babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » "Objectively such-and-such"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Objectively such-and-such"
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 September 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Inspired by josh's post in this thread.

quote:
Skdadl, what I meant was that the "objective" part was old. It stems from Orwell's description of pacifists in WWII as being "objectively pro-fascist." It was brought back after 9/11 by rabid neo-cons to denounce anyone who would question Bush's policies. Some have also described Ralph Nader as being "objectively pro-Bush."

That has to be the most stupid thing I've ever heard. I suppose in a binary world, maybe this might be logical.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 September 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the usage actually pre-dates Orwell's. During the purges and show trials in the USSR, Stalin & Co. would describe this or that Old Bolshevik, apolitical technician, or whoever as "objectively counterrevolutionary."

Which is yet another reason it grieves me that Orwell picked up that nasty phraseology. But he, like Hitchens after him, went in for a lot of patriotic bombast during the war.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's even worse than that, though.

That terminology erects a paranoid category of thought-crime -- that is, someone critical of my view (on whatever) is not just disagreeing with me about the effects of my position; he is slyly claiming to know something about what is going on in my head, and nothing I can say -- short of agreeing with him, of course -- can acquit me of that charge.

It is circular and paranoid and hallucinatory, and of course we all know where such rhetorical games led in, eg, the Soviet Union, where political dissenters were often diagnosed and incarcerated as mentally ill.

Of course: if you disagree with me, you must be sick. *barf*


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 September 2004 03:51 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, to claim someone is "objectively pro-" this or "objectively anti-" that is to move the argument to another level. Instead of arguing about what someone says on its merits or lack thereof, you're simply imputing motive to them.

Edit:

Hitchens, by the way, used to pour scorn on such rhetorical manoeuvres. But in the last three years or so he seems to have entirely forgotten his former pretensions to intellectual rigour.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think that it really was quite wicked -- sad, too, of course -- of Orwell to have claimed that pacifists were "pro-fascists."

But that is an excellent and clear example of the problem. The vast majority of pacifists in WWII would have been strongly anti-fascist, and in fact it is hard for me to imagine a pacifist fascist, certainly of the Nazi variant.

Even if one thought that their position was wrong, that it would help the enemy cause, one would still have to accept at face-value their self-identification as anti-fascist. We can say that we believe that someone like that is wrong, but we can't logically say that she is pro- something else that she hates. It is just that she also hates war, as much or more.

[ 05 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 September 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Lance that this particular phraseology originated with Stalin, or at least was extensively used during his rule in the USSR. (I would be interested if anyone can find that Lenin or Trotsky used it in the same way, though.)

It is thus interesting that the term has now been re-introduced by neocons, through Orwell. Orwell himself went through the POUM, a non-Stalinist left group in Spain, and of course the neocons have Trotsky in their past, by and large.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*cough*

jeff house: I have Trotsky in my past. I also have Diderot and Rousseau and Edmund Burke in my past. And I could go on ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 05 September 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Geez, skdadl, what a past you have. If I were 'lance I'd say, "Faithless deceiver!"
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 September 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sigh. No, Mandos, I've long known about skdadl and this Trotsky fellow. Nothing to be done about it now.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 September 2004 04:26 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

To be serious, Mandos, I do not think that it is the Trotsky in their pasts that makes the neo-cons scary. The philosophy that attracted them most deeply was elitist and openly prescribed dishonesty and deceit, presumed to be justified if one was destined to be a Master of the Universe.

That is not Trotsky. And actually, I thought that it was the older radical cons who had Trotsky in their pasts, not the rapacious young Straussians, who are the really scary ones, no loyalty to anything but their own superior minds.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 05 September 2004 07:46 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Forgive me if i'm not familiar with the origin(s) and applications of the phrase.
I gather people who use it mean that someone is (whether by design or inadvertantly) helping the other side in a conflict by refusing to fight on this side (whatever their motive or intention). If so, shouldn't the charge be 'effectively pro-whatever'?
Since the word 'objective' generally means unbiassed; based on facts rather than opinion, using it in this context misleads the hearer into thinking that the statement is based on solid evidence.
Another nice (subtle, skilful) subversion of language. If Americans are going slowly insane, look to the political and commercial twisting of language. If words are routinely abused, verbal communication becomes impossible - that leaves only grimaces and physical gestures. With those, one can express emotion, but not thought.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 September 2004 09:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just so, nonesuch: "effectively" would be the mot juste in such a construction -- and the more I think of it, the more amazed I am at Orwell, for not knowing -- or caring -- about that.

Plus, does anyone actually know the Russian of what Stalin said/would have said? Is the translation to "objectively" definitive, or just ... effective?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 07 September 2004 01:49 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In Stalin's case, it would be sufficient to mean: "I object to this guy being on this earth."
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 07 September 2004 01:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From all we've heard, nonesuch, that would more or less be what the USian neo-cons mean as well.

They seem to be well on their way to having the same murderous effect, don't they?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 07 September 2004 03:04 PM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This brings to mind the "Useful Idiot" label. It's a very cynical - but perhaps more succint - illustration of what Orwell was probably getting at. It's thought to have been incorrectly attributed to Lenin and could either describe the rabid anti-communist whose intemperance made leftists look good by comparison, or the squishy leftists in the West who denied the existence of the Soviet Union’s various horrors – it was useful to have them saying those things, but they’d be idiots to actually believe it.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 07 September 2004 09:15 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But when the 500 or so people who own the world install idiots at the head of powerful nations, they're cutting their own throat. Without some force to moderate their actions, there won't be any world left to own.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
praenomen3
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4758

posted 08 September 2004 10:33 AM      Profile for praenomen3        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think the useful idiots were meant to be elevated to that level, even as figureheads. Once their usefulness wears off, you're just left with an idiot.
From: x | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 08 September 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:
Without some force to moderate their actions, there won't be any world left to own.

Nobody ever believes that about their own rulership. They can be smart in other ways, but it is generally impossible to convince people that their personal short term advantage will ever be counterproductive in any way that will matter to them personally.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca