Appreciating the absurd

"An appreciation of the absurd requires some recognition that the absurd is, well, absurd and not the whole story. Once existence itself is absurd, it just isn’t funny anymore." -- Laura Wood ('The Thinking Housewife')

The thing about dishonesty

The thing about dishonesty (and what I have in mind specifically is intellectual dishonesty) is that it cannot be segregated to one little aspect of one's life; it is the nature of dishonesty to spread and take over all it touches.

This is another post about the silliness (and foolish wickedness) called 'Game;' though, it's more indirectly about that. What this post is directly about is illustrating for Gentle Reader how the conscious disinclination to reason correctly and rigorously about the things we *want* to believe to be true must inevitably lead us into outright lying about things which anyone see are otherwise.

The blogger who goes by 'Aunt Haley' posted something earlier today which sounds very reasonable ... until one knows that back-story. Here is that post:

I’m tired of reading comments where posters are calling each other names like idiot, sweetheart, moron, bitch, or any of that ilk.

From now on, I’m just going to start deleting comments with name-calling insults. It’s ridiculous that grown men can’t get through a discussion without puerile mudslinging. If you want to play the neener-neener game and call each other names, take it off the blog.

Here is what I said to her in response:

Will you now?

Aren’t you at all curious as to what’s going on in your own mind?

What I mean is this — these … what was the phrase, again? … “grown men” … have been directing that sort of thing at me for days, and you only just now, after I have mildly (but effectively, and humorously) turned a couple of the intended insults back upon their owners, appear to disapprove of their behavior. AND then, to make matters worse (from my point of view), you “even-handedly” seek to lump my mild (and humorous!), and much delayed, responses in with their provocations.

Really: would you *ever* have written this post had I not finally turned some of those provocations back upon their owners? To be more blunt, had I not, with a few simple-and-non-obscene words, turned what was intended to be a group-effort mockery of me into unanswerable ridicule of the original poster, would you have said *anything* at all?

Partly, I wrote this because I am *very* well acquainted with this sort of dishonest "even-handedness."

Even one of her fellow 'Game' proponents (*) appears to get the point I was making about "even-handedness:" "It’s a well-known fact of the schoolyard that it’s the reprisal punch that gets punished."

(*) Yes, I know he has claimed in a comment on this this blog that he is not an advocate of it (even as he was defending it), but his behavior when with the gang says otherwise.


Here is Haley's dishonest response to what I said to her about her "even-handedness:"

Ilion, when you post nine replies in a row and start sounding emotionally hysterical, which you did the other day, I have little compunction about nipping that kind of behavior in the bud when it starts to cross over into schoolyard insults.

Cool down and write like a grown-up, and others will treat you like a grown-up.

Don't you just love passive-aggression? I know I do!

And, lastly, here is the back-story -- in which (unless she's the sort of person who is going to delete the evidence, now that I've written this post) anyone can see that she has seriously misrepresented both me and her gang of fellow adherents of 'Game.'

Should one choose to wade through all the comments in that last thread, one will not find me initiating "schoolyard insults" -- though, one will find me eventually responding to some of the "schoolyard insults" that had been directed my way ... and really, my responses were several grades above "schoolyard." I'd almost take insult at having my insults characterized as "schoolyard insults," except that I've already conclued that Miss Haley suffers a severe lack of discernment.

Goodness! As far as I can tell she cannot even see what is "off" about this odd statement someone made on her blog not too long ago: "Ultimately, if I were seeking advice, I would look for empirically based observations given by someone with a discerning spirit of wisdom. Like Citizen Renegade."

Nor will one find me "sounding emotionally hysterical" -- but one *will* see some of Miss Haley's fellow 'Game' proponents "sounding emotionally hysterical" (apparently because I'm presenting them arguments to establish its falsehood and/or lack of worth); and one will see a 'Game' proponent (whom I do not hesitate to judge as a quite wicked man, and whom I suspect was a bully when he was chronologically young enough for the schoolyard) seeking to goad me into "sounding emotionally hysterical" (as though he could!) and one will see that person repeatedly waving his hands to dismiss what I'd been saying as "sounding emotionally hysterical."

Shesh! Can't she even come up with her own false tropes?


