Do I put too high a value on comity and politness?
I dunno, maybe; my mother grew up in a small town, and bequeathed to me a small town horror of doing things like arguing with other peoples' religious beliefs.
But too, I have a fervent belief in the benefits of examining both sides. It would be nice if I were right about absolutely everything--so right that anyone who disagrees with me must be doing so from vicious ulterior motives. But I have friends across the political spectrum, and frankly, I haven't noticed any clustering of personal virtue. Not among the liberals, nor the conservatives, nor even the libertarians so dear to my own heart. Life is complicated; we're all groping in the dark.
There are places where outrage is appropriate. But the level of outrage in the blogosphere has made outrage meaningless. Someone disagrees with me about national healthcare, the fascist monster! Someone thinks that women shouldn't have to carry babies to term if they don't want to--baby-hating sadists! What's left when people actually do horrible things for awful reasons? First, kill all the fascist-baby-hating-monster-sadists!
Sorry, I fell alseep during the global warming hate-olympics. Um, 8.7! What were you saying?
People who are perpetually outraged do not blow me away with their moral fervor. They kind of make me giggle, like crazy old Uncle Ted who insists on silver fillings because the new compounds are a communist plot. It's hard to generate intellectual respect for someone who believes that life is an exam composed entirely of multiple choice questions.
It's F-ing outrageous that you're unable to embrace outrage!!!
The combination of outrage-indulgence with utilitarianism or other ends-oriented moralities is particularly amusing given the discount rate that must be applied to evaluate the probability of such calculations.
OK, well, I'd like all discussion everywhere to be civil and respectful and interesting and informative.
That said: is it your opnion that the overheated _ad hominem_ nutbaggery of internet discussion is a good thing, a bad thing, or neutral? I mean, I incline to a sort of David Brooks sense that it's a bad thing, which pushes everyone to extremes. But maybe it's a good thing which lets people harmlessly vent their spleen? Or maybe it's just showing something that's there underlying anyway and the Internet reveals it?
NB I think this is a separate question from the sort of self-selection, run-with-people-who-think-like-you thing that the Internet seems to promote, I'm really just interested in the coarse discourse -- but the clustering is also an interesting problem, no?
It seems to me that you, Megan, get a hefty dose of outrage poured daily. While anyone that stands for something ought to know they'll make enemies. And people who desire power will always come into conflict. Its always surprising to see just how naturally agitated, pissed off, or outraged people are. It is funny, because its almost like they believe that the madder they get the more someone will respond. Which is true, their is a corresponding increase in the comedic value, disdain, amusement, and foolishness.
I agree with you completely, and this is all very well said. I will also link to this post incessantly to remind you of it, the next time you really get your dander up about school vouchers.
It's a phenomenon all too familiar in general discussion forums that there's always one or the other person who seems so personally insulted by another's dissenting opinion. What's odd is that you rarely see such angry displays in the offline world.
I've thought at times that such hotheads would be fully capable of mortgaging their homes to buy a one-way ticket to anywhere in the world just to physically punish the person whose opinions they find so wrong and unbending. I suppose these folks don't carry on so much during personal, face-to-face interactions in public places because the rest of us will look at them disapprovingly as the unacceptable wackos they really are.
Internet discussion forums allow them just enough space to act out their obsessive compulsions.
Most of these raving bats are cowards. Notice how these 'confrontations" with enemies play out? Somebody keys a car with a bumper sticker they don't like. That's a regular profile in courage.
It is true. Outrage is cheap, which is why, pre-2003, I considered myself to be a centrist. I just didn't get angry about stuff.
But, the Bush admin. has pushed the envelope on a lot of issues. Seriously, if it isn't legitimate to get outraged by a state of affairs that includes warrantless spying, torture, and preemptive war in which we've made life immeasurably worse for a people whose lives already pretty much sucked, then I'm thinking there really isn't anything to get legitimately outraged about.
I spend a lot of my time really pissed. A lot of it has to do with the fact that Bush was correct in this one aspect: there is only one "accountability moment:" elections. Once that point passes, our nation's leaders are pretty much free to do whatever they want, irrepespective of the consequences and the dubious legal underpinnings. I am very, very troubled by that; nay, outraged. I guess that makes me "cute."
"Outrage" is just one of the words with over-the-top usage. Look at some of the superlatives tossed around about St. Tim Russert. I'm also perplexed (outraged?) at how news shows describe a 10% year over year increase in the price of, say, milk as "skyrocketing" or a stock market decline of 3% as "plummeting." No, my bank stock (down 55% in one year) is "plummeting," not some further minor decrease in President Bush's popularity.
well, yeah, but uncle ted's right about the fillings
One of the distinguishing features of craziness, I've noticed, is inappropriate outrage. One form is to have exactly the same level of outrage for everything, from the trivial to the profound. The other is to experience chronic outrage over things that don't really exist.
Either one is a sign of lunacy in the person experiencing the outrage. But more than that, either can drive anyone around that person crazy.
Good post, we need to be reminded from time to time, to keep it real. Thanks
The great thing about the internet is that it removes all inhibitions. The terrible thing about the internet is that it removes all inhibitions.
I doubt that the raging loonies that fill the internet are actually crazy; they just use the internet to vent all the bile they aren't willing to loose where there would be consequences.
Yes, Amitava, the outraged often believe they are living in historically unique times, witnessing horrors never before seen. Which is why outrage and ignorance so often are joined at the hip.
Outrage is for losers who don't have trust funds.
So what about the murder of women in Saudi Arabia or people starving in North Korea or rape in Sudan or torture in Guantanamo Bay!
