I would like to start by saying that I haven’t been following every one of the conversations on this blog recently because of time constraints, and also for the general bloviating that has been occurring. In commenting to posts, people have taken writings by other posters and read them through their own particular biases and beliefs. Nothing wrong with that – we all do it.
However, as a reader, a contributor, and an intelligent person, the veiled and not-so-veiled “he’s a big poo-poo head” comments recently have started to concern me. It seems that contributors have moved away from serious conversation and debate and have descended into mud-slinging and semantics. Seriously, aren’t we a little more mature and confident in our beliefs than that?
Some things in the last several posts/responses that have jumped out at me now follow. I have a lot more, but these in particular stood out. And no, I'm not "picking" on anyone, so don't go there.
“I'm given to wonder what you expected when you decided to create this blog and invited intelligent people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds to have an ongoing and reasoned discussion and/or debate about the issues of the day.”
Here’s what I expected – intelligent people of diverse beliefs and backgrounds to have an ongoing and reasoned discussion and/or debate about the issues of the day. I think we all expected that…maybe not. Is that what is occurring? Not so much anymore. Reading through the comments was more of Laws and Surveillance Redux was more of a playground fight than a debate.
“We can’t stop just because you don’t have the answers to our questions” – ok, fine. Since when has anyone had all the answers to every question that has been asked of them? If there is no answer (and I’ve had questions answered with “I don’t know how to respond to that”), move on. That seems pretty arrogant to assume that every question will be able to be answered – doesn’t happen in life, isn’t going to happen on a blog.
Based on the dominant personalities on this blog, people are not going to change their worldview just because others do not agree with them. Think about what they believe, why they believe it, and how to articulate and defend that belief? Yes. Become more informed about what other people think? Yes. “Convince” people that they are wrong? Not likely.
“Quibbling” is a term that flies around in responses. In many of the contexts I’ve read, it appears that “quibbling” is a snarky way to say “I’m going to ignore what you said because I think you’re wrong and your point isn’t worth it”.
“You don't have to concede that you are wrong. Merely state the truth. Repeat after me, "I believe what I believe because I believe it. My President would never harm me, unless he were a panzy-ass Democrat with no taste for war. Otherwise, any Republican President who agrees with my already held beliefs may do anything he pleases to see that my agenda is made real. By definition, it is good because I say it is."” That is reasoned discussion and debate?!
If we are intelligent people having reasoned discussion and debate, let’s do it. If we are going to stomp our feet when others either a) don’t agree with us, b) don’t answer every single question we ask, or c) ask us questions we don’t like, take that discussion off list. I know every contributor on this list and I certainly know that we are all capable of acting like intelligent adults.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Factors
Posts
The Fans
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(123)
-
▼
April
(30)
- A recession recession
- Speaking of battles
- Nationalized Healthcare...
- Jetpack Watch (Part MCXVIII)
- Momma Said Knock You Out...
- It's all about Personal Responsibility
- Meanwhile, at the Battle of "Contributing Factors"
- In Light of Recent Developments...
- Cold Civil War?
- A biased post about biased review of a biased book...
- Re: Journalistic Integrity, Media Bias, Objectivit...
- Against contempt
- We're on the right track
- Slipping between the cracks
- Victor, Victor, he’s our man…
- A Modest Proposal
- Facts and Opinions
- Balance Unlooked For
- Free Tibet?
- An Interesting Anniversary
- Hmmmm...
- Words By Which To Live
- Laugh about it, shout about it...
- Cuba libre
- ...and you must speak JAVA
- If you read it on the Internet, it must be true.
- I Lied About Surveillance and So Did Mike Mukasey
- I would like to start by saying that I haven’t bee...
- Laws of surveillance
- Laws and surveillance redux
-
▼
April
(30)
14 comments:
"Big poo-poo heads" would be a great title for this post. Being one, I like it.
They started it.
And by they, of course, I mean the poo-poo heads.
And by poo-poo heads, of course, I mean me. I think I was the one who introduced the word "quibbling" to the blog. Sorry about that one.
Does this mean I have to stop poking Denny with a stick? I'm gonna need a new hobby...
Oh, ow, quit it!
Oh, ow, quit it!
Oh, ow, quit it!
I didn't look hard enough to find the first posting of "quibbling" - the current usage of the word to dismiss others' ideas is annoying. Nothing to be sorry for - you can't help the drift of word meaning!
Scott, poke all you want...just don't get mad when you get poked back by someone!
Just thought of this - your new hobby could be preparing your campaign for public office!
As one of the transgressors Keba takes to task, I'd like to say that I have never promised to always engage in "reasoned discussion and debate," and I won't do so now. Sometimes I just want to enjoy the fun of, as Scott put it, "poking [someone] with a stick." It doesn't HAVE to be Denny, but so far he has made the biggest target. Plus, sometimes you people piss me off. I try not to hold that against you in perpetuity, and I hope you'll accord me the same courtesy. On balance, though, I think the majority of my comments as well as Scott's, Chris's and Denny's have been made in good faith and to the point (or at least we have attempted to be to the point, allowing for those times where we stray in the confusion).
As for the "quibbling" issue, I specifically chose not to "quibble" with Denny on some of his statements because I didn't have the time to engage him on all fronts and felt that it was a better use of my time to confront him on more major and substantive points. A long side discussion about whether the President should break the law for expedience seemed to be, well, a long side discussion. I wasn't trying to dodge an issue by use of the word.
I sometimes get sucked into becoming emotional about what I read here and sometimes it leads to less than considerate commentary on my part. I have also gotten sucked into thinking that minds can be changed. I keep forgetting that it's not really going to happen.
