Verified by 
I’ve received a number of critiques (by various means) regarding the philosophical defense of Michelle Wolf (and her appearance at the White House Correspondence Dinner speech) I gave earlier this week. I feel the need to respond to these criticisms. To do so I am going to respond directly to one particular email that I received. In doing so I do not mean to single this emailer out (and I will protect their anonymity); but I do so because it will accomplish two things: (1) It will serve as a reply to all such criticisms (since the email seems to represent nicely the general spirit of all the criticisms I have received) and (2) because I will quote the email directly (by copy/pasting it in its entirety), it will show that I am not straw manning the critiques. These really are the arguments that are being put forth. I will respond, as I am trained to, by examining the logic of the argument given.
The email begins:
“I have had members of the Left say I deserved to have my right to vote taken away and then be executed just for commenting that I didn't think Michelle Wolf was funny. The authoritarian Left only wants freedom of speech for themselves, and the same for the authoritarian Right. It seems that that BOTH are prepared to use violence, or the threat of violence, to enforce this.”
Here we see three mistakes: hasty generalization, uncharitable interpretation, and false equivalence.
A hasty generalization occurs when one extrapolates from an unrepresentative or too small sample of a group and then draws a conclusion about the whole group. The emailer here is extrapolating from a small number of “authoritarian leftist” who have (supposedly) threatened to take away the emailer's right to vote (and then kill them) because the emailer said things the leftists disagree with and then extrapolated to the conclusion that all “authoritarian leftists” want to take away everyone’s right to vote (and then kill them) if they say things they disagree with. This does not follow. You cannot (rightly) generalize about an entire population via your personal experience with a small portion of them.
To boot, it seems that the emailer likely isn't interpreting their critics fairly. It seems very unlikely that someone literally said "I want to kill you because you didn't think a comedian was funny." This is especially true given that their supposed additional desire to take away the emailer's right to vote would be superfluous at that point (since dead people can’t vote). Likewise, did they really say that they want to take away the emailer's legal right to vote? Again, this seems unlikely. I'm not saying the emailer is lying; they just didn't apply the principle of charity when interpreting whatever was said to them. At worst, their critic probably said something like “you are too stupid to vote” and/or "I wish people like you didn't exist"—which, granted, isn’t nice…but is a far cry from saying that you should be stripped of your legal right to vote and then killed. Unless I see a record of exactly what the “offending” person said, I am justified in believing that such statements were not made.
The worst logical mistake here a false equivalence. The author equates the violence advocated by the opposing sides of this issue. The fact that some on each side are “prepared to use violence” does not entail that both sides are equally violent. Take the alt-right Neo-nazis, for example, and the “Antifa” who opposes them. While the Antifa are willing to punch a Nazi in the face, they have not killed anyone. The alt-right Neo-Nazis, on the other hand, have killed quite a few. That’s not to say that any use of violence is morally acceptable, but there is a large moral difference between punching someone in the face and killing them.
A similar mistake is often made (although not by the emailer here) regarding the two political parties. Both have their extreme wings, but the parties differ drastically regarding how much a hold their extreme wings have on them. For example, GOP has many “extreme-wing” people serving in key positions of their party (including in congress and as president). The Dems do not. More importantly, there is a large moral difference between, say, a comedian being a bit rude and vulgar as they draw attention to an administration that does nothing but lie to the American people—and then being a complicit member of that administration. The latter is much worse than the former.
The email goes on:
“You have a damn nerve defending the position that no one should be allowed to criticize Ms. Wolf, either. Both sides have the right to freedom of speech--whether or not their comments contain logical fallacies. She got her chance, and now other people should have the chance to express BOTH positive and negative opinions about her performance--as long as they do NOT promote violence.”
Here we have a straw man, a confusion, and contradiction.
I explained what a straw man fallacy is in my previous post; it’s when one misrepresents the argument of another to make it easier to attack. The emailer is straw manning my argument by saying that I was “defending the position that no one should be allowed to criticize Ms. Wolf” when instead I was arguing that particular criticisms (those that said Wolf insulted Sander’s appearance) were false and a distraction. Nowhere did I say that no one should be allowed to make such criticisms.
Indeed, the “you are interfering with my freedom of speech” attack (in the face of criticism) is itself a straw man move used to deflect criticism away from poor arguments. Such an attack (and the emailer) confuses a “right to free speech” with a “right to not be criticized.” Everyone has the former, no one has the latter. And by criticizing someone’s argument, in no way do I infringe on their right to free speech. I am not, for example, infringing on the freedom of speech of the emailer by responding to their argument here. They are free to say what they want, I can argue they are wrong; they can counter; I can counter. As J.S. Mill taught us, we all do and should have the freedom of speech as long as (as the emailer rightly points out) we are not advocating violence.
Now, to be clear: the emailer’s freedom of speech does not obligate me to provide them with a platform; that is not a part of one’s freedom of speech. If they write back again, in response to this post, I am not obligated to post it for the world to see. But they are free to post their own blog articulating their response to my argument, and I would myself fight for their right to do so (and then likely argue that their argument is faulty).
Third, the emailer contradicts themselves by saying that people on both sides can express their opinion about Wolf’s performance, and then calling me out for having “the nerve” to express my opinion about Wolf’s performance. While they are not directly arguing that I don’t have the legal right to do so, the “nerve” phrase seems to indicate that they don’t think I have the moral right to make the argument I made. This is false; as they point out, we all have the moral right to express our opinions (or make our arguments). Even if I was arguing that people shouldn’t be allowed to criticize Wolf—which, again, I’m not—but even if I was, I would have the moral right to make that argument.
The email continues:
“If Ms. Wolf can't take criticism, she shouldn't dish out such mean comments, herself.”
Here, the emailer seems to be confused regarding what it means to be able to handle or “take” criticism. Wolf has actually handled the criticisms beautifully and much more succinctly that I have. She has pointed out that she did not criticize Sanders’ appearance and that those who think she did seem to be exposing their own assumptions about it. The fact that she has responded to these criticisms (and shown their invalidity) doesn’t mean she “can’t take” them. Being able to take criticism is not equivalent to staying silent in the face of criticism; and responding to criticism is not equivalent to “not being able to take it.” This, again, seems to be a “distraction” tactic—this time used by those who give faulty criticisms.
The email continues:
“Yes, I do think her [Wolf’s] remarks were mean, unfunny, and in bad taste, but I have the right to an opinion, too. Donald Trump is most certainly rude, crude, boorish, a liar, etc. etc., but why is this an excuse for more such behavior? People like Ms. Wolf, who follow his lead, even if subconsciously, are only helping him accelerate the destruction of civil society.”
The emailer does indeed have a right to think Wolf is not funny. But still, there are two mistakes here: a kind of category mistake and a double standard.
First, the category mistake. While it is certainly true that the fact that Trump is rude, crude, and boorish doesn’t make it generally acceptable to be rude, crude, and boorish, there is also a grandiose distinction between the role of a comedian and the role of a president. A president is supposed to be respectful, honest, and upright. A comedian is supposed to make us laugh and (when socially conscious) speak truth to power. And to do so, they can be crude and vulgar; it may not be your cup of tea, but this is not a sin. Indeed comedians have been crude and vulgar for decades—and when they are, there usually is not this kind of uproar. If someone doesn’t like it, they won’t go see them (or watch their Netflix special)…but people usually don’t argue that they should be silenced (like many of Wolf’s critics suggested about Wolf). So Wolf’s vulgar approach has nothing to do with Trump, and thus isn’t furthering his “destruction of civil society.” The president being crude doesn't entail that comedians can't be.
Now, to be clear, if Wolf is one day elected to office, I too would object if she spoke on, say, the floor of the House in the way that she did at the WHCD. But, as a comedian invited speak at the “roast” that is the WHCD, she was exactly as rude, crude, and boorish as she was supposed to be. Indeed, she was invited by the Correspondent’s Association because of her style; for them to turn around and criticize her for doing what they hired her for is hypocritical.
The second mistake here is a kind of double standard. Previous male WHCD speakers have (arguably) been equally crude and boorish; certainly male comedians who engage in political commentary have been and currently are. Yet they do not give rise to the kind of consternation that Wolf did. No one ever, for example, called for George Carlin to be less boorish and vulgar as he spoke truth to power. (And they sure wouldn't if they invited him to speak at the WHCD.) A sexist social double standard, that expects women to be prim and proper, and excuses the boorish vulgarity of males, seems to be in full play here. (Would any of Wolf’s critics make the same kind of excuses they have for Trump? “It’s locker-room talk.” “She’s just joking.” It seems not.)
The email continues:
“Also, comments like hers are totally counterproductive, since people in the center who are offended and upset by bad behavior on BOTH sides are going to be even more likely just to stay home and not vote. This only helps the Republicans in the midterm elections. She actually did them a favor, however small, but the effects of these incidents are cumulative.”
