This should not be surprising. Some years ago the Defense Science Board -- since we are speaking of these things as a "war" -- conducted a study of military strategic communication. I take its key findings to be these:
Information saturation means attention, not information, becomes a scarce resource.
Power flows to credible messengers.
Asymmetrical credibility matters.The first point is independent; the second two are related. Attention is the scarce resource: thus, the speaker who can command attention is the minter of the coin of the realm.
Now take the second and third points together. What this means is that credible voices are more likely to be powerful and effective, but that what makes someone credible isn't an even game. In the case of these bad actors, what makes them credible is that they are voicing deeply felt feelings that echo in many people's hearts. Thus, even when they make the most incredible statements as points of fact, they are asymmetrically quite highly credible. Thus, insofar as their message gains attention, they will gain power.
The current disruption of Mr. Limbaugh's revenue stream may be an exception to this general rule; but it also may not. He is quite wealthy enough to survive a temporary disruption of revenue stream, and appears to have settled on a strategy (and a very wise one) of using the opportunity to retrench his financial support among groups who will not be susceptible to future disruptions of this sort. He is punishing those who abandoned him, and helping those who are willing to stand by him: this will strengthen his position. It is the general approach of the USMC, when it advises, "No better friend; no worse enemy."
A strategy to defeat these messengers -- right or left -- must be based around denying them the attention that they command. Their credibility probably cannot be undermined, because it is not based on the factual accuracy of their remarks. It is asymmetric credibility.
What is needed is to forward the idea of a general principle of shunning anyone who speaks this way of women. It needs to be applied even-handedly, but it also needs to avoid the error of demanding that political allies of the speaker condemn their remarks after the fact. To condemn the remark is to rebroadcast it, which brings it to new attention among those whose hearts agree with it.
For those who happen to be actually present at the time, of course, it is proper to condemn the remarks and the man making them, if he does not apologize and reform himself. Any gentleman who happens to be present ought to insist upon such an apology with all appropriate force.
7 comments:
"What is needed is to forward the idea of a general principle of shunning anyone who speaks this way of women. It needs to be applied even-handedly, but it also needs to avoid the error of demanding that political allies of the speaker condemn their remarks after the fact. To condemn the remark is to rebroadcast it, which brings it to new attention among those whose hearts agree with it.
For those who happen to be actually present at the time, of course, it is proper to condemn the remarks and the man making them, if he does not apologize and reform himself. Any gentleman who happens to be present ought to insist upon such an apology with all appropriate force. "
Grim let me be the first to say yes, both in fact and in deed.
My children, and at times Walkin' Boss, have told me that my overt public displays of disgust with cretins behaving badly embarrasses them. Yet, I suspect they would neither expect nor want less from me in those situations where I called a jackass an ASS.
In the past I've admitted to being a big fan of shunning inappropriate conduct. It worked in days gone by and would probably work again should it catch on.
Grim, while I heartily agree wrt not indulging in stupid requests for condemnation based on association, I could not disagree more when it comes to this:
To condemn the remark is to rebroadcast it, which brings it to new attention among those whose hearts agree with it.
I guess you can put me squarely in Edmund Burke's corner: sometimes all that's needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I don't care a whit about influencing the behavior on individuals. Individuals can and always will push whatever envelope has been established by society or convention.
I care tremendously about societal standards.
I think something very positive has come out of paying attention to Limbaugh. People on both the left and right are really talking about a very ugly thing that has gone on for far too long.
This isn't the first time Limbaugh has stepped WAY over the line. When a man refers to female Cabinet members as "sex retaries" (I'll leave you to look that one up) and conservatives say nothing, and keep on listening, and defend such filth, then something is very wrong.
I don't support efforts to enlist government force to boot him off the air, but by the same token I have no problem with opposing his objectionable speech with opposing speech.
I've seen too many parents who think that simply ignoring bad behavior in their children will somehow stop it. It doesn't. There are times when the best response is to let someone know just what you think of their actions.
Ignoring things almost never makes them better. That doesn't mean everyone has to react to everything all the time, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with being offended at offensive things.
And saying so.
There is a significant difference, of course, between ignoring bad behavior in your children, versus shunning bad those who are engage in this sort of behavior as adults. To do the one is an inaction, as well as a failure in your duty; to do the other is an action and, I would think, the proper response.
To object strenuously at the time, if you are present, is right and proper (and I would agree, a duty); to continue to give it air a week or two later is to pay the attention debt on which the bad actor feeds. This is a bad cycle to get trapped in; to use your example of children, the kind of child who gets attention out of the fits he pitches is likely to continue pitching them.
It gets worse when (to continue with your metaphor of parenting, although I'm not sure how appropriate it is to interactions between adults) the parents take sides. Just yesterday at Hot Air, Allahpundit was asking whether the Limbaugh incident was finally over; only to see that no, actually, we're going to have another round from Axlerod on whether Romney's condemnation of the incident was firm enough, following on Axelrod himself being questioned as to whether his condemnation of Bill Maher was enough; and now we're doing nothing but paying attention to these jackwagons all the time.
Which, really, does anyone in the world really think that Mitt Romney approves of such language? Of course not. The assumption should be that any decent man is opposed to such things; you shouldn't be expected to make a point of condemning it to "prove" you don't approve of it. The proof is in how you live, and how you treat people -- both the women in your life, and the men who don't live up to decent standards.
In spite of all of which, I don't mean to say that you shouldn't feel free to say, "You know, Rush Limbaugh is a jackass." Of course you should feel free to say whatever you like. I mean to say that these round-robin games of gotcha aimed at political opponents are not helpful.
The focus all of us on the bad actors, and give them oxygen and attention. We should assume that our opponents also reject such language, thus: 'Though some may say that President Obama is engaged in a double standard by not condemning certain people on the left who use such language, I'm sure that the truth is that -- like all decent people -- he just finds them too repulsive to notice.'
I mean to say that these round-robin games of gotcha aimed at political opponents are not helpful.
Well, I stipulated that up front.
I have always said that the only person who is responsible for an act is the actor. Attempts to divert to focus to third parties should be treated as what they are: a distraction.
Kinda hard to take you seriously about taming down the bad words said about women when you've got that cartoon up on your blog that shows me a good 1/4 moon of a woman's bare rear end.
Which in itself, says a lot, doesn't it?
I was wondering after the artistic choice in today's Day by Day myself. However -- while the artist does rely on the beauty of the female form quite often, and perhaps more often than is strictly necessary for his plot elements -- I don't take this to be disrespectful by the artist.
The point of today's comic is to portray sexuality in a loving environment (and indeed, with a married couple). There's no reason to object to that, unless you believe that sexuality is degrading to women by its nature: and I certainly don't think that's true. (If it were a live rather than a cartoon couple, you might say that it was intrusive to show their private married life in the public space; but with a cartoon, there's nothing to intrude upon.)
By the way, you're invited to hang around and comment, but if you do, I do expect you to pick a name (a pen name is fine) and stick with it. There is a comments policy which you can read here; it's been in place for more than seven years now, with some success.
Post a Comment