liz_marcs | A Little Parable About False Witnessing and Malice from the Slacktavist...

Current Mood: busy

A Little Parable About False Witnessing and Malice from the Slacktavist...

The Slacktavist has a little parable about bearing false witness on his blog today that is really a must-read.

It's also pretty clear just who he's talking about in his parable as he tries to explain the fearful, malicious mindset we're seeing coming from the "Obama is reely a sekrit Muslim!" crowd and Palin's vicious acceptance speech, which seemed to be 50% lies. (Oooops! She lied again again! And again!)

And what really confuses the hell out of me is that even after Palin's been caught in several lies over and over again over the past week, she keeps repeating the same damn lies. It's almost like she thinks people are stupid.

The Slacktivist — reporter, progressive, and evangelical Christian — attempts to explain this mindset to us reality-based peoples in today's blog entry. (It's Part 1 of a two-part series.)

Although I am loathe to support his anti-Heinlein theory that one should never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice, since he's more familiar with the kind of mindset that he's targeting I'll take his word for it that the population of people who fall into this category is a whole lot bigger than I'd like to believe.

In the meantime, I still believe that there are some low-information voters out there who just need a few facts.

So, mon amis, I have a list of sites you should bookmark and read on a regular basis so that when you meet a low-information voter who just might believe that Obama's a supah sekrit Muslim bent on killin' whitey (presumably after he raises whitey's taxes), you'll be properly prepared to set them a-right.

[Oh, and for you GOPers out there, you might want to take advantage of these sites, too. No matter what they tell you, the facts do not have a liberal bias. I swear. Cross my heart and hope to die.]

Sites you need to bookmark until at least November 5:

PolitiFact, a graphics-heavy, interesting little site from the St. Petersberg Times. Be sure to read the commentary that comes with each of the ratings, because you'll quickly find that something may be technically true (and thus rated as true) while still being a lie.
FactCheck.org from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Not flashy, but definitely my fave. So painfully politically neutral that its earnestness rolls off the page.
OntheIssues.org, non-partisan guide to the candidates and the issues. Feels a little like it's being held together by chewing gum, spit, and a whole lot of volunteers, but definitely a good way to get a quick snapshot on where all the candidates stand.
OpenSecrets.org is where you go when you wanna follow the money in the politics.
I'm not a fan of RealClearPolitics because it's got too much opinion and not enough analysis. That said, I'm throwing it out there because it's got a lot of fans.
FiveThirtyEight (leans left), Electoral-Vote (leans center-left), Pollster.com (neutral), and Election Projection (leans right) are all excellent sites that help the common voter make sense of polling, the Electoral College, surveys, and how news (and the lack of news) affect polling results from one day to the next. Highly educational whatever your political stripe.

P.S. — Can someone tell me where the summer went? All I know is that one minute it was June 30, and now it's September 8.

Do you realize that I still owe something like 5 people phone calls from the first week in July that I said I'd call? [Tries not to look at

szandara and

kurukami and a handful of other LJ-type people who might not want the general public to know they live near me.]

I swear I meant to call. I did.

But, see, I was kidnapped by this army of ducks while kayaking...

This meeting of the Glorious Duck Revolution shall now come to order. Top of the agenda: How do we get stupid humans to feed us more bread?
[Photo taken while kayaking the Charles River on Sunday, July 27, 2008. (Photo by Lizbeth Marcs)]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Thanks for the links. The first two are especially good. I do think that some of the posters on here, however, are not aware that lies come from both sides. Not to say there isn't a lot wrong with Palin (there definitely is,) but be careful of just repeating whatever negative "facts" you hear about her, or you're no better. For example, the fact that she is under investigation for abuse of power does not automatically mean that she did abuse her power.

*sigh* This election will come down for be to the question of which I hate more: socialism, or religious stupidity. Close call.

Y'know, it's interesting. Every time someone points out something wrong about the GOP, somebody pipes up, "OH, YEAH? the DEMOCRATS AREN'T PERFECT, EITHER!"

Well, duh. But when one examines the seriousness and effect of errors... Y'know something? Bill Clinton lying about sex ... well, just about everyone does. Dumb mistake. Didn't affect his bringing down the deficit. Falsifying information to get America into an illegal war? That's treason.

