Patterico Breaks His Suspicious Silence Regarding SEK’s Lame Defense of His Lame Accusations of Race-Baiting by Ed Morrissey
SEK updates that post about Captain Ed’s knowing race-baiting:
Update. If you came from over here, you need to note two things: first, that Patrick’s only talking about the title of my post, which is odd, because in the body of the post the sarcasm of the title becomes absolutely clear. So clear, the clarification below is really only for people who only read the title of my original post. Second, Patrick completely ignores the argument of both the original post and this one. Make what you will of his silence as regards anything other than the sarcastic title of the original post.
OK then, I’ll break my highly suspicious silence.
I note that Scott still hasn’t addressed the point of my post, which was that when you write a title like this:
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.
You shouldn’t really profess shock when people read that as a claim that Ed Morrissey is a race-baiter.
SEK can rant and rave all day about how I’m only addressing his title, and the body of his post makes a far different point, and anyone who reads the body of his post can see that he’s not saying Ed Morrissey race-baits, yada yada yada. At the end of the day, you’re still writing a title that reads as follows:
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.
I think it’s interesting that Scott declines to actually quote his title in his post about how he’s not accusing Ed Morrissey of race-baiting. I suspect that’s because when you actually read the title, it becomes very awkward to make the explanation when those inconvenient words (“the racist comments he knowingly baits from his audience”) are staring you right in the face.
If Scott had retracted that title and said that, darn it, he shouldn’t have written it that way because that’s inconsistent with the point he’s trying to make, then I wouldn’t be giving him grief. 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 feel a little like the woman in the Eddie Murphy skit who saw her husband run out of another woman’s house, as her husband looks her square in the eye and says: “Wasn’t me.”
Asking for an explanation of the title (and yes, Scott, I’m talking about the title, which I’m happy to read in the context of the post, but which is still your title), I get long-winded explanations about the post — but nothing to explain why the title explicitly accuses Ed Morrissey of race-baiting.
Now, in the update, we get the closest thing to an explanation that Scott will deign to give: Scott declares this to be “sarcasm” — which is evidently so utterly clear that it needn’t be explained.
Sarcasm? So is Scott mocking the notion that someone might call Ed Morrissey a race-baiter? Putting my little detective cap on, I go searching for clews and find this in the original post:
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:
Watson, I do believe that might be yet a further suggestion of racism on the part of Morrissey! No doubt this is “sarcasm” as well.
I always have liked Scott from the first time I read his hilarious accounts of his encounters with others as a student, and I don’t intend to write these posts to insult him personally. But I find it impossibly difficult to understand his defense here — and I suspect the problem is that he knows he’s been throwing around the race card a bit irresponsibly and is a touch sheepish about it.
If I’m wrong, Scott, feel free to explain. But don’t act like it’s so freakin’ obvious. If that title wasn’t meant to say Ed Morrissey is a race-baiter, then why the hell did you write it that way?
Evidently SqEK is testing the adage that all publicity is good publicity.Ten (9d21c5) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:00 am
I don’t mean to annoy you (I guess I did yesterday), Patterico, but this kind of pretzel logic is common in academia.
Like my academic friends who rail about sexism and how pernicious and awful it is…and then post Photoshopped images of hookers with Sarah Palin’s head. This is no different.
It all comes down to this simple business: people like SEK think they themselves are nice people. They think some other people aren’t so nice. In the former case, they know they aren’t sexist, racist, etc. In the latter case, they suspect the other people are.
Just my two cents.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:07 am
Words mean something.
Hey, but if it’s only sarcasm, slog on McDuff or something.
The clown nose on/clown nose off defense only works if it is obvious. In this case it does not appear evident.
Another SEK FAIL.daleyrocks (718861) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:07 am
Eric – SEK should explain then that the rules in academia are different and should be taken into account in reading his pieces.daleyrocks (718861) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:09 am
No no no, Eric! My compliment to you yesterday was very sincerely intended, as I was just about to make clear on that thread.Patterico (64318f) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:12 am
I hate to see this. Now he’s dug himself in so deep he cannot come back and say, “You know what? You’re right. I never meant to make the accusation but there it is, big as life. My bad.”
I tend to like people better who own up to their mistakes–probably better than I like people who don’t make mistakes. But once you whip out the You Missed My Sarcasm card, there’s no going back.spongeworthy (c2e8fe) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:14 am
Since Scott is apparently not going to bother to explain the nature of his “sarcasm” — but rather simply intends to remain petulant that I’m not seeing it — is there anyone else who can explain it in a way that is consonant with the rest of his post?
I like to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I tried with this, for a while.Patterico (64318f) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:21 am
Patrick, you can keep trying but you can’t make me read that blog.Mike K (2cf494) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:24 am
If you weren’t a racist, or a race-baiter, or a person that supports institutional policies that promote racisms, you would be able to understand.JD (c72acf) — 12/1/2009 @ 7:27 am
JD, I think we should all unpack our knapsack of white privilege.
I’ll never get tired of that metaphor.JVW (0fe413) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:03 am
JVW – Is that what Hamsher was trying to do when she did Lieberman in Blackface? She was unpacking his white privilege for him? 😉
I do not own a knapsack.
