The attack of the Dilbert people.

One of the most mockable Dilbert characters is someone creator Scott Adams refers to as "Bizarre Absolute Guy," who insists on restating whatever you say in terms of "bizarre absolutes" simply for the sake of being able to refute a nonsensical and irrelevant position that you never took:

Dilbert: We should add this feature to our product to make it more useful.

"Bizarre Absolute" Guy: "Are you telling me that not one person on earth will use our product without that feature?!!"

Dilbert: "You just changed what I said into a bizarre absolute."

"BA" Guy: "Oh, I change everything you say?!"

Behold, the bizarre absoluteness:

WindAtMyBack said...

harebell, I certainly do doubt the content of Colvin's statements, if he is saying for a certainty that ALL detainees were tortured. How would he know?

It's the linguistic equivalent of listening to someone, then replying with, "So what you're saying is ...," followed by a complete and total mischaracterization of what was actually said.

I call it the "Twatsification" of modern discourse. Regular readers will understand why.

When life imitates Dilbert.

I've mentioned before how one of my favourite Dilbert cartoons involves the annoying friend or co-worker who insists on restating whatever you say in terms of "bizarre absolutes" just for the sake of being able to refute a nonsensical and irrelevant position that you never took, as in:

Dilbert: We should add this feature to our product to make it more useful.

"Bizarre Absolute" Guy: "Are you telling me that not one person on earth will use our product without that feature?!!"

Dilbert: "You just changed what I said into a bizarre absolute."

"BA" Guy: "Oh, I change everything you say?!"

So when you read about NDP leader Jack Layton doing this:

NDP warns government of election after 'undemocratic' surplus announcement

Alexander Panetta
Published Thursday September 27th, 2007

OTTAWA - Pumping almost all of the $14-billion surplus into debt-reduction rather than investing in Canadians is the kind of rigid conservatism that makes it likely the NDP will vote to topple the government next month, Jack Layton said Thursday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the massive surplus and added that it would be funnelled into debt reduction during an event in Toronto that had all the earmarks of a mid-campaign event.

His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending. The money must, by law, go into national debt-reduction and the interest savings - about $725 million - will go to tax cuts.

you wonder how many people will deliberately misunderstand that Layton is not criticizing paying down the national debt, he's only upset that virtually all of that surplus is being used to do so, rather than re-investing some of it back into social programs that the Conservatives cut for the alleged sake of fiscal restraint.

So who -- I ask you, who -- will be dishonest enough (or, for that matter, retarded enough) to re-interpret Layton's position into a meaningless bizarre absolute?

Well, there's this doofus:

Paying Down Debt is What? Irresponsible?

By Dave Hodson | September 27, 2007

Jack Layton has made a lot of stupid comments before, but today he has truly outdone himself.

In response to the Conservative plan to use the current budget surplus for debt repayment (which is required by law), Jack Layton made the following comment.

“This is not a reasonable approach - it’s irresponsible”

That’s right, Jack Layton actually thinks that paying down debt is an irresponsible thing to do!

And, to no one's surprise whatsoever, there's this shrieking airhead:

Who cares about the National Debt?

Not Taliban Jack and the loony left.

The Blogging Tories: Making even the parody of Dilbert seem prescient.

"AS REQUIRED BY LAW"? I'm confused by something here -- is it actually "required by law" that any and all surplus be applied to reducing the debt? Because if it is, then Layton's complaint is, of course, idiotic. If the law requires it, then the law requires it, and that's the end of the discussion. But that's not quite what the article above implies based on its wording:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the massive surplus and added that it would be funnelled into debt reduction during an event in Toronto that had all the earmarks of a mid-campaign event.

His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending. The money must, by law, go into national debt-reduction and the interest savings - about $725 million - will go to tax cuts.

The way I read that is that it was Harper's announcement that suddenly required the surplus to go to reducing the debt, as if he had a choice about it. And even then, who's to say what could be done with the interest savings?

Clearly, Harper is choosing to use the interest savings to fund tax cuts. But couldn't he just as easily have chosen to fund social programs with those savings instead? Can someone clarify this "required by law" notion? Is this actually a legal requirement?

When life imitates Dilbert.

One of my favourite Dilbert cartoons, from Scott Adams' book "Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel," pokes fun at a particularly weaselly debating technique which involves restating your opponent's statements using "bizarre absolutes" so that you can refute a subsequently nonsensical and irrelevant position:

Dilbert: We should add this feature to our product to make it more useful:

"Bizarre Absolute" Guy: "Are you telling me that not one person on earth will use our product without that feature?!!"

Dilbert: "You just changed what I said into a bizarre absolute."

"BA" Guy: "Oh, I change everything you say?!"

It's pretty embarrassing when you end up resembling the foil in a Dilbert cartoon, as "Kitchener Conservative" does back here when, after I complain about PM Stephen Harper's reclusive inaccessibility these days, KC replies in a bizarre absolute kind of way:

I guess what you must be saying is that Harper should run outside once a day between running the country and Question Period, so that every John Q. Protester can feel good that they can get picture taken with Harper present.

Tune in tomorrow when "KC" does his best impression of Dilbert intern Asok, who is convinced to crawl into the office ventilation system in an emergency attempt to shut down the Jeffries tubes in order to prevent an imminent warp core breach.

Norman Spector: Lying douchebag?

In order to give this issue the attention it warrants, let's fire up a new blog post and recap the Globe's Norman Spector:

On CBC radio last week, Liberal MP Derek Lee argued strenuously that he and any of his colleagues had the right to obtain any Afghan detainee document, and that MPs also had the right to make the documents public. No ifs, no doubts and no restrictions, according to Mr. Lee.

The question is simple: Did Lee really make those claims? Lines are open, and operators are standing by to describe Norman Spector as a douchebag.

AND IN CONCLUSION, I think we've safely established that Norman Spector is, in fact, a lying douchebag and, as "liberal supporter" suggests and as we've used as analogy a number of times here at CC HQ, he is playing the part of Dilbert's "Bizarre Absolute Guy":

Sane person: "I think Parliament has the right to request any unredacted documents it wants, and have those documents examined by a select committee with the proper security clearance."

Norman Sphincter: "Oh, so you think any MP has the right to see whatever he wants and show it to the public?"

Sane person: "Um, you just took what I said and changed it into a really stupid, bizarre absolute."

Norman Sphincter: "Oh, so I change everything you say!?!?"

Sadly, I suspect that's pretty much what happened.