"Oh yeah? Well, I criticize you back!"

This is something that's virtually always on my mind; I tried to scratch the surface of it a bit in a recent blog post.

"Anymore, it means more to simply like or dislike something than to express why one feels the way they do - a surface-bound approach that is superficial at best, aggressively regressive at worst. Just look at what pigeonhole-obsessed modes of thought have done to our political health: if you're not with us, you're against us, red state/blue state, rightwing nutjob or baby-killing liberal. It's a form of logic I can't stand because it forgoes progress for pride and perpetuates the notion that it's better to "be right" in the moment than to work together in order to approach a long-term solution."

JE: Very nicely put!

I experience this almost every time I lead a discussion in my film group.

I try (as much as any human can try, at least) to avoid exactly this sort of thing, but it seems nigh impossible. As soon as I started thinking more logically (coincidentally, around the time the new Star Trek movie came out...) and considering the content of my conversations and the conversations around me, the more I realized that nearly all of them had no real communication taking place. No information shared. No reasoned response. In short, no critical thought.

It's almost to the point where I despair of speaking to anyone, at all. What's the point? As you describe, it's just an endless blather, two brick walls of personal opinion ramming against other ad infinitum. It all seems so empty.

I hope it's not the end of human civilization. Optimistically, it would be nice to imagine we're at a cultural crossroads, and eventually the human mind will evolve past this, and other similar hang-ups. Logically, however, the odds of that are...improbable.

How do you approach this problem? Is it possible to lead by example? Or do you end up looking like a poop-head?

Jim, I highly recommend "Voltaire's Bastards", by John Raulston Saul. I found it a tough slog the first time. He's an academic and wrote that way (his later books are more readable). On second reading, the structure of the book was more apparent.

Anyway, "Voltaire's Bastards" is about how the technocrats have bastardized Voltaire's contention that ethically-rooted reason should govern human affairs. Voltaire proposed this idea during the decadence of the French kings, when royal whim was law.

The technocrats, Saul contends, have taken Voltaire's idea and divorced reason from ethics. Now, pure reason serves whatever master chooses to use it. And in its name, we have "reasonable" arguments being put forward for all sorts of behaviour of questionable ethics.

Saul devotes many pages to the phenomenon that, because reason is divorced from ethics, the only that counts is winning. Being right. And since no argument is air tight, the other fellow's argument - and indeed, the other fellow - are fair game in any debate.

I know I've recommended this to you before; I don't know if you've tried the book or not (and I could certainly understand it if you tried it and it wasn't to your taste - it probably most appeals to people like me, whom an on-line intelligence test characterized as a "visionary philosopher"). But if you haven't, try it. I think you'll find it an eye-opening read, as I did.

If you want your heart to sink, read some of the responses to criticism of Transformers 2 at rottentomatoes.com. Most of it is the same spammed responses over and over again, and they're exactly the kind of mindless drivel people like us despise. Not sure I have the stomach to go back, myself. It would only fuel my rage.

For some of us, critical thought is such a normal mode of operating that it doesn't seem negative to us; we see it as trying to approach some ultimate truth, the principles that explain a large body of information.

But our comments can easily be perceived as negative by non-critical thinkers and can detract from their enjoyment of what we are critiquing. My wife will immediately turn off the radio if I say I don't like a certain song, even though I tell her 'but I was enjoying talking about why I don't like it!'

Critical thought is shunned because of the thought part, not the critical part. Everyone likes to criticize, but not everyone likes to think. It is easier to just enjoy the moment. I can appreciate the beauty of not analyzing, hard as it is to put into practice.

Unfortunately, when this mentality spreads to essential discussions (in politics, for example), nothing can be accomplished by 'debate' and the public is not equipped to perceive and denounce a poor argument.

Progress surely stops when people are unwilling, and eventually become unable to ask 'Why' and 'What would happen if'.

Even the most cogent, well thought out argument can be successfully countered with 3 simple words, to which, there is no adequate response. "Yeah, but still."

The straw man arguments, name calling, and intimations of ulterior motives are just frosting on the cake.

Every example of specious debating techniques can be found in the comments under a negative review of a movie with a rabid fanboy following.

I am prety much done with "online communities" and message boards

The only reason you're saying all this intellectual stuff is because you're an intellectual, and intellectuals suck.

JE: Well done!

Well, let's try it. A plain statement of undeniable fact:

1) Statement: "Naziism is a form of socialism."

Is your response: "You are a right-wing maniac!" or something else?

JE: Something else. That statement is partially true, too, in that Germany's "National Socialism" involved state control over virtually all aspects of society. But, of course, despite its misleading name, it wasn't a socialist state but a dictatorship. A reference to a dictionary or encyclopedia would be a good place to start. Say, Encyclopedia Britannica on "fascism" ( http://budurl.com/cves ), "socialism" ( http://budurl.com/7exu ) and the Nazi Party, aka the National Socialist German Workers Party ( http://budurl.com/rpr2 ):

totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

And here's an entry on "fascism" from the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia ( http://budurl.com/6bch ):

fascism (făsh'izum) [key], totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini, who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain. The term is derived from the Latin fasces.

Jim, I take this to refer, in part, to the recent 'debate' I had on here with John L., who (as I type this) has made the most recent response to this post.

And what a response. It perfectly expresses why I did what I did in arguing with him, and took the tack I did. You could point out to him, at length, citing any number of authoritative sources, that Nazis were not socialists. He would not care. He would not acknowledge the reality, or the fact. And you would HAVE to, at some point, ascribe motive to him. And the motive would not be a good one, or one that reflected favorably on him. If the debate were to continue, it would continue in this way, and unless you were a robot, you would grow steadily angrier at the monster.

Here, to John L.:

To

1)Statement: "Naziism is a form of socialism."

Jim's response would presumably be: "That is factually incorrect. Here's why."

And he would post links, or quote people, proving why your nonsense is nonsense.

The real question is what would YOU then respond with? I would bet a million dollars you would not respond by acknowledging that he had won the point, and was correct.

I can engage in adult debate, provided there are adults in it. With a John L., I can not have debate, or even conversation. And frankly neither can any other adult, unless he's a saint, or doesn't value his time.

JE: "Something else. That statement is partially true, too, in that Germany's "National Socialism" involved state control over virtually all aspects of society. But, of course, despite its misleading name, it wasn't a socialist state but a dictatorship. A reference to a dictionary or encyclopedia would be a good place to start."

Well, JE, I'm counting the number of irrelevancies in that response. First, it's the (fairly condescending) supposition that the author hasn't consulted a reference. The second is your statement that socialism can't be a dictatorship. I don't think you'd debate that the USSR had its underpinnings in socialism, and that was a pretty clearly a dictatorship for more than a few decades. The third is your talking about socialism as a political theory instead of an economic one. You can have fascist socialism, fascist capitalism, or fascist aristocracy. Or a democratic socialism, captialism, etc. Fourthly, I was stating that Naziism was a form of socialism, not its goal. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism. They have annotated with legitimate sources pretty decently.

My point in bringing this up wasn't to debate the tenets of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party with you. My point was that my clear unambiguous fact brought implicit criticism and irrational hostility from you. Maybe the problem isn't that people are getting angry over facts. Maybe the problem is that people have been choosing to believe only those facts they want to believe.

JE: Exactly. You asked if I would call you a name. I said, no, I would consult a reference. If citing a third-party source that adds information to the discussion and confirms the partial truth of both our statements (i.e., that the reality is more complex and nuanced than either statement of fact in isolation) constitutes "irrational hostility," then I am guilty, guilty, guilty!

As I said, both of our statements are accurate to a limited extent: Naziism combined elements of socialism (state control) and fascism (totalitarianism, dictatorship). As the Wikipedia article you cite states in the second paragraph:

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.

Now, now, now Paul. I am partially flattered that I have my own personal troll. However, the rest of me is pretty tired of it.

Because I just can't resist, I did notice that you didn't cite any references. You never can. If you want to learn about the various philosophical underpinnings of nazism, pick up a book.

I don't like that captialism in the United States was based (at least partially) on indentured servitude (in the North), slavery (in the South), and even in genocide (Native Americans). But I'm not going to pretend it isn't true.

It would take blind and wilfull ignorance not to know that the National Socialist German Worker's Party had its genesis in socialist economic theory. Its an uncomfortable truth, that socialism is not the panacea you think.

My whole point is that people are allowing their ideologies to determine their facts. When the opposite should be true.

Maybe this is just another topic for which the irony of your posts will go completely over your head. I'm predicting your descent into namecalling in 5...4...3...2...1

While I don't quite believe that thoughtful, intelligent conversation is being read its last rites (I still have some interesting, spirited discussions with friends on topics ranging from sports to movies to politics), I have noticed that in general the value placed on critical thought has severely declined.

Without sounding like a crotchety old man (especially since I'm only 26), I submit that inventions like text messaging and "Twitter" only add to the problem by placing a restriction on the number of characters in a given message (and, by extension, the substance to a given thought). I'm not advocating windy gasbag-ism, but there comes a point where an exchange of rote, point-form opinions reveals almost nothing.

