Jason Stanley & David Beaver: "Snakes, Invaders and Other Fighting Words"
Wow, this is weak.
Not going to waste a lot of time on it, but:
[1] The post hoc fallacy makes a prominent appearance: "We know from history that acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism have been preceded by periods in which political and social movements employed such rhetoric." The suggestion of causation is clear.
[2] There's no effort to distinguish the (effects of the) more properly rhetorical stuff from the (effects of the) more properly informational stuff: describing someone as a 'gang-member' is not, ordinarily, an especially rhetorical move; it could be false, but it generally aims to simply be descriptive. Its rhetorical content is fairly minimal. Furthermore, superpredator theory may be false (or not... Does anyone deny that some people meet the definition?), but, again, false description has to be distinguished from misleading rhetoric. (If that distinction can't be maintained, then the authors have no thesis, for one thing.) The same goes for the case of the Bush campaign's anti-McCain efforts in South Carolina in 2000: that had little or nothing to do with anything rhetorical; it was the (dis)information that was important ("McCain has an illegitimate child.")
[3] Note prominent, unsupported, hand-wavy empirical claims: "Politicians’ descriptions of young black men as “thugs” and “gang members” in the 1990s helped transform the United States into the country with the world’s highest incarceration rate." Did it? Then produce proof of it. (To some extent this is [1] again.) Also: "Calling immigrants “invaders” has the effect of connecting practices one would employ against hostile intruders to immigrant groups." [my emphasis]. Does it? Then cough up some empirical evidence to that effect. Oh, wait...it "has the effect of"..."connecting"...and what does that mean, pray tell? Does it cause violence? Or does it merely "connect"? Very weasely...
[4] The empirical evidence they do give involves reference to single studies of alleged very temporary behavioral changes. And these types of studies, IMO, are particularly likely to be debunked as the replication crisis unfolds.
Alright, I'm done with that thin gruel.
Except to note the most important point, I'd say: the left's double-standard on rhetoric: they presume authority to micromanage our language even to the point of trying to make material contradictions no longer contradictions (e.g. males can be women) and other absurdity (e.g. politically incorrect speech constitutes violence). OTOH, even the most speculative, implausible, and half-assed objections to terminology and descriptions they oppose are nefarious efforts at mind-control. I wouldn't recommend calling any group "snakes"...but, then, that example is from Rwanda, not here.
As for calling the current invasion of illegal aliens an "invasion"...well...that's a pretty apt description, actually. Which is, of course, why they don't want us to say it that way. It's a bit different to call individuals "invaders"...but, then, I don't recall every having heard anyone do that. The general phenomenon is akin to an invasion in certain ways--and not in others. (E.g.: it's not violent, and doesn't warrant the kind of violent reaction that an invasion proper would warrant.) But that doesn't entail the accuracy nor helpfulness of describing individuals as "invaders."
Really finally: 'illegal alien' is a legal term. And it's accurate. This isn't a rhetorical matter. Stanley and Beaver and the left don't want us using the term--probably because it's too accurate. The left has insisted (shrilly, as always) on replacing the term with euphemisms which are themselves then replaced by even more euphemistic euphemisms...from 'illegal immigrant' through 'undocumented migrant' and on to God knows what. (I expect 'honored guest' at some point.) The point is to decrease accuracy, conceal important facts and normalize being in the country illegally. (My favorite term here is from our old friend TVD: 'undocumented Democrat'...)
Stanley is a philosopher. One would expect better. Or: one would if one didn't understand that the left has colonized and corrupted philosophy as it's done to the rest of the humanities. Progressives now see philosophy as the handmaiden of leftist politics.
I'm sure I seem to have flipped my shit over this stuff. But I'm not sure what reaction would be more appropriate than flipping one's shit. This is objectively outrageous.
Not going to waste a lot of time on it, but:
[1] The post hoc fallacy makes a prominent appearance: "We know from history that acts of genocide, ethnic cleansing and terrorism have been preceded by periods in which political and social movements employed such rhetoric." The suggestion of causation is clear.
[2] There's no effort to distinguish the (effects of the) more properly rhetorical stuff from the (effects of the) more properly informational stuff: describing someone as a 'gang-member' is not, ordinarily, an especially rhetorical move; it could be false, but it generally aims to simply be descriptive. Its rhetorical content is fairly minimal. Furthermore, superpredator theory may be false (or not... Does anyone deny that some people meet the definition?), but, again, false description has to be distinguished from misleading rhetoric. (If that distinction can't be maintained, then the authors have no thesis, for one thing.) The same goes for the case of the Bush campaign's anti-McCain efforts in South Carolina in 2000: that had little or nothing to do with anything rhetorical; it was the (dis)information that was important ("McCain has an illegitimate child.")
[3] Note prominent, unsupported, hand-wavy empirical claims: "Politicians’ descriptions of young black men as “thugs” and “gang members” in the 1990s helped transform the United States into the country with the world’s highest incarceration rate." Did it? Then produce proof of it. (To some extent this is [1] again.) Also: "Calling immigrants “invaders” has the effect of connecting practices one would employ against hostile intruders to immigrant groups." [my emphasis]. Does it? Then cough up some empirical evidence to that effect. Oh, wait...it "has the effect of"..."connecting"...and what does that mean, pray tell? Does it cause violence? Or does it merely "connect"? Very weasely...
[4] The empirical evidence they do give involves reference to single studies of alleged very temporary behavioral changes. And these types of studies, IMO, are particularly likely to be debunked as the replication crisis unfolds.
Alright, I'm done with that thin gruel.
Except to note the most important point, I'd say: the left's double-standard on rhetoric: they presume authority to micromanage our language even to the point of trying to make material contradictions no longer contradictions (e.g. males can be women) and other absurdity (e.g. politically incorrect speech constitutes violence). OTOH, even the most speculative, implausible, and half-assed objections to terminology and descriptions they oppose are nefarious efforts at mind-control. I wouldn't recommend calling any group "snakes"...but, then, that example is from Rwanda, not here.
As for calling the current invasion of illegal aliens an "invasion"...well...that's a pretty apt description, actually. Which is, of course, why they don't want us to say it that way. It's a bit different to call individuals "invaders"...but, then, I don't recall every having heard anyone do that. The general phenomenon is akin to an invasion in certain ways--and not in others. (E.g.: it's not violent, and doesn't warrant the kind of violent reaction that an invasion proper would warrant.) But that doesn't entail the accuracy nor helpfulness of describing individuals as "invaders."
Really finally: 'illegal alien' is a legal term. And it's accurate. This isn't a rhetorical matter. Stanley and Beaver and the left don't want us using the term--probably because it's too accurate. The left has insisted (shrilly, as always) on replacing the term with euphemisms which are themselves then replaced by even more euphemistic euphemisms...from 'illegal immigrant' through 'undocumented migrant' and on to God knows what. (I expect 'honored guest' at some point.) The point is to decrease accuracy, conceal important facts and normalize being in the country illegally. (My favorite term here is from our old friend TVD: 'undocumented Democrat'...)
Stanley is a philosopher. One would expect better. Or: one would if one didn't understand that the left has colonized and corrupted philosophy as it's done to the rest of the humanities. Progressives now see philosophy as the handmaiden of leftist politics.
I'm sure I seem to have flipped my shit over this stuff. But I'm not sure what reaction would be more appropriate than flipping one's shit. This is objectively outrageous.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home