Saturday, April 25, 2009

Ridicule as Thought

The purpose of ridicule is two-fold. First it is used to cow the opponent: no one likes to be the object of laughter or derision. It becomes difficult to respond rationally to such irrational attacks. So it is a tool of aggression useful for stifling dissent. In this manner ridicule eliminates – as much as possible – intellectual independence in both the opposing viewpoint and any tendency toward independent thought in wayward subordinates.

Second, ridicule is used to deflect the argument off the path of a valid subject and onto the person or worldview of the opponent. Deflecting the conversation is a Red Herring fallacy.

Ridicule has long been a staple in the tool box of the Left, starting with the situation comedies of the 70’s such as “All In The Family”, which positioned the conservative as a buffoon. This methodology has ballooned until every TV show can be seen to have conservative fools and Leftist geniuses (or at least normal appearing folks). Christians invariably are portrayed as psychopathic. Ridicule is the predominant evangelizing tool for the Left.

Saul Alinski might just be the most influential unknown, dead person in the country today. Alinski wrote “Rules For Radicals”, the philosophy and methodology of agitation and organization. Alinski and his philosophy was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s Master’s Thesis. And Alinski and his philosophy was the subject that Barack Obama taught during his Chicago “community organizer” days.

Alinski proposed 13 rules in the “Tactics” section of his book. Rule 4 says,

”Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage”
Alinski also proposes an ethic, which he summed up,

”The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means”
But the “most potent weapon” can be disarmed, as it was in the recent debate between Atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Alvin Plantinga. Dennett became overwrought and spouted ridicule; Plantinga remained calm and stuck to the subject. By not responding to the ridicule Plantinga actually gained the high ground of intellectual pursuit, and consequently the respect of at least some of the observers.

Sticking to the subject and not responding to ad Hominems or to other types of fallacies is not just disconcerting to those who reduce themselves to the use of ridicule; it spot lights themselves as being ridiculous, intellectually ineffective, and just basically wrong. Ridicule is not rational thought, it is verbal abuse.

6 comments:

Martin said...

Correction: Archie Bunker was portrayed as the LOVABLE conservative who was clearly wrong, and Meathead was portrayed as a pretentious asshole who, nonetheless, was clearly correct.

Hmmm....

Stan said...

Well, that's surely not how I saw it...

Stan said...

According to this [http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/a/l/All_in_the_Family.html],

"Carroll O'Connor as Archie Bunker, a bigoted blue-collar worker whose ignorant stubbornness tends to cause his arguments to self destruct." and,

"Rob Reiner as Michael "Meathead" Stivic, Gloria's college-student husband, an archetypical, if occasionally self righteous, 1960's liberal who constantly sparred with Archie on political and social issues."yet it goes on to say,

"others objected to the show's portrayal of Archie Bunker as a "lovable" bigot."Perhaps; I didn't personally find him lovable, he was a buffoon being made fun of by the likes of both Lear and O'Conner, staunch Leftists.

Moreover, at the time I loved it, being a Leftist just as they were.

Martin said...

I always liked Archie better. He's a good guy at heart, he's just old-fashioned about some things and clearly scared of a changing world.

And Mike I found to be unpleasant. He was right about many things (not all, but most) but that seemed to go to his head and made him a holier-than-thou jerk.

If I had to pick, I'd rather hang out with Archie. Even though he was wrong. :)

Gil Sanders said...

Out of curiosity, what is your perspective of J.P Holding? Does one loose respect for a person when they engage in insults? Personally, I use ridicule at times but not as a means to refute or discredit an argument. Only when I have adequately refuted a response or argument, and the person refuses to acknowledge his error is when I'd find it justifiable to use satire.

I by no means make satire to be a "rational thought" however. But in the end, I may be rather naive. I'm still trying to figure this out from a Christian perspective myself. I'd be interested in any thoughts you have. Thanks!

Stan said...

MacGuy
OK, I found you, sorry for the delay.

I've not read anything by Holding since he went membership only. I need to remove him from my links list.

You have probably noticed that I am very wary of satire, sarcasm, ridicule, and other demeaning personal attacks that are used as a means of deflecting the argument away from the point, and onto the opponent in the discussion.

I am also wary of arguments from the viewpint of metaphors, analogies and stories meant to produce sympathy for a viewpoint while not really applying to the point being made.

There is no reason not to argue a position purely from logic as supported by First Principle axioms, as dispassionately and without rancor as is possible.

Ridicule etc. is meant to depart from logic, inflame emotions, and thus give the upper hand to the attacker; it should be challenged and not allowed in discussions (imo).

Don't know if this answers your question, if not let me know, I'll try again.

Stan