One of my great regrets is that I did not write an essay on criticism about a year ago, when reading a particular review so infuriated me (not because of its thesis, that "No Country for Old Men" was a great film, but rather for the argumentative, arrogant way it presented it) that I started to really question what it is I am looking for in film criticism, or for that matter any discussions. One point of the essay (that never was) that has really stuck with me is this: it is not a critic's job to persuade. It is a critic's job to ILLUMINATE.

So many of today's film reviews, and for that matter today's conversation in general, is meant to persuade: "Gun control is disguised socialism"; "Transformers 2 is the nadir of cinema"; etc., etc. Few stop to take the time to step back from the immediate issue/subject and do an overall assembling of facts, information, and various opinions on all sides.

Granted, sometimes certain issues, debates, films, foods, whatever can awake within us strong feelings, and we can't be as impartial or detached as we would like. But it's always vital to recognize what is happening at these moments, rather than doing what so many people seem to be doing these days: mistaking the strength of one's convictions with the merits of said convictions (the Bill O'Reilly school of argument).

When someone tells me a quick opinion about a film, or more recently, posts it on Facebook or Twitter (sample: "Just got back from Watchmen. Hated it." or "Just saw The Hangover. Funniest movie ever".), they are under the illusion that they are talking about the film. They are not. They are talking about themselves: their tastes, their reactions, their prejudices. And that's perfectly fine...probably 80% of all of our conversations are, directly or indirectly, about ourselves. But criticism, or arguments, need to be about more than simply one's reaction.

The statement "Transformers 2 isn't even a decent mindless action film, because Bay doesn't know how to shoot fight scenes coherently" seems valid, and I'm sure some version of that statement has appeared in a majority of reviews of the film. But it is finally no more or less illuminating than a wine critic saying "This Australian Chiraz has been made with consummate skill and dedication". Both statements can be interpreted by any sensible person as being part of a larger judgment on the product: negative in the case of "Transformers 2", positive in the case of the Australian Chiraz. And if we define the role of the critic as merely a guide whose tastes we'll follow, then they have served their purpose: I'll be less likely to see "Transformers 2" and more likely to buy that Chiraz. But in terms of illumination, both statements fail mightily...in reading them, I learn nothing about either movies or winemaking.

One of my favourite shows on television is the Charlie Rose show, because, despite his flaws as an interviewer, Rose's program is designed to let their guests illuminate whatever field they are experts in, be it economics, politics, science or acting. This is in stark contrast to ring-the-bell, go at each other's throats shows like Crossfire or The McLaughlin Group, which feign intelligence but are really just glorified shouting matches. The goal of those shows, and people who participate in them (the Carvells, Begalas, Novaks of the world), is to convince the viewer of one's point-of-view and denigrate any opposition. On Rose's show, even if the guest does have an agenda, Rose stands back from it, and the agenda is revealed with some genuine insight for the viewer to process.

I'm sure this standard of discussion that very few are struggling to uphold seems quaint to some, and perhaps even tedious and unnecessary to others, but it's vital that people continue to uphold standards of criticism.

A discussion on film that I really valued came with a good friend of mine who had taken it upon himself to begin seeing some of the classic films that had eluded him. This man was by no means a cinephile, he was only passingly familiar with names like Hitchcock and Kubrick, and was much more of a typical movie fan (someone who went to five or six new movies a year but didn't really have a knowledge of films made before, say, 1975).

One of the titles that came up on his list was "2001: A Space Odyssey", and, knowing that this was a guy who liked his movies to have tidy endings and resolutions, I had a feeling in advance that he would not like the film. Sure enough, when he saw it, he was livid about the ambiguous ending of the film, and had problems with other parts of the movie that he found tedious and unnecessary. Rather than trying to convince him that he was wrong in disliking the movie or bully him into declaring it a masterpiece (i.e. "well, it's been voted #6 on the greatest films, etc., etc.), I just pointed out a few of the patterns and motifs that Kubrick establishes throughout the film: the way the seeming tedium of the first trip outside the Discovery to fix a "broken" satellite is necessary to set up what goes wrong during the second trip, when Hal murders one of the officers. Or the ways in which the Monolith seems to spur humans onto some evolutionary leap, be it from ape to man, from moon exploration to a mission to Jupiter, or from developed human to powerful Star Child. And with the ending, I offered a few potential interpretations about some of its mysteries, such as why Bowman ends up in what looks like an 18th century chateau (could the beings that are holding him be providing a facsimile of comfort, as we do to tigers in a zoo?).

I encouraged my friend, who I could see remained skeptical, to watch the film again. A week later he mentioned offhandedly to me that he had indeed given "2001" another chance, giving some thought to some of the things I had pointed out.

"I'm not sure whether or not I liked it more than before," he said, "but I appreciate it more".

And that finally, should be the goal of any argument or criticism, to encourage a deeper understanding of something, not a shared opinion.

In real life once someones arguments and "debating style" passes a certain level of stupidity the only way you can engage them is with a look of bemused pity.

I can't think of any great thinker from Socrates, Swift, Mencken, or Chomsky who would ever choose to "rebutt" someone in the standard "with all due respect you are an idiot, perhaps if you went to university...'ad hominem'...blah blah" message board style.

The weird thing is that whenever I meet someone in real life who hates old movies and thinks Transformers 2 was fantastic I feel zero anger towards them. Until anonymity and hiding behind usernames becomes a thing of the past I don't think anyone should be obligated to take the "social networking" and comment thread aspects of web2.0 seriously. With a few exceptions message boards used to be a place for the dregs of society to argue with each other and all web2.0 has done is bring the ugliness of that culture to the surface/

Oasis's like this and other blogs are exceptions, but for the most part choosing to get involved in debates online corrodes the soul

I have yet to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy as far as irrational hostility goes than YouTube. It's almost baffling just how much hatred is spewed back and forth in the posts on that site. My best analysis of it is that is has the most broad (and massive) viewership around, unlike most other comment sections that can be found in niche topic areas. When the forum is all-encompassing, it would appear that the lowest common denominator for communication is bile spewing.

Jim, as your blog has grown, we've certainly seen more and more bile spewing here as well. Just a few years ago it was five film geeks talking amongst themselves. Thus is the downside of a larger viewership. it's nice to see so many responses these days, especially the 90% that really do have something to contribute. It's the 10% that makes everything so frustrating. Every now and then I have to throw a joke out there in response just to keep myself sane. I still haven't figured out if that just adds to the 10%.

JE: Very perceptive. That's part of the motivation behind this post. I'm trying to figure out what to do about it. I don't like playing censor (until recently, I didn't have to delete comments -- I approved everything but spam), and even the craziest comments sometimes include (whether the posters know it or not) an interesting observation that helps you see things from another point of view. But I miss the collegial tone of the discussions we used to have when they are interrupted by vituperative tangential rants. Is this blog a "democracy"? I wrote a post a while back proposing that everybody is not entitled to an "opinion" when the opinion is based on... well, nothing but opinion. Since critical thinking is the entire rationale for this blog, I think I'm going to have to start being more selective about which comments actually contribute something to the discussion and which simply derail all rational thought processes. (BTW, those YouTube comments scare me. I refuse to even look at them because they're useless.)

Well by the time my comment was posted, Jim HAD responded more or less as I said he would. Now to watch whether the fellow responds unnaturally, and concedes, in order to 'win' by proving me wrong. Or whether he's so hard-wired to be himself that he can't help but argue a hopeless cause. Will be interesting.

Also, I'd like to make a distinction I think is almost always missed/overlooked. Socialism is first and foremost an economic system, in the same way capitalism is an economic system. Now either one may be more likely to exist in a certain context (ie, with democracy, with authoritarianism), but neither one is married to that or necessitates that - there have been capitalist fascist states, capitalist totalitarian states, and so on. The easy line by the right is to say that communism (which they cannot seem to separate from socialism) always leads to totalitarianism - which is simple and ignores the particular contexts in which the few communist countries we've seen spring so far, have sprung up, and the reasons those states became totalitarian. Now, as capitalism and socialism are two economic systems (with socialism being the clear winner), democracy and authoritarianism are two social systems. With democracy being the clear winner (although still not the ideal). Neither 'best option' fulfills its promise, or offers what it promised to offer as it promised to offer it, when existing in conjunction with the worst option of the other half of that. So while democracy is obviously better than authoritarianism, capitalist democracy, as we've seen, sooner or later (usually sooner) does not work. It does not offer what it claims to offer, and what good things democracy OUGHT to offer. See: every election ever. This is due obviously to capitalism, corporate interests, mass media, and on and on. And likewise, socialist totalitarian state fails to offer the things that make socialism so attractive.

And so on. The math on that is easy enough - democratic socialism.

JE: John L.'s response speaks for itself. I tried one more time, but I'm going to leave it at that.

