Wanna grow up to be a debunker

[vovat]

My ongoing criticism of Bill O'Reilly's Culture Warrior has gotten me to wondering why I enjoy analyzing and debunking things I disagree with. After all, a lot of people already realize he's full of bull, and those who don't are unlikely to be swayed by my posts (or even read them, for that matter). But really, it's an Internet tradition. I mean, I've seen and enjoyed sites that debunk Chick Tracts, Kent Hovind, pseudo-science, various TV shows, and plenty of other things. Sometimes these refutations become fodder for their own meta-refutations, like when some article on lies in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 spawned a response. Perhaps part of it is that school (especially college) is big on making us evaluate sources, and that kind of thing never really leaves your system. Also, it can be fun. I think the appeal of a lot of the dissections isn't that they really say anything new, but that they're funny. I don't know if I'm funny. I try to be, but sometimes the people who try the hardest at humor are the worst at it.

Another reason, related to the whole intellectual pursuit thing, is that seeing other people's viewpoints on various issues, no matter how absurd, can get people to thinking how THEY feel about those issues. Responding to O'Reilly and others with ideas I don't care for has led me to consider and expound upon my own thoughts about morality, religion, socialism, war, schooling, and lots of other controversial topics.

Anyway, I've read Chapter Thirteen of Culture Warrior, and it's mostly about how Bill doesn't want to pay higher taxes to support old people, farms, cleaner cities, business regulation, or art (especially if it involves poop on religious icons). His money goes to support the prisons and workhouses! He also addresses the No Child Left Behind Act (the private school equivalent of which is, of course, "No Child's Behind Left Unsmacked"), and how "progressives oppose standardized tests." Gee, could it be about they don't always provide an accurate measure of how much students have learned? I'm pretty good at standardized tests, but there are plenty of bright, well-educated people who aren't. O'Reilly goes on to say, "Most children are lazy and undisciplined--that is a given--and must be taught to perform in a disciplined manner and develop a thinking process and marketable skills." Well, I agree with the latter part, but as for the former, SAYING something is a given doesn't MAKE it so. I can't say I've had experience with "most children," or even with not that many children, but I'm not so sure he's right about them all being lazy. But then, he seems to think everyone who isn't a millionaire is lazy, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised with his assessment. Not to mention that we appear to be looking at another false dichotomy here. Either schools should be evaluated through standardized testing, or else they're just going to "nurture" (O'Reilly's word and quotation marks) kids and not teach them any real skills. Apparently there are no other options.

Comments

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Maybe it would help O'Reilly to actually go back to public school instead of basing his opinions on the subject off idealized memories of his own long-distant school days. You know what's kooky? How much homeschooling is associated with conservatives-- seriously, when I think of the major benefit of homeschooling I think of all the things basing schooling around standarized testing ISN'T. So apparently like one side's like "The public schools are terrible because they teach about a wide variety of cultures, but at least they do standardized testing!" and the other side's like, "The public schools are terrible because everything focuses on standardized testing rather than authentic experiences, but at least the kids are exposed to more of the world!" Ugh, you KNOW I could go on and on about how much I hate what No Child Left Behind is doing to schools, but all I'll say here right now is: you know, I was one of those kids who was great at standardized tests too... and THAT was exactly what made me lazy. Why work at school when all I had to do was pay attention and let my natural ability to pick stuff up pick up everything I needed to know? And you see where I am today with all that....

But my comment as I was writing it made me think of something else, which also ties in with your first few paragraphs-- why is it, and HOW is it, that ANYBODY let alone SO MANY PEOPLE seem to subscribe to Us vs. Them on every issue, rather than thinking out each issue individually? Why is O'Reilly the spokesperson for conservatives on EVERY ISSUE, as a specific, but across the board on all sides of things, there are too many people who decide EVERY issue along party lines or whatever. As I might have mentioned, I think it's impossible to truly call oneself Christian and exactly align oneself with either of these so called "sides" entirely. I mean, O'Reilly might think he's speaking for all Christians, but then he'd know that Christians are welcoming to all people regardless of where they came from, how they got here, and what language they speak; he'd know that Christians are required to share all they have with those who need it (and that the ideal Christian community could best be described as --gasp-- socialist); he'd know that God told humans to be STEWARDS of Creation, not run Creation into the ground in the name of Money; and that God and Man judge differently, and just because somebody is well-bred educated moneyed and white doesn't mean they're more worthy of respect. And that's just eating up the party lines from a Christian viewpoint-- clearly everyone ought to have their own unique viewpoints even without a religious base for them.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, O'Reilly DID work as a history teacher at one point, so I guess he isn't going all the way back to his own childhood when he talks about public schools. Still, just because you're a teacher doesn't necessarily mean you know how children learn.

You know what's kooky? How much homeschooling is associated with conservatives-- seriously, when I think of the major benefit of homeschooling I think of all the things basing schooling around standarized testing ISN'T.

Yes, I get the impression that homeschooling is largely the province of very conservative and very liberal parents, for different reasons.

you know, I was one of those kids who was great at standardized tests too... and THAT was exactly what made me lazy. Why work at school when all I had to do was pay attention and let my natural ability to pick stuff up pick up everything I needed to know?

I think that's a good point. Testing doesn't really encourage kids to retain knowledge, or to find practical uses for it.

he'd know that Christians are required to share all they have with those who need it (and that the ideal Christian community could best be described as --gasp-- socialist)

The early Christian community described in Acts 5:1-10 sounds pretty much like full-blown communism. Granted, they were operating on a small scale, but still.

For as much as he talks about "Judeo-Christian" values, most of O'Reilly's biggest concerns don't seem to have anything to do with religion. His main thing seems to be that he's pro-competition, which is an easy position to take when you're already successful. I also get the impression that, like a lot of self-styled traditionalists, his beliefs are based on his perceptions of the world during his own childhood. Of course, kids don't know everything that's going on, and it amuses me that a fair number of pro-tax-cut Republicans seem to long for a time when they would have to pay a 50% income tax.

As for the "us vs. them" mentality, it bothers me when people talk about seeing "both sides" of an issue. How many issues can you think of that only have two sides? Most of the time, there are multiple ways of looking at a controversial topic, and many different reasons for having those viewpoints. And I think O'Reilly wants to have it both ways, because he proudly points out issues where he disagrees with the stereotypical conservative viewpoint, yet he also wants to be the spokesman for an entire group of people (a majority of Americans, in fact, if you're to believe what he says). I get the impression that this is what led to some of the more awkward parts of the book, like when he talks about gay marriage and seems to be contradicting himself in every other sentence.