I'm getting the new iPhone! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Yes, Amitava, the outraged often believe they are living in historically unique times, witnessing horrors never before seen. Which is why outrage and ignorance so often are joined at the hip.
Excellent point as always. I mean, what's with the outrage at torture? Hell-o Spanish Inquisition. Or leaders lying to justify invading a non-threatening country? Like that never happened before. Or FISA? As though people weren't spied on for the greater part of the last century all over Eastern Europe and Asia.
We shouldn't be outraged about pretty much anything anymore. Except that time when John Kerry said "lesbian" in a debate. Lynne Cheney was totally legit in that instance; this is not a good man.
Also, reverse bleg. I was wondering if Megan would comment on the recent FISA bill the House passed. As with the Iraq Invasion, I know the libertarian take on that, but I'm curious about the pseudo-libertarian take. (Actually, I know that too, I just want more comedy is not comity.)
C'mon, LR, tell us; what about the murder of women in Saudi Arabia, or people starving in North Korea, or torture in Guantanomo? Why stop there? I can easily name three dozen equally outrageous situations that are occurring right now. Actually, I bet I could identify six or seven dozen more. When does the needle on the ol' outrageometer get moved enough, or is the sheer number of outgageous practices around the globe such that one must be perpetually outraged, lest one such practice not have enought outrage not focused on it?
To be fair to rights-based libertarians (not pragmatic utilitarian fake libertarians such as yourself), there is an inherent moral component to politics that cannot be just swept away like a disagreement over favored ice cream flavors. If you believe that the nature of man entails the concept of rights, then the person who thinks taking more of my labor value is a good idea is immoral and not much different than a thief who would break into my house and do the same (without government approval or proper paperwork, of course).
This explains why liberals are evil and should be ostracized, but it does not explain the opposite behavior, where liberals consider those who disagree with them evil. Even career criminals understand what they are doing is wrong, it's not like they consider themselves defenders of truth and justice.
Well, ed, the fact that you referenced the Spanish Inquisition sorta proves my point. Thank you.
One thing I find odd, and telling, is that if having belief X is so obviously right that having belief Y surely must indicate the presence of evil, then why the smug self-righteousness that so often accompanies the outrage at the holding of Y? If thinking X is so clearly correct, why does it make you such a moral hero?
I think killing children for annoying me is wrong. If you disagree, I'm mortified, and think you're a dangerous nutjob. But I do not begin to think of myself as a paragon of virtue.
Well, ed, the fact that you referenced the Spanish Inquisition sorta proves my point. Thank you.
And you, in turn, prove mine. And not just sorta. Cheers!
Megan, be careful about complaining of perpetually outraged. Were it not for them, you and many other blogs would lose a significant percentage of your posters. I won't bother to name them, lest I endure their ... outrage... but I think we all know who they are.
Yeah, ed, cheers; embrace the ignorance!
Will,
I think you really meant to tell ed, "Embrace the outrage!" :)
Will,
I didn't suggest that we live in historically unique times. I also didn't suggest that the examples of "outrages" I listed are more horrific than anything witnessed in the past. I'm pretty sure if you thought about it for a second you wouldn't assert that either of these is necessary criteria to be outraged. If they were, it would be unacceptable to be outraged at anything that happens today, as the human race has long ago pretty much exhausted ways in which to be cruel to each other.
I'd respond to your unnecessarily resorting to insults ("ignorance"), but I'd like to keep within the spirit of Megan's topic.
Yeah, ed, cheers; embrace the ignorance!
What do you mean? Please to explain?
Keep on keepin' on embracing the torture (and other stuff) Will. Awesome job per usual.
I would also add that there are different kinds of "outrage." One kind is the kind of outrage that you feel toward the activities of others, over whom you have no control. Examples of these 9/11 and the murder of Daniel Pearl. Both of these fueled much of the nationalism and the support for the Bush admin. among me and many of my liberal friends.
Another kind of outrage comes in situations that are, perhaps, less grave than terrorism, but nevertheless have a greater emotional impact: the outrage one feels after having been let down by those around you, such as family, or country. Post 2003, liberals as well as moderates have suffered a relentless string of "let downs" that have led directly to Bush's 25 percent approval rating. I think feeling outrage at seeing your country violate some basic fundamental values seeming shared by everyone, but now are considered controversial, is completely legitimate. Whether it is a basis to be mean to those who disagree with you, I suppose, depends on the issue. I reserve the right to be mean to people who believe that the United States should torture people, including "the worst of the worst" cab drivers who were picked up by Pakistanti soldiers and handed over to the U.S. for a bounty.
Well, ed, you are dishonest as well as ignorant, given I have stated from day one that torture should be prohibited, period.
Frankly, I'm more outraged that my state politicians are hopelessly corrupt, public employees dominate the state employment rolls, that teachers can retire with lump some payments based on 20 years of 7 months out of the year work, with pension and lifetime benefits, all footed by private sector workers like myself, than I can ever possibly be about some terrorist at Gitmo being tortured by loud music.
I think priorities get lost when people talk about what their "outraged" over.
Amitava, the phrase "pushed the envelope" certainly implies a new state of affairs which has not previously existed. I would dispute this in regards to American history. I would also say it is extremely inaccurate to assert that after an election passes our nation's leaders "are pretty much free to do wahtever they want". In fifty years, the notion that George W. Bush was acting without contraints after the 2004 elections will be considered so fatuous that it won't even be considered. That's a real downside to being really pissed a substantial percentage of the time; it causes one to say a lot really silly things. We usually do not exercise our best judgement when we are really pissed off.
Thanks for the blog post.
