This is the kind of thing that just makes me want to give up any hope of the possibility for rational discourse in the blogosphere. Hilzoy points to claims in Salon that the Army is sending medically unfit soldiers back to Iraq. She posts a large quote from the article and then asks why the Army is doing such a thing. The very first commenter posts a link to The Questionable Authority that reviews the claims (actually taking the time to look at what both sides said) and that notes correctly that no Army commander would intentionally bring a soldier to Iraq if the soldier wasn't medically fit. In the ten comments that follow, not one notes the link or questions for a second that Salon's claim might not be accurate.
We all have our prejudices and biases, and those affect how we see things and weigh evidence. And if there is one thing I have learned in observing the blogosphere, it is that the supply of people who can set aside their biases even for a few moments is vanishingly small. The Salon article confirmed something that the left wants to believe, and so it is, in the lexicon of the media, too good to check. The left already knows that ChimpyMcBushCoHalliburton is evil and are in the process of destroying the world. When a story comes out that backs that up, contrary evidence can be safely ignored.
Of course, when your assessment of data is predicated on what your political beliefs are, the odds of your coming to any common ground with opponents is pretty close to zero. (For those who think this is just a problem on the left, check out Conservapedia.) To throw out a simple example, consider the treatment of Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Both were accused of sexual harrassment by subordinates many years after the alleged harrassment occurred. Neither had any evidence of their careers having been harmed by the alleged harrassment. Both were media sensations. I'll wager that you can discern most people's political beliefs with one simple question: who do they think was lying, Anita Hill, or Paula Jones? When Anita Hill came forward, the left assured America that women don't lie about things like sexual harrassment, that sexual harrassment was a horrific crime that merited harsh punishment, and there was little doubt among lefties that Hill was scrupulously honest. The right was far more skeptical. A few years later when Jones came forward, the left turned on a dime and explained that Jones was just trailer trash seeking publicity and even if what she said was true, there was no evidence she suffered any harm. Conversely the same righties who were skeptical of Hill suddenly saw in Jones the truth, doubtless because she provided them with ammunition with which to batter the Clinton administration.
The facts don't matter any more in political discourse. Whether the issue is global warming, terrorism, health care, you name it, facts will not decide the arguments. What decides arguments is who can shout the other side down. The left isn't going to listen to the right, and the right isn't going to listen to the left, and both sides will moan and complain about why the other side doesn't understand why they're wrong while never conceding the possibility they might be wrong. And the blogosphere will continue to devolve into two separate warring camps, a (hopefully) more extreme version of American society.
Update: I should note that I have no idea what the facts are in this case. It seems implausible to me that any unit would want to take medically unfit soldiers with them into combat, but without further investigation I see no way of knowing where the truth lies. My objection is simply to those who seize on initial reports to bolster something they already believe with little to no regard for the facts.
Comments (8)
The Salon article confirmed something that the left wants to believe, and so it is, in the lexicon of the media, too good to check. The left already knows that ChimpyMcBushCoHalliburton is evil and are in the process of destroying the world. When a story comes out that backs that up, contrary evidence can be safely ignored.
I don’t exactly fit that mold. And I don’t typically take Salon as a reliable source. I did read The Questionable Authority post and I went looking for other conflicting reports. I’m just not buying the counterargument.
Can an Army medical unit process 75 physicals and medical reviews in a day? Sure – say for recruit in-processing or pre-deployment processing or such. But I recall those types of exams as being extremely superficial – assembly line style. I have a much harder time accepting that they processed 75 more complex medical cases in a day. Spinal injuries in particular would seem to take a lot more assessment than what these reports seem to indicate.
Of course I am not a doctor.
Where this fits my narrative, is in learning that we have soldiers on their fifth deployment since 2001. I think that is unheard of in military conflicts of the last century (or longer).
Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions. I hope so.
Posted by OCSteve | March 13, 2007 3:27 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 15:27
The left isn't going to listen to the right, and the right isn't going to listen to the left, and both sides will moan and complain about why the other side doesn't understand why they're wrong while never conceding the possibility they might be wrong.
Which, to me, is a good argument for divided gov't - it forces you to deal with and understand the other side.
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 4:06 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 16:06
Leaving aside this particular example, I don't think simply looking at the blogosphere is a good way to judge the extent to people in general are in thrall to their own biases and pre-judgments. Blogs are generally a medium for those with strong views, those who feel confident enough in their own opinions to shout them out to the world and who care enough about them to take the time to write. I dare say that people who are more guarded in their opinions, less trusting of what they read from any source, more aware of how much they don't know, are statistically less likely to blog or comment on blogs.
Speaking just for myself, most of the occasions when I feel some motivation to post an opinion or reaction, I get so caught up in all the potential unknowns, objections, clarifications, caveats, etc., that I decide not to bother.
Posted by kenB | March 13, 2007 6:50 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 18:50
OCSteve,
The story may be accurate. I have not said that it is not. I merely point out that we have insufficient evidence to determine its truth, yet I saw a whopping one person at ObWings even consider the possibility it was inaccurate.
Ugh,
I agree with that fully. Which means the 2008 election will be an interesting one, since I'll most likely feel compelled to vote Republican for President on the assumption the Democrats will hold the Congress.
kenB,
I agree that the blogosphere is not a representative sample, but I'll wager that those who don't write or comment on blogs are no less certain of their beliefs.
Posted by G'Kar | March 13, 2007 9:33 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 21:33
I agree with that fully. Which means the 2008 election will be an interesting one, since I'll most likely feel compelled to vote Republican for President on the assumption the Democrats will hold the Congress.
Normally I would agree, but I think I may have to make an exception for it this time (especially if McCain or Rudy is the R nominee).
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 10:17 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 22:17
Ugh,
Therein lies my dilemma as well. I have no intention of voting for either of those two, either. Maybe I'll write in Ron Paul.
Posted by G'Kar | March 13, 2007 11:17 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 23:17
Maybe we can run. It'd be great:
G'Kar/Ugh '08
(we don't know who the f*ck they are either)
Posted by Ugh | March 13, 2007 11:43 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 23:43
I like it. And, amusingly enough, for some reason I pulled out my high school yearbook today and in the comments next to my picture it did, in fact, say Presidency 2008.
Posted by G'Kar | March 14, 2007 12:18 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 00:18