How Wrong I Was Just Proves How Right I Was

Nov 25, 2009

By Ken.

Do you contribute something worthwhile to the marketplace of ideas, or are you just a noisy asshat? Here's one way to tell: how do you act when you are proven wrong about something? Do you learn from the experience and admit you were wrong — or do you double down?

These days there's an extremely irritating trend towards doubling down. Faced with the fact that they rushed to judgment, or were hoaxed, noisy asshats increasingly respond a jaw-dropping premise: "the fact that I was taken in just shows you that my point was premised on truth."

Case in point: Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was hoaxed — or at least pretended to be hoaxed — by a satirical report about the contents of Obama's college thesis, which purportedly called for redistribution of wealth. When the hoax was revealed, did Limbaugh own his mistake? He did not. He doubled down:

"So I shout from the mountaintops: 'It was satire!'" Limbaugh said on the program. "But we know he (Obama) thinks it. Good comedy, to be comedy, must contain an element of truth, and we know how he feels about distribution of wealth.

This is by no means the sole province of the right. We see that today at Pandagon, a lefty blog offering occasional islands of insight in an ocean of orthodoxy. Pandagon was faced with the news that the death of part-time census worker Bill Sparkman — found hanged with "fed" written on his chest — may have been an suicide disguised as a murder. This conflicted with Pandagon's received wisdom — common on lefty blogs — that Sparkman's death represented the clear and present danger of right-wing rhetoric. Did Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon point this out as a lesson on the dangers of rushing to judgment? She did not. Just like Rush Limbaugh, she doubled down.

But as much as the hate-mongerers will surely conclude they get 100% off the hook for this, they do not. Sparkman concluded that this was an effective disguise for his suicide because he’d been subjected to so many concerns about his safety working the Census. How realistic those concerns are is somewhat beside the point, since terrorism is about creating the perception of danger. Loud-mouthed threats aimed at government workers, right wing gun nut paranoia about “big government”, shirts with “jokes” about shooting liberals—all these add up to an atmosphere of fear that made Sparkman believe that this murder scenario was realistic. His fraud and suicide are evidence that creating a threatening, violent atmosphere is effective, and so no, the hate-mongerers are not off the hook.

Limbaugh and Marcotte both illustrate how any reversal in today's news cycle can be spun as a victory. It also illustrates the dangers of being utterly captured by partisan rhetoric. Limbaugh and Marcotte could have turned these stories into object lessons about critical thinking, reservation of judgment, and the perilous allure of believing what we want to believe. But Limbaugh and Marcotte are, to a large extend, peddlers of opinion-porn, so they don't play that. Instead, they decided to be noisy asshats.

Don't be a noisy asshat. We're all wrong sometimes. Use it productively.

Last 5 posts by Ken

Marc Stephens Threatens Me Some More - February 3rd, 2012
Now I Belong To The Ages - January 31st, 2012
The Road to Popehat: The Oracle At Popehat Edition - January 27th, 2012
Step Right Up For The Thursday Censorious Asshat Roundup - January 26th, 2012
Only State Senator Ralph Shortey of Oklahoma Is Vigilant Against Fetus-Eaters - January 25th, 2012

19 Comments

asshats

18 Comments

Patrick • Nov 25, 2009 @9:51 am

Speaking of doubling down, Andrew Sullivan is blaming Michelle Malkin for pointing out that he's one of the guilty parties.

Notice Malkin's formulation: "pointed his finger" or "immediately fingered." I said the "possibility" remained real and that "we'll see." How can you finger someone when you simultaneously say we do not yet know what happened for sure?

This discussing a post titled "No Suicide" which stated:

That's the one thing we know for certain about the Kentucky lynching

commenting that other scenarios for murder were "hard to understand" or otherwise doubtful, and that:

the most worrying possibility – that this is Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts – remains real.

Sullivan's position boils down to, "I put the word `allegedly' in front of the outrageous accusation. How can you blame me?"

Pathetic.
Paul L. • Nov 25, 2009 @12:43 pm

More brilliance from Amanda Marcotte

DNA Isn't All There Is To Reproducing
Men have no right to complain and stop paying child support when they discover that a child is not their biological offspring.
Patrick • Nov 25, 2009 @12:49 pm

Hilarious Paul!

Marcotte probably had the stooge her ex-boss John Edwards convinced to claim he fathered Rielle Hunter's love child in mind when she wrote that.
DMG • Nov 25, 2009 @1:04 pm

Ever heard of "in loco parentis"? Current state of the law, at least in my state, means you're still on the hook if you've acted as a father to a child who is not your biological offspring. That's not exactly being out on the fringe, even if we were to agree that it shouldn't be that way.

