Re: What Are the Race Deniers Denying?

Jeffrey G. Brown (
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:30:21 -0500

In article <5711nl$>, wrote:

> Bob Whitaker <> wrote this:
> > PC has thousands of people like yo to come up with plusible attacks
> >on all opposition. All tyrannies do. It is your absolutely perfect
> >record of PC consistency that discredits you.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Fascinating logic. Dissecting this tangled mess of
> fuzzy logic into its constituent underlying nonsense
> premises:
> 1. "PC" (still an undefined term) equals a tyranny (which is
> an oppressive form of governance.) [ Funny, there was no "PC Party"
> on my ballot this November.]
> 2. Evidently, the plausibility of an argument has nothing to do
> with its quality, logic or appeal. No, instead plausibility results
> directly from the large number of people making the argument --
> that's why public opinion can never shift or change away from the
> majority opinion to a minority opinion, and why we all believe the
> Earth to be flat and the center of the Universe to this very day.]
> 3. If the arguments from a lot of people are consistent with
> each other, this casts doubt on the arguments. If a set of
> arguments are perfectly consistent, why, then they
> are impeached of credibility. [The alert reader may note that
> this is exactly how science doesn't work.]
> Such pure horseshit could only emerge from a pure [fill in the rest
> yourself].

What's really interesting is that Whitaker has been pushing this view for
at least twenty years. Especially enlightening is the following excerpt
from his "A Plague on Both Your Houses" (1976: Robert B. Luce, Inc.):

"...[E]very spoiled juvenile, every intellectually sterile
social activist, can be taken as an errant idealist only so
long as no one makes it clear that he is merely foolish,
that he is spoiled or sterile.

"The same sort of rule holds with the liberal establishment:
a man who dismisses policies which are stupid as merely
stupid is far more dangerous than one who is erudite and
verbose in opposition. A Buckley conservative, who uses long
words and complex moral questions, factual corrections and
respectful disagreement in his discussion with liberals
(with a few exceptions) is far less dangerous than the old
[George] Wallace, who called callousness callousness,
stupidity stupidity." (pages 96-97)

Whitaker obviously believes that he's a very dangerous man, given his
unyielding preference for ad hominem attacks and baseless accusations over
reasoned discussion and factual discourse.


Jeffrey G. Brown
"What's going to happen?" "Something wonderful..." -- '2010'