Contra Penn Jillette
Penn
Jillette (of Penn and Teller fame) obviously considers himself a very smart person with a lot of
courage. He is undeniably big and loud
and obnoxious, and maybe in his own mind this is a suitable stand-in for
courage. But it seems to me that a
courageous debater on any of the contentious topics he has so publicly chosen
to address would actually dare to come face-to-face or at least word-to-word
with his opponent.
Instead, Jillette likes to do all his
debating on camera, with just his little mime friend prancing about, and his
real opponents a safe distance away off-camera.
Let me take as an example his video
segment against 911 conspiracy theorists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-V1bXs_5Io
He
leads with a lot of trash talk and then quickly graduates to arguing by
emotion. That is to say, he tells the
audience that about half of New Yorkers believe in the 911 conspiracy. A large percentage of Americans also believe
in a JFK conspiracy. Many (the
percentage is now dumped) also believe that we never landed on the Moon. “Are people just fucking stupid?” he
asks. [This from a guy who is the illustrious graduate of Clown College. Seriously, check Wikipedia. I am not sure if that is considered to be more or less elite than refrigerator college.]
He has led with his conclusion, lumped a
lot of issues together indiscriminately, and pre-defined his opposition as not
even worth talking to. That turns out
to be very convenient for him, since he never ends up talking to anyone he
disagrees with or addressing any factual questions. Instead of engaging in conversation or debate, he shows little
ten second clips and then makes sophomoric remarks about them.
Moving from trash talk to emotion, he
shows the collapse of WTC2 and says that, “We should never have to see this
again.” He says he is only showing it
to us so that he can put to rest some crazy claims. But he doesn’t say why we shouldn’t have to see it ever
again. He treats the audience like a
bunch of weepy children who can’t face tragedy and shouldn’t have to. But this is just emotional misdirection.
In fact Jillette is reinforcing the
official desired event-reaction, which is the look-away reaction. This is the desired reaction, since, while
seeming to offer sympathy for the victims and for the gravity of the event,
what it really does is prevent analysis.
You shouldn’t have to look at it, because if you do you may eventually
notice that it looks very strange. It
doesn’t look like a falling building should look.
But Jillette diverts the audience from
that possibility very quickly. He cuts
to the retired fire-chief Dan Daily, who is here to tell us that all analysis
of the event is “an insult to those who died.”
More emotionalism, that is.
Jillette introduces Daily with honey in his voice. He switches from saying “bullshit” every
other word to speaking with softness and deference. We only lack violins in the background.
What Jillette doesn’t tell you is that
a majority of firemen in New York City disagree with Chief Dan. Jillette doesn’t bother to interview any of
the firemen who are angry, who have been treated like garbage by Guiliani and
Bush, who have published many controversial things in their trade magazines,
and who believe that explosives were set in the buildings. I guess he believes we shouldn’t have to
hear that.
Finally
Jillette gets to the “meat” of the video segment, which is a couple of short
clips of Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid*.
Admittedly, these two guys aren’t very photogenic. Or, they are about as photogenic as Jillette
himself, but not nearly as loud.
Although they are heroes of the Truth movement in many ways, Walter and Hufschmid are better behind the camera than in front of it (a fact they would readily admit, I imagine). Jillette chose these dregs of his interviews in order to make all 911
questioners look goofy. But this is a
really cowardly method. I could dig up
some people who agree with Jillette, catch them on a bad hair day with a cold,
edit in the worst few seconds of their interviews, and run that as proof that
only geeks agree with Jillette. Would I
have therefore scored any points? Of
course not.
Not only is
Jillette basically dishonest, he is also wildly inconsistent. As proof, I take these three quotes of his
from an AskMen.com interview.
As much as the population of the United States is blind, there is a very strong sense that we like to hear people out.
You are
supposed to hear from people you disagree with.
The major
reason [narrow-minded] people are telling people to shut up is so other people
don't argue with them, so they don't have to accept the fact that they are
wrong.
Now
go to his 911 video with those quotes in mind. Does Jillette impress you as someone who likes to hear people
out? Only if “hearing them out” means taping them, editing them into gibberish
and then adding snide one-liners later.
If
Jillette were really smart and brave, he would interview or debate Webster
Tarpley, or at least, say, Ed Begley.
People who are used to being on camera and who can speak with ease. He would argue substantive issues, avoiding
emotionalism, ad hominem remarks, debating tricks, and snide
post-commentary. That is what a real
debate is about. It is not about your
strongest man against my weakest man.
It is about your strongest man against my strongest man. A strong man is not afraid to fight on even
ground. But Jillette prefers to be a
bully, a hulking loudmouth who only picks on the weak. And he can’t even talk to them like a
real man. He has to add his comments
later, possibly to avoid getting thrashed by someone half his size.
Jillette is so unbelievably vile he
finds it amusing to suggest to his audience that they push people they disagree
with “down a flight of stairs.” So
much for hearing people out. He says
that if a person is carrying a 911 conspiracy book, you should treat them with
prejudicial contempt and violence. Yes
indeed, don’t read the book and dismiss it for factual or logical reasons. No, burn the book before you are tempted to
read it, and attack the carrier for tempting you. The rational recommendations of a "vocal atheist." Interesting to see that the atheist Jillette can be just as illogical, exclamatory and obnoxious as the various deluded deists he loves to slander. It would appear that atheism is no guarantee of an open mind, or a well-functioning one.
*Unfortunately, Hufschmid has since gone off the deep end. I recently emailed him to ask a simple question and he responded by asking if I were a Jew and quoting Mel Gibson. Hufschmid has crossed far over that line between questioning the nastier manifestations of Zionism, as Norman Finkelstein does, and being a frothing racist. It would appear that Hufschmid left cogent analysis far behind several years ago, in favor of delusional paranoia.