posted
In my previous post I appear to have offended OSC and I would just like to say I do appreciate this site and his work. I did find some of the points interesting, however I never intended to point out the parts where this man insulted him personally. Personal attacks are never warranted or well founded nor would I enjoy it if OSC were to come to my hometown and insult me. OSC I think your a great writer and have enjoyed many of your works, and hopefully will for some time to come. Again I want to apologize if you have taken any offence to my posts.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just rubbed it in a little in a different post about how he shut you down, but now I feel kinda bad about it. Good on you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reshpeckobiggle, I read your comment on the other blog and I appreciate your comment. However I hope you realize that I never stated, "I hate OSC" as an argument. A thread that breaks down to name-calling is not an argument, and as such OSC is totally justified in locking the post up. However my real question was never really addressed so the argument in my mind is not over but I know when to quit. (wink)
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that I thought you said "I hate OSC." And I don't know if you are saying that I said that you said you hate OSC. And if you are saying that I said that you said that you hate OSC, then... I got lost. Anyway, sure. It's the internet and we all feel freer to say things a little bit more bluntly. I wonder how much that's bleeding over into society...
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch. Even gracious apologies can turn into spats if we're not careful! <grin>
War Chief, your initial post was obviously not malicious in intent. That's why I didn't delete the thread entirely the moment you posted it. But the links were to sites that WERE offensive and malicious (not to mention dishonest and stupid <grin>).
So ... apology accepted. You really CAN discuss my work here as freely as you want - there are plenty of negative comments. But you can't link to a site that is full of personal attacks and then claim you were only linking to the parts that contained interesting ideas - the link was to the whole site.
So in future, why not just discuss the idea, without links, and without citing people who have shown that they hate me beyond the possibility of rational discourse?
As long as the discussion does not become personal ("why would someone write the vile things that Card writes?" would be personal, as it is directed to motive and takes the vileness as a given - just as an example, not that you said anything like that) then I'll leave it alone. There are dozens and dozens of examples of my doing exactly that.
By the way, the personal attack doesn't have to be directed at ME to be unacceptable. I got weary, a few months ago, of the people who zero in on anybody who dared to support some statement of mine and hounded them into silence - the effect was to make it so that the only opinions that could be freely expressed were the ones OPPOSING me. But some of the people who were the worst offenders in that unfortunate practice are still here in Hatrack (though for the life of me I don't know why they keep coming back, since except for an occasional patronizing pat on the head, they seem to hate everything I've done) - so it's especially galling when I get accused of not allowing "free" and "open" discussion. I don't know of an author website where people are more free than here to criticize and disagree with the host of the site. So such criticisms of Hatrack are not just offensive, they're simply wrong, as I see it, anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ...I don't know if you are saying that I said that you said you hate OSC. And if you are saying that I said that you said that you hate OSC, then...
Hey, let's not play he said I said you said/she said you said I said. Nobody wins those arguments. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: ....though for the life of me I don't know why they keep coming back, since except for an occasional patronizing pat on the head, they seem to have everything I've done
I'd guess that the people you're referring to are here because they appreciate the community, regardless of their opinion of the work that you've produced. I know that in my case, while I do like the majority of your novels and virtually all of your short stories, I'm not actually here because of that. Or more accurately, that is why I initially visited the site, but not why I've stuck around. There are plenty of authors whose work I've liked enough to search out their webpages, but I haven't been a frequent repeat visitor to their sites because there hasn't been a vibrant community to draw me in and engage me on a daily basis.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All well and good - I don't mind that a bit. In fact, I think you describe MOST of the people here. And I'm glad Hatrack is the site of a living community. It does not explain the people who simply cannot let anything I say or do go uncriticized on my site - and even bring in bags of garbage from other sites to dump on my living room floor. I simply can't fathom the impulse that prevents them from simply ignoring me. It's easy enough to do. Simply don't read anything I write that's posted here, and concentrate on what you came for ... no one requires that you agree with me or like what I say or do. We don't even require ordinary courtesy. It's the obsessive ones who just keep picking at my work like they thought I was their personal scab.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you write really significant, powerful books, you must surely expect people to think about your works. The more powerful the books, the more thought they will provoke. That kind of thought can be hard to let go of. To take an example from another author, I can rarely think of Stirling's Draka series without trying to figure a way for the serfs to free themselves, even though, as alternative history goes, it's pretty implausible.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of the attacks on OSC, at least the ones he is talking about, go beyond simply disagreeing with him. They usually involve attacks on his beliefs, supposed motives, his religion.....things that are MEANT to be personal attacks.
