This clip, which draws a continuum of authoritarianism between the Ammon Bundy Gang and the entitled Demanders at Yale University, aired just yesterday on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” show. It’s one of the better segments I’ve seen lately, and contains two classic lines:
“[This] is what these days they call a “microaggression,” which begs the question: if it is a microaggression, shouldn’t it just make you micro-angry?”
and, even better,
“It’s the government’s job to protect a lot of things, but your feelings ain’t one of them.”
Well, Maher misuses the phrase “begs the question” (he should have said “raises the question”), but that’s okay, for that phrase is almost never used correctly (see here for proper usage).
Perfect!
Thanks for this. Things have been crazy of late, & need a lift.
Strangely enough, a couple nights ago (during my customary 3am work shift) I heard a Brit on the Beeb misuse “begs the question”. The only time I had heard a Brit do that before was when Hugh Laurie did it… except Laurie was scripted to do it, as an American.
I think “begs the question” may now be a lost cause, esp. if it’s coming up on the BBC. Sigh.
Lost cause status seems certain when none other than Steven Pinker says “meh”.
Oh. That hyperlink is to mobile tw*tter. Not sure if laptop/desktop users will be able to open it.
Worked for me (laptop / XP no less… Opera browser). Pretty funny.
For those where it didn’t work, Steven Pinker Tw**ts: “Hate it when folks use beg the question to mean raise the question? Me too but 1/2 the AHD Usage Panel is OK w it http://goo.gl/mpqzsC”
I had to look up AHD. It’s the “American Heritage Dictionary”. Double-sigh.
Ah, I see. I wonder if Pinker consults with Noam Chomsky on such matters…
Thinking of lost causes in English usage, who among us on this site does NOT use ‘trope’ as ‘theme’ or ‘subject’ rather than in its long-established (and first dictionary) sense of ‘figure of speech?’
Well, me. A trope is not a topic. But I’ll lose this one to cultural rite–hell, am losing it as I write, right?
Guilty as charged. Whenever I use “trope”, it is always in the context of a topic, esp. a TV- or Internet-derived one. Usually a cliche… something one has to–at some point–have been plugged into mass media, to understand. Something that will ruin your life.
I also note that the americaner schwein Mirriam Webster, unlike the TV Tropes site, seems to like my definition as a cliche (1b) more gooder.
I certainly hope you’re not, but fear you’re correct, especially now that the Hollywood crowd has begun using “‘trope’ as ‘theme’ or ‘subject'” as one of their mots du jour to tone up their discourse — I mean vapid prattle.
I have no objection to the use of “trope” as in TV Tropes, which I take to mean “a recurrent theme or plot device in a popular art form or medium.” This usage satisfies what should be the first test for any new coinage: Does it fill a need not being adequately met by an existing word?
I most often use it in its <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trope_(music)"musical sense.
I do know how to write html tags.
Seems to me that when people misuse “begs the question,” what they usually mean is not simply “raises the question,” but something closer to “calls out [or begs] for this question to be raised.” I think they mistakenly reach for “begs the question” because there is no common idiomatic phrase that has the meaning they intend.
I think “raises the question” fulfills the function you describe completely.
At one point earlier in the show, he also said “less” when he meant “fewer.” It seems that nobody can get this one right!
Nobody except Weird Al. He’s still fighting the good fight on that one.
I like Weird Al in general, but it’s a dumb fight:
“Here is the rule as it is usually encountered: fewer refers to number among things that are counted, and less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured. This rule is simple enough and easy enough to follow. It has only one fault — it is not accurate for all usage. If we were to write the rule from the observation of actual usage, it would be the same for fewer: fewer does refer to number among things that are counted. However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted. Our amended rule describes the actual usage of the past thousand years or so.
As far as we have been able to discover, the received rule originated in 1770 as a comment on less:
This Word is most commonly used in speaking of a Number; where I should think Fewer would do better. No Fewer than a Hundred appears to me not only more elegant than No less than a Hundred, but strictly proper. –Baker 1770
Baker’s remarks about fewer express clearly and modestly — “I should think,” “appears to me” — his own taste and preference.
[…]
The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great — he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin — more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage via Language Log
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html
In the link above you can also see good empirical evidence that in modern times ‘less’ is regularly used for countables. So the question becomes how do we determine the rules of language? By observation of how native speakers actually use it in practice or by following the personal preferences of some random 18th century guy? The choice to me seems pretty clear.
+1
Brilliant, Al.
Just classic Maher and the New Rules pieces are always the best. Other good lines in this were Redneck lives matter and Actual wars are available.
sub
I notice that Wikipedia has a quote from the awful Scalia in the Supreme Court as an example of begging the question.
