Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(de-Baronified) |
m (→Analysis: link back to main linkpage) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
[[category:commentary]][[category:!article]] | [[category:commentary]][[category:!article]] | ||
===Introduction=== | ===Introduction=== | ||
| − | From a rational perspective, this is a truly awful piece of writing. I [[#Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities|count]] at least eight [[straw men]], two [[appeals to guilt]], three counts of [[demonizing]] (albeit subtle), four unsupported claims, and five counts of what I can only think of as "shell gaming". | + | From a rational perspective, [[../|this]] is a truly awful piece of writing. I [[#Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities|count]] at least eight [[straw men]], two [[appeals to guilt]], three counts of [[demonizing]] (albeit subtle), four unsupported claims, and five counts of what I can only think of as "shell gaming". |
As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid; it ''almost'' makes sense, and if you are being told what you already want to believe, you'll be happy to ignore the fast moves necessary to make it appear true – and you are now armed with a new collection of seemingly-devastating "facts" to throw at liberals. The bit of science Haidt throws in as a doorstop to let his emotional pleas through is just icing on the cake. | As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid; it ''almost'' makes sense, and if you are being told what you already want to believe, you'll be happy to ignore the fast moves necessary to make it appear true – and you are now armed with a new collection of seemingly-devastating "facts" to throw at liberals. The bit of science Haidt throws in as a doorstop to let his emotional pleas through is just icing on the cake. | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
What, you say, that's not a civilized retort? ''Exactly my point.'' We can't use "gut" reactions and emotional arguments that fly under the radar of rationality to settle our differences. You try to distract us at every turn from making the rational connections that might help to find common ground and untangle the mess, while arguing in favor of an intolerant and willfully ignorant ideology whose lack of fundamental integrity is at the root of it. | What, you say, that's not a civilized retort? ''Exactly my point.'' We can't use "gut" reactions and emotional arguments that fly under the radar of rationality to settle our differences. You try to distract us at every turn from making the rational connections that might help to find common ground and untangle the mess, while arguing in favor of an intolerant and willfully ignorant ideology whose lack of fundamental integrity is at the root of it. | ||
| + | |||
==Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities== | ==Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities== | ||
This isn't a complete list, but it catches the highlights. Some sentences are counted more than once due to multiple sins. | This isn't a complete list, but it catches the highlights. Some sentences are counted more than once due to multiple sins. | ||