The Chaff

Monday, March 31st, 2008

Why Wingnuts Write Wrong (It’s not the heat: it’s the stupidity)

Clif over at Sadly, No! thrashes a book review by Brent Bozell, in which Bozell graciously provides an example of How Not To Be Understood:

Alterman argues that conservatives loathe Hollywood because they, like the rich everywhere else, are expected to “embrace the right-wing politics that would benefit their economic self-interest and leave the opinion business to the professionals.” What conservative in his right mind has ever uttered this thinking? What conservative having lost his mind advances this belief?

This paragraph triggered an epiphany for me: is it possible that wingnuts are using some kind of “rhetorical deniability”? 

Look at this sentence:
(1) Alterman says
  (1.1) conservatives loathe Hollywood
  (1.1.1) BECAUSE they (i.e., Hollywood) are expected to
  (1.1.1.1) “embrace the right-wing politics
  (1.1.1.1.a) that would benefit their economic self-interest
  (1.1.1.2) AND leave the opinion business to the professionals
(2) [Hollywood is] like the rich everywhere else

Note the number of different ideas in that sentence: I count seven separate statements, not including the causality assertion of “because” in 1.1.1 (you could dispute the factuality or the causality of that statement independently: call it 7.5).

Now note Bozell’s rebuttal:
(3) What conservative has ever uttered this thinking / advances this belief
  (3.a) [what conservative is] in his right mind
  (3.b) [what conservative] having lost his mind

<i>This belief</i>? WHICH belief is that? He just named a minimum of 6 beliefs, and then does not specify which of those 6 he is referring to. So when someone (like Clif) soundly thrashes any one of the beliefs (like 1.1.1.2), Brent can say “Ha! Stupid Moonbat! I wasn’t talking about 1.1.1.2–I was talking about 2: Conservatives never claimed Hollywood folk are like rich folk everywhere! Take that!”

Of course, he can easily substitute any combination of the 6 “beliefs” as necessary; in a pinch, he can even claim he was referring to belief 1.1.1.1.a. (After all, who in their right mind would assert that right-wing politics benefit someone’s economic self interest?)

Even better, the addition of the opposing conditions 3.a and 3.b makes it completely and totally impossible to answer Bozell’s question. If you put forward a conservative (such as Bozell) that you believe espoused any combination of the belief set, he just pops off with “Clif just said I have lost my mind! Ad Homina-homina-hominem! Mean ol’ unhinged moonbats!” Or he can take the opposite condition “Ha! So you agree that I’m in my right mind–therefore I am right! PWNED!!”

Just like intelligent design, Bozell’s hypothesis is framed so incompetently that it can’t be argued against or disproven under any rules of logic and rhetoric. Wingnut writing is just too bad to be shot down.

Is it possible that wingnuts are taught to write this poorly on purpose? Or are they really just that ignorant?

This entry was posted on Monday, March 31st, 2008 at 9:38 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

---

3 Responses to “Why Wingnuts Write Wrong (It’s not the heat: it’s the stupidity)”

1. Interrobang Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 12:11 pm

   I don’t know who you are, but I think I love you. Discourse analytics always makes me feel all tingly in my private bits. Now I’m going to put on my rhetorician hat:

   What you are pointing at is, in fact, a variation on a wingnut rhetorical technique, a subset of “move the goalpoasts” known vernacularly as the “Gish Gallop,” after the Cre(a)ti(o)nist who first brought it to use in public. Basically, the object of the Gish Gallop is to tinfoil the rhetorical radar by spewing out so many premises, crystallised factoids of bullshit and opinion, or just plain lies in as short a span as possible, in order to make one’s argument impossible to refute because it simply can’t be unpacked.

2. WereBear Says:
   March 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm

   Love your title! A Canadian Professor, Dr. Altemeyer has an online book called “The Authoritarians” which explains that this is actually how their minds work.

   Since they do have a lot of contradictory stuff in their heads, they have to make sure these incompatible thoughts are held apart by sheer force of will. Not only does this suck up energy which could be used for thinking, they literally cannot follow any train of logic to a conclusion. They do not have gears that mesh. So it’s not really a matter of writing poorly on purpose. And it’s not just ignorant.

   It’s literally that their brains don’t work right. And we have the scientific research to prove it.

   http://realityprinciples.blogspot.com/2007/03/focus-on-reality-challenged.html

3. Interrobang Says:
   April 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 pm

   Thanks in part to you, I wrote an entire blog post on right-wing argumentation tactics, and linked to you approvingly. That is a very nice unpacking of a Gish Gallop.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

---

---