Agreed that youtube is the worst Haggie, I wish there was an option to view it in "google video" mode without comments. It's nice to be able to watch Citizen Kane without finding out it's overrated.

The worst is when someone "disagrees" with a comedian. It's really depressing to watch an awesome rant by George Carlin about how golfing is a game for rich pricks and we should convert all the golf courses in America to homeles shelters.

Then scroll down to find a rant by golffan74 "debunking" why that wouldn't work. I'm all for intelligent discussion but there are certain arts like satire whose power is diminished if anyone is able to directly engage with it.

Can you imagine the trainwreck if The Onion had a comments section under every article?

Also, the Nazis were super-capitalists, not socialists. Hitler used the brand to garner support when he needed it, then ended up doing what would get the war machine working best, fastest. These things are given; to have to hash out things that one should be able to assume as known and agreed upon by everyone involved in a discussion or debate, is incredibly frustrating, and just one of many reasons not to waste time arguing with - certain kinds of people.

It's really little different than wanting to have a discussion and debate about an advanced problem in biology, only to discover the person you are debating with is a creationist, and wants instead to have an interminable and impossible 'debate' about the entire basis of modern biology. Do you see?

JE: I kind of think this particular Nazi discussion should be left to Glenn Beck and Ayn Rand (which is how it wound up over here, anyway). But, yes, when the point of an argument for one party becomes the disavowal of any independently verifiable factual information, there's no longer any basis for a discussion.

Plato said, Jim, that the Socratic Method of questioning couldn't really be applied to anyone under age 30, because it requires a great deal of maturity and humility for an individual to be able to accept the interrogation and admit that he is wrong. I think he was being optimistic; if anything, the older we get, the more set we become in our thoughts, and thus our culture resists intelligent, civil discourse. And even those who most frequently call themselves "mature" seem to consider it a mark of their maturity that they refuse to engage in any conversation that could lead to disagreement.

It's a depressing, and unfortunately prevalent, mindset. Even though I disagreed with most of your string of blogs on "The Dark Knight," I still respected your approach, which was based on empirical evidence rather than opinions ripped from context.

And Paul, in order to really prove your point in your most recent comment, we'd need to have a dialogue about the things that a government should offer, which will inevitably take us into a dialogue about our definitions of Natural Liberty vs. Civic Liberty. I don't know if that's beyond the scope of this blog or not, but it's certainly beyond the scope of what I'd like to discuss. I'm not trying to be incendiary here (Lord knows this discussion doesn't need more of that)... I just thought I'd mention this, because you do imply that the best form of government is a simple mathematical formula (unless I missed a certain undertone, which is quite possible).

JE: "John L.'s response speaks for itself. I tried one more time, but I'm going to leave it at that."

Your, um, implicit hostility is showing, JE. I don't recall ever being less than polite in my posts to you. The issue of this thread was how we relate to facts. And believe it or not, everyone from the angriest pundit to the loudest blogger is calm and happy when the facts presented are considered inconsequential or are friendly to the listener's ideology. It is those facts that are harmful to our idologies that make us defensive and angry.

I chose National Socialism because I knew that is a fact you wouldn't like. If instead I wrote that Obama is still supporting holding suspected terrorsts indefinitely, or that he seems uninterested in helping same-sex couples get married, or that his environmental legislation will cost tens of thousands of blue collar jobs, what would your reaction be? To argue and explain? Or to accept such things as facts? If it's to argue and explain, do you understand the flaw in your original post?

FYI, you're still misstating the difference between political and economic systems (you can be fascist and socialist, for example, or democratic and socialist), but email me if you want to converse about that in particular.

JE: Thanks. No hard feelings. I think we both understand (as confirmed by our own references) that fascism/socialism are not necessarily mutually exclusive terms, and that Naziism combined elements of left and right. My point was to give an example in which a statement of fact about a complex matter (I considered "The sky is blue" -- because, here in Seattle, it's also often gray and at night it's very nearly black; it's a matter of perception) is true as far as it goes (though it does not represent the entire, nuanced truth), and is met by an ad hominem attack rather than by an attempt to add, refine and/or clarify information. As for this discussion, I think our words and citations stand on their own.

JE: Since critical thinking is the entire rationale for this blog, I think I'm going to have to start being more selective about which comments actually contribute something to the discussion and which simply derail all rational thought processes.

Although this is not a democracy, I'd vote in support of that rationale.

Great article Jim, as you said critical thinking and logic are sorely under appreciated in our society.

The link below is a list and description of some of the more common logical fallacies. Learning about logical fallacies is important not just for seeing the flaws in other people's arguments but also so you can make sure your own arguments are sound.

http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

I've read this blog on and off for some time now and I'm really appreciating the "oasis" of mostly reasoned opinions in the comments section. It's not often you see essay length comments(Alex Murillo's post) that are worth saving, and Jim's responses also add to the discussion.

And Paul, in order to really prove your point in your most recent comment, we'd need to have a dialogue about the things that a government should offer, which will inevitably take us into a dialogue about our definitions of Natural Liberty vs. Civic Liberty. I don't know if that's beyond the scope of this blog or not, but it's certainly beyond the scope of what I'd like to discuss. I'm not trying to be incendiary here (Lord knows this discussion doesn't need more of that)... I just thought I'd mention this, because you do imply that the best form of government is a simple mathematical formula (unless I missed a certain undertone, which is quite possible).

You, I can talk with.

I agree that we're getting beyond the scope of this blog. If I remember right, it was Jim's posting about Bill Maher that started it. Now that post was (primarily, as I read it) about media coverage, but it was also about a politician, and many read it as being politically motivated. In any case, broaching the topic of politics, even in a tangential way like he did, will always go where it went in this instance. That's just how people are online - even in a Dem echo chamber like DailyKos, a post for or against Obama or a particular piece of legislation will cause hell.

And no I don't think it's a simple mathematical formula, but - well it's not the most complicated thing in the world, either, nuanced or not. And your Plato was coming up with ideal states himself that were little more than the results of math problems, over 2000 years ago. It's fun to do. My take is that the anti-government people, the strictly anti-government people, the anti-government on principle people, are usually either disingenuous about their concerns and motivations, or else horribly ill-informed about what they claim to support, and even moreso about what they oppose. And I've found that such individuals seem far less individual and far less likely to be sympathetic to the plight of the individual, as I understand it, than have been many of the proponents of socialism and anarchism. But out of (belated) respect for Mr Emerson, I will drop the discussion.

Jim, have you ever considered starting a free messageboard or something, for your readers?

JE: I'm interested in these discussions, even when they get off-topic, because I'm interested in the topics. But, yeah, it's hard to stay focused. (Still, I think the best question anybody can start with when discussing politics is: "What do you want from government?" -- a more personalized way of asking "What should be the role of government?"). Here is maybe not the place to get into all that, but you're right, this particular development came from the Maher post, which was supposed to provide an example of criticizing a particular line of (comedic) reasoning, in which the premise did not support the conclusion. (Anybody remember Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion?) I was amazed -- although I probably shouldn't have been -- when people chose to ignore the reasoning and concentrate on party politics because of the nature of the example. All kinds of motives were attributed to me -- but the core group of articulate souls managed to focus on the logic, which was whether it was reasonable (or funny) to say a president spent so much time on television that his administration wasn't getting anything done. Again, the first part of that sentence could be true, and the second part could be true, but is there any evidence of a causal connection? No. There is none. That's what I wanted to convey.

I'm kinda confused about the different posts between John L, Paul and Jim.

At the risk of incurring your displeasure, Jim, let me add my 2¢ worth.

All three of you are correct, I think, in that societies can be easily classified by two things:
1) how they select their governments
2) how they run their economies

This is rather simplistic, true.

The spectrum of government options includes
- democracy (the rule of the people through elected representatives)
- dictatorship (the rule of one man or woman)
- communism (the rule of a party representing workers)
- autocracy (the rule of the few)
- fascism - like autocracy, but nastier?
- oligarchy (the rule of a non-elected body of many people, as in the Roman Republic)

This spectrum is fairly "Atomic", i.e., categories don't bleed over into others very much. The term "totalitarian" is a broader category into which falls those forms of government that assume total control over the political process. They may, but don't have to, assume control over the economic process as well.

The spectrum of economic systems is far less atomic - there are societies where part of the economy is capitalistic and another part socialistic, for example.

But, broadly, the extremes are :
- capitalism - the government controls nothing
- socialism - the government controls everything

In reality, most societies fall somewhere in between the two extremes - it's just a matter of where they fall in the spectrum.

So, it is possible to have a totalitarain capitalist society, or a totalitarian socialist society, just as you can have democratic socialist or democratic capitalist.

Looking at the labels offered by Paul (capitalist fascist, capitalist totalitarian) and John L (fascist and socialist, democratic and socialist), they all fit into these categories.

So in actual fact, as far as I'm concerned, you actually agreed on something! And yet you didn't think so.

So, Jim...perhaps this is another expression of the problem, or maybe an extension of it: once the battle lines have been drawn, no rapprochement is permitted.