Edit: In response to Miss Haley's dishonest characterization of the interaction between me and her fellow advocates of 'Game,' I said to her: " You’re dishonest, aren’t you?" (and, if you know/understand me, you realize that that was me being "nice" or non-blunt).

And her response was: " I’m not, and your further comments are going in moderation for the time being." (My point here is not that denies being dishonest.)

There are reasons, Gentle Reader, that men sometimes refer to some women as 'bitches.' And this sort of passive-aggressive dishonesty is a prime example.

If You Give A Donkey a Cookie

iOwnThe World: If You Give A Democrat a Cookie

Anatomy of an Ambush

John Ray: Anatomy of an Ambush -- only muddle-headed fools would *ever* believe anything the Arabs say about the Jews. Or what they say about us.

10:10 -- See the real mindset of 'environmentalists'

HotAir: Video: The dumbest, most self-defeating ad campaign ever

The video is truly disgusting, on many levels; as Ed Morrissey puts it: "... this appalling video that shows global-warming enforcers imagining the world they’d like to create, but beware that it includes some disturbing — and disturbed — images."

(h/t Matteo and Bob Parks)

The 'one-stitch facelift'

As a matter of general interest -- MailOnline: The 'one-stitch facelift' claims to be the ultimate quick fix for turkey necks, but does it work?

The USA has a secular government. Not!

It's commonly said and believed that "the USA has a secular government." As, for instance, here

...
Islam, therefore, is profoundly at odds with the values of the West. For we in the West, whether liberals or conservatives, accept church(mosque)-state separation. We no doubt argue heatedly over what exactly it entails, but we are agreed on the main principle. I regularly criticize the shysters of the ACLU for their extremist positions on this question; but I agree with them that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

This raises a very serious question. Is Islam -- pure, unEnlightened, un-watered-down, fundamentalist, theocratic Islam -- deserving of First Amendment protection? We read in the First Amendment that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Should that be understood to mean that the Federal government shall not prohibit the establishment and free exercise of a totalitarian, fundamentalist theocratic religion in a particular state, say Michigan?

The USA is a Christian nation with a secular government. Suppose there was a religion whose aim was to subvert our secular government. Does commitment to freedom of religion enjoin toleration of such a religion?

Strictly speaking this [the statement in blue] isn't true: France has a secular government; the USA has a non-sectarian government.

The difference is very important:
* a secular government will tend to frown upon (and seek to control) religious belief and expression;
* a non-sectarian government will tend to favor religious belief and expression ... without taking sides or seeking to control the people's religious expression.

Moreover, the rationale of the government of the USA, that is to say, the Constitution of the United States, presupposes Christianity. So, the non-sectarianism of the US government, is, properly speaking, non-sectarian with respect to sects of Christianity. Other religions (including atheism) are tolerated to the extent that they are "well-behaved" ... as Mormonism was not 150 years ago, and as Islam can never be and still be Islam.


The false idea that "the USA has a secular government" was invented and is primarily pushed by atheists/secularists who *want* America to have a secular government ... the easier to use the stick of government to beat on Christianity.

And (to satisfy any stickler for detail), and as far as "The USA is a Christian nation" ... at one time, no doubt. These days, it's more accurate to say that America is a "Christian-ish" nation.

'COEXIST' ... again.

An absolutely righteous take-down of those obnoxious 'COEXIST' bumperstickers that certain self-righteous poseurs like to put on their Priuses.

Tom McMahon: [One Of] The Ten Most Obnoxious Bumper Stickers You Will See In Madison

edit (2010/12/14):
Here is an amusing twist on 'Coexist'

Truth and Honesty ... and Otherwise

What is a lie? Is it really always a lie to knowingly speak untruth? I mean, really?

My thesis in this little essay is that most of us have a childish (and not in a good sense) understanding of what a lie is, and what it means to lie. And, it surely doesn't help that, at least in English, we don't have a positive word meaning something like "to intentionally deceive another in accord with the dictates of morality."

To look at the question of language in another way, if 'to lie' really does mean something like "to intentionally deceive another in discord with the dictates of morality," then it seems to me that it cannot be the case that the person who "lies" to the Nazis about the Jews he has hidden in the cellar has actually lied. And yet, we are forced to use the same word for deceiving others when we should not, and when we should ... leading to confusion for all, and distress, often intense, for the unsophisticated or literal-minded.

