Everything changed on 9/11…
Last week I began to notice the assertion “everything changed on 9/11″–especially as preceded by the ad populum fallacy “everyone knows.” I say “began to notice” because up until last week I have not encountered many situations in which someone actually spoke this assertion to me. I was certainly aware of it otherwise.
I noticed it because in each case my interlocutor wished to frame his/her remarks in a new reality that supposedly proved his/her conclusions, e.g. “Everyone knows that everything changed on 9/11, so we had to invade Iraq to fight terrorism.”
What does “everything changed on 9/11″ mean?
It cannot be literally true. Everything (pron.: All things or all of a group of things) most certainly did not change on 9/11. But “everything” also refers to “all relevant matters” and may also indicate “the most important fact or consideration.” In these senses it can be true.
A pronoun indicates a noun unless it acts as a subject place-holder (e.g. It is raining). What does “everything” indicate in this case? And if it indicates something specific included in “all relevant matters” and/or “the most important fact or consideration,” why is the ad populum fallacy a necessary precursor?
If everything changed on 9/11, it shouldn’t be necessary to say it.
Unless, of course, everything didn’t change on 9/11, and this is a rhetorical maneuver–a fallacy and enthymeme combination (a fallameme?)–designed to enhance the idea that those who don’t agree with the way things are going are _________.
Everything is relative to perception not abstract understanding or academic definition. My best informed guess is that
Nels… I like the idea that “everything” indicates a collective gasp.
Did ‘everything change’ on 911?
Andrew Cline wrote an interesting post about 911, and the phrase “Everything Changed.” I posted response in the comments on that page, but usually in attempt to be respectful and concise I try not to write massive comments, therefore I have return…
That collective gasp is how I think about the rational formation of thought surrounding the events of 911.
The idea that ‘everything changed’ was, of course, deliberately entered into the political discourse. It was done by a fellow named Frank Luntz, who advises Republicans. Among the things it does is give a sort of ‘free pass’ to the officials, Democrat and Republicans, who had been repeatedly warned about terrorism, but who had placed a low priority on it. It also helped the perception that President Bush had ‘changed’ from the unpopular crony capitalist people perceived before the attack.
These two messages were ones people wanted to believe. The phrase, then, entered the culture with some power, and has been a political football ever since.
It’s just cranks like me who want to shake people and tell them that every person who wrote about terror in the last ten years has said we were vulnerable, that far worse scenarios were considered far more probable, and that what ‘changed’, other than the horrible deaths and bereavements, was simply people’s awareness of the world. Well, and that’s overstating things, I know. There is a big difference between a hypothetical event and an actual one; people could not, being people, have learned about our vulnerability without some sort of shock like this. Still, we were vulnerable in 1988, in 1995, in 2000, and we (I hope) will always be vulnerable. Much has not changed.
,
-V.
What if Everything Changed for American Journalists on September 11th? My Speculations. (also at BOPNews)
Reactions
A very effective device to divert attention from analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed action. ‘Everything changed…therefore we must invade Iraq’. Fine, but what will be the end effect of this? Will it actually have any desired or beneficial effect? All these questions are too awkward; the person who starts with ‘everything changed…’ would rather you skipped pesky analysis like this.
So easy following a statement like this to deflect criticisms as attacking the first part of the statement, ‘everything changed’, rather than the second, ‘invade Iraq’, as being unpatriotic, unAmerican, undemocratic, obviously terrorist, we should shoot you/lock you up forever as well as invade Iraq!
My previous post starting ‘Avery effective device…’ was not intended to be anonymous. I tried to preview it and got a mysterious ‘Parse error’ then used post instead. It looks like it dropped my name and email address in the process.
I posted a response to this on my blog and tried to trackback, but obviously I’m inept. Or at least, slightly without ept. Somewhat ept-less.
Anyway, the link is here.
Stuart Maxwell said above: obviously I’m inept. Or at least, slightly without ept. Somewhat ept-less.
Since inept is derived from the Latin aptus according to my dictionary, it might be ‘non aptus’. But don’t quote me, my Latin stopped at Ernest K Gann’s ‘non carborundum illegitimai’.
Your link at ‘here’ above got lost. For others who want to see it, try http://www.stumax.com/. Have a look, it is magnificent.
Thanks for the catch, Graham, and the comment. Man, I can’t even be inept properly.