I wonder if anyone else on this board recognises my position here, or has any ideas for resolving it..
Orson Scott, the man, confuses the hell out of me. He does not fit into my usual human classification scheme. The problem, and I'm sure people have run into this before, is that he is fundamentally religious, I am fundamentally anti-religion, and yet.. I agree with the vast majority of his opinion on almost everything in the world, and like, respect and resemble everything his writing tells me about him as a person. Essentially, he makes my role-models list.
And then, occasionally, I run into things he's said like "those who flagrantly violate [arbitrary social taboo] cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society", a thought that every level of my mind expels with violent force, and that I would usually expect to see spoken by some obvious idiot I could safely ignore.
It's not that it's unprecedented for me to like religious people, I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be; but I've never before identified closely with someone starting from such a fundamentally opposed perspective to my own. Usually we disagree about almost everything from the ground up.
What's with the convergence? Any insights?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sweetly* As another "fundamentally religious" person, might I suggest that you begin by discarding the notion that people who are religious somehow have beliefs which are less "fully thought-out" and/or are merely "following the herd and dodging the questions"?
I know plenty of non-religious (and anti-religious) people who fit that description. And plenty of religious people (I'd like to think including me) who do not. (As well, naturally, as the other way around.) How about you "fully think" about people, religious or not, as individuals? Not as something that fits a classification scheme?
Posted by Marc Forrester (Member # 8809) on :
*Passive Aggressively* - I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be.
I don't think I made any suggestion there that such people are more or less rare under any kind of belief system. My only intended implication was that OSC is one such person.
Being only human, I don't have room in my head to fully comprehend myself as an individual, let alone anyone else. Best I can do is try to make my classifications more flexible and accurate, which is what I'm attempting here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: My only intended implication was that OSC is one such person.
But why do you think this?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm similar to you (being indifferent to religion if not anti-religious) but I know tons of people who are religious. Two of my best friends are far left and far right, with me in the middle. One's a devout Roman Catholic, one's an atheist. We all get along fine, and share most of our views. I think the key is that the religious person doesn't let their faith control their life. They're religious, but that's a part of who they are, not the center of their being.
Some people are X faith first, and everything else a distant second. These are the people who corner you at airports, grocery store parking lots, and the like. In other words, they push their faith on everyone around them. This is the one surefire way to get on my ****list. I'm fine with anyone believing whatever they choose, but I want to be left in peace. I want the same courtesy and respect I show them.
And most people here are like that. If you ask a question or make a misstatement about their faith they'll respond, but they're not evangelicalizing (is that a real word?) all the live-long day.
So I don't see your dilemma. You don't have friends that disagree with you on a regular basis? Who sometimes say things you consider shortsighted and foolish?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be.
This may be why you grudgingly respect OSC. I know it's why I respect him; any grudging has roots in other issues.
BTW, I should make clear that I'm speaking here only from my own observations. Someone closer to him would probably be able to give you a lot more detail, but would probably be less inclined to do so. So YMMV. *grin*
He starts from a position of faith, but he recognizes that unexamined faith is untenable and works very, very hard to reconcile his statements of faith with his observed reality. For example: while he's opposed to homosexual marriage largely because of his church's position on the issue, he has done quite a bit of research in order to find a secular justification for that position. His premises are often religious ones, but his logic is often impeccable.
For all that, he can be frustrating; he doesn't often make clear that he's speaking his opinion, especially in political articles, and frequently makes certain broad and insulting generalizations that, if you're one of the intended victims, make it hard to take anything else he says in that essay seriously because you're inescapably confronted with the flaw in his argument. He angers easily and can brood, and this sort of thing colors a lot of his observations; when he mentions Clinton, for example, you can generally predict exactly what he's going to say.
But he's smart and incisive and often quite perceptive, although I find his snap judgements to be as flawed as any other man's. He speaks his mind eloquently and assuredly, and incidentally is capable of writing an excellent book. He works hard at maintaining his family, and I think the fruits of that effort are obvious; they're all wonderful human beings, and clearly return his love. And I believe that almost everything he does and says is truly motivated by a desire to do good. I disagree with him on an enormous number of topics -- ranging from the political to issues of aesthetics -- but don't think that should affect my assessment of him as a person.
------
If you're interested in broadening your horizons, BTW, this site is full of religious people who are walking examples of this sort of thing. Not everyone with faith has failed to turn a critical eye to it, or more closely examined the implications of their beliefs.
Posted by Somnium (Member # 8482) on :
Actually rivka, there are plenty of people who fit Marc-Forrester's description of "merely following the herd and dodging the questions".
As I see it, someone who hasn't challenged thier faith does not have strong faith, with respect to anything, be it religion or what not.
However, there are alot of people who just simply believe in <insert religion/philosophy> simply out of habit,tradition,cultural influences,etc.
As for your question rivka, my answer to it at least would be that QSC actually spends the time, maybe not directly to us his fans, but through his writing to express his beliefs and justify them.
"To accept a faith just because it is customary, means to be dishonest, to be cowardly, to be lazy. And do dishonesty, cowardice, and laziness then appear as the presupposition of morality?"
That aphorism goes a long way to explain why I, as a person who has taken actually take the time to think about my personal beliefs, usually find those who haven't given any thought as to why they believe in something somewhat disapointing.
But Marc, you probably should just avoid trying to classify people would help alot, even though I am sure you share some of the sentiments I feel.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somnium: Actually rivka, there are plenty of people who fit Marc-Forrester's description of "merely following the herd and dodging the questions".
Certainly.
My point was not that they do not exist. Merely that they exist both among the religious and non-, and that being religious does not necessarily mean you fit that description.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Any true statement will conflict with neither accurately observed reality nor true religious doctrine, properly understood. My belief is that no religion is complete, and science by definition is incomplete.
In fact, my own religion takes it as a matter of doctrine that we don't know everything and have much left to learn - about religion as about everything else.
So those who think my position on anything is a mindless (or even mindful) adherence to a dogma of my religion understand neither me nor my religion. While there is no shortage of unthinking Mormons (as unthinking atheists or any other belief system), there is also no shortage of thinking ones.
In my experience, the better I understand my religion and the better I understand the findings of rational scientific exploration (i.e., not science as reported in the press, but science using solid methodology and subjected to proper testing), the more I find they converge.
I am perfectly capable of leaving certain doctrines - and certain scientific findings - and certain contradictions between them - in abeyance for many years, gathering more information. I am also fully capable of altering my own ideas about the world based on new information and/or a better understanding, when those are offered to me.
Just because what I believe coincides at some points with the common understanding of Mormon doctrine does not mean that my process of arriving at my conclusion began with the Mormon doctrine and then bent everything else to fit it. All conclusions are held in abeyance while I explore an idea, because I know that given time, BOTH sources of information are highly likely to change, along with my understanding of both.
But at some point, despite the incompleteness of information, I find such a preponderance of evidence, or such an urgency of action, that I must proceed (as, ultimately, we all do, always), with a firm position that I might find myself forced to alter later. In other words, if I wait for absolute certainty, I will never speak or act at all, and my existence will be pointless.
We all act on incomplete information all the time - like the people here who post about how they think my mental processes work, despite the extreme incompleteness of their information. (In fact, in most such cases I suspect they may be describing their own mental process OR their fantasy of the mental processes of "stupid people" or "people who are not as correct as me.")
But this lack of certainty about anything is so obvious that I don't feel any need to say it every time. Certainly my opponents on major issues of the day have no such qualms - they speak in absolutes, then accuse me of absolutism when I answer them; just as the most powerful forces of intolerance in America today accuse their opponents of intolerance, which justifies their intolerant actions towards them.
Circularity of reasoning is hardly rare in our society, especially among those who style themselves intellectuals and "deep thinkers" - along with lots of dogmatic or party-line thinking, a heavy amount of post hoc ergo propter hoc, lots of false inductions and guilt-by-association, and all the other ordinary mental errors that come when "intellectual" becomes applied to those with a certain belief set instead of rigorous self-skepticism.
I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. I also recognize in myself all the natural human tendencies - to look with favor on new ideas that seem to buttress ideas I already hold; to be especially skeptical of ideas that seem to challenge cherished beliefs; to have a harder time listening to those who are attacking instead of discussing rationally; and so on. I endeavor as best I can to overcome those ordinary weaknesses and try to see past them - without overcompensating by taking the adolescent course of jettisoning old beliefs and embracing new ones as thoughtlessly as one held the old ones.
I feel no obligation to embrace silly science reporting and bad scientific methodology; nor will I accept fads that pretend to have a scientific basis when they have none. I also take into account my own reasoning and concatenation of interdisciplinary findings, which I have neither time nor inclination to explain in every single essay that I write.
But let me give as brief a precis as I can of one such lens through which I view what I see: The human species is unique in the animal kingdom for having moved its survival away from the individual and onto the community, with the tribe as an intermediary step. Other animals have herds and packs, but within them, individuals still remain the repository of memory, and DNA the respository of instinct.
Humans, however, do not depend for their ability to propagate the species on the strengths or actions of the individuals. We instead depend on the community to offer protection and reproductive opportunity, and the pressure on our DNA is not so much toward the traits that promote individual survival as toward the traits that promote the stability, strength, and survivability of the community that successfully provides safety and reproductive opportunity.
So there are communities that provide rule sets (customs, rituals, normative stories) that lead to behaviors by their members that promote the physical and reproductive security of the whole, and communities that are not so good at this. There are communities that are more civilized and communities that are more tribal; and the choices of communities have consequences in the real world, which are often as predictable as the consequences of individual choices.
And anyone who does NOT believe that there are behaviors that make an individual untenable as a member of any community has clearly not thought very seriously about such matters. There are individual behaviors that make a community unlivable for many or all the other members until either the behavior is changed or the individual is removed - how much rape or murder or theft, for instance, do you think a society can tolerate before the members of the community retribalize and take firm action without waiting for the polity to act? History provides many, many examples.
I regard tribalization as a hideous condition in which the things I value in life become almost impossible to enjoy. Recent examples of tribalization (the former Yugoslavia, for instance) show plainly that despite the veneer of civilization, we all know how to fall back on the tribe when we lose confidence in the rule set of the larger community - and, given provocation, we humans WILL do it. And even those who adamantly refuse are either caught up in or destroyed by the process. (Remnants of old survival strategies remain in the DNA; there are always individuals with a behavioral predisposition toward tribalism amid a society that is more generally predisposed toward civilization, and vice versa.)
The absurdity of our current political situation, in which completely unrelated or incompatible beliefs are assumed (or demanded) of anyone who belongs to the Left or the Right, and people assume that anyone who is not certifiably dogmatically of one team must be extremely and totally of the other, constantly deforms the template of our discussions. This makes it so that any attempt to discuss issues of the utmost importance becomes clouded (or shouted down) because of all the assumed ancillary beliefs that, while irrelevant to the subject at hand, are invoked in order to punish unorthodox thinking.
The Right and the Left are equally capable of and equally skilled at such self-destructive legerdemain; it renders both camps unable either to learn anything new or to tolerate adaptation that would promote survival of the community as a whole.
External threats and internal threats are thus equally treated as physical footballs, so that both teams are trying to score their absurd goals on a playing field of quicksand. And when I try to introduce serious issues of discussion that I think are crucial to our ability to survive against outside rivals or inside tendencies toward tribalization, I find that the only answers I get are about the game, never about the quicksand. No one seems capable of understanding or addressing the actual issues I am trying to put on the table; they only recognize that I am not "on their team" and then immediately begin to punish me for being an "extremist" of the other team.