One of Maher’s finest moments.
I thought I had a reasonable understanding of the phrase “begs the question”, until recently when I heard it used a few times in this new way. I thought my original take must have beeen worng and I was just beginning to adopt the new meaning. Thanks for pointing this out in time. I can still go back to my original brainstate.
This is great!
Also the authoritarian/regressive left need it pointed out to them just how much they are actually like the far right. Maher is an excellent person to do this, given that his leftie credentials are well established.
Although I think Maher’s mockery of the student at Yale is right on, we need to avoid the danger of slipping into the logical fallacy of false equivalence. A group of young students making ridiculous demands to a college administration is simply not the same as a group of heavily armed men illegally occupying a federal facility and refusing to leave. These students and their supporters do not threaten the stability of the American government. An armed militia does, especially when the federal government, for unstated reasons, takes no action against them.
My comment was a general one – separate paragraph, started with “Also” etc.
I agree to a certain extent with your comment. However, I do wonder if long-term it’s the Yale student who does more damage. The idea that it’s okay to shut down free speech in situations other than incitement to violence is a dangerous one imo. There are a lot of people who fail to see the problem with this.
“There are a lot of people who fail to see the problem with this.”
You’re absolutely right. there are people I otherwise respect who argue we should be ignoring situations like what happened at Yale or MSU with the harassment of reporters because #blacklivesmatter. Sure actual racism is an important issue, but so is the gradual erosion of free speech. It’s almost like they think free speech is the less important issue.
It seems pretty clear that free speech is the lesser issue to the regressive left.
It seems to me that they really do think freedom of speech is less important sometimes, but only for the issues that are important to them. They’re happy to ban anti-choice (aka pro-life) groups from campus sometimes for example. It’s a bad precedent (obviously).
+ 1
Being a Brit, I fail to understand the inaction of the Federal government regarding the occupation of a federal building. However, of the two issues they are hardly a threat to anyone at present. The State (in the Hobbsian sense) can afford to wait this out, and as the only purveyors of legitimate violence, can, at their leisure, play the ultimate card… or not.
The student, I feel, is by far the greater threat. Safe-spaces, micro-aggressions, the inability to take offence and respond appropriately within the realm of free speech…
Without the ability to give offence there is no such thing as freedom of expression, there is no such thing as free speech.
This militia may get themselves killed. The actions of these students (on both sides of the Atlantic) and the regressive left, may kill the most precious thing we have.
I respectfully disagree. There are those who try to give the impression that in the United States freedom of speech is about to collapse because a relatively few students on relatively few campuses are whining about “safe spaces” and the need for themselves to be protected from offensive language by the imposition of censorship. This fear is blown very much out of proportion. Although they need to be criticized, these students do not represent a real threat to free speech or anything else. They don’t have the numbers or public support. The real threat to freedom of speech comes from the religious right that would like to censor any criticism of their ludicrous beliefs.
In regard to the militia movement, the Bundy militia is one of many such right-wing organizations throughout the country. Ammon Bundy’s father, Cliven, has defied the federal government for years by refusing to pay grazing fees that he owes. He did this with the aid of armed right-wing types. If “the State” allows itself to be so publicly and fragrantly defied by armed private armies then the rule of law is in jeopardy, which is the foundation for any civil society. These militias concern me much more than the immature behavior of a bunch of adolescents.
Those who think the “regressive left” represents a threat to American society are wrong. This group of people talk a lot and have their websites. But, in terms of power and political influence, they have none.
With respect, both are threats. We don’t need to pick just one threat.
The more people spend time on a negligible or virtually non-existent threat, the less time is available to spend on a threat of much greater magnitude. Moreover, the time spent on the negligible threat serves to distract the public from the real threat. Nothing would make right wingers happier than for progressives to harp about the “regressive left.” When progressives do this the right wingers are free to spew their lies unmolested. For progressives truly concerned about free speech and other Enlightenment values they need a strategy that concentrates on the real enemy. Worry more about a cure for cancer than a cure for hangnails.
You might be surprise to find that many progressives can walk and chew gum. At the same time!
Whether that makes a right winger happy or not is irrelevant. I don’t decide my views on the basis of what nut-jobs think.
It’s a matter of allocation of resources. A good strategist or general knows how to do that most efficiently. He does not waste resources (which are always finite) on side shows.
It is irrelevant what you think of right wingers. Their cause is helped when the guns are aimed left instead of right, especially since the right is so much more of a threat than the left.
Yes, you can chew gum and walk at the same time. But, maybe you should just walk.
No. I like gum. And since I can do both I’ll continue to.
