Why do we have to do this, Sir? begins with our erstwhile spiritual leader explaining why he imagines himself within biblical stories, trying to fill in the blanks. He treats us to the traditional story of Jesus and the demon possessed man and adds an unusual set of turns. This is a profoundly talented writer.
The Heathen Republican expands on his objection. Since dog whistle politics is a matter of opinion, being deniable by design, it doesn't happen. My take is that racism itself is largely unconscious. Few think of themselves as racists. Dog whistle politics is calculated, established by deliberate pattern. So the dog whistle is an appeal to, not always a reflection of, racism. And, yes, the dog whistle is meant to be deniable, not falsifiable. Debate about it tends to make it detectable, not provable. Still, the discussion that results is sometimes useful.
Chuck Thinks Right objects at news that a woman not proficient in English is suing for the right to run for elective office in Arizona. I dunno, Chuck. Seems to me it isn't her rights that are at issue as much as the rights of voters to elect anyone they want. The same issue Gingrich is arguing in Virginia.
Conservative James Wigderson reacts on behalf of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in her finger pointing confrontation with President Obama. As might be expected, my perspective is ... older.
Slant Right's John Houk greets with a mixture of sadness and glee the retirement from Presidential politics and intention to seek re-election to Congress of Michele Bachmann (R-Weird).
Gwendolyn Barry with New Global Myth teams with friend and favorite Jack Jodell to list and describe every news and search source that exists on the web. Well, maybe not all, but enough to last until next week.
Trackback address for this post
Another way to put it is that the charge itself can be made against anyone anywhere, and since it is not falsifiable, the victim of the charge has no defense. The fact that the victim of the charge has no defense does nothing to suggest his guilt, as that type of charge can never be defended, by definition; therefore, the burden of proof cannot be upon the one charged with a non-falsifiable statement, and must be on the one making the charge.
Another way to put it is this: though the charge may or may not be true, if it is made, but not proven, it is, by definition, fallacious.
So to clarify another point you made, though the charge is fallacious, it may also contain some truth. How would we know unless we consider it?
I think most republicans are not any more racist than most democrats. Any prejudice they express is against the poor and those who benefit from entitlements. Of course, my belief is not falsifiable and not provable, so it just a guess.
Leave a comment
|« Pop Music in North Korea via Accordian||Tiny Spanish Village in Financial Straits Wins Big »|