At least that is how it seems to me, anyway. OSC is right, there are a ton of people here who disagree with him all the time, but he doesn't pound away at them, or lock all their threads.
Hell, I disagree with 80% of his essays, and have spoken up about them on more than one occasion, but OSC and his wife were great when I met them IRL at a book signing. I love to read his books, and I don't expect him to agree with me, or even know what I really believe, to be honest. I just don't attack him personally, and have no respect for those who do.
I have been to a lot of sites, and one of the things I admire about OSC is that he pretty much lets people discuss anything here, even if they are not respectful of his own views. Most sites are a lot heavier-handed when it comes to moderating topics, to be honest.
His books I like. His politics...well, not so much. I am sure that if he knew me in person he would say one of those very things about me as well. I'll give you a hint which....I don't write. But that is OK....most of the really interesting political discussions I have had, IRL and here, have been with people who hold different views than mine.
posted
This post might seem incredibly simplistic - but I just revel in the fact that we can say what we want - good or bad - and sometimes there's a response from the person we're talking about. That is an ubercool feature and I appreciate it.
I don't really wax specific about Orson Scott Card or his writings all that often... That's what found me this site but (like Noemon) not what kept me here.
I've said before, (though in a different way) one of the things that makes it so great is that he seems to actually care what we (his audience) think. That's great and incredible and, from where I sit, rare. It's also wickedly appreciated.
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big problem, Kwea, is that OSC attacks me, personally, in about 90% of his essays... and is probably attacking you ,personally, in a large majority of his essays, as well, since you disagree with most of his politics.
Its not that we have differing views on politics. Its that OSC quite often describes his political opponents not as people who disagree with him, but as people who are either deluded, intentionally deluding others, or evil. It happens in every column in which he uses the words "democrats" or " the left," or "enemies of the president." Or "those who support gay marriage." Or quite a few other words or terms that describe his political opposition.
If he doesnt want to be personally attacked, I suggest he stops personally attacking his readership in his columns? Its all well and good to say "don't read my columns," but that doesn't excuse what he writes about me in his columns on a bi-weekly basis. He's saying "Don't worry about it. Let me insult you behind your back, and it won't cause you stress!" Except that the distortions OSC writes about democrats, members of the left, opposers of the war in iraq, supporters of same sex marriage, etc and the positions we hold are still damaging to us, even if we don't read those distortions
And calling us liars (as a specific example of a word he uses) is a personal attack on us. And it very well might, itself, be a lie, because I'm fairly certain OSC is well read enough to know, for example, that when people call the Iraq war a catastrophe, that is our honest belief about what has happened with that invasion. And as he himself writes, you can only lie if you have intent to deceive.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In response to Paul Goldner I have this to say:
Orson Scott Card backs up his views with his reasoning. He explains why he thinks what he thinks. Further he quotes facts to support the reasoning.
If you truly believe that someone disagreeing with you on moral grounds that they explain is a personal attack you are too thin skinned to survive.
A personal attack is meant to harm, not a statement of personal opinion of morality.
Dissagree with OSC as much as you like, he encourages disagreement with discussion, a fact that makes him reasonable, if rare.
I don't always agree with OSC, but don't think that disagreement and personal attacks are the same thing.
If you feel OSC is spreading "damaging distortions" then write a rebuttal, showing how each of his views is invalid, and undue this "damage" that has been done to you.
