completely different ...
There are times when i can barely stomach the visits to other blogs. I can't help but feel moral repulsion.
I was with my brother at an Octoberfest event last night, umpa band and all there. Thinking about the stereotypes of the German ... i always have to shake my head about the evil that arose there in the 20th century ... and how did it?
First ... of course ... real people are not stereotypical. Those images are just photo ops.
More importantly, though, it is because i believe that hatred and evil are cunning, and the subtle forms bother me more than sometimes even the overt.
I am talking about the forms of hatred that are mockery and other diminutative attacks that engage not issues. Political cartoons are often overt examples, but most political art.
It disturbs me that all someone has to do is make a painting of Bush (or Clinton before him) as a monkey type characature and 1/3rd of the population will think that's "just so funny".
A third is all you need. The brownshirts came to the fore with far less than that, and to power with not much more than that. They did not have to defeat the arguments of their political enemies because they had already ridiculed them into the corner ... like the elementary students ridicule and mock the smart kid. The herd animals that surround these events are shamed into not even considering the opinions of others.
All humans beings reserve respect. Everyone knows this. We have, for the most part, and thank goodness, reached a state where mockery of race, religion and sex are monitored closely and called out when they occur. (We live in a nation of free speech ... anyone can say what they want as far as i'm concerned ... but in so doing they marginalize themselves. That is the kind of monitoring in place.)
But there is still much mockery and ridicule that gets you invited to seats of power rather than religated to the margin. Evil always finds another form. These political thirds may shread the country. Listen to what they say ... that they don't even need to debate their political enemies because their enemies are bufoons and monkeys. Evil is insiduous.
If you are not showing respect to the goals and beliefs of your opponents, you are probably partaking in anti-intellectual persecution.
Its a simple rule. Most everyone agrees. Humans deserve respect. (Animals too, in their way, but that is a different topic.)
Good honest debate is needful.
Some of these debates will get heated, and ugly. That's fine, that's not what i am attacking here. It is that propensity here today that if you draw an picture of Clinton and Lewinsky in most any characature form, 1/3 rd of the population will think "that's just hilarious" ... and if you don't agree they will ridicule you.
If this went on only amongst the fringe of the unwashed, like the KKK these days, i would not fear it so much. But no, if you are sitting at a table with a group of people you are supposed to agree that the current President is an idiot ... and people look at you like you have a third eye if you ask for a little respect for the man. You can bring up facts, it does not matter. He released military records with a battery of different test scores and grades ... enough to run a statistical analysis against. His IQ is likely in the 120-125 range. Not Oxford, certainly, but around the top quartile at least.
But like the "football players are dumb" stereotype, and others ... you can point at all you want that NFL offensive linemen routinely outscore attorneys and chemists on the Wunderlich tests ... it does not matter to those that already "know".
Again ... if this was a problem amongst those of average or lesser intelligence i would find it less inciduous. But it seems like the more intelligent one is, the more likely they are to think that either Clinton or Bush is evil or stupid or both. (They don't say "stupid" about Rhodes Scholars, of course, they lack common sense, or have certain glaring gaps in education [moneterist economics, say], something like that.)
"Whenever I thought of you I couldn't help thinking of a particular incident which seemed to me very important. You & I were walking along the river towards the railway bridge & we had a heated discussion in which you made a remark about 'national character' that shocked me by its primitiveness. I then thought: what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc. & if it does not improve your thinking about important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious ... You see, I know that it's difficult to think well about 'certainty,' 'probability,' 'perception,' etc. But it is, if possible, still more difficult to think, or try to think, really honestly about your life & other people's lives. And the trouble is that thinking about these things is not thrilling, but often downright nasty. And when it's nasty then it's most important". - Ludwig Wittgenstein (letter to Norman Malcom, 1939)
I was with my brother at an Octoberfest event last night, umpa band and all there. Thinking about the stereotypes of the German ... i always have to shake my head about the evil that arose there in the 20th century ... and how did it?
First ... of course ... real people are not stereotypical. Those images are just photo ops.
More importantly, though, it is because i believe that hatred and evil are cunning, and the subtle forms bother me more than sometimes even the overt.
I am talking about the forms of hatred that are mockery and other diminutative attacks that engage not issues. Political cartoons are often overt examples, but most political art.
It disturbs me that all someone has to do is make a painting of Bush (or Clinton before him) as a monkey type characature and 1/3rd of the population will think that's "just so funny".
A third is all you need. The brownshirts came to the fore with far less than that, and to power with not much more than that. They did not have to defeat the arguments of their political enemies because they had already ridiculed them into the corner ... like the elementary students ridicule and mock the smart kid. The herd animals that surround these events are shamed into not even considering the opinions of others.
All humans beings reserve respect. Everyone knows this. We have, for the most part, and thank goodness, reached a state where mockery of race, religion and sex are monitored closely and called out when they occur. (We live in a nation of free speech ... anyone can say what they want as far as i'm concerned ... but in so doing they marginalize themselves. That is the kind of monitoring in place.)
But there is still much mockery and ridicule that gets you invited to seats of power rather than religated to the margin. Evil always finds another form. These political thirds may shread the country. Listen to what they say ... that they don't even need to debate their political enemies because their enemies are bufoons and monkeys. Evil is insiduous.
If you are not showing respect to the goals and beliefs of your opponents, you are probably partaking in anti-intellectual persecution.
Its a simple rule. Most everyone agrees. Humans deserve respect. (Animals too, in their way, but that is a different topic.)
Good honest debate is needful.
Some of these debates will get heated, and ugly. That's fine, that's not what i am attacking here. It is that propensity here today that if you draw an picture of Clinton and Lewinsky in most any characature form, 1/3 rd of the population will think "that's just hilarious" ... and if you don't agree they will ridicule you.
If this went on only amongst the fringe of the unwashed, like the KKK these days, i would not fear it so much. But no, if you are sitting at a table with a group of people you are supposed to agree that the current President is an idiot ... and people look at you like you have a third eye if you ask for a little respect for the man. You can bring up facts, it does not matter. He released military records with a battery of different test scores and grades ... enough to run a statistical analysis against. His IQ is likely in the 120-125 range. Not Oxford, certainly, but around the top quartile at least.
But like the "football players are dumb" stereotype, and others ... you can point at all you want that NFL offensive linemen routinely outscore attorneys and chemists on the Wunderlich tests ... it does not matter to those that already "know".
Again ... if this was a problem amongst those of average or lesser intelligence i would find it less inciduous. But it seems like the more intelligent one is, the more likely they are to think that either Clinton or Bush is evil or stupid or both. (They don't say "stupid" about Rhodes Scholars, of course, they lack common sense, or have certain glaring gaps in education [moneterist economics, say], something like that.)
"Whenever I thought of you I couldn't help thinking of a particular incident which seemed to me very important. You & I were walking along the river towards the railway bridge & we had a heated discussion in which you made a remark about 'national character' that shocked me by its primitiveness. I then thought: what is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc. & if it does not improve your thinking about important questions of everyday life, if it does not make you more conscientious ... You see, I know that it's difficult to think well about 'certainty,' 'probability,' 'perception,' etc. But it is, if possible, still more difficult to think, or try to think, really honestly about your life & other people's lives. And the trouble is that thinking about these things is not thrilling, but often downright nasty. And when it's nasty then it's most important". - Ludwig Wittgenstein (letter to Norman Malcom, 1939)
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 10:06 AM
2 Comments:
In response to some off-line (email) comments ...
... the point is not about political humor. We aren't trying to put Jay Leno's monologue or Saturday Night Live skits out of business. These things are fine.
The point is this ... the way in which an artist or politically driven cartoonist can use such cheap and formulaic devises and the target audience not only doesn't say "do it better" but holds it up as if it were genius work.
It grates on me the same way that seeing an otherwise intelligent teen listening to the most formulaic pop music and think it is great.
But at least in that case i can write it off as youth and inexperience.
In the case at point there is no such out. I see it amongst mature folks of great intelligence and generally discerning taste.
That is the point.
I responded on my blog...seems to tie into the "ad hominem" debate of the spring.
http://molecularphilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/10/cheap-shots-hatred-and-evil.html
Post a Comment
<< Home