Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket
To me, more than just pointing out the earmark, the comment was made to appeal to a certain group that the earmark is wrong because research with fruit flies is absurd and therefore discountable. Why else would she bring that up without explaining why it's specifically pork barrel spending?
|
I know that, and you know that. But you and I also know that it doesn't matter. She was speaking within the context of earmarks and has a very specific example to refer back to. By responding with an example that is not within that context, you open yourself up to the, "You're changing the subject. This isn't about pro or anti science, this is about earmarks and pork!" It's dumb, it's disingenuous, but it's politics. I wish we could just call everything like it is, but that ain't reality. We've got to be smarter than them and not fall for those traps.
ETA: The smarter way to break through that is to start with the valid-within-the-context point that researching olive fruit flies absolutely serves the public good. Then, once you've made that salient case, move on to say, "...but beyond that, there is an implication there that there is no value to fruit fly research in general..." But the bloggers that have picked up on that aren't playing it that way, they're going straight for the kill with the autism card and it's easy to call them on that and turn that back on them with, "Aha! You're turning it into a personal attack on her!"