Blogic
An archetypal nanodrama of blog post and comments
May 16, 2008 16 comments
Blogger: A’s proposition p about B’s sentence s is false.
Reader 1: Oh my god, I can’t believe you are defending everything B ever wrote!
Reader 2: But my completely different proposition q is true, so even if p is false, A is still right to say it!
Reader 3: Yes! Even though p is wrong, A is, er, morally right, because of yet another different proposition r !
Reader 4: Why won’t you also condemn the notorious E? Oh my god, you must be a crypto-e-ist!
Blogger: Sigh.
Hypothetically speaking, could “Blogger” be a Bristolian academic, “A” a pompous Decentist, and “B” a dead Marxist philosopher?
[sorry, I missed your previous thread – that’d be a ‘yes, but it was hardly fucking cryptic, was it?’ then]
I am confident that it works for many possible identities of “Blogger”, “A”, and “B”! (Although I suppose I’m limiting its scope somewhat with Reader 4’s comment: perhaps we can consider that one optional.)
I think you can safely genericise Reader 4:
“Reader 4: Why won’t you condemn [political hate figure C] and all his works, and condemn B while you’re at it? Oh my god, you’re a crypto-[extremist ideology D]-ist!”
Done — thanks!
Actually, it’s more like this (which I have transcribed from crookedlumber):
May I be Reader 5 and say that A is a pompous, fart who impresses himself to onanistic extremes and is not to be believed, even if he tells the truth, simply because he is so awful and ought not be given the satisfaction. No propositions pn at all have any credibility and are incredible because he is a huge wanker. OK?
Here’s my version:
A: B is to be despised for writing about n in a way that isn’t a categorical and unequivocal condemnation. Clearly B is an apologist for n, which means that he is either evil or insane.
Blogger: fallacy of the excluded middle (sort of). B is making a point that doesn’t require either apologetics or condemnations.
Reader: Obviously you are either evil or insane.
sw, thank you for spilling so voluminously on the frills of unspeak.net.
abb1 — your version has an attractive economy. And Roger/Reader 5’s rule has a lot going for it in terms of the most constructive use of one’s time.
So you’re saying that you’re okay with everything that the notorious “e” has ever done and that you want “a” to come down with cholera.
Asshole.
Sigh.
Love it. Featured:
http://blogs.chron.com/goodmom.....day_2.html
This week an Australian muslim group lost its bid for approval to build an Islamic school at Camden, an idyllic redneck outpost near Sydney. Xenophobia is alive and well among the peasantry. I personally object to faith-based schools of any religion because I don’t favour the wholesale propagation of any brand of bullshit, but that’s another story.
After the council meeting which knocked the school on the head on the grounds of…ahem…”numerous inadequacies in relation to planning instruments” nudge nudge wink wink, and during which the town hall was packed to overflowing with flag-brandishing locals, an ABC-TV (that’s like the BBC) reporter asked one lady, “Why are you wearing an Australian flag?” The lady replied, “Why shouldn’t I be? Why is Channel 2 against Australia?”
You can see the video here.
That was depressing. Rudd said he opposed the school on “planning grounds” when he visited.
Not just a blogging but a book review thing. As we all know giving a good review to a book by X implies total agreement with everything X has ever said, including views ascribed to X that X does not actually hold. There are hot button people, just as there are hot button topics.
Just so. I for one agree not only with everything Slavoj Zizek has ever written, but also with things he has not written, such as that Stalin was not such a bad guy after all.