Oliver Kamm gives us a nice illustration of the poisoning the well fallacy. In showing a"thuggish disregard for free speech" yesterday, he says, "Greenpeace has... given definitive evidence that its voice should be discounted and derided in public debate."
It has, of course, done no such thing. The fact that Greenpeace is wrong on one point does not show at all that it is wrong on other things (they may of course be wrong for other reasons.)
There is an irony here. Oliver is defending the right to free speech of a Prime Minister who is an enemy of that right. I'd have thought that attempts to outlaw inciting religious hatred and glorifying terrorism, and using the law to suppress evidence of plans to bomb a TV station, were more serious attacks upon the right to free speech than the antics of a few twats on a roof.
Now, if Oliver is merely saying that we should tolerate the intolerant, I'll applaud him. But I'm worried there might be something else going on here. It struck me whilst reading his Anti-Totalitarianism. He tends to attack relatively powerless critics of governments (not just Chomsky), or to ignore their suffering (such as that of Iraqi citizens), whilst - a few criticisms of Bush aside - sucking up to the powerful. This is dangerously close to power-fucking.
And herein lies a curious feature of the biography he gives in that book. Although he mentions several short-term affiliations (his chairing of Oxford University Labour club and a couple of his City jobs), he omits to mention that he went to school for years in Leicester, which one would imagine would be a formative experience.
Is there a pattern here? Is he a self-loathing provincial who is trying to ingratiate himself into a metropolitan elite by persistently attacking the powerless? I hope I'm wrong.
"Is he a self-loathing provincial who is trying to ingratiate himself into a metropolitan elite by persistently attacking the powerless?"
Myself, I'm just a provincial, persistently attacking the powerless for sport.
Posted by: Blimpish | November 30, 2005 at 02:12 PM
Is Greenpeace powerless?
Posted by: ivan | November 30, 2005 at 03:23 PM
"He tends to attack relatively powerless critics of governments (not just Chomsky)"
Heh. His reviewing is consistent if nothing else. You'd have thought that at least one of the works of the World's Top Public Intellectual might be worth *two* stars, but no. The list of people he raves about is telling, as well. "Read him George Orwell, explain about Niebuhr..." (Apparently it's 'Naipaul'. Pah.)
But it should be said that Kamm's attacks on the WTPI are much the best thing on his site. I'll go further: his anti-Chomsky stuff is actually worth reading. I've tried making some very similar criticisms of Chomsky myself in the past, and it's a deeply unrewarding pastime - young Ollie deserves credit for sticking at it as long as he has. It's just a shame he writes so much idiotic frothing as well.
Posted by: Phil | November 30, 2005 at 06:19 PM
I don't see how the evidence you've presented justified your conclusions -especially the suggestion that he is trying to suck up to the liberal elite. If that's his intention, I can't imagine a worse means than defending Blair, Bush, the Iraq War and Israel.
Posted by: Peter | December 01, 2005 at 01:31 PM
"Is he a self-loathing provincial who is trying to ingratiate himself into a metropolitan elite ...?": Don't know. Are you? Isn't Kamm-bashing rapidly becomig another of those boring and petty fads that sweeps through the blogosphere now and then? In short, who cares?
Posted by: anonymous | December 02, 2005 at 05:15 AM
>>...he omits to mention that he went to school for years in Leicester, which one would imagine would be a formative experience.<<
He may have not mentioned his time in Leicester in his bio, as you wrote (i wouldn't know because i haven't read the book yet)... But i do recall Kamm mentioning his political activism and time in Leicester on his blog; and he didn't seem to meto write of the experience as something he was ashamed of - nay, he seemed to me proud of the experience. So we'll just have to find another explanation for said omission. The 'provincial loathing' argument, so far as i can tell, stands on nothing.
I love your blog, though: i think it is well-written, smart and thoughtful - the mixture of economics, philosophy and politics, without pretentiousness, works for me. But Kamm-bashing, dare i say, might just turn this place another predictable blog where everything and anything is personal and ghastly obsessive with one individual - a failing one associates with Kamm sometimes.
Posted by: Student Getting Ready For Supervisions | December 02, 2005 at 07:55 AM