Now and then I encounter someone who understands what I'm talking about. By and large, I find (to my discouragement) that such people have largely given up on trying to communicate with the players in the political game (which unfortunately includes the overwhelming majority of those who are considered our intellectual elite).
So when I address, for example, the possible consequences of redefining marriage in a way that I think poses a serious threat to our ability as a community to provide the reproductive security that a civilized community absolutely must provide to survive (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that, I'm speaking of our embrace of divorce, of abortion at the woman's sole option, of extramarital mating, and many other experiments that have collectively weakened reproductive security and intergenerational cultural transmission), I am universally answered by people who don't even try to understand the actual ideas I'm talking about, who don't even understand the role of monogamous marriage (and, just as importantly, the perception of universal monogamy) in maintaining stability in a community, and who instead search for ways - which are always instantly at hand - to dismiss me as belonging to this or that category of persons that no one needs to listen to.
People who understand what I'm talking about may disagree with me (usually about the degree of the threat or the urgency of our current situation, only rarely about the actual dangers involved in the vast experiments we have performed on ourselves as a society) and thereby challenge me to test my own ideas again; they also provide me with information I did not know, which helps me constantly to revise or refine or buttress the understanding I have developed over years of study and thought.
But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Meanwhile, I write essays that, since I despair of being able to talk about core issues, merely try to alert people to this or that particular danger or problem or, rarely, a possible solution, and then I watch as I'm called a fascist, an idiot, or a religious fanatic.
So here's a word from the "religious fanatic": God's statements aren't important or true because God said them, God said them because they're important and true. So it is hardly a surprise when the most rigorous examination of human behavior in societies leads me to many points of confluence with a successful religion.
Or, to put it in terms of more scientific rigor: If a religion is successful, it will be because it is an important factor in creating or upholding a community whose rule set promotes human behaviors that lead to longterm survival of the community and the physical and reproductive security of most individuals within it. Therefore it will be no accident when rigorous science discovers facts about the consequences of human behavior that buttress the moral principles of successful religions, since the religions that do not promote pro-civilization behaviors are highly likely to be either long since dead or too weak to make a serious difference in the society in which they nestle.
There are, of course, religions that promote, not civilized, but tribal success; such religions, while possibly successful, succeed within a civilization only to the degree that they (a) addapt to civilized norms or (b) seethe under the surface of the veneer of civilization, constantly offering pressure toward tribalization, which is balanced by countervailing institutions.
So many terms remain undefined in this precis that I despair of anyone making sense of it (not least "civilization" and "tribalization") but what's the point, anyway? I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
And yet ... hope springs eternal, n'est-ce pas? Er, I mean, neh? Maybe there are lurkers who will get what I'm talking about, while the standard Orson-despisers here go about their business of demonstrating their complete lack of comprehension, for which they never seem to tire of punishing me.
[ November 02, 2005, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Orson Scott Card ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Certainly my opponents on major issues of the day have no such qualms - they speak in absolutes, then accuse me of absolutism when I answer them.... I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. ...all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers...
See, it's this kind of thing that gets you in trouble. I know you're not a huge fan of my advice, but it seems to me that the people who really need to benefit from the points you made above are also the ones most likely to tune you out after hearing lines like that.
I know you know how that works. I know you're perceptive enough to see it when other people do it, because you've complained about it in the past. So why not acknowledge the possibility that a lot of these perception problems stem not from what you say, but how you say it? You're a master of the written word. Surely you realize that when you use a line like "all you knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers," you're deliberately belittling a portion of your audience -- without taking care, mind you, to specify that your comment only applies to those people who ARE actually knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers, something that'd take just a second to clarify if you felt it was necessary. Surely you don't mean to suggest that everyone to whom same-sex marriage occurred when you mentioned issues possibly detrimental to reproduction is a "shibboleth-watcher;" why then use a term which risks offering offense in that way?
You reap a LOT of what you actually sow, y'know, if not all of it. You're not any more put-upon than someone in your position should be put-upon; you're a prominent author who's highly active in both the literary and Mormon community, and have recently made the jump into punditry -- which is going to bring with it the usual pains. Moreover, it seems disingenuous to me to complain about the lack of honest debate you encounter when, in my experience, you rarely engage in actual debate. By writing these first-person essays and mentioning those who disagree with you obliquely as opponents -- and frequently dumb, misguided, or downright evil opponents, at that -- you invite hostile replies, because people who attempt to engage you on the specifics of your essays are rarely acknowledged, if ever. By responding primarily to critics of your politics in Pelegius' vein, you encourage that kind of random, wacky and baseless attack; it's the people who disagree with you respectfully, intelligently, and for perfectly valid reasons that you wind up dismissing and ultimately disillusioning.
I suffer from some of this myself; I approach things from angles. But, hey, if you're ticked off about someone saying -- as I did -- that your starting premises are frequently grounded in your religious assumptions, it's my opinion that it's far healthier to say "I disagree with you on that and find it offensive." And you can make it clear that it's not a point on which you want to invite conversation, or even that it's a point on which you'd welcome conversation -- but either way is ultimately more constructive than using lines like "the standard Orson-despisers."
You have every right to occasionally feel victimized, but I think you have to keep in mind that you have deliberately made yourself a target -- and it's hard, based on some of your essays, to really determine who threw the first metaphorical punch, anyway. You have a reasoned defense of your views -- I've seen you elaborate on them before -- and I think they can stand on their own without the rhetorical flourishes and generalized criticisms of hypothetical opponents.
Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think anyone here expects you to engage in regular debate; no one thinks you're that beholden to your audience. But if you don't, I think it's only natural for your most prominent criticism to come in the form of random unsolicited diatribes, since that's the only real alternative to communication.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Thanks for writing that OSC, I'm gratified that you continue to write for those who appreciate it; which are many. I talk to people all the time who read your columns but don't even know there are forums.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Well, Tom, since you didn't answer a single point in my essay, but merely used it as evidence to make yet another ad hominem attack/dismissal ("feel victimized") ("hypothetical opponents"), then let me offer this latest posting of yours as a perfect demonstration of someone who, instead of noticing the quicksand, only tries to score yet another point in the meaningless game.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I didn't answer the "points" in your essay because, by and large, I mostly agree with them. As I said in my first post on this thread, I believe you have reached your conclusions through ample thought and research, and respect you quite a lot for doing it; your many paragraphs devoted to emphasizing the reconciliation of religion with science, for example, are ones with which I wholeheartedly agree (and I didn't think I needed to repeat that, since I'd pretty much already said the same thing -- albeit more briefly and less eloquently -- in my earlier post.)
The few actual points I don't agree with -- like your position on the importance of reproduction -- are a bit ancillary to the discussion, and while I'd be happy to chat with you on those topics in another thread, I didn't think it was worth derailing this one for a discussion of same-sex marriage, divorce, etc. If you would like to talk about this issue with me (or with anyone else), I promise you that there are a number of people on this site who'd be glad to engage in that conversation should a thread be created for that purpose.
Rather, I replied to what concerned me: the fact that I had just posted in your defense, and your own reply seriously undermined the defense I had made of you by being needlessly inflammatory, insulting, and defensive. I don't think I'm stretching by saying that you occasionally feel victimized here and elsewhere, as you've made several comments along those lines; neither do I regret using the phrase "hypothetical opponents," as I think it's clear that many of the people you address in your essays -- like the aforementioned "knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers" -- are hypothetical constructs, people who may or may not be actually involved in the conversation you're having with your audience.
In fact, it's exactly those two things -- your occasional defensiveness and your tendency in your essays to invent motivations for opponents and turn those hypotheticals into generalizations -- which I firmly believe make it hard for even many of the people who agree with you to appreciate some of your essays. I've observed, at least in your dealings with me, a tendency to assume the worst possible motivation, and it's something that you also appear to do with a somewhat larger brush when describing pro-choice supporters, global warming researchers, etc. I understand the need for brevity in a political piece, but it's my opinion that eliminating the ad hominems from your own essays might give you the editorial inches necessary to more satisfactorily elaborate on the strengths of your positions -- and, as a side benefit, remove many of the flippant but cutting generalizations that appear to alienate many of your readers.
To clarify: my point was not that you were wrong in any particular (especially not since we're in agreement on most of the issues addressed), but that you expressed yourself in a way that appeared calculated to wound precisely the kind of people you most needed to reach. From my perspective -- and I'll admit that it might be a flawed one -- it looks like you're spending too much time polishing the stone instead of digging the well. You may have your own reasons for doing this. You may not even mean to come off this way. But if you honestly care about this, I really wish you'd give what I'm saying some charitable consideration.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would like to highlight one point from the post from OSC. I for one really applaud the attempt to make judgements about valid scientific method (and not go by what the press says about a particular scientific result, for example).
I am, however, concerned about the level of expertise required to judge scientific validity. I know in my own field that people who are actual practitioners (supposed experts) make stupid mistakes all the time. Usually, these are of a type that the average lay-person would not understand or even know to look for. And yet, they are blatantly obvious to those who know the data, the methods, and the shortcomings thereof. Most often, the reason for the error is nothing more complicated than simply stopping the research when the favored/desired outcome is obtained (i.e., simple researcher bias) and a failure to consider alternative explanations.
Since the practitioners themselves make these mistakes, I submit that it is highly unlikely that the people writing about their research results, or using them to support a particular position, are going to do better.
The advantage of handling these issues in a scientific context is that there are some self-correcting mechanisms within science. Peer review, replication, and hypothesis testing all serve to ultimately correct even the most favored of wrong results.
All we have in dealing with press accounts is varying degrees of incomplete reporting and, sometimes, opposing Op/Ed pieces. If all the lay people have the same less-than-expert level understanding of the science, I suspect the whole endeavor really boils down to rhetoric, not actual, reliable facts, no matter how much data they throw at each other.
<postscript> I would like to point out that I do not intend this as a critique of Mr. Card's essays. He has yet to write on a topic area in which I have specific scientific expertise, so I cannot judge whether he is or is not doing a better job than others in the press.
My comments are simply to raise the issue of whether the ideal referred to in the earlier post is actually attainable. From the reporting covering my field of expertise, I have decided that the locally-specific answer is a resounding "no!"
But whether this is true of all fields, I cannot say.
What I will say, however, is that I prefer press accounts that include coverage of alternative viewpoints and the evidence that would support them, as well as alternative explanations of the pieces of science the author HAS chosen to present in favor of their thesis.
I suspect, however, that I'm in the minority on this and that, if adopted, my idea would simply kill off the Op/Ed "industry" overnight. People would end up too bored and confused to bother reading it at all.
Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. How can you whine about Tom making an ad hominen attack against you after you've insulted the majority of a board that mostly worships you? It seems as though having a reasonable discussion with you is almost impossible, as you simply assume complete stupidity from those who take an opposing position.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I hope OSC turns that into another published essay. That was a very good read -- gave me lots to think about.
Posted by Javelin (Member # 8643) on :
I'm wondering if Mr. Card would mind terribly if I posted that at Ornery?
Posted by Marc Forrester (Member # 8809) on :
Whew. That's way more response that I was expecting - going to take me a while to absorb properly, but maybe part of the answer to my confusion is here:
"Now and then I encounter someone who understands what I'm talking about. By and large, I find (to my discouragement) that such people have largely given up on trying to communicate ..."
