D3: Colonel Jessup Moment

Methinks the SJWs are about to have a Colonel Jessup Moment.

You want me on Twitter.  You need me on Twitter.

You want me on Twitter. You need me on Twitter.

Vox Day notes that the rabbits have come up with a “block list” for Twitter users they find offensive, with, it seems, a matching block-bot.  This is something I thought they would’ve come up with years ago, but now that I think about it, it makes sense.  You see, they need Vox, and Adam Baldwin, and above all #GamerGate.  It’s the only way they know they’re special.

There’s an analogue in the art world.  As David Thompson points out so frequently (and hilariously!), there is no “art” these days but state-subsidized art.  This is because our modern “artists” have embraced “transgression” — épater les bourgeois, if you want to be snooty about it — as their only value.  Which only works if les bourgeois give a shit.  Which they don’t, having been continually epatered (feel free to correct my French, humorless internet pedants) by the entire cultural establishment since about 1912.  When nothing’s shocking, then shocks don’t sell, and “art” is reduced to petitioning the government for a handout.

What the art establishment needs, in other words, is a truly influential Jerry Falwell type.  Someone who knows, and very publicly appreciates, the old forms, and is willing to pay to see them restored.  If the Koch Brothers went looking for a modern Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of their Führerbunker — that kind of thing.  If that happened, oh, the appreciation of “art” we’d see!  There’d be lines stretching halfway to Brooklyn outside MoMA’s doors.  You wouldn’t hardly be able to see Piss Christ for all the ironic facial hair clogging the galleries.  It’d be the best thing to happen to art since HUAC.

I’m calling the recognition of this reality a “Colonel Jessup Moment.”  You know Nicholson’s famous speech from A Few Good Men:  “You want me on that wall!  You need me on that wall!”  Without les bourgeois to épater, there is no art.  With no #GamerGate to tweet bile at, you don’t get to be special.  No #GamerGate, and the whole social justice crusade turns into Work 227.

“If I can make something without adding any objects I feel more comfortable. It’s like, if I can’t decide whether to have the lights on or off then I have them both on and off and I feel better about it.”

Is that not the entire rabbitschauung in two sentences?  Semper fi, baby.

D3: Spliteral

Spliteral – a technique of refudiation, in which a metaphor or other rhetorical trope is split from its context and taken literally in order to “disprove” a speaker’s broader point and / or “prove” a different assertion.

An example:

When they signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers were committing themselves to the principle of representative democracy.  Now, with agitation over voter registration laws, Progressives are threatening the integrity of the process…

To which the spliteralist would reply

Ha ha wingnutz!  As everybody but stupid RethugliKKKAns knows, the Declaration wasn’t signed until August 2.

Often followed by the implication, or outright assertion, that the case for stricter voter registration laws (or whatever) is therefore conclusively disproven.

See also crimestop:

The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.

D3: Doin’ the Humpty Hump

Can you define that for me?

Can you define that for me?

Confucius insisted on the rectification of names.  To truly define something is to understand its proper relationship to everything else, and so proper definitions are essential for the maintenance of social order.

The Humpty Hump is the exact opposite of that.  It’s the deliberate confusion of definitions, and so much of liberalism doesn’t work without it.  President Obama, for instance, famously argues with dictionaries.  No doubt Mirriam-Webster’s audit notice is already in the mail.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

They’re Doin’ the Humpty Hump, y’all.

How about a meta-example?  You can talk about the Humpty Hump in a variety of ways.  There’s  Michel Foucault‘s way — “the esotericism of knowledge.”  One way a priestly or scholarly class maintains its power, Foucault says, is by dressing up its findings in mythical mumbo-jumbo.  That you literally can’t understand what a professor is talking about proves it’s too deep for blue-collar brains.

There’s the political way, of which Obama’s dispute with the dictionary is just a particularly blatant example.  “Political correctness” is, at bottom, a pidgin we use to pretend that similar things are different, or different things the same.  As George Orwell noted, PC euphemisms

will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

There are Braille signs in titty bars because blind people are “differently abled.”

Or there’s the troll way, where you simply straight-up instruct people that words don’t mean what they mean.  Click the link, and behold a writer being informed that when he writes “externalize,” he really means “rationalize.”

