Fighting the Bullshit | Mother Jones

By Kevin Drum| Sat Jan. 28, 2012

Karl Smith says lefty intellectuals have a problem dealing with bullshit. Case in point: Mark Zandi spending several hundred words this week demonstrating, yet again, that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't responsible for the 2008 financial meltdown:

Mark, Mark. Clonazepam. It’s a beautiful thing. Let go.

I am betting that maybe five people in the US actually believe Fannie and Freddie caused the housing bubble. Maybe half a dozen more are actively lying about it.

The rest are just Bullshitting. That is, they don’t really care what the truth is one way or the other. This is just a way to gesture in the general direction of the federal government and say Urrhh!!!

Ah, but what's the proper response to bullshit? Karl is almost certainly right that among actual conservative economists, only a few actually believe that Fannie and Freddie played a big role in the financial collapse. But those few true believers have a significant effect on:

Other conservative thought leaders, who don't know anything themselves but are happy to parrot congenial talking points.

Conservative legislators, who need intellectual justification for their speeches on the House floor.

The media, which is willing to continue suggesting that this is a genuine controversy as long as conservative thought leaders and conservative legislators keep pushing it.

Millions of rank-and-file conservatives, who listen to Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal editorial page and honestly believe this stuff because they're getting it from people they trust.

Does Mark Zandi know this? Of course he does. He's not an idiot. But what's the proper response? If you ignore the bullshitters, then the anti-GSE narrative gets set in stone whether or not it's bullshit. If you fight it, at least it remains fluid for a while — possibly long enough for things to settle down.

So sure, it's kabuki. All of us who write about politics for a living understand that 90% (at least) of what we do is just shadow boxing. Controversies are invented, then debunked, then invented all over again, and debunked. Sometimes the inventors know perfectly well what they're doing, while other times they've talked themselves into actually believing their own nonsense. In either case, these things are mostly just proxies for the issues that really matter.

But so what? The Reichstag fire was wholly invented too, and look what happened after that. As demeaning as it is, fighting back against bullshit is every bit as important as fighting back against the real stuff.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

I thought this was interesting because I suspect that a lot of the Right's talking points are indeed code-words/ideas for a couple of things they can't quite express in polite society.

Like criticising the Housing Act is a way to say - "niggers should not be helped". Or being against abortions is a way to say "women should be sexually modest and kept in the house". Etc.

Basically, being on the Right, socially, is to declare that the late 40s, early 50s were a Golden Age (if you ignore the rock & roll and jazz stuff and a couple of other items such as the risk of WWIII with the Ruskies) and we should return to this imagined 50s.

But saying this loud make you sound either crazy, racist, anti-feminist (in the most basic, human decency sense of the word) or all three rolled in one.

So you use code-words, code-agenda.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

And a lot of the left's talking points are basically just a way of saying "I'm a better person than you".

I don't think being against abortion is a means of trying to keep women down. A lot of the people who are against it also want to keep women down, but I'm not going to deny that they genuinely believe that abortion is murder. If it comes to it, I guess I too would probably say that on balance, yeah, if you abort a foetus then you're killing it. (I wouldn't ban abortion, because it's convenient and I'm not all that bothered about killing babies as long as the wide-scale social implications are positive.) Thing's got a heartbeat and brainwaves and everything. Might not be terribly advanced, but then neither is a goldfish and no one tries to convince us that they're not actually alive. On the other hand, the left does a great job of convincing itself that foetuses are just parasites or whatever, because that fits in nicely with its own ideas.

Just saying. Everyone's intellectually dishonest, not just the right.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

And a lot of the left's talking points are basically just a way of saying "I'm a better person than you".

Examples? It seems to me it's often perceived that the left is all bleedin' hearts for the poor and the downtrodden but, in its discourse and arguments, I rarely see it used as such. Often the arguments made are based on long term optimisation, at the societal level.

Quote:

I don't think being against abortion is a means of trying to keep women down. A lot of the people who are against it also want to keep women down, but I'm not going to deny that they genuinely believe that abortion is murder.

