Bush lets out his inner asshole

[Angakuk]

I will acknowledge that in this instance, as reported, Bush appears to have behaved rudely. I will also acknowledge that he has a history of such behavior. However, it still appears to me that, in this case, he recognized his rudeness and took steps to ameliorate its effects. As far as I can see, the facts that are in evidence, relative to this particular incident, are insufficient to justify any conclusions about his motivations for attempting to rectify the situation. In other words, the evidence is lacking that would allow us to characterize this specific act of rudeness as unabashed. Unless, that is, you are prepared to argue that Bush's character is such that he is constitutionally incapable of experiencing remorse for any of his actions.

While I think it is reasonable to take a person's past actions into account when evaluating some present action, I think we also run the risk of inferring too much. Speaking from my own experience, I have been rude, intentionally and unintentionally. I have been intentionally rude, and unrepentant. I have been intentionally rude and subsequently regretted that act of rudeness. I have been unintentionally rude and not regretted it. I have been unintentionally rude and regretted it. It is likely that I have been unintentionally rude and never had that fact brought to my attention. I have also been accused of rudeness in situations where I could find no justification for the accusation. I have often said and/or done things in social situations that my wife thought were rude, and I couldn't, for the life of me, understand why she thought that.

The assertion that someone has acted rudely is an assertion of fact, a fact which is wholly dependant upon the operative definition of rudeness. As such it is not necessarily a moral judgement, unless one's definition of rudeness includes an intention to act rudely. Otherwise, the observation of rudeness is just that, an observation that depends upon the observer's definition. However, the assertion that someone has been unabashedly rude implies that the person should have felt embarrassment or shame for their behavior, and did not. Should is a moral operator and its implied presence identifies the assertion as a moral judgement. Further, it suggests that the observer is competent to assess the other's mental and emotional state. That is sheer hubris.

So, what are the facts of the case? Bush behaved in a manner that most people would describe as rude or boorish. Or, at the very least, thoughtless and insensitive. He also (for whatever reasons) took steps to ameliorate the damage caused by that behavior. The rest is pretty much just speculation and moralizing.

[mickthinks]

Hello They!

The Head of State must be held to a higher standard than the people within that state.
I would agree that in a community that claims to have shared ethical values, the leaders should meet the highest standards of behaviour.

However, a society which says "We've decided to set you a moral standard that we aren't going to set for ourselves" doesn't seem to me to be a very moral one. And a society which says "We've set you a high standard to meet, and when you are being judged against it, we're going to use a lower standard of justice for you than we demand for ourselves" is a corrupt one.

To paraphrase Milamber "He has been judged and found wanting." Wow! Milamber's very pompous, isn't he!

Incidentally I'd love to have a beer with him, just so he can say something stupid to me and I can glass him.
Yeah, OK - I get the message! I think that when we are making moral judgements, if we care about the integrity of our values then we need to keep our emotions under control, even when we're judging our enemies.

Come to think of, that should read "especially when we are judging our enemies".

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Thanks viscousmemories!

These little passive aggressive greetings at the beginning of your little rants is adorable. Please don't stop!

LOL! Just because the Romans have a name for it doesn't prove it's a bad thing!

Of course your abusive ad hominems aren't a "bad thing" just because the Romans have a name for them. They're a "bad thing" because they reveal shoddy reasoning.

Tell you what; if you apologise for your unprovoked "Don't be silly!" ad hominen, I'll take this complaint seriously. Otherwise, viscous, may I suggest you shove it right tight up your GW!

Sorry, but my comment was not an ad hominem argument. It would be an ad hominem argument if I had said "you're argument fails because you're being a silly twat". Just pointing out that you're being a silly twat before explaining why your argument fails isn't fallacious, it's just a courtesy.

[mickthinks]

These little passive aggressive greetings
I think this is plain, unabashed rudeness, viscous. It makes you look as if you're losing it! Please can you try to stay a little more focussed?

Mick

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The assertion that someone has acted rudely is an assertion of fact, a fact which is wholly dependant upon the operative definition of rudeness. As such it is not necessarily a moral judgement, unless one's definition of rudeness includes an intention to act rudely. Otherwise, the observation of rudeness is just that, an observation that depends upon the observer's definition.

When a group is discussing whether a public figure behaved rudely, I don't think the operative definition of 'rudeness' amounts to whatever each of their subjective definitions might be. I think it depends on their (usually prior) inter-subjective agreement. As you go on to say, most people would describe Bush's behavior in this case as rude or boorish, or at the very least thoughtless and insensitive. I believe you're absolutely right. Thus there appears to be prior inter-subjective agreement that 'rude' at least approximately describes Bush's behavior in this case, and there seems to be a general consensus (at least around here) that it's inappropriate for the President of the United States to demonstrate bald-faced rudeness to his constituents at a press conference. I don't know if that's a moral judgement or not, but I do believe it's a reasonable conclusion that doesn't necessitate mickthinks' assumption that it's motivated by journalistic spin, feminist brainwashing or blinding anti-Bush prejudice.