Externalize:
2: to attribute to causes outside the self :rationalize <externalized his lack of ability to succeed>
Rationalize (from the link)
1b: broadly: to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>
Which, as we can see, are not quiiiiiite the same.  (But I probably just don’t know the proper definition of synonymous, either).

Doin’ the Humpty Hump, then, is the process by which liberals try to force their weird, idiosyncratic, just plain wrong usages onto commonplace words.  And even these redefinitions vary with the requirements of the moment:  Obamacare’s not a tax, until it is.  The question is which is to be master — that’s all.

As it turns out, the one that is to be master is always the one that makes liberals right.

And you’re stupid if you disagree.

D3: Beachhead Facts

ddayMorgan has a good post about liberal “arguments.”  The catalyst is some bullshit about Global Weather, but it applies across the board — these people talk and talk and talk (and talk and talk and talk), but nowhere in their blather is there anything approaching an actual argument.

With, you know, facts and reason and stuff.

One of the reasons we started this blog was our collective frustration with liberals who claim to be science’s BFFs, but conduct their lives with the adamantine imperviousness of grand inquisitors.  They claim to want debate, yet summarily reject anything that isn’t one hundred percent compliant with their opinions.

Even facts.  Especially facts.

They will claim, of course, that the facts have a liberal bias.  Oxymoron aside, though, they can do this without their heads exploding from cognitive dissonance because they’re in possession of what I’ve come to call “beachhead facts.”  An amphibious attack has to establish a beachhead, a secure perimeter where reinforcements and supplies can be landed, before the rest of the invasion can continue.  So liberals glom on to one or two facts — they hoard ‘em up with the grim compulsiveness of squirrels before a particularly hard winter — and from there proceed to launch the rest of their attack.

Problem is, like a poorly planned amphibious landing, the beachhead facts just aren’t big enough to handle the rest of the argument.  Imagine Eisenhower compressing the whole of D-Day down to a single landing zone the size of a putting green.  The best troops in the world can’t win under those conditions.  Even if the Nazis don’t get ‘em, they’ll simply be crushed to death by all that materiel stacking up in the surf behind them.

Global Weather is a great example.  Here’s how Morgan puts it:

Oh, you might delight in repeating over and over that the “science” is on your side because CO2 acts as an insulator and the greenhouse gas effect exists. It’s an established fact! Look it up! But when we get to that more crucial, thorny matter…of WEMUSTACTNOWORITMAYBETOOLATE!!. That’s where the problem is.

The starting points of the Global Weather argument are both indisputably true.  There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide is an insulator.  The conclusion, though….

There’s just no scientific way to get from “carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas” to “we need a Global Climate Gestapo.”  The assumptions behind just one of the standard Warmist talking points could fill a phone book.  Like Ike trying to cram all of Operation Overlord into Utah Beach, the facts get smooshed by the weight of all that apocalyptic rhetoric.

I’ll give most liberals the benefit of the doubt (if that’s quite the right phrase) — I don’t think they’re doing this consciously.  They’ve got their good intentions, and they’ve got their two precious little beachhead facts, and they’re nobly setting off to save the world, but they’re not quiiiiite able to see how the one doesn’t naturally lead to the other.  It’s less ideological malice and more the “protective stupidity” of crimestop:

The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short….protective stupidity.

How can you acknowledge that the greenhouse effect exists, but not worry about global warming?  Don’t you care about The Earth?

Some of them do know what they’re doing, of course.  They’ll thunder like an Old Testament prophet about the obvious, indisputable truth of their beachhead facts… only to get caught on the logical errors, misperceived analogies, and all-around sloppy thinking that leaps from one or two small truths to globe-spanning conclusions.  These are the folks who gave us moonwalking, the Maudochromatic flourish, and all the other gruesome dodges the Dim Devil’s Dictionary exists to document.  These are the folks who will never, ever concede an opponent’s point — even if it would advance their own argument.  They retail the rottenest chestnuts of them all.

D3: Liberal Transitivity Axiom

 

For some reason this came up in a Google Image search from "transitivity." Let's just go with it.

For some reason this came up in a Google Image search for “transitivity.” Let’s just go with it.

The Crimson Reach has noticed part of the Liberal Transitivity Axiom.

Why doesn’t the left, instead of getting bogged down over the question of whether George W. Bush is ‘smart’, just say ‘okay, he’s smart. And? He was still a bad President.’ I’d agree with them!