You got to look at the history of the anti-abortion mvt and its arguments. It really did start with a general dislike of women's supposed lewdness - as proven by the fact they got pregnant. The "they're murdering babies" was mostly a tactical argument, although it has worked well and convinced a lot of people.

Quote:

If it comes to it, I guess I too would probably say that on balance, yeah, if you abort a foetus then you're killing it.

?! Of course. No one says otherwise. The question is whether a foetus is the same thing as a baby...

Quote:

I wouldn't ban abortion, because it's convenient and I'm not all that bothered about killing babies as long as the wide-scale social implications are positive.

Would you say the same thing about the poor, the blacks, the Pakistani, the very very rich etc? Killing them all/a large subset would have positive implications, socially speaking.

Quote:

Thing's got a heartbeat and brainwaves and everything. Might not be terribly advanced, but then neither is a goldfish and no one tries to convince us that they're not actually alive.

Again, that's confusing the actual pro-choice argument. No one says it's not alive. But it's not a baby, it's not a human being (yet) and thus, indeed, it's more comparable to a parasite (who are alive, too, iirc) - which means disposing of it isn't nearly on the same level as killing an actual baby.

Quote:

Just saying. Everyone's intellectually dishonest, not just the right.

Hmmmm. Show me the same denial of sciences on the left than the one you see on the right. Seems to me you want to stick too much to "the [x] controversy" type of reporting when, scientifically, there isn't a controversy...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Examples? It seems to me it's often perceived that the left is all bleedin' hearts for the poor and the downtrodden but, in its discourse and arguments, I rarely see it used as such. Often the arguments made are based on long term optimisation, at the societal level.

Look at the justifications given for specific policies. If you read the Guardian almost all of the political comment articles boil down to a moral argument. Right-wing papers do use moral arguments, of course, but in general they're a lot more utilitarian.

Quote:

You got to look at the history of the anti-abortion mvt and its arguments. It really did start with a general dislike of women's supposed lewdness - as proven by the fact they got pregnant. The "they're murdering babies" was mostly a tactical argument, although it has worked well and convinced a lot of people.

I think "was" is the key word in that.

Quote:

?! Of course. No one says otherwise. The question is whether a foetus is the same thing as a baby...

I was using the word "foetus" to describe a stage in baby development, followed by newborn, toddler, all the way through to geriatric.

Quote:

Would you say the same thing about the poor, the blacks, the Pakistani, the very very rich etc? Killing them all/a large subset would have positive implications, socially speaking.

I think that the opposite has been proven to be the case. They end up fighting back and everything gets very messy. Foetuses don't have that disadvantage. Same with pigs or cows. Once apes upgrade to RPGs instead of sticks, I dare say we'll stop wiping them out too.

Quote:

Again, that's confusing the actual pro-choice argument. No one says it's not alive. But it's not a baby, it's not a human being (yet) and thus, indeed, it's more comparable to a parasite (who are alive, too, iirc) - which means disposing of it isn't nearly on the same level as killing an actual baby.

At which week does it become the same thing as killing a baby?

Hmmmm. Show me the same denial of sciences on the left than the one you see on the right. Seems to me you want to stick too much to "the [x] controversy" type of reporting when, scientifically, there isn't a controversy...[/QUOTE]

Well okay, tell me the precise time at which a foetus becomes a baby, and then the controversy will, indeed, be over. The precise problem with this issue is that there isn't an easy answer.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Look at the justifications given for specific policies. If you read the Guardian almost all of the political comment articles boil down to a moral argument. Right-wing papers do use moral arguments, of course, but in general they're a lot more utilitarian.

Really? I'll take your word for it but my impression was meaningfully different. The 'utilitarian' aspect of the right ("individual responsibility"), imho, links very strongly with the earlier version of that argument, namely "your moral short-comings are what's keeping you down/explaining the differences between you and I"...

Quote:

I think "was" is the key word in that.

As I said - it was a successful strategy. But the core intent of the people who started that stuff was and remains to punish women, especially sexually active women. And we should do well to remember it and use it as a counter-punch.

Quote:

I think that the opposite has been proven to be the case. They end up fighting back and everything gets very messy.

The Germans managed. And so did the English/Spanish in the Americas. But I do take your point.