Incidentally, in the linked article she doesn't actually say what you say she said.
Ken • Nov 25, 2009 @2:34 pm

Sullivan’s position boils down to, “I put the word `allegedly’ in front of the outrageous accusation. How can you blame me?”
Andy McCarthy at NRO, in other words.
TomH • Nov 25, 2009 @4:50 pm

Even a little more puzzling is this comment in which it is opined that "tea baggers" are wimps because they did not actually kill Mr. Sparkman. It seems that peaceful protest and political action is for losers.

Comment #3 @ponygirl – "But if we assume this is true, then it does sort of reinforce my theory that the teabaggers are all bark and no bite. Not that I want them to bite, but they sure do like to talk about revolution and retribution and going galt and watering the tree of liberty and all that without actually doing any of those things. "
RD • Nov 25, 2009 @8:36 pm

The similarities are very apt, IMO, and Patrick's point about Andrew Sullivan is even moreso. It's worth noting, however, that Amanda Marcotte and Rush Limbaugh occupy incomparable places within their respective ideologies. For example, no Federally elected official grovels to teh mighty pandagon, never mind in a live-to-air situation. Aside from the expression of stupid rationality, the similarities and comparisons end. Unless, I'm missing the part where Marcotte and/or Sullivan have been "big time" media personalities since before Bill Clinton got his dick sucked.

Seriously. To make the "see, both sides do it" argument you have to compare a prominent DFH blogger with the presumptive king of right wing talk radio? Yeah, they're totally on the same level and soundly help you make the argument that "both sides" are comparatively bereft of intellectual consistency/honesty.

As a proud Dirty Fucking Hippie, I regularly read this blog because I work with lawyers and dig legal commentary and, most importantly, it challenges my perspective and ideology in a way that, mostly (this post excluded), respects my nominal intelligence. But way to go all glibertarian retard up in this joint. You sure showed this libbie a thing or two about what's what.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the place. But, sheesh.
Ken • Nov 25, 2009 @10:34 pm

That would be terribly trenchant criticism, RD, if I had said that they were equivalent in scale. But I didn't. Marcotte, compared to Limbaugh, is obscure, and has "power" only in limited and unimportant circles. Comparing dishonest rhetoric from two people does not necessarily imply that the people are equivalent.

And for the record, I noted Marcotte's obnoxious rhetoric, thought it seemed thematically familiar, and thought a while until I realized what it reminded me of. It's not like I started out with Limbaugh and had to cast around to find a rhetorical equivalent.

Would it be your position, RD, that lefty thinkers are generally more rhetorically honest than righty thinkers?
RD • Nov 26, 2009 @1:45 am

In your post you made no mention or allusion to the difference of scale regarding the idiots mentioned. It was more of a "look how dumb the libtards are" without acknowledging the fact that Amanda Marcotte is bush league compared to Rush Limbaugh.

"Would it be your position, RD, that lefty thinkers are generally more rhetorically honest than righty thinkers?"

No. That would not be my position. But lining up the king of all AM talk radio against a 2nd tier DFH blogger as a point of comparison is pretty fucking weak. When Amanda Marcotte has a few million readers per day, perhaps her hypocrisy and stupid reasoning will be comparable to Limbaugh's. Till then, it's great that you found a liberal foil for your libertarian perception. Too bad it's a silly fucking joke.
Patrick • Nov 26, 2009 @3:10 am

If you want scale RD, how do you feel about Andrew Sullivan?
DMG • Nov 26, 2009 @8:18 am

Is Andrew Sullivan considered a liberal now? Just checking.
Ken • Nov 26, 2009 @8:26 am

It was more of a “look how dumb the libtards are” without acknowledging the fact that Amanda Marcotte is bush league compared to Rush Limbaugh.

RD, I think you're projecting onto me.

But lining up the king of all AM talk radio against a 2nd tier DFH blogger as a point of comparison is pretty fucking weak. When Amanda Marcotte has a few million readers per day, perhaps her hypocrisy and stupid reasoning will be comparable to Limbaugh’s.

Again, I think you are projecting. Are you saying that the rhetorical technique the two of them use is not comparable, just because one is relatively obscure and the other seems omnipresent?

There really isn't a good liberal comparison to Limbaugh. I suppose Maddow comes closest in that general arena, though I have no idea whether she's used this rhetorical trick. But again, my interest was not in casting around to find a liberal to compare to Limbaugh. My interest was in talking about a rhetorical trick that I find distasteful. The desire to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush is something that exists in your head, not mine.
RD • Nov 27, 2009 @3:21 pm

Patrick: Yes, I would consider Andrew Sullivan a much better comparison. Sully's audience and professional reputation, I think, would be closer to par with Limbaugh's. The Atlantic might not be the EIB, but I have to imagine it's a couple pay-grades above pandagon.com. Plus, Sullivan has enjoyed the distinction of being regarded as a professional thinker/pundit/intellectual (whatever that's worth?) for quite some time.

