If someone suggests we have said something racist and we respond by telling them that they have hurt our feelings with the accusation, this is not evidence against us being racist. It's just evidence towards the fact that we can't handle criticism and also maybe that we're avoidant and manipulative.
If someone accuses us of sexual assault, talking about how this accusation has cost our family, and our friends does not prove we are innocent of sexual assault. It just shows we are capable of using those who love us as manipulation tools.
I think it's sometimes easier to gel with these concepts when we believe accusations and when the accused belongs to the opposite political viewpoint or the opposite whatever-viewpoint.
But...
Sometimes it comes from our own side.
And sometimes it comes with accusations we don't actually believe.
It happened for me yesterday.
Tim and I watched the quite-didactic series Debunking Borat.
It features the two conspiracy theorists of Borat Subsequent Moviefilm—(Jim Russell and Jerry Holleman) being fed debunking stuff from various experts.
I think one of the main problem with the program is the episodes are too short. They're about six minutes, and part of the time is dedicated to an intro that is too long in proportion to the size of the episode. Another portion is spent on flashy montages to show off the credentials of the experts. Not much time was spent on actual debunking.
The show would have been better if each episode was at least 30 minutes. I think more time is needed to debunk conspiracy theories. You need more time to show both A) the opposing evidence against the theory B) the origins of the conspiracy theory. The show did a little bit of this. But little is the key word here.
The show seemed to think that they could get conspiracy theorists on their side by using bubbly friendliness and impressive credentials.
Anyway....I wasn't impressed with any of the episodes. But the one that annoyed me the most was the last.
In this episode, they deal with the conspiracy theory that Hilary Clinton drinks the blood of children.
The episode talked a bit about the blood libel trope. And I think that was supposed to be part of their defense. But I thought that was a bit confusing, since the trope is known for being against Jews, and Clinton isn't Jewish.
But anyway...Clinton provided a taped defense/debunking to Russell and Holleman. Her main message? The rumors hurt her feelings and also hurt her friends, families, and coworkers.
Okay. That in no way gives any evidence towards Clinton being innocent of blood-drinking.
I thought it actually made her look guilty.
I'm pretty sure she's NOT guilty of blood-drinking. But after watching her defense, I'm more open to the idea than I ever was before watching the Borat special.
Note about the photo used: It comes from a True Blood fan Flickr account via Wiki Commons. If you were/are a fan of True Blood, you might enjoy their other photos.
Actually now that I look at the photos, I realize the photo I chose was somewhat inappropriate. One of the main plot points of the show is that vampires stopped needing real human blood, because a Japanese company invented an artificial alternative.
Really. Instead of using energy on debunking rumors of political and Hollywood elites drinking blood, maybe we should be working on coming up with viable alternatives to human-blood-products. You know....just in case.
How would our world change if we knew for sure there was life after death, and it was easy for our dearly-beloved to talk to us via the Internet?
The Dead are Online, a novel by Dina Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment