Here’s lefty blogger Roger Ailes, in a post that went up Sunday morning:
Libertarian Fonzie and his toadys [sic] haven’t weighed in on the DADT repeal either. Maybe they don’t think federal regulation of sexual orientation implicates liberty cocerns, at least when the regulations don’t interfere their patron’s anal sex film empire. Or maybe they’re still at Joe Manchin’s Christmas party.
For those of you unfamiliar with lefty blog code, “Libertarian Fonzie” is Reason.tv editor Nick Gillespie. “His toadys” I guess refers to the rest of us at Reason.
So there are a number of ways that you could ferret out where Reason and its writers stand on gay equality issues. You could, for example, do what Ailes did here, which is to set an arbitrary deadline in your head by which Reason must respond to a gay issue in the news and, if we fail to meet said arbitrary deadline, you conclude that we just don’t care very much about gay people. Or at least not as much as we do about whatever frivolous issue you think we spend too much time covering. (In this case, Ailes throws in the bonus ad hominem attack that we only cover obscenity laws because one of our donors, John Stagliano, was recently prosecuted under them.) Ailes’ deadline was apparently 7:30 am on the Sunday after a Saturday vote in the Senate.
But here’s another way you could find out where Reason stands on gay issues: You could take 15 fucking seconds to use Reason’s search engine, where you’d find the thousands of words we’ve published in our magazine and on our website advocating the repeal of DADT. You’d also find the dozens of articles we’ve published advocating gay marriage, regular ridicule of homophobes, and support for gay adoption.
But then you wouldn’t get to make Fonzie jokes.
(BTW: This arbitrary deadline/”notice the silence from x” method of argumentation will henceforth be known as the Balloon Juice fallacy.)
MORE: Check out this response from John Cole at Balloon Juice. He runs off a list of Reason articles that allegedly commit the same fallacy I accuse him and Ailes of making, and adds, “Too funny.”
Hilarious. Except not one of the articles actually commits that fallacy. It looks like someone just did a search for the word “silence” on the Reason website. Which means Cole is either stupid, or he didn’t actually bother to read the articles before posting them to his main page. Here are the articles:
- In this one, Jacob Sullum criticizes Elena Kagan for refusing to answer any questions about natural rights during her confirmation hearings. Sullum’s column is about how the confirmation process robs the public from getting a sense of a Supreme Court nominee’s judicial philosophy before before deciding whether she should be confirmed.
- In this one, Matt Welch criticizes neoliberal Democrats for not opposing Obama’s profligate spending policies. John apparently doesn’t understand the difference between criticizing a website for not responding to a given issue within 24 hours and criticizing politicians for not standing up for their principles when their own party is in power.
- In this one, Steve Chapman criticizes anti-gay marriage Republicans (yes, in all of this, John’s is using an example of a Reason article defending gay marriage to prove his point) who say gay marriage will lead to all sorts of other moral decay. Chapman actually called gay marriage critics up and asked them to go on the record with specific predictions of what moral outrages would come next. None of them would answer him. Again, this isn’t remotely similar to my complaint about Cole and Ailes. I mean, not even on the same planet.
- In this one, Michael Moynihan responds to this exact variety of ad hominem attack. In this case, a New York Press editor criticized Reason for not addressing Naomi Klein’s horrible book about Milton Friedman, and tried to draw broad conclusions what our silence means. Moynihan chides him for it. At the end of the article, Moynihan turns the tables, and asks what we can infer about the New York Press silence about a libertarian book, but only to point out how stupid this sort of argument can be. Cole then uses this as an example . . . Reason making that sort of argument. Again, this either illustrates that Cole isn’t particularly bright, didn’t read the link before posting (which only bolsters my contention that he regularly makes sweeping accusations against Reason without bothering to check first to see if there’s any evidence for them), or he did read the link, knows doesn’t prove anything remotely like what he claims, yet posted it anyway thinking no one would call him on it. Which would make him a dishonest hack.
- Finally, this article mentions Hugo Chavez’s silence after an opposition coalition won a majority of seats in the Venezuelan parliament. Again, not remotely similar to the way Cole draws grand conclusions about Reason’s “silence” on a given issue.
That’s zero for five, John. Too funny.
I’ve said this before: I don’t expect everyone or even most people to agree with Reason. I do expect adults to make adult arguments. And to actually do some checking to make sure we’ve actually done whatever it is you’re attacking us for doing.