Saturday, March 03, 2007

Questioning Motivations

I've touched on this a few times, but in general I prefer combatting the Deniers on the evidence rather than on their motivations. But it dawned on me that the motivations may be more the key to understanding their beliefs than the evidence itself.

Look, for example, at Holocaust Denial. At first it is tempting to believe that Holocaust Deniers are trying to absolve the German people and especially the Nazis of their guilt in this horrific case of genocide. And some of the Holocaust Denier's surnames, like Zundel and Hufschmid give us reason to wonder if that is their motivation.

But what about Eric D. Williams? I have no particular reason to believe that he is descended from Germans. So it seems unlikely that whitewashing the Nazis is his motivation. I suspect Holocaust Denial for him has more to do with the present day state of affairs than with World War II. If we deny the Holocaust, then Israel's founding seems completely unjustified, as is (arguably) America's support for Israel.

And it seems quite possible that 9-11 Denial springs from similar motivations. Libertarians oppose the Patriot Act. But if 9-11 was an inside job, then there was no justification for the Patriot Act. Some on the far left and far right want President Bush impeached. Look, for example, at the intro to this DRG article in Tikkun:

Because we at Tikkun are aware of extensive arguments that have appeared elsewhere against the perspective presented by the author of this piece, we debated long and hard about whether to present David Ray Griffin's argument here. We decided it was still important, given that if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president, grounds far more substantive than those that formed the basis of the impeachment by a Republican dominated Congress of President Bill Clinton.


Essentially they are saying, yes, 9-11 Denial is kooky, but if it's true we'd be able to get rid of Bush, so we'll print Griffin's article.

Jon Gold has much the same take over at 9-11 Blogger. He tries to sell Cindy Sheehan on 9-11 Denial, but is it on the basis that it's the "Truth" or is it on the basis that this is how other things can be achieved? You guessed it:

Cindy, 9/11 Truth will end this "illegal Iraq occupation" faster than ANYTHING anyone has been able to dream up so far. Not only will it do that, but it will reverse our loss of civil liberties, our loss of the Constitution, and our loss of stature in the eyes of the world.

As George W. Bush himself said, "we went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."

9/11 was the justification for the "illegal Iraq occupation". If you take away that justification, Cindy, then all of this can end.

Labels: , ,

19 Comments:

At 03 March, 2007 23:13, Blogger Jenny Quarx said...

Tut, tut...Let's not go THERE again, Mr. Curtiss. Jenny might have to remind you of some recent unpleasantness...

And give my reguards to Mr. Lemons.

 
At 04 March, 2007 01:26, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Ignoring the smug attempt at menace from a delusional fuckwit above me, the idea that proving 9/11 was an inside job will reverse America's lack of standing in the world is hilarious.

Imagine if such a thing actually happened! President Fetzer walks onto the White House balcony, and, using his trademark 'man trying to vomit and headbutt a wall at the same time' speaking style, tells a listening world that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by a sinister cabal that had infiltrated the highest levels of government. Does the rest of the world think:

a) "Hooray for America! America is great once again!"

Or:

b) "They did it themselves? Jesus Christ, America's even more fucked up than I thought."

Only in the hopelessly naive mind of a truther, still searching for that definitive whistleblower and convincing evidence after five years of dead ends, would the first scenario be even remotely plausible.

 
At 04 March, 2007 04:47, Blogger shawn said...

If we deny the Holocaust, then Israel's founding seems completely unjustified

I find this one of the most interesting (and ignorant) claims of the Holocaust denial - as the creation of Israel was in the works decades before the Holocaust.

 
At 04 March, 2007 06:11, Blogger shawn said...

and our loss of stature in the eyes of the world

Did history start on 9/12/2001 for these people? America was never some big lovable puppy the world always had an infatuation with. We were always disliked. Tends to happen when you're the top dog.

 
At 04 March, 2007 07:29, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

For those who may have missed it, or you truthers who choose to ignore such things.

World Trade Center 7 FULLY Involved in Fire!

 
At 04 March, 2007 07:54, Blogger Unknown said...

Jenny,

Come join us at 911 Truth at NING Social Networking

 
At 04 March, 2007 11:21, Blogger srice555 said...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

http://prisonplanet.com/images/march2007/010307censored.jpg


BBC said WTC7 collapsed 20 minutes before it did!!!!!!!!!!