If Orson is the first person I've noticed with a similar worldview to my own, but grown from wildly different roots, then maybe it's not that they're rare, so much as keeping their heads down. I'll try to watch for that behaviour in myself, too. Thanks, man - this definitely counts as an insight.
Oh, and just in case it would help to know, this: "... I am universally answered by people who don't even try to understand the actual ideas I'm talking about ..." is blindingly obvious from external observation of the war you find yourself in. It's also the horribly universal experience of any person who ever worked out an opinion for themselves.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since the practitioners themselves make these mistakes, I submit that it is highly unlikely that the people writing about their research results, or using them to support a particular position, are going to do better. The advantage of handling these issues in a scientific context is that there are some self-correcting mechanisms within science. Peer review, replication, and hypothesis testing all serve to ultimately correct even the most favored of wrong results. All we have in dealing with press accounts is varying degrees of incomplete reporting and, sometimes, opposing Op/Ed pieces. If all the lay people have the same less-than-expert level understanding of the science, I suspect the whole endeavor really boils down to rhetoric, not actual, reliable facts, no matter how much data they throw at each other.
Here's what I see as the big problem to be overcome in solving this: there's almost no meaningful policy decision that can be made using specialized knowledge from only one field. In addition, I doubt there are many meaningful policy decisions that can be made using only specialized scientific knowledge. Some moral framework is necessary, if only to choose between the desired outcomes. And, in this country at least, we allow average citizens a great deal of indirect input into the moral framework used to evaluate policy choices.
Further, many people realize that their preferred policy choices can be supported by particular scientific outcomes. This creates incentive throughout the creation and exchange of scientific information - from funding decisions made by scientists and non-scientists alike all the way through what gets reported in the popular media.
Whether scientists do try to shade outcomes to support their moral beliefs doesn't actually matter much to the problem: the perception is such that no one is likely to change their policy viewpoint on scientific conclusions alone. They will require some details of the analysis and experiments that led to the conclusion.
If, as you say and I tend to agree with, most people are not capable of understanding much more than the conclusions in most fields, then we have an enormous problem taking scientific discoveries into account in our political system.
I do not want a system where we designate an expert to make each particular decision. I want a system where chosen decision makers can receive reliable advice from experts that is taken into account when making the decision.
Since we the people are the choosers of those decision makers, we need to be able to get that reliable advice, too.
I wish I knew of a way to do it.
*None of this is meant to disagree with you, Bob. It just spurred me to thinking about problems related to what you wrote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I want a system where chosen decision makers can receive reliable advice from experts that is taken into account when making the decision.
I think this is the lynchpin. How do we trust any elected official to fairly and justly identify sources of reliable advice?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The only way I could think of is strict campaign spending caps at all levels, with zero lattitude for wiggle room, with political action committees and stuff.
It would probably limit freedom of speech in one sense, as far as political action committes doing publicity for canidates but "he who has the money gets to speak" really isn't freedom of speech at all.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I have no clue, really. At least not a single answer. Dilligence by the elctorate is the best way I can think of.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
I totally agree. And, to my mind, the best thing we could do is use the experts (like those at the National Academy of Sciences) to provide information to decision makers.
I think we do that to a certain extent now (in government, NAS is consulted), but we also rely heavily on the system of lobbyists, hoping that by getting information from opposing lobbyists our decision makers will get a complete and balanced picture.
I know of no field where the question of bias can be eliminated, however. I also know that it's easier for some lobbyists to get to some politicians, and that introduces another source of bias.
Specifically how to help the lay person -- I haven't got a solution.
In my field, I'm working to set up an informal network of research analysts to provide peer review and advice/assistance. I'm part of such groups now, but I still see the need for more.
In other fields, I have no clue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: "he who has the money gets to speak" really isn't freedom of speech at all.
I dunno. If you accept the premise that money is a function of some level of merit/work, then it's just an extension of that work. I'm highly nervous about suggestions which rely on imposing financial controls on campaigns or individuals, since I think those targets will immediately start working on ways to circumvent those limits instead of actually working responsibly within their remit. And even somehow removing the influence of PACs won't solve the problem: how would any politician, who has trained presumably in another field, be able to tell a reliable expert from a fraud?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
A nationally funded certification board with stringent requirements?
Thereby making it difficult for "experts" to grab political influence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Until they seized control of the board. Which brings us back to square one. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis. It's hard to read that and not feel defensive. *Sigh* I've been trying to talk around my core reaction, but I haven't found a good way to do it, so I will just throw it out there: Your post makes me feel like I'm stupid for not seeing what you see, thinking about it like you do, and coming to the same conclusions that you do, for the same reasons. I don't think you meant for me to feel that way, but when I read your posts, I have to interpret your writing as myself, not as you.
I read your post, and it makes me feel inferior. I start wondering, am I badly missing all of the points that Card makes? I had thought that I had a reasonable understanding, and I thought that Card's writing was clear, but am I so far off? What's wrong with me? When I write this post, am I exposing my ignorance of whatever point I am missing for everyone to see?
I am learning to question and consider everything that I read. This is a growing process, moving from being a passive reader to an active reader. Like everyone else, my perspective and thought process are unique, formed from my own experiences, training, and education. In some ways, it is likely better. Probably in most, it is not. There is a One True Way of Looking At Things, but it belongs to the Lord. I am always striving to better myself and to correct, adjust, and refine my approach so that I can better percieve truth. All too often, I fail miserably. But I pick myself back up, glue my ego together (takes a lot of time, it's a big ego) and keep trying.
I'm not going to see things the way that you do. I'm probably going to continue missing the point. I will, without a doubt, make my own conclusions. Be patient. Don't get angry, because it doesn't help my understanding.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
By the way, I think you might be interested in this article by Peggy Noonan:
quote:...we also rely heavily on the system of lobbyists, hoping that by getting information from opposing lobbyists our decision makers will get a complete and balanced picture.