[JoeP]

Sorry to derail the thread slightly, but...

Originally Posted by Uthgar the Brazen

Since the idea of a presidential library for this knuckle-dragger is ludicrous, maybe we should come up with something more appropriate to commemorate his stay in the Oval Office.

A public toilet in the DC subway, for example.

I received this the other day:

A tragic flood this morning destroyed the personal library of President Bush. The flood began in the presidential bathroom where both of the books were kept.

Both books have been lost. A presidential spokesman said the president was devastated, since he was almost finished coloring the second one.

[viscousmemories]

[Freddy]

I do not like Bush period. However, I agree his remark to the question was not polite, especially to a young person. Bush did try to make amends by telling the girl several times that she asked a good question. Then later he met with her and her family. It looks like he made a mistake , realized it, and did his best to fix it. His motivation may have been genuine, damage control , or some of each. If he had not made the attempts to make amends I would have said he was rude. I have lots of other reasons not to like Bush, but this is not one of them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by vm

Thus there appears to be prior inter-subjective agreement that 'rude' at least approximately describes Bush's behavior in this case, and there seems to be a general consensus (at least around here) that it's inappropriate for the President of the United States to demonstrate bald-faced rudeness to his constituents at a press conference.

Excepting the superfluous adjective, I would agree. However, that superfluous adjective is the point. It is not enough for you to say that Bush was rude. You don't appear to be able (or willing) to refer to that rudeness without characterizing it in a manner that necessarily implies intentionality and lack of remorse, whether or not you have sufficient grounds to assert either. That is the particular spin you are putting on his actions. It appears to say much more about your attitude toward Bush than it does about Bush's behavior toward that teenager. Which, I suppose, may be why you are doing it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Of the two incidents in the OP, I'm inclined to think the first represents "asshole-ish" behavior insofar as it very clearly indicated his contempt for the reporters. It's hard to believe he didn't realize he was insulting them, though I suppose it's possible.

The incident with the little girl, I suspect, was quite unintentional on his part, and so not exactly "asshole-ish." Rather, I suspect it's indicative of his general lack of empathy for others. He clearly recognized his mistake and tried to correct it, which indicates that he hadn't intended to insult her. Whether his attempts to correct his mistake were motivated by a genuine sense of remorse or simply a desire to avoid bad PR is harder to say.


Bush has a very well-established history of showing very little -- if any -- empathy for others. People who meet him almost always claim that he can be very charming when he wants to -- but that he has almost no sense of empathy is also a very common claim. Apparently, he's a sufficiently skilled politician to play the charm game when it's necessary, but he seems to regard most people as more or less beneath his notice. And he's (in)famous for his short temper whenever anyone dares to openly disagree with him.

Though he plays the "Aw Shucks" charming politician very well for interviewers, he'll occasionally slip up and say something that reveals his appalling lack of empathy. In that sense, he's very-much like his mother. She, too, is famous for her ability to put on a "Kindly Grandmother" routine when it suits her, but she'll occasionally slip up and say something that indicates her almost total lack of empathy for those she considers beneath her -- soldiers, for instance, or the victims of Hurricane Katrina.



Anyway, my suspicion is that the first incident was truly "asshole-ish" behavior. He seems to hold the Washington Press Corps in contempt, and wasn't particularly trying to hide it. In other words, he really doesn't care what they think of him, it seems.

The second incident, I suspect, was unintentional and reflected his lack of empathy, rather than any desire to be rude or hurtful. He was rude and hurtful, of course, but unintentionally so, I'm sure. His attempts to rectify the damage might well have had nothing to do with any sense that he'd done anything wrong -- a sense of remorse doesn't seem to be part of his makeup -- but he clearly recognized that he'd made a mistake, and so he does care what people think about him in such instances. It may well be that he didn't give a flying rat's backside about the girl's feelings (in fact, I would guess that he didn't), but he certainly doesn't want to be seen as someone who would be mean to a child.


Cheers,

Michael

[Watser?]

Exactly. I was wondering why everyone keeps focusing on the second incident, I thought the first incident was much more rude and obviously intentional.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

...the Washington Press Corps corpse

[The Lone Ranger]

Certainly, I don't have either the expertise or the evidence to make such a diagnosis, but I'd like to throw out the possibility that Bush is a "high-functioning autistic." It would explain a lot of his behavior.

Many high-functioning autistics are skilled observers and actors, and can mimic empathy at will, but they nonetheless have a very limited capacity for actual empathy, and so will "slip up" every now and then and say something that most people would regard as incredibly rude or insensitive.