But to say that, they’d have to recognize that there’s a difference between being ‘smart’ and being a good executive, that they are not the same thing, and (by implication) that a Presidential race isn’t and shouldn’t be a competition for who is the ‘smartest’.

Liberals honestly seem to believe that intelligence, competence, good intentions, and moral virute are non just synonymous, but mathematically identical.  And all of them are identical with the public expression of liberal opinions.  So:

Liberal Transitivity Axiom (n) — the immutable law of the universe by which loudly spouting leftist talking points makes one into the avatar of all that is good.

The LTA is the most frustrating part about talking to a leftist, because it guarantees that any discussion quickly becomes a lecture.  It’s basic math — if “spouting liberal talking points” equals “intelligence,” then anyone who does not spout liberal talking points is by definition unintelligent.  And who “discusses” things with morons?  Talking to a liberal about anything is like trying to explain the designated hitter rule to a dog.

You’re the dog.

 

 

D3: Goodperson Bingo

Surprising absolutely nobody, liberal twit New York Times reporter (BIRM 3x) Nick Kristof isn’t too happy about the new Pope’s lack of progressive credentials:

Pope Francis seems liberal on social justice but sadly traditional on sexuality and contraception

(via Ace).

Still Catholic; same funny hat

Still Catholic; same tall hat

Equally unsurprisingly, a great many people are ragging Kristof about this.

So far, so predictable.  But here’s the thing:  Despite being a liberal, a reporter, and a New York Times employee, Nick Kristoff isn’t stupid.  He knows a pro-gay, pro-abortion “Catholic” has roughly the same chance of being elected Pope as I do of being elected chair of the Berkeley Wymyn’s Studies program.

So why does he post crap like this?

I know the answer, of course, same as you.  He’s playing Goodperson Bingo.

Good*per*son Bing*o (n).  A competitive public display of Goodperson status.  Players assert an item of leftist cant in response to a news item.  Points are awarded based on the number of contrary responses.  The more people who disagree with you, the more popular you are; the most popular is by definition the most virtuous.

This is, sadly, one of the keys to understanding the liberal mentality.  Since anyone who disagrees with a leftist is stupid (just ask ‘em!), everyone who disagrees with a leftist in public is one more confirmed kill in the war against idiocy.  So-and-So thinks the Pope shouldn’t be all about gay marriage?  Well, that proves it– So-and-So is a moron.

It’s very important for liberals to have these public affirmations of being smarter than someone else.  Otherwise how would they know?

Remember the functional definition of liberalism:  The lifelong attempt to make high school turn out right.  Being “smart” — or virtuous, or educated, or attractive, or whatever — is, to the liberal, exactly the same as being “cool” is to a high school kid.  Nothing can make you cool.  You either are or you aren’t, and the only thing mere effort can do is to put on the right clothes and get the right haircut and post the right Facebook statuses and maintain ever-watchful vigilance against the thousand and one microscopic social missteps that will hurl you — forever – into the ranks of the losers.

Goodperson Bingo is just a high-tech way of laughing at the fat kid with braces in the cafeteria.

 

*I was going to call this entry “virtue bingo,” but apparently there really is a site called Virtue Bingo out there.  Wouldn’t want to be guilty of the ol’ copyright infringement, ay wot?  Sadly, though, Virtue Bingo appears to be a site where people really play bingo, for money and stuff.  Which I had no idea was even a thing.

 

Authoritah!!!

CartmanAuthoritahOver at Morgan’s we’re having another endless thread about “science.”  This time it’s about the proper use of “authority,” and the fallacy of Appeal to same.

An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy of the form “X is true because person Y says so.”  It’s a fallacy both formally and informally.  It’s formally wrong because the truth of a proposition doesn’t depend on the speaker — two plus two is four even if Hitler says so; it’s not five even if Gandhi insists it is.

It’s infomally wrong because it’s nebulous, and here’s where it gets interesting.  Most people trust authorities up to a point.  It’s part of the social contract.  If I’ve got a cold, I go to the doctor instead of cracking a textbook on cell biology and firing up the bunsen burner.  The doctor in turn trusts his mechanic when it comes to engine repair, the mechanic trusts his accountant on taxes, etc.  Society as a whole benefits from such specialization, and so we’ve agreed to outsource a part of our thinking to field specialists.

