This is not who we are

@jesslynnrose offers an allegory for an unnamed technology company with dubious ethics.

The function of a system is its output.

If you have dog grooming machine that sometimes smashes puppies and you keep running it, you're in the dog smashing business.

If you work for a mass surveillance company that keeps enabling genocide and undermining democracy...

— Jessica Rose (@jesslynnrose) January 7, 2021

 

You might try to guess whether there is any particular technology company she is talking about. People from at least three different companies thought she might be referring to them.

I've had people from three different companies message to ask if I'm attacking them personally and this feels like Schrodinger's take on self knowledge. pic.twitter.com/a2xV1aMJQv

— Jessica Rose (@jesslynnrose) January 8, 2021

A common form of defensive denial takes the form This is not who we are, which @AlexGraul describes as an oxymoron. @ayourtch reinforces this point by quoting from Donella Meadows: Purposes are deduced from behaviour, not from rhetoric or stated goals

In other words, POSIWID.

 

But why does this count as an oxymoron? Because it seems to be openly acknowledging the behaviour that contradicts the espoused identity. 

In some cases, the contradiction appears to be resolved if we believe that the behaviour of a minority is not characteristic of the majority - as if the minority were not fully part of the "we". Bill Clinton used the phrase in 1995 following the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial, and Barack Obama used the phrase many times. It has also been used on the Republican side. Christopher Scalia calls this a rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

In a corporate setting, executives use this kind of language to blame bad things on the actions of individual rogue employees rather than the corporation as a whole. Yeah, right.

---

 

Donella Meadows, Thinking in Systems (2008). The quote is on page 14 of my copy.

Christopher J. Scalia, Why Obama says That's not who we are (USA Today, 8 February 2016)

See also The Fallacy of Rotten Apples (July 2004)

Purpose of Denial 3

The more the American mainstream media deny that President Obama is a Moslem, the more Americans choose to believe that he is.

Apparently this belief is more prevalent among college-educated Republicans than the rest of the population. How Republicans Learn That Obama Is Muslim (New Republic, 27 August 2010) This raises some intriguing questions about the relationship between education and knowledge.

Jeff Poor suggests that the media are to blame. "By consistently using questions about Obama's faith and his citizenship as fodder to demean conservatives, specifically the Tea Party movement and thereby creating a general mistrust by saying vile things, have the mainstream media perpetuated the very allegations they are abhorred by (sic)?" (Newsbusters, 19 August 2010) At least on this point, Charlie Brooker seems to agree. "Seriously, broadcasters, journalists: just give up now. Because either you're making things worse, or no one's paying attention anyway."  'Ground Zero mosque'? The reality is less provocative (Guardian 23 August 2010). Brooker complains that the terms of the debate are grossly misleading, and grudgingly admires right-wingers for their ability to create snappy-but-misleading nicknames – like fun-size chocolate bars and the Ground Zero mosque. Buzzwords for blowhards (Guardian 30 August 2010).

Jeff Poor quotes CNN political analyst James Carville, who describes himself as "flummoxed" by this result, and claims that "the quality of information to people today is exponentially higher than it was in 19th century England". Now I wouldn't necessarily expect a political journalist to know what the word "exponential" meant, but I wonder whether the quality is higher at all.

---

Once upon a time, some people were bothered whether Disraeli was Christian or Jew, and some people were uncomfortable about electing Kennedy as a Catholic president. But they are now mainly remembered for what they achieved while in office, not their religious affiliation. Meanwhile, Mrs Thatcher's legacy is not feminism but Thatcherism. Obama will not be remembered for his birthplace, or the religion of his forefathers, nor even for being the first black president; he will be remembered for the successes and failures of his presidency. And perhaps one day, people will wonder why anyone cared whether he was a Moslem or not, and moderate Moslems will be as accepted in mainstream American politics as Catholics are now. (Let it not be forgotten that large sums of money were once raised from American Catholics to support Irish terrorism.)

---

John T. McGreevy and R. Scott Appleby Catholics, Muslims, and the Mosque Controversy (New York Review, 27 August 2010)

Adam Serwer, Build More Mosques (American Prospect, August 26, 2010)

Purpose of Denial 2

Why does it matter whether humans caused climate change? The important question surely is whether there is anything humans can or should do to reduce the future damage of climate change.

According to some religious traditions, humans are the trustees of the planet. But you don't have to be religious to believe we should care for the planet. If someone is drowning, we don't stand on the bank arguing who pushed him in, or whether he slipped. Our responsibility to help people is not limited to those we have already harmed.

I am not a climate change expert, but I think that the evidence for humans having contributed to climate change looks pretty convincing. (Good visual summary of the evidence on both sides here.) But even if it wasn't, I don't think it follows that we should just let the planet destroy itself without trying to do something.

But many people (on both sides of the climate change debate) apparently believe that climate change denial leads inevitably to a policy of non-intervention. As if to say - if God wants the planet to get warmer, who are we to stand in His way?

Clearly the factual debate has emotive consequences for international policy and collaboration. But the link is based on rhetoric rather than rational logic.

Purpose of Denial

The scientist David Bellamy has been practising climate change denial. George Monbiot has spotted some key errors in his argument, and this has prompted a number of bloggers including Chris, John and Tim. John spotted the POSIWID angle before me. 

One of the comments to Chris's blog asks: What is Bellamy trying to do, murder us in our beds as we sleep-- thinking everything is going swimmingly? 

Which set me thinking. What is the purpose of denial, and what does it achieve? When a famous scientist stakes his reputation on denying some widely accepted environmental belief. Is this akin to other forms of denial, such as AIDS denial or Holocaust denial? 

Given that a given belief is a basis for collective support for a given position, denial appears to have the effect (and therefore the implicit purpose) of undermining this position. Thus AIDS denial undermines the credibility of some critical health campaigns, while climate change denial provides certain industrialists and politicians with an excuse to avoid taking action against global warming. 

It is for this reason that denial is often regarded not as a legimate form of scepticism but as a dangerous betrayal.

 

See QWERTY won't be denied (John, May 2005), Purpose of Denial 2 (December 2009), The Ecosystem Myth (May 2011)