I understand and take on board both your points, Historian and GBJames. I’m not in a position to judge regarding the American militia’s activities.
Here in the UK, however, it is exactly the religious right that have taken advantage of so-called safe-spaces and micro-aggressions in order to limit free speech and freedom of expression in our Universities.
They have done this with the support of the so-called regressive left and with the support of feminism.
They are both numerous and powerful both on campus and off.
They are part and parcel of a larger problem that ends up with newspaper editors scared to publish cartoons and with ordinary people believing that in some way the murder of writers and cartoonists is justified due to the grave offence they caused.
It diminishes the public sphere.
Here, I feel, is the battle that bolsters all others. Without the freedom to offend, we are nothing. Without the freedom to offend, there is no free speech.
The success of the religious right does not bolster the secular progressive left, but it does bolster far-right groups (equivalent in a way to your militias)and extremist right-wing political parties across Europe.
A while back, they were relatively few students on relatively few campuses.
In Europe, our new found inability to offend is a backdoor Blasphemy Law.
Historian offers us a false choice. It is the same argument made by accomodationist non-believers against “gnu atheists”, that “stridency” is a waste of energy. They think you catch more flies with honey than vinegar (the opposite is actually true). They argue that you have to be careful where you spend your energy and that it is better to ignore the offenses of your “allies” than to call them out.
Bosh.
I don’t give a hoot if a person is restricting free speech for motivations left or right. Either way we’re talking about limiting the ability of people to express themselves. I’m opposed to intellectual straight-jackets, regardless of the color of the cloth.
“Those who think the “regressive left” represents a threat to American society are wrong. This group of people talk a lot and have their websites. But, in terms of power and political influence, they have none.”
There was a time when people thought the same about Europe.
As for Bundy’s thugs: by themselves, I consider them a nuisance. What makes them dangerous is the public support. And it is not easy to diminish this support. Same with Islamist terrorists and their fundamentalist Muslim base: Islamist terrorists are not too dangerous by themselves, they are dangerous in their complex with fundamentalist Muslims who are the majority in MENA, Pakistan and Bangladesh and are supposedly good people.
Freedom of speech is not about to collapse in the USA,no.
But, the regressive left has successfully dominated universities.
Where the campus is now a safe space. Where reporters can be thrown out of public spaces! (Mizzou)
Where rational thought, questioning ideas etc, is ‘triggering’ and ‘damaging’ to that safe space.
Where the feelz of special snowflakes must be protected at all costs.
It is authoritarian, full stop.
Just look at Europe. The rapes in Cologne, and across Sweden, Finland, Norway etc are all covered up because people are afraid of appearing racist. Better to just pretend it didn’t happen at all.
If we don’t combat the regressive left now, the above = our future her in North America.
And to add to that, if you create ‘safe space’ environments where you can’t ask questions, you fuel the rise of people like Trump, who *do* step in to offer solutions.
This is what is happening in Europe right now.
If we don’t question our own, and enact this conspiracy of silence, it only empowers the right wingers.
That’s a microaggression in itself. Suggesting that these people might possibly not be as intelligent as they think they are is cruel and heartless.
Lol. I think the snowflakes are well enough protected by the self-image of perfection encouraged in them since childhood to worry about what I’ve got to say. 🙂
I come across them on Twi**er every now and then – they tend to consider the opinion of non-USians unworthy by definition. American exceptionalism and all that.
I wonder if it would be a microaggression to walk across campus wearing a shirt that just said ‘Bullshit!’
Oh yeah, and the Bundys are full of it too, of course.
cr
I’m wondering if they’re related to the serial killer? Or just intending to emulate his killing spree.
If it were an ag college the bulls might take offense…
One piece of related, and good new came out yesterday with Gregory Elliott being found not guilty of criminal harassment, after 3 years, for his admittedly often crude criticism of a couple of feminists on tw*tter.
My favorite line from the judge’s ruling was when he said “he believed the women felt they were being harassed, but that it was not “objectively reasonable” for them to fear for their safety.”
The term “micro-aggression” makes my hackles rise. Is it really an aggression? If it is, does its size matter? Can speech be an aggression, as opposed to being metaphorically aggressive? Or is a micro-aggression really just a perceived slight? Whatever happened to the playground dictum that “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me”?
That phrase about “sticks and stones…” always irritated me as a child, and still does to some degree. Words can be very harmful to an individual and are frequently used in bullying and provocations of all sorts. While I do not advocate censorship of speech, I very much advocate mannerly discourse. One of the reasons I enjoy this site so much is because of Jerry’s well enforced Roolz and insistence on politeness in the comments. This helps to keep the discussion civil and educational, in contrast to the unpleasant slander and muck slinging found in many other places online.