We are free here to do and say as we please. If you think something he said is wrong, prove it! If you can't, then do not take the position of "victim", because OSC didn't say your mother is fat and your father is stupid, he said what he believes, about a topic that is important to him.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been to a lot of sites, and one of the things I admire about OSC is that he pretty much lets people discuss anything here, even if they are not respectful of his own views.
For example, OSC tolerates people (including at least one person who's posted in this thread) calling him names on websites OSC pays for.
The rudeness exhibited on the forums is not excused by any rudeness that may or may not be present in OSC's columns. Start a blog - they're free now, you know - if you want to call him names. But repeatedly doing it at his literal expense is rude.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In response to Paul Goldner I have this to say:
Orson Scott Card backs up his views with his reasoning. He explains why he thinks what he thinks. Further he quotes facts to support the reasoning.
If you truly believe that someone disagreeing with you on moral grounds that they explain is a personal attack you are too thin skinned to survive.
A personal attack is meant to harm, not a statement of personal opinion of morality.
Dissagree with OSC as much as you like, he encourages disagreement with discussion, a fact that makes him reasonable, if rare.
I don't always agree with OSC, but don't think that disagreement and personal attacks are the same thing.
If you feel OSC is spreading "damaging distortions" then write a rebuttal, showing how each of his views is invalid, and undue this "damage" that has been done to you.
We are free here to do and say as we please. If you think something he said is wrong, prove it! If you can't, then do not take the position of "victim", because OSC didn't say your mother is fat and your father is stupid, he said what he believes, about a topic that is important to him.
I don't know about this... Some of the statements he made were, in my opinion really harsh and cruel. It really hurt! I'd make a rebuttal, but I am so burned out on this topic. It's been about 10 years of internet arguing and it's almost always agonizing. Plus, usually my statements get ignored. I'm not saying he's a bigot or something, but when he says stuff like that, it really, really hurts. It's like being stabbed in the heart with a knife and shows no real understanding of the sort of agony people go through because of that attitude. I don't mean to be insulting, but that sort of language is really, really incredibly painful.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do note that I've been called a troll on multiple occasions, for sayng what I believe on a topic important to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you feel OSC is spreading "damaging distortions" then write a rebuttal, showing how each of his views is invalid, and undue this "damage" that has been done to you.
I would advise against doing this. It will not benefit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
By "benefit" do you mean "change OSC's mind or get him to acknowledge that you are right and he wrong?"
Because I don't see how your post can be true unless you limit benefit in this way, and I see it as a hopelessly cramped and useless definition of benefit in this context.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on! This is a discussion board, not a dictator board!
"It will not benefit." Who, in what way?
If a matter of interest gets discussed and someone feels better because their views got heard, then why is it not a benifit?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said in a different thread, most people feel that if they can't convince someone to belive what they believe, it is becasue the person they are trying to convince is simple not listening or is an idiot. After all, I know that what I believe is right, and so if I'm telling you what I believe and you don't change your mind, it must be something wrong about you!
I try to avoid that mentality. I think that legalized abortion is the greatest evils that society has ever tolerated, but I don't attribute evil to pro-choice people. I believe they are misguided. And this is not a personal attack on anyone who is pro-choice, as some people obviously will take it (like people with the same mentality as Synesthesia and Paul Goldner, apparently). Plenty of people will think I'm misguided for being pro-life. It's not a personal attack.
I'm not saying Paul Goldner or Synesthesia are pro-choice, by the way. I'm saying that they feel they are being personally attacked when in fact they are not.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What mentality? I only ask that... perhaps such statements need to be softened just a bit... But perhaps they are not targeted at people like me. I'm not even sure where I stand on the spectrum, I just think such statements are just a bit... acidic... Like from this essay I read about last year, it really hurt... I can understand wanting to protect society, but I don't see how statements like that targeted to that specific audience really help. *sigh* I need to just retire from these sort of discussions, but can you understand how and why such things bother me so much? Isn't there a way to be against Same Sex Marriage or homosexuality without sounding so... harsh...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:By "benefit" do you mean "change OSC's mind or get him to acknowledge that you are right and he wrong?"
