Strawman

There is a strange interdependence between
thoughtlessness and evil.

— Hannah Arendt

I'm tired of Conservatives' relentless use of the strawman.

A "strawman" is an argument that substitutes an opponent's statement with a distortion thereof, in order to "disprove" it.

A strawman is fallacious. It takes its form in this manner:

Liberal: Black lives matter.

Conservative: My opponent says Black lives matter, but White lives don't. I'm sorry, all lives matter. He's dead wrong.

The Conservative in this case has distorted the Liberal's claim by assuming (1) it excludes all lives but Blacks' and (2) that to "matter" means to "prevail."

To prevent use of a strawman, you need to present a steelman.

A "steelman" is an iron-clad argument. It makes the strongest possible case for a claim and prevents your opponent from distorting your position.

It might take this form:

Liberal: Blacks suffer from systemic racism in this country. Our entire way of life devalues Black lives, and puts Blacks at a material disadvantage—socially, economically, and politically. Without conscious effort, we thwart Blacks' attempts to live peacefully and well, and treat them as if their God-given lives didn't matter. But, in their own eyes at least, they do matter.

Conservative: So, you're saying the system is rigged?

Liberal: Bingo!

A steelman grants the opponent the benefit of the doubt and assumes his intentions aren't evil.

Sadly, that's not always the case. And so you often hear debates like this:

Liberal: Blacks suffer from systemic racism.

Conservative: Blacks don't suffer racism—that's ancient history. They just want preferential treatment. The whole idea that there's systemic racism is Marxist hogwash.

Telegraphic counterarguments like the one above betray both the evil intentions and shallow-mindedness of their makers, two common qualities of Conservatives today; qualities that put persuasion out of reach.

As philosopher John Stuart Mill said, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of it."

If he only had a brain!

Sticks in the Mud

Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that; but they must not be allowed to overshadow traditional family values.

— Vladmir Putin

If, as neocon Robert Kagan claims, a second Trump Administration is a fait accompli, I will find myself three years from now in the shoes of the millions of democrats who stood idly by while Hitler's minority party took control of Germany.

You, on the other hand, may find yourself celebrating Trump's triumphant return, because—deep down—you're a Conservative. 

You're sick of our institutions pandering to Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Muslims, atheists, women, queers, and the disabled; and sick of Liberals, who egg on these legions of malcontents.

One hundred eighty years ago, the philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson defined a Conservative as someone who believes that all change is deterioration. 

A Conservative, Emerson said, is the guy who's always always pleading for necessity; always apologizing for the way things are; always defending the castle; always stoning the prophets; always saying no. A Conservative is a Cassandra; a worrywart; a stick in the mud.  

A Conservative is also a fatalist, according to Emerson: he clutches to "facts," refusing to see there could be "better facts." To him, the world is a jungle, a shithole, a disease.

A Liberal, on the other hand, relishes change—and speaks and acts to bring change about. To her, the world is an experiment, an Eden, a dream.

And she doesn't care if her speech or acts offend or upset the applecart. 

She could give two shits.

A Conservative, Emerson said, is "neighborly, social and debonair;" a Liberal, "imperious, pretentious, and egotistical."

The Conservative minority of Americans today are sick of feather-brained Liberals, the "coastal elites" so happy and willing to upset the applecart, just so a handful of weaklings can feel good about themselves.

"Let everyone be happy," the minority says. "We have no problem with that—as long as you don't challenge family values."

The trouble lies not in Conservatives' views—many of which I share—but in their readiness to criminalize the speech and acts of antagonists.

That readiness leads to individual, mob, and police violence; to mass arrests and imprisonments; and to gulags, pogroms, work camps, and death camps—faster than you can shake a stick.

Even here, in the good old USA.

Tradeshow Organizers Must Diversify. Here's How.

The enterprise that does not innovate ages and declines.

— Peter Drucker

If I'm bearish on tradeshows, I have cause.

Lulled by easy money, show organizers seem allergic to innovation; a condition that makes them ripe for disruption.

The best defense against disruption lies in product diversification—a sound strategy in good times, an essential one in hard.

That should be obvious.

And it should be obvious that, because they're selling audiences to advertisers, tradeshow organizers need look no farther for diversification tactics than to magazine publishers—the poster children for disruption.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Internet eviscerated magazine publishers' century-old business model. In a painful "print apocalypse," more than 10,000 magazines disappeared from inboxes.

Savvy magazine publishers responded by diversifying their product lines, pushing their number from one, two, or three to more than a dozen.

Those include:

Content. Aiming at readers, the publisher sells subscriptions or raises revenue through crowdfunding.

Branded content. Aiming at advertisers, the publisher functions as a traditional creative agency.

Events. Aiming at both readers and advertisers, the publisher organizes live, virtual, and hybrid tradeshows and conferences, selling registrations, booths and sponsorships.

Ads. The publisher acts as a traditional one, selling ads and advertising programs that can be targeted to reader-segments.

Awards. The publisher operates an industry awards program, collecting entry fees and selling tickets to celebratory events.

Merchandise. The publisher acts as the operator of a "discount club," selling memberships to readers who want to avail themselves of a portfolio of discounted products and services.

Data. Aiming at advertisers, the publisher sells data that advertisers and third parties can use to target prospects and leverage adverting programs.

Leads. The publisher takes on the role of a lead-generation firm, using webinars and telemarketing to capture new leads for advertisers.

Consulting. The publisher acts as a marketing, sales or business consultant, providing advertisers and peers expertise.

Software. The publisher licenses proprietary software and sells IT consulting and support to its peers.

Brand licenses. The publisher equips other marketers to leverage its brand, selling them the rights to use its "seal of quality."

Capital. The publisher acts as an investor and broker, launching specialized private equity funds within its industry.

Writing Rule #26

An unnecessary word is like a cinderblock on the highway.

Blarney

 

Legal reasoning can be unreasonable.

The 5th circuit federal appeals court last week allowed Texas to resume its ban on abortions, after Senate Bill 8 had been struck down.

The state attorney general argued that, since Texas does not enforce its anti-abortion law, it cannot “be held responsible for the filings of private citizens.”

The court bought the argument. 

The logic of the decision is as follows:

• Senate Bill 8 endorses vigilantism.
• Vigilantism is outside the law.
• Therefore, Senate Bill 8 is constitutional.

How twisted is this? This form of argument could also prove the following:

• An EU law protects leprechauns.
• Leprechauns aren't members of the EU.
• Therefore, the EU law is constitutional.