As for why people act otherwise;
When people are angry, they can't learn that they might be wrong. For some people, that's an advantage. And our political environment works to foster that anger, not reasoned debate. Because hey, the politics of hate works.
I think a lot of these problems could be resolved if we directed our hatred mostly at actions rather than the people themselves and their assumed motivations. But how is that going to help a political candidate get himself elected?
Call me a cynic, but I rather suspect that the biggest letdown which has led to Bush's 25 percent approval rating is the price of gasoline. Put the the price at the pump at about $2 a gallon, and I suspect Bush's approval rating would be about at the 45% mark, if not higher. The sad thing is that whomever occupies the White House next year will very likely take heed of this outcome for Bush, and thus will be hesitant to pursue policies which might be extremely beneficial in the long run.
I personally save most of my vitriol for discussions with my husband and sister about the stupid crap I read/hear/see. I learned way back in the usenet days that my outrage has no effect on the people I aimed it at, and served to alienate those who might be persuaded. Better to post something that is more reasoned and takes into account that people are idiots, than to simply accuse people of being idiots.
It's a good thing I make this distiction because my outrage, when fully cranked, is damn near hysterical.
I think we tend to get tired of outrage and moral certitude from people we judge to be insufficiently informed and serious. It's the Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon problem. Even when you agree with them, you tend to feel insulted by their unwarranted confidence in their own moral and intellectual superiority.
Freddie beat me to it.
While I agree that it's silly to be outraged by every little thing, I can't help but recall that you pretty stated that people who opposed school vouchers were morally degenerate.
That's the thing about outrage, Megan: every one of us has at least one topic that provokes us to outrage. If you happen to share that opinion, the outrage seems reasonable, otherwise it doesn't.
Now, perhaps you mean only to implicate those people who at perpetually outraged by everything but, honestly, I'm not sure such people are more than a hyper-emotive fringe, even in the rarified confines of the blogosphere.
I think that it's much more likely that you're simply smirking at those who are doing the very same thing that you did with respect to school vouchers: they got upset about some specific thing that happens to be one of their personal hot buttons.
I think that there's something about motes, beams and eyes that pertains to this, no?
Indeed, I didn't expect that.
Respectfully, especially to the outraged commenters here:
"...the murder of women in Saudi Arabia or people starving in North Korea or rape in Sudan..."
None of those things were done in my name. Torture of "detainees" by American Armed Forces personnel, my government spying on me and my fellow citizens, invading a country that posed no risk to the United States; those things were done in my name, and in Megan McArdle's name, and in the name of every American commenter here.
You'll have to forgive my outrage over these things, being done by my nation, in my name.
In return, I'll forgive your lack of outrage.
I think it is also important to realize that people are fairly aware of their "outrage" on a relative scale. If my favorite hockey team traded Alex Ovechkiin, I would of course be outraged as a Caps fan, but not in any sense that could be translated to greater moral outrages.
I think a good deal of "outrage" falls into this category -- outrage becomes a relative way of describing frustration with some situation.
This is another way of saying that the fact is that there is no absolute value for outrage. Will Allen above snarks about people expressing outrage for things that are not historically unique, but that is hardly a common standard.
If one of my coworkers punched another one, I'd be outraged about it. There's nothing unique, or even particularly special about a fistfight (even among colleagues), and it's unseemly but not some massive moral crime. But it's not the way we treat each other where I work, and I'd be outraged both at the act and any tacit tolerance of it.
And, of course, that has nothing to do with famine, war, mass cruelty, or anything else.
(Incidentally, I've always wondered how people who are genuinely pro-life could not be outraged by most cases of abortion. If I thought it was murder, I sure would be. I give a pretty wide berth to the emotional response on that issue.)
Well, Brad L., my snark was directed at people who tie their outrage to the false assertion or implication that what they are outraged at is somehow historically unique, or as was phrased above, involves "pushing the envelope". If I had a dollar for every time I read a rager falsely claiming that this President was somehow unique in his pursuit of power in defiance of Constitutional language designed to limit the executive's power, or in his use of violence which exceeded generally agreed upon or codified limits on such violence, I'd be able to take a year off from the pursuit of profit.
People who are outraged tend to lie about the past quite a bit, which I think actually harms their advocacy.
Yeah, so what if we torture, everybody does it. Ehh, what can you do? Pass the Freedom Fries.
The outrage of over "torture" is more about the label than the actual actions. It seems that the perpetually outraged finally found a line that works for most Americans. Good work. It seems that Lakoff was right about framing.
ed, does the straw ever get scratchy in the midst of your titanic battles?
Well, Brad L., my snark was directed at people who tie their outrage to the false assertion or implication that what they are outraged at is somehow historically unique...
Sorry, Will, but I smell a bit of a red herring here. I think most peoples' misgivings (certainly mine included) have little to do with whether something is unique, so much as the characteristics of the actions themselves. I'm not doubting that people get hyperbolic, but the fundamental cause has little to do with a standard of having been never before seen or done, even by people that we might otherwise be inclined to respect.
...or as was phrased above, involves "pushing the envelope".
I disagree with your reading of "pushing the envelope" as suggesting uniqueness. Again, if my coworkers started calling each other rude names, this would be "pushing the envelope" of acceptable social conventions, without ever even coming close to being original in their actions.
If I had a dollar for every time I read a rager falsely claiming that this President was somehow unique...
Fair enough to a point, but I don't think that was the original claim here. And it's easy enough to counter that if I had a dollar for every screed I've read that suggests moral misgivings at waterboarding somehow represent being a terrorist-loving, blame-America-first person, you and I would both be wealthy, and could have this discussion at our leisure on a yacht somewhere.
