Why SEK’s Defense Does Not Fly
In comments, SEK takes a stab at explaining why he wasn’t accusing Ed Morrissey of race-baiting when SEK spoke of “the racist comments [Morrissey] knowingly baits from his audience.” SEK’s very lengthy defense is posted below the fold, but I think it is fairly summarized as follows (this is my paraphrase of SEK’s argument):
I didn’t mean that Ed intentionally baits racist comments, but merely that he knowingly baits racist comments.
There is a fascinating discussion to be had there concerning the impact that knowledge has on intent, but I don’t have time for it right now. Suffice it to say that SEK’s attempted distinction does not fly, in my view, because the word “baits” connotes intent. So when you say “knowingly baits,” the plain meaning of that terminology suggests “intentionally baits.” If you “bait” a response, you’re doing it intentionally.
If you don’t mean to suggest that someone is intentionally eliciting racist comments, don’t use the word “bait” to describe what they’re doing.
File this under “Words mean things.”
Oh, and SEK? Stop calling people racists so much, mkay?
SEK’s defense follows:
The following concerns a post entitled “Be nice, now. The English language is not Ed Morrissey’s strong suit, and he at least makes a show of reining in the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience.” Patrick writes:
But instead, he’s standing by the title and at the same time claiming that he’s not accusing Ed Morrissey of race-baiting.
I wrote:
[I]t’s come to my attention that if you only read the title of this post, you’d come away with the impression that I was slagging Ed Morrissey for race-baiting. Because that charge is so loaded, I want to make it absolutely clear that I wasn’t.
For the sake of emphasis:
[I]t’s come to my attention that if you only read the title of this post, you’d come away with the impression that I was slagging Ed Morrissey for race-baiting. Because that charge is so loaded, I want to make it absolutely clear that I wasn’t.
Patrick then quotes me writing about what happens when Morrissey “cooks” a post, but cuts it off at the colon after “liquid”:
Mr. Morrissey and his ilk care little how any individual ingredient contributes to the flavor, because no matter what anyone tosses in there, the last step of the recipe calls for adding two parts ungranulated racism for every one part of liquid:
But the links that follow that colon demonstrate that all the “ungranulated racism” comes from Morrissey’s commenters in a response to a post about the meaning of the word “diagnosis.” The point being that there is no race-baiting on Morrissey’s part, and yet! the racists are still baited. Let me repeat that very important sentence: The point being that there is no race-baiting on Morrissey’s part, and yet! the racists are still baited. As I noted (and emphasized) in the original post:
Even Mr. Morrissey knows that letting the racism of his compatriots trot out in response to every and anything he writes might give others the correct impression about what the actual issue is here.
Now, you can choose to read that as my saying Morrissey is a race-baiter, because technically, I am, but only because technically, he can’t be otherwise. His posts, even about the word “diagnosis,” bait racists. He knows that even the most innocuous post he writes will bait racists which is why he had to institute the comment policy that annoyed his racist readers. This means he knows that he has racist readers who will be baited by even the most innocuous chum, which means every time he writes he knowingly baits racists. However, you’ll also note that the title indicates that “he at least makes a show of reining in the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience.” In other words, given that Morrissey is so aware that every and anything he writes will bait some racists in his commentariat, he knowingly baits racist comments every and any time he writes. But! At least he makes a show of reining them in.
Let me try another approach:
Major premise: All A are B.
Minor premise: All C are A.
Conclusion: All C are B.That was established by Aristotle. On to the specific:
All gigantic conservative sites have a vocal group of racist commenters.
Ed Morrissey writes for a gigantic conservative site.
Therefore, Ed Morrissey has a vocal group of racist commenters.
So:
All people who write for gigantic conservative sites know they will receive racist comments.
Ed Morrissey writes for a gigantic conservative site.
Therefore, Ed Morrissey knows he will receive racist comments.
However:
All gigantic conservative sites can choose to delete comments by that vocal minority of racist commenters.
Ed Morrissey writes for a gigantic conservative site.
Therefore, Ed Morrissey can choose to delete comments by that vocal minority of racist commenters.
And:
All people who delete racist comments are more likely good people than not.
Ed Morrissey deletes racist comments.
Therefore …
Moreover, Patrick knows that I have a habit of titling my posts in a way that doesn’t represent the content that follows. Take, for example, “In that moment, I knew I’d be accused of sexual harassment again.” I knew that wasn’t going to happen, but I titled it that way anyhow! Or, “Turns out I owe Jack Cashill an apology” and “I’m going to spend the rest of my life apologizing to Jack Cashill, aren’t I?” I knew when I wrote those titles that I didn’t and wasn’t, and yet I titled them that anyway! Sarcastic exclamation points notwithstanding,
It was a pun!
After typing that, SEK immediately passed out from dizziness.
JD (90aba0) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:36 amOh, please. The guy just can’t say that his mouth got away from him, and he was wrong.
That or he is suddenly telepathic.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:39 amIn SEK’s world, Patterico’s titled actually means that SEK’s defense does fly.
JD (90aba0) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:46 am“is?”
PatAZ (9d1bb3) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:47 amIf he had entitled the post “…he at least makes a show of reining in the racist comments he inadvertantly baits from his audience,” then perhaps his argument would be valid.
As it is, the reader is left to choose from the following:
A. SEK is a dishonest writer.
B. SEK is merely a crappy writer.
C. A and B are both true.
C works just fine for me.
Bugz (22f877) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:56 amNot that this has much bearing on SEK (as Patterico notes, the word “bait” implies intention), but there is a definite distinction to be made between “knowing” and “intending” a particular reaction.
For example, I might decide to publish a cartoon which Muslims were likely to find offensive, and which some Muslims would likely react very violently to. I would know that this is a likely result, because I’ve followed the news the past several years, and understand that there are extremists who hate free speech and think that violence is an appropriate way to make others stop offending them. So by publishing the offensive cartoon, I would “knowingly” be a causal factor in violence.
But of course I wouldn’t intend that reaction. My intent would be to oppose censorship, including self-censorship. Or my intent might be merely to publish something I thought humorous in light of current events. Or my intent might be to provoke deeper self-searching by Muslims (as the “Piss Christ” artist supposedly wanted to do with Christians). So I would knowingly do something likely to end in violence, without desiring or intending that violence.
In the blog world, Charles Johnson of LGF, several years ago, had a very open comment policy, which resulted in tons of what was, in reality, anti-Islamic comments (not merely anti-terrorist or anti-radical). He undoubtedly had to know that when he posted certain things, they would lead to a deluge of the usual comments, some of which would be anti-Islamic, but what he himself said was not generally anti-Islamic (as I recall; I’m not vouching for every word he ever wrote).
So, interesting question as a general matter, but I don’t think SEK has actually thought it through that deeply.
PatHMV (140f2a) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:56 amIf SEK routinely denounced playing the racism card to silence opponents, then his defense might actually pass the laugh test.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:59 amTwas brillig and the words in SEK’s head
nk the indulgent (df76d4) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:03 amDid gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were the racist calls
And the self-righteousness outgrabe.
Question:
Assume for the sake of argument that I have accurately described SEK’s true intent.
In that case, is there anything wrong with what he wrote?
I say yes. But an intentionalist is required to say no.
If they’re being intellectually honest.
Patterico (688f64) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:08 amI’m not sure why debating someone like this is very useful. Its like arguing with trolls. This can go on forever and it sucks the life out of other issues that are more important.
People who try to find stuff to take offense at will always be able to do so. They are small and should be ignored. If you take their bait, you’ll wind up in their net struggling for an exit. I’ll take discussion of principles over personal arguments any time.
Jeff (0204be) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:22 amJeff wrote, “I’m not sure why debating someone like this is very useful.”
In my opinion, Patterico performs a public service by shining a light on cockroaches like SEK. He may not be able to shame SEK into recanting, but the post does serve as a warning to others.
Caution! Intellectual dishonesty ahead.
Bugz (5f95ec) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:28 amLanguage is a means of communication. Nothing more. If people misunderstand what you say, it’s your fault and nobody else’s. Apologize (or not), take a breath, and say it again with words you used in kindergarten. We had this conversation before with another person who, in my opinion, is miles above SEK in intellect but who also got lost in the maze of words.
nk who is wrapped around his daughter's little finger (df76d4) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:29 amLet’s see – SEK claims all conservative sites have racist commenters but it is at SEK’s site that commenters state that any minority who votes for a Republican are race traitors.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:32 am#8, nk, that’s good stuff. Credit where it’s due.
ropelight (7379dd) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:33 amThank you, Ropelight, but Lewis Carroll fans are likely to be throwing rocks through my window. 😉
nk (df76d4) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:38 amHave Blue, that is a good point. I don’t think that SEK intentionally encourages that level of race-baiting. But he knowingly encourages that kind of behavior.
Right?
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:45 amPatterico:
It just calls out for some really pernicious post titles about SEK, that have nothing to do with the content of the post.
Again, SEK was just being snarky and trying to be clever in a self-congratulatory fashion. He should have just said “I got overheated, and I went too far. I apologize.”
