Categories
general freedom ideological culture national politics & policies

Polylogism or Bulverism … or 1984?

The Epoch Times’s current Opinion section tackles a subject that might surprise you. Polylogism!

What

The term was coined by Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. “There is not one logic, one truth, one path of thinking that is subject to verification,” Jeffrey A. Tucker asserts in “Polylogism Is the Root Problem.”

Polylogism is the idea behind a lot of trendy isms, pushed by many ists

“Every group and every interest operates according to its own logic,” Tucker goes on. “No one is in a position to say: This does not follow from that. There are multiple and infinite ways to think and emote, and no one is in a position to say which is correct, valid or invalid.”

The idea that there can be “many” logics is indeed present in many forms of modern and post-​modern argumentation, like Marxism and Freudianism. C. S. Lewis also attacked the ploy, calling it “Bulverism” in an amusing essay named after a fictitious fellow named “Bulver” who learned from his mother how to argue most effectively — “Oh you say that because you are a man,” she challenged. 

It’s an evasion.

According to Bulverism, er, polylogism, “There are no fallacies,” argues Tucker, “only perspectives.”

Remember Nietzsche? “There are no facts, only interpretations.”

This sort of thing makes arguing against tyranny hard, because the tyrant’s sycophants can simply say ‘what you call tyranny only looks like that because you are x; but we are y, and therefore what you call tyranny is freedom to us.’ 

“Polylogism sounds like a fancy philosophy,” Tucker concludes, “but it is nothing but the handmaiden of tyrants.” 

Are you thinking of Newspeak?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling ideological culture

Destroying (& Saving) Debate

“Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-​Leninist-​Maoist,” confesses someone now judging high school debates.

Her name is Lila Lavender, and she won the 2019 national high school debate championship. But now she has Authority.

“I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging.”

Start of a resignation letter? 

Not on your life. Ms. Red — excuse me, Ms. Lavender added, “I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-​imperialist positions/​arguments.”

She exalts totalitarianism, instead, and the deaths of over one hundred million people and counting. And feels quite comfortable doing so … in this terrible, evil country … in which somehow she judges debate.

She’s not exactly an aberration. High school debate has regressed “from a competition that rewards evidence and reasoning,” champion debater and coach James Fishbeck writes in The Free Press,“to one that punishes students for what they say and how they say it.”

He points to a listing of judges run by the National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA), where many judges on their individual but public webpages acknowledge deciding winners and losers according to their own personal politics. 

“A black student I coached,” he recalls, “was told by the debate judge that he would have won his round, if he hadn’t condemned Black Lives Matter.”

One judge posted instructions that “if you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.”

Another judge said “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegals’” would automatically lose one the debate.

While the NSDA insists that “Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal beliefs,” Fishbeck complains they do nothing about judges who publicize their punishment of students on a political basis.

But James Fishbeck did something. He formed a new debate league, Incubate Debate, which this year has already hosted 18 debate tournaments. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai and DALL-E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Q & A & Q & A

Trevor Noah, interviewing presidential candidate Joe Biden a while back, had a juicy question near the end of his “Daily Social Distancing Show” with the Democrat pol. “Have you ever considered what would happen if the election result came out as you being the winner and Trump refused to leave?”

“Yes I have,” Biden confidently stated.

Then there is an obvious cut, and the video switches from side-​by-​side video-​chat panels to the comedian in a Picture-​in-​Picture box with a full-​screen Biden saying all the sudden:

And I was so damned proud. Here you have four chiefs of staff coming out and ripping the skin off of Trump. You have so many rank-​and-​file military personnel saying ‘whoa, we’re not a military state, this is not who we are.’ I promise you — I am absolutely convinced — that they will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.

This is hacky. Not stand-​up comedian hacky — political hacky. 

Its function is transparent, being primarily a self-​programing technique, which — in recent times — partisans use to convince themselves that their enemies, in this case the Evil Republicans, will stoop to anything

Allowing them to stoop to anything.

The crowning case of this idiocy came in 2016, when Democrats worked themselves into a frenzy over Trump’s flip answer to the debate question whether he would ‘absolutely accept the results of this election.’ 

Hillary Clinton grinned triumphantly when Trump gave his non-​canned, iffily defiant response. Very Trumpian. 

But after Election Day, Clinton’s followers spent months and then years not accepting the results of the election. 

Clinton’s lingering Cheshire Cat smile rebukes her party.

And persistent questions like Trevor Noah’s.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture political challengers

Discriminating Democrats

In ten days, the Democratic Party will hold a presidential debate that, according to the rules established by the Democratic National Committee, includes six qualified candidates all of whom are white.

Which is apparently not the right color.