I've tried to discuss this before, on someone else's blog ... and caused distress to the, hmmm, unsophisticated or literal-minded. But, as this is my blog, perhaps here I may be better able to ease the distress of anyone who may be distressed on reading these thoughts.


Recently, as a comment to me in the "Random Thoughts on 'Game'" thread, Athol Kay said:

Game is in essence "applied female psychology". There is unquestionably a dark side to it, but also a light side as well. ...

I mention this here because part of my response, should I ever get around to composing and posting it, would have been a small disquisition about the co-mingling of "dark sides" and "light sides." Something like:

I don't believe that "Game" *is* in essence "applied female psychology". But, let us suppose, at least, that it contains that. From my perspective, as a man who values truth and reason above all things, the "unquestionable dark side" of "Game" weighs heavier that this (supposed) "light side." That is, even with this (supposed) "light side," "Game" is a deception and wicked.

Now, the best lies (from the point of view of the liar) always contain truth; the more truth, the better the lie. And, the epitome of the art of lying would be to speak only what is true, and yet deceive one's marks.

I trust Gentle Reader can see that this is here because it is about the current topic.

For example, concerning what I say is the "epitome of the art of lying," that is what Bill Clinton aims for, or used to aim for; but he's just not nearly half so good as he imagines he is. The main reason Clinton was considered such a "good" liar when he was president is because half the country *wanted* to be lied to. We all saw, did we not, that the bloom was off *that* particular rose during the election of 2008? Clinton was no longer a "good" liar, not because of any change in the quality (nor likely quantity) of his lies, but because no one any longer wanted to believe *his* lies ... for, after all, there was a new kid in town.

Now, as I've already intimated, and as is part of the thesis here, I don't believe that it's merely the deception of a lie which makes it a lie. And, if it is true that the epitome of the art of lying would be to speak only what is true, and yet deceive one's marks, then it cannot be merely the untruth of a lie which makes it a lie. At the same time, Gentle Reader can take comfort, at least, that I do not seek to upset the understanding that lying requires intention; that is, to speak untruth that one honestly believes to be truth is not to lie.

So, if it's not necessarily the intentional falsity of a statement which makes it a lie, and if a literally true statement may in fact be a lie, and if it's not necessarily the intentional deception of a statement which makes it a lie, what is it that makes a lie a lie? The defining characteristic of lying, as the term is commonly understood, is the intention to deceive when one has the moral duty not to deceive -- that is why and how a true statement may be a lie and a false statement, knowingly made, may be a not-lie.


'The Anchoress,' in recently defending Christine O'Donnell (who is mentioned here only in passing), relates a story about Corrie ten Boom:

A decade ago, O’Donnell asserted that she would not lie to a Nazi about hiding Anne Frank in her attic. These rhetorical scenarios are amusing “gotchas” in casual discussion-panel debates, but O’Donnell’s soundbite has been found objectionable by some, precisely because it is a soundbite; as such, it encourages reactions rather than reasoned musings. First Things’ own Joe Carter writes: “As a virtue ethicist I believe it would be immoral to not lie in that situation . . . If your [sic] hiding some of the Chosen People from enemies who want to kill them, it’s your duty to lie to protect them.”

No less then the Jew-hiding heroine Corrie ten Boom might disagree. In her book The Hiding Place, ten Boom recounts an episode where Nazis sought her nephew, Peter, who had been hidden in a root cellar, a rug and table hastily placed over the trapdoor. When soldiers demanded to know Peter’s whereabouts, his young cousin Cocky replied, “Why, he is under the table.”

The soldiers peered under the table while the family suppressed nervous chuckles. Humiliated, the Nazis threatened the family, then left. As others chastised Cocky for putting Peter-and the whole family-at such risk, her mother defended her, saying, “God honors truth-telling with perfect protection!”

Simplistic, right? Some might say “fundamentalist” and “anti-intellectual” to boot. But the story bolsters O’Donnell’s position; it suggests that power resides in a complete abandonment and surrender to the will of God and his laws, a faithful reliance that says, “If God is truth, he will be found only within truth, and not in a lie.”

This is the sort of heart-over-head theology that invites mockery, even as it zeroes in on Christ’s urging toward “childlike faith.” Jesus enjoyed the sophisticated reasoning of Nicodemus, but he rewarded the Centurion whose servant was sick, and who approached him wholly on faith. Intellectual debate did not lessen his appreciation of simple trust. ...