RACIST!!!!!!!!!JD (c72acf) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:07 am
Busy today already. Sigh.
Thank you, Patterico. But I think all of us need to guard against differential thinking. Tough to do, but we should try.
Heck, I see pretty…um…aggressive posters here give respect to people with whom they disagree. That’s the goal, I hope.
And I do admit I get irritable about academic world play, since I live in that world.
SEK isn’t playing fair. But that’s it, in a nutshell: he knows what he thinks, but he isn’t sure about others… That’s why he can, well, be hypocritical about that kind of thing.
I wonder if SEK recognizes sarcasm from, say, Rush Limbaugh? Not so likely. But why is it different?Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:13 am
I guess the other thing is that many, many folks like to sound clever or witty. The problem is that judgement is subjective. So SEK might have been trying to be snarkily witty in his title.
But he cannot in turn be upset when, well, people interpret what he writes in ways he doesn’t approve. Didn’t he just do that with Morrissey?Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:17 am
SEK’s post clearly agrees with the notion that the commenters are racist, and that they were motivated my Ed Morissey.
Sarcasm is an easy out on the internet. But it doesn’t work in this case.Dustin (cf255c) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:19 am
I think the business of calling Dan Riehl a racist is also reprehensible.
But that term is, again, designed to neutralize opponents and crow about one’s own supposed superiority.
Or am I being sarcastic? I can’t tell.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:21 am
I don’t pay any attention to academics anymore (except for Eric and Mike LaRouche), because they’ve long ago lost their relevance after decades of false constructs and hypocritical sermons. Trust me on this, blatherers such as this one don’t deserve one iota of your attention – they really hate that in the end.Dmac (a964d5) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:23 am
…and since the GW scam, I’m not too sure about some scientists these days, either.Dmac (a964d5) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:25 am
The trick, Dmac, as always: to know what you don’t know (to paraphrase from snarky old Socrates).
And keep in mind that most academics are the people no one wanted on their fourth grade kickball team.
It explains a lot.
And I don’t exclude myself from that judgement.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:45 am
Eric, you’re quite right that SEK shouldn’t have the right to completely re-characterize Morissey however he like, while also refusing to allow people to interpret his words (particularly when Patterico simply read them literally).
SEK is lying.
Calling people racist is an effort to shut them down without actually looking at their ideas. When they are not actually racist, this is a really disgusting level of attack. Obama’s supporters have been awful in this way. LGF and SEK have no interest in freedom of speech, and this is proof. They are not democratic or liberal, they are pigs.Dustin (cf255c) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:48 am
Beautiful dmac, just wonderful
Like you, I too disdain those who read a lot and spend their lives on dull topics like law or intentionalism or climate. Give me the salt of the earth like Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh….people who know things because they know what’s right and I’m happy.timb (449046) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:51 am
Dustin, I think what you describe comes from a sense of righteousness, that the speaker is good.
It’s arrogant, I think. For example, I can promise you that I know a LOT more about evolutionary theory than Charles Johnson. But notice how he argues and judges and dismisses. I try not to do that, myself.
In a similar way, people on the Left have a laundry list of things about themselves they consider to be “better” than others. Being a “not racist” is one of those things. But when you probe deeper beneath the surface, you will find that attitude to be more platitude than perfection.
Once you think you are on the side of the angels, why, pretty much whatever you do to shut down people on the side of the Devil is okay. The ends justify the means.
Which was one of Jonah Goldberg’s points, I think. Thomas Sowell’s, too.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:54 am
That was well timed, wasn’t it?Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 8:55 am
“… that the rules in academia are different…”
“It takes someone with an advanced education to be this stupid.”
I reiterate: I should care what this SEK person says/writes/does because ????????????AD - RtR/OS! (66f601) — 12/1/2009 @ 9:43 am
With this kind of paper-trail, his future seems to be severely limited.
If you can get someone to recite the entire Liberal Creed, you’ll find, right up close to the top, “acceptance of conservative political ideology is impossible if one is not a racist.”
That’s so completely accepted and assumed within the Liberal Church that you no longer even need to mention it – if you’re speaking of conservatives, you’re speaking of racists.
You can challenge liberals to show any basis – any basis at all – for calling Ed a racist, and even when no one can come forth with anything remotely supportive of the accusation, and you claim victory, you’ll be left with a pile of liberal readers thinking to themselves that it’s a dumb argument because Ed’s conservatism provides sufficient proof in and of itself.
Remember – they hate us because we’re evil, not because we’d rather use effective and realistic means to fix social problems instead of feelgood means that don’t work.bobby b (4baf73) — 12/1/2009 @ 9:53 am
Well said, bobby b. Well said, indeed.JD (d55760) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:01 am
I think poor SEK’s problem is that he gets lost in words to the degree that the meaning they have for him is not a meaning anyone else recognizes. Lewis Carroll used this fault of a certain class of “thinkers” extensively in his prose and poetry, but I like Roger Zelazny’s pithy, “They are cursed with ignorance and language”, better.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:11 am
Conservatives are Racists, because Racists are Conservatives.
