A successfully iconic satire destroys the viability of its target. After Tina Fey’s celebrated skit on SNL, for example, Russia’s visibility from Alaska could never again be invoked without derision as an argument for Sarah Palin’s expertise in international affairs. This is a lesson that Sean Gabb really should have taken to heart before offering this particular defense of race-baiting anti-immigrant politician Enoch Powell ….
We therefore say this with regard to Enoch Powell. He was a classical scholar of great brilliance and distinction. His Lexicon to Herodotus (1938) is one of the most valuable works ever produced on the ancient historian. As well as in Latin and Greek, he was fluent in every main European language, and in Welsh. He was also at least competent in several ancient and modern oriental languages.
— Sean Gabb, 2011And then you get cornered by some drunken greengrocer from Luton with an Instamatic and Dr. Scholl sandals and last Tuesday’s Daily Express and he drones on and on and on about how Mr. Smith should be running this country and how many languages Enoch Powell can speak and then he throws up all over the Cuba Libres.
— Monty Python, 1972
I don’t know enough about Enoch Powell to know whether I would want to defend him or not, but you seem to have overlooked a minor but relevant difference between Sarah Palin’s comments about Russia and Enoch Powell’s linguistic expertise: while being able to see a tiny part of Russia from some part of your state has no bearing whatsoever on your knowledge of international politics, a deep knowledge of foreign languages does tell against the suggestion that your opposition to multiculturalism and immigration depends on an ignorance of cultures other than your own. Whatever else one wants to say of Powell, he wasn’t an ignoramus with a parochial view of the world. Sarah Palin, by contrast, is precisely that.
That makes Powell worse, then, because he should have known better?
And Palin shouldn’t? I take it that she doesn’t suffer from any sort of fundamental intellectual impairment.
There seems to be overwhelming evidence that intelligent and informed people can hold deeply mistaken views. Maybe Powell held them because of flaws in his character, or perhaps he was simply well-intentioned, well-informed, well-educated, and wrong. Even if he was simply wicked, though, it seems pretty apparent that he wasn’t just a backward old idiot. Of course, the people who defend him will think that his views were either right or justified. From my minimal exposure to them, I don’t think they were either. But I’m quite content to judge others mistaken without believing that they are stupid or evil in any straightforward sense (though of course, if one supports unjust policies, one is at the very least seriously implicated in injustice).
I could, though, be mistaken. Perhaps knowing lots of languages is simply supposed to make the man downright authoritative. His lexicon to Herodotus is still useful, after all (really). There have been stupider arguments, even (especially?) by self-proclaimed libertarians.
“That makes Powell worse, then, because he should have known better?”
That’s just your subjective opinion, based on your belief that you are right about this issue.
Seriously, is there any sort of empirical evidence that in principle can persuade people like you that multiculturalism and universal humanism are bad/have significant shortcommings? Or have you already pre-judged the issue?
Well, I’ve seen lots of bad arguments and bogus empirical evidence for that claim. Do you have any better ones? (Or indeed any at all, besides “that’s what youuuuu say”?)
In any case, I’m not a utilitarian.
BTW, I had an online debate on multiculturalism back in ’03, here, here, here, and here. My argument was that liberty is the product of multiculturalism and cannot long survive without it.
As regards racially-based forms of anti-multiculturalism, see here and here. And on immigration per se see here.
I have a lot of arguments, but after reading two of the texts you linked to below and after I remembered reading a couple of years ago another article about praxeology written by you, I am quite certain it is useless trying to articulate them to you.
We have a fundamental difference in our worldviews – you believe in the simultaneous existence of free will and morality and I do not. Presenting biological arguments to a person holding these views is like trying to explain to a rabbit that there is nothing objectively monstrous about eating meat.
“Seriously, is there any sort of empirical evidence that in principle can persuade people like you…?”
“I have a lot of arguments, but…I am quite certain it is useless trying to articulate them to you.”
Pro-tip: you don’t actually need an interlocutor to answer your own questions and ignore everyone else. Perhaps in the future you could save yourself some time by not posting.
This reminds me of stuff that kids used to say in middle school, like “I could dunk if I wanted to, I just don’t want to.” It also more than vaguely resembles some especially pathetic Christian apologetics: there’s no point in arguing with non-believers, since their minds are just clouded by sin. Well, should you ever decide you want to dunk on some non-believers, I’m probably not the only one that would be surprised if you succeeded.
“We have a fundamental difference in our worldviews – you believe in the simultaneous existence of free will and morality and I do not.”
Well, Not Enoch, Roderick just holds the views he does because of mechanical causation, and so do you. What the heck kind of difference could an argument make?
“Well, should you ever decide you want to dunk on some non-believers, I’m probably not the only one that would be surprised if you succeeded.”
You know, how can you succeed in persuading via empirical data someone who basically says that any empirical argument in favour of a certain positions is in itself invalid because “human reason” (defined, of course, as “well, here are some assumptions you simply must accept although they are in conflict with reality”) dictates it is invalid? This is nothing but an exercise in futility.
Besides, I asked whether Long would accept empirical evidence on the matter. The articles he linked to just screamed “Noooes!”. And yet I am supposed to articulate arguments to such a person? Ain’t gonna happen.
Well, if there’s something so obviously wrong with the arguments I gave in the pieces I linked to, then you should be able to identify some false premises and/or invalid inferences in those arguments. If so, what are they?
Merely saying “anyone who believes p can never be persuaded otherwise” is just silly.
“You know, how can you succeed in persuading via empirical data someone who basically says that any empirical argument in favour of a certain positions is in itself invalid because “human reason” (defined, of course, as “well, here are some assumptions you simply must accept although they are in conflict with reality”) dictates it is invalid?”
You know, if you expect anyone to take you seriously, you might try giving us some reasons — empirical or not — for believing the propositions that you simply label as “reality.” In fact, you might begin by simply telling us what those claims are. All you’ve said is that there is some empirical evidence that “multiculturalism” and “universal humanism” are “bad” or “have some significant shortcomings.” But you’ve not only failed to say what that empirical evidence is; you haven’t even told us what “multiculturalism” and “universal humanism” are. So you shouldn’t be surprised that nobody finds your ranting especially impressive.
Seriously, if you can dunk, dunk. If you can’t, shut up.
“You know, how can you succeed in persuading via empirical data someone who basically says that any empirical argument in favour of a certain positions…is invalid?”
You’re right! You should totally stick to your current strategy of appealing to authorities you refuse to present or define on a anarchist’s website.
“Besides, I asked whether Long would accept empirical evidence on the matter. The articles he linked to just screamed “Noooes!”. And yet I am supposed to articulate arguments to such a person? Ain’t gonna happen.”
This is a good point; there’s obviously no way to convince Roderick. It’s just a shame that you can’t debate him on a public forum of some sort, like a blog or something, so you could, you know, give people who could be convinced the evidence. Maybe even his own blog? Yeah, that would be sweet.
On the other hand, maybe it’s good that you had this little tussle with him in private; I bet it would be really embarrassing if you had failed to produce even a link or two after starting an argument like this in public!