Part, but not all.  If you go to the doctor with a headache and the first thing he wants to do is order up a colonoscopy, a reasonable person asks for an explanation.  This is true no matter how many degrees the doctor has or from where, his publication record, or anything else.  It’s just common sense.

Liberals, as a general rule, don’t seem to believe this.  Which is funny, because they write endless polemics showing that liberals are more comfortable with nuance, or that conservatives are more authoritarian.  Yet when it comes to a lists of Things Which Shall Not Be Questioned, the liberal list dwarfs the conservative.  Things like:

  • the proper capacity of a rifle’s magazine
  • the point at which life begins
  • the future temperature of the atmosphere
  • how much money is “too much”
  • that IQ exists
  • that men and women have inherent differences
  • that powers not delegated to the federal government, or to the states, are reserved for the people
  • that our common citizenship is trumped by ethnic ancestry
  • that the life of a fetus is only the mother’s concern, but the life of a tree affects us all

&c.

It’s one of the main reasons I’m not a liberal — it’s too confusing.  Anne Hathaway makes a million dollars for two months’ work, which means she’s Made Enough Money (TM), but she’s also a feminist, so she gets a pass.

The only way out of this dilemma is to outsource all your thinking.  Anne Hathaway is a kulak, but Lena Dunham says she’s ok, so we’ll go after that Ann Coulter bitch instead.

This is the mentality that makes the liberal world go.  It’s frankly Stalinist, but since Alinsky-lite liberals and neo-Gramscians have taken over the organs of our culture, it’s the attitude that makes modern society go.  It’s ok to hate, provided an authority figure tells you how… and whom.

It’s the only way to overcome the Molotov-Ribbentrop dissonance that would cause more honest heads to explode.  Eventually the Party leadership will decree something that is so perpendicular to common sense that your whole worldview will be thrown into disarray.  At that point, the intellectually honest will leave the Party… while all the various toadies, lickspittles, and other asskissers who cherish their group identity above their balls will elevate Appeal to Authority from a logical fallacy to the infallible lodestone of life.

This is one of the nastiest implications of 1984.  Winston Smith spends his days doctoring history in the Ministry of Information, but it’s unnecessary.  The Party members– the only ones who have the power to challenge Big Brother — are so invested in their Party membership they’d believe no matter what their lying eyes said.  We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.

Welcome to 2013.

Questions You’re Not Supposed to Ask

What the fuck does this accomplish?

BERKELEY — For the 100 or so women and girls — and a smattering of male allies — who danced in Civic Center Park on Thursday afternoon, Valentine’s Day wasn’t about hearts and candy.

Organizers called the day, replicated in communities throughout the U.S. and in 205 countries, “One Billion Rising,” named for the one-in-three women and girls across the globe who will be raped or beaten in their lifetime.

“We have reclaimed Valentine’s Day,” said Satya Starr, an abuse survivor who participated in the event. “Women actually need to have an end to abuse and rape. That’s what they really need, not chocolate and flowers.”…

One Billion Rising used dance to celebrate women’s bodies, which organizers said are often denigrated, and encouraged participants to protest violence against women. As they executed the choreographed movements posted on the One Billion Rising website, many of the dancers sang along to recorded music reverberating through the park: ” … This is my body, my body’s holy/ No more excuses, no more abuses …”

I’m really trying to figure out a scenario in which this activity would be useful.  As in, maybe there’s a rapist in the audience who, overcome by the “choreographed movements posted on the One Billion Rising website,” decides to quit raping and turn himself in to the cops?  Or there’s a potential rapist who encounters same, and decides to hold off?  Or there’s a third world despot somewhere trolling YouTube on his off hours and, overcome, decides to shut down the rape annex in the Ministry of Truth?  Or a spectator decides to join the police?

Commenter Soozcat calls this kind of thing junk-food activism, which is such a great phrase I’m going to steal it for the Dim Devil’s Dictionary with her permission.  Not only is its effect negligible by design, it could actually make things much, much worse — this being Berkeley, I can see some naive girl walking down a darker street later at night than she normally would, because just last week the One Billion dance-a-thon ended rape in the community.

Question the second:  “one-in-three women and girls across the globe who will be raped or beaten in their lifetime.”  One in three?

Call me a horrible patriarchal pig if you must, but that number don’t pass the sniff test.  So I followed the links from the One Billion Rising website.  One led to this booklet from “UN Women,” which said

Throughout the world, one in three women will experience violence in their lifetime, such as beating, rape, or assault.

Notice the qualifier:  “violence…such as.”  Which — of course — makes it sound like they’re claiming that one in three women will be beaten, raped, or assaulted.  But when you click on the .pdfs of the report, you get

One in three women throughout the world will suffer this violence in her lifetime; she will be beaten, raped, assaulted, trafficked, harassed or forced to submit to harmful practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

Not to take a thing away from the severity of those other crimes, but…. “harassed”?  I’ve seen enough fudged data in my lifetime to spot a weasel word when I see one.

The other link from the One Billion Rising website led to this .pdf, which claims

The most common form of violence experienced by women globally is physical violence inflicted by an intimate partner. On
average, at least one in three women is beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused by an intimate partner in the course of her
lifetime.

Which also looks pretty weaselly.  “Coerced” covers a lot of ground.  Having had a few intimate partners in my lifetime, I’d sure like to know just how they’re defining that one.  Is “an expensive dinner on our anniversary” coercion?  (And if so, was I “coerced” into shelling out most of my week’s paycheck?).*

Which leads to question the third:  why do they feel the need to juke the stats in the first place?  Call me a sexist if you must, but I’d like to go on record as saying that rape is bad.  So are assault and genital mutilation.  If I found out about an uptick in any of them in my community, I’d….

Well, actually, now I’m starting to figure it out.  We’re seeing, I think, one of those quintessentially liberal dilemmas where two competing streams of goodthink collide.  One is the standard “all women are victims of something.“  The other is that sense of information pollution Morgan wrote about.  Let’s look at that list again:

she will be beaten, raped, assaulted, trafficked, harassed or forced to submit to harmful practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM).

Except for that weasel word “harassed,” the rest of those are specific acts.  In America, at least, the police keep pretty good records.  You can look up crime in Berkeley, for instance, with maps and everything.  The cops, no doubt, have far more detailed data than this, with advanced statistical analysis.  And looking at that yellow-orange blob smack in the middle of all that red, it seems the Berkeley police are doing a pretty good job, all things considered.

Now before you start screaming that I’m “blaming the victim” or something, let’s take a step back and calm down.  Notice what I’m actually saying, not what you assume a Krazy Kapitalist Konservative would say.  Any rape, assault, genital mutilation, etc. is a tragedy.  If the One Billion ladies of Civic Center Park were out there dancing to raise awareness of these crimes in Berkeley, I’d get out there and boogie with them, just on the off chance it might help.**  If they were taking donations to fund something tangible in their community, I’d kick in.  Hell, if they were taking donations to fund some global do-goodery I’d contribute, because this targets real people who are victims of real, horrible crimes.

But they aren’t doing any of that.  They’re trying to “raise awareness,” worldwide, of crimes they themselves are statistically less than likely to be the victims of.  Instead of doing something tangible for their community, they fudge the numbers up to make it look like one out of every three females is going to be the victim of a horrible crime, and then organize a big to-do that’s somehow supposed to affect the entirety of Planet Earth.  And when this has no appreciable impact on local conditions — as it pretty much can’t by definition — the net result is to make folks like me take the whole idea of “awareness raising” even less seriously.

It’d be silly if it weren’t so sad.  These are people who have the time, money, and energy to organize a hundred like-minded folks on a workday (Valentine’s Day was a Thursday this year).  Obviously that energy could be mobilized to do something tangible, with measurable goals and results.  But instead, the entire point seems to be to raise the emotional temperature of the already excitable, then set them gyrating in activity that’s purposeless by design.  Do any of them know the real crime stats in Berkeley?  What would they do differently if they did?

To ask is to answer.  Which is why, I suppose, you get in trouble if you ask them.

 

 

*if, you know, that happened.  Which I’m not saying it did.  The last thing I need is some UN global sex police jacking me up because I said “c’mon, please?!” when the lady said she had a headache.

**assume for the purposes of this post that I live in Berkeley.

D3: “The Banzai Gambit”

We must pass it to find out what's in it!

We must pass it to find out what’s in it!