Brad, unless the action was very, very, unusual, if not absolutely unique, the envelope is not pushed. See the book which made the phrase popular, Wolfe's "The Right Stuff".
I would agree that the dishonesty and demagoguery runs in both directions.
And it's easy enough to counter that if I had a dollar for every screed I've read that suggests moral misgivings at waterboarding somehow represent being a terrorist-loving, blame-America-first person,
Really, could you point some of these screeds out?
It's bad comparison anyway, because people aren't just suggesting that waterboarding is immoral. What started this was a discussion about whether or not people should be arrested and tried for it. Including people who merely wrote legal memos about the powers of the President.
I would agree that the dishonesty and demagoguery runs in both directions.
Might one side's dishonesty and demagoguery be a wee bit worse than another's, or should we just throw up our hands and give up? Seems to me it's too easy to make that claim. One may as well have voted for Bush in 2000 because one was so weak-minded as to buy into the "Clinton Fatigue" bulljive.
Brad, unless the action was very, very, unusual, if not absolutely unique, the envelope is not pushed. See the book which made the phrase popular, Wolfe's "The Right Stuff".
I think in common parlance, it has also come to mean "outside of generally accepted convention, or nearly so." My first Google look turned up this definition. The etymology clearly is as you describe, but I'd note that right in their primary definition, they accommodate both readings.
FWIW, Another Example
In this case, the guy who said it was right here, so we shouldn't need to reach too far. Amitava could clear this up rather quickly.
Oh, meant to say earlier: I think you are spot on about price at the pump vis a vis popularity. It's sad that it is such a huge driver of popularity, but there it is.
Might one side's dishonesty and demagoguery be a wee bit worse than another's...
Who's to be the judge of whose side is more dishonest, ed, you?
Yes, ed, I think lying about the past is a far more dangerous form of lying than run of the mill demagoguery and ad hominem attack.
Brad L, fair enough. I read the phrase in light of it's original meaning. Thanks for the civility, and I really do fear that our next President is going to pursue exactly the wrong policies, so primary will be the lesson drawn from the current President's popularity and gas prices.
Really, could you point some of these screeds out?
I am grateful that the Atlantic's search engine can handle the task.
Now, this corner of the world is far more civilized than many, and this is only one example (the one that I had time for), but there is nothing special about this. If you have the time to go over the Reason blog posts about torture over the past few years, you will see a lot of this stuff. Seriously, this is a very common line of attack against folks that think waterboarding is immoral.
Regarding my use of the phrase "pushing the envelope," I must say I'm a little reluctant to get into the weeds. It's clear to me that we're reaching the point where our understandings of reality aren't in sync, and I won't really have the power to persuade. (I used the phrase because I thought it was a polite metaphor. I didn't think it would be the focus of debate.)
As a legal matter, the president's assertions of authority to indefinitely hold U.S. citizens indefinitely and without charge most clearly "pushed the envelope." It took those lefty wingnuts McCain and Graham to pull him back a little on that. Until the Supreme Court ruling a couple of weeks ago, the president claimed the authority to hold legal U.S. residents, arrested on U.S. soil, indefinitely and without charge on entirely secret evidence, with the detainee having no recourse to appeal. That was also pushing the envelope. All of Yoo's legal memoranda on torture and the Geneva conventions pushed the envelope. How do I know? Because, embarrassed, the DOJ withdrew them. Some aspect, at least, of the president's domestic and terrorist spying programs pushed the envelope. How do I know? Because there was a middle-of-the-night confrontation in a sick Attorney General's hospital room over the legality of the program. The president's assertions of executive privilege push the envelope. How do I know? Because under his interpretation, any discussion among executive employees, whether or not they involve discussions with the president or whether they involve national security matters, is protected by executive privilege.
People like Doug Kmiec and Bruce Fein, groups like Cato (or Heritage, I forgot which), public servants like Paul O'Neill, David Kuo, Larry Wilkinson, his former spokesperson, and others, are turning on the president because the president's views of his own authority are offensive to, not only liberals, but also to many conservatives. "Pushing the envelope" seems to me to be more than appropriate. In fact, I would have thought that people who agreed with Will would have been proud that they had a strong president who was pushing the envelope to fight the war on terror.
Brad,
From the context he was responding to someone who said:
So much for "liberating" Iraqis. I don't think I know more than 5 cons who actually give a damn about Iraq other than seeing it as a place to show "A-rabs" that "we're NUMBER ONE."
So, I'm not really sure what you've shown here. That people respond to vituperative outrage with further vituperative outrage?
I don't have a problem with people who think that waterboarding is immoral, I have a problem with people who are using the label "torture" to circumvent much of the debate. Instead of actually arguing that waterboarding is immoral, they label it "torture" and then resort to indignant outrage at any attempt to defend the Bush Administration.
That's what this is all about. John Yoo et al are guilty of "torture" and thus they should be immediately brought to justice. Forget even defending them, I have enough trouble avoiding the vicious outrage when talking about extremely important questions like "whose justice" and "how?"
Forget even defending them
Hey, whoa there. We wouldn't deny them habeas corpus. We're not that outrageous.
It is one thing to be outraged about one, or just a few, things. That, as someone noted above, is how things get changed.
The problem starts when someone is outraged about vast numbers of things. At that point, they are so unfocused that nothing gets done.
Worse are the people who are not outraged about anything in particular; they are just outraged period - outraged for the sake of being outraged, in short. These are the people who, in the late 1960s, made a slogan of "Demonstrate Your Outrage." Not, be it noted, your outrage about anything, just your outrage in general.
