There's Plenty of Blame to Go Around!

By -
I can't get over the fact that people have such a hard time realizing that multiple actors can be to blame for a situation. You see it all the time in the way that people feel that, "You're blaming the victim!" is a knock-down argument. Well, sometimes the victim is to blame! That doesn't mean the perpetrator isn't also to blame, and probably even more to blame.

This came up the other day in reference to a friend's substance abuse problems. Someone said "He tells his ex-girlfriend that she is an enabler, as if he's not to blame."

Well, he probably is trying to shift blame, but that doesn't mean he is wrong in what he says! I saw them together, and she was a terrible enabler:
Up on Cripple Creek, she sends me
If I spring a leak, she mends me
I don't have to speak, as she defends me
A drunkard's dream if I ever did see one
That does not in the least excuse him. She was an enabler, after all, not an enforcer.

You see the same sort of thing when it comes to terrorist attacks: if someone says US military actions are to blame for prompting such attacks, the wingnuts automatically respond, "Oh, so you think the guys flying the planes had nothing to do with it!"

Sigh.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more