Friday Evening Links
John Schwenkler May 15th, 2009
1. This is quite interesting. I’m certainly not going to overstate its significance, but in addition to Gallup’s take on the data, Ross’s column from this past Tuesday is absolutely worth a second read.
2. Readers familiar with my penchant for verbally bludgeoning those whose opinions are deemed to be outside the reach of reason – though note that it’s not always like that! – may be unsurprised to learn that I agree with Caleb Stegall.
3. We just bought this cookbook at the supermarket, and plan to give it a spin tomorrow. Details to come.
4. No, we should not put a carbon tax on China.
5. And finally, give TAC your money!
Addendum: 6. Whoa.
Filed under: miscellany
John, with which part do you agree? The first part which says bring it on (with which I agree) or the weasel worded update that says tolerance is for the weakminded? Because the update is the dodge of the reality challenged – if you don’t agree with me, you must be a fool and I don’t talk to fools.
Caleb had it right, but then his buddies at FPR rang his bell and he backed down.
There are many good people at FPR, and Caleb is one of them, but FPR itself is largely a well written echo chamber.
Jake
I hadn’t seen the update; the part I was seconding was mainly the bit about proper contempt.
The contempt thing is a bit problematic, don’t you think? How does one decide which ideas or statements are contempt worthy?
Clearly, those ideas most disconnected from what is commonly accepted as reality might deserve contempt, but even there the grounds are chancy. Much of modern science would have been treated with contempt only a century ago. Darwin is still treated with contempt in certain circles – how is one to treat those who find Darwin contemptible?
As in so many things, the broad, all inclusive statement is so attractive, even tho in application so faulty. And for sure, Caleb loves him some broad statements.
Jake
I agree that such a decision isn’t trivial, and that as a consequence it’s important to be cognizant of one’s fallibility. At the risk of being tautological, though, it’s still worth emphasizing that when contempt is appropriate, it’s entirely okay to go in for it.
P.S. The more substantive point I’d thought about making in response to that post was that expressions of contempt are a highly effective way to shame, and that shaming in turn can, at least in certain contexts, be one of the most effective means of persuasion there is.
Shame implies some sense of an authority that adjudicates outcomes, be it a community or an individual. If one is already at contretemps with the local authority, shame seems unlikely to a) happen, and b) to make any difference.
Perhaps you mean “belittling” rather than shaming. Belittling requires no center of gravitas to declare a winner, simply clever, cutting, words.
Jake
Well, how about the community of morally serious Americans, or theologically orthodox Christians?
John, the community of morally serious Americans is far larger than the community of theologically orthodox Christians (TOCs) – and more to the point, probably holds far different views. And frankly, the community of TOCs is actually quite small.
But then you probably know that. :)
Anyway, in FPR’s kind of case, if you already disagree about something like first principles (and this, I think, was Caleb’s point) then shame just doesn’t happen. Caleb can accuse me of being a murderer (as pro choice), but neither the law nor my conscience agree with him, so shame doesn’t happen.
Jake
Of course I know that. And I agree that shaming doesn’t always work. But it does sometimes, and so it can be a useful tool to employ from time to time.