In thinking about how to make a blog post out of this, I ended up in a circular, self-referential discussion about this with myself. Here is a comment I made on a video clip of the Bill Maher show.
Maher has some very good advice for himself. On a slight twist for what he is recommending for U.S. policy, maybe the people who say things about 9/11 that anger people should ask themselves, “Do I really want to do this? What’s the point?”
Yes, they have every right to say what they do. They even have a valid point. They even know that the reaction might be to their remarks might not be rational. As he says about the US putting bases in places like Saudi Arabia, “Do I really want to do this? What’s the point?”
The people who get angry about this kind of remark about our Saudi Arabian policy don’t want to take this advice any more than Maher wants to take the advice about being cautious with his own remarks.
What irony on both sides.
As I thought about including the video in this post, I had to ask myself, “Do I really want to do this? What’s the point?”
The point of this blog is only to allow people to think about the circularity about reasoning about this question. It might also raise some thoughts about applying such reasoning on the reverse side of related issues. Hence, the circularity of the whole discussion. And finally to the last part of the headline. If we want to have a conversation to figure out what to do, how can we have it?
Since I do not want to anger people, I am not going to embed the video in this post. I will give you a link to the item that has the video replay. Click on the link only if you really want to see the video. Maher, Moore defend Tony Bennett’s 9/11 comments.
To the mathematically inclined reader, shades of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.