See, I work in a field founded on the advocacy principle, and I know that this doesn't lead to the presentation of all relevant information in any given situation. When there are only two parties (and discovery is complete), this is acceptable, because each side gets to present what it considers important to the finder of fact. The incentive process works toward the selection of information most helpful to each side.
It is the curse of our current political situation that policy disputes are seen as two-sided. Even worse, the advocacy system in politics doesn't have 500 years of experience behind it in ensuring some form of parity between the two parties' chance to advocate.
A trial, from complaint to final appeal, is set up to ensure each party has an equal chance to be heard and to present evidence. It also attempts to remove particularly distracting information from the process, with varying but usually at least decent success.
A political decision has none of these, and yet most of the information comes from advocates.
I think financing is terribly problematic here. If scientific discourse is relevant to the political process (and I think we all agree it is), then limiting political discourse will either require limiting scientific discourse or leaving a hole big enough for a truck to drive through. The advocacy groups would put out scientific information on an unlimited budget, then just reference that information in their restricted speech.
It would also seriously disadvantage the side with the more nuanced or intricate position.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think I reject, at least partially, that money is a function of level of merit or work in the upper middle class and above. On an individual level only "new money" is when it isn't a lottery winner. Otherwise, it's cause you had an ancestor that had the right combination of intelligence, dilligence, luck and quite possibly sleaziness.
At a corporate level, it's not neccesarily true either, though I don't have it thought out well enough yet to give specific examples, though Underwriters Laboratory comes to mind, as one of my personal pet peeves.
I think finding the level of discerning intelligence and integrity and general horse sense that you want in a politician is so rare in the general population, that trying to put those people in to politics is nearly impossible with the system today, since it's just as likely, if not more to be found gnarled, weathered but educated farmers who'd never leave their land, rather than anywhere else.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ultimately, this is why I'm a big fan of reducing the size of the federal government. There are too many decisions here being made at the top level, and it's making it too hard for people at that level to make informed choices.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ultimately, this is why I'm a big fan of reducing the size of the federal government. There are too many decisions here being made at the top level, and it's making it too hard for people at that level to make informed choices.
I'd join that party. Keep overall taxation levels the same but flip most of the non-military, non-foreign policy taxes over to the states. Then the states can adjust their service and taxation levels to fit the desires of the people.
Basically the party would take almost no positions nationally not relating to foreign policy, defense, customs, immigration, and a few other well-defined set of areas where national coordination is really needed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think the source of the division that people were talking around -- before the thread went off in its own direction -- is this:
quote:OSC wrote: Meanwhile, I write essays that, since I despair of being able to talk about core issues, merely try to alert people to this or that particular danger or problem or, rarely, a possible solution...
Why not talk about core issues? Your "brief precis" here was both comprehensible and wonderfully explanatory, and in the short time since you posted it there have already been multiple requests to make it available in another format and/or venue. I think it's clear that if you were to write one or more essays in this style there would absolutely be a market for them (so to speak). People would read them (I sure would). I do understand that you can't review your entire belief structure and the rationales behind each aspect of it right from the beginning within the confines of a single op-ed essay, but you have dismissed your entire audience (knee-jerk detractors and supporters explicitly; "innocent bystanders" by implication) as unable to comprehend your reasoning without first outlining it.
For example, I often respond strongly and negatively to the op-ed columns of yours that I do read. From the part of your post before the precis I presume this means that this automatically puts me in the "has not bothered to consider my ideas" category... yet I read your precis with outright pleasure, because it made a few aspects of your belief structure and reasoning much clearer to me. Even the parts of it where you dismissed the ability of others (and I took this dismissal to include myself) to comprehend what you wrote were easier to set aside because at least, in this case, the precis itself was there, and the overall tone of the piece wasn't "ornery." I may not share your views, since we start with very different premises, but for once I'm a bit closer to understanding them.
I don't think your characterization of the knee-jerk "side-takers" is wholly or even mostly inaccurate -- posts like Pelegius', for instance, aren't exactly uncommon -- but to dismiss everyone in this community as well as your entire readership with a single blanket statement of that sort is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are plenty of people both here and "out there" who could, I think, surprise you with their ability to understand what you're saying. You just have to present it without dismissing them out of hand.
Of course, that does put a larger burden of effort on you than on your readers -- you have to be more thorough and tactful than the Pelegiuses of the world, who will always be there.
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
I must say that I have been enjoying this thread but I best get back to my studies so that my law school professors do not make a fool of me in class when I respond to one of their questions on some subject like tort law with rhetoric from this forum
Back to the grindstone
Sergeant
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tern said: With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.
tern- I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does. There is no way for anyone, except maybe his wife, to understand the personal experiences that have led him to place more value on one thing than on another. IME, a belief systmem is a combination of both fact and personal experience. Though someone else may be better able to judge the accuracy of a given fact, I think that claiming authority over the ability to judge another's beliefs is akin to saying, "I know you better than you know yourself."
I'm certain that I would be offended if anyone else presumed that they were better equipped than I am to decide what I should believe in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by LadyDove:
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tern said: With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.
tern- I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does. There is no way for anyone, except maybe his wife, to understand the personal experiences that have led him to place more value on one thing than on another. IME, a belief systmem is a combination of both fact and personal experience. Though someone else may be better able to judge the accuracy of a given fact, I think that claiming authority over the ability to judge another's beliefs is akin to saying, "I know you better than you know yourself."
I'm certain that I would be offended if anyone else presumed that they were better equipped than I am to decide what I should believe in.
I interpreted OSC's sentence here to mean that he questions his beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown signs of knowing how to question their own beliefs.
The only reason it didn't offend me is because I know for a fact it's not true.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
tern,
It's funny, I went back and read your post again and realized that you read Card's post as criticising your ability to scrutinize your beliefs, not his.
