Matt Yglesias

28 Responses to “Counterexamples and Analogies”

1. JohnH Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

   Well, no, or at least not exactly. One doesn’t need a counterexample to the idea that a threat justifies any conduct. Even Israel isn’t asking to nuke Gaza. There’s a counterexample here, but it depends on an analogy, just as there’s an argument in the right-wing trope circulating (even, the Times reports today, with distinguished voices throughout Israel) of “what if rockets were aimed at you?” that depends on a misleading analogy.

   The idea is to define more clearly just what kind of threat is presented and what kind of response is appropriate. Each analogy, on both sides here, attempts that. Matt’s is just a better analogy and helps show the silliness of the other.

2. Stephen Bank Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   Neil Sinhababu is the coolest person on the internet.

3. Medrawt Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

   The rhetorical problem with analogies, and why Yglesias is wise to disavow them, is that people have a crippling weakness for allegory and, in great quantities, appear constitutionally incapable of considering any comparison without vetting it for allegorical purity and consistency. Consider how embarrassingly bad discussions of movies or TV shows that touch on political subjects tend to be because participants are invariably trying to read the fictional content as a representation of current political affairs instead of just taking the art on its own merits.

4. Maineiac Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

   Medrawt – thanks for that. I was about to ask, why do these people appear to have their heads stuck up their ass. Your explanation makes sense.

5. Peter K. Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

   Medrawt – thanks for that. I was about to ask, why do these people appear to have their heads stuck up their ass. Your explanation makes sense.

   I disagree completely. People like Medrawt say pompous shit like that because they don’t agree with the political conclusions being drawn. They also like to say pompous shit like that to make themselves feel smart and superior.

6. Maineiac Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

   Peter K – There is something to what you are saying but at least Medrawt didn’t say it in French. People have various motivations for muddying up the water. Some make it muddier then others.

7. Peter K. Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

   Peter K – There is something to what you are saying but at least Medrawt didn’t say it in French. People have various motivations for muddying up the water. Some make it muddier then others.

   Well thanks, but when self-styled intellectualoids like Medrawt command us from on high not to under any circumstances employ certain figures of speech like analogies or allegories – what about similies? or metaphors are they okay? – my first instinct is to tell them to blow it out their ass. (what about alliteration or enjambment?)

8. LaFollette Progressive Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

   Peter K., the beauty of this thread is that you showed up and illustrated both Neil’s and Medrawt’s points for them in fewer than 100 words. Well played, sir!

9. Medrawt Says:
   January 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

   I’m actually not entirely sure what Peter K. thinks I’m saying, but I’m pretty sure it’s not what I actually meant to say. Of course, by critcizing his reading comprehension I’ve succumbed to the things of which he accuses me, so I guess I’m damned either way.

10. Medrawt Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    I do feel compelled to point out, though, that the pomposity of my pronouncements is entirely unaffected by whether or not I agree with the political conclusions being drawn, and resent the implication that there are times when I might be less of an insufferable gasbag than at other times.

11. Peter K. Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

    In “Ulysses” there’s a great scene (completely recalled from memory) where the milk lady says something like, “When I makes tea, I makes tea. When I makes water, I makes water.”

    “Not in the same pot, I hope” says Buck Mulligan.

    Artists make art, and they don’t mix politics in the same pot. (Counter-example, not analogy.)

    Ah the bloody crossroads! Like I said, pompous BS. What about Battlestar Galactica or The Wire?

    Apologies, maybe I’m in a bad mood b/c it’s freaking 10 below outside.

12. Anony Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    “Long story short—these analogy fights are stupid.”

    So why to you keep posting about it?

13. Medrawt Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Battlestar (and to a lesser extent The Dark Knight) being exactly what I had in mind, actually. Are there political elements to Battlestar? Of course there are. Is Battlestar – with unprovoked attacks on civilian targets, debates about torture, military occupations, resistant militias, secret tribunals and summary executions, abortion bans, religious conflict – commenting on and reflecting current American political concerns? Of course it is!; it’s part of the richness of the show. But Battlestar isn’t an allegory, where we can draw 1:1 parallels with our world and learn a lesson about it, and when people interpreted the attacked humans as the USA – which was a common reaction early on – and then later when many of those same people thought the creators had somehow “switched” by making the humans into Iraqis, those people didn’t really get what was going on. The occupation of New Caprica, to pick a particular flashpoint, can be relevant to the U.S. occupation of Iraq without actually being intended to BE the U.S. occupation of Iraq, where Gaius Baltar is supposed to be a stand-in for, I dunno, al-Maliki and Col. Tigh represents al-Sadr or somebody.

    This is what I’m, apparently poorly, trying to communicate: that Matt’s example of the kid throwing a rock at him is an imperfect comparison to the conflict in Gaza is irrelevant to what he was trying to say with the example, and the strength of his point has nothing to do with whether or not the Matt/hooligan relationship actually resembles the Israeli/Palestinian relationship, because that’s not the point he was trying to demonstrate. That the Cylons aren’t good proxies for the USA neither strengthens nor weakens what Ron Moore tries to tell us about military occupations.

14. Jake Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    The problem seems to be that people are taking Matt’s example in one of two different ways, depending on what they thought the purpose of his post was, whether to undercut the claim that Israel’s actions are justified by the principle of self-defense, or by the principle of proportionality. Matt’s intending to counter the first claim, that self-defense licenses whatever. There his hypothetical functions as a counterexample. Implicit in the counterexample is that aggression must be not only defensive but also proportionate. The problem is that Matt’s choice of counterexample naturally leads the reader to think he’s tackling that latter issue. If you read it that way, then the hypothetical functions as an analogy: just as it wouldn’t be proportionate to blow up the apartment building of the rock-thrower, Israeli action in Gaza is not proportionate to the provocation.

15. nolaboyd Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    the strength of his point has nothing to do with whether or not the Matt/hooligan relationship actually resembles the Israeli/Palestinian relationship, because that’s not the point he was trying to demonstrate.

    Actually, if there is no resemblance, then it’s a really stupid example. The entire point of offering up that example is that it somehow resembles the I/P relationship.

    Overplaying the search for resemblance and trying to force 1:1 mapping is obtuse and stupid.

    Underplaying the resemblance to zero in response to the overplayers is only slightly less obtuse and stupid.

16. Ragout Says:
    January 13th, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    The analogy Matt is making is between his rights as a private citizen to retaliate violently in self-defense, and the rights of a country. No one thinks that private citizens and countries have the same right to engage in violence. No one even thinks that private citizens and public officials like police officers have to follow the same rules regarding violence. While these points are completely obvious, without them there’s no syllogism. Matt’s argument only has force if you think his personal situation is somehow analogous to Israel’s.

17. world of warcraft gold Says:
    February 27th, 2009 at 3:36 am

    a man must do what he can do about buy wow gold
    world of warcraft gold,

18. cialis Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    cialis
    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

19. zyban Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pm

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

20. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am

    tramadol
    Great site. Good info

21. buy viagra online Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am

    buy viagra online
    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

22. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    buy cheap viagra

23. viagra brand Says:
    April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    cheap brand pfizer viagra

24. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:48 am

    Incredible site! viagra