Ken: I do apologize. The first quote of mine that you cited in your last above post is in-artfully phrased and does appear to project upon you. My apologies.

"Are you saying that the rhetorical technique the two of them use is not comparable, just because one is relatively obscure and the other seems omnipresent?

In your post you turn your argument on this phrase: "This is by no means the sole province of the right. [...] This conflicted with Pandagon’s received wisdom — common on lefty blogs — that Sparkman’s death represented the clear and present danger of right-wing rhetoric." There is not a word of that, including the details of the incident which I omitted, that I disagree with. I offer no defense for Amanda Marcotte, nor is any deserved, for employing a dishonest and solipsistic rhetorical trick.

They are certainly comparable, IMO. As I said previously, "[t]he similarities are very apt. . ." But that's as far as the comparison goes. And yes, I realize you have since stated that your point was not to equate the two, but part of the crux of your argument was that the "double down" employed by Limbaugh was not "the sole province of the right." That can be said about every POV or ideology out there in the world. However, to hold up a "relatively obscure" blogger against one of the most notable commentators in the media writ large, the argument gets a little diluted.

"There really isn’t a good liberal comparison to Limbaugh. I suppose Maddow comes closest in that general arena, though I have no idea whether she’s used this rhetorical trick. But again, my interest was not in casting around to find a liberal to compare to Limbaugh. My interest was in talking about a rhetorical trick that I find distasteful. The desire to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush is something that exists in your head, not mine."

As a liberal minded person, what is notable to me (and somewhat telling regarding competing ideologies) is that it is hard to come up with a comparison of scale to Rush Limbaugh, both in market share and intellectual consistency. So much so that one has to hit the depth chart and find a 2nd tier blogger/political operative/small time author to hold up to Limbaugh. Though, in reading your ensuing comments, I admit that I may have misinterpreted the initial set-up, but your post wasn't very clear about it either. Marcotte deserved the mockery and scorn you heaped upon her. Yet, like I mentioned before, to frame the argument in a "both sides do it" fashion and then compare Rush Limbaugh to Marcotte kind of diminishes the argument somewhat. But, IMO, you clarified the point your were trying to make so that makes it kinda moot.

As for finding a liberal in Limbaugh's league, good luck. There are plenty of liberals who employ all sorts of dishonest and intellectually suspect arguments. However, most don't seem find much success in the upper echelon of the liberal movement; editorial page "liberals" notwithstanding. I would suggest the pious dooshnoozle Keith Olbermann or the logically challenged and angry "everyman" Ed Schultz. Rachel Maddow, while extremely passionate about her views, seems to have a certain regard for making sound arguments (littered with snark and invectives as they are). But then again, I cannot say that I watch any of them with any regularity, so don't take my word for it.

Where did I accuse you of wanting "to bash liberals and somehow excuse Rush"? Projection, eh?
RD • Nov 27, 2009 @3:22 pm

PS. Sorry for being to dumb to figure out the "blockquote" tag.
Patrick • Nov 28, 2009 @1:05 pm

Is Andrew Sullivan considered a liberal now? Just checking.

He calls himself a conservative, but I wouldn't know. Left fascists and right fascists all look alike to me.
PatrickKelley • Nov 28, 2009 @8:38 pm

If I were going to contrast Limbaugh with a liberal who is well known and who has a large audience, I would go with Keith Olbermann. Admittedly, Olbermann still is probably also not nearly as popular as Limbaugh, if you measure popularity according to listeners or viewers, but he would fit into the "well-known and influential" category. Plus, he's arrogant and even more of a blowhard than Limbaugh. Whether he uses that particular rhetorical trick or not, I couldn't say, as I haven't watched him in a lot of years, but I am going to guess he probably does from time to time. Actually, I am going to guess he does it about every third or fourth time he opens his fucking mouth.

The main point is, both sides do it, and that includes both punditry and public officials. It's not about being man or woman enough to admit you're wrong, it's a presumption that their target audience and supporters think they should never be wrong. Sort of like the Pope.

By the way, I think the problem with paternity law is probably summed up as, in the majority of states, a case of legal fatherhood. If you are the legal father, you have the responsibility that comes with that. If you later find out you are not the biological father, that's all too bad, but the needs of the child have to come first.

All of which is why I advise, every chance I get, against a man adopting a woman's children by another man as his own. It's begging for future problems down the road.
DMG • Nov 29, 2009 @6:40 pm

Which is fair enough, except that you were using him as a countering "liberal" voice. If you don't know what he is other than what he calls himself, or that he's a "fascist" of a left or right persuasion (interesting idea in and of itself), then he doesn't work as an example.

Unless you meant him as a counterpoint to Marcotte, then never mind.
DMG • Nov 29, 2009 @6:41 pm

And I clearly don't know how to use the blockquotes either…sorry.