So for the rest of you and as a reminder to my future self, here is why I post here: it is NOT to change anyone's mind. I do it to ensure that points of view that I see as ill-informed, ill-considered, factually incorrect, logically flawed, or morally and ethically reprehensible aren't allowed to stand unchallenged.
This is not to say that all of anyone's post or comments fall into all or any of those categories. I'm just saying that those are reasons I may spring to life and respond to a comment. I sometimes also respond in support of posts and comments I see as valuable, well-thought-out, etc. And, of course, from time to time I will make a post to put forth my own views on an issue.
As much as I criticize many of Denny's points of view, I applaud him without reservation for creating a blog that allows opposing views. That is especially commendable since he has ultimate control over who posts here and even whether a post is left to stand. And he does this despite all forays into less kind, more personal comments. Denny, I have to give you props for taking the proverbial punch. I cannot fault you for that.
Finally, for the record, I don't think any of you are "big poo-poo heads." I think some of you are occassionally or regularly wrong . . . .
Mudslinging, yeah, I'll cop to that in so much as I've allowed myself to make more personal comments and innuendos about some people's intelligence, etc. Not so much about the semantics since some of what we're talking about relies specifically on the definition of the terms we're using. We HAVE to be semantic about certain things if for no other reason than to establish a common vocabulary.
And while we're lobbing criticisms over the wall, I think it is fine for you to post whatever you want, Keba, but I think it is a little cheap to abstain from any substantive commentary about the issue and then rush in to chastize those of us who have been in the middle of it. You may not be picking on anyone, as you say, but I can't help but notice in all of your examples that Denny's behavior comes up not once. I'll accept that the comment I made was the most egregious, but really, you couldn't find anything your husband said that might have contributed to the general tone you're commenting about?
The others on this blog might know you well enough to know you are credible and/or may be too polite to point that out, but as someone who doesn't know you, I'm not sure I care to be lectured about being too personal by someone who seems willing to only cast her observational darts in one direction.
I hope that doesn't sound like feet stomping to you; I think it is a legitimate point to make. If your point was truly not intended to pick on anyone, why not choose a more representative sampling of comments for your examples. Otherwise, your attempt at polite fairness just sounds disingenuous.
And with that, I'm withdrawing from the surveillance debate. I'll be happy to correct any factual errors that I might know of, but I think we've clearly established our positions, and I don't see us moving off of them anytime soon.
So you're saying because my word count isn't as high as yours that my points are invalid?
I picked the examples I did because they jumped out at me, plain and simple. They happened to be from you and Scott. I had no interest in searching the entire archives to find examples from every contributor. If that is "picking on you" in your mind, so be it.
And so you know a little more about me, I have a master's degree in Spanish Language and Literature from UC, and I actually work across campus from you.
That's an interesting interpretation of my comments and one that borders on just the kind of emotional response you cautioned us about.
Word count has nothing to do with the validity of your comments, of course. I found many of your comments to be off the mark. Your most valid point was made about the "oath" I dared Denny to take. Most of your criticisms of Scott were not so valid in my opinion.
I'm not at all surprised that Scott's and my comments were the ones that "jumped out at you" as objectionable since the only other person active in the discussion was Denny, your husband. Many of your criticisms betrayed a standard I dare say you didn't hold Denny to, at least not publicly. That's your preprogative and, of course, it's possible I'm wrong in my assessment.
Despite all that I don't feel picked on. I just find your implied claim of -- I don't know what you want to call it, fairness? -- to be suspect. I think you were aware of this risk from the beginning since you preemptively tried to head off any criticism of your comments as biased with your "don't go there" statement.
I look forward to more commentary on the issues from you.
I don't think "fairness" is the right term for it. Just from reading through all of the comments from several of the posts, I was intrigued by the, in my opinion, personal attacks flying around. Personal attacks have never seemed to be a mature way of dealing with disagreement - hence the "big poo-poo head" designation.
You charge me with not pulling quotes from Denny. From the posts I read, I did not see anything that he wrote that went to the extent as the quotes I used. I will repeat, in case it was missed in my previous comment, I did NOT read every single post/comment to find a quote.
And you are wrong - I was not trying to head off criticism with the "don't go there". I'm a teacher - criticism is part of the job. I was heading off any possible claims of "that's not fair".
Here's hoping we can piss each other off and still be civil about it!
Oh for the love of... I made light of this because I wanted to remain a voice of reason, but you keep dragging my name...
Look... The quotes of mine you pulled out of my post were displayed out of context.
I. Never. Attacked. Anyone.
I'm trying to understand how Denny arrived at his conclusions so that I may understand how better we can find common ground (as we have in the past and since) or - if no compromise is truly possible - abandon the board for lack of materiel.
Denny and I will never agree on many of these issues. But we've known one another long enough that we can seek to understand one another and we can talk about it. And if you read the whole post, the parts you left out are the repeated calls for order, civility and stability by figuring out why we're here and how to proceed when no one wants to answer questions or address the same issues.
I made no personal attacks. There is no poo on my head or mud on my hands. Please leave me out of this.
"I will repeat, in case it was missed in my previous comment, I did NOT read every single post/comment to find a quote."
I didn't miss it at all. What I'm trying to tell you is that if you want to be perceived as fair, you SHOULD have read further than you did and made a good faith effort to include Denny in your commentary.
"And you are wrong - I was not trying to head off criticism with the 'don't go there'. I'm a teacher - criticism is part of the job. I was heading off any possible claims of 'that's not fair'."
I think you should read what I wrote again because you've claimed I'm wrong here, but your explanation proves I was right -- you were trying to head off criticism -- or claims -- of not being fair. I don't think it is a stretch to consider a claim of not being fair relatively synonymous with "criticism of your comments as biased."
A Host of Contributing Quibblers...
Post a Comment