No. Rather, the assumption that rebutting one of OSC's points in writing on this site will "undo" any of the "damage" done to you is inherently flawed. It will not; it is at best a shallow form of catharsis that will almost always be perceived in certain circles -- rightly or wrongly -- as spiteful aggression and/or unhealthy obsession. And that response in and of itself can be perceived as insulting, which starts a whole new cycle.
At best, a constructive public rebuttal can usefully be offered to correct misinformation, to indicate to third parties that there is another perspective available. While it's certainly convenient to post a rebuttal to one of OSC's observations on a site likely to attract people who have read those observations, OSC has previously made it clear that he does not appreciate when his site is used in that way. Given that, it's my opinion that there are other venues available to someone who wants to "correct" any perceived misinformation which would not risk offending the host.
In other words: even when OSC is flat-out wrong about something, you won't do the world -- or yourself -- much good by announcing it on his fansite.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand where you are coming from Synesthesia, but the problem is that the moral belief that homosexuality is a sin and should not be given the same status the "natural" male-female pair bonding can not be toned down.
It's part of a religious belief structure. For those who believe that, it's wrong. How can you tone that down?
Personally I think that same-sex marrage should be legalized. Heck, let people do what they want! Line marrages like the ones in Hielien's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or poligamy or anything that any consenting adult wants with other consenting adults.
I guess my point is this: Try not to take it personally and just live your life as you see fit. If you are truly happy in your "non-standard" lifestyle, then what does it matter at all what other people think?
If you want to make a commitment, call your partner your husband or wife, wear rings and have cerimony. As far as I understand it, "significant other" has pretty much all the same rights as "spouse" these days. So you don't have a marrage certificate? Do you really need the state to authorize your love, your life?
Be a true American and ignore the goverment and do what you want!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I don't agree that "OSC has previously made it clear that he does not appreciate when his site is used ["to a constructive public rebuttal]," though. I think his major problems with it 1) many of the rebuttals aren't constructive, and 2) there are some people who seem almost pathological in their need to make OSC look bad. It seems similar to someone calling everyone their ex-spouse is dating to explain the bad things the ex did. Even if the presentation is accurate, it still seems stalkerish.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I don't think OSC would say that he doesn't appreciate when his site is used for constructive public rebuttal, either. I've seen enough people accidentally offend him, however, to believe that even criticisms which are meant to be constructive should be very carefully considered and offered only if absolutely necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
See point 2, above, for a possible reason why an atmosphere exists here that leads posts to be read more defensively than might otherwise happen. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Personally I think that same-sex marrage should be legalized. Heck, let people do what they want! Line marrages like the ones in Hielien's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or poligamy or anything that any consenting adult wants with other consenting adults.
Not that it is incorrect, but the problem with that argument is that there are plenty of people who believe that same-sex marriage, and even homosexuality and permissiveness in general is harmful to society as a whole. I believe there is something to that argument. And since this is a democracy, if more people feel that way than don't, then that is what the laws should reflect. The problem is that the judges are preventing the will of the people from being done by striking down laws that the majority of people want by calling them unconstitutional. That is why constitutional amendments must be created. After all, an activist judge can't call the constitution unconstituional.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not saying Paul Goldner or Synesthesia are pro-choice, by the way. I'm saying that they feel they are being personally attacked when in fact they are not."
So you're saying that if someone says
"All people who believe X are liars," and I believe X, its not a personal attack against me?
I think thats a very NARROW definition of what a personal attack is, and a very misinformed one, as well.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Could you quote where OSC does this? Everytime I ask someone to do this, the "all" is mysteriously missing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not even specifically thinking about me, I don't know where I stand, but when I think of all the people who ARE completely gay who read stuff like that, it hurts them a lot. I ache at any group being attacked. I'm not Japanese and if someone is racist at Japanese people, it bothers me, or if people are disrespected for their religion do to people misunderstanding it, it bothers me, even if I don't always agree with the tenants of various religious. Perhaps the tone is what bothers me. People who are gay have a lot to be getting on with in terms of the prejudice they experience in their own families, many people do. Perhaps the tone could be a bit..... less......
