Reality Based Reality
Some of the folks on the far left have taken to calling themselves the "reality based community". It doesn't matter that their brand of reality appears to be based in a different universe entirely from where everyone else lives. For an exercise, curious readers can go see what various reality-based folks are saying today about the WaPo article on the trailers. It's quite evident that being a member of the reality based community does not require critical reading skills or analytical ability.
For the people who tend to like their reality with a bit more actual reality, hard numbers and facts tend to dominate discussion. We'll call that the Reality Based Reality Community or RBRC for short. People in the RBRC tend to read media articles and think critically about what the author is saying and how it is being said. They also go and find actual numbers to back up what they say.
The tendency in that other community is to read an article then go find an analysis by a like-minded individual or three, trot those out and shout, "here's the proof". Now, the analysis (or three) they produce are all built around the same article they read and reach the undeniable conclusion that the original article was absolutely right. But they are elegantly worded analysis of the same flawed data or misdirection used in the original source.
This blog and a lot of others noted the slipshod New York Times reporting on the number of mid-level officers leaving the armed forces. Articles like that are added to the other "facts" the reality based folks use to build one of their elaborate sandcastles; The Army Is Broken™. Well, the RBRC, ever willing to dig out actual data rather than citing opinion disguised as fact has come out with this piece, by W. Thomas Smith, Jr. over at Townhall.com. It's a good read on the state of US armed forces.
By Sven, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 12:36 pm
How do you define “far left?”
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 12:42 pm
Fair question. Probably Kos crowd and outward would best fit the definition.
By Sven, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 12:50 pm
Jim Henley considers himself part of the “reality-based community,” as do many of his libertarian compatriots. A good chunk of liberal hawks like Matthew Yglesias do as well. Mark Kleiman, who voiced full-throated support of the war, has changed the name of his blog to The Reality-Based Community.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Well, if they’re actually dealing in reality, that’s fine. If they’re not - that’s another story, isn’t it?
The problem these days with labels - they are in constant change and open to interpretation.
By Sven, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 1:38 pm
So who’s dealing in reality, and who isn’t? Jim Henley accurately predicted in January 2002 that 1) the war was inevitable 2) we wouldn’t find nuclear weapons or even program-related activities 3) that the occupation would be a disaster. Most everyone else was in complete denial about one or more of those, and many continue to be.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 1:42 pm
So what’s your point? This post wasn’t on any of those subjects.
By Sven, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 1:51 pm
My point is that many members of the so-called Reality Based Reality Community also fail to think critically, and that the consequences are consequential.
By Gauis Arbo, Wednesday, 12 April , 2006 @ 2:10 pm
We kind of start from different places on a number of issues, Sven.