While there undoubtedly are some who will do what the emailer has done—fallaciously reason from the behavior of one comedian on the left to everyone on the left and use that as an excuse to “stay home and not vote”—this is not a reason for Wolf to change her behavior. For one thing, in all honesty, if a person is so easily dissuaded from voting, they probably weren’t going to vote in the first place. I’m not that worried about getting such people out to vote. The people who are more likely to vote (that haven’t before) are those that will be driven to vote by realizing how much, for example, his administration lies. To get them to vote, you need to draw attention to such things. Wolf, I believe, did just that.
To be clear, I am in no way interested in convincing Trump’s base… of anything. If nothing has convinced them to abandon him by now, nothing will. The power of ad hoc excuses is powerful (one can deny any piece of evidence if they try hard enough) and the backfire effect is real (trying to convince someone they are wrong about something will most likely just make them dig in their heels harder). But I am interested in getting people who usually don't vote to vote.
But secondly, this suggestion seems to be rooted in the objection that Wolf shouldn’t have been so “disrespectful” because it just gives the right “ammunition,” confirming what they always say about the left. There are two things wrong with this objection. First, it doesn’t matter what Wolf said; her critics are going to twist it to their advantage. If she calls people out on their lies and hypocrisy in a respectful way, the liars and hypocrites are still going to demonize her, say she said things she didn’t say, and then use that as proof of their suspicions about the left. If you never said anything that couldn’t be used as ammunition by "the right," you’d never say anything at all. The criticisms of Wolf are intended to silence her; acquiescing to the “don’t give them ammunition” objection does just that. (Although, I do grant, some things are easier to spin than others--but it doesn't follow that one is always obligated to do the "least spinnable thing.")
Second, if one group promotes an inaccurate stereotype of another, it is not incumbent upon the latter to never do anything to promote that stereotype. That’s, essentially, victim blaming. It’s the former group’s moral duty to get rid of the stereotype. For example, suppose a group believes that all African Americans speak in Ebonics and are incapable of utilizing “proper grammar.” Is it incumbent upon, say, all African American comedians to always use “proper grammar” so as to not feed the stereotype? Of course not; the moral (and logical) failing is on those who embrace the stereotype; it is not the African American community’s moral obligation to correct the other community’s problem.
Now, one might retort that it’s not about who is morally responsible but about accomplishing a goal. Regardless of whose fault it is, we want the stereotype gone. Acting in the stereotypical way promotes the stereotype, so it shouldn’t be done. The problem with this argument is that breaking the stereotype isn’t going to make it go away either. I can find you plenty of examples of non-vulgar respectful liberals (or African Americans who don’t use Ebonics) but those who embrace the stereotype won’t change their view. They’ll just say that the provided example is the exception that proves the rule, and double down on the stereotype. (Jessie Owens winning four Olympic golds, for example, didn’t change Hitler’s view about people of African descent.) On the flip side, for those who don’t embrace the stereotype, one example isn’t going to make them do so. If it does, it would seem that they already embraced it.
The email concludes:
“So are you going to ignore me, write back and vilify me for disagreeing with you, or rethink your position? Do you really want to support authoritarian behavior on either side? This is both a dangerous and historic moment in our history. Which side of history are you on?”
To finish out, the emailer presents a false dichotomy (or trichotomy in this case) and begs the question. They beg the question by assuming their argument is sound—it is not, as I have shown. And showing that it is unsound is available as a fourth way to respond to their email that they do not mention. Thus, they have presented fewer options than there actually are.
The emailer also falsely assumes that by defending Wolf and saying her critics are trying to distract you that I am siding with “authoritarianism.” As I have shown, I am not. In no way am I arguing against their right to say what they said. I just argued that what they said was wrong.
The emailer is right about one thing, however. This is a dangerous and historic moment in our history. We have a president and presidential administration that (as a matter of objective observable demonstrable fact) continually lies, is in violation of the emoluments clause because he did not put his businesses in a blind trust, and tries to enact unconstitutional legislation—and has fought tooth and nail against every possible check against their power and corruption. They have done everything from removing prosecutors who could harm them, to obstructing justice (e.g., firing Comey to take the pressure off from the Russia investigation), and even calling for the jailing of journalists who expose these facts.
What side of history am I on? Not their side! And when they try to distract us from the legitimate criticism raised by a comedian by lying about what she said or complaining about how she said it, I will not for one second give that criticism a single ounce of credibility. I will instead applaud the comedian's effort to draw attention to these facts and fight tooth and nail against those who are trying to distract us from the fact that she did.
