Case in point: This so-called logic-slobber named Benjamin Radford of Discover News. He's a professional skeptic, if there is such a thing. And therein lies my squirrely disgust towards him: I cannot blast him for his reasonings in his essays because, on the whole, he's pretty much right. It's very hard to criticize someone you have a visceral reaction toward if his logic is correct, at least on a superficial level.
My problem with a skeptic like Radford is ... well, first of all, he looks like a smug little shit that needs to be beaten upside the head to wipe that superior smirk off his face. Just check out his photo, and I think you'll agree. But mostly, I believe, my anger towards him is a matter of tone. He is so rigorously logic-driven that he discredits all forms of emotion in an argument. Not to say that you should always do things based on emotion. But it appears to be Public Enemy No. 1 to Radford, and that all problems can be solved if you only think.
The world isn't driven that way, and it shouldn't be. Because there are a lot of bad problems in the world that you can't help but be emotional about. Feelings matter. But a guy like Radford points to statistics and logic and acts like feelings absolutely doesn't matter. And he hasn't critiqued just hysteria or paranoia; scientific topics like environmentalism and urban legends are put through his mirthless "common sense" grinder. He seems like a guy who thinks it's OK to go up to a line of kids waiting to sit on Santa's lap and tell them that he doesn't exist.
The final straw for me is his bitching and moaning tonight about Terry Jones, that wingnut pastor who wants to burn Korans on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of 9/11. He makes two points: 1) The media has given this asshole priest more publicity than he deserves; and 2) Maybe this isn't going to piss off Muslims like we Christian Americans think it would.
I wish he made those two points without the smarmy attitude. Not only does his piece put him in a very unflattering light (again), but he leaves wide-open holes in his arguments that make me want to take strangers by the lapels and ask them if they see through his decorated bullshit like I do.
First point first. He's mostly right. I think that someone's going to be covering Jones's on-again, off-again, now-on-again Koran burning anyway, but Radford is correct in saying that the media spotlight only empowers him. The media, journalism and message conveyance are pet concerns for him -- he wrote a book called Media MythMakers, where he scrutinizes, deconstructs, and ridicules stories the news covers and tries to find out the ulterior motives behind the of topics the media chooses to follow and the sensationalism with which they track them. Fair shots -- I couldn't get into journalism because so much of the stories are superfluous crap. But I think I know the media's agenda: to make money. Um, like, duh, Mr. Radford.
A curious observation I've made about Radford's strafing runs at reporters is that, to him, they always seem to be the problem -- shoot the messenger, not the message. I still fancy myself a journalist even though I'm not in journalism, so attacking "the media," something that Republicans, people in general and even Democrats regularly punch like a speed bag, usually gets my dander up. Look, there are some reporters who sincerely want to know what is going on in the world today. In this case, even though the ulterior motive of this "pastor" is starting to outweigh the newsworthiness of his potential action, I do not fault reporters for, well, reporting it. Yet according to Radford, it's all the media's fault. Again, journalists and journalism is getting both eyes blackened because of Jones. But The Media didn't start it. Jones did. And Radford has disregarded the real effect emotion has on this debate (assuming he had any in the first place) in completely ignoring how this Koran burning is upsetting and pissing off so many people.
His second point, I think, amplifies my conclusion that he simply doesn't get it, and gets to why I don't like this guy. Specifically, Radford types two sentences that make me lose it. The first:
As insulting as burning the Koran is to many Muslims, the widespread fear over how they might react is even more insulting.
How? How, Benji? You might think that fear over what Jones's crazy book-burning might do to us is worse. Me? If I were Muslim -- not a terrorist Muslim, but your day-to-day, run-of-the-mill, peaceful, non-crazy Muslim -- I might be super pissed off that the U.S. isn't doing more to stop this freak from setting on fire what I consider to be my Bible. A little, um, emotional, I guess, but that's just me. I'll take a stab at a logical argument: The First Amendment. It's guaranteed in this country, even the most hateful and detestable. Keith Olbermann doesn't like it, but on Late Show With David Letterman he said, in the end, that you have to support this guy because we're all Americans and we all support Jones's right to free speech.
First of all, I don't support this prick Jones, and I wish I had a forum like a segment on a talk show or a cushy column on a website component of a cable channel to let everybody know that. This is a case where the protected use of the First Amendment goes a tad too far. However, the United States is known as a bastion of free speech. If we Americans all agree that Jones has a right to burn Korans, even though we may disagree with it, we tacitly support the book-burning.
Oh yes, that's my contention. Radford says that "probably most Muslims recognize that Jones is an attention-seeking religious zealot who does not represent American belief nor public policy." (If he used the word "insane douchenozzle" I'd actually be on his side a little more, but again, that's a tone thing.) He might be right, even though I doubt he's conducted a poll. But I hope he's right. Because my guess is there will be a few Muslims in the world who are OK with the U.S., but then see this Fundamentalist Christian burn their holy book and become incensed that the only superpower in the world has done nothing to stop him.
Oh yeah, the second sentence that has me going up a wall is his finishing sentence:
"By overreacting to the fear of religious retaliation, Islam’s defenders are actually legitimizing the very fear and xenophobia Jones is promoting."
OK, I may be a hypersensitive prick here, but Radford is just fucking blaming the victim here. I know that he's dismissing Jones as a hopeless case, like we all should. But this is Radford's MO: Twisting a topic from the inside-out (for example, making a seemingly innocuous one look covert and complex, or popping the balloon of what appears to be a frightening or mind-blowing fact -- he's done both), then questioning why someone (usually the monolith of "The Media") wants to frame the topic that way. Here, he's saying, "Jones is not the problem. You guys, the ones who are outraged over Jones, you guys are the problem. This pastor's nuts ... what's your excuse?"
Again, he's right -- logically. It's back to tone: I see Muslims getting their houses of worship labeled as incubators of terrorism, and I'm the one who's wrong??? Fuck Radford. Feelings are legitimate factors in a heated, personal debate such as Koran-burning, yet Radford thinks it can just be compartmentalized, or put on a shelf, without consequence. Radford likes to damn both sides of an argument when oftentimes there is no reason to group them together and equate them. Here, he thinks the people who decry and denounce Jones's actions are just as "bad" as Jones is. Clearly, they're not. Radford would probably then say that being "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with it. I say like hell they're not, which brings me back to my point that he doesn't get it.
Moreover, when he puts things "in context," like he says in this column (and like he does in many columns -- it's a pet phrase of his), he actually is admitting to overlooking the trees for the forest. The trees matter. Emotions matter. What happens to, or from, a minority contingent of a group matters because it can persuade the majority to follow the minority. I wish people could do what Radford says and apply logic to everything every single second of their lives. But reality ain't like that. People provoke people, people get pissed off, and people hurt innocent people to get back at the people that hurt them. In that sense, Benny Radford is more of a Pollyanna than I am.
This guy is not a wingnut: His takedowns of birthers, truthers and those who think President Obama is a Muslim are exquisitely vicious. And yet I don't think I could stand being the same restaurant with this guy because he'll probably shoot down any fanciful notion I have and say, "Well, it's true." In other words, Benjamin Radford sounds like he's an asshole, and I have this incredible urge to punch him in the face. Yeah. That's why I don't like him.
No comments:
Post a Comment