I'm always amazed at how far short the written word falls when it comes to communicating intent.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Dag-
I didn't take it that way because it didn't seem consistent with the rest of the post. I read the quoted portion as a response to Tom's answering for him.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I interpreted it the same way Dagonee interpreted it. I wouldn't presume to tell Card what he should believe in, either.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I also interpreted it the way tern and Dagonee did. Even on reading it again, LadyDove, I have a hard time seeing it the way you do. I wasn't offended by it for the same reason that Dagonee wasn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I didn't take it that way because it didn't seem consistent with the rest of the post. I read the quoted portion as a response to Tom's answering for him.
If he meant it the way you read it, I doubt anyone disagrees with it. But it's also not saying anything particularly relevant to the rest of the piece if interpreted that way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Add me to the chorus of people who interpreted it as tern and Dag did. I just took it as an indicator that Card hadn't spent enough time on the forum to have gotten to know its members very well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It's funny, I went back and read your post again and realized that you read Card's post as criticising your ability to scrutinize your beliefs, not his.
FWIW, I also assumed Card was saying he had scrutinized his own beliefs more rigorously than most people here know how to scrutinize their own. That's specifically why I cited it as one of three examples of statements which could be eliminated from his post to make it more effective and persuasive.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I don't think he's saying that people here don't know how to examine their own beliefs, or that we don't do it as much as he does. Rather, it seems to me that OSC just feels that none of the posts that he's read indicate to him how much we do examine our beliefs.
It may have been better if he phrased it something like this:
"People here may question their beliefs as rigorously as I do, however, I haven't seen any posts that indicate this to be so. Instead, it seems that the majority of the responses to my columns are based more on ignorance and malicious intent rather than from a sincere attempt to understand the differences between our beliefs."
Added: and as Noemon basically said, this just means that OSC hasn't spent as much time on this forum as many of us have.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Instead, it seems that the majority of the responses to my columns are based more on ignorance and malicious intent rather than from a sincere attempt to understand the differences between our beliefs.
As I said in my previous post, this is partly due to the fact that, as someone who does not regularly engage in debate here, his primary exposure to criticism of his columns comes in the form of one-sided diatribes posted by random newbies. I would like to think that his opinion on this matter would change were he to spend some time talking to various regulars on some of the issues about which he writes essays, if just to understand why they may not agree. Were I to hand-pick debate opponents for Card, Pelegius and Thor would not be near the top of my list for anything but entertainment value.
I'd love to see him talk constitutional law with Dag, or global warming with Rabbit, or same-sex marriage with KarlEd. Jokingly and gingerly, I'd offer to chat with him about web design. What I'm trying to say is that if he only really takes a visible interest in his most erratic critics, all his critics are going to seem erratic and uninformed. And it's my opinion that this will bias and calcify his thinking; I think that would happen to anyone in a similar situation -- as has happened, for example, to people from Garrison Keillor to Harlan Ellison.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Well, maybe I'm delusional, but I don't see that post as an attack. I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths. It's not a crutch, but a loadbeam within the framework of the belief in community.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you may have missed some of the subtleties in his wording, LD. I've quoted three in my follow-up, but there are others. The essay is BOTH a candid explanation of his beliefs AND an attack, and my argument is that it works better as the former if the latter is eliminated. I believe his beliefs are well-reasoned enough to stand on their own, and I'd rather see him spend the space elaborating on his positive reasons for an opinion than speculating negatively about the reasons his opponents might hold a contrary one.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I agree that most of his post is a very candid explanation of why he believes as he does. That part is great. It's the extra things tacked on that come across as an attack and lower the effectiveness of his argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths.
And the comparison to others' questioning of their own beliefs was utterly unnecessary for that explanation.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Until they seized control of the board. Which brings us back to square one.
Are scientists big on hostile takeovers? I think a board loosely modelled on the supreme court would be, if nothing else, a lot more effective than our current system. This would kind of eliminate the inherent drawbacks of newly appointed cabinets every 4 years.
And really, isn't the idea just to improve on the current system? I mean, there is no perfect system.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Are scientists big on hostile takeovers? I think a board loosely modelled on the supreme court would be, if nothing else, a lot more effective than our current system.
I just worry that if you did something like this, it would rapidly become politicized in much the same way that Supreme Court appointments are -- and for much the same reason. I can hear it now: "I can't vote for Bush because he'd appoint another pro-Creationist biologist to the board."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Well, yeah, there's that danger inherent in any appointment system. I just think the process still yields better results than our current unchecked Science Advisor appointments, where the guy giving the advice my have been a C student at Georgia Tech but is the president's second cousin.
Posted by LarvalBean (Member # 8764) on :
Well, I think the issue is that, if the public isn't educated well enough to sort this out, how can we expect our leaders, who are (in theory at least) chosen from the public, to be able to do the same?
If the "experts" aren't smart enough to understand the data and make intelligent decisions, how can we expect our leaders to do so?
It looks like we're basically at the point of the blind leading the blind, seeing that we're all so uneducated.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Sure there were parts that were aggressive, but I don't think that the overall tone was. After reading it a third time, I still don't take the portion that tern quoted as an attack.
tern's quote in particular shows that a single sentence can be either interpretted as a shield or as a sword.
Tom, I agree with you that Card is such an effective communicator that he could say the same things without the barbs. ::shrug:: Everyone has their own personality. I'm idealist enough to think, "Oh man, if he were just a bit more PC, then everyone would see the sense in what he saying about morality and community and family."
........................................ I'm projecting here, but I think that one of the reasons we're so sensitive to his posts is because we want the best of both worlds. On one hand, we want him to be the author who drew us together and on the other hand, we want him to be just as accountable as any other poster.
But, if he were just another poster on the board, we wouldn't expect that he has more hope than we do of changing the world.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Marc Forrester
To go back to your original question, which I interpret as 'does anyone else find they agree with many of what they can decipher as the building block of OSCs internal logic but then dramatically disagree with his conclusion?'