Ban*zai Gam*bit.  noun.  Essentially the imperative form of moonwalking, the Banzai Gambit is a proposition in the form “X, therefore Y,” where X is empirical, Y is political, and X is unknowable by definition.

I remember one of my first political apostasies, back in high school.  We were studying World War II in the Pacific.  The teacher showed us a filmstrip that featured banzai charges and kamikazes.  My hand shot up.

“Weren’t they even trying to win?” I asked.

At the time, I was just glad to escape a trip to the principal’s office.  I wrote the whole incident off as yet another example of students being smarter than their teachers (not at all uncommon, in the hippy-dippy citadel where I endured grade school).  It was only years later when I finally realized what a bind I’d inadvertently stuck that poor lady in:

No, obviously, they weren’t trying to win.  At that point in the war, the objective was to lose with honor.  But according to liberal dogma, this is impossible.  All cultures are equally good.  No culture actively prefers death, especially when those deaths prolong an already unwinnable conflict.  And kamikazes certainly couldn’t have deliberately targeted hospital ships, since these were protected by international treaties

Well, that’s PC for you.  Still, I couldn’t help feeling a pang of regret towards Ms. Jerkins (not her real name, obviously) while following yet another desperate attempt by leftist gadflies to create a Thread that Won’t Die, and this nice piece of sarcasm from Sonic Charmer.

In both cases, the liberal argument boils down to:  “We don’t know X; we can’t know X; therefore hugely intrusive Y.”

It’s an interesting tactic.  Appeals to ignorance have long been among the feeblest of logical fallacies. And there’s the obvious Underpants Gnome quality to it, basing an entire plan of action on something that’s by your own definition unknowable.  Like kamikaze attacks and banzai charges, these “arguments” seem deliberately counterproductive.  If you really want to win the war, you’d carefully husband every man and resource.  If you really want to convince someone to get behind your hugely expensive, socially transformative policy, you wouldn’t start with an admission of ignorance on one of the fundamental points.

And yet, the Banzai Gambit does work — witness ObamaCare, which we had to pass to find out what’s in it (warning: video auto-plays).  The Zachriel differ from other alwarmists only in their OCD level — we have no idea where the “green tech” to reduce emissions will come from, much less any clue how the “binding treaties” on pollution will be enforced, but both have to be committed to posthaste.  And now the minimum wage must be raised, even though, as Sonic notes,

I might think that when the government puts a price floor on labor that has an effect – in the only conceivable possible direction for that effect to point – but I’m not allowed to ever say or think so without untangling this effect perfectly from every last variable with a definitive, complete ‘study’. Which is something that would be impossible for humans to do, hence, the minimum wage is permanently fine.

In any rational society, people who made “arguments” like this would be immediately deported to third grade, and not allowed to play kickball at recess until they’d read Logic for Dummies cover to cover.*

Alas, we don’t live in a rational society.  Our liberals have decided — evidently correctly — that most voters will fail to notice the only constant in these proposals, which is that more and more power accrues to them and people who think like them.  Banzai!!!!

 

*yes, this is a real book.  God help us.

D3: “Moonwalk” / “Moonwalking”

Michael-JJ-michael-jacksons-moonwalk-19151755-500-659

Moon*walk. Verb.  1.To retreat to the numerical half of a two-placed empirical / political proposition.  2. To pretend that the truth / falsity (verifiability / unverifiability) of the empirical claim implicitly proves / disproves the political claim.  After Michael Jackson’s stylized backwards dance move of the mid-1980s.

It’s a fascinating quirk of liberal psychology, this insistence that “the facts have a liberal bias.”  And that right there should tell you how untenable this position is, since the words “liberal” and “bias” are both subjective and facts are objective, i.e. true no matter how one happens to feel about them.  But hey, it’s the rare battle cry that appeals to logic, and “the facts have a liberal bias” isn’t the worst slogan to have ever rallied troops.  But it does lead to some interesting, and eminently mockable, verbal tics.

Like moonwalking.  Liberals have this tendency to present their policy prescriptions as if they were the only possible outcomes of hard science and cold logic.  This allows them to tar their political opponents as anti-science, on par with gap-toothed creationists and the guys who locked up Galileo.  If they get called on their political bullshit, they simply retreat to their factual — or, at least, empirical-sounding — claim.  As here, from the Thread that Wouldn’t Die:

Severian: Lest anyone be tempted to miss the point yet again — and if my ridiculously over-the-top satire weren’t enough to convey this — “science,” properly understood, cannot be used to make moral / ethical / political prescriptions, because it deals with phenomena too large and complex to be boiled down to simple, point-to-point programs.

