By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
I never much liked Paula Deen’s cooking. Filled with butter and gravies and things like Krispy Creme Donuts for hamburger buns, Paula seemed too culinarily eccentric … to foodie excessive … too health oblivious even for a southern cook in 1813 much less 2013. Her story though, like her southern twang, had a certain charm to it: single mother of two left penniless makes ends meet by selling food-to-go out of her home kitchen and works her butt off until she reached the top of the sundae’s cherry with three shows on the Food Network and some spin off shows for her two sons.
That all ended Friday as a deposition of Ms. Deen was released. In that dep (in a case Lisa T. Jackson v. Paula Deen et al. involving a claim of racial and sexual discrimination by an employee of her restaurant, Uncle Bubba’s), Ms. Deen admitted to using the no-no of racial epithets in the past — the distant past, like 50 years ago. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript of Paula’s deposition to see just what I mean:
Q
Okay. Have you ever used the N word yourself?
A
Yes, of course.
Q
Okay. In what context?
A
Well, it was probably when a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head.
Q
Okay. And what did you say?
A
Well, I don’t remember, but the gun was dancing all around my temple.
Q
Okay.
A
I didn’t — I didn’t feel real favorable towards him.
Q
Okay. Well, did you use the N word to him as he pointed a gun in your head at your face?
A
Absolutely not.
Q
Well, then, when did you use it?
A
Probably in telling my husband.
Q
Okay. Have you used it since then?
A
I’m sure I have, but it’s been a very long time.
Q
Can you remember the context in which you have used the N word?
A
No.
Q
Has it occurred with sufficient frequency that you cannot recall all of the various context in which you’ve used it?
A
No, no.
Q
Well, then tell me the other context in which you’ve used the N word?
A
I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me.
Q
Like a joke?
A
No, probably a conversation between blacks. I don’t — I don’t know.
Q
Okay.
A
But that’s just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the ’60s in the south. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior.
Q
Okay
Realizing perhaps too late, the Deen Food Empire (books, utensils, cutlery, you name it) sprung into action. First a very public apology for sins past, then a new revised one on YouTube, the town square of our age, where Paula looking quite shaken literally begs for forgiveness. PC gods served? You tell me:
On cable TV shows up and down the msnbc roster, Deen was decried as racist, uncaring, and calls for her banishment from polite society became overwhelming. So much so that the Food Network pulled the shows and consigned Deen to places we reserve for the likes of George Wallace and Sheriff Bull Connor. But is that fair?
Deen grew up in place far away –temporally and culturally — from most of her critics and, as one who grew up in the same locales, I can tell you that her sin was a popular one in the South in the 60’s . Everybody who wasn’t white and rich had a name: wops, pollaks, heebs, rednecks, pope lovers, crackers, and yes those christened with the “N” word. And each group used the words liberally to each other and even among each other. I never saw a fight over the name calling but there were some close calls.
Surely it wasn’t a very hospitable place for African-Americans who bore the brunt of discrimination, but neither was it a hospitable place if you were poor, or Catholic, or ethnic, or anything other than wealthy, white and Protestant. That didn’t mean people weren’t civil to one another. By and large they were, but there was a palpable feeling of place and hierarchy that was enforced with a rigid caste system administered by state and local governments. That sat pretty well with the white elite who ran things back then.
But you should know those in power considered folks like Paula Deen no better that the “n*iggers” they brought in to do their cooking and cleaning and to raise their kids. Those “people” were there and free only by fiat of the government in Wershington and, by god, if that was the case they were going to be useful, or so it was thought.
The South changed and evolved in the ’60s and ’70s with the Civil Rights Movement as Dr. King’s words touched hearts both white and black and brightened them all. For those who wouldn’t listen, scenes of pregnant women blasted with water cannons and vicious police dogs attacking kids was surely enough. White people who drove pickups and worked in plants and farms started to realize that the folks who lived across the railroad tracks and who drove older pickup trucks and worked in plants and farms weren’t really much different from themselves and they had the same lack of control over their lives. The wedges of words that the ruling élite had no interest in curtailing melted away and it is clearly true that the advent of political correctness shown a glaring light on those southern dinosaurs who couldn’t or wouldn’t change.
Which brings us back to Paula Deen. Paula likely grew up in one of those same southern small towns like I did. She also likely made a distinction between “black people” (as they were called then ), who worked hard and raised their families as best they could under grinding poverty, and “n*ggers” who were seen as lazy, irresponsible, thuggish and no account. She likely came to learn that names reflect stereotypes and they can be and are often wrong; that people don’t fit nicely into boxes; and that, as Edmund Burke so wisely reminds us, you can’t draw up an indictment against a whole people.
Paula evolved and the South evolved. But the question remains for Paula and those like her: When is the sentence for violating political correctness over? When can you freely admit a mistake made decades ago without fear of reprisal? Not the criminal kind administered by the state, but the reprisal from the overlords of decorum who sit in ivory towers or corporate boardrooms and wax philosophic on all manner of society’s ills and largely for their own benefit ? When will a society committed to free expression allow itself to deal honestly with its past and say publicly a two-syllable word that most find offensive?
