Such as, being against the Iraq war or George Bush is not anti-americanism, but they are elements that did give more confidence to anti-americans. So to say that anti-americanism (we shouldn't claim that it is a non existent thing) probably can be honestly described as simmering in this context -for good reasons, of course.
Similarly, I don't reckon that stating that there is a perception of something necessarily implies that it is false. And since it will (or would) be in the future anyway, what matters today is the perception. And it's not because something is felt by people that it is false either. I must also say that I failed to spot where in the article the left was given a reactionary label.
Don't get me wrong -there is much that is devious in the article. I just feel that it should not lead us to completely lose balance and criticise every word, even words that some of us could have honestly written, and that doing so risks drowning the substantial, neutral deconstruction of very devious points in a host of criticisms of wordings that are at least defendable. "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
If so, so what? Is "anti-Americanism" a real big problem and all-influencing societal pehnomenon, or one played up waaay beyond its significance? In none of the issues the quoted article discusses is 'anti-Americanism' the real matter at hand (or even a significant factor), so discussing the effect on real "anti-Americans" would only be a diversion (one intended by the Businessweek article).
I don't reckon that stating that there is a perception of something necessarily implies that it is false.
If an article persistently speaks only of perceptions where it could have spoken about facts, and several articles committed the same fault before, avoiding the conclusion that such an implication isn't intended is naive. This is how subtle spin works.
I must also say that I failed to spot where in the article the left was given a reactionary label.
On that I agree, I didn't see it in this article. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
OK, we have a pretty good guess.
Anyway, I'm not disputing that this article is full of spin. I'm just saying that I feel we weaken our position by attacking even the reasonable parts. That would then make an outsider reckon that maybe the other attacks also are exagerations, wouldn't it? "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
Such as, being against the Iraq war or George Bush is not anti-americanism, but they are elements that did give more confidence to anti-americans.
The article being fisked in the original post employs a standard rhetorical trick to deflect criticism: Make statements that can be interpreted in two ways: One that is true but trivial, and another that is interesting but false. Listing the Vietraq and Bush the Lesser as contributing factors to the (postulated) increase in anti-Americanism.
One can interpret it the way you do; that BushCo and their insane policies have emboldened anti-American sentiments among those who already hold them, and/or contributed to an increase of said sentiments. This interpretation is, of course, true. It is also, however, trivial: If a country screws up royally, those who are already antagonistic towards said country will beat on its failures as hard as they can. This is no less true for Europhobes than for anti-Americans.
The other interpretation - which Jerome criticises - is that criticism of BushCo and their insane policies is by itself evidence of anti-Americanism. This is an interesting proposition, in the sense that it is non-trivial: There is no a priori reason to suggest such a relationship. It is also, however, very obviously false.
As an aside, the very fact that a central contention is so ambiguously worded as to engender this confusion is a sign that the author is either himself confused about which point he is trying to make, or he is mendaciously attempting to shield an obviously nonsensical point from criticism by leaving sufficient ambiguity in the wording that he can retreat to a true but trivial interpretation should he be criticised.
Given that the piece is written by a corporate shill, I'm inclined to assume mendacity.
Similarly, I don't reckon that stating that there is a perception of something necessarily implies that it is false.
That is true, to an extent, but again the ambiguity is either the result of muddled thinking or outright mendacity on part of the author: When speaking to an issue of fact, it is conventional to make the strongest statement in which one has confidence. If, for instance, I say that "my friend Tobias says that the party tonight is cancelled" it implies that I don't know whether this is true or not. After all, if I know first-hand that the party is cancelled, I would just have said "the party tonight is cancelled."
Thus, by stating that economic inequality is the "perception" of the majority of Europeans, the author is either indicating that he believes this perception to be false - in which case he really needs to lay off whatever drugs he is doing - or he is indicating that he does not know the facts of the matter well enough to make informed comment - in which case I am given to wonder why he pontificates about it...
Of course there is a third possibility: That he doesn't really smoke enough crack to believe that inequality isn't growing in Europe, but he wants his readers to believe it, in which case he is being mendacious.
As before, my bet is mendacity.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
Yes, I'm pretty sure that they will, but so far it has been the investors who have lost quite a lot, more than the share I'd expected they'd end up with. Anyway, it lies in the future, it's not something we can already know for sure.
And I dispute your statements about the anti-americanism point. No, expressing it that way is not a sure sign that the reader is either confused or mendacious. I could have written that sentence, yet I am pretty clear about who screwed up, and have no intention to make people believe that it was those opposing Bush. I don't think the first interpretation is trivial, and even if it were, in the deepest written article you will always have some sentences that are not exactly extraordinary revelations. Neither do I rate the second one as interesting but false, I'd rate it as either dumb or a deliberate misinterpretation in order to make a point. And I say that with the greatest respect for Jérôme's intelligence -I am not for one second suggesting that he may be dumb.
Anyway, my point is that if you look at something where there are huge black spots and some areas that are maybe white and maybe a very light grey, you keep discussing about how much dark there is in those areas, it sort of weakens the description of the black bits.
I dislike propaganda as much as you do. But the axiom that every word in this article must be a deliberate lie is a kind of propaganda too, in the other direction. Mostly, I feel, perhaps wrongly, that by denying the possibility of there being even one neutral sentence in the article we do not greatly enhance our credibility towards those who would not be full converts... "The womb that spawned that thing is fertile yet"
"perception" did not refer to economic inequality, but to the perception that the less wealthy would end up paying for the crisis.
You're right. I got it confused with the part about "feeling" that there is increasing inequality. My bad. I'll maintain that Jerome's reading is closer to what the piece was meant to convey, however.
And I dispute your statements about the anti-americanism point. No, expressing it that way is not a sure sign that the [author] is either confused or mendacious. I could have written that sentence, yet I am pretty clear about who screwed up, and have no intention to make people believe that it was those opposing Bush.
Alright, I was probably a bit harsh there; the statement by itself isn't necessarily mendacious or confused. But given the context of the rest of the article - that is, given that the rest of the article is brimming with similar evidence of deliberate mendacity or astounding confusion (not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course - just look at Answers in Genesis) - I think that it is an entirely reasonable interpolation to assume that this is also the case here.
Mostly, I feel, perhaps wrongly, that by denying the possibility of there being even one neutral sentence in the article we do not greatly enhance our credibility towards those who would not be full converts...
This is a possibility, of course, and one that should be taken seriously in our communication strategy.
On the other hand, blanket dismissal is an entirely valid strategy when dealing with cranks - even if they may have an innocuous sentence or two buried in their screeds. Because acknowledging the existence of an innocuous (or even correct) sentence gives the impression that the correct bits are in sufficiently reasonable proportion to the incorrect bits to be worth mentioning. This is generally not the case.
Precisely how to balance these requirements in our communication is an issue I will happily leave to those more competent in public communication than myself.
More generally, however, your criticisms of the interpretation given in the diary would be both valid and persuasive if the original article had been written in good faith, by an honest broker in the debate. But the evidence - both in the article itself and given the venue of its publication - points massively to the conclusion that it is neither.
And when you're dealing with dishonest shills, you need to discredit them as fast as possible and as dirty as necessary. Because if you engage them in a reasonable debate, you'll get worn down by simple attrition: Making shit up is a lot faster than rebutting it, and the shills have a lot more manpower (and funding) than we do.
In fact there are only two definitions that make sense: anti-americanism as a species of anti-imperialism, that is opposing American imperial power; or alternatively as the opposite of "americanism" (considered as a synonym for US exceptionalism) i.e. anyone not believing that the US is better than everybody else is anti-american.
Under both these definitions however the term "anti-americanism", signifying, as mentioned above, to most "hatred of all Americans", is highly misleading as a term, and its intended use IMHO is mostly as an instrument of internal propaganda. The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