JE: I don't see the disagreement. As I said, the statements "Naziism is a form of fascism" and "Naziism is a form of socialism" both contain some degree of validity, and one does not necessarily exclude the other (as Glenn Beck and the guy from the Ayn Rand institute tried to argue). Indeed, the references we cited explicitly mentioned the overlap. (Insert imaginary Venn diagram here.) You saw it -- hope other did, too. But ALL that misses the point I was trying to illustrate, which is that an ad hominem attack is not a legitimate response to a statement of fact. Providing additional facts, clarifying and providing context for the original statement, would be the most productive way to go, if you were really trying to illuminate the truth rather than just trying to win an argument. Do you think that point got lost? (Rhetorical question!)

I think you're all using a 'simple to the point of causing a mischaracterization of the thing' definition of socialism. In a pinch, I turn to Wikipedia's first line on the subject:

"Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer."

I guess it's all in what you stress. You all seem to be stressing 'state control of economy' as the defining feature of socialism. I see (and I think most see - or at least most socialists see) 'cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods' as the defining feature. Socialists think of the people, not the state. Even that word 'state', used like that, is an epithet long used to make socialism a kind of boogeyman in this country. Socialism as I think of it (and as it's properly defined, as above) is a people's control of the means of production, of the economy, of the government, of the distribution of wealth, goods and services. It's an economy tailored to human need rather than profit. I think the wikipedia definition is more in line with this. I consider "state controls everything" to be a mischaracterization, even if only in what it chooses to focus on and the way it chooses to view it. It really is purely a brotherhood of man kind of a thing. Whereas capitalism really is purely an every man for himself, me me me kind of a thing. People say it's more complicated than that, it's more nuaned than that. But I don't think so. I think further discussion, where people do long spiels and use a lot of sophistry to try to make it seem an issue of 'individual freedom' and so on, are always disingenuous. I almost have more respect for the capitalist or libertarian who can just come out and say he doesn't care about other people or social justice, and wants to make a lot of money, and hates everyone. I'd take Daniel Plainview over Max Stirner every time.

JE: Until I saw that clip of Glenn Beck and the Ayn Rand guy, I'd never encountered anyone attempting to argue that Naziism was a "left-wing" phenomenon, and not fascistic. May as well argue it wasn't nationalistic, either. (The Ayn Rand guy even tried to say that racism was uniquely left-wing, because the right emphasizes individualism.) I see what you're saying, but Wikipedia's "Naziism" article I thought put it succinctly enough for our purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naziism

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right. [...]

Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.

In the 1930s, Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and philosophies which centered around nationalism, anti-communism, traditionalism and the importance of the ethnostate.

Today we identify it most strongly with totalitarianism, anti-Semitism and the Aryan "ethnostate." But, of course, there were other elements.

Two things:

1. I've had to defend Roger Ebert a few times when someone would say something like, "Well, he just likes everything. He gives out too many four-star reviews". Did that person read those reviews? No. Do they really understand why Roger gave the film the star rating he did? No. Is it a crime to like a movie?

On the opposite end I've met a number of film lovers who feel that critics are not worth reading because all they ever do is bash movies. But again, why are they bashing the movie?

2. This is more particular to Haggies comment about You Tube. I've never really looked at the comments on that site, but I'm an avid sports fan, and I can tell you that Yahoo sports is the place to go if you want to find the most insane, illogical people ever. Sometimes I wonder if half the people commenting even bothered to watch the game that they are talking about. All that matters to them is that my team is good and your team is bad. I tell them that none of it matters, because DETROIT teams are the best. BAM! TAKE THAT!

Jim wrote: I don't see the disagreement [between Paul and John L on listing types of government/economic models]...But ALL that misses the point I was trying to illustrate, which is that an ad hominem attack is not a legitimate response to a statement of fact. Providing additional facts, clarifying and providing context for the original statement, would be the most productive way to go, if you were really trying to illuminate the truth rather than just trying to win an argument. Do you think that point got lost? (Rhetorical question!)

No, and I agree with it completely - so much so that I took it as a given and moved on to my next point (I know, I'm an inveterate going offer on tangents - which is why I acknowledged that I was risking your displeasure for straying off topic). Your blog, Roger's and a few over at blogs.discovermagazine.com are the few that I haunt regularly. I'm continually shaking my head over the frequency of the "stick to reviewing movies" comments Roger gets...

I just wonder if Paul and John L, will see the disagreement or not...your opinions, gentlemen?

Paul wrote: I think you're all using a 'simple to the point of causing a mischaracterization of the thing' definition of socialism.

Hi Paul. I agree, and I thank you for including the definition of socialism. I hadn't considered the...I guess you could call it "pure" definition of cooperative economic endeavour before. Interesting. So...let me ask you. If a company decides to close a factory, and the workers get together and pool their money, develop a business plan, get financing and buy the factory from the company and keep it running, is that a form of socialist economic activity?

If so, I doubt it would be a form of socialism that many right-wingers would have a problem with.

(Well, unless the workers started using terms like "proletariat" and "class struggle" and stuff like that. And of course, the always dreaded "committee" must be avoided at all costs. :) )

JMW, you're close. But I think the spectrum runs slightly differently. I don't know if any of you have seen it, but there's a graph which tries to account for these definitions via a 'political compass'.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

This separates economic views from ideas about distribution of power.

With opinions regarding the need for intervention in economics and equalisation of property, the spectrum goes from left (heavy interference) to right (no interference).

In terms of power, the axis shifts up and down, with up signifying a belief in government control of daily activities and down belying a want for little or no state presence at all.

Following this idea, we can see that somebody may very much believe in socialism, but also have no faith in state institutions to administer them and thus would fall into the definition of "anarchist" or "anti-state Marxist". (left/down) Or, a person who believes very strongly in the need for the state to dictate social policy and public control, but view interference with personal economics as abhorrent (right/up) and so on. It's always seemed to me to be the most logical manner in which to parse out your views. Of course it's hardly flawless but it's a darn sight better than just the plain old "left-right" definition.

Great thoughts Jim, spot on. I think part of the problem is that beliefs have been reduced to trivialities like what Sports team you root for and what soft drink you prefer. People react to a questioning of their logic as if you're asking why they like Pepsi... it's all the same to them. Evolution/creationism is like McDonald's/Burger King, an almost arbitrary preference, beyond reproach because we just like what we like, y'know? Whatever choice we make is just a symbol of the folks we hang out with. There's no REASON for these things after all, right?

Knowing why we believe what we do has somehow become America's greatest challenge, far more important than the economy, the wars or even global warming. All that will do is kill our bodies. If we fail to figure out ourselves then our souls will be destroyed, a far more terrifying prospect.

"I think I'm going to have to start being more selective about which comments actually contribute something to the discussion and which simply derail all rational thought processes."

I dunno, just my two cents, but I've always preferred the "anything goes" approach. Of course the trolls-with-Bill-O'Reilly-masks can be maddening. But as you said, even the most pointless stuff can sometimes be (unintentionally) of some value. And personally, I wouldn't wanna have to start devoting that much mental energy to how much value each post has to a given thread (there's bound to be some gray areas). And finally, I know it can be hard sometimes, but I've always thought the easiest way to disarm the trolls is to let them have their say, and then ignore it completely. Seems like most of them are just venting in the hopes of starting a fight, and you can't draw blood in an empty room (not that it's empty, but hopefully they'll soon move on after failing to gather a crowd).
I clearly need to work on my aphorisms.

The problem is that there are no examples of proper arguments in popular culture for people to aspire too. Everyone is divided along predetermined lines and discuss points that do not intersect. Any of the talking head shows is a perfect example of two people lecturing to an audience about their ideologies, with a debate as the excuse. There is no exchange.

I'll offer my opinion here, since the original topic of the article addresses opinions, and say the arguments/discussions about socialism have strayed too far off topic. I read Jim's examples as an "examples" to compare statements and responses in an article about constructive criticism. The political discussion here seems to be another way of changing the subject, like someone wanting to discuss car engines by saying "Take for example this red car -" and the other person saying "Wait a minute, that's not a red car, that's a burgundy car.." and off it goes into a discussion about color.
My opinion and feelings therefore about the posts referring to politics is boredom and disappointment that the interesting topic of criticism was shifted.

Great piece. It's sad how the simple act of critical thinking and analysis has to be explained and defined.

A simple man, I fall back on numbering things in order to respond to everything in order.

1. Concerning economic models, whether or not I end up actually agreeing in substance with John L or not, and all that - the models do not tell the story. John L and I, I suspect, are equally mistrustful of government, but I would support large government, and complete government intervention, if everyone were taken care of and the distribution of wealth were assured to be fair. John L seems as if he rejects government w/o even considering it as a loss that his doing so means that, in his ideal world, the government would not be able to even TRY to create an economically just society, in which everyone is assured a fair chance - because he doesn't believe in economic or social justice. So if I ultimately rejected government it would be with a heavy heart, knowing that large government is likely the best real world means of remaking society into something better - whereas John L rejects government with a light heart, since he loses nothing thereby, since his idea of 'better' is completely opposite mine, as are his views on human rights, economic justice, and the inherent dignity of every human being. And so on.

