Sometimes, not so often, I respond to my wingnut mail. I got an interesting email from some guy named Tony Harrison. I sent him a brief response. Tony decided to publish my private email and to use my real name. That’s fairly obnoxious, right? The sad thing is, if he only would have asked permission, I probably would have said yes. In any case, you can read his rebuttal to my email here.
Harrison uses flawed reasoning on a number of fronts. For example, I told him that Islam was not expanding territorily but demographically (by differential birth rates). He disputed this by pointing out that the Muslim countries of Afghanistan and Somalia have, in recent memory, been run by radical Muslims. That’s what’s called a non sequitur. It works like this: (A) Somalia and Afghanistan have been Muslim countries for centuries (B) Somalia and Afghanistan have recently seen a turn to a more radical form of Islam, therefore (C) Islam is expanding territorily. See, this is why wingnuts gets D’s in symbolic logic.
Next he mischaracterizes my argument in order to attack it. Fun.
he suggests our troubles with radicalized Muslims would end if we figured out “how to get our oil and gas to markets” from the Middle East. This notion defies common sense.
Actually, I never connected those two things in the way he suggests. What I said was that we need to figure out how to get oil and gas to market without creating generation after generation of jihadists in the process. I also said that we have good reasons not to abandon the entire Middle East and accede to Bin-Laden’s demands. Then I said that (because we aren’t leaving en toto) the fight will go on, that we must live with that, but that it isn’t armageddon. So, Harrison’s whole line of attack here is off base. He isn’t addressing my argument.
Then Harrison asks me why bin-Laden hasn’t issued fatwas against Russia, China, and France. He might note that my whole thesis is that bin-Laden was angry at the Saudi regime first, and America second. I wonder how much the Russians are responsible for what Saudi Arabia has become under America’s Cold War guidance? Sometimes wingnuts have no fangs.
He then goes on to quote Bertrand Russell and Jakob Burckhardt making comments that are basically insulting to Arabs. That’s fine, it’s possible that two greats minds like Russell and Burckhardt could be insulting and still be correct. But, what is the point Russell and Burckhardt were trying to make? That Arabs experience western technology as detrimental to their society, that they are proud and presumptuous, and that the first Arab hordes were more interested in plunder than religion. Somehow, these racial assessments and historical opinions are supposed to be relevant to my article on Michael Barone’s asshattery. Tony Harrison thinks that Arabs are coming to git us because they are a “religion of conquerors”. Well, what the fuck is Christianity? They took Indonesia, we took the Philippines. Why is this a rebuttal?
When wingnuts attack, it isn’t pretty. Oh, I ain’t afraid of no Mullah Omar.
BTW- Harrison apologized for publishing my email and name w/o asking permission first.
It takes but a few seconds to edit his blog and remove the name posted. As yet this is not done.
It is beginning to be the SOP of our opponents to publish these names. They know the repercussions from their readers. Instead of emails to the aliases, it becomes easier to make it personal. Family can be harassed, threatened, etc. An apology without some attempt to correct, becomes an alibi for the destruction that can occur.
true, but I didn’t ask him to retract it.
your request was not necessary to do the right thing.
and although you seem not to be too upset, it supports this behavior against others.
time for another blog ethics conference….
hopefully his mother will see this and he will be embarrassed.
When wingnuts attack, it isn’t pretty.
I know and talk to many rightwingers. Your post has enticed me to think about some of the most important and strongly held beliefs that I sense thay have when expressing themselves. Here is a related list:
–Only Christian Godfaring men who see the universe as I do can be trusted.
–Capitalism is good and the people running this country should always favor the businessmen who will make this country great because of some market magic. Unions and lazy poor people are a problem for this country.
–Government and Democractic Social programs are the cause on many problems in this country.
–Taxes are bad except for defense.
–Most other peoples in the world are against us for some reason.
–When my trusted Godfaring leaders tell me that America is under attach, it is always the case. We must destroy these attackers or they will destroy our lifestyle
–Finally, God favors (blesses) America and is only on our side and on the side of those who support us. Do not trust anyone without an American flag on their belongings somewhere and a God bless America slogan nearby!
Maybe this list is not complete or totally cogent, but this is what quickly comes to mind when I think of the arguments that rightwingers I know seem to be making. Why are they so blinded to their stereotypes and so gullible? I suppose they say the same thing about me! The sad/funny reality is that their kids get killed in these endless wars while their jobs get less and less economically adequate and their access to healthcare gets less and less every year. When and how will they give up the ship for a better idea paradigm??
I’d give this guy a little more credit than that. He’s well read and interested in philosophy, so he is not a typical dittohead moron.
Maybe, but he fits the paranoid mindset.
First it was the evil empire of communism, and now it is the evil empire of islamic fundamentalism. Yet most of these rightwingers fail to see the hypocrisy in that their christian fundamentalist beliefs support the same kind of actions against others. They talk of our freedoms while at the same time they are perfectly willing to give up these very freedoms because of the latest bogeyman of their leaders choosing.
No, either I am niave or this is the same old stuff!
Booman’s simple philosophy…”Don’t be a dick”
Wingnut’s response: “I can’t help it, that’s what I am”
So many delusional wingnuts, so little time.
are you afraid of Mullah Omar? Raise your hand if the mention of Mullah Omar makes you pee in your pants.
I’d raise my hand but I have to change my underwear first now that I’ve peed my pants at the site of Mullah Omar’s name.
Perhaps we’ll need to wear those adult diaper thingies when reading the rantings of wingnuts.
Depends…
Seems like you know just a little too much about this, BooMan.
