A Lesson for Anonymous in Critical Thinking.


Regular commenter "Anonymous" in its persistent effort to defend its ideological tribe asserts:


//And then, American Airlines publicly told Dunham she was full of crXp and the issue went no further, expect for some generalized criticism of Dunham. So how is this like Stalin's Soviet Union? This had nothing to do with the government, just a spoiled nut trying to get attention and a hyperactive blogger trying his best to associate "liberals" with Joseph Stalin. This is like your Nazi comparisons: over-done, hyperbolic, self-victimized whining.//

Notice the typical hysterical tone, the banal literalism, the absence of evidentiary support and the apparent assumption that leftwing talking points will be accepted as truth without verification?

This is very typical of what passes for public discourse from the left, and the right, to be honest, these days.

Let's unpack the comment.

First, American Airlines did an investigation and said that it was "unable to substantiate" Dunham's claim, but that it took the claim seriously, as it did all customer complaints.

That's nothing like the rousing defense of private speech implied by Anonymous's talking points.

Here's how seriously AA took the report:

This pretty rapid and serious attention from a Tweet.

I doubt any of us would have gotten similar attention.

Second,  American Airline's response sent the message that Dunham wanted, namely that employees did not dare to have private conversations about topics that Dunham deemed "out of bonds."

And what was the conversation?  It was about news stories concerning parents subjecting their children to hormonal treatment to change genders:

Is this not a topic of contemporary interest that might be discussed in the work setting?

Is there a uniform position about what might be said on this topic?

Dunham and AA imply the answer is No and Yes.

Based on AA's investigation and statements, AA employees pretty much understand now that they are not permitted to discuss this issue in a way that people like Dunham might question.

Third, is Dunham associated with "liberalism", properly understood by the name "progressivism"?

Anonymous seems to question that.

Of course, it is a common tactic of the left to distance themselves from celebrities who do embarrassing things while embracing those celebrities when they can rally the troops.

For example, during the 2016 Election, when Dunham was appealing to young women to vote for Hillary, no one was asserting that Dunham was not a person of influence among the liberal/progressive camp.

Here is Lena campaigning for Hillary in Iowa.

And here is the Washington Post's puff piece on Lena's support for Hillary.

Here she is in North Carolina.

Another puff piece about getting Millenials on board for Hillary.

So, yeah, Lena has nothing to do with the left and its propensity to suppress speech it doesn't like. < /sarcasm  >

Fourth, the point of the post's title - like most post titles - was to be hyperbolic, not literal.  Hyperbole scratches the underbelly of the shallow and the conventional and provoke a reaction. Hyperbole is a form of satire, which also scores by exaggeration, and ought to force the reader feel uncomfortable with something they've accepted. For example, Swift was not really suggesting that Irish babies be eaten by the English; he was suggesting that the Irish be treated like human beings.

Satire and hyperbole work - they provoke anger - not to the extent that they are false, but to the extent that they are true.

Obviously, my post succeeded with Anonymous.

It would appear that Dunham has no problem with using threats to employment as a way of enforcing their political position.

I disagree.  People ought to be allowed to have private conversations, even at work, so long as it does not interfere with their work, about matters of importance. People who eavesdrop on private conversations, on the other hand, are invading privacy and ought to be ashamed of their predatory and uncivil behavior.

People who eavesdrop and then try to get people who they disagree with in trouble, even to the point of loss of employment, are, in principle, like Pavlik Morozov.

Anonymous was obviously angry with my comparison, which suggests that it was not provoked by the distance between the literal truth of the comparison, but the closeness of the comparison in principle. Anonymous knows deep down, in the place that talking points and strategies of evasion are supposed to protect, that it was wrong to "rat out" people having a private discussion.

Point made.