Unz评论•另类媒体选择$
美国主流媒体大都排除了有趣,重要和有争议的观点
 博客浏览约瑟夫·索伯伦(Joseph Sobran)档案
我和我的同类
通过电子邮件将此页面发送给其他人

 记住我的信息



=>

书签 全部切换总目录添加到图书馆从图书馆中删除 • B
显示评论下一个新评论下一个新回复了解更多
回复同意/不同意/等等 更多... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
同意不同意谢谢LOL轮唱
这些按钮可将您的公开协议,异议,感谢,LOL或巨魔与所选注释一起注册。 仅对最近使用“记住我的信息”复选框保存姓名和电子邮件的频繁评论者可用,并且在任何八个小时的时间内也只能使用三次。
忽略评论者 关注评论者
搜寻文字 区分大小写  确切的词  包括评论
列表 书签

Have you ever noticed that there is no such thing as honest and rational disagreement? Your own opinions are grounded in reason and truth, of course, but people who hold different opinions are stupid, dishonest, paranoid, or otherwise irrational. Their motives are evil, too. (The people who agree with you are generally a decent, sensible lot. No need to delve into their motives.)

Take me, for example. Having recently published a book on the Shakespeare authorship question, I’m discovering how crazy I am and how dark my motives are. As some of my readers may recall, I believe the real author of the Shakespeare works was the wayward 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

But the orthodox reviewers — those who believe that “Shakespeare is Shakespeare” — insist that there’s simply no room for honest doubt. So, rather than discussing the evidence on its merits, they feel compelled to explain why I, and others of my ilk, won’t admit a truth that is so radiantly clear to them. (Notice that nice people don’t have ilks. The moment someone refers to your “ilk,” you know you’re in trouble.)

One academic reviewer calls my views “multiculturalist” and “Marxist” (and these terms aren’t meant as compliments!). He adds that the anti-Stratfordians — those who question Shakespeare’s authorship — usually have “an ax to grind,” adding that “English upper-class snobbery fuels the questioning of Shakespeare’s authorship.” I didn’t realize I belonged to the English upper class. In the future, I’d appreciate it if you knaves out there would address me as “my lord” or, better, “your lordship.”

It isn’t just me. The defenders of Stratford’s son think the anti-Stratfordians in general have a thing about aristocrats. A British professor finds aristocrat-worship an American trait: “Over the years more than a dozen Elizabethan aristocrats have been dusted down and presented to the public as the true author of the plays. Americans have been especially fascinated by this bizarre pseudo-mystery. Perhaps because the only two things that the British have got and the Americans have not are Blue Blood and William Shakespeare, it has proved all too tempting to suppose that Shakespeare was an aristocrat in disguise.”

Another Stratford partisan surmises that we anti-Stratfordians are self-deluded pseudo intellectuals: “I believe that a large number, if not a majority, among our best and brightest secretly or not so secretly imagine themselves to be intellectual Columbuses…. Many of these would-be conquistadors have sought their El Dorado in an ironclad proof that William Shakespeare’s works were written by someone other than [the Stratford man].”

A Texan professor offers another psychological explanation: “Part of the anti-Stratfordians’ appeal is the anti-establishment cachet that goes with belonging to an exclusive group. As such, their purpose is not so much to expose the truth as it is to propagate an unpopular, often irrational, belief, rather like those who believe that behind every political assassination lies a conspiracy or that the Holocaust is a lie.” He calls the anti-Stratfordian position “a product of paranoia and our rampant culture of conspiracy.”

Oh, man! I’d better dial 911 and get a psychiatrist here, pronto! I’m a self-deluded, paranoid snob, the equivalent of a Holocaust denier, with no real interest in exposing the truth!

I knew I was a sinner, but until I questioned Shakespeare’s authorship I had no inkling of the true depths of my depravity. That goes for the rest of my ilk too. A bad lot!

Never mind who wrote Shakespeare’s works. The interesting thing here is that the orthodox reviewers can’t make their case with rational, impersonal argument. They feel compelled to adopt a tone of haughty scorn, making irrelevant ad hominem charges against large numbers of people they have never even met. Without these tactics, they seem to have no way to defend their position.

I’ve always met the same tactics in political debate. The defenders of an exhausted establishment can be relied on to attack their critics, accusing them en masse of evil motives, rather than to refute their arguments. So when people you disagree with have to smear you, take heart: It probably means you’re winning the debate.

(从重新发布 索伯兰的 经作者或代表的许可)
 
当前评论者
说:

发表评论-对超过两周的文章发表评论,将在质量和语气上进行更严格的判断


 记得 我的信息为什么?
 电子邮件回复我的评论
$
提交的评论已被许可给 Unz评论 并可以由后者自行决定在其他地方重新发布
在翻译模式下禁用评论
通过RSS订阅此评论主题 通过RSS订阅所有约瑟夫·索伯伦评论