You should sell some in your store. Just imagine the wingnut-driven revenue. You could label them as ‘Anti-terrorism panties or briefs’. Of course, you should include the terror-alert scale on them as a logo. Maybe as a bonus, you could have them play ‘Let the Eagle Soar’ too.
Okay. I’ll leave now.
For me, whenevr I am dealing directly with a “(right”) wingnut, I remind myself that first and foremost, the wingnut rhetoric, (and indeed much of actual wingnut perception), is rooted in the “emotional” arena, not an arena where things like “truth” and “reason” and “logic”, or simple “cause and effect” hold sway.
Most of them are pathologically determined to continue believing what they want to believe, and will not allow facts to interfere. Consequently their arguments are almost always structurally flawed, fractured in a way that refuse to allow for any changes in their perception.
Religious extremists, and cult members of all stripes frequently operate in this same way; filled with denial, and additionally manipulated by the cleverly restrictive and (emotionally) “loaded language” that propagandists and cult strategists are so adept at developing.
And the wingnutosphere is nothing if not a cult-like environment within which delusional ideologues and deception professionals can spread their nonsense and seek to further weaponize the ignorance of the public.
but I’m lost. What is his point? Is his point only that you are wrong? If it is he didn’t prove you wrong that I could detect…..it’s all jumbled up and goofy and no evidence other than quoting people who wrote stuff about a 100 years ago and that doesn’t automatically make something a fact. Even his quotes though fail to make a point that I can discern.
I think he is trying to make the case that Islam is a expansionist religion, that they resent being left behind technologically, that they will attack America no matter what we do, and that I am a dumbass to argue differently.
He definitely has been heavily influenced by the thinking of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. But he has a very amateurish understanding of the issues. I am familiar with Lewis because two of my closest high-school friends had fathers that were also professors of near-eastern studies at Princeton. Lewis is not respected among his colleagues. He has a very elitist attitude towards Islam. And his rhetoric is continually used to justify eliminationalist or genocidal policies towards Muslims.
My basic argument is that the people that carried out 9/11 were motivated by issues that were fairly specific to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and to a lesser but important degree, Israel. If we were to change our policies toward those nations to their satisfaction, they would stop plotting attacks against U.S. citizens. Now, we are not about abandon Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia as allies, and I am not suggesting that we should. But, we should stop lying to the American people about why we have been attacked.
Now, the Iraq war has aroused a more general hatred of America by a much broader cross-section of Muslims (and non-Muslims). But, once again, the hatred derives from the lies we used to justify the war combined with the high level of violence we have unleashed. It still has nothing to do with our freedoms. That’s the point I’m making.
We will continue to pursue policies that enrage some Muslims for the foreseeable future, so we will have to guard against terrorist attacks, no matter who is in the White House. But, we can take steps to minimize that hatred, or redirect it, or even defuse it. We can’t accomplish any of that if we won’t acknowledge the origin of the problem.
seems to not have read what Bin Laden had to say about 9/11 and what the motivation behind the attack was. If there is one thing that I detest about dealing with 9/11, it is that it did open the door for every single paranoid American to throw their own special brand of paranoia on the table and pronounce it TRUTH and actually have people consider it! The truth is easy and so obvious, as the truth is often found to be if one truly wants to find it and know it.
Booman, you are likely correct with your analysis, but I believe you stress this “specific enemy” too no real advantage. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the conservatives needed a new bogeyman to keep the right-wingers on edge. If it was not Muslims and 9/11, it would have been Venezuelans or someone else. Count on it.
My point is that as long as the right wing mentality is so prevalent in America, we will have bogeymen-enemies-war, and analysis of any one particular enemy-war-bogeyman is like analyzing one of a billion strep bacteria on a Petri dish in that it has no real further purpose, IMO!
That’s pretty much the song I’ve been singing since 9/11, but I frame it as “we need to treat the disease instead of the symptoms.” The disease of course being those policies that cause us to be branded the Great Satan.
We’re never going to please everybody, but if for instance we would start showing a little respect for the Palestinians it would go a long way.
You’re only a “dumbass” when you argue with me. Keep that in mind.
…can I just ask the people of America to learn to use the subjunctive mood? It should be “if he only had asked permission, I probably would have said yes.”
I find it amusing when people condemn Islam for being an expansionist religion when Christianity has historically been every bit as expansionist. Particularly in the Americas, Christian groups like the Jesuits were extremely aggressive in their conversion of the indigenous peoples of the Americans. Mr. Harrison goes all the way back to the Battle of Tours without mentioning the wars fought by Charlemagne against the Saxons, Avars and others at the exact same period in history.
He also dismisses Islamic nations for not having solved the questions of “who shall govern” but glosses over the fact that Islamic powers like the Abbasid caliphate and the Ottoman Empire were more sophisticated than any of their European rivals until the decline of the Ottoman Empire began in earnest. There is much debate over the reasons behind the decline of Muslim nations, but the fact remains that the roles were once reversed and Christian nations were seen as backwards.
There is no doubt that there are many problems within Islam, but I would argue that many of the same problems exist within modern Christianity and Judaism. All three faiths have violent reactionary elements. The trouble with militant Islam is very real, but current US foreign policy and trade policy does very little to solve these problems and a great deal to exacerbate them.
Why in gods name would you bother to even read harrisonnuts E mail.Screw him. If he published your private info- I guess that it ain’t worth your effort cause it is already out there. That piece of shit won’t accept anything you say. Sure he appologised- he probably got scared. But the deed was done. This is typical of the scum. Remember, bushshit hasn’t yet appologised for anything that he has done.
Just look at the energy that you have expanded.
Like they say in my part of town– Fuggedaboutit!
billjpa