Oh, and Harding screwed his teenage mistress in the Oval Office, and got her pregnant, and Republicans in Ohio still put up a memorial to the lying, cheating bugger. Apply your standards evenly or stop pretending to be fair and rational, eh?

I'm not defending Bush or Harding, or even criticizing Bill Clinton. I know it's just a generalization, but please don't lump me in with people who actually care about his little affair. I have other reasons to dislike him, but those have no bearing on the point I was trying to make. It so happens that I dislike Bush with just as much, or more, fervor.

The point isn't that the other side lies, the point is that not every negative thing you hear about a candidate is true. In the spirit of the False Witness article linked by Ms. Marcs, each of us has a responsibility to confirm rumors, about *either* candidate, before spreading them.

I wish there was some way to demonstrate on the internet that I hated both candidates, as well as their running mates. Alas, it is impossible. But please, read what I wrote without assuming that simply because I criticize you that I'm a GOP sympathizer. Republican v. Democrat is a very false dichotomy.

You're a Libertarian, aren't you?

More or less, though not the crazy-we-don't-need-any-government-at-all type of Libertarianism. It would be accurate to say that I agree with the Libertarian party about more than any other recognized party.

And I'm definitely *not* an Objectivist, if that thought occurred to you.

HA! I knew it! I knew I recognized that particular combination of overly theoretical equivocation combined with reality blindness and a pretense of objectivity.

It's a particularly pernicious memetic contagion that tends to infect young white men in college, usually when they realize that they don't automatically have all the money and nubile concubines they think they should, because they're so awesome.

Hopefully that last bit doesn't describe you, so you might be salvaged...

Well, I'm white, 24, and working on my doctorate in economics, does that count? Or does only undergraduate school count? It was actually the studying of economics which led me to my current position. Perhaps I'll yet change; I cannot deny the possibility, not would I want to.

I'm not sure I understand your assertion that it "occurs" because "they realize that they don't automatically have all the money and nubile concubines they think they should." What attracted me in the first place is the idea that you aren't owed *anything*, you don't automatically deserve one *bit*. Rather, everything has to be earned.

Right, and of course everybody has equal ability to earn such things. You are WHITE, MALE, and EDUCATED. That automatically puts you in the top 10% of privilege in America.

Of course, I'm sure you earned everything you have, all by yourself, with no help from others, and certainly no help from the icky-poo government.

I suppose I'm missing the basis for your implication that life must always be fair. Such a state of affairs is impossible to create.

I earned a series of private grant scholarships (e.g. Edgar Krahn mathematics scholarship,) and took a programming job in college to pay for my other expenses. If you're referring to my *parents*, and the fact that they supported me until I went to school (well, my father died a year before, but that's not really relevant,) I can't deny it. If you're going to hold that against me, there's not much I can do about that.

That paragraph may sound like bragging, but I only brought it up because of your implication.

...there's so much cluelessness here I don't know where to start.

Let's see, from the top: because of your birth, you are privileged in society. Your race makes you privileged, because you are assumed to have earned your position, and are shown favorable treatment in scholarships and hiring. Your sex makes you privileged for similar reasons. The fact that you could afford an education of any sort shows that you are privileged, because you came from a family with the means to send you to school. These things are not your fault, and they do not make you a bad person; they just are.

Now of course, we all know that life can't be perfectly fair. This is a given. But how on Earth do you go from "perfect fairness can't be achieved" to "we should not even try"? More to the point, how do you justify ignoring blatant unfairness perpetuated both consciously and unconsciously by the people in power? You can't simply handwave that and pretend that everyone has an equal chance to succeed; it's simply not true.

(no subject)

rudyhenkel.livejournal.com - 2008-09-09 06:35 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

flewellyn.livejournal.com - 2008-09-09 06:42 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

spiralleds.livejournal.com - 2008-09-09 18:11 (UTC) - Expand

"...that I'm a GOP sympathizer."

Yet you continue to declare that Repubs and Dems 'both' tell lies. And you yourself brought up the Dem v. Repub contrast, claiming 'both' tell lies. You've only defended Repubs, however.

Ok, then, to be fair, here's my list of what is legitimately wrong (in my opinion) with Sarah Palin:

* Became a reformer only when expedient

* Utilizes family for political machinations

* Favored windfall profits taxes

* Opposes abortion

* Opposes gay marriage

* Is a Creationist

* *Might* have been involved in gubernatorial abuse of power.

* No foreign policy experience

I'm sure I could think of more, if you find that insufficient.

This is a comprehensive list only if you give Palin the Republican benefit of the doubt. Reformer? Really? ! I mean....really?! That's a term taken straight of McCain's TV ads. Anything else? You really want to pretend?

What, exactly, are you accusing me of pretending at this point?

Impartiality, not being a GOP tool despite yourself...

You've defended two Republicans, brought up socialism, and compared disparate real world things as opposite equals. Hm. You've not said one thing about an actual Dem, just defended McCain and Palin both.

I've only defended McCain and Palin because they are the only ones being attacked in this thread. If someone wants to make claims on here about Obama that I think are factually untrue, I'd be glad to argue with them as well.

You think because that I'm not a socialist, I must be a Republican? As another poster quickly deduced, I consider myself more a libertarian more than anything else. I think that a government taking my earnings and giving it to others is just as much a violation of rights as forbidding abortion. You may disagree with these values, but there's nothing hidden about my position.

Yeah, well, libertarianism only works in a perfect world where all people start out equal in size, power, status...etc., etc., No wonder young males like you like it so much. Proves my point about age and experience, though.

It only proves your point is one assumes that you're correct in your analysis.

It depends on how one defines "works." My standard of societal success rests on two things: efficiency of the economy and individual rights. By individual rights I mean rights reciprocal between individuals. e.g. I won't kill you, you won't kill me.

What standard of "works" are you using?

"Works" as in "everyone has what they need to survive and make the most of their lives". More than just individual rights, individual and collective prosperity.

See, to me, that is a dangerously malleable definition. "and make the most of their lives," can be slowly expanded to include complete and comprehensive, health care, college education (never mind the fact that everyone having a college education is extremely wasteful,) perhaps next will be roomy housing and cosmetic surgery (I doubt that last one, but your definition could encompass it.)

It also completely ignores the concept of limited resources. This is reflected in the sometimes encountered naive view that we could, theoretically, give anyone whatever surgery they needed. Those countries that have governmental health care have limits on what ages can get what treatments precisely because this isn't possible.

"and make the most of their lives," can be slowly expanded to include complete and comprehensive, health care, college education

You say that like it's a bad thing.

(never mind the fact that everyone having a college education is extremely wasteful,)

How? Demonstrate this. Give sources.

It also completely ignores the concept of limited resources. This is reflected in the sometimes encountered naive view that we could, theoretically, give anyone whatever surgery they needed.

Sure, if you want to ignore the fact that, with prompt medical attention, many conditions that require surgery later on can be caught early and treated without. Or that, without the massive advertising programs undertaken by for-profit drug companies to no good end, drugs would not be nearly as expensive as they are. Or that we could in fact devote a great deal more time and energy to actual health care were it not for the expensive and wasteful system of insurance and liability that currently exists in this country.

Those countries that have governmental health care have limits on what ages can get what treatments precisely because this isn't possible.

I presume you have a citation for this?

Libertarians claim impartiality, but tend to defend Republican positions far more, because of that whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" bullshit that the rich sell the people in an effort to justify not giving a crap about the poor.

What's sad is, at least the Republicans realize that it IS expedient bullshit; libertarians actually believe it.

Hmm. It may be true than Libertarians support Republicans more than Democrats. However, I do not think that will be as true this election due to the very centrist nature of his politics. Most Libertarians are also isolationists, something else that won't win points for McCain.

It's not a matter of "giving a crap." I give to the salvation army, I donate blood, I volunteer assistance with a local MathCounts program. The issue, for me at least, is that the government does not have the right to take my money and give it to others.

Do you believe in paying for services rendered? Because the government provides a lot of services. Your taxes are payment for those. It's like your electric bill or your water bill, this is your "government services bill".

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only