2. JMW, that would be socialistic, certainly. The factory workers buying it and running it. But as their factory would still exist in a capitalist society, and as they would still need to make enough money to keep it profitable so they could keep making money so they could eat and live well (since once they go home, they're back in a capitalist society - in which, if they go broke, there's not much of a net beneath them, and no one is likely to come to their aid), their factory would probably not be very socialistic at heart for very long. Profits would be most important and the profit motive would reassert itself pretty quickly. There have been attempts at socialistic businesses but always in the context of a capitalist economy, and it really doesn't work. Or if it does work, it's not socialist by the end. The whole society - or at least a functioning society, ie an industrial/agricultural/residential area of enough human and material resources to be self-sufficient - needs to be in on it, if it's going to come off.

And I think most right wingers have been taught to be suspicious of if not downright hostile towards something like that, however harmless it might seem. Once you're trained to believe in bosses and leaders, businesses without any seem impossible. There was a great Huxley essay where he discusses a study and a book about experimental fully cooperative factories, factories w/o bosses or hierarchies or petty tyrannies, and as I recall, that experiment at least was a success. If I find the name of the book he was discussing I'll post it.

3. Aram, that's a more useful guide, for sure. I consider myself fully in sympathy with people who on that would be left/down, although for strictly practical reasons (ie, while I consider a great socialist state highly unlikely to ever occur, I consider a fully cooperative socialist state with NO government to be utterly impossible, due to the simple fact of how people are) I would be - left/up, I suppose. The IDEAL is left/down, but reality intrudes. I will say that 'authoritarian', again, is a sinister sounding word for something that most people in this country only ever experience when they - cash their social security checks.

Great post Jim. I have run into this problem several times in arguments with my mother. When I hold an opinion politically or otherwise that she does not agree with, and I begin to debate her about it, she always just says "Yes, well, your young, and in college. Your just going through a college thing."

The only thing I have to say about being selective about which comments are allowed to get posted is that you will be leaving yourself open to the charge of "you never allow anything critical of your views".

And I doubt it would help if you have a disclaimer on the comments that says something like, 'The equivalent of "You're a jerk!" will screened out,' will help. No one considers their own post to be that sophomoric.

Hi, AramNijevsky.

I haven't looked at the graph yet (but I will, I promise), but based on your description of it, I'm wondering if there maybe shouldn't be a third axis to it...how government leaders are selected.

To my way of thinking, that's at least as important as what government chooses to involve itself in, as well as how much it regulates economic activity.

I love discussions on totalitarianism!

In my opinion, the left-right spectrum is false and irrelevant when dealing with totalitarian political systems. They pretty much transcend such labels. For example, the racism of the Nazis could be called "right-wing", but their economic theories could, indeed, be called socialistic or "left-wing." Such cotradictions can be found in all totalitarian gov'ts, until you realize they aren't contradictions. It is a consistent pattern of COLLECTIVISM and CONTROL on every issue.

So a much better spectrum than "Left-Right" would be "Collectivism-Individualism." This clearly puts Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. on the same side, right where they belong.

BTW Jim, did you know that Stalin was the first person to call the Nazis "right-wing"? He wanted to create the impression Hitler was his opposite, rather than an ideological cousin.

I’m going to assume that you were prompted to write this article (along with more obviously the recent one on the nature of jokes) after the Bill Maher debacle, in which many comments (mine included) focused on your possible political biases and accused you of harboring negative feelings against Bill Maher for daring to criticize Obama. Based on the several replies you have given my comments, you have convinced me that you truly do not like Maher’s routine and that this runs a bit deeper than him simply speaking out against the president. Nonetheless, I don’t think the original comment (by me or most others) were outside the realms of critical thinking, or irrelevant, or attempts to avoid argument, or attempts at invalidating your criticisms.

In fact, I would say that part of critical thinking is understanding not just what one says, but why they say it. Focusing on motives as an attempt to dismiss ones entire argument is obviously a method of avoiding critical thought, but does that mean it is always irrelevant or wrong to question ones motives?

Take for instance your example of a factual statement: “This Gravenstein apple has a worm in it." The reply featured isn’t well thought out, instead being very reactionary and accusatory, and yes, an example of what you highlight as avoiding arguments. However, it would not be the same to say, in response to the statement about the Gravenstein apple,: “Yes, but why are you bringing this up? What is the point?” This is what I’d characterize critical thinking as: looking beneath the surface. If you happen to be a spokesman for Granny Smith apples, would it be unreasonable to suggest that while there is indisputably a worm in the Gravenstein apple, it is likely you are attempting to cast Gravenstein apples in a negative light. It is not a dismissal of your assertion in any way.

This is how I see the Bill Maher comments debacle. Pointing out possible political biases isn’t (necessarily) meant to dismiss your criticisms of Bill Maher nor is it irrelevant to the topic at hand. One can agree that Maher’s comedy is poor and that he is a hack (although don’t count me among those who do), but still question whether your motives are politically motivated. It’s not only a relevant, but an important topic. The mainstream media has made a practice of attacking and demonizing anyone who criticizes Obama. To say “Oh, your article may very well be solely because you love Obama, so Maher is a good comedian by default” would be a dismissal of your argument. But saying “Regardless of whether Maher is a ‘hack’, why are you bringing this up” isn’t. It’s a legitimate criticism of your piece, and is in fact, what I believe most critics/commentators/bloggers of any worth routinely do: analyze, think critically, examine and attempt to understand the reasoning behind things.

Once again, I do not believe that your article was motivated by love for Obama anymore, but I also do not think that it was irrelevant or lacking of thought. I think it was entirely legitimate for the above reasons.

I'll offer my opinion here, since the original topic of the article addresses opinions, and say the arguments/discussions about socialism have strayed too far off topic. I read Jim's examples as an "examples" to compare statements and responses in an article about constructive criticism. The political discussion here seems to be another way of changing the subject, like someone wanting to discuss car engines by saying "Take for example this red car -" and the other person saying "Wait a minute, that's not a red car, that's a burgundy car.." and off it goes into a discussion about color.
My opinion and feelings therefore about the posts referring to politics is boredom and disappointment that the interesting topic of criticism was shifted.

Anyone's free to find anything boring, but outside of a school debate, I'm not sure where you'll find a discussion that remains focused right on the topic it started with. No one was trying to change the subject.

In Malcolm Gladwell's BLINK, the author discusses a group of taste testers whose palates are capable of determining extremely subtle differences in taste, texture, and flavor. These taste testers aren't supernatural beings; they have no unusual talents -- they're just regular people who have, over the course of their careers, have become extremely sensitive to the sensations they receive with their mouths and tongues. They became this way by -trying,- in other words, by trial and error, by thinking critically about what they were eating. Now, these days, they don't have to think about it at all: their responses are autonomous.

All criticism, it seems to me, operates the same way. The more novels you read critically, for instance, the more you understand the different ways novels can work (or fail to work). Before long, the critical responses a novel provokes are autonomous; they happen automatically, and fast -- before you can consciously analyze them.

This is what makes a critic a superior judge -- he (or she) has spent significant time thinking critically about a subject. Harlan Ellison likes to say that people don't "have the right to their opinions" -- they have the right to their -informed- opinions. And critics opinions are simply more informed than others.

Of course, some critics are more informed than other critics, but that's another story ...

Have you read "Amusing ourselves to death" by Neal Postman?

See, Jim, THIS is why you shouldn't bring in the Nazis! A independently verifiable fact!

I think the biggest problem humans have with critical thought is focusing on one thought long enough to do so. We're referential creatures, one thought leads to another, and a discussion about criticism ends up in a burgandy car engine. And if you follow the debate you can see how and when it happened, but not why that particular path was "wrong", or how it ended up where it did.

The further away you get from bare facts (which for my brain, can be found mostly in very simple mathmatics: 1 +1 = 2 now and forever) the harder it is to have a purely critical discussion about anything, since to be human is to have opinions about every thing we come across. If I say: "I'm reading Middlemarch and it's one of the best written novels in the English language", well, that's my opinion but not a criticism of the novel itself. But how do I perform that task? I can't very well leave out my opinions of Middlemarch and still think it worthy of critcal thought, unless I am of the opinion that everything is worthy of critical thought--but that thought's an opionion! Oh, God, bring back the Nazis!

Hi, Paul.

You wrote The whole society - or at least a functioning society, ie an industrial/agricultural/residential area of enough human and material resources to be self-sufficient - needs to be in on it [a purely socialistically run business], if it's going to come off.

And I think most right wingers have been taught to be suspicious of if not downright hostile towards something like that, however harmless it might seem. Once you're trained to believe in bosses and leaders, businesses without any seem impossible.

