How I lost it

I was talking with a liberal acquaintance a couple of days ago. Normally I stay away from politics with him, because he lives in a completely different reality from me. But on this occasion I brought up the Martin-Zimmerman case, curious to know what he would say about it. He said many things, but here is the thing he said that made me lose it:

“The Right has racialized the issue.”

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

What did you do? Did you round up your VFR-NY posse and beat him down with brass knuckles, chairs, paint cans, anything you could get your hands on?

LA replies:

I said to him, “You’re insane.” He said, “You mean, what I said is insane, not that I’m insane.” I replied, “No, you’re insane.” Then I realized that wasn’t nice and took it back, while adding that he had greatly provoked me. But that’s what talking with liberals does to you.

Doug H. writes:

I got a good laugh out of your anecdote.

You are a better man than I. I refuse to engage liberals except in the conduct of business.

LA continues:

Also, he gave me a friendly lecture on how my readiness to call people such things as “insane” is an example of my overly harsh rhetoric which drives people away. What I should have said was that his remark, “The Right racialized the Trayvon Martin case,” was a Big Lie on the level of Hitler claiming that he had been forced to invade Poland to prevent a Polish invasion of Germany.

Definition of The Big Lie: the attribution to one’s target of one’s own aggressive acts against him.

Gintas writes:

I looked up “The Big Lie” and found Hitler’s definition quite interesting; the shrewd but inexperienced politician gives too much of the game away.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

and later on:

The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile:

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

It’s creepy to see that at work today right here.

EM writes:

Respectfully, I think that your reaction is largely typical of the conservative movement in general. Liberals will say something completely irrational.

Conservatives will respond with anger, as someone’s life hangs in the balance (in this case Zimmerman’s) or millions of lives (in terms of immigration). They then retreat and apologize. Liberals never apologize, as many of them are sociopaths and are unable (or unwilling) to see the other side of an issue.

Next time, don’t retreat. You write with such power and are an inspiration to all of us. Do not be afraid of correcting a friend. Often times (if he is rational), he will come around to our side.

LA replies:

I think you’re missing the point that this was in a private social interchange, not a public debate. To say to a person, “You’re insane,” is insulting and would end the relationship. Other strong expressions would be different. For example, I would not back off from saying to him, “What you’re saying is insane,” or, “What you’re saying is bigoted and ignorant.” In fact I have said those types of things to him in the past, and for some reason he was not offended. But to say, “You’re insane,” is pure personal insult and not acceptable, if one wishes to maintain a social relationship with someone.

April 25

Paul T. writes:

You are right that calling people insane isn’t a good way to maintain social relations with them. But if your acquaintance habitually says things on the order of “The right has racialized the Zimmerman case,” then he is pretty disengaged from reality, and isn’t that the definition of insanity? Even clinical schizoids say many sane things in the course of a day: “It’s raining.” “I don’t have enough money for the movie,” etc. But if you talk enough crazy, you are crazy, no?

Dr. Murray Banks said that “the neurotic builds dream castles, the psychotic moves in.” Not sure whether your acquaintance is just browsing the listings or making a down payment, but his remark is so divorced from reality that it’s worrisome.

EM writes:

Respectfully, I think that your reaction is typical of the conservative movement in general.

Liberals will say something completely irrational. Conservatives will respond with anger, as someone’s life hangs in the balance (in this case Zimmerman’s) or millions of lives (in terms of immigration). They then retreat and apologize. Liberals never apologize, as many of them are sociopaths and are unable (or unwilling) to see the other side of an issue.

Next time, don’t retreat. You write with such power and are an inspiration to all of us. Do not be afraid of correcting a friend. Often times (if he is rational), he will come around to our side.

LA replies:

To clear up a misunderstanding that I created, readers should understand that the person I spoke of, though I described him as an acquaintance, is more than an acquaintance or a social contact, but a relative. If he had been merely an acquaintance, or even a friend, I would not have backed off from my statement to him that he is insane.

Paul T. writes:

Not to beat this to death, but it occurs to me that in ordinary lay discourse, when we say to someone, “You’re nuts,” of course we don’t mean, “I am a qualified diagnostician and I believe you are suffering from schizophrenia,” but only “I don’t think you are connecting with reality in a normal way here.” Now that I think of it, and with the benefit of this thread, that’s what I’ll probably say from now on to people instead of “You’re nuts.” Not sure they’ll thank me, though.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 24, 2012 10:00 AM | Send