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Could you quote where OSC does this? Everytime I ask someone to do this, the "all" is mysteriously missing."
Dagonee...
You are aware that in english saying "Democrats believe X" is the same as saying "All democrats believe X" gramatically, yes?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why do people feel the need to add the "all" when describing what they find objectionable?
Yes, in logic, "All Ys believe X" is the same as "Ys believe X."
In normal English, it is not the same.
"Republicans are against legalized abortion," while not precise, is not an inherently wrong thing to say.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Then why do people feel the need to add the "all" when describing what they find objectionable?
Yes, in logic, "All Ys believe X" is the same as "Ys believe X."
In normal English, it is not the same."
It actually is, without clarification. SLOPPY english, its not the same thing, but I don't think Card is a sloppy writer, and he CERTAINLy knows how to write in a non-sloppy manner.
But as long as you recognize that logically card is saying that all democrats are liars every time he says "democrats are liars", then I'm where I need to be.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: All well and good - I don't mind that a bit. In fact, I think you describe MOST of the people here. And I'm glad Hatrack is the site of a living community. It does not explain the people who simply cannot let anything I say or do go uncriticized on my site - and even bring in bags of garbage from other sites to dump on my living room floor. I simply can't fathom the impulse that prevents them from simply ignoring me. It's easy enough to do. Simply don't read anything I write that's posted here, and concentrate on what you came for ... no one requires that you agree with me or like what I say or do. We don't even require ordinary courtesy. It's the obsessive ones who just keep picking at my work like they thought I was their personal scab.
Haha. You're definetly not a scab. I'll bet to some people you're a wound, others, a bandage. Of course that's all for the individual. For the record (If there is one being taken? yes?) I have always argued with you because I care about your opinions- even when I think you're wrong. Not to say I "always argue," but I have always assumed you didn't have the site up for fanboy gushing, but for challenging discussion- and that makes it easier, in a way, to only post things that challenge your statements or ideas, because it's either that or say nothing about them, since gushing seems silly and inneffectual.
I could add to every post, that I agree with you 99% of the time, and that my negative criticism is of a small thing in proportion to the great works you've done, but I'd assume that you knew that, given the level of detail to which so many fans here know your work. It's a compliment in itself to take your work as a given basis for discussion, and assume that all the participants are familiar with it, even if you then blast it to smitherines- you are still praising it for being worth trying to smash. I can see though, where that turns into you getting the justifiable impression that some people have nothing but bad things to say. I think having anything to say to you is a comment on the poster's real feelings either way.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But as long as you recognize that logically card is saying that all democrats are liars every time he says "democrats are liars", then I'm where I need to be.
I don't recognize that. I recognize that, if OSC were writing a logical proof and he used the words "democrats are liars" (which I still haven't seen quoted, even without the "all"), then he would be saying all democrats are liars.
Since he considers himself a Democrat, it's clear he doesn't meant that everyone who considers themselves a Democrat is a liar.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Could you quote where OSC does this? Everytime I ask someone to do this, the "all" is mysteriously missing.
I often feel that when OSC says "People who say X are lying," or whatever, he is very making a stronger statement than "republicans are against abortion." A general statement (positive or negative) about a general group is interpreted in a general way, so that latter statement can be fairly made. You could say "tall people are thin," and I would know that you don't intend to say that this is a law of the universe, or that the two qualities are alwayys mutually inclusive. (edit) Also the terms "thin" and "against" are subject to further interpretation, and are imprecise. They are also neutral statements, and do not speak to intent. The word "liar" speaks to intent: the intent to decieve by misdirection or conceiling the truth. The words "against" or "thin" are not so specifically related to intent; even "against" does not speak to motive in the way that "liar" does, where the motive, to lie, is clear.
However when you attach a strong, specific negative to a group, the strong negative is attached to all the members of the group. The specificity of the statement also makes it feel more difinitive "people (general) who say X (specific) are liars (can be interpreted specificially)" You are targeting a specific person who says X, and saying that he/she is a liar. You are not going so far as to difinitively say: "all" but you are using language that tends in that direction. This should be clear enough given that so many people seem to misquote these words and include "all" in their own versions- because that is the way the statements come off.