No circular-reasoning there,AD - RtR/OS! (66f601) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:12 am
move along now,
nothing to see here.
And, yes, that is a half defense of SEK. I don’t think he is maliciously calling anyone racist knowing that it is false. Only that he does not know what he is saying.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:14 am
Comment by nk — 12/1/2009 @ 10:14 am
…see #23!AD - RtR/OS! (66f601) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:18 am
Hail, nk, Prince of Amber!
I miss Zelazny, too. Especially “Doorways in the Sand.”
I think you are too kind to SEK. Many folks in academia use such words to dismiss or marginalize others. And the ironic thing is how those same people claim to be outraged by the marginalization of other groups of people.
And he may indeed believe that people who think differently on this issue are racist.
Again, think of how the word “fascist” is used on campus.
But I think it is admirable you are trying to be cautious and thoughtful about SEK’s post.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:34 am
Thank you Eric, but like I have said in other ways before, “I am only a recording device”.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:39 am
You’re too indulgent at the end of your post, Patrick. Occam’s Razor suggests that SEK is now simply lying his butt off, not just offering a clumsly but sincere defense.Mitch (890cbf) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:43 am
Does that mean you are really Spicus, nk?Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 10:49 am
No, only, like I’ve always been saying, I don’t think, that’s way too hard work. I remember.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:04 am
Just don’t go through the Rhennius machine, nk. That works out poorly.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:17 am
#24 Comment by bobby b — 12/1/2009 @ 9:53 am
“Remember – they hate us because we’re evil, not because we’d rather use effective and realistic means to fix social problems instead of feelgood means that don’t work.”
I think this is why the left hates Reagan so much. Had he been a failure they would have dismissed him as an old fool, but his great success after Carter’s epic failures earned their hatred.Machinist (0dccb4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:18 am
Sometimes you folks make me use Google way too much 😉JD (d55760) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:18 am
Read everything you can by Roger Zelazny, JD. You won’t regret it. (Except maybe “Dream Master”.)nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:23 am
Actually, there’s no story you could not read to your daughters, or your mother. He was like that.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:25 am
RIP, nk. He was a good person, too. Not all authors are.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 11:39 am
Buying into the incidental threadjack… It’s been a while, but The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouths blew my mind back in my late teenage years. Kudos for the Zelazny intrusion. Racists.Hadlowe (63ba8e) — 12/1/2009 @ 12:18 pm
Well, back when I used to comment regularly on blogs, I defended SEK numerous times at PW, and more than once here. Not any more – he’s used up all his benefit of the doubt.Phil Smith (1cf25d) — 12/1/2009 @ 12:48 pm
Roger that, Phil.JD (ae4c43) — 12/1/2009 @ 12:55 pm
Actually, I think of Zelazny as for a xenophile. But that’s me.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 1:22 pm
Nothing wrong with that. There’s much about Stoic philosophy that I admire too.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 1:27 pm
I wonder if Timmah! ever actually puts one actual thought process together before opening his blowhole. But then again, he only comes by here about once a month, so maybe he’s just used up all of that awesome cranial capacity by the time he drops his load.Dmac (a964d5) — 12/1/2009 @ 1:50 pm
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:
For the sake of emphasis:
Patrick then quotes me writing about what happens when Morrissey “cooks” a post, but cuts it off at the colon after “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:
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:
That was established by Aristotle. On to the specific:
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,SEK (9e7eee) — 12/1/2009 @ 4:31 pm
SEK – More sophistry on your part. All it takes to unravel your pretzel logic and insults to Ed is a look at the common synonyms for the word “knowingly”: deliberately, purposely, consciously, intentionally, on purpose, wilfully, wittingly.
If you believe Ed writes deliberately to elicit racist comments from his audience, your wording is fine. Otherwise you have done him an injustice. It’s simple and does not take an advanced degree to see.daleyrocks (718861) — 12/1/2009 @ 4:47 pm
It is a wonder his head did not assplode after typing that drivel.
I see … RACISTS !!!JD (9e41b2) — 12/1/2009 @ 4:48 pm
SEK, we get it. Every word you use means what you intend it to mean and nothing else.nk (df76d4) — 12/1/2009 @ 5:56 pm
SEK is always getting out his acme rocket and ending up at the bottom of a crevasse with an anvil and piano rumpling his fur.SarahW (692fc6) — 12/1/2009 @ 6:04 pm
Actually, here is something to consider:
Actually, SEK writes some things deliberately to elicit comments he wants to see. It’s a game.
It’s just that his sophistry was so obvious this time. Remember, he is smarter than you are. Hence the silly word games.
It’s just another version of the meaning of “is,” again.
Again, I think that there should be a whole series of posts following these rules of SEK’s. Except he wouldn’t like having his reputation impugned.
Funny thing, that.Eric Blair (bc43a4) — 12/1/2009 @ 6:09 pm
[…] I’m told SEK is busily composing an essay saying this proves Ace “knowingly baits” racist comments. […]Patterico's Pontifications » Ace Brings Out the Ban Hammer (e4ab32) — 12/9/2009 @ 5:57 am