Sunday, November 21, 2021

Althouse

Althouse

Sunrise — 6:53.

Posted: 21 Nov 2021 03:30 PM PST

IMG_8326D

Write about whatever you want in the comments.

"Asked"?! That's putting it mildly.

Posted: 21 Nov 2021 08:49 AM PST

I'm reading "Here's a Fact: We're Routinely Asked to Use Leftist Fictions" by John McWhorter (in the NYT).

"[W]e think of it as ordinary to not give voice to our questions about things that clearly merit them, terrified by the response that objectors often receive. History teaches us that this is never a good thing."

McWhorter is underplaying the problem. We don't just think it's ordinary to refrain from saying certain things (such as, to name the example he stresses, the existence of race-preferences in higher education admissions). We think it's abnormal to the point of toxicity not to refrain.

We (as a culture) are deeply engaged in teaching young people that they must lie. The "white lie" is no longer merely permissible. It's required.  I wonder if young people have retained any of the old-fashioned commitment to truth. It's obviously not the highest value anymore.

I was surprised to run across this aphorism on Facebook the other day: "That Which Can Be Destroyed By the Truth Should Be." There were lots of comments celebrating this abstraction. I considered delivering truth that would destroy their bullshit celebration of a principle I doubt they believe. 

But I refrained. I consider my reputation as a nice (enough) person on Facebook to be worth preserving. But I didn't believe the aphorism. I just had a mischievous urge to show them their admiration of it was itself a lie. But such urges are better confined to this blog, where no one runs into me by accident. 

Anyway, whose aphorism is that? Quote Investigator has done the research, here. The answer is not Carl Sagan.

The earliest strong match known to QI appeared in the 1994 novel "Seeker's Mask" by P. C. Hodgell (Patricia C. Hodgell). In the following scene two characters named Jame and Kirien were conversing, and the adage was spoken by Kirien....
Jame winced, remembering the awful revelation of her own soul-image. "Perhaps," she said, "we can't endure to know ourselves too well. Perhaps, the truth can sometimes destroy."

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be," said that implacable voice. Could any Arrin-ken have spoken with more authority? "Of what would you choose to remain in ignorance?"
It is important to recognize that a quotation from a novel sometimes represents the opinion of a character and not the belief of an author. Indeed, the fictional person expressing the thought may grow and change dramatically during a story arc; hence, even that person may disown the quotation.

It's an interesting quote, and I haven't read the novel, but if I were reading a novel and came to that passage, I would start looking for reasons why the "implacable voice" — Kirien — might have nefarioius plans. You can go too far with truth all the time. For one thing, you could be wrong about what is true and too eager to destroy everything that doesn't fit your idea of the truth.

But that's a subtlety that only becomes important among people who care about truth. We're living in a culture where lying — or at least shutting up — is the higher value. 

Notice that McWhorter doesn't use the word "lie." He says "fiction."

ADDED: McWhorter also uses the word "prevaricate": "That this is not to be mentioned is a kind of politesse requiring that we prevaricate about a subject already difficult enough to discuss and adjudicate.."

"Baby kissing is a practice in which politicians and candidates campaigning for office kiss babies in order to garner public support."

Posted: 21 Nov 2021 07:58 AM PST

So begins the Wikipedia article "Baby kissing," which I'm reading this morning after getting this viral tweet:

Is Biden a "creepy ghoul" there? I see a responsive tweet that says "I blame the mother for putting her child in this situation. Why do these people always b[r]ing their children around this creep?" 

But mothers have been holding their babies up to politicians, expecting not just light petting, but outright kissing for as long as I can remember. It's been a synonym for campaigning. That's why there's a Wikipedia article "Baby kissing." 

Look how lovely our most charismatic President looked doing it (and he's even crotch-grabbing!):

Of course, some babies don't like it, and they don't know or care that the stranger handling them is the President. Some Presidents manage to make the baby's rejection work as a charming photo op:

From the Wikipedia article:

The practice appears to have originated in the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy, along with other techniques such as "banners, badges, parades, barbecues, [and] free drinks", which were used to get out the vote.... In 1886, the magazine Babyhood reported that most presidents of the United States had accepted "kissing babies as an official duty."  
In the 1890s, Elizabeth Cady Stanton criticized the practice on the basis of hygiene and children's rights, and praised President Benjamin Harrison for refraining from it.

Well, there you go. She's probably right. Leave babies alone. Respect their autonomy.  

The journalist Elinor Burkett argues that the practice "is designed to suggest that the candidate is stable and trustworthy." The practice may be especially strongly associated with efforts to win women's votes and support: during the 1920 United States presidential election, The Nation reported that James M. Cox's ability "to kiss other people's babies as if he enjoyed it" rendered him "well-nigh invulnerable with women voters"; while David Shears, a British observer of American politics writing in 1961, concluded: "I suppose baby-kissing is meant to appeal to the women's vote. But every woman knows it's pretty hard to kiss a baby unless you're holding it, and it's quite risky enough holding your own baby, let alone somebody else's."
So what do you think? Is this how you win the women's votes or are women going to be rejecting this sort of appeal? The politicians won't do it if the women don't like it. Either it's "garnering" support or it's not.

I looked into the NYT archive to see some old discussion of the political practice of baby-kissing. I thought I'd scored when I found the headline "Opposed to Baby Kissing" from 1939. But, clicking through, I saw that it was denouncing baby-kissing by everyone! "Modern" pediatricians were telling relatives not to kiss the baby. 

Let's try this from 1961: "Is Baby Kissing Really Necessary?; A British correspondent, who has his doubts, takes a look at American campaigning and finds the whole pizza-blintz-beauty-contest business definitely bizarre. Is Baby Kissing Necessary?" That guy seems to have enjoyed American "folksiness" and "fun." 

Requisite Bob Dylan lyric:

Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote 
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note 
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple 
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people 
He's eatin' bagels 
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins 
He's eatin' bullshit!
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Generate a catchy title for a collection of newfangled music by making it your own

Write a newfangled code fragment at an earlier stage to use it. Then call another method and make sure their input is the correct one. The s...