That would seem to describe Bush's behavior very well. High-functioning autistics aren't especially noted for taking criticism personally, however, and Bush is infamous for how angry he can get whenever anyone dares to disagree with him.



So, it seems to me that a more likely "diagnosis" is simply that he's been raised with an enormous sense of privilege and that he's been taught that the feelings and opinions of those who are "beneath him" are unimportant. That would be in perfect correspondence with his behavior toward others.

Cheers,

Michael

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not enough for you to say that Bush was rude. You don't appear to be able (or willing) to refer to that rudeness without characterizing it in a manner that necessarily implies intentionality and lack of remorse, whether or not you have sufficient grounds to assert either.

Not true! I conceded that 'unabashed' was unduly presumptuous and went in search of a descriptor that was more justified by the evidence. I specifically chose 'bald-faced' because according to the dictionary I looked at it means "brash; undisguised" - and one definition of 'brash' is "lacking in sensitivity or tact". In truth that's closer to what I meant in the first place: that Bush, in typical fashion, made no attempt to conceal his rudeness. I didn't really know what 'unabashed' meant until I was criticized for using it.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Hello They!

The Head of State must be held to a higher standard than the people within that state.
I would agree that in a community that claims to have shared ethical values, the leaders should meet the highest standards of behaviour.

However, a society which says "We've decided to set you a moral standard that we aren't going to set for ourselves" doesn't seem to me to be a very moral one. And a society which says "We've set you a high standard to meet, and when you are being judged against it, we're going to use a lower standard of justice for you than we demand for ourselves" is a corrupt one.

I wouldn't speak to a child like that. Would you? Unfortunately I'm not American, so I'm not allowed to apply my value judgements against Bush. Most Americans, however, also wouldn't talk to a child like that, so Bush shouldn't have either. You seem to be avoiding the point that the Head of State is more than a person, they are the face, the embodiment of a nation.

To paraphrase Milamber "He has been judged and found wanting." Wow! Milamber's very pompous, isn't he!

*Here's the reference.........*Here's you. Never mind.

Incidentally I'd love to have a beer with him, just so he can say something stupid to me and I can glass him.
Yeah, OK - I get the message! I think that when we are making moral judgements, if we care about the integrity of our values then we need to keep our emotions under control, even when we're judging our enemies.

Come to think of, that should read "especially when we are judging our enemies".

Mick

Some of the best judgements on a person are at a 'gut' level. An instinctive like or dislike of a person is generally borne out by later events. So no, don't keep emotion out of judgements.

[Dingfod]

Bush getting his inner asshole let out:

[Angakuk]

It looks like his outer asshole is getting a workout as well.

That picture could use some word balloons.

Guy on the left: "Am I getting a rise out of him yet?"

Guy on the right: "I can't tell. Let me get a magnifying glass."

Guy in the middle: "Will someone please tell me when we are done?"

ETA: A major milestone. This post is post "M".

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

ETA: A major milestone. This post is post "M".

Photographic (so to speak) evidence:

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by mickdoesn'tthink

LOL! I can't even remember what it's like to be a woman, Sock! I'm not sure why this matters.

Mick

It doesn't; you don't have the gray matter to comprehend what I was getting at, so never mind.

[mickthinks]

LOL! You think I'm too stupid for you to argue with, Suck Pecker! Then I can depend on your future silence? Sounds good to me!

Mick

[Sock Puppet]

Oh, I can't guarantee that. You're such a precious example of juvenility wrapped in a thin cocoon of verbosity that I might feel compelled to fuck with you now and again.

[BDS]

My two cents: "Yeah, thanks" was not an attempt to make fun of anyone but Bush himself -- as in, "Yeah, thanks -- just the question I didn't want to answer." It was (perhaps) insensitive of him to respond sarcastically to a child... nobody would have objected if Bush responded that way to a grown up.

Of all Bush's sins, this is one of the least significant.

The incident does demonstrate some of Bush's lack of political and social skill (but even that demonstration is minor).

Unintentional rudeness can (I think, as opposed to Angukuk) be immoral -- it demonstrates a lack of concern for social niceties that implies a lack of concern for the feelings of others that implies a lack of charity ("I give you these three...." -- Corinthians).

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

a precious cocoon I feel compelled to fuck

Wow! You're a pupae fucking Sock Cucker!

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm... A freshman hazing here, Sock?

I see you've all got him already labelled...what more do you need?

Soon, mick, your horizons here will diminish considerably. You've pissed off the 'girlie gang'.

[viscousmemories]

That's right, mick. Despite your tireless demonstrations of kindness and charity from your very first post on this thread, you have been targeted for abuse by the cynical and sociopathic forum elite - led by yours truly.

Or maybe you just got as good as you gave, as even happens to delicate little flowers like godfry from time to time.