House of Eratosthenes

A test a liberal (supposedly) lays down to (supposedly) test the validity of an opposing argument that has him backed into a corner, to which he will (supposedly) show a decent level of respect if only he can be (supposedly) satisfied that the conditions of the test have been (supposedly) met.

Like here, for example. Where “Rob” schools me in no uncertain terms about tea parties.

I thought I made my position on the protesters’ racism clear, MK. I’ll repeat it in case you somehow missed it:

[Tea party protesters are] racist and stupid only when they speak out against a black president who hasn’t raised our taxes when a white president was responsible for massively expanding the size of our government and national debt. In other words, they’re racist and stupid only when their tea tantrums are clearly hypocritical.

Since you’ve yet to say one word about Bush’s policies, you’ve yet to demonstrate that you aren’t a hypocritical racist. Feel free to address my point rather than repeating your point about how you oppose Obama’s policies.

“Feel free” disguises the intent that this is a command, Colonel-to-Lieutenant (or President-to-automaker), that I should be following, in a mine’s-not-to-reason-why style. And the dressing it up as a command, in turn, shifts the focus away from the terms of the exchange that is ostensibly taking place here. I have absolutely no hope whatsoever of convincing Rob I am not a racist, should I fail to produce this criticism I’ve previously dished out about President Bush’s policies? Or is it more like, Rob will be required to disclaim any of his thoughts that I might be a racist, if I do so produce?

But you see what’s happening here? It’s a subtle topic drift. Rob — poor dumb bastard — created this thread called A big thank you to Janeane Garofalo for calling it like it is. Jeneane Garofalo, you see, thinks tea parties are all about white supremacy. Rob is lending his good name, such as it exists anyway, to the idea that Garofalo hit a bulls-eye.

So whether Rob recalls it or not, the topic is really about whether that raging nutbar Jeneane Garofalo is a raging nutbar or not. Pursue that subject too diligently, too accurately, and too long…and Rob will look like a raging nutbar. So we need the topic drift, for Rob’s sake. We have to start going down this bunny trail about whether I’ve ever criticized President Bush for outrageous spending, or not.

The very first post at House of Eratosthenes, from four and a half years ago, would settle that one; many other entries would do the same thing. But I am prevented from presenting these links to Rob by Thing I Know #272:

When people accuse you of doing something or being something and it isn’t true; when it comes as a surprise to you that anyone would think such a thing about you; I’ve found it is a mistake to put any effort into proving them wrong. If they’re sincere, something is coloring their perception, and whatever it is, it’s outside of your control. If they’re not, then they’re trying to get you to do something that’s probably contrary to your interests. Either way — you aren’t going to change their minds. Don’t try.

Why does Rob need to throw down this lib-mus test? Because he “knows” things he doesn’t really know, and he damn well knows he knows things he doesn’t really know. He seeks to prove the unprovable: That you show Rob fifty tea-party protesters, Rob can show you fifty racists. He doesn’t know this, of course. He pulled it out of his butt. Or, rather, Ms. Garofalo’s butt. But he thinks he has a way to make it evidently true…

So we have a “Rob’s Rule.” If you have a word to say against the precious Replacement Jesus in the White House, you have to have said the same things against the last guy or Rob will call you a racist. And you have to have documented proof. Give it to Rob.

Well, I’ve got the proof but there’s my own TIK #272. Rob will have to sit & spin.

But isn’t it strange? Conversations with liberals tend to go this way. They think and do all these weird things that inspire all these incredulous questions from reasonable people…then they turn it around. Suddenly, you’re the guy who has to prove something.

They are exceptionally skilled at it, I notice, even the dimwits. Through repeated practice. Because they just keep on going there. Why do they keep doing that?

Thing I Know #273. When you want someone to do something, and you don’t have the authority to force them to, it’s contrary to their interests, and they’ve figured out it’s contrary to their interests or they’re plenty bright enough to figure out it’s contrary to their interests — accuse them of something. It’s your only option. Make sure they aren’t guilty of it. If they’re guilty, they’ll resign themselves to the fact that you’ve figured them out; if they’re not guilty, they’ll do anything you want to prove it. Then you just tie that in to what you want them to do.

In this case it’s “stop criticizing my Replacement Jesus President.” But it can be any one of a number of other things as well. Support affirmative action; slam the border gates wide open; help us oppose the invasion of Iraq; stop all foreign aid to Israel; send more money to the teachers’ unions; help us criticize Rush Limbaugh; help us make fun of Sarah Palin; support the S&L and auto bailouts; increase the minimum wage; increase taxes; reinstate the death tax.

Do all these things or we’ll call you some kind of an “ist.”

But here’s the funny thing. Here is the truth of TIKs 272 and 273. If you are told “I’ve made up my mind you’re a racist,” you aren’t motivated to do what the liberal wants. If you are told “I’ve made up my mind you aren’t one,” similarly, you aren’t motivated. If you’re told “I’m sort of on the fence about whether you’re a racist or not, but I’m leaning toward you not being one,” again, you aren’t motivated.

And the really funny thing. If the liberal takes that fourth option…”I’m undecided about whether you’re a racist or not, but I kind of think you just might be one”…and deep down you know you really are a racist? Again — you aren’t motivated. You just think, well shucks, I’ve been found out.

TIK #273 only works when it’s practiced on the innocents. That’s why it explicitly says, “make sure they aren’t guilty of it.” Make sure the accusation is false. Make DAMN sure. Make sure it’s false, and that you also impart the message — I’m not saying my mind’s made up on this, mind you, I’m just saying I’m open to it. I’m in the process of figuring out whether you’re a racist or not. You’re on your laaaaaaaaaast chance to state your case, because I’m just in the final stage of making up my mind.