Quote:

At which week does it become the same thing as killing a baby? Well okay, tell me the precise time at which a foetus becomes a baby, and then the controversy will, indeed, be over. The precise problem with this issue is that there isn't an easy answer.

I think the exact scientific concept applicable here is "fuzzy limits"(Constraint satisfaction problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - Namely

"Classic CSPs treat constraints as hard, meaning that they are imperative (each solution must satisfy all them) and inflexible (in the sense that they must be completely satisfied or else they are completely violated). Flexible CSPs relax those assumptions, partially relaxing the constraints and allowing the solution to not comply with all them. This is similar to preferences in preference-based planning. Some types of flexible CSPs include: (...)

Fuzzy CSP model constraints as fuzzy relations in which the satisfaction of a constraint is a continuous function of its variables' values, going from fully satisfied to fully violated".

Same thing with adulthood. Is it 18? 21? What about 20? 19? 17? 22? But one thing is relatively sure - A 5 yo isn't an adult and you would have a hard time making people believe that someone over 40 should still be a child, legally.

So, similarly, I cannot give you a hard coded number or point at which a foetus becomes a baby. And, because a foetus is indeed alive, I am not even sure it matters that much per se, conceptually.

So I would say that, logically, we ought to pick as an upside limit to abortions the viability outside of the womb - And I would favour a fairly low probability tolerance (say, 25%) - These days, given our technology, that's about 23 weeks. Hopefully, it'll go lower in the future.

And, frankly, I think that's still pretty late - Nearly all abortions occur well before - 88% occur before the 13th week...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...arming-edition

In my email today, the Washington Times passes along some great news: "Global warming trend ended in 1997, new data shows." The link is to a piece in the Daily Mail that, sure enough, tells us that our real worry isn't warming, it's the possibility of the Thames freezing over. And to prove that the world is no longer heating up, they include one of my all-time favorite graphs. I've recreated it using NASA data:



Look! No warming trend! But do you see the problem? I've given you a hint by embedding the 1997-2011 data within a larger chart, instead of just producing it on its own, as the Mail did. So that should make things pretty obvious. But in case you need a bigger hint, click the link for the full set of data, not cherry-picked to begin with the huge El Niño spike of 1998.



Hey look! The warming trend is back!

EDIT: I add the link to the Daily Mail article. It's interesting in its own right, to measure the level of disinformation and lying. Tell me again how the left does the same?

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Really? I'll take your word for it but my impression was meaningfully different. The 'utilitarian' aspect of the right ("individual responsibility"), imho, links very strongly with the earlier version of that argument, namely "your moral short-comings are what's keeping you down/explaining the differences between you and I"...

Your short-comings, certainly, not necessarily moral short-comings. For the left it's all "shit or bust, we're going to improve you for your own good", which I agree could be a utilitarian concept too, and can be to a certain extent ("Chavs should all eat organic bok choi stir fries, and we'll save the NHS..."), but even that is usually couched in terms of risk, i.e. the morality of the 21st century.

Quote:

As I said - it was a successful strategy. But the core intent of the people who started that stuff was and remains to punish women, especially sexually active women. And we should do well to remember it and use it as a counter-punch.

We do, AFAIK.

Quote:

The Germans managed. And so did the English/Spanish in the Americas. But I do take your point.

I'm not sure that Nazi Germany can be considered as 100% successful, still...

Quote:

I think the exact scientific concept applicable here is "fuzzy limits"(Constraint satisfaction problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) - Namely "Classic CSPs treat constraints as hard, meaning that they are imperative (each solution must satisfy all them) and inflexible (in the sense that they must be completely satisfied or else they are completely violated). Flexible CSPs relax those assumptions, partially relaxing the constraints and allowing the solution to not comply with all them. This is similar to preferences in preference-based planning. Some types of flexible CSPs include: (...) Fuzzy CSP model constraints as fuzzy relations in which the satisfaction of a constraint is a continuous function of its variables' values, going from fully satisfied to fully violated". Same thing with adulthood. Is it 18? 21? What about 20? 19? 17? 22? But one thing is relatively sure - A 5 yo isn't an adult and you would have a hard time making people believe that someone over 40 should still be a child, legally. So, similarly, I cannot give you a hard coded number or point at which a foetus becomes a baby. And, because a foetus is indeed alive, I am not even sure it matters that much per se, conceptually. So I would say that, logically, we ought to pick as an upside limit to abortions the viability outside of the womb - And I would favour a fairly low probability tolerance (say, 25%) - These days, given our technology, that's about 23 weeks. Hopefully, it'll go lower in the future. And, frankly, I think that's still pretty late - Nearly all abortions occur well before - 88% occur before the 13th week...