John Raulston Saul wrote in Voltaire's Bastards about the French. They have an efficient and inexpensive mail and train system, because they accept that they will lose money. They made them national institutions and partially subsidize them with taxpayers' money, and the result is that a) loads of people use the mail and the train systems because they're inexpensive, and b) they run efficiently because people care whether they do or not. That, to me, sounds like something approximating your socialist business model, no? I've often wondered if the same kind of model might not work for the struggling newspaper industry...National Public Newspapers anyone?

Tom Peters, in one of his videos profiles an American Steel company, in which there are bosses and managers...but authority is delegated downwards. If a particular team has an opening, then the team leader hires someone, and the whole team gets involved in the decision making process - after all, these are the people the new person will be working with. The managers set standards and goals, and make the individual chiefs, stewards, foremen and team leaders responsible for meeting those targets. The downside is that demotion and/or firing was, initially, a very common occurrence, as the company unloaded dead-head employees who were there to do their 9-5 and cash a paycheque. They wanted smart people who would be willing to take responsibility along with authority.

The company was highly successful in the steel industry in the 80s/90s, when the rest of the American Steel industry was rusting (or should that be the rust of the American steel industry was resting?). Is that socialistic? Not enough reliance on bosses and managers for the right wingers?

Things to do after reading this post:

1) Link back to this post and refer people to it as much as possible.

2) Use poop-head in daily conversation more often.

You've hit upon and expressed extremely well something that's been bugging me for quite some time now. It ties greatly into the huge popularity of seeing people fall from grace - ie. the need to feel superior (or the desire to not feel inferior). It's why debates happen the way they do - no one wants to be seen as having been corrected or having started with the "wrong" premise. So what if you might "learn" something or end up making your position stronger by adding more information to it?

That same tendency makes it difficult to overcome it. If one begins pointing out the logical fallacies (as per Drivel-some Bore's link above) in someone's argument, they essentially will feel that you are talking down to them and are trying to make them feel stupid. So how do many people react? They either go on the offensive or they just retreat, ignore and then rationalize later on.

I can't claim I'm above all that, but I hope that I at least recognize when I may be doing it and step back. Or, if pointed out to me, I'd be grateful to reconsider. I certainly try anyway...

DylanG makes a good point, and I think it touches on the fundamental issue here, although his reasoning leads me to a different place than it leads him. It should be obvious that in normal discourse, the subtext and context of a statement is fair game for discussion; this should be even more clear to posters on a site dedicated to film criticism. And it's pretty clear that Jim wasn't considering disallowing discussion of subtexts--that would either leave no discussion whatsoever, or totally uninteresting discussion.

The problem comes, though, when the act of addressing one piece of subtext, or context, discards all of the interesting parts of the conversation. To me, that's what looks like happened in the Maher thread; Jim's post had me expecting an interesting discussion about the role of factual accuracy in humor, and instead it pretty much instantly became identical to every comment thread ever at chicagotribune_com. I don't believe I saw one single post claiming that Maher's depiction was reasonably accurate, or that it didn't need to be accurate to be good humor. Geez, at least give a little segue to the dead horse before beating on it.

That said, I can understand that for a Republican (or conservative independent, or ideologically similar category of person), it could be frustrating to come to a high-traffic website, and see politically-charged content here. It's an understandable perspective that to some people the implicit political endorsement was the only important part of Jim's post. To me, interesting on-topic discussion should always trump that (and I'd say it should be to the point of censorship, as long as it's reasonably nonpartisan), but reverting to political generalities is pretty understandable.

Is it possible for Paul and John L to start up an internet version of Crossfire or Point/Counterpoint? I'd read it.

Throughout it's history communist Russia called itself a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To this day (as far as I know), mainland China refers to itself as the People's Republic of China. Despite those facts, no sane person argues that either country was/is actually a republic or that the misdeeds of such self-proclaimed "republics" should be held against actual republics, like the USA.
To argue that either the former USSR or the current PRC are actually republics or that the USA should abandon it's (small r) republican form of government because of abuses perpetrated by the PRC and USSR while calling themselves republics (despite very clearly not being such) is either ridculous or dishonest.
The idea that the Nazis were actually socialist just because they had the word socialist in their name is much the same: either an extremely naive and ignorant view that completely misunderstands one or both of Nazism and socialism or a dishonest attempt to blame Nazism on a "socialst" left in order to, by transference*, smear the US Democratic party.

*It goes like this:
1)The Nazi's are socialist because they have the word socialist in their name.
2)The Democrats are socialist because we say so. (Never mind that we only say that because we think it reminds people of communist and we want to associate them with communists but we know that if we just call them communists people will notice what a stupid thing we're saying.)
3)Therefore Democrats are like Nazis, Nancy Pelosi is as bad as Hitler, Obama is the Antichrist and regulating carbon emmisions is the moral equivalent of the Holocaust.

That said, I can understand that for a Republican (or conservative independent, or ideologically similar category of person), it could be frustrating to come to a high-traffic website, and see politically-charged content here.

But not half as frustrating as it was for most of us to come to an otherwise lovely world, and find Republicans here.

I believe we can attribute the erosion of rational argumentation in society to the competitive spirit our culture foments. Analytical thought, reasoning, and debate should facilitate the search for truth, which benefits all facets of society. Because of the inherent fallibility of every human's ability to reason, the structure of debate, wherein two parties critique the flaws in each others' arguments, allows for reason to deconstruct fallacies and determine the merits of a particular thesis. Therefore, the art of debate attempts to determine an objective truth beneficial to all parties concerned. However, because our meritocracy centred culture encourages individuals to bolster themselves at the expense of others, the individual's impulse to appear superior to their opponent impels them to reduce most debates into an contest where the objective of individual supremacy takes precedent over the true objective of the search for truth. But I still think true reason lives on, just not in the major media outlets or internet forums. If we allow the specious reasoning employed in these arenas to become the norm, then we'd have a problem.

I think this sums it up well:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=125463&title=10-f#@king-years-even-stevphen

Hi Jim,

I'd meant to respond to this blog posting a few days ago, but didn't find the time until now.

I can understand where you're coming from, in attempting to express an opinion, or simply make an observation, based on empirical evidence, and having someone's assumptions about your motives trump the actual content of the intended discussion. It's usually at its worst in the world of politics, where most people (consciously or not) cling to their own personal idealogies so strongly that any comments that could potentially make them re-consider their position somewhat, or at least give them a more well-rounded sense of a particular issue, is met with, at the very least, passive-aggressive posturing, if not full-blown hostility. One of the reasons I can't be bothered with most political debates is simply because the participants are very rarely interested in providing any thoughtful or illuminating discussion on a topic, but are simply looking to "win" a point, often with a similar emotional tone and level of intellectual discourse as that found in a typical online "flame war". And this attitude absolutely extends to any discussion related to the performing arts.

I've found that the best way to engage in a genial, thoughtful discussion about any topic is to not overplay your hand in initiating the conversation. For instance, I have no interest in seeing the new Transformers film for a variety of different reasons, but for some reason, I do have a mild interest in determining why some folks found the first film quite satisfying, and the sequel so very lacking. Are the two films really so very different from one another? Did the visual technique, level of performance, or dialogue really differ all that much? Anyways, whenever I bring up the film to someone who's seen it or intends to see it, I do my best not to position myself in a condescending manner, and try to step back and get a better understanding of why two (seemingly) interchangeable films have generated such different responses from many casual moviegoers.

In retrospect, I feel that, last summer, you were trying to illuminate, or simply figure out, why The Dark Knight struck such a chord with so many people (critics most definitely included), but I think even you'll agree, at this point, that you started off the conversation on something of a bum note. The words "if it had a director and/or screenplay..." or "incompetent" were instantly etched in the brains of the many supporters of the film, thus causing many (myself certainly included at times) to be less concerned with the empirical content of the subsequent blog entries than the supposed motives behind them. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with feeling however you felt about the film, but when you hope to inspire a genial, thoughtful discussion amongst a large group of individuals, it's usually best to avoid bold statements of a (potentially) inflammatory nature at the top of the conversation. Whatever the intent, the perception tended to be that you were offering up some antagonistic, condescending dismissals of the film in question (and, by extension, its fanbase), and that inevitably resulted in a degree of defensiveness on the part of the film's supporters. Which didn't really allow for a careful examination of empirical data, when many folks were more interested in simply proving the other side "wrong": thus, numerous flame wars ensued. You even conceded in a later blog entry about the film that you felt liked you "failed" in confidently establishing the intent of an entry, thus taking the conversation off into unforeseen, less (intellectually?) satisfying directions.

