Coin and Other Side

[Annie]

No given side, just whatever. Links at site:

http://www.lileks.com/screedblog/05/08/082305.html

08 23 05
UH HUH. WHATEVER

Some recent pieces I wrote on Cindy Sheehan brought an unusual amount of angry mail, nearly all of which seemed to miss the point. One correspondent, for example, asked if I was serious when I accused anyone who disagreed with the Administration’s Middle East policy of “moral cretinism.” What I had written was that anyone who could not see the distinction between Israel having nukes and the mullahs of Iran having nukes was a moral cretin. Not an insignificant distinction. Is there any point in writing back? Nah.

If you would like your letter to be read and considered, some suggestions.

The term “wingnut” is not as harsh and cutting as you might expect. Personally, I don’t like any of these terms – moonbats, repugs, democraps, etc. (Except for “idiotarian.” I like it because it’s ecumenical.) They’re usually shorthand for broad concepts held by people whose views on other matters may be divergent. Not very helpful. In any case, have you tried to use a wingnut? They’re quite handy if you want to tighten something and you don’t have a wrench. I assume it’s short for “right wing nut,” but if you look at a wingnut, it has two wings. Left and right. You could say it understands both wings, even though it prefers to turn in a clockwise direction.

The chickenhawk argument is likewise unpersuasive. But I’ll make a deal: only people with military experience can discuss matters of national security, and only people who grew up in North Dakota can judge the movie “Fargo.” I know what you’re saying: “Fargo” took place almost entirely in Minnesota. Why are you trying to stifle my dissent?

If the experiences of a person’s life makes their remarks off-limits to commentary, then no one would have had the gall to point out that a grieving protestor who lost a son regretted that he had died “on behalf of filthy mud-people and sand-ni&&3rs.” Because she would have unassailable moral authority.

Please get this straight: there are no marching orders. There is no RoveHive to which everyone buzzes in the morning for a scrap of Royal Jelly we carry off to our blogs. If there sometimes appears to be a unaniminity of subject matter, that’s because certain ideas appear, flower, bloom, take root, and spread. Like kudzu. But kudzu is not taking orders from some dark shrouded mastermind made entirely of cellulose and chlorophyll. If you honestly think that everyone to the right of Noam Chomsky is part of some dark soulless cabal dedicated to extirpating all photons and replacing them with negative matter that strips the flesh from the bones of the poor, I envy you; the world must make perfect sense.

If arguing with someone’s opinion means I don’t believe they have any First Amendment rights, then criticizing someone for shooting up a school means I think the Second Amendment should be stricken from the Bill of Rights.

“Oh, so XX’s speech is the equivalent of shooting a school?” Sigh. Yes. Of course, that’s exactly what I think.

It may surprise you, but I actually have heard that argument before. The one about WMDs. Also the one about “shifting rationales.” It’s come up from time to time. Consequently they do not leave me open-mouthed in stunned surprise, unable to craft a response. So it’s not the show-stopper you think it is, alas. Everyone always thinks they have some armor-piercing argument the other side has never considered, but that’s rarely the case.

Imagine, for example, that you’re pro-life, and you’ve just made a passionate argument on behalf of the unborn. You have not concerned yourself with the particulars of the abortion debate, just the weighty issues surrounding the termination of nascient human life, and what claims it might have to our protection. Someone stands up and says “Well, what about RAPE?” The very question demonstrates a disinclination to absorb the arguments you’ve just made, but you soldier on and make the case for holding the fetus innocent of the horrible means of its conception – on a philosophical level, of course; it all depends on when you believe life is truly invested in the embryo, whether it’s a matter of conception, or the onset of brain activity, and so forth. Muddy waters for those who aren’t absolutists, in other words.

“WELL, WHAT ABOUT INCEST?”

At this point you might suspect that your interlocutor is not interested in dialogue, but is more concerned with some personal narrative so narrow in focus he will put down “SPOKE TRUTH TO POWER” as “work experience” on a job application for a position as a co-op cashier.

That really long email you send that called me a name in the first sentence? Didn’t read it.

That shorter email that called me a name in the second sentence? Read it. Rocked my world. Completely changed everything I believe. Had to curl up in bed with my George Bush handpuppet and have a dialogue for half an hour before I stopped whimpering. And I do a bad Texas accent.

Don’t make me go through that again.