In comment #7, steven says:
"You crush them with your own devastating criticisms, Diana? That doesn't sound like a very effective way to convince someone that you are right and they are wrong. How about you politely correct and instruct them, with the aim of convincing them that they haven't given the proper amount of consideration to your (correct) point of view?"
Not speaking for Diana, but she plainly says: "The whole time, you allow them to speak for themselves. You represent their views fairly. And then you crush them with your own devastating criticisms, always *politely given*." It is possible to completely decimate another's position in a friendly and polite manner. Though it is something I need to work on... :)
In a debate between intellectuals, there typically isn't enough time to correct your opponent's views AND instruct them about your own views. (Sorry if by "instruct" you meant something different; you didn't elaborate, so I'm simply interpreting.) There's usually only enough time for both sides to present their views and for each side to poke holes and destroy the other's position (and to reply to those criticisms), not sit the opponent down in a classroom chair and teach him the step-by-step method by which you've come to your views, in the effort to convince him that you're right. The aim of a debate, like the one Provenzo was in, is to show why you're right on issue X and why your opponent is wrong; if, in effect, you also convince your opponent, then that's only an added bonus, and I don't think it should even by a secondary aim.
Now, if you're dealing with a friend whom wouldn't mind being instructed, I see no problem with politely dismantling his position and afterwards showing him what your position is, and how you got to it step-by-step.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 13:24:04 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Rob Abiera
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com
All of this makes me miss Leonard Peikoff's radio show. Obviously the content was a value by itself, but Peikoff brought a terrific intellectual energy and dynamism to it that was often electrifying. At least on his weekly show - when he tried to do a daily format, it just didn't have the same energy level.
When Andrew Lewis took over, he wasn't as charismatic as Peikoff was, but he did have a seriousness and an earnestness that I found appealing.
Yes I know Peikoff is doing podcasts now but it's not quite the same thing.
Also, I remember Peikoff used to speak admiringly about the intelligence of the talk radio audience. I wonder if he would still feel the same way today.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 16:22:37 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: steven
Hi, Roderick. Diana's statement "let me explain how to respectfully argue with someone who disagrees with you" caused me to think more along the lines of an informal discussion with a friend or acquaintance instead of a formal debate. So please consider my comments with that in mind (which it sounds like you already have).
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 19:33:28 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Wayne
17 Rob,
And all the more amazing for Dr. Peikoff, he started in Los Angeles on KFI, a basically religious radio station. I know because I was privileged enough to be invited to a broadcast.
It makes me admire the way Ayn Rand could cut to the essential truth of an argument.
I remember reading somewhere a story that early on in her life, Ayn Rand would argue with people and she noticed if she fell into exaggeration, she wasn't as convincing as if she told the literal truth. So she resolved to always tell the literal truth.
On atheism, Ayn Rand would say she was an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. She recognized freedom of thought of others.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 19:54:18 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: JT
E-mail: JT30014(at)hotmail.com
I'm not defending any particular radio talk host's conduct here, but I think it should be pretty obvious that such people are *not* intellectuals. They're entertainers. The primary aim of these programs isn't to politely and logically analyze arguments; it's to create a spectacle that most of their listeners will find titillating enough to keep paying attention. That's the way it is, and it shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with popular culture.
|
| Thursday, September 25, 2008 at 23:20:55 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
I've heard talk radio hosts use the same "last word" tactic Ingraham did -- it's obvious by the guest's silence that his mike has been cut off, yet the host is addressing the guest as if he is still there. I'm not surprised. And it's a contemptible practice.
|
| Friday, September 26, 2008 at 5:53:04 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Radio talk-show hosts are typically not professional intellectuals, but they _are_ links in the chain of dissemination of ideas, a chain that begins with a philosopher or theologian and continues downward to "the man in the street."
The April 4, 2008 post ("Philosophical Ripples") on the weblog "Making Progress" describes my view of the process of dissemination.
http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/04/philosophical-ripples.html
|
|
| Post Your Comment on "Intellectual Thugs" |
|
|
|