Anyways, I say all this as someone who still very much disagrees with most of your comments regarding the overall quality of the film, but that's (of course) completely beside the point. In the end, and upon further reflection, I was far less bothered by your lack of appreciation for what I thought was a quite good film than your (IMO) inability in illuminating just what you were hoping to accomplish with the many blog entries. Though it seemed as though you might be building towards something (parts of the film being reflected in the whole), your approach, on many of those occasions (bus exiting the bank not being captured from the "correct" angle, Joker being a perpetual contradiction of himself, as though that's necessarily a flaw of the script, and not actually the intent), struck me as quite trivial, and almost completely removed from the most visible reasons that most folks enjoyed the film to begin with. For instance, the reasonably complex, conflicted characters; the strong, resonant performances (Ledger, Eckhart, and Oldman in particular); the topical themes; some clever, self-reflexive-but-still bracing dialogue; the striking cinematography (not all the shots lasted two seconds, and they can create a visual tableau regardless); the atmospheric score and sound design, and, for many, a series of ambitious set pieces (bank robbery, Operation Skyhook, tunnel chase, skyscraper) that were well staged and executed, and not particularly given to the less satisfying shaky-cam approach of, say, the underground parking sequence, or the Rachel/Batman fall that you drew particular attention to as purely representative of the whole. Which is to say, elements of a film succeed (or don't) to varying degrees, but the weakest (subjective, of course) examples shouldn't be taken at face value as its defining characteristics. And that proved frustrating, as we may have gotten to a point where we could've discussed elements that you considered to be reasonably successful (technique, themes, performances, whatever): given that you initially stated that, despite reservations, you "enjoyed yourself" at the film, and "want(ed) to see it again", surely it had a bit more going for it than nurse Joker walking outside the exploding building and antagonizing Batman in the interrogation room? But we never got to that point, partly due to the (perceived, if not entirely intended) tone of your initial posting, the (inevitably) defensive response from many quarters, and the natural (no film caters to everyone) support from other quarters in overall assessment of the film if not individual details (which often deviated into, as previously stated, rather trivial directions that even left them a bit flummoxed).

Nonetheless, despite my disappointment regarding how the discourse surrounding that film went, I often return to this blog, because, in general, I think you really attempt to break down what works and what doesn't in any piece of art, and are usually able to sidestep such bold proclamations ("Slumdog: worst directed film of the year" being the other one) in favour of more evenhanded, genial approaches. In other words, you usually get the conversation off to a good start, and that keeps me coming back for more.

Cheers. :)

(And I typed this quickly off the top of my head, so please excuse any typos.)

As an accompaniment to t's comment, and really to the entire thread, here is the Chomsky/Buckley 'debate'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

I like how the post prior to mine maintains a faux-scholarly tone throughout, attempts to seem to be about various, serious recent topics of discussion, and goes on forever - yet is actually just a defense of The Dark Knight.

And when I say "i like how", I am being serious. I enjoyed the post, I think it's funny how he did that. Ten points to JC.

No, Paul, I have to strongly disagree here. It is not "just a defense of the Dark Knight". It pertains directly to the matter discussed here, because, as I understand, we're trying to understand how critical thinking works adn grave it really is. While I agree with everything Jim said in this entry, I also have to say that his actions sometimes completely detract from what he thinks is lacking on modern society. How is that? Using him as an example is not a form of bashing, only an element that can be enlightening about how critical thinking works and where it fails to appear in someone's rationale. I think it may be something much less grave than what Jim fears, since almost everyone falls into this pattern in one way or another. Look at Jim, for example.

He sets a beautiful example of a friend's mother who refuses to engage in a discussion when she feels the other side is too emotionally stubborn, and yet, much to my disbelief, he does exactly that in his discussion with John L. What's up with that? I saw their posts at each other, and I saw John's responses, and I have to say, while I don't necessarily agree with his premise, I have to agree with his rationale and exlpication, because it is reasonable at many levels (if you want to discuss that, just tell me, I'll be able to tell you some things since I'm quite acquainted with many past and present socialist countries and I currently live in one).

Long story short, I found John L.'s response to be precise, calm, collected and polite. And what Jim does after his only reply is rightfully bebuked? (John's remark abuot the condescending tone is right on).. well, he tells you: "John L.'s response speaks for itself. I tried one more time, but I'm going to leave it at that." I'm sorry, but isn't that the same behavior that enfuriated him with his friend's mother? What's up with that?

I remember each one of Jim's entries about The Dark Knight, and I have to agree with everything JC just said. It wasn't a good or really thought through way of trying to show his points... hell, I don't even know what his point was. He repeatedly said that he wanted to understand why so many people happened to love a movie that he found decent but terribly flawed. And recent comments about those entries... from his part, and yours, and from other other people... seem to suggest that all he could find among the the comments was enraged out-of-proportion defensive responses. That's simply not true. I remember many of those respones, and while too many were unnecessarily aggressive, A LOT of them wer magnificent essays about the many merits of the film. As it is my recollection, almost none of those articles were dignified by a response from Jim. Which is totally normal, I mean, he cannot answer to every comment in his blog, he didn't comment not even one line on this entry's best comment (IMHO), which is Alex Murillo's, a magnificent out-of-this world text about what should be goal of every criticism, being a film criticism or of any other kind.
But the problem wasn't that he didn't comment on these responses that were giving him exactly what he demanded... he didn't even acknowledge them. He kept on posting entries of faulty logic (like JC said, citing a few technically flawed moments and trying to extrapolated them as the films' defining characteristics)... and in those posts, he mentioned more than once how he hadn't received satisfactory explanations from the part of the fans about why they thought the movie was that great.

Really? I remember more than five. I especially loved the post of a user whose name I cannot recall but was of indian origin.

All this pertains to this current discussion because, after all, despite his strong opposition to use of faulty logic in debates and and overall lack of critical thinking in the world, Jim has fallen into that kind of pattern more than once. Which may mean that no one is free of sin, that, as some comments here note, the only thing that is required to elicit an illogical response is an idelogical disagreement. And that's all. It is not the end of the world. Debate and discussion, to all its merits, also have problems of their own and can't solve everything, and while those are things that could really hlep our society (especially in the political arena), like some poepl here have said, IT IS NOT for everybody, as some people tend to dislike thinking so much, or value actions and stances over dialogue anytime. It is not a part of our cultural legacy... it's a part of human nature, IMO.

Bottom line: JC's post was so much more than a TDK defense, and John L.'s comments were quite reasonably and he still didn't receive fair responses from others, as many of his arguments were simply dimissed in favor of interesting, lengthy but somewhat unrelated reasoning(the "I'm pregnant" technique). Despite all you way, you also fall prey of the lack of critical thiking. I do too. It is not the end of the world. We just have to be moderated and LISTEN to what others have to say.. not to be persuaded, but to better understand the causes of our own preferences. From here on, I hope you can spare the unreasonable and unrequited condescending tone.

I'd just like to take a moment and mention how appropriate and refreshing it is to see that Monty Python clip way, way up at the top of this column of comments. Sums everything up nicely.
I sure miss those guys...

Ah, another lengthy post pretending to be something it's not. Yours could easily have been summed up as: "I'm a Dark Knight fanboy AND a conservative. Wah wah wah."

Or did I misread that too?

I'm a liberal. Very liberal. Conservative friends tell me I'm as liberal as you can get without entering in Stalin's backyard. I'm positevely sure that the main contributors to the Second World War victory were the soviets, not the American Army, as they try to say in their many rewrites of history. I support abortion rights, social reforms, bigger government without overstepping on personal rights, despise excessive patriotism, support gun control, you name it... I even deeply appreciated M.Moore's Psycho, despite the misconceptions and omisions of the Cuba segment.

I'm also a fervent Chomsky reader, but I also happen to being born and live in a socialist country (Cuba) that allowed me to know other socialist countries from USSR, as well as China, Tanzania, East Germany and a little bit of North Korea. And I can (and have to) acknowledge John L.'s valid argument: through the entire History, most if not all of the socialist regimes have led to autocracies, leaded by a single party, and in more than one ocassion a single leader with cult personality... all in the name of Estate protection of the people. Despite all the good things socialism can have, there is an undeniable risk of allowing that, through empowerement of the State, a dictatorship is perpetuated. You can even set direct comparisons between socialist regimes and Nazi Germany, down to mass psychology (like the famous Wave experiment... check the 2008 film) and the similarities are too abundant. And when you say things like "Socialism as I think of it is a people's control of the means of production, of the economy, of the government, of the distribution of wealth, goods and services.", I cannot help but feel you're: 1. making tremendous exercises in semantics, 2. being overly naïve and failing to notice the gap in logic there, or 3. being disingenous. The People operates all the time through the State, and it's the state who takes major administrative decisions, in every socialist regime (and I underline the existence of a difference between Socialist State and SocialDemocrat Government). Nazism, as hard as it is to admit, has too many similarities to socialist states as we've known them in many forms: from generic details as the need of an outer agressor to systematically cement ideology, to economic planification, control of the state, one party supremacy, gun and media (press) control, political prisoners, etc. You only have to draw the historic comparisons between Cuba's regime and Franco's, the fascistic regime in Spain. Hell, even Gramsci's recipe of repressive mechanisms ahve been followed to the tiniest details in all the socialist countries I know (extinct or not).

So, don't tell me I'm trying to mislead with my post. You're wrong. In fact, I'm right now wondering about Jim's policies regarding the low-level comments. Yours was completely unnecessary and trollish. The "wah wah" was particularly revealing. Please, don't make a fool of yourself again like this. And Jim, please, if you're going to set rules around here, enforce them.

I'm not sure if I can be qualified as a "fan boy", but sure, why not? I've never been able to see that as a pejorative.

And this is an example of talking clearly and not going down to your level. I'm sorry if you take it personal, I just know I won't. Take care.

It's true. They don't even know why they are arguing. You could argue around them and come back and make them realize they forgot what they were arguing about.

Maybe other people have already pointed this out (there are a lot of comments here) but:

Statement: "Naziism is a form of fascism."

Response: "You are a left-wing maniac!"...

You made that up. You can't form the basis of your argument on examples that you invented out of thin air.

And this:

Statement: "This Gravenstein apple has a worm in it."

Response: "What have you got against Gravensteins? You just want to ruin them for other people! Gravensteins are way better than Granny Smiths! I love Gravensteins! In fact, apples are better than oranges and only a coward would claim otherwise!"

Count the number of irrelevancies in that third response, will you?...

Why? YOU MADE THEM UP! What does that have to do with anything? How is this critical thinking when you pull no examples from life, but rather invent examples that stack the deck against the extreme end of what you what to talk about, and then ask us to take note of how absurd your fictions are?

JE: Well, they're not meant to be real arguments -- because that would encourage (as the Nazi one did anyway) arguments about that specific issue. I used the extreme fictionalized examples to point out PATTERNS we see every day, and then encouraged everybody to notice them when they occur. The Nazi one was a combination of an actual exchange between Glenn Beck and somebody from the Ayn Rand Institute and some comments about my remarks about Bill Maher, claiming my criticism was really about liberal politics.

Jim,

I offer the following not as some sort of agitprop meant to point out hypocrisy (since I think you know that I'm an avid fan of your writing and your blog), but merely to show that sometimes our spur-of-the-moment reactions to things prevent us from upholding the standard of constructive criticism and/or discussion that we set for others and ourselves.

From your post on "Star Trek":

"But, damn, could this movie use a director. (I know, I said the same thing last summer about "TDK," and I meant it then, too.) Abrams began as a screenwriter ("Regarding Henry," "Forever Young," "Armageddon") and has become a one-man network television franchise as a series creator and producer ("Felicity," "Alias," "Lost"). But if you ever want to see what a movie directed by someone with the soul of a producer looks like, start with the works of Irvin Winkler ("Guilty By Suspicion") and then catch this one.

I submit that the above paragraph is as conversation-killing and bludgeoning as some of the other examples you have used in this post. I know you were speaking facetiously, but the film DID have a director: J.J. Abrams (as did The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan). Clearly the stylistic choices he made did not sit well with you (I will throw in my own two cents on the film here...while I have reached the breaking-point with quickly-edited, swirly-cam action sequences in modern film, I actually thought that Star Trek achieved a certain level of energy and momentum from its style, whereas recent films like The Dark Knight and The Bourne Supremacy that employed similar techniques struck me as overtly busy and monotonous. But again, this is where subjectivity comes in). My larger point is that rather than just pointing out some of the stylistic choices that Abrams made and reflecting your reaction to it, while also comparing it to other films, you also went a little further into a combative stance by labeling Abrams as a director with "the soul of a producer". And while you can claim that by listing Abrams' previous credentials you were merely providing history, I venture to guess (and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong) that you were also subtly implying that Abrams' roots reveal that he is not a film director at heart (which is certainly a specious argument...many of the greats began as screenwriters).

You went on to describe specific examples from the film, as you so often advocate in criticism, but laced throughout your descriptions were asides that, it seems to me, are detrimental to the substantive discussions that you are so strongly advocating in this blog. When you say, for example, that Abrams "doesn't know what to do with the camera, except call your attention to it", it strikes me as the same type of lazy criticism that you so generally abhor.

Again, I'm not pointing this out just to pick a fight, but merely to continue to encourage you (as I hope others will encourage me) to continue to be aware of the implications, assumptions and personal biases that come through in our writing on film (or any other subject for that matter).

JE: Alex, you know that I always look forward to your comments, too. I see what you're saying. Still, I stand by both of those comments as legitimate observations/comparisons, simply because I did cite specific observations on which to base my impressions. As for the camera placement, I later discovered (and quoted in a comment) that Abrams himself owned up to how ludicrously overdone some of his shots were. Even he laughed about them (especially the shaky-cam with crew members walking around out-of-frame shining flashlights into the lens). I didn't know that when I wrote about the movie, but it confirmed what I saw. The "producer" comment is a bit more ineffable. Think of it (to borrow from Andrew Sarris) as a Subject for Further Research. I think some people's behind-the-camera talent really is more for producing than directing -- and you can see it in their work. But you're right, I fired off Abrams' producing and writing credits and compared him to Winkler, but didn't explore what I meant by a "producer's sensibility" (and I meant something quite different from the slick Michael Jackson/Jerry Bruckheimer comparison I made recently). That would be a good subject for a whole other post, requiring further thought and research...

Jim, thanks for responding so sensibly and honestly (as opposed to defensively). I too read that interview that Abrams gave where he jokingly admitted to all of the backlighting and histrionics in the Star Trek film. Oddly enough, as frustrated as I am with an abundance of style being mistaken for inventiveness ("Slumdog Millionaire" = my choice for WORST film of 2008, and I'm not saying that to be contrarian, I honestly believe it), I did actually enjoy most of the hubbub on display in "Star Trek". On the whole I found it a very enjoyable summer adventure film, moreso than 2008's "Iron Man", to which one reviewer compared it.

Regardless, I am fascinated by your exploration of a "producer's sensibility". Steven Spielberg is one of my favourite directors, yet he is often decried in publications like the Village Voice as a destroyer of inquisitive American cinema...or even if he is not decried, he is misrepresented (how many times have we read the sentence "a Spielbergian suburban setting", when in reality, how many of his films AS A DIRECTOR actually present a suburban setting that is free from angst, concern or peril?). It seems to me that Spielberg the producer is often confused for Spielberg the director...so which is the true Spielberg? (Interesting that he has an executive-producer credit on the generally abhored "Transformers" films). That is why to me it is not particularly revealing to describe a director as having more of a producer's sensbility, or vice versa, because in today's modern Hollywood, it seems as if the two are inevitably linked.

Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the original topic of this thread (the death of substantive arguments), but I still felt a need to respond. My original point was that even people who strive to ubhold a certain standard of critical discussion can sometimes fall victim to hyberpole, conjecture or good old-fashioned rabble-rousing. I know that in my own writing I am sometimes tempted to go the extra length to not only express my feelings and observations, but also rile those who may disagree with me into a heated discussion. It's human nature, we can't deny it, we probably shouldn't supress it, but we should always have enough of an awareness to recognize it when it happens. We've all made a comment that both reflects our honest opinion and our learned observations, but that also tosses in a spice of antagonism or hyperbole, just to get a reaction. And I think that's always going to be part of many conversations...from subjects as varied as Sarah Palin or "Slumdog Millionaire" (both overblown 2008 artifacts that will be forgotten within five years). See, there I go tossing in a sentence just to get people fired up!

Not sure where this post is going. Also, English is not my first language, though. So please bear with me. The article reminded me of a recent conversation with a close female friend...

She: So, what do you think of "V For Vendetta" film?
Me: I didn't like it that much.
She: You don't know anything about movies.
Me: Excuse me? Never ever say that to people. Have you ever find me saying that to you when I disagree with you? No?
She: Chill, man! Don't get so riled up.

Also, a few months ago after the Grammy Award ceremony...

Me: I wonder why didn't Leona even appear onstage for the Grammys unlike the other nominated/winning UK acts?
She: Leona doesn't have a recognizable voice unlike the others.
Me: But, of all the UK acts that were nominated for the big prizes for the Grammys, she was the only one being sidelined to the audience seat. One reason might be Leona is an all-out manufactured pop vocalist under Clive Davis who found Whitney and Mariah.
She: That's why. Duffy, Estelle and Adele has distict voice, Leona doesn't. Adele's voice is more 30s-40s.
Me: Adele's voice is more 60s-70s soul though
She: Yeah, but she sounded 30s and 40s to me. And there's no one that sounds like Duffy.
Me: Duffy is compared a lot to Dusty Springfield
She: No one knows who Dusty Springfield is. Estelle's voice is smooth. Leona's voice has been compared to Mariah and Whitney, and that's the part where Leona was not even onstage as her voice is too recent.
Me: Huh? Do you even know what I am talking in the first place?

And so, this brings us to the main question: How to argue back when the person has to resort to total hostility (in the first conversation) and to complete disregard of the original topic (in the second conversation) to show him/her superiority over the topic? It's easy to say a person shouldn't let words bring him down, and I could have been a gentleman and then let the person win, but when what s/he said is outrageously offensive, how could you back down? It's one thing to rile people up so that you can have a lengthy discussion with them, it's another when you have to utilize such tactics to shut people out. That, or you're too proud to admit you're clueless on the topic.