The stubborn thirst for simple answers to hard questions
Popehat says people who paid attention to Elise Stefanik’s “yes or no” are credulous and stupid. He’s probably right.
America faces many problems. The easy ones we solve or ignore. We struggle with the hard ones. Hard problems raise complex questions that lack glib, one-word answers. The stubborn thirst for simple answers to hard questions is bad for America. It’s anti-intellectual, pro-ignorance, pro-stupidity, pro-bigotry, pro-reactionary, pro-totalitarianism, pro-tyranny, pro-mob.
Other than that…
He’s right though.
Take this week’s Congressional hearing about antisemitism on college campuses, titled “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism.” A generous interpretation — a credulous one — would be that the hearing was designed to inquire why colleges aren’t protecting Jewish students from antisemitic harassment. A more realistic interpretation is that the hearing was a crass show trial primarily intended to convey that a wide variety of dissenting speech about Israel is inherently antisemitic, that American colleges are shitholes of evil liberalism, and that Democrats suck. Since Democrats do suck, they mostly cooperated.
The core Two-Minute Hate of this carnival was Rep. Elise Stefanik’s demand for yes-or-no answers to questions about whether policies at Harvard, Penn, and MIT would prohibit calling for the genocide of Jews. You might think Elise Stefanik is an unlikely standard-bearer for a crusade against antisemitism, given that she’s a repeat promoter of Great Replacement Theory, the antisemitic trope that Jews are bringing foreigners into America to undermine it. But if you bought Stefanik’s bullshit, you probably didn’t think that far.
Hey now, it’s not that I didn’t think that far, it’s that I didn’t know she’s a repeat promoter of Great Replacement Theory, and I didn’t pause to refresh my memory about her views and actions. Which is kind of the same as not thinking that far, but more ignorant.
He goes on to clarify in detail why her question was bullshit, and concludes with
I don’t blame Jews who feel under siege in America or on campus, even if I sometimes disagree with their interpretation of criticisms of Israel. Feelings are not right or wrong, and in the face of so much overt Jew-hatred, I understand a tendency to interpret ambiguous statements in the worst way possible. I think we should feel compassion and empathy for people who feel that way.
None of that is solved by pretending hard questions are easy. None of that is solved by letting demagogues and hucksters take advantage of the moment to push their agenda. None of that is solved by contributing to what America is becoming — stupider and meaner.
H/t ROB
Heeeey, Sackbut is great and all, but…
Rob deserves the hat tip.
I liked White’s examination of the harassment policy. I think that’s important. Not all bad speech is harassment.
Of course, this is exactly the rhetoric that Genderists use. They accuse us of insisting on “simple” answers and definitions when we ask things like, “What is a woman?”
Some questions admit of simple answers; some don’t. Wisdom lies in discerning whether or not a simple answer is sufficient.
I disagree with that.
Yes, Stefanik asked for “yes or no”, but the presidents had the opportunity to actually talk and explain, they were not confined to yes-or-no answers.
Instead of a vague “it depends on the context”, they could have given an example of when it is allowed to call for genocide, or could have said that there are statements like “from the river to the sea” that are somewhat open to interpretation. They could have started with “This is a question that is more difficult than a yes-or-no-question and let me explain why.” If Stefanik had then interrupted them during these explanations to avoid such nuance, the impression on the viewer would have been a lot different.
But they chose not to do that, but rather to answer in vague statements like “depends on context” etc.
So, yes, Stefanik laid a kind of trap, but it was out in the open for everyone to see – if you fall into such a trap nevertheless, you bear the blame.
And, let’s all be honest, if the question had been “Is it harassment to say ‘trans women are men”, the answer would probably have been an unequivocal ‘yes’.
It wasn’t a hard question, no matter what Stefanik’s background is. The presidents could have answered no, it doesn’t violate policy, or yes, it does violate policy. Sure, the question was loaded, but Popehat lays out a *hypothetical* situation where if the presidents say yes, then the follow up questions are supposedly damning. >>
“If the presidents answered inaccurately but simply “yes,” she could make her next point: then why aren’t you punishing people who advocate intifada? Why aren’t you expelling students for saying “from the river to the sea”? Why aren’t you punishing people for accusing Israel of genocide?”
Expanding on this, let’s answer those questions too. Let the hypothetical Stefanik make her next point. This was the purpose of the investigation. Hypthetical Stefanik and Hypothetical President…
HS — Why aren’t you punishing people who advocate intifada?
HP — Because it doesn’t violate policy.
HS — Why aren’t you expelling students for saying “from the river to the sea”?
HP — Because it doesn’t violate policy.
HS — Why aren’t you punishing people for accusing Israel of genocide?
HP — Because it doesn’t violate policy.
To which I would add my hypothetical questions;
HP — Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate policy?
HP — Yes.
HS — Why aren’t you punishing or expelling students for calling for the genocide of Jews?
HP — Because we don’t have any evidence of this happening.
Etc.
This is how I would have liked to see the exchange happen, but it didn’t. Presidents of universities can’t answer simple questions and follow ups? If Stefanik’s questions were some kind of trick as Popehat argues, then how hard would it be for a (supposedly highly educated) university president to solve the trick? Instead they gave answers to follow up type questions along the lines of “it depends on context” or “in some situtions” instead of simply answering the initial yes or no question. If they don’t know the policies, then let them say that. Just because it’s not a simple problem doesn’t necessarily mean that simple, or even loaded, tricky questions can’t be answered simply. Lawyers should know this. Complex problems can be broken down into a collection of smaller simpler problems. I can see how Popehat finds this frustrating, but Stefanik is of the same caliber of most of our politicians, who yes indeed think simply, and pander to the masses. I don’t think it’s an excuse to (lovingly?) insult everyone’s intelligence.
“But if you bought Stefanik’s bullshit, you probably didn’t think that far.” The presidents didn’t think that far, they played the political game that Stefanik set up for them, by being evasive and failing to see Stefanik’s complex question fallacy. Just answer the questions already and let it play out.
Arrrrrrggghhhh sorry Rob! Dammit I even told myself I should check it, but replied to myself that I was quite sure……………
But then their supposed complications and nuance are all irrelevant bullshit (“TWAW, it’s right in the name!” “Sexual development is complex!” “Intersex!” “Clownfish!” “Just another kind of woman like Black, disabled, or post-menopausal!”) so that evens things out a bit.
Quite alright Ophelia, I just thought it was too funny to pass up the chance.