I suspect that this kind of individual has been around for a long time. But in the 1960s they could get on television and otherwise use media to get attention. Today, they can use the Internet for the same purpose. And it is now harder to take the appropriate social action in response to such sociopaths: shun them. But spam (including spam via comments) is the counter to shunning. Real innovation opportunity there....
Oh yeah, I imagine addiction to outrage is much commoner than we imagine. My father, for example, is never so happy as when he is holding forth amongst his cronies about the outrages perpetuated against the Godly by the Godless, or the Leftists against 'Real Americans'. Or how Baltimore was robbed by New York and that pansy Joe Namath in Superbowl III. I have seen him, literally, jumping up and down in front of the TV, screaming at it with the veins in his neck standing out. And after the game looking somehow . . . cleansed.
There's been a lot of that going around.
Then there's another sort of outrage, the sort you feel when somebody's just blown a trillion dollars on your dime. And you have nothing to show for it. I'd say the one was much more legitimate than the other.
Amitava, given I've offered no opinion on the legitimacy of Bush's actions, other than to note that I think torture shold always be prohibited, why on earth would you imagine such a thing? Another other notable occurence is the frequency with which the ragers wholly imagine what others' positions are. I swear, more people enduring or enjoying hallucinations can be encountred in blog comments sections than at a peyote growers convention.
As to the historical record, which is what my comments were mostly limited to, if this Bush "pushed the envelope", I would imagine having U.S. citizens executed via military tribunal, before a habeus petition could be presented, and after telling the Supreme Court that the condemned would be fried no matter how the Court ruled on the legitimacy of such a tribunal, would constitute tearing the envelope into tiny little pieces, burning the pieces in an incinerator, and sending the ashes of the envelope on a rocket to crash into the sun. However, many of the people who villify Bush, for the supposedly uniquely horrible assaults on civil liberties he has engaged in, will turn around and tell you what a historically great President ol' citizen fryin', habeus avoidin', Court intimidatin', FDR was.
"But too"? I'm not sure if there's anything grammatically wrong with this construction, since "but also" or "but in addition" would be fine, but it certainly sounds weird.
Amitava Mazumdar is unbalanced, and finds it enjoyable to be outraged.
It's Bush's fault.
Midwestern Progressive has a pretty cool idea regarding moral responsibility: Just make yourself the center of the universe.
Next time I see an adult beating a child to death on a public street (that's a genuine recent news story), I'll adhere to Midwestern Progressive's moral insight and ask myself the question:
Is this man beating a child to death an agent of the American government?
No?
Then this kid isn't being beaten to death "in my name."
Thus, no cause for outrage, and certainly no cause for intervention here.
Sorry, kid - but ya see, I'm a Progressive, and it's hard for me to get outraged without some connection to the Bush Regime.
Buh-bye!
Midwestern Progressive;
Indeed, I would be outraged...if any of those things happened. I'll make sure to watch the news and prepare to be outraged at that time, should it ever come.
Mazumdar;
Be careful. Your self-righteousness is about to reach your bottom lip.
P.J. O'Rourke identified the "perpetually indignant" in Parliament of Whores, which predates the web.
But, the Bush admin. has pushed the envelope on a lot of issues. Seriously, if it isn't legitimate to get outraged by a state of affairs that includes warrantless spying, torture, and preemptive war in which we've made life immeasurably worse for a people whose lives already pretty much sucked, then I'm thinking there really isn't anything to get legitimately outraged about.
Which pretty much proves Ms. McArdle's point does it not?
All the oh-so-trendy outrage is truly childish. Even for those who disagree with the policies of this Administration, the idea that Bush is some horrendous dictator is really quite silly. This Republic has survived far worse. Has anything Bush done really been worse than the internment of Japanese civilians during World War II? The Espionage Act of 1917? Lincoln's blatantly unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus? The Alien and Sedition Acts?
By historical standards, what Bush has done is relatively tame, and has been largely appropriate given the threat we face from Islamic terrorism. It is certainly no more bold than what Clinton had done to face the threat of homegrown terrorism in the 1990s - and that threat was far less pressing.
The war on Iraq can be legally defended under international law given a reasonable reading of UN Resolutions 687 and 1441. The war against Serbia was blatantly illegal under international law. Yet where was the outrage then?
Ms. McArdle is exactly right. All this preening outrage is meaningless. I suspect that the real motivation behind it is less about the looming threat of fascism/global warming/Islamization/cultural meltdown, etc. has little to do with the actual state of affairs and everything to do with the need for some people to feel self-important.
Will,
You're right; I presumed too much about your views. I also did not express my views on FDR. In one particular way, of course, he successfully asserted the authority to intern American based on race, and the Supreme Court upheld that authority. Considering our understanding today of right and wrong, and constitutionality and illegality, were Bush to intern Iraqis or Arabs, I would still call that "pushing the envelope." You can imply all you want that I would be lying, as you did in this string, but I don't think most people would consider doing so unfair.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote. It is true, that if Bush were doing what you described, that would indeed be pushing the envelope. I think I'll end this on that point of agreement.
Funny that those who are outraged at Bush:
1) Don't seem outraged by the Dems who abetted him.
2) Are not outraged by the Dems who only oppose him because he is a Republican, and will give St. Bambi any power he wishes.
I'd guess those two categories fit at least 80% of congressional Dems.
Great point mockmook. No matter what, it's always the Dems fault. No matter what. Also, the "St. Bambi" is a good one. Stay classy.
ed, does the straw ever get scratchy in the midst of your titanic battles?
What the heck are you talking about? Are you pushing the envelope?
Someone thinks that women shouldn't have to carry babies to term if they don't want to--baby-hating sadists!
Bad example. If a mother ending the life of her innocent unborn child is not sufficient to justify sincere outrage, then nothing is.
