Denialism

Denialists’ Deck of Cards: The 2 of Hearts, “Bad Apples”

—

by

Chris
in

Yesterday, I discussed how “no problem” is a chorus in denialist rhetoric. But sometimes, something bad has happened, and it’s more or less impossible say “no problem” with a straight face. What can a denialist do?

i-3a98e902c2d2451ed6523a0e819bb2f7-2h.jpg The 2 of Hearts, Bad apples! Yes, to the extent that something bad may have happened, blame it on “bad apples.” You know the type. The barrel isn’t rotten. Therefore, there’s no problem! Remember, “no problem” is a chorus. Get used to saying or hearing it. i-26d3e2de9d40c67587ac1379dd0de514-2d.jpg

Watch for this important technique–a spokesperson from a trade group will make some guarantee that an industry won’t engage in some practice. This promise is illusory and cannot be enforced. Accordingly, it allows the industry to promise never to do what the bad apples are doing, while really not promising anything.

An example–a year ago, the DC attorney general brought suit against a company for not processing rebates. The lawsuit was based upon 2,000 complaints! Still, it was just bad apples! “‘We respectfully disagree with the Attorney General’s assertion…,’ Greg S. Cole, senior vice president and corporate treasurer (of InPhonic), said in a written statement. ‘Any time you’re dealing with millions of customers, as we are, there are going to be occasional concerns.’” Annys Shin, D.C. Sues InPhonic Over Rebate Restrictions, Washington Post, Jun. 9, 2006.

A variation on the “bad apples” argument is to say that a regulation should not be promulgated because bad apples won’t comply: “‘The irony is that do-not-call lists are not going to stop the bad apples in the industry,’ [Lou] Mastria [of the Direct Marketing Association] said. ‘They are not going to use the lists. The states would be better off targeting illegitimate telemarketing firms for enforcement.’” Direct Marketers Grappling with Proliferation of State No-Call Laws, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Sept. 23, 2002.

Comments

  1. MarkH

    I love the telemarketing use of it. Man was that a poor prophecy. I haven’t gotten a telemarketer calling me in something like 3 years, not even the bad apples seem to be getting through.

    Reply
  2. Roy

    Huh? I’ve been on the National Do Not Call Registry since the morning they began registration, and I’ve been getting at least twice the calls I got before that.

    That’s why I never answer the phone. If you want to talk to me, leave a message. If I know who you are, I may call back. Otherwise no.

    About 98% of the calls I get (I record them all) are not from people I know.

    Reply
  3. Chris H

    People have different experiences with DNCR, but overall, the FTC found that most people see a substantial decline in telemarketing calls. Some of what’s happening is confusion–business with which you have a relationship can still call you, so can non-profits and politicians.

    Reply
  4. Maugrim

    Out of curiosity, why has the Two of Clubs (No Problem) morphed into the Two of Diamonds above? Is this because it’s a different “No Problem” when it’s a result of Bad Apple arguments?

    Regardless, excellent, informative blog, and I can’t wait to read the rest of your planned posts.

    Reply
  5. Chris H

    Yes, it morphs. The first hand in the deck of cards is “no problem,” and so that argument is a chorus. You’ll hear it over and over again. This sounds boring, but it’s how it actually works in Washington! The next hand, “consumer education,” is much more linear, and the arguments become more complex and compelling.

    Reply
  6. Dirac

    This card was used prominently after Abu Ghraib.

    Was this torture scandal indicitve of the common practices of the military? Could the actions of the soldiers involved be explained in terms similar to those of the Stanford Prison Experiment, thus indicating a problem with the psychological environment set up for the guards?

    No, no, they were just a few Bad Apples! Send them to jail, problem solved!

    Reply
  7. Dunc

    Something I find particularly interesting about the “Bad Apples” defense is how it seems to have reversed the wisdom of the proverb it’s based on. Originally, the idea was that a few bad apples would spoil the whole barrel, whereas now the implication seems to be that if it’s only a few bad apples, there’s no need to worry about the rest.

    Reply
  8. GMB

    Can we have some EVIDENCE for the energy-deprivation-crusade?

    So far you denialists are showing your cards by continuing the leftist-evidence-filibuster.

    Reply
  9. MarkH

    Stop trolling GMB. We don’t need to deal with this crap.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *