I've been writing and saying for years that the Conservative Entertainment Complex™ in all its many forms and forums is nothing more than an improv act, an elaborate ongoing production of improvisational theatre that is essentially The Truman Show in reverse. At least among "liberals," this idea has been largely non-controversial. Until now.
Yesterday I posted a few times in a comment thread on another blog that Dr. Ben Carson's galactically idiotic statements about prison sex turning straight men gay were part of that improv act; that Dr. Carson the neurosurgeon is not really that stupid, ignorant, vicious and offensive, but Dr. Carson the right-wingnut -- i.e., the character he plays on TV -- is. I stated a few times, with emphasis, and without qualification, that "this is an act."
Well, apparently "liberals" are now taking exception to this, because I stated "as fact" something for which I have no "concrete proof," therefore "liberals" are "call[ing] bullshit" on it and concern-trolling my purported, and apparently unjustified, certainty that Dr. Carson and others like him are completely and entirely full of shit, so much so that they're cynically performing an improv act at the behest of their paymasters for their own, and their paymasters', personal gain.
I certainly didn't handle the conversation well, because I was more than a bit blindsided by the aggressive pushback from these "liberals" who are so appalled and offended by what Dr. Carson has been saying on TV, but are apparently more appalled and offended by my stating with absolute certainty, without qualification -- and without "concrete proof" -- that he's a fraud.
Of course I can't read the man's mind. But I've been watching, reading, listening and paying attention to the Conservative Entertainment Complex™ and its galaxy of stars (so to speak) for over 20 years now. No, I don't have "definitive" "concrete proof" that Carson is a fraud; what such "proof" could exist? Everything I've seen, heard, read, written, analyzed and discussed for the last two decades tells me that he's a fraud, that this is an act. I've done improv myself; masquerading as a right-wingnut in conversation or online is not hard. No one, and certainly no one with an actual medical degree, is this stupid, ignorant, offensive and suffers from this much cognitive dissonance by accident. It's infinitely more believable that this man is, as my father used to say, full of banana mulch.
But I'm not here to defend my assessment of Dr. Carson and the CEC™ as the longest-running and most lucrative production of improvisational theatre in world history. If you don't agree or don't want to believe that these people are that cynical, that's fine.
"Call[ing] bullshit" and demanding "proof" has always been a childish, lazy, simplistic and obvious knee-jerk reaction to an idea one hasn't heard before, doesn't understand, doesn't like, doesn't want to believe, and/or doesn't agree with, especially one that is expressed without subjective qualifiers. It's concern trolling, basically; trying to make it about me instead of about what I'm saying or the subject matter thereof, and moving the goalposts each time by raising the standard of proof to an ultimately unsatisfiable level where, ultimately, nothing is acceptable "proof." But this threw me for a loop. Right-wingers (and children under the age of 10) yell "Prove it!" all the time; I didn't expect it from "liberals," and certainly not in defense of someone like Dr. Carson.
Why would "liberals" who are so appalled by Dr. Carson's grotesque and indefensible statements need, want, or demand "proof" that he's performing an improv act? Why would they reflexively "call bullshit" on that?
One person made it clear that he didn't really care whether Carson was acting or not; the only issue for him was my apparent certainty and lack of "proof." Concern trolls are a dime a dozen, so that's neither here nor there. But still, why would my stating that Ben Carson's performance on Fox News is an improv act -- and a cynical and manipulative one at that -- trigger that reflexive, knee-jerk, "Prove it!!" response -- from "liberals" of all people? Why would one "liberal" "call bullshit" on another's statement that Ben Carson is cynically performing an improv act on behalf of his paymasters?
Maybe the better question is, Why does this particular proposition about this particular person have to be "definitively determined" via "concrete proof" before it can be proposed or discussed? ...with "liberals"? Why would "liberals" be unwilling to consider that Ben Carson's schtick is an act unless and until it's "definitively determined" that it is, in fact, an act? I can understand the concern that we should generally be cautious about making unqualified statements that reflect opinions or deductive conclusions as opposed to concrete, verifiable, indisputable "facts." But why this standard of "proof" for this particular idea?
It seems to me that calling Dr. Carson's performance an act, viz., a cynical attempt to validate the prejudices and manipulate the emotions and voting/monetary-donation behavior of his audience, is a more trenchant criticism than simply pointing out how wrong, stupid, ignorant or offensive his statements are. I think cynicism is worse than mere stupidity. Being wrong is one thing; saying things you know are wrong in order to manipulate people for your own benefit is something else. People who don't realize this is an act will take him seriously, believe that he knows what he's talking about (he is, after all, a neurosurgeon), see him as an authority, thus allow themselves to be influenced by him, and satisfy themselves that they're right and that their prejudices are valid -- and vote and donate accordingly -- because this apparent authority figure said what he said.
And he (not to mention his paymasters) knows that will happen; that's the whole point. I think that influence would be better attenuated by recognizing that it's an act and treating it as such, than by addressing the substance of this rhetoric head-on. Meaning, I think people might be less influenced by it, or less inclined to accept it at face value and accept his authority, if they knew and could be convinced that the rhetoric is phony, not merely wrong.
But, apparently, "liberals" want, need, require and demand "concrete proof" and a "definitive determination" that this is, in fact, an act, before they will even consider doing that.
Why?
Liberals, please help me understand what I did wrong. I'm not asking whether you think Ben Carson's performance is real or whether it's an act; I set up a poll for that. What I'm asking is, Why would any "liberal" reflexively "call bullshit" and demand "definitive" "concrete proof" in response to a statement that it's an act? Thanks.