Science doesn’t make moral prescriptions. However, as humans are warming the globe, and this warming will cause disruption of agriculture, inundation and salinization of arable lands, increased desertification, mass extinction, human migration with its attendant political destablization, and as this is avoidable, most people would combine these scientific findings with their personal morality to try and find solutions, especially as those solutions are readily available, and have many other salubrious effects. But that’s just ourselves. We happen to be rather fond of the little apes you call humans. Call it a peccadillo.

Note the little maudochromatic flourish at the end for effect.  Charming, no?  It’s a nice illustration of how all the left’s bullying tactics bleed into each other.  But it’s an even better illustration of moonwalking, since the mooted political outcome (world climate cops, basically) relies so heavily on the purported scientific claim (Global Weather).  Wading through the verbiage, you find endless assertions that this or that will happen — it’s science! — coupled with endless insinutations that only someone colossally, willfully ignorant of basic science could fail to support the politics.  When the politics are questioned, you’re invited, and then commanded, to look at the “scientific” evidence.

Pictured: The Evidence.  If you don't see how this justifies torpedoing the entire world energy industry, you hate science.

Pictured: The Evidence. If you don’t see how this justifies torpedoing the entire world energy industry, you hate science.

As if worldwide human behavior can be logically predicted, let alone mandated, from a set of (quite possibly false) air temperature readings.

Moonwalking is a two-step dance, though, and they’ve got another trick up their sleeves.  Here’s my second-favorite liberal, Ed Darrell, doing what he does second-best:

Yeah, Steve Goddard laughed, too.  He made it a point to try to ridicule James Hansen for saying the water would ever flood the West Side Highway, even with a passing rogue wave.

Then Sandy flooded the West Side Highway with a surge, and left it under water for a while.  Sandy beat Hansen’s prediction by a good decade, too, making Goddard’s denials all the more silly, and mean-spirited.

The context here, again, is Global Weather, but it could be anything.  See, Steve Goddard missed a prediction.  Which means he’s wrong wrong WRONG!.  About everything.  This is why liberals make such lousy statisticians.  Note too the word “denials.”  This makes it sound — as it was intended to make it sound — that Goddard claimed the West Side highway Highway could never flood.  No matter what.  Obviously the man is a charlatan!  We can throw out anything and everything he says henceforth, because the West Side Highway got provably, empirically wet.

One could even make the case that there’s a third step in the moonwalk — the specious appeal to cherrypicked history — but I hesitate to do so, for the sake of the children.  What, after all, are we to make of this?

Of all the great civilizations that have existed, almost all were wiped out because of environmental error, or waste, or failure to prepare for the consequences of human change in the environment.  Thus the canals that supplied water to the great city in the desert, Babylon, silted in, and the civilization collapsed.  The volcanic explosion that caused the tsunami that wiped out Minos literally blasted the civilization into the back pages of history.  The salted orchards and fields of Carthage could not hold back the desert (Tunis still pays the price).  Silt from the Yellow River has, with too much regularity, caused massive floods that kill hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands.  Lead leaching from the wine vessels of the Romans made them stupid, and the Goths didn’t suffer from that problem.  Etc., etc.

Etc. indeed. Not only are these wrong — one might consult Cyrus of Persia, for example, on the matter of those “silted in” Babylonian canals — but they’re so obviously cherrypicked they serve as their own counterargument.  Unless “conquistadors” are the environmental event that undid the Aztecs, for instance; “Alexander the Great” the Global Warming of his day; and so forth.  And did you notice that he somehow seems to claim the Thera explosion was man-caused?  He’s trying to moonwalk back to history, but his Michael Jackson impersonation is even less convincing than that fat white mental patient from The Simpsons.

michael-jackson

Isn’t it about time we retired this fad, too?

[UPDATERight on cue.  I swear, you cannot make this shit up.

But you’re right:  It’s difficult to tell with climate denialists where their odd reality ends and parody begins.  Just like creationists and fundamentalists.