But he won’t admit error. And hole keeps getting deeper. Because now, his opponents just aren’t smart enough to see that his own pellucid and artfully arranged words meant something different than the reading of those words suggests.
Wow.
Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:50 amPatHMV at 6 – In regards to your last line, from everything I have ever seen there is little evidence SEK has ever thought deeply about anything.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:51 amComment by Bugz — 12/2/2009 @ 7:56 am
SEK is to writing as crayon-wielders are to Rembrandt!
AD - RtR/OS! (74067f) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:21 amWhat kind of writer titles his posts or articles in a way that doesn’t represent the content to follow? Does that mean if he writes an article called “Obama is Competent” that we can, in fact, expect to find all of the examples to date of why Obama is, in fact, an incompetent leader?
My head is spinning!
Rochf (ae9c58) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:24 amIt’s postmodern structuralism, using a hermaneutic approach.
Not hypocrisy and lack of accountability, at all.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:28 amI use “gotcha” titles to get people’s attentions and that’s what SEK fraudulently claims he did. He really needs to work on his reasoning skills.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:37 amThe whole “gotcha” thing would work better if we also hadn’t received the knowing v. intentional defense, none of which makes any sense.
Sometimes it just makes sense to man up, take responsibiilty, and move on.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:57 amI do understand the real (if narrow) difference between knowingly and intentionally. It just is a load of too-thinly-slicely baloney HERE for the reason Patrick noted.
Mitch (890cbf) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:34 amIn the end, none of this matters.
It’s from HIS world that we learn that offence doesn’t arise from the intent of the speaker, but rather from whatever sleazy spin some eggshell-skulled Professional Victim listener can manage to tortuously carve from it.
I know that I was offended, for Ed’s sake for his having directly called Ed a racist as well as for my own sake, seeing as how I know and understand that he meant to call all conservatives and Republicans racist.
Doesn’t he owe us reparations or something now?
bobby b (4baf73) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:44 amHas it occurred to any of you that SEK is projecting his racism onto Ed?
either orr (291505) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:44 amAn SEK allegory. (youtube)
It’s kind of funny he doesn’t know what “bait” means; does he deny the particular connotation of race-baiting
SarahW (692fc6) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:44 am(tormenting, teasing) he used? Or that even in the difference sense of enticement, it connotes an intentional act?
O gee, I forgot to put in my SEK allegory link
Well, here it is.
SarahW (692fc6) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:50 ameither orr, it certainly did occur to me.
I don’t call people racist without good evidence, though. I’ve noticed that a lot of the people who are angrily demanding sensitivity about race are demanding it in suspiciously racist ways.
It’s like Myron and Charles Johnson freaking out that someone used the ‘see no evil’ monkeys. They think monkeys have a lot to do with black people, so even when the monkeys are labeled ‘courts, congress, etc’, that’s saying Obama is subhuman… Really, they are showing us that when they see monkeys they think of black people, even when that goes against the label on the comic.
The democrats keep calling TEA protestors racist, Hot Air’s comment section racist, black men who don’t support Obamacare racist (against blacks)… it’s hard not to wonder if this is like the psychological case of naughty boys jumping over cracks to prevent their mother’s backs from being broken. A way to feel better about their own problem.
I don’t think black people need affirmative action to succeed. I don’t think black people need protection from monkey insults any more than W Bush did. I don’t really care about race. For those that do think blacks are inferior, and need all this democrat protection, I suspect deep racism.
Dustin (cf255c) — 12/2/2009 @ 10:53 amClearly by writing “takes a stab” you are advocating violence against SEK.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 12/2/2009 @ 12:24 pmSEK supports Obama, which by extension makes you a violent racist.
I’ll alert the Secret Service.
bobby b is objectively a racist, since he mentioned reparations in a discussion about SEK, an Obama supporter.
JD (4e0002) — 12/2/2009 @ 12:38 pmDustin, well spoken and well argued. It’s the whole condescension thing that leaves me quite suspicious.
either orr (291505) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:43 pmWhat I said did not mean what I said, except for the meaningful stuff. That means what it says, but in an ironic way. Know what I mean?
