I Disagree With Surber

Via Instapundit, Don Surber has a post up that's linked to me. With respect to Don, I recall when he began blogging, but I'm unconvinced he's been out and about on the Internet long enough to understand what's going on.

The problem with catching Glenn Greenwald at sock puppetry is that it allows his very weak arguments to pass unchallenged. Snickering at his Brazilian boyfriend gives the appearance that Greenwald made an unassailable case against the war, and his critics are reduced to personal attacks.

From chats to newsgroups to blogging, etc, I've been out here debating - and too frequently arguing - politics in one form or another since 94/95, maybe. There are certain groups and individuals with whom you are foolish to actually engage.

Yes, their arguments are always weak. That's because many of their positions are not based upon an objective logic, they are steeped in emotion and an ideology you will never actually refute. Invariably, you end up weary, tired of proving and re-proving your points, only to find they have and always will fall upon the deaf ear of the individual, or ears of the group.

And when you disengage, or walk away in frustration, guess what? They actually feel and even claim that they have won. And no amount of honest fisking, or debating is going to change that.

Consequently, you should only engage certain groups and individuals when you have a truly objective referee. If their thinking or ideas get picked up somewhere else, in a more objective forum with a broader audience, perhaps, that's the time and place to take them on.

Until then, all you are doing is shouting into their echo chamber. And echo chambers are about as good a place to have an honest discussion as a Black Hole. Forget it, there is no solid ground in there upon which to stand and build an argument, or defend a position.

Let Greenwald have his echo chamber, which includes his most rabid fans. If politicians, or larger media outlets pick up his arguments, you can take them on there and win. But until then, believe me, leave him to that echo chamber. He's there precisely because it's the only place he can win. In fact, it's guaranteed. If it weren't so, he would have already moved along.

Most often, the individual who is constantly screaming about being marginalized, or being the victim of elimination-ist rhetoric comes to that position because of a simple truth he or she cannot grasp. They marginalize themselves through weak arguments and hyperbolic accusations they can't support until they end up being viewed as little more than a joke.

The bloggers joking about Greenwald have mostly worked that through based upon experience, realizing he simply isn't worth taking seriously, no matter how much he'll scream that it's only because you, or I, or someone is afraid of him. Puhlease!

Nothing could be further from the truth. Let Carnevale Greenwald begin.

Yes, indeed.

Comments

[Gotta Know]

Good post. I spent time chez Greenwald today and it was stunning. I read comment after comment of vapid emotion, one after the other, Bush has us all brainwashed, it's Bush, Bush this, Bush that, they throw in a few righty commentators for summary condemning. They quote very few of their own with the exception of Greenwald, and as you say, arguing just falls on deaf ears, logical points are responded to with sweeping generalizations, like, "Well, if Bush hadn't done X, then Y wouldn't have happened," which is usually just plain devoid of logic and impossible to prove.

So, as Mr. Cronkite would say, that's the way it is: The right leads, the left condemns. They have no alternative, and if they presented one, it's very unlikely it would stand up to scrutiny.

We might lose big in November. That would surprise me. I trust in our substance, we'll keep 'em both.

[SinCerely]

We might lose big in November. That would surprise me. I trust in our substance, we'll keep 'em both.

Posted by: Gotta Know | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 10:48 PM

Faith and substance is what I am counting/praying on.

[John from WuzzaDem]

From Surber's post:

****The problem with catching Glenn Greenwald at sock puppetry is that it allows his very weak arguments to pass unchallenged. Snickering at his Brazilian boyfriend gives the appearance that Greenwald made an unassailable case against the war, and his critics are reduced to personal attacks.

That is not the case.****

No, that's not the case at all, and plenty of people (including Patterico, whose post is linked indirectly by Surber) were addressing Greenwald's "weak arguments" before Surber jumped in. In fact, most of the "sock puppet" comments, as well as the majority of comments Greenwald recently left at right-wing blogs under his own name, were left in response to posts addressing his arguments.

Google and Technorati are great tools.

