The Crowhill Journal

Even someone as unhip as I knows that LOL means laughing out loud. When I saw people use LOLOL, I thought it was just a way to put an exclamation mark on it, and I tended to think it was silly. That theory was confirmed when I saw people using LOLOLOLOL, and such.

But LOLOL actually stands for “lots of laughing out loud.”

I feel better now.

It’s a common argument. We think we see a pattern. Behavior A provokes Reaction B. E.g., when a white person in a gorilla mask attacks a black politician, that’s a horrible, racist act that has to be denounced everywhere.

Then we see an exception to that pattern. Conservative Larry Elder gets attacked by a white person in a gorilla mask, and we hear … crickets. No denunciations. No accusations of racism.

It certainly seems like hypocrisy (I think it is), but it’s worth taking at least a moment to reflect on the poor quality of this form of argument.

We don’t know if Behavior A always provokes Reaction B. We see that sequence some times, and we think it’s a pattern. But is it really? If Behavior A doesn’t always provoke Reaction B, do we know why? Might the Larry Elder case fit into that general exception?

It is a weak sort of an argument, and I’m sure David Hume would hate it. But it’s strong enough that we should call out the media for ignoring this story.

It seems pretty obvious that it’s only “racist” (in the minds of the mainstream media) when people attack liberal blacks, and use props that are historically associated with anti-black bigotry.

• Is the solution to “vaccine hesitancy” to ram the vaccine down people’s throats with heavy-handed federal rules, or to understand why they’re hesitant and address those concerns?
• Are attacks on the unvaccinated racist, since Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented among that group? (A: no. I’m just illustrating how stupid some claims of racism are.)
• Does the President have the authority to issue such a rule?
• Does that matter?
• Should he have such authority?
• Wouldn’t it be better if a rule like this came out of Congress?
• Is it fair to put all the “vaccine hesitant” in the same bucket? For example, I have a friend who has already had Covid and believes he has natural immunity.

This is funny. Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, as E-mailed by Your Passive-Aggressive Co-Worker

I just saw a headline that LeVar Burton fans “demand” that he become the permanent Jeopardy host.

When did we start using language like this?

You “demand” something when you have a right to it. You can demand a fair trial, or equal treatment before the law, or something else that you actually have a right to. Archie Bunker was able to “demand equal time” after he heard a segment about gun control on the news — because in those days there was something known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” which “required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.”

You can’t “demand” that Burton gets a spot on a TV show. To do so makes you sound like a petulant little baby who thinks he’s entitled to get his way all the time.

In this case, I doubt the fans are actually “demanding” anything. It’s probably the headline writer trying to get clicks.

But using that sort of language reinforces the idea that wants = rights. If I want something, I can “demand” it, because the world is supposed to conform itself to my wishes. If it doesn’t, I suppose it’s “denying my existence” … or something.