And that completes the circuit. The “mark” then has the poles of his battery plugged in; and however much desperation he has to prove he is innocent of the TIK #273 accusation, that is the “voltage” that now actuates the circuit. Now you’ve got him doing whatever you want him to do.

If he falls for it, that is.

And so we have the lib-mus test. The throw-down. The phony trial. The liberal perches, like the Sphinx by the City of Thebes ambushing the travelers with the riddle — demanding an answer to the challenge that isn’t built to be met. Show me how you’ve criticized Bush for spending money! Heh. I’ve got a list of links he can choke on…but what’s the point? From that moment forward, if he ever ran into someone on the innerwebs carping away about “that mkfreeberg character is a big fat disgusting racist!” he’d chirp in and say “Not so! I slapped him with my racist test, and he satisfied my conditions!” He’d do that? Really?

Because if not…I would think even someone who couldn’t see the logic up to this point, upon realizing that, would find it to be crystal clear. The lib-mus test is a big ol’ pillowcase stuffed with pure phony. It is bullshit pure enough to grow tomatoes the size of cantaloupes, turnips the size of watermelons.

But people have been giving in to it.

So it’s been going on and going on…by now, it’s got a good ol’ bundle of momentum behind it, like a toddler that’s been conditioned to throw around the F-word, or a dog that’s been trained to shit in the middle of the living room. But hey. We’re all sentient creatures capable of learning, and learning is simply a non-instinctive behavioral change.

So folks, here’s the lead for you to follow. Quit giving in to this bovine-feces…and quit it now. If you’re innocent of the charge and you know it, stop trying to prove it, and instead call out these people who are trying to bullshit you like I did here.

And Rob — you’ve just been properly schooled. Next time do your bullying properly, and pick on someone beneath your own size.

The most annoying thing about this idiot is that he’s using my name.

With that out of the way, what you’re advising here is what the shrinks call “active listening,” or what a wise psychiatric nurse I once trained with called “listen to the tune, not the words.” Good strategy, and it annoys the Hell outta these moonbeams.
- rob | 05/07/2009 @ 11:19
It needs to be pointed out as often as possible that Obama bears a lot of responsibility for making grandiose, yet vague, promises of “change” and hyping himself to the point where he created expectations which he could not fulfill. It’s no wonder that so many people have been so disappointed in his administration; look at what he said about himself! It’s perfectly normal for people who voted for Obama expecting “change” to react with horror upon finding out that he was the same as the “white president [who] was responsible for massively expanding the size of our government and national debt”, despite the fact that he is black, when they thought they were voting for someone who would stop the massive expansion of government instead of accelerating it. Dear lord, listen to Oprah’s “The One” speech, or Al Gore’s endorsement, or Obama’s “This is the moment” speech.

He has only himself to blame for failing to live up to the expectations he created.
- JohnJ | 05/07/2009 @ 20:51
[Tea party protesters are] racist and stupid only when they speak out against a black president who hasn’t raised our taxes when a white president was responsible for massively expanding the size of our government and national debt.

I’d say 99.9% of Tea Party critics obviously were never near a tea party — the one I went to was very clear about deriding both parties when they expanded the role of government. (The other 0.1% went to criticize what they presumed they knew about them.)

And as far as “Obama’s” policies, they aren’t “Obama’s” policies. They’re leftist policies that Obama champions. I sense more projection here. Remember back when GW Bush was president, he could do nothing right. The hateful bile was directed directly at people. Whatever they did was wrong. I and others even occasionally asked these people, “Ok, tell me something George Bush has done right. The answer was invariably “nothing”

Nothing????

Reminds me of this Groucho Marx Video

At any rate, they assume this is about Obama because to them, it was about Bush. To us, it is and has always been about policy.

Policy doesn’t have a race. Lady justice is blind.

Incidentally, I wrote a little wrapup of what the tea parties were about today after reading Thomas Sowell’s latest.

For anybody who is actually interested in, you know, knowing rather than buying or selling belief instructions.
- philmon | 05/08/2009 @ 14:40
There is another aspect to that particular sentence I had decided to let pass…but it just gnaws away at me. Read it again, as if Bill Clinton said it, you know Mister “I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman” is trying to smuggle something past you, but you don’t know how yet, and you’re determined to try to stop him from pulling another one over on ya.

Which means read it syllable-for-syllable, letter for letter.

…when they speak out against a black president who hasn’t raised our taxes when a white president was responsible for massively expanding the size of our government and national debt.

A black president who hasn’t raised our taxes. Hasn’t. Only a fool thinks the black president won’t…said black president, Himself, insists He is going to, you just don’t have to worry about it unless you make $250,000 a year. Which in democrat-land means nobody needs to worry — or nobody anybody should be worried about, should worry. Those $250k people are non-people. They are not part of the “everybody” we’re thinking about when we build our new perfect society that “works for everybody.”

…when a white president was responsible for massively expanding the size of our government and national debt.

The argument falls apart like a sugar cube canoe if you ask —

Did the white president raise taxes?

Did the black president increase the size of our government?

Did the black president increase our national debt?

N-o-o-o. We have to compare this very deliberately and carefully…and skewed. We have to compare the apples of one, to the oranges of another. It has to be a dishonest comparison in order for it to float.

Rob knows this full well. He set up the equation very deliberately, and carefully, word-for-word, in such a way that it would appear to have merit to anyone who didn’t analyze it. It goes back to that favorite rhetorical question of ours, is there a way to make a liberal idea look good without misrepresenting something?
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2009 @ 16:04

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

I Made a New Word XXVIWednesday, May 6th, 2009

I Made a New Word XXVI
Wednesday, May 6th, 2009