Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Another way to drive the point home

Here's something that may be unknown to some.

There's a pretty famous scene (along the lines of the Brawndo debate from Idiocracy) in Billy Madison where a the moderator of a quiz gives the ultimate smackdown to Billy Madison. What a vicious, complete denunciation that guy gives out - and in a perfect tone of voice. Ouch.

What less people are probably aware of (Billy Madison wasn't the most popular of Sandler's movies, as far as I know) is that, immediately before that smackdown, the crowd's reaction to Billy's speech is shown.

He received completely enthusiastic, uproarious applause.

Now, this is all fictional. But it helps illustrate why I say I have zero surprise when I read about how progressives are reacting to this or that bit of evidence or political discovery with arguments and claims that are absolutely, positively absurd, contradictory, or even stupid on examination. Because in a way, it really doesn't matter. The only reason it mattered for Billy is because a moderator with integrity was in control. If that same guy were simply part of the crowd, he would have been overwhelmingly drowned out. If the goal was persuasion rather than 'making sense' or 'giving a good argument', Billy would have won.

In politics, there's typically no moderators except self-moderation.

Exactly how abundant do you find that to be?

The point is that responding to progressives of this type by taking their arguments apart and showing where they fail - if the goal is to convince said progressives they are wrong - won't work. You're playing a different game than they are, and there's a good chance they're not even listening to you.

You need another way, if that's your goal.


Dan Gillson said...

I pointed out that in the case of a religious exemption, the burden to provide contraception just shifts from the employer to the insurance company, which means that no one is getting denied access to contraception. But, you know, that doesn't matter because of OUTRAGE.

Crude said...

Well, some people have figured out that the outraged people get what they want. Calm, reasonable people are easy to deny. Outraged people? Not so much.

There's also a weird cultural subtext at work here, I'm convinced, which I'll write about later.

Vand83 said...

I vaguely remember the discussion between that Chad guy and yourself. He made a comment about the exchange over at Feser's that doesn't seem accurate to how I remember things. Honestly, the way he describes you doesn't measure up with what I've come to expect from you at all. Thought I'd give you a heads up.

Crude said...

Hey Vand,

No, it doesn't, and I see Chad's looking for a round two. Thanks for the heads up, I've responded accordingly. Call me unimpressed.

Vand83 said...

No problem. Honestly, something really bugs me about that guy. It's almost like having to have a discussion with two different people. There's traditional Christian Chad, who might agree with you on any given issue. Then there's secularist Chad who will dismiss any religous/philosophical thought as it pertains to morality (apart from abortion and economics that is.)

Crude said...

There could be a lot of potential explanations for it, but ultimately my attitude is what I said it was on Feser's - I think he was out and out deceptive with regards to the question, until called on it. Once that happens, it affects my perception.

Vand83 said...

I understand completely. I think my last post was worded badly. I remember now why I avoid posting. Sorry for thread jacking.

Thank you for your blog. Honestly, it's one of my favorites.

Crude said...

No, I think it was worded fine, and thanks for the comment and the compliment both.