Nothing.
Sorry, lots of typos; meant to say --
Will,
You're right; I presumed too much about your views. I also did not express my views on FDR. In one particular way, of course, his crime against civil rights was much worse: successfully asserted the authority to intern American based on race; and the Supreme Court upheld that authority. Considering our understanding today of right and wrong, and constitutionality and illegality, were Bush to intern Iraqis or Arabs, I would still call that "pushing the envelope." You can imply all you want that I would be lying, as you did in this string, but I DO think most people would consider doing so unfair.
Regarding the rest of what you wrote. It is true, that if Bush were doing what you described, that would indeed be pushing the envelope. I think I'll end this on that point of agreement.
he successfully asserted the authority to intern American based on race,
Actually, FDR, through an executive order with no Congressional approval, had the military intern Japanese-, German- and Italian-Americans. More than 100,000.
Obviously, race was a factor. But not the sole factor.
Discussion at its best is a process of discovery. Outrage is a tool to raise shields and end discovery.
Those who use every opportuniity to ride their chosen hobby horse through any discussion are living in a self directed hell. Nobody is really listening because the rest are behaving just the same. It's Bedlam.
Honestly, I think a lot of us are outrage fatigued. Every day's news is filled with so much sensationalism and inuendo, people have got sensory overload and they tune it all out. We have more outlets than ever for the average person to have their say but everyone is talking, and no one is listening.
I let it all hang out at my site as therapy against angst overload.
Well, everyone *knows* that silver fillings allow you to wrap your teeth around the top wire of a metal fence and pick up the local 50,000 watt radio blowtorch.
Everybody knows that.
"One of the distinguishing features of craziness, I've noticed, is inappropriate outrage. One form is to have exactly the same level of outrage for everything, from the trivial to the profound. "
An excellent point. In any age or context there are a FEW things that merit outrage. The problem is that at present, there are certain folks to whom everything is outrageous. It reduces what ought to be a rare feeling to a narcissistic attitude that any difference is beyond the pale, to a situation in which reasonable people cannot possibly differ.
"I disagree with your reading of "pushing the envelope" as suggesting uniqueness. Again, if my coworkers started calling each other rude names, this would be "pushing the envelope" of acceptable social conventions, without ever even coming close to being original in their actions."
Umm. Don't like the analogy. Name calling isn't useful or appropriate for the office.
Self-defense is appropriate.
Presidents of both parties have done nearly everything--and much worse--that any rational person has reasonably accused Bush of.
They have done so b/c they have the responsibility to protect the country from harm.
I am not saying that their bad behavior justifies bad behavior by Bush. I am saying that reality requires that our govt defend us with means to which the morally confused object.
This is not "pushing the envelope"; it is normal behavior when national security is threatened.
It is easy to work oneself into a lather of outrage when one has incorrect facts about both current events and and history.
In the interest of historical perspective, I note that our govt has often held American citizens without trial or legal recourse as enemy POWs. A number of Americans serving in Axis armies were held this way during WWII, for example,
But I am still outraged about all the outrage.
There is a thing called "runner's high", in which athletes push their endurance to the point that the body's natural endorphins are excreted to suppress the pain of exertion. The endorphins tend to create a euphoria similar to morphine or heroin. Or so I am told.
Outrage, and the consequences of outrage, feed into some kind of base biological need. We, as members of pretty tame society, are no longer pursued by wolves, cougars or other predators,and no longer hunt as hunter-gatherers to feed ourselves. But that was only a dozen millenia ago (or much less!), and we are still pretty much wired the same way.
So, I sometimes think we manufacture a crisis "in our heads" to stimulate and simulate the fear and "the rush" that our ancestors honestly felt when struggling for their lives. And evolution made us this way to aid our survival in those moments of "fight or flight".
In short, the tamer our lives actually are, the more we tend to want to manufacture false outrage or paranoia for the biochemical stimulus.
But, it's just a hypothesis, so don't anybody get upset about it. It certainly isn't the Spanish Inquisistion.
Good post. Not only that, but right on cue to prove the point, some guy called "ed" comes along and starts posting random leftist outrage all over the place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing he's a sock-puppet intended to satirise the people you're referring to?
Mmmmmm. Donuts.
Which is why, Amitava, I never made any assertions regarding what your views of FDR were.
"It's hard to generate intellectual respect for someone who believes that life is an exam composed entirely of multiple choice questions.
"
What a great line!
Megan, although I frequently disagree with your opinions and ideas I really do enjoy reading your posts. Thank you very much.
Sure, Megan, you value comity and politeness oh-so-much.
Which is why you once wrote that war protesters should be bashed with 2x4s. Because you're so damn nice.
It will be interesting to see how well you hew to the sentiment behind this post in the future, because one thing I've noticed about you is that you have one set of rules you apply to your own behavior and another for everyone else's.
Outrage, and the consequences of outrage, feed into some kind of base biological need. ... So, I sometimes think we manufacture a crisis "in our heads" to stimulate and simulate the fear and "the rush" that our ancestors honestly felt when struggling for their lives.
I'm surprised surprised no-one has mentioned a study done a while back where they took a group of people who strongly identified as Republican or Democrat and randomly attributed various positions to the candidates while the subjects where undergoing FMRI.
The most interesting result was when a position a subject "hated" was attributed to a candidate the subject "hated". The subject, was of course, outraged. However, the pleasure centers of the brain were lit up. This did *not* occur when the a position a subject "liked" was attributed to a favored candidate.
In other words, a large class of people *like* to be outraged. It literally gives us pleasure when 'evil' people say 'evil' things exactly as we expected them to.
If you don't understand that, then you really don't understand the political blogosphere. After all, why is 90% of the content of the left blogosphere about the right and 90% of the right blogosphere about the left? Because that's what we, the readers, want. We want to be outraged.
(Megan, surely you understand why people who hate every thing you do and say and consider you evil spend so much of their time reading every word you say? You really are giving them a little high each day. Asking them not to be outraged would be like asking you not to laugh at a comedy blog. The outrage is why they're here.)
It's no different from those of us who feel secretly pleased and vindicated when our friends forget our birthday, etc. Most importantly, it's not uncommon, and it's not crazy. It's simply who many of us are.
Outrageaholics often need to wrench the truth out of context quite a bit to justify their outrage, e.g., "Which is why you once wrote that war protesters should be bashed with 2x4s."
(*)
"Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind." ~Terry Pratchett
Ah yes, how annoying to be outraged at the murder of unborn children.
Whatever dude.
Amitava,
"in which we've made life immeasurably worse for a people whose lives already pretty much sucked,"
How so?
I look at this like I look at cussing. It has no impact if you do it all the time. True outrage and anger should be saved for those times when it is really needed.
For my own clarity, and because I hope to influence folks, I try to avoid vitriol as it has a tendency to cloud arguments and turn people off.
pundit joe,
10% vitriol is OK, but more than that is bad for your engine.
Also, the "St. Bambi" is a good one. Stay classy.
Sarcasm and more phony outrage from the side which has given us almost a decade of Chimpy McBushitler.
Making fun of a politician's name is an American tradition (Tricky Dicky Nixon, Ronnie Raygun, Slick Willie) . Deal with it.
Yes, outrage is cheap. This is true.
All the oh-so-trendy outrage is truly childish.
Unfortunately, we have now descended to the point (at least in this thread) where outrage is considered completely self-refuting.
Outrage can absolutely be proper. Choosing to characterize it as "trendy" or "childish" is merely a way to try and trivialize what is frequently a fairly natural response, and one with the useful purpose of creating/enforcing the general social norms of which Megan was so recently singing the praises. At the same time, the name-calling becomes a tactic to avoid addressing the substance of the complaints. Want to avoid a nuts-and-bolts discussion of environmental harm? Call someone "shrill"... that'll do it.
This really has been a dispiriting thread.
Umm. Don't like the analogy. Name calling isn't useful or appropriate for the office.
Self-defense is appropriate.
@Chris:
The discussion was about whether something had to be "pushing the envelope" to be outrageous, and what that actually meant, not a direct comparison of any two circumstances. There was, at that point, no specific object of outrage that we were comparing -- just the notion that something had to be unique to be outrageous.
Nice job, though, calling people that believe waterboarding is torture and unjustified "morally confused." I guess there are two points of view here: your point of view and the wrong one.
@Glorious:
What I was trying to demonstrate is that a common approach for people that get upset in arguments is to start spitting out particular epithets: America-hating, terrorist-loving, hope-we-lose.. whatever. If you don't believe that this particular meme exists, I'm sadly not going to have the time to dig through the morass to convince you further.
As far as:
Instead of actually arguing that waterboarding is immoral, they label it "torture" and then resort to indignant outrage at any attempt to defend the Bush Administration.
I think it goes the other way: for people that do not consider waterboarding torture, there is something of a "What? How can you say I support torture?!?" dodge. At the least, I think we can agree that the point of contention is whether waterboarding is torture (and is, therefore, immoral. But the point is not to argue over the value of the label torture, it is to argue over the characteristics of the act.
Enough ink (or pixels) have been spilled over this debate that I hope you will excuse me not wanting to re-live it. But at least give the courtesy of recognizing that my belief that waterboarding is torture isn't some semantic game, attempting to dodge a fundamental question. It really is my opinion (and yes, I really find it outrageous that we do it.) You don't have to accept my conclusion, but it is my conclusion nonetheless, and not invalid if I happen to use the word "torture."
exhelodrvr:
"10% vitriol is OK, but more than that is bad for your engine."
Excellent line exhelodrvr! :)
I support torture. Deal with it.
Someone thinks that women shouldn't have to carry babies to term if they don't want to--baby-hating sadists! What's left when people actually do horrible things for awful reasons?
Yeah. Murdering babies isn't horrible, doing so for selfish reasons isn't awful at all.
What a curious top three in the list of "most outrageous things in the world:"
"the murder of women in Saudi Arabia, or people starving in North Korea, or torture in Guantanomo"
If you were to allocate, say, 100 pts. to these three things in proportion to the horror they invoke, what would your numbers be?
The perpetually outraged are narcissists, and should always be ignored in online discussions.
Ignoring/avoiding them is what we do when we meet them on the street. That is why you see much less of this behavior in person. The safety and anonymity of the web allows both to engage in ways they otherwise would not, and discussion/debate suffers correspondingly.
I'm outraged at the outrage spouted by nutjobs who have lost touch with reality.
Does anyone remember the reaction when the president used Army tanks to assault an American home filled with children? The children died horrible deaths. Those who now pretend to be concerned with our civil liberties cheered with gusto over the tank assault.
Where was their outrage then?
The seizure of Elian trashed the Constitution so badly that even ardent left-wingers Tribe and Dershowitz were appalled (and they deserve credit for their outrage and consistency to principle on that one). But the vast majority of the ACLU crowd cheered and applauded the president's shredding of civil liberties.
Where was their outrage then?
Just can't find much sympathy for folks who use lies, distortion and manipulation of the facts to work themselves into a bugged-eye frothing today when they applauded genuine assaults on civil liberties in the past. Their outrage is politically too convenient.