Hear, hear!
The use of “begs the question” instead of “raises the question” is one of my majot language peeves.
This is from the Wikipedia entry that Jerry referenced.
In modern vernacular usage, “to beg the question” is sometimes used to mean “to invite the question”
Typos are one of mine.
The point about microaggressions is that they are common. The effect is cumulative. One thousand microaggressions adds up to one very real anger, while each of the perpetrators doesn’t realise what they’ve done wrong.
Personally, I welcome it when people tell me I’ve fucked up, so I can avoid doing it again in future. This does not seem a particularly hard concept to grasp.
Is that the correct ratio? 1000 micro-aggressions = 1 real anger? Does it matter the rate at which they occur? Does 1000 micro-aggressions per month equal 250 per week? Are there half-lives to micro-aggressions?
Thanks for the education, Peter, but your talking about micro-aggressions has upset me. If you do it again I’m going to have a real anger problem.
Bang! [drops mic and walks off stage] 😉
1000 microaggressions = 1 milliaggression, i.e. a thousandth of a real aggression. So, possibly worth raising an eyebrow at, but that’s about all.
Srsly, when are these people going to learn the correct prefixes for units?
And how would you tell a microaggression from the background noise?
cr, microaggressively nitpicking…
A problem (one of many with the concept) is the highly subjective nature of the term. The concept strips agency from the speaker and places it firmly in the hands of the listener. Intention and context become irrelevant.
I think Peter is correct that there is such a thing as “microaggression” — although, as others point out, there are ambiguities and difficulties in application of the concept.
One example of such a microaggression (which has existed since long before there was a name for it) is the tendency on the part of some white authority figures to address members of minority groups with less formality — including calling them by their first names — than they would use in addressing similarly situated fellow members of the white majority.
Such microaggressions can occur inadvertently, due to implicit cultural biases, or passive-aggressively with malintent. I can see where such microaggression could have a grinding effect on its victims. I can see as well where microagression might be claimed where none exists, for the purpose of securing whatever secondary political gain victimhood status might confer on its claimant.
Microaggression
Trigger warnings
Intent isn’t magic
Check your privilege
All perfectly valid.
But regressive leftists will take *anything* as a slight and hurl the above at you.
I was told that I was “transphobic as fuck” on a pro choice blog for using the term “female bodied” to refer to people who can get pregnant. It was an aggression against transpersons and “intent isn’t magic” so I had no defense.
On another occasion, I was accused of being an ableist pos because I stated, on Pharyngula, that I don’t care if my gramnar/typing is bad because *I* know that I am not dumb. Well, I was told that I was an “ableist asshole”, because I was harming folks with vision problems and so on. They didn’t let me finish – the reason I am not bothered by my many typos is because I live in a house without central heating. Numb fingers can’t type. But the damage was done. I had to ” check my privilege ”
Concepts that were originally valid, in the interest of admonishing people who are acting truly harmfully, are now used as a cudgel to silence anyone that the special snowflake deems to be a threat.
I was reading sjw blog Love Joy Feminism last week, and I learned that in some circles the term “negotiate” = rape. And that “kindness” = abuse. So, if you use any of those terms around a special snowflake, it is a vicious attack and you SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/137934715274/the-violence-of-the-safe-space
Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
mirco-agressions, macro over response?
passive agressive meets proactive defensive
empathy deficiency or hyper vigilante
rebels without applause?
or a systemic over correction, ham fisted
to counterspin the social gap between the law of the land and the society of peoples dwelling within it, social-economic strata geography metaphor: 🙂
upthrust fold mountains, oceans in the sky
continents swallowed under quaking waters
re-discovery of what we have lost: science, it is the one thing we find agreeable and internally consistent and not geographically dependent; which religion is, eh.
Makes me feel all warm and gooey. The vid was perfect and the pedantic post even more so. 😉
I saw this last night when it aired.
I liked the lines about French vanilla creamer and Xanax (they made me laugh out loud). The religious right and conservative talk radio hosts hate Bill Maher reflexively in the same way they hated Christopher Hitchens. They’re hatred for his atheism (and the flourish with which he flouts their belief system) goes much deeper than the hatred of his liberal ideology. Thomas Paine, writing “The Age of Reason” at the end of the 18th century inspired exactly this kind of evangelical hatred. I think Paine has kind of been whitewashed out of his due status as a founding father not because of his Deism but his anti-Christian writings.
Especially his anti-bible writings – he actually goes so far as to say that the bible slanders god (effectively) by attributing to him all the violence we know too well and such.
sub