One of the trickiest ways to attempt to control or manipulate others, is the inexact metaphor which leaves out a key detail.
Today's illustration by example: Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe.
Context: increasing public realization that (1) many right-wing extremists are, as a Department of Homeland Security report warned, ready to lose their minds and start shooting, (2) the public is realizing that right-wing extremists may be agitated to horrible action, by the amount of factless yelling and ginning-up of fear and hate that's occurring in US right-wing media.
One would think its clear that they certainly can't be soothed by it.
Joe Scarborough complains about the amount of hate-mail he gets, and then says "They use Krugman as their shield for their left-wing hate"...
The metaphor being constructed here:
left-wing extremism is to liberal pundits, as right-wing extremism is to conservative pundits. So if conservatives pundits are at all responsible for right-wing extremism, then liberal pundits are just as responsible for left-wing extremism.
Which is fine on paper. But when compared with reality, this metaphor leaves out two key facts:
1) Left-wing extremists aren't going out and murdering people. * (see comment 1) **(see comment 2)
2) Krugman's style is to calmly state why thinks something will or won't work, and so should or should not be done. He doesn't label those who disagree with him as anti-American, as fascists, socialists, communists or any other ists. He doesn't call for people to rise up in rebellion, and he doesn't get faux-tearful and loudly fear-mongering against some opposing views socialism, fascism, or any kind of -ism.
In other words, he's not arguing in a way that is more likely to drive the already barely-hinged off the edge.
Contrast this with any prominent voices on the Right, and the difference is stark and clear. Bill O'Reilly doesn't care about facts - he will be factually wrong multiple times and nary a correction. And ditto times ten for Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and the **surreally** hate-filled Malkin.
In terms of sheer brazen fear-mongering, hate-ginning, fact-averse logic-impaired braying they literally have no left-wing equivalents. There are no left-wing voices which can match them either for audience or screeching insanity.
So, to sum up: yes, two opposing sides of any argument can be equal in theory. But in life, one side will almost always tend to be more in step with observed reality than another.
Find that side, by looking at the facts. Then once you've seen the pattern, you can be quicker to sidestep this kind of attack in the future.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
a) The "recruiter shooter" is brought up as an example of "left-wing" hate. The logic chain here is *another* false equivalence:
ReplyDeleteA1. liberals hate recruiters
A2. most blacks are liberals
A3. liberals defend muslims
B. this guy hated recruiters, and was black, and was a Muslim
C. he's a liberal
"A1" is not necessarily true as a generalization. There are many veterans who would otherwise be defined as liberal. "A2" is statistically true. But most importantly, "C" is not true - he was a conservative Muslim. Which is another false equivalence being attempted - "Muslim" = "liberal". AKA "What are you, a dirty muslim-lover?
b) How many pro-Life activists were murdered by left-wing extremists, during the GW Bush administration? How many innocent security guards working at holocaust museums? How many police killed by left-wing extremists who'd lost their jobs and were turned to hate, by factless fear-mongering that GWB was going to take away their guns?
ReplyDeleteThat would be zero.