[Great White Snark]

***No, that's not the case at all, and plenty of people (including Patterico, whose post is linked indirectly by Surber) were addressing Greenwald's "weak arguments" before Surber jumped in. In fact, most of the "sock puppet" comments, as well as the majority of comments Greenwald recently left at right-wing blogs under his own name, were left in response to posts addressing his arguments.***

True enough, having had the *ahem* honor of Greenwald grace my little blog with his presence recently. But I do think that Surber makes a good point in that if the focus is on the sock puppetry from here on out, then that gives those of opposed to his views the appearance of having no response to his insipid arguments.

For better or worse, he is an influence in the left blogosphere; we have to not get in the habit of reflexively noting the sock puppetry and we have to continue to call him out on point when he says things that are barely (if at all) defensible.

Besides, I liked seeing him work himself into a fit before I smacked him back. But that's just me.

[w3]

Ideological and emotional. Like this argument?

"The necons have been planning to send your children to die for oil since they signed the PNAC agreement. They use fear [implying the use of fear is bad here] of Islam to rally the people into supporting their wars of aggression. [Some variations of this argument will insert '9/11 was an inside job' rhetoric at this point. Some omit it, but still believe it.] These people must be stopped or they will destroy America [our use of fear is okay because it's totally fu'real]."

Oh, and it's totally cool to use fear to hype Global Warming, too.

Oh, and make sure we employ fear when we discuss all our tech jobs being exported to India.

And fear's good when it comes to abortion rights. You know how those evil republicans will take away your right to choose.

Remember what George Harleigh said: "[The midterm election] is now a battle for the soul of America. The very future of this Republic may well rest on whether or not anyone can, or will, stop George W. Bush."

The soul of America, people. The soul. Your eternal soul is at stake here in these mid-terms. How cleverly the spokesman of all things sociological mixes fear and religion, all propaganda tools that leftists say should be "off-limits" to anyone but themselves.

I'm. The. Cult. Of. Per. Son. Al. Ity.

[Phoenix]

w3..... Very succinct and exactly right.

Yep to blogs becoming the news of blogs. It's a bad business. Bummer that one of the more negative aspects of human nature is that it is unable to remain objective for long. Or, maybe to rephrase it - to retain objectivity for long.

Hmm....that just might be a really stupid statement considering objective reality is such a rarity. As Dan mentioned in a recent post - you learn when and with whom to engage because, with many, you simply waste your breath as objectivity is not 'available'.

[John from WuzzaDem]

***But I do think that Surber makes a good point in that if the focus is on the sock puppetry from here on out, then that gives those of opposed to his views the appearance of having no response to his insipid arguments.***

Great White,

I don't think any 'serious' bloggers intend to make Greenwald's sockpuppetry the focus of all their future posts on him, nor should they, and had Surber made that point I would say the same thing - but that's not what he said.

"The problem with catching Glenn Greenwald at sock puppetry is that it allows his very weak arguments to pass unchallenged. Snickering at his Brazilian boyfriend gives the appearance that Greenwald made an unassailable case against the war, and his critics are reduced to personal attacks...That's not the case."

He then goes on to 'fisk' one of Greenwald's posts, and winds up by saying:

"But posts about sock-puppetry and Brazilian boyfriends are more fun to read."

Does he really think he's the first and only blogger to challenge Greenwald on the facts? If so he's wrong, and he hasn't bothered to do his research.

The blogosphere is rife with posts in which bloggers proclaim that "this" is more important than "that", yet those same bloggers run caption contests, post about strippers and porn stars, put up stale jokes and talk about pop culture. Those bloggers should have their irony meters calibrated.

BTW, Great White, I'm not arguing with what you said, I just think you're reading something into Surber's post that isn't there. I also agree with Dan that, to an extent, Greenwald has been ignored because he's a shrill, verbose scare-monger whose inane posts rarely warrant a serious challenge. Besides, who the hell has the time to go to his blog and read a 425-paragraph post? His own groupies have told him he needs an editor.

[don surber]

Good post Dan. I am going to agree with you. I jumped all over Mike Hiltzik when he did it

My point was Greenwald's argument is so weak. That was all I was saying. I was not dumping on you guys who caught this es-oh-bee

I apologize for any confusion.