Hadlowe (061332) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:11 pmLet us not talk of intellectually dishonest intentionalists here. That said, it’s odd that people are saying I haven’t corrected the record, because I have. I even repeated it twice in that comment. Moreover, the very existence of the clarification indicates that I’m aware that what I’d intended to communicate didn’t come through, so I took pains to re-communicate my intended message in another post. That’s not me sticking to my guns because I know I meant what I’d intended–that’s me acknowledging despite what I’d intended to mean, that message wasn’t communicated clearly. That’s why I find comments like this baffling:
I’ve typed it out three times now, once with emphasis, so I won’t repeat myself again. You can continue to argue over the effectiveness (or lack thereof) with which I communicated my intent on that first post. My feeling the need to clarify pretty well indicates my opinion on the matter. After all, my intent is crystal clear to me, and the desire to clarify only arises when I sense a disconnect between what I’d intended and what people understood. That’s a failure on my part, and one that requires clarification. I’m belaboring the obvious here because comments like the above indicate that people don’t understand that I’ve already done what they’ve called on me to do. To wit:
You’re going to make me quote it again, aren’t you? Fine:
I suppose I could’ve written “absolutely positively clear,” but doing that would be the equivalent of having to write the same thing four times now–so I should’ve done it.
Actually, that was Morrissey’s claim. It’s what caused him to have to institute a “no racist, or even borderline racist comments” policy, which was what caught my attention in the first place.
Again, this is a case of mistaking Morrissey’s claim for mine. He’s the one who had to, as his some of his commenters noted, “muzzle” some of their fellows who now “can’t say what they really think,” which makes them upset because threads without racist comments “are boring to read.”
SEK (9e7eee) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:18 pmJust a little reminder about Barry O and his long association with an America-hating, thouroughly racist cult…
‘Trinity United boasts that it is a congregation “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.” What’s more, “it is a congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. We are an African people, and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”’
‘Its pastor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., has referred to “white arrogance” and “the United States of Whiter America.” To my ears, that sounds unashamedly black, but I’m not so sure about the unapologetically Christian.’
‘Furthermore, Rev. Wright’s church publishes a magazine, The Trumpet. Not too surprisingly, all things considered, the recipient of the 2007 Lifetime Achievement Trumpeter Award for Social Justice was none other than Louis Farrakhan, the fellow who plays the race card even better than he plays his violin.’
‘That being said, I have no idea how a member of a black church that apparently feels it owes greater allegiance to Africa than to America and that pays homage to a bigot like Farrakhan, has the gall to present himself as the one candidate who can bring us all together.’
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/ideating-barack-obama-trinity-united-church-christ-maxine
Lefties…spare me your crap about racism, especially when it comes to your New Messiah.
Dave Surls (42a770) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:40 pmUm. Not so much.
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:12 pm“I’m belaboring the obvious here because comments like the above indicate that people don’t understand that I’ve already done”
SEK – I’m with Eric. What you are belaboring is not the obvious. Are you getting paid by word count and tedium?
daleyrocks (718861) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:37 pmDouble rewards points for medacity, daley.
JD (787a1f) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:00 pmI read the entire SEK piece, commentary, and comments. It took a while. When I was thinking about it, I loosely remembered this, and googled it. Just a few simple sentences Mark Twain wrote to a friend. Isn’t is a marvelous cautionary tale for writers?
I notice that you use plain, simple language, short words and brief sentences. That is the way to write English – it is the modern way and the best way. Stick to it; don’t let fluff and flowers and verbosity creep in. When you catch an adjective, kill it. No, I don’t mean utterly, but kill most of them – then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart. An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.
Dana (e9ba20) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:24 pmGood old Samuel Clemens, Dana. Thanks for the reminder.
Which reminds me of this:
He is out of fashion, particularly in academia. But there is much truth in his “On Writing Well.”
Eric Blair (c8876d) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:29 pmShorter SEK:
aunursa (862c19) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:31 pm“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,'” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,'” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
SEK knows things. He has a piece of paper that proves it. He gets paid to teach impressionable young adults and write book. He’s much more smarterer than all you race-baiters. And Aunursa is right: SEK’s words only mean what SEK wants them to at the time. And when SEK changes the meanings of his words mid-stream, you race-baiters (Artsy Dana is a race-traitor) must has to just accept it. Because SEK knows things. He has a piece of paper that proves it.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:45 pmSo…
Can SEK’s argument be extended to mean that Ed would knowingly (but not intentionally!) race-bait even by posting an “Open Thread”?
If ANY content can bring out the haters, why not no content at all? In fact, an Open Thread on HotAir should really be called “Open Season”, since Ed KNOWS what kind of comments can appear absent his firm guidance and muzzling.
That’s ludicrous. But, it’s in no way contrary to SEK’s syllogisms.
fat tony (6da8be) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:34 amSEK doesn’t think beyond SEK’s own personal ivory tower. And he isn’t used to the PWNAGE people who frequent sites that aren’t uber-liberal give him. Remember, he claimed he’s as far left of the socialist Obama as anyone can get, so it doesn’t take much to deliver the PWNAGE on SEK.
SEK’s last will and testament had to delete the “sound mind” part because, clearly, he is without.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:44 am