Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Miscellaneous Blogs -> Fannie's Room

Miscellaneous

: Fannie's Room

"Deep" Thought #7: A Grand Display of Bad Faith, Psychic Ability, and/or Poor Comprehension

By Fannie

One of many reasons I stopped interacting with the folks over at Opine is that their most-used tactic is to take quotes out of context and impute the commenter with all sorts of sinister beliefs and opinions that he or she never stated.

Out of curiosity, I was reading a debate between my friend Jane and some of the Opiners. Jane ended her dialogue by quoting this:

"The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity." ~Thomas Szasz

People reading this quote in good faith with a decent ability to comprehend will understand that what the quote is saying is that "the plague of mankind is fear and rejection of diversity." After listing what conservatives think of as "absolute right ways to live and believe," the quote continues on to say that those who believe there is only one "right way" to do things are a threat to humanity.

Demonstrating a poor comprehension of the theme of this quote, the Opiners came out in full force to attack and mock it. They know, after all, that there is only one right way to live. Coincidentally, the right way to live is the way that they live.

How convenient, eh?

While the point of the quote is that there are many ways to live, including monotheism, monogamy, etc. Fitz chimed in to mock:

"Wonderful Jane.

You?ve now come out strongly against ?monotheism, monarchy, monogamy, monomedicine? as the hegemonic scourge of western thought"

Weapon of Mass Projection much? Fitz, of course, is strongly against anything but the above "monos." Yet, he misreads the quote Jane provided and automatically thinks that Jane is strongly against his "monos." Let's all take a deep breath and remember the theme of Jane's quote:

There is no single one right way to live. If there is no single right way to live, Jane is, in fact, not coming out strongly against monotheism, etc. To paraphrase, the quote is saying monotheism, etc. are okay ways to live, but there are other okay ways to live as well.

Not too difficult a concept, right?

Most would think. But not in Opine-land.

"On Lawn" later saw fit to invoke the quote in his very own article about polyamory. Since I'm not psychic like our friends at Opine, I won't take a gander as to why "On Lawn" linked Jane's quote to an article about polyamory. Besides, in typical, boring "On Lawn"-fashion, he provided very little of his own commentary and analysis to his post. What's that? A link to someone else's article? Neat-o.

The comments were a bit more interesting, however, as the rest of the Opiners had a new excuse to talk about Jane (and me!) and to delve into the innermost cockles of our minds. Observe:

Anonymous Opine commenter "Op-Ed" chimed in to declare that Jane's posting of the above quote means that Jane "wants to neuter marriage to stomp out monogamy." Ker-pow! For a bunch of heteros, those Opiners sure are a dramatic bunch! (Oh, and in case anyone here isn't aware, to "neuter marriage" is really just an odd propaganda-y lingo-y way of saying "allow gay people to marry.") But anyway, psychic being that he surely is, "Op-Ed" has no need to ask Jane her reason for believing gay people should marry. Surely, it's not because of pesky things like equal rights, protections, and benefits. It's because Jane wants to demolish monogamy. That's really the only valid explanation, right Jane?

Alas, Fitz chimed in again to say that the "quote by Jane Know was very revealing." Yes, it is very revealing to psychic beings isn't it? For those of us who lack the extra-sensory perception of Fitz and company, let's sit back, break out our tinfoil hats, and let Fitz-aggedon explain how Jane and I are in-cahoots with the Bolsheviks. (I couldn't make this up if I tried!) Anyway, try your best to wade through his latest incomprehensible misspelled... erm... "analysis" [my comments are in brackets]:

"Both her & Fannies [sic] blog are deep, deep in the fever swaps [sic?] of feminism and hetrosexism [sic] [And, did he really mean to say "heterosexism" here? Does he really think I believe heterosexual family forms are "superior"?].

This carries with it a belief in polyamory to be just another family form. [What does? Feminism? Does Fitz magically know what all feminists think?]

I am preparing a post that gathers the most prominent ss "m" activists [sic] core understanding of marriage and reveals them for what they are. [Watch out! LOL!]

This is their priesthood of academics & activists who see man woman [sic] marriage as something worthy of destruction.

We need to do a better job of revealing these core sentiments & ideology [sic] for what they are. [Assemble tinfoil hat now.]

When I bring up Marxism I do get called McCarthy but I (tellingly) don?t get distancing much less refutation from the radicalism & tactics of Marxism. [Pot, meet kettle]

At 50 million dead by the Bolsheviks it?s sad that people will still associate themselves with that ideology but (somehow) being a Nazi is in bad form. [... Um, did Fitz just admit that he's a Nazi?]"

Yes, Fitz, we know. We're Marxists. And under your "logic," every belief we hold that comes from the poisonous Marxist well is automatically discredited not on its merits but because it is "Marxist." Okay, Opiners, seriously. I am trying to appeal to your sense of rationality here. Since your blog is so very concerned with presenting logical arguments, will someone please, please, please edu-ma-cate Fitz about the logical fallacy called "poisoning the well." He sure as hell hasn't listened to any of his opponents regarding this fallacy. I know you're on the same side as Fitz, but you've gotta admit illogic when you see it. An argument should be attacked on its merits, not because of where it came from. For some reason, that concept never sinks into Fitz's head.

But other than that, great job, Opiners. In just a few short comments, you've managed to display faulty inferences from a single quote, poor comprehension, psychic ability, bad faith, logical fallacies, and/or assignation of extremely sinister motives and conspiracy. I now predict that Fitz will completely ignore this article and/or chalk it up to me using some sort of sinister Marxist propaganda tool. It's all a clusterfuck of irony considering the utter incompetence he and his cohorts display to even recognize competence and logic in the first place. After all, it is difficult for them to recognize their own logical shortcomings and propaganda tactics when they're preoccupied with projecting them onto others.

If I cared about their work I would suggest they clean up their act a bit, but their incompetence only helps us. So, um, thanks.

Yeah, "Deep" thoughts are totally happening over there.

Full post as published by Fannie's Room on March 25, 2008 (boomark / email).