A couple of days ago, I was browsing the DailyKos website, and I ran into a perfect example of a phenomenon I have been trying to articulate for a long time. Unfortunately, it involves Nazis.
The original post is about a recent ad by Joe the Plumber and quotes Joe saying, “In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 one-point-five million Armenians, unable to defend themselves were exterminated … In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves were exterminated.”
Here’s where I go out on a limb and confess my limitations. Because it’s Joe the Plumber, I was suspicious. The righter-than-right wing of the Republican Party has a particular knack for lunatic statements. But, honest to God, I can’t come up with a counter-argument that I’m satisfied with. I was pretty sure there was one – that JtP had left out some crucial details – but that’s not really good enough: “Oh, he’s wrong because I’m sure of it, but I can’t articulate why!” doesn’t pass the smell test.
Part of the problem is that I try to grasp the “almost” points made by people in arguments. Is JtP arguing a direct causal link or is he trying for something more nuanced in the limiting format of a 30-second ad? I usually try to take a step back and look at the more general case of the argument: Is he saying that people who are armed can resist on an individual level, thus tying up so much of a police-state government’s resources that it would be practically impossible to institute “round up the usual suspect” sorts of policies on the entire population?
I don’t know every single nuance of the Armenian or the Jewish holocausts, and the diary was quite short, so I went to the comments, mainly because I was dying to read the simple, elegant refutation of JtP’s thesis. Of 151 comments, only eight actually say anything about the issue raised. Most of the comments run to the following:
“Don’t know what to say but ‘wow.’” (Great. But why do you have nothing to say but wow?)
“As I understand Talmudic law, the ADL’s Abraham Foxman … is now required … to … kick him in the testicles.”
“I dare the people of this asshole’s district to vote for this lump of shit for brains.”
“Totally gross looking hands we have to look at for half the commercial. Same with his head. Looks like he’s got leprosy or some skin disease.”
“He doesn’t know jack shite about the Armenian or WWII or any other holocaust.”
“I couldn’t find the words to say this very thing. This cretin’s ignorance is staggering.”
The first comment to actually discuss the main point raised is number 44:
“Most of the Jews murdered by the Nazis did not even live in Germany. What do German gun control laws have to do with civilians in the Ukraine or Poland being machine gunned by Nazis?” There! There’s a starting point. A discussion can evolve from that. If JtP’s point is so risible, please, for the love of God, shoot it down. But no one does. The comments simply continue to be nothings.
Another comment (around number 80), says that “Nazi gun control was ineffective. Because of the many resistance movements throughout Europe. The nazis banned guns; it didn’t stop the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Nor the Warsaw uprising. Nor Tito’s partisans. Nor the other resistance movements in each and every country the nazis occupied. When people are truly desperate, they will always find a way to fight back.”
Again, something that adds to the discussion. But I kept thinking, “Doesn’t that sort of reinforce JtP’s point rather than negate it? The resistance movements used guns. That’s why they were considered resistant. If the Nazis, at the very beginning, had had to content with tens of thousands of Jews engaging in shootouts, would they ever have gotten out of Germany at all? Would the delay have given the rest of Europe’s Jews more warning or given the Germans a chance to wake up?”
As I mentioned at the beginning, this is the phenomenon I’ve been trying to put my finger on for years now. Someone on the Right makes a statement that many on the Left disagree with. Is there reasoned argument? No. Is there a simple, declarative explanation of the error? No. It’s just an instantaneous display of ad hominem atttacks, snark and whatnot, and the actual point being discussed falls by the wayside.
I still don’t know – precisely – what the error in JtP’s argument is. And I would really be grateful if someone could tell me.