If I wanted to avoid ever being held responsible for making negative statements about anyone, then I could just avoid ever being specific or inclusive; in fact that is what OSC tends to do. I don't think he does it to avoid responsibility for a statement, I just think he does it because of the medium he is writing in, about general topics with an open format. His words end up being more effective over longer periods, and he ends up having to defend himself more than if he DID make specific claims, because this way lets people interpret the words in a number of ways. I can easily (have) taken general statements of OSC's personally, because the subject matter was personal, and because the statements were generally applied- so I don't think this is a way to weasel in jabs without getting called on it. It probably makes things tougher.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there's a huge difference between a statement which, even if it does tend to feel more personal is, as you admit, possibly still general and the insults hurled at OSC (not by you, at least that I recall).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes there is a big difference. Even if all else were equal, this is still OSC's site, and what he write on it is for the world to see. The insults that get posted here are intended for his eyes. I think I recall him talking about a letter he received once that specifically told him it would be a depressing letter. That letter was adressed to him, and the person admitted that it would be depressing, and yet that person had chosen to send it, and yet somehow felt that he/she had no responsibility for his feelings after simply saying "don't read this is you don't want to be saddened."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This must have been the most controvercial apology ever put forth However, Im glad some usefull conversation came out of it.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow a lot of posts for an apology... i thought it was a nice on I Am The War Chief. OSC even commented thats pretty cool.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I note in my own written language a tendency to either be deliberately specific or deliberately vague, and it frustrates me. But it's a product of participating in a lot of discussions like this and attempting to avoid misinterpretation, though it still happens. Even the word "tendency" in my second sentence is a product of this.
Increasingly, I wouldn't say "Republicans do x", I would say "Many Republicans do x" or "The central RNC seems to be doing x" or "The Bush Administration" (lots of wiggle there) "do x." Because there will always be exceptions. There are pro-choice Republicans, ones who vote strictly on a social agenda, ones who vote strictly on an economic agenda, and so forth; it only takes a single exception to make an argument go down a path which is frequently unproductive. Or I can say "Fred Smith of 222 Main Street is a lying scumbag, as evidenced by the following deceptions." (But I would be wise not to suggest that all of Fred Smith's followers are somehow complicit in Fred Smith being a lying scumbag.)
It (often- see, there I go) makes discussions go more easily. But it is not the style of an editorial.
It may be when Card describes the Democratic Party as "appeasers", or says that he knows what the response of "academia" will be, he has a very specific, limited subset of people in mind. It may be when he calls Monica Lewinsky "underage", he just means she was too young to have such pressures exerted on her by a man in such a position of power.
But that's not how a lot of people will read it, especially those who are predisposed to agree with Card's point of view.
Some will repeat to their associates and families that Monica Lewinsky was "underage" when Clinton had sexual relations with her. They will spread the story about "hippie college students" egging a soldier's hearse, a story which much research leads me to believe Card is the sole distribution site for.
They will believe that hatred of liberals and people in academia is justified.
Perhaps his editorials wouldn't be as powerful with a few more qualifiers, a few more "manys" and "mosts" and "in my experiences".
But... And I do not say this lightly... Perhaps I wouldn't feel that sinking in my stomach that says Worldwatch may be a link in a chain that leads to violence towards people that I care about.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Holy thread resurrection!
And I like how the new poster is apparently unaware, or at least doesn't bother to comment upon the fact that he has just posted in a topic he had to search for in the archives.
I remember once a three year old thread of mine picked up in mid-stream with an answer to a post I had made years before... it felt a little weird. It's kind of like walking around in public, finding a couple of people who are walking silently past you, stopping them, and demanding that they start their conversation over again for your benefit.
Actually, it's like that if the two people weren't even there, and the person was just talking into thin air.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
However, Im glad some usefull conversation came out of it.