Outrageaholics often need to wrench the truth out of context quite a bit to justify their outrage, e.g., "Which is why you once wrote that war protesters should be bashed with 2x4s."
No "outrageaholic" here (what is "outrageahol," anyway?). Just someone who thinks Megan is a poor thinker, a poorer writer, and a giant hypocrite.
But hey, keep on tarring me with that broad brush. Maybe if you keep it up and you're lucky, Megan will descend from Mount Atlanticus and give you a little pat on the head for your troubles.
(Also, yeah, that *is* what she wrote. Like it, don't like it, whatever, but she wrote it. If you'd like to explain the "context" of that remark that makes it something other than what the actual words mean when strung together in that order, please, feel free.)
Ah yes, how annoying to be outraged at the murder of unborn children.
Yes, too bad that so many of the people who are so outraged at the "murder of unborn children" are wholly uninterested in helping to ensure that fewer unwanted children are conceived in the first place.
If we had better sex education in schools and easier access to contraception, then there would be far fewer abortions to be outraged about. But no. Apparently abortion isn't a big enough outrage to these people to actually do anything to reduce it. After all, these programs might encourage people - young people! - to have Teh Sex! Outside of marriage! And clearly, that is far worse than the continued "murder of unborn children." So fuck it - but at least you'll still have something to be outraged about.
I have no idea what your own personal opinions on sex education and accessible birth control are. But I hope you'll understand if I don't take most people's "outrage" over abortion all that seriously. They could do something to stop a large number of these murders, if they really wanted to.
Yes, you are too polite. You should have mentioned Greenwald by name.
You forget ... outrage is EASY. And we're all really good people simply because we're outraged !
Therefore it is AN OUTRAGE that you take this away from us morally poor VICTIMS !
Outrage has its purpose as much as any other emotion. Libertarians (like me) too often view emotion as a weakness, and reason as most "respectable." This may make sense when evaluating tax policy. But when genocide or slavery incense and horrify you, this is perhaps a good sign that you are feeling human-being, rather than a jaded nihilist. Of course, those feelings are most powerful when expressed judiciously and sparingly.
Outrage has its purpose as much as any other emotion. Libertarians (like me) too often view emotion as a weakness, and reason as most "respectable." This may make sense when evaluating tax policy. But when genocide or slavery incense and horrify you, this is perhaps a good sign that you are feeling human-being, rather than a jaded nihilist. Of course, those feelings are most powerful when expressed judiciously and sparingly.
Outrage has its purpose as much as any other emotion. Libertarians (like me) too often view emotion as a weakness, and reason as most "respectable." This may make sense when evaluating tax policy. But when genocide or slavery incense and horrify you, this is perhaps a good sign that you are feeling human-being, rather than a jaded nihilist. Of course, those feelings are most powerful when expressed judiciously and sparingly.
Outrage has its purpose as much as any other emotion. Libertarians (like me) too often view emotion as a weakness, and reason as most "respectable." This may make sense when evaluating tax policy. But when genocide or slavery incense and horrify you, this is perhaps a good sign that you are feeling human-being, rather than a jaded nihilist. Of course, those feelings are most powerful when expressed judiciously and sparingly.
Outrage has its purpose as much as any other emotion. Libertarians (like me) too often view emotion as a weakness, and reason as most "respectable." This may make sense when evaluating tax policy. But when genocide or slavery incense and horrify you, this is perhaps a good sign that you are feeling human-being, rather than a jaded nihilist. Of course, those feelings are most powerful when expressed judiciously and sparingly.
oops. Apparently I don't know how to post sparingly. Sorry about that.
********************
Brad L says "The discussion was about whether something had to be "pushing the envelope" to be outrageous, and what that actually meant, not a direct comparison of any two circumstances. There was, at that point, no specific object of outrage that we were comparing -- just the notion that something had to be unique to be outrageous."
********************
Umm. Nope. Read Amitava Mazumdar's original entry which first used the phrase. Involved the usual discussion of the outrages of the Bush Administration. Thanks for reading carefully before posting.
********************
Brad L says "Nice job, though, calling people that believe waterboarding is torture and unjustified "morally confused." I guess there are two points of view here: your point of view and the wrong one."
*******************
What a powerful and subtle bit of logic you employ. Did you stick out your tongue as your typed it?
Let's see: Should we be outraged at waterboarding a few (three) high level terrorists who are actively engaged in covering up conspiracies to kill our children?
I mean, isn't it obviously wrong to put diehard terrorists through a few moments of fear and discomfort to save the lives of countless Americans?
If it is wrong, should we be equally outraged at the fact that versions of waterboarding are routinely done to American servicemen in several military training programs?
If you think that it is incumbent upon us to keep KSM comfortable while he takes covers up a conspiracy to kill your children, then...yes, you are morally confused and self-indulgent, if I might add.
McArdle wrote "I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they [Black Bloc-style 'anarchists', as is clear from the original context] try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it's applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner."
Spencer Rageboy then claims she wrote that "war protesters should be bashed with 2x4s."
Not big on reading comprehension, eh, Spencer? Or are there some other of McArdle's, you know, actual words you're objecting to, rather than the fantasy McArdle speaking inside your head?
The central idea behind a lot of the discussion above is captured in the word "outrageaholic."
David Brin has been been making that point well for a number of years.
http://www.davidbrin.com/addiction.html
It's something we learned from muslim extremeists like our old friend "Islamic RageBoy"...
"Look - that doodle looks a little bit like muhamed! I'm outraged! Behead the artist! And everyone who disagrees with me!"
And of course our wonderful friends in the MSM who thrive on outrage (only because it sells papers and/or airtime.)