First off, I'll freely admit (after all, it's not as though God doesn't already know) that I don't have the faith -- I don't have the depth of trust in God -- to do as young Cocky did and stop trying to control what I cannot control.

But, regardless of my so-small trust and willingness to fully cast myself upon God, as I don't believe that the dictates of morality require one to not attempt to deceive the Nazis, I don't believe that, were I in such a situation, the intentionally deceptive answer I'd likely have given would be a lie (that is, as 'lie' is commonly understood).

And, understand this, young Cocky did actually deceive -- and he intended to deceive -- the Nazi soldiers (and, of course, I fully believe that God aided in that deception; and, for that matter, that God put the words in his heart which he uttered). What he managed to pull off is the not-lie version of what I said above is the "epitome of the art of lying" -- he spoke the literal truth in all that he said, and thereby deceived (as he intended). He spoke the truth, but he did not speak *all* the truth: he failed to mention to the searching soldiers that while Peter was "under the table," he was *also* under the rug, and in the root cellar. And, speaking the (partial) truth, he said it in such a way so as to be disbelieved: he counted on the soldiers misunderstanding what he said, he counted on the soldiers believing that he was "lying" to them and therefore on them not believing what he said. And, I think his answer angered them, for they took the answer as mockery, and made them careless. Had no one said anything, I think the soldiers would have found Peter (this isiwhy I think God was guiding Cocky in what he said).


Allow me one more outrageous claim -- you *already* understand, and likely agree with, what I've said. You just haven't carefully thought about it and thus haven't articulated the fullness of your understanding of what lying is and is not.

What a wicked man ...

... along with being a sissy-crybaby hypocrite with respect to the non-wicked aspects of the very attitude of which he boasts.

Addendum (2010/09/28):
To perhaps aid in the commbox discussion, I'm adding (the significant part of) Vox's post --

Culling the weak and simple

From the blogosphere:

As an observer to this blog controversy, I am reminded of many similar incidents over the past six years of my blogging. I can certainly remember posts that I authored that (1) were taken the wrong way; (2) really upset folks in an unpredictable way or to an unpredictable degree; and/or (3) prompted personal and quite vindictive attacks. I remember the awful way I would feel for a day or two, afraid to even look at my email for fear of comments that felt like knives being thrown my way. The feeling (let's call it "bloghorror") is hard to describe. First, bloghorror is in part just a reaction to being attacked, but it's also a shame at having hurt someone else, even unintentionally, and it's also an anger at the completely unfair nature of the response. But most of all it's this feeling of being misunderstood. And unfortunately, there's no way to cure this. In 2005, my first reaction would be to explain myself, so that the blog audience would say, "Ah, I understand now." It took me a year or two to learn that once your audience has concluded that you are the devil saying devil things, any effort to explain will just add to the arsenal of the ammunition that will be hurled back at you.

As I read this, I was filled with a mix of incomprehension, amusement, and scorn. Needless to say, an AWCA feels no shame at the idea of having hurt someone else, intentionally or unintentionally, because sometimes an emotional evisceration is the entire point of a post. As it is said, no pain, no gain. By inflicting pain, I am merely helping others to grow. The humiliation that is felt by an interlocutor whose arguments have been methodically carved up by remorseless logic is my gift to them.

I ask for no thanks. Artistry is its own reward. ...

This is the beginning of his post, this is what he intentionally chose to quote and comment upon from his target's post.

There is *nothing* in what he quoted which justifies what he said in the part of his post I have quoted.


Now, let us consider the next (and reasonable) thing this particular fool said:

And there is no shame in being misunderstood. Being misunderstood is the norm. ...

Obviously, and by his own standard (*) and admission, Mr Beale is among the "weak and simple" who deserve to be "culled." For, his target didn't say she'd felt shame at being misunderstood ... she said she felt shame at having hurt others, even unintentionally. Her mention of being (feeling, actually) misunderstood was to say that that feeling was the larger part of what she is calling "bloghorror," which was the temptation to just give up on blogging due to the negative, and often unfair, nature of (some of) the responses to what she'd previosly written.

(*) by his own standard -- except, of course, that he is a hypocrite: he cannot and will not abide criticism of what he says and does. The more just/deserved and to-the-point the criticism, the less he will abide it.