“Of course, there is nothing wrong with Democrats selecting a white presidential candidate to represent the party,” writes David de la Fuente at The Daily Beast. “But that should be up to the voters, and not the DNC by means of their debate inclusion practices.”

Those “practices” or rules seem straightforward enough — at least, they did … until the results were not to the liking of some. To earn a place on the Dec. 19 debate stage, a candidate must have garnered donations from 200,000 individuals, while also reaching 4 percent or higher in four recognized polls, or 6 percent in two polls.

The six qualified pale-​faced candidates are: former Vice-​President Joe Biden, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D‑Minn.), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.), billionaire activist Tom Steyer, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.).

A seventh candidate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, a woman of color, had also qualified for the debate stage — before she dropped out of the race.

Not yet able to jump all the hurdles? African-​American Sen. Corey Booker (D‑N.J.); Asian-​American entrepreneur Andrew Yang; and Samoan-​American Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D‑Hawaii). They have all reached the donation requirement, but not yet met the polling threshold. 

I wish them luck, especially my favorite, Gabbard. 

Still, the choice is rightly up to Democratic voters. If enough speak up for Booker, Yang or Gabbard in polls, “diversity” will obtain its place. 

If not, should Democrats use a racial quota system?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Democrat, Democratic, candidates, presidential, president, debate, race, quota,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Popular

Into and Out of the Muck

Yesterday I referenced “pigs flying” … and Icarus’s waxed-​wing fail. 

Today, it’s just about the muck.

Now, I am on the road and definitely not catching every word of the Democratic debates. But amidst much nonsense and embarrassment — and there was a lot of it, from what I can tell, not excluding the much-​googled New Agey blather of Oprah’s favorite guru, Ms. Marianne Williamson — one exhange stood out: Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s takedown of Kamala Harris’s shockingly punitive and ugly career as a prosecuting attorney.

Now, Rep. Gabbard snuck in her attack* on Harris in place of answering a question about Harris’s own sneak attack, in the previous debate round, on former U. S. Senator and Vice President Joe Biden’s 1970s’ opposition to mandatory bussing. Gabbard ably shifted away from dealing at all with Sleepy Joe — who is a buzzkill and soon-​to-​be buzzard lunch. She deflected, addressing, instead, a real issue, Kamala Harris as callous crime-fighter. 

This shows that Gabbard is developing real politicians’ chops — if you cannot carefully answer a question different from the one asked, you aren’t a true [sic] politician in America.

After the debate, the two candidates took further whacks at each other. The Jezebel article I consulted used the metaphor of “wrestling match” rather than my pigs-​in-​muck figure, but we are talking about the same thing.

But note, Rep. Gabbard is always calm and well-​spoken. She seems able to descend into the muck and coming out without too much stink.

Does this give her an advantage over Donald Trump?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* “Senator Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president. But I’m deeply concerned about this record. There are too many examples to cite, but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana: she blocked evidence … that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so; she kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California.…” etc.

PDF for printing

Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, debate, prosecuter, criminal justice, reform,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture Popular

America, the Debatable?

“A divided America gathers for Fourth,” The Washington Post headlined its lead story about the Independence Day celebration on the National Mall.* 

Give me two minutes to unite us.

On the night of July 3rd, stuck in horrendous holiday traffic, I stumbled upon a National Public Radio broadcast discussing the punk rock song, “’Merican,” by Descendants. The operative lyrics being:

I’m proud and ashamed
Every fourth of July
You got to know the truth
Before you say that you got pride

“Truth,” now that’s heavy, man. What’s the truth about ’Merica — er, America?

It is certainly true that our government — in our name — has done some terrible things. And, accordingly, to suggest that criticism is unpatriotic is, well, to miss the point of why I feel very proud to be an American. 

On the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge called July 4, 1776 “one of the greatest days in history” and “not because it was proposed to establish a new nation, but because it was proposed to establish a nation on new principles.” Those being “that all men are created equal, … endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that … the just powers of government must be derived from the consent of the governed.”

What this offers us is a standard to criticize America.

That is why it seems strange to witness folks criticizing current policy and behavior based on principles derived from the Declaration, yet, in the same breath, spurning America in the process. When America is wrong, let us right it — in true American style.

We may be divided on many issues, but on the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence we should all stand united.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


* This was the headline in the print edition dropped on my driveway July 5th; the online version carried a different headline: “Trump’s Fourth of July celebration thrills supporters, angers opponents.”

** Love him or despise him, Rep. Justin Amash made a similar point in his op-​ed about leaving the GOP to become an independent: “Our country’s founders established a constitutional republic … so ordered around liberty that, in succeeding generations, the Constitution itself would strike back against the biases and blind spots of its authors.

PDF for printing

liberty, freedom, independence, debate, American,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts