Writing for National Review Ian Tuttle tells us that listening to Samuel Jackson lowers America's collective I.Q., that Jackson knows nothing about anything important. The article is nearly entirely what Jackson has to say on his insights about comparative religion and the intersection with politics and Tuttle assumes Jackson's perspective is so ridiculous it needn't be taken apart, you do that yourself as you read it.
I have to ask, come on now, if only to be contrarian, what does Jackson say that is actually wrong? Save for the thousands of years thing and conflating Christianity with its sects and the United States' historical relationship with Islam, apart from those three rather essential misconceptions, where does Jackson go wrong? Because a lot of people think exactly like this and it does no good to argue.
Help a brother out.
Jackson speaks as they do, as you often hear people even your own relatives who do have a perception on these things beyond being informed by CNN and MSNBC, a valid point of view, informed by their values, but it's a point and not a sweep of view as you're used to having so feel a strong impulse to fill in the gaps as he goes, but there's no stopping Jackson, no convenient places of entry without restructuring the entire worldview. Provided with insight forced upon his innocent self, Jackson scans the geopolitical landscape through a prism then examines a single color of bandwidth projected. His grasp of history is partial and fractured and the pieces assembled incorrectly but his grasp is not entirely wrong.
My question is, how do you agreeably chat with Jackson, imagine this if you will, without accusing him of lowering your I.Q., how do patiently endure the trial of listening sympathetically and identify the neglected spots and gently and kindly fill them to satisfaction, because he sounds exactly like friends and relatives and even our president.
National Review, Breaking: Celebrity Says Dumb Things About Subject He Knows Nothing About.
11 comments:
Timelapse tonight is part tickley nice. Because it goes, aw, this is nothing, then more and more and more and boosh from the North a gust blows it away then the cloud attack picks up where it left off unmolested but then goes dark and stops and the gold to pale blue to gray and bit of drama is just lovely.
Its impossible to deal with people like that on a one to one basis. You tell them the truth but it doesn't register. Most likely, their views are based on TV or the NYT or their college professor.
How do you compete with that? Plus, most of them have no intellectual curiosity. too much work.
I try to engage people I know who spout idiocies like this without being confrontational, but at the same time challenging their opinions. If you move in small increments, you can actually get someone to rethink things.
Then again, debating Samuel L. Jackson some of these topics reminds me of going to an Irish American bar (a real one) in the eighties and trying to convince the patrons that Margaret Thatcher was a great leader. There are other issues at play.
Like most addictions, you have to want to change before anyone can help you. That would mean that such a person would have to change their political ideology, who they identify with, who they associate with, and who they respect. If you do learn something counter, are you going to alienate your circle and look like a bigot, a racist a neanderthal to all the cool kids? Some do, but that's rare. That's real courage, as opposed to the kind Hollywood usually ascribes to those who are doing nothing but following lockstep with the herd. It's obvious when you notice how loud and often one side of the spectrum is spouted, and how rare and quietly the other is.
Jackson uses the word "all" to make sense of it all. He set himself up to fail when he did that. Because if you want to talk about it "all", you should be talking about the Very Large Hadron Collider in Europe... But that is not what Jackson is talking about.
So, let's go back and see when and how he uses the word "all", maybe we get some clues.
First time "...Americans weren’t in it. We had our race stuff going on, then we had the anti-[Vietnam] War movement and we had all this other stuff..."
Second and third time "...we were making advances here, making advances there, you got your cell phone, you got your computer — and then all of a sudden, it’s like [swoosh sound]! This thing connected us to a whole bunch of sh[**] that we had nothing to do with for a long time. All of a sudden, Bush and those guys..."
Finally, it all just snowballs "... — people were trying to kill them every day. It was like, ‘Oh, my God’ — you see a guy, the guy jumps up, ‘Hold it!’ And young black men are threatening, you know, and it just happens. So all these things snowball and snowball.”
How do you agreeably chat with Jackson?
All of a sudden, you have to go somewhere ;)
Honestly, I think the best you can do is enjoy the perspective and incredibly non consequentially drop a few shattering facts. Reposition a LEGO piece here and there. And that's it.
You were put on this earth to be amused by stupidity, not to teach anybody anything. That's rejected.
Nothing so dramatically factual as, Democrat party IS the party of slavery, racism defines the party, without it they shrivel, it is their raison d'être, their reason for being, their raisins and beans on a tray.
Heh. I made a pop-up card of this for my sister, and for somebody else too, so two of them, "you are the very raisin of my bean." My paper hand holding those two things.
No, nothing so historically sweeping, factual, knowing, judgmental, correct as, "Swearing fealty to Democrat Party is investing in plantation life and empowering then ceding your historic inheritance to unworthy agency." No. Nothing like that. Too confrontational.
Better to drop little things like, Mohammed's first seizure was in the year of our Lord 610 and Islam established in sub-Saharan Africa in year 1000 roundabout.
And quietly drop the crusades were defensive action agains Islamic aggression not t'uther way around, the exact same sort of brutality we see today, and even before Islam, these brutal act are chiseled in stone. These beheadings, behandings, dedigitizing be-eyeing are all ancient history repeated.
And the U.S. was in conflict with Islam from the very beginning of our country. See: 1) Barbary pirates 2) First Barbary War 3) Treaty of Tripoli
If you have your phone you can simply bring it up while Samuel Jackson (standing for whoever) is talking and hand it to him. No need to say much at all.
When he hands the phone back, listen carefully giving eye contact, knowing nods of agreement and approval of what you are enjoying and bring up the next mind blowing historic factual item and hand it to him. Assist with confusion with an indifferent shrug.
Because what do I care if Samuel Jackson or anyone else is an idiot?
I haven't a single person over here to talk to as grown ups. Not a single person. Absolutely everybody I talk to is incredibly pinched. I haven't the time, effort, or energy. Since Dr. Fred died there is no one. I've discovered.
I'll give you an example how conversation with the BEST of them goes.
The man is avid hunter. Hunting shit all over the house. The painting I made for him is hunting related. I asked him what is his opinion about Colorado legislators busting their series of moves on firearms. I listened carefully and earnestly.
He told me he shoots birds. So bird gun this, and bird gun that. His answer had solely to do with hunting birds with no opinion beyond bird hunting. It's the only thing that mattered. The single approach to the subject. The only door, window, whatever.
(You know when you eat those things occasionally you get a buckshot. You have to be careful about that. You can't just go chomping into those hunted pheasants or you risk breaking a tooth. I leaned this at HIS house twenty-five years ago.)
Here's where a simple non confrontational sentence might do the trick. It's unknown since there's no discussion. You'll know if your unique vocabulary appears in future conversation. That's your only confirmation. But it's cool when it happens, and annoying. I said, "I don't like guns. I'm too clumsy and inept. They scare me. But politicians busting moves on my constitutionally protected rights scares me more." And left it at that. No argument.
If I hear that arrangement of words again I'll know I hit a nerve. But that's all I'll be having.
See, I could have argued about deer hunters, elk hunters, caribou hunters, bear hunters, polar bear protection, wolf protection, cattle protection, chupacabra protection, werewolf protection, force evener for women and Barney Fife types. skeet shooting dudes and dudettes, but I didn't. Just one simple thing and left it at that.
Allow my mysterious aura of preternatural perception to work its lingering wonder in my absence instead of arguing and fucking all that up. Mysterious airs of preternatural perception aren't that easy to keep up ya know. Best keep it simple.
All or nothing at all Frank Sinatra.
Something ELB might be playing right now..
Back when I worked in Pearl River NY I had a lunch conversation buddy, who was a dyed in the wool liberal.
But, every once in awhile he would surprise me with a sort of present, sort of letting me know he didn't think conservatives where all evil fire breathing dragons.
I remember one time he went on about how much of a humanitarian Tom Delay was. I was a bit surprised knowing how much The Hammer was hated by the left, because he was an effective house whip.
Come to think of it. All of a sudden. I don't think there is a Tom Delay in DC today.
Chip, I am surprised by your lack of people to converse with.
I do however find a lot of people very guarded (they don't want to tell you what they really think because they worry it will be used against them).
Lem: It is always a good time to play Sinatra, although that song is not one of my all time favorites (it is good, just not great).
Action movie stars suffer a lot of head trauma. There are many stunts that go awry and punches that are nor properly pulled during the fight scenes. This takes its toll later in life. Jackson deserves our sympathy.....For the record, the Mongol conquest happened several centuries after the Crusades. The Crusaders temporarily conquered Jerusalem and a few coastal cities in the Levant. They were just a blip in Muslim history and were considered so by Muslim historians until recently.. The Mongol conquests, on the other hand, were thorough, brutal, and had a profound effect on the Persian and Mesopotomian civilizations they conquered. Not much percentage in bitching about Mongol imperialism, however.
Post a Comment