Paraphrasing, not quoting, a conversation that no one else witnessed is a fine basis for reflections on the world by that particular person, but it's not a very good basis for making general conclusions at all.
The following is from a conversation I had with a white woman, maybe fiftyish.
We need to have a Methodist for President.
First of all it’s not true that Methodists are going to all vote for Clinton. The ones that are voting for Obama have their own reasons.
The country is really messed up after so many years of Bush, so we need someone really pious in the White House. It’s going to take someone really religious, like a Methodist, to straighten everything out.
Did I really have this conversation? No, of course not.
I wrote this as a parallel to a recent, seriously-intended article written here by Iroqouis. My purpose is to point out the rhetorical weakness of that article.
Paraphrasing, not quoting, a conversation that no one else witnessed is a fine basis for reflections on the world by that particular person, but it’s not a very good basis for making general conclusions at all. It’s a single anecdote about one person’s attitudes, without any particular reason to believe it, and without much reason to consider it, even if we do believe it.
If the statement is true, then it’s a stupid thing said by one person. Is there a trend of such stupid things being said, on the record? Are such things being said by the Clinton campaign? If so, then that’s a worthwhile basis for conversation. If not, then it’s just about as informative as me saying that I had a conversation with a person who said that we should not vote for Bill Richardson because Hispanics should be working at gas stations.
Recent Comments