When The Levees Broke, A Libertarian Cracked; or, I Absolve the Medium

So I watched the first and second acts of Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke on Tuesday.  As noted earlier, my initial response—sent to a non-academic listserv full of sharp, predominantly libertarian computer programmers—included the following paragraph:

Am I the only one who didn't know that THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE made it [to New Orleans] before FEMA or the National Guard?  Jesus Christ, the MOUNTIES!  THE MOUNTIES!

I didn't mean to disparage the Mounties, only point out that if they could saddle up and thunder to New Orleans in two days, surely someone in FEMA had access to transportation capable of outpacing moose.  A damning condemnation, indeed.  In that same message—keeping in mind the audience I addressed—I noted how despite being

a propagandist ... [Lee] did an amazing job showing who, exactly, was affected by Katrina.  Not just black people, but poor people.  Infirm people.  Elderly people.  All abandoned.

I'll return to why I called him a "propagandist" momentarily; for now, I want to share the first response to my message.  Written by a stranger, someone new to the listserv, it said:

I love your opening.  I know he's a full of crap but this time I believe him because I don't like the President either. 

Note that I did not say Lee "was full of crap," only that he was a "propagandist."  I couched Lee's aesthetic in such strong terms because, on a listserv populated by libertarians who clawed their way from desperate poverty to upper-middle prosperity, you find people convinced of the universal explanatory power of their personal Horatio Alger narratives.  If I can make it, anyone can, they think. These narratives, however, are no more representative than Alger's were; but they lead those who possess them to assume that if someone fails to "make it," that person didn't work hard enough, or with enough dedication, or secretly wanted to fail.  Whatever the reasoning, the outcome is the same:

They didn't make it because they didn't deserve to.  After all, if I can make it, anyone can.

Those who believe this would, thus, consider Spike Lee a propagandist, somewho attempted to elevate the social status of the undeserving. Racism exists, certainly, but can be overcome by exceptional individuals willing to invest the time and effort required to do so. To forestall this response, I noted the even-handedness of Lee's portrayal: not only did it depict the plight of the African-Americans stranded in New Orleans, but also that of everyone who couldn't afford, for medical or monetary reasons, to leave. 

Consider the rhetorical power of the statement I made: despite Lee being a known propagandist disinclined to think anyone with white skin a victim, the skeptical viewer can tease from his narrative of Katrina's aftermath a complete picture of the devestation that affected all its residents.  Clever, ain't it?  Unfortunately, one member of the audience turned out not to be that clever.  First, as quoted above, he accused me of finding the documentary compelling because, like Lee, I hate the President.   Then came the fun part.  After explaining the comment, he responded thus:

I guess I need to remember when I respond to you (an obvious professional student with nothing to really productive to add) that I must be overly complete in my responses. 

I guess I forgot that being a teacher's aid made you an expert in disaster relief and the legal issues that determine when a federal agency can step into a state disaster?

Personally, I see someone who spreads propaganda as being "full of crap".  It's typical of a dumb ass liberal to take pot shots at the guy who stepped up to the plate and took the office.   

Perhaps Lee's documentary was worth watching to some.  To me, it's a waste of time. 

You took that as an opportunity to take a pot shot at the president.

And now you're feelings are hurt because someone called your bull!

I'm sick of hearing the "Wah! Wha! Gimme! Gimme! You owe me!" attitude that pours from America's "have nots".  I think it's amusing that people like you who recognize that people like Spike Lee, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (and others) are simply exploiting any tragedy they can (for personal gain) by linking it to either black or poor, yet you still lend them credit. 

IMO, you're the one who's not so bright.  But even I recognize that you're too ignorant to ever realize that!

He opens with a parenthetical acknowledgement of the content of my autosig couched as an insult; this tells me that while he can read words, he lacks the ability to contextualize them.  So, of course, I decided to respond.  A mistake, I know, as such debates can only turn to wars ... which is what I was in the mood for.  You can guess how I responded to his "arguments."  (Searing genius!  Withering wit!)  How I ended my response, however, surprised me.  Instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt—a talent I've acquired through countless hours in the classroom—I eviscerated his every point and concluded my message by saying:

You're not in the kiddie pool anymore.  You're not even in the shallow end.  You're in the deep end, dipshit.

And I'm about to pop your floaties.

Now I admit that I only responded to his email because of excess steam in my pipes—chez Acéphale has been infested, deadlines crawling on the carpet, slivering like silverfish from books whose theses I should've addressed last week—but I wonder whether my desire to write amusing insults is a product of my distance from the classroom.  Did I tear into this idiot because I had steam to vent or because, divorced from the classroom setting, I'm becoming less of a teacher, just another soldier in the culture wars?

I think I'm merely becoming intolerant of the breed of political idiot exemplified above.  Why?  Because when I read this post on Larval Subjects, I not only commented in a reasoned and civil fashion, I took the arguments forwarded there seriously.  Not that I was convinced by their arguments any more than they were by mine; only that the conversation was productive because I took their seriousness seriously, as they did mine.  I'm thinking about this largely because I'm interested in debunking the idea that the problem with online interaction is the medium.  The medium contributes to breakdowns in communication, but I don't think it causes them, nor do I think it contributes to the creation of an attitude which does. 

Why?

Because I attacked that idiot the same afternoon I had the productive conversation at Larval Subjects.  (The two threads interwove into a matrix of procrastination.)  Had the problem been my attitude, it would have affected both conversations.  I need to think more about this, obviously, but let me end with the final message of the listserv exchange.  I didn't respond to it, but it reached a peak of sublime stupidity worthy of a public airing:

Yes, and thank you for making my point for me!  We have the responsibility to recognize (as you have) that Spike Lee is a racist and that everything that comes from him is tainted with racism!  Supports the spread of racism!  Uses the taboo of the word racism!  We, the responsible Americans, who know in our hearts, that our only hope to stopping the spread of racism is to refuse to support his productions.

I'm sure racism is rampant in your neck of the woods since you have what?  A population with less than 2% black?  Nearly 62% white?  Approximately 30% Asian?  Come on Scott, that's the real reason you moved there.  You're a racist!  Just admit it!  Why else wouldn't you simply attend Grambling or Southern University?  What does UC have to offer that these two fine schools don't?  The white population I'm sure.  But, you probably have a fetish for Japanese anime?  So, perhaps the Asian population played a "small" part too.

You see Scott; I feel that perhaps there may be more that unites us than divides us. 

Just as you pointed out in another post that the people of America that truly matter have denied the handing out grants to further the study of the pointless, farce known as evolutionary biology that many try to pass off as a science.

God Bless America!

CAVEAT: First person who mentions Walter Benn Michaels gets her floaties popped.

Comments

[Bryan]

I know he's a full of crap [...]

There's the problem, Scott. You're obviously arguing or Chico Marx.

Why a duck?

[Bryan]

Er... "arguing or" = "arguing with"

Somehow.

[Kerry Higgins Wendt]

In Rhetoric, Stasis Theory is (roughly) about finding out where the argument is. In Ancient Rhetoric for Contemporary Students, the authors give the example of the debates over abortion: they go on forever because the two sides can't agree what the issue is (women's rights, or some kind of homicide). More productive debates find common ground to argue about.

I think your interlocutor couldn't find the stasis point -- couldn't figure out what the argument was about. Or, more likely, wasn't interested in finding it. In any case, you're right: this is way older than the internet.

[Adam Kotsko]

Someone needs to make a "Godwin's Law" for "Thank you for making my point for me."

[Kotsko's Law]

My birth is a mere Wikipedia entry away.