Read on Twitter
When people misunderstand very simple ideas this entirely you have to assume they're only misunderstanding them because they don't want to understand them. https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1279519136045887488
It strains credibility to believe that Frank Luntz doesn't understand the difference between words of memorial inscribed at the sight of atrocity and statues at the sight of atrocity memorializing the heroism of those who committed it.
One must presume the "error" is purposeful.
One must presume the "error" is purposeful.
If I tell you I think 2+2=5, and I'm not a child, we're going to rather quickly move past justifying the correct formulation and into the more pertinent discussion, which is my ignorance and especially my motivations for maintaining and defending it.
So with cases like these.
So with cases like these.
I think that's the way to handle these sorts of thing. For accuracy, note the obvious error but then move past it—as something complete, requiring no further discussion— into a contemplation of the ignorance itself: its origins, its possible motivations, its likely purposes.
One obvious motivation for people making terrible arguments based on clear misunderstandings of obvious easy points is this:
They don't like the conversation and they want to change it.
It's instinctive to correct an obvious misunderstanding. So, that's what they do.
They don't like the conversation and they want to change it.
It's instinctive to correct an obvious misunderstanding. So, that's what they do.
In truth an obvious misunderstanding of a simple point is more enticing than some more nuanced argument.
Suddenly the field of contention is back to the very basic realities, with reality itself in the balance.
That's just one possible motivation, but a pretty common one.
Suddenly the field of contention is back to the very basic realities, with reality itself in the balance.
That's just one possible motivation, but a pretty common one.
In short: I refuse to believe anyone defending Confederate statues honestly believes they're preserving historical record—but I doubt it's an argument worth having. The attempt to make the argument suggests other motivations, and should instead result in a discussion about that.
Similarly, I refuse to believe Erickson doesn't know all of the many historical inaccuracies he's promoting here.
What's worth noting is 1) he is invested in keeping inaccuracies in circulation, and 2) the toxic lies those inaccuracies typically serve. https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1279267106320760832?s=20
What's worth noting is 1) he is invested in keeping inaccuracies in circulation, and 2) the toxic lies those inaccuracies typically serve. https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/1279267106320760832?s=20
Agreed. In a time of corruption, impunity, and empowered abuse of power, shave not with Hanlon's razor, but with Occam's. https://twitter.com/idol_goro/status/1279732067035754496?s=20