In my view, you don’t need a word that no one can utter. You don’t need to continually explain and apologize for sins made years ago in a culture far, far away if you’ve done it once and sincerely. And perhaps most importantly, you don’t need to feel society’s wrath for simply telling the truth about that society.
Paula Deen is no hero, but she is certainly no villain for growing up as she did and living as she did. When we master that fact perhaps we can overcome the racism that divides us even as we accept that our differences spring largely from things over which we have little control, and that we can come together in spite of ourselves if we forgive as freely and as often as we decry.
Source: Huffington Post
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Formal argument is deductive in nature.
A. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.
B. The conclusion contains no information not already present (at least implicitly) in the premises.
C. These properties suggest two corollaries.
1. Deductive reasoning is analytic; it requires no reference to the external world, and it may be counterfactual.
2. Deductive reasoning does not add to our store of knowledge; it merely rearranges it.
Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning, 2nd Edition, by Professor David Zarefsky (pg 12)
Tony,
“No it is not deductively correct; even if factual.”
Is there some very specific reading impairment that makes you read the word “formally” as the word “deductively”?
What a specific and fascinating form of aphasia.
“As an investigator, as I’ve said, you pick up on what people DON’T say as much as what they do.”
As a logician I’m going to point out you are making a logical error. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence – also known as the argument from ignorance – is an informal logical fallacy.
You have no right to an answer on “cross-examination”. You can ask a question if you like. I’m free to ignore it or tell you it’s none of your business. If you don’t like that people here are free to control the amount and kind of personal information they share, then you’re just going to have to live with it. Neither I nor anyone else posting here owes you answers about their life, nick. They’re all free to tell you to – as you so like to colorfully phrase it – “go shit in your hat”.
Deal with it.
This is turning into a logical orgy. Pretty kinky stuff for logicians!
Tony, As far as the pecking order, that’s my opinion. Some will disagree, others agree. Shall I put you down in the “Disagree” or Disagree Strongly” column.
Do you not understand what a syllogism is, Tony?
It’s a logical form.
To wit:
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
A form is not a fallacy.
It is a form.
A fallacy is something which may appear formally correct but isn’t.
In the case of syllogisms, there are a specific subset of fallacies that apply to them known as (shockingly) syllogistic fallacies.
They are:
Undistributed middle (as you pointed out),
illicit treatment of the minor term (similar to the fallacy of the undistributed middle),
exclusive premises,
affirmative conclusion from a negative premise,
negative conclusion from affirmative premises and
the existential fallacy.
These are all formal fallacies.
The form of a syllogism is formal and correct.
The application is improper.
When it is improperly applied, you get a formally logical fallacy.
Which you put a name too.
You have done nothing to change that the form “syllogism” is a correct form in and of itself.
As an investigator, as I’ve said, you pick up on what people DON’T say as much as what they do. I made a very valid point that you opened yourself up to cross examination by making yourself an expert on trials. You did not respond. Now, I know this is not a trial. But, if it were, I think it would be your first. I’ve forgotten more about trials than you have ever even known. I would suggest you stay off that topic, because your fly is down.
Tony, For the record, it’s Mike Spindell, not Spinelli. The mistake doesn’t bother me but I’m quite certain it bothers him. I don’t sweat small potatoes.
My apologies Tony.
I thought I was jumping on the notion that an argument cannot be deductively correct if it is counter-factual.
You are correct. Gene’s example is undistributed middle.
Oops, it was Bob saying it was deductively correct (it isn’t). But Gene, it is still formally bad logic, it is a fallacy.
Gene: No it is not deductively correct; even if factual.
All men found guilty at trial are humans (factual).
All men found not-guilty at trial are humans (factual).
All men found guilty are men found non-guilty. (paradoxical).
The problem is the middle term (humans) does not appear in the final statement; it has been deleted. As the superset surrounding two disjoint sets, erasing the superset leaves two disjoint sets; not two equal sets. The only equality is that they both are subsets of the same superset: Apples and Oranges are both members of the superset “fruit” but Apples are not Oranges.
It is not deductively correct, it is a fallacy. Google it. Look it up in a more authoritative forum. It is the fallacy of the undistributed middle.
Juliet: Nick says, “There’s a pecking order here no matter how much some will deny it.”
That is typical of Nick, he’s prone to making derogatory accusations and claiming his proclamations are true no matter what anybody says.
There is no “pecking order.” There are a few people (Gene H, Nal, Mespo, Elaine M, Rafflaw, Mike Spinell) (and not me) that Dr. Turley has invited to write posts on weekends, they have remote access to the crappy WordPress blog software in use here, and they can use that access to correct issues and enforce Dr. Turley’s rules on commentary.
That said, nobody has any authority in commentary other than their own claim to it. I will be ridiculed and vilified here if certain topics come up, but I will speak the truth as I see it, if others don’t care for it, tough luck. Steely eyes, soldier!
Sorry if I beat you to the syllogism, Bob.
Well that was a waste of time.
Tony C. “t is not formally correct logic. In fact, it is similar to the generalization fallacy I described earlier.”
Wrong Tony,
It is deductively correct yet counter-factual.
My favorite example is the following:
All celestial bodies are made of green cheese.
The moon is a celestial body.
Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.
The fact that premise number 1 is counter-factual bears no relevance as to the correct structure of the argument itself.
Tony,
Of course it is, but the form is a syllogism – a logical form. Read what I said again:
Something can, in fact, be formally logical and factually incorrect. Consider:
All UFOs are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.
Formally logical. Factual nonsense.
I just didn’t say why it was factual nonsense.
Thanks for filling in that blank though. I always appreciate a good assist.
Gene: All UFOs are beige.
All telephones are beige.
Therefore all telephones are UFOs.
There is a name for that fallacy, it is called “The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.”
It is not formally correct logic.
In fact, it is similar to the generalization fallacy I described earlier. UFOs are a proper subset of the things that are beige; telephones are a proper subset of the things that are beige; but UFOs and telephones can be non-intersecting sets. To take your example to an extreme; the fallacy would allow any two disjoint sets to be equal:
X is composed of particles.
Y is composed of particles.
Therefore all X are Y.
Or, replace “UFOs” with “guilty people,” “beige” with “human beings,” and “telephones” with “not-guilty people.”
All guilty people are human beings.
All not-guilty people are human beings.
Therefore, all guilty people are not-guilty people.
It is a fallacy, it can lead to a paradox.
nick,
Sorry if you don’t like that posters here have complete control over how much and what personal information they share. I don’t give a shit what your clients thought of you. I base any opinion I might have of you on your pretty much universally hostile exchanges since I first pointed out that a person “not being the mother of the year” was irrelevant to the injustice of her unconstitutional roadside stop and you responding with pure ad hominem gibberish. If you dislike that as a professional matter I think a zealous and diligent attorney should prep their witnesses personally? Too bad. You don’t get to determine my professional standards.
Really. Anger makes you make such basic mistakes. You should really be looking for your happy space instead of taking it out on others who quite frankly don’t care.
Mike S.: “Absolutely, and that has been the tenor of most of the arguments presented here by Mark, Bob and you. Look at the record objectively, if at this point that is possible for you three. You all have consistently used dismissal as a prime tactic and have used little evidence other that “we know better” to defend your position. As for the implication that I’m living in a “glass house”, perhaps but the truth is I’m capable of admitting I’m wrong publicly and on this thread at least Mark, Bob and you haven’t been able to give one inch though there is no logic to support the point you are making except a pronouncement of your superior logical wisdom.”
Mike,
You are the last person here who should lecture anyone on the use of logic.
After reading your post “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action” I must reiterate the following:
“My critique of your argument … [has] to do with your meandering from one feeling to the next and presenting it as if it were an argument. Your over reliance on feelings and your almost exhibitionist urge to rely on personal anecdotes to justify said feelings, as opposed to furthering the argument which you left dangling in mid air, is quite annoying in a Grandpa Simpson kind of way. (“so I tied an onion to my belt; which was the style at the time.” etc.)
Arguing is reason giving.
Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
When you make a claim and then attempt to support that claim by telling us how you feel or providing anecdotes to explain why you feel that way, you’re not making an argument. You’re not attempting to win the assent of your audience, you’re actually looking to win the assent of yourself; since the rest of us don’t go through life based on how Mike Spindell feels.”
Your article “Obama and the War on Drugs: Hypocrisy in Action” is proof of what I said above.
Jesus H. Christ, you’re so wrapped up in your feelings that you couldn’t even get the categories straight.
“You’re not attempting to win the assent of your audience, you’re actually looking to win the assent of yourself; since the rest of us don’t go through life based on how Mike Spindell feels.”
Bob,
I wanted to go, but one last word. You are absolutely right about me in that I’m not trying to win assent and/or approval. I admit it I love myself already, but I do set certain standards for me, judged alone by me. My blogs are all done because there is a subject I want to expound on. If someone agrees fine, if not too bad. You see Bob I don’t live by some dry philosophical principles, stuck in my head and ignoring the rest of my organism. I live by the Gestalt Philosophy as expounded by Fritz Perls and Dr. Marilyn Rosannes Berrett who trained me as a therapist. We don’t believe in a mind body split, with the mind as the control mechanism. We believe in the wisdom of our entire organism. As far as what you think of me I answer you once again with this:
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.
(Fritz Perls, “Gestalt Therapy Verbatim”, 1969)
nick,
Nemesis? I think you vastly overrate your relationship with me. You may like to think of yourself that way, but you only think you do. You wouldn’t like actually being my nemesis. Besides, I already got one and he’s nowhere near this blog. Your true nemesis here is the rules, nick. Always has been.