At the end of the day, the concept's still debatable. However, you'll almost never see a pro-choicer who isn't convinced that a foetus is just an object up to whatever date they've decided is the limit for abortions. If they were looking at the evidence in itself, you'd expect them to be just as confused as the floating voters. Instead they all go for the answer that supports their pre-existing arguments.

Quote:

EDIT: I add the link to the Daily Mail article. It's interesting in its own right, to measure the level of disinformation and lying. Tell me again how the left does the same? Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

But I wasn't accusing the left of lying, I was accusing it of deluding itself.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Your short-comings, certainly, not necessarily moral short-comings.

Well, one never seems very far from the other... Lack of work ethics, etc.

Quote:

... but even that is usually couched in terms of risk, i.e. the morality of the 21st century.

I might be willing to say that the left deludes itself/has a moral viewpoint (such as "be charitable, reform the poor classes") and hide it behind some ethically-neutral sounding language such as "risk" but I don't think you can say "risk is the new morality". There is a very good, very utilitarian reason to use 'risk' as a discriminating factor. It costs money to take care of people who ignore risks/don't insure.

Quote:

We do, AFAIK.

Really? AFAICT, we are (as we do below) left with arguing what is a foetus and when does it become a baby and stuff like that. We don't question the motivation of the people behind the movement.

Quote:

I'm not sure that Nazi Germany can be considered as 100% successful, still...

I'd say the Holocaust was "successful" in eliminating large chunk of the Jewish people.

Quote:

At the end of the day, the concept's still debatable. However, you'll almost never see a pro-choicer who isn't convinced that a foetus is just an object up to whatever date they've decided is the limit for abortions. If they were looking at the evidence in itself, you'd expect them to be just as confused as the floating voters. Instead they all go for the answer that supports their pre-existing arguments.

Well, I am pro-choice and I am not saying a foetus is an object. Just that it's not a baby. Do you have some data/articles or is it mostly an impression? Not that impressions aren't valid
but it's hard to argue for or against.

Quote:

But I wasn't accusing the left of lying, I was accusing it of deluding itself.

Fair enough.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Quote:

Well, one never seems very far from the other... Lack of work ethics, etc.

I don't think so. It can all be seen as a matter of choice from a right-wing point of view. You choose to work or not to work.

Quote:

I might be willing to say that the left deludes itself/has a moral viewpoint (such as "be charitable, reform the poor classes") and hide it behind some ethically-neutral sounding language such as "risk" but I don't think you can say "risk is the new morality". There is a very good, very utilitarian reason to use 'risk' as a discriminating factor. It costs money to take care of people who ignore risks/don't insure.

There's a good reason to use morality as a discriminating factor too. The problem with risk is that it's frequently used to take away people's choices.

If someone does something that's morally condemnable, the general reaction is "you made a bad choice, and here are the consequences". If you do something risky, it's more common to see the reaction "you are mentally deficient, let us make your decisions for you". It's a way of being judgemental without being seen to be judgemental.

Quote:

Really? AFAICT, we are (as we do below) left with arguing what is a foetus and when does it become a baby and stuff like that. We don't question the motivation of the people behind the movement.

You just did.

Quote:

I'd say the Holocaust was "successful" in eliminating large chunk of the Jewish people.

My objective isn't to eliminate foetuses for teh lulz. It's to have as stable a society as possible.

Quote:

Well, I am pro-choice and I am not saying a foetus is an object. Just that it's not a baby. Do you have some data/articles or is it mostly an impression? Not that impressions aren't valid but it's hard to argue for or against.

Well I can look for some data, but how often have you heard someone say "I think foetuses are babies and we should totally be allowed to kill them"?

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.