Well, duh.

Sometime last week, I awoke to this statement on NPR (speaking about the new Supreme Court session):

"The conservative majority will continue to close the door to civil rights cases, but this should be welcome to business interest groups who are tired of lawsuits."

The implication, of course, is that conservatives don't care about minorities or civil rights, and are only agents out to further the ruthless march of capitalism. (They also like to beat up homeless people and kill baby seals). While we are used to the simplifications and easy dichotomies of lazy journalism, statements such as these dangerously limit public discourse. They are spoken in passing, in the tone of "well, everyone knows..." They creep into otherwise reasoned analysis, and by their off-handedness seek to create fact and consensus. Just like how all liberals hate capitalism. See? I call this the "duh" statement, and it is a powerful, if dishonest, rhetorical tool. It isolates the listener by breezing over unsubstantiated facts. It's so obvious, it doesn't need to be explained. But it robs issues of subtlety and nuance, and seeks to discredit any opponents through the use of sweeping generalizations. This type of remark seems to be increasingly common, and it's difficult to argue with. You either seem petty for squabbling about one measly sentence, or you have to be extremely well-read about the subject because it shifts the burden of proof onto you. So while this gave me a much-needed laugh at 7am, this genre of rhetoric can be a powerful persuasive tool.