I love how you can see WTC7 and she saying "it's gone for the skyline!"

 
At 04 March, 2007 11:58, Blogger Alex said...

OMFG OH WOWZERS !1!!ONE!!!!!!

DATS AMAZING!!

 
At 04 March, 2007 13:43, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Jenny wrote: "Tut, tut...Let's not go THERE again, Mr. Curtiss. Jenny might have to remind you of some recent unpleasantness..."

Woo-Woo Credo, Rule #41: Refer to yourself in the third person.

 
At 04 March, 2007 14:10, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I've touched on this a few times, but in general I prefer combatting the Deniers on the evidence rather than on their motivations.

When debating normal people, this is often the way to go, especially if there is commonly agreed on set of facts. Since twoofers, and conspiratoids generally, have their own version of facts, regardless of how removed they are from reality, using a reason based approach with them is usually hopeless.

But it dawned on me that the motivations may be more the key to understanding their beliefs than the evidence itself.

Bingo. They often can't or don't want to deal with reality, it is usually too complex or too contradictory to their world view, so conspiracy theories are an easy outlet. Like many others here, I agree that Islamic terrorists are a dangerous threat but I differ on the most effective method to deal with the threat. At a minimum, there aren’t many easy or appealing answers. This overwhelms the twoofers, so they just short circuit the debate and assert, “it was an inside job”, which also fits into whatever grievance they have against the United States or Bush or whatever, and then work backwards, pulling “evidence” out of their behinds.

 
At 04 March, 2007 14:23, Blogger Jenny Quarx said...

Cl1mh4224rd --so, are you saying you WANT me to remind you lot of the recent unpleasantness?

I was just going to let it go, but if you insist, I can do that. Maybe you want to discuss this with Patrick or James before you say anything else...

 
At 04 March, 2007 14:27, Blogger ConsDemo said...

are you saying you WANT me to remind you lot of the recent unpleasantness?

What makes you think anyone regards your commentary as important?

 
At 04 March, 2007 15:09, Blogger Jenny Quarx said...

What makes you think anyone regards your commentary as important?

The fact Patrick blogged it late Sat night after they normally call it a day, and, presumably, while he was still tired from his little adventure.

So, do we want to drop it for now?

 
At 04 March, 2007 16:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

No I am game...go for it Jenny. I am sure neither of them have anything to hide...lol

I like the word fuckwit "der bruno"...lol, it has a nice ring to it.

TAM:)

 
At 04 March, 2007 16:44, Blogger Jenny Quarx said...

NEW DEVELOPMENT:

Could have knocked me over with a feather! Patrick, you ARE a clever bugger, aren't you? And I suppose James is too--though it does seem you put more effort into this gig.

Well, I salute you, my worthy opponents! Both "Realist" and wolfowitzinsheepsclothing" tried to warn me that "Paul" was just bait you put out to lure the opposition.

"Jenny, don't fall for it. He's baiting you."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6428?page=1

But I didn't listen--and you got to show "what happens to Holocaust deniers here!", something you will use in future to "prove" how responsible "debunkers" are.

It all makes sense; after all, how likely was it SLC would EVER post a blog thanking a truther? That was suspicious right there--and I should have seen it sooner!

Obviously you weren't aiming at me in particlular, just any truther that passed by, but I bet you were hoping I'd take the bait.

Again, I salute you, James and Patrick; worthy opponents both.

Well played! ;-)

 
At 04 March, 2007 18:16, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So are you now officially accusing Pat and James of planting the poster with username "Paul Revere" in order to "bait" opposition, to make themselves look good with their response to it?

Are you?

TAM

 
At 04 March, 2007 19:16, Blogger Jenny Quarx said...

Realist, pointed this out--not me!

And I just ran over, full of vim and vigour....Live and learn.

Hey, they got me! I'm big enough to admit it! Yeh can't win 'em all!

 
At 04 March, 2007 22:04, Blogger Alex said...

What do you say, TAM, is she certifiable, or just really stupid?

 
At 05 March, 2007 00:09, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

In retrospect, TAM, I think I may have brought the "fuckwit" out a bit too early. I mean, the first post, that was merely smarmy and ridiculous - this accusation that Pat and James are engaged in false-flag comments sections, wow... that's fuckwittery.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home