For me the answer is a definite yes. When it first happened I was so very dissappointed ... I felt I had been betrayed. That was nearly 10 years ago, as a teenager, when perhaps it is harder to accept that people really can have very different drivers.
For example, I like civilisation, I understand that marriage, monogamy, fidelity are cornerstones of civilisation. But I do not think it is the role of any organisation (religious or political) to dictate the communities behaviour. Rather, I would aspire to live in a community that is educated enough to understand the cornerstones and where each individual chooses to adopt these mores individually.
Another example. I agree that promiscuity, drugs use, excessive drinking, cigarettes are all signs that as individuals we haven't reighned in our base desires and animal instincts. But again I believe it is for the individual to choose to abstain from these.
Hope that helps!
PS. If this post sounds as though I have no ability to examine and challenge my own beliefs, please consider that it might be because I am not as practiced with the written word.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, Marc's question seemed to me to be "does anyone else find they disagree with what appear to be the building blocks of OSC's internal logic, but then mostly agree with his conclusions?" The explanation's the same, though, IMO.
Posted by LarvalBean (Member # 8764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths.
And the comparison to others' questioning of their own beliefs was utterly unnecessary for that explanation.
I don't think it was intended as an attack per se. After all OSC basically said he didn't think any better of those who support him over those who oppose his stances on the issues he talks about. I got the impression he was more frustrated than anything (by the fact that people on the forum pick sides blindly without thinking things out very well).
I'm too new to know how well written and rational the arguments of most people here are, so I don't know if that's actually true or not. But I think I see what he was trying to say: it is not worth wasting brainpower arguing about his politicial or moral positions here. If we have the intelligence, we should be presenting the arguments to those who have the ability to actually do something with them. And if all we can say is "he's wrong" or "he's right", there's no point in arguing at all. Could be possibly be saying that we actually need to work together to make positive changes, instead of fighting against each other? (I'm not asking that rhetorically, btw.)
To everyone's credit, this thread has not devolved into a discussion of nitpicking OSC's values, just the style he uses in his essay. So maybe we're not as bad as he thinks.
Posted by LarvalBean (Member # 8764) on :
Just to be perfectly clear, I don't agree with some of OSC's conclusions. I think he's wrong. But I don't argue about them here because a) I want to be sure before I say something, so I'd have to do lots of time consuming research, b) all that effort would be wasted if I just dumped in a paper citing 20 sources here, and only here, and c) because I have more fun reading about speculations and theories about the upcoming Ender books.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You don't need any amount of experience here before drawing conclusions about whether the arguments presented here are rational and well-written. The rest of your life should have provided you with that skill already.
Although this isn't always the case, I realize.
Posted by LarvalBean (Member # 8764) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: You don't need any amount of experience here before drawing conclusions about whether the arguments presented here are rational and well-written. The rest of your life should have provided you with that skill already.
Although this isn't always the case, I realize.
What I meant is that, I haven't read any of the threads that carry the major debates. Nor do I have a desire to go out and look for them.
And I do recall a professor of psychology telling me that most people do not think rationally in their day-to-day decisions, even if they have the ability to do so. Really makes you wonder...
Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :
Marc Forrester, there is no human classification scheme, and it's futile to even try and get one. There are patterns of human nature and behavior, and we can try to the best of our ability to understand others, but that's about it. As Card posted, the reason you agree with many of his ideas is because those very traits that religion promotes are the same traits that are needed for a civilization to succeed.
But then you state that some things he says you strongly disagree with, like deeming those who do not adhere to social taboos unacceptible. You don't accept this because some of the great revolutions of the world have been a result of people going against social customs. For instance, say someone in the South were to help slaves get to the north during the Civil War. I can't have an opinion on this idea of Card's because I haven't read the context that he wrote it in, but I have read some of Card's essays on civilization and believe me, such an idea is necessary for a civilization to succeed. So you actually have to do the research and look at the things he's read, and trust me he's read a lot. Besides, many of Card's readers have to learn to distinguish his ideas from his opinions. For instance, an idea of his may have been the one you stated, about the social acceptance, but his opinion on it may be quite different. His idea: that civilizations which have a population which adheres to its own rules because of responsibility and guilt MUST deem those who do not follow the rules inacceptible. If this isn't followed, a civilization will eventually become a collection of tribes. His opinion: if the rules the civilization has instituted are those of cruelty and indecency, then going against the rules is acceptible. I'm not saying that is Card's opinion, I'm just saying that's an example of what it could be.
Posted by Oobie Binoobie (Member # 8059) on :
Defensiveness is human.
I struggle with frustration at similar things. People learn I'm a Mormon, and then surprised when stuff comes out of my mouth that sounds reminiscent of Harry Reid, when he's not ranting at the top of his lungs.
As if I were supposed to be some kind of Utah Republican! As if!
I've tried out some of OSC's ideas elsewhere. In one case, I got the context wrong and ended up slapped quite completely by indignance junkies who equate ultra-low-rise pants and a saucy attitude with feminine goodness.
In some others, people just respond, "buh"? And in only one case, when I paraphrased OSC with, "so caught up in American property rights that you probably can't understand the Doctrine and Covenants" was the listener completely floored, in that enlightened kind of way one likes to get.
But mostly, it's the "buh?", which has led me to conclude that many of OSC's ideas are definitionally rareified; they require a study of history most people aren't doing, in order to get his points.
Maybe that's why you don't see a lot of back and forth on the things you have to say.
[ November 03, 2005, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Oobie Binoobie ]
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
I agree with Tom that some of Scott's asides help to incite the sort of reading that Scott complains about.
I agree with Scott that Tom's response addresses an ancillary stylistic issue, distracts from Scott's valid point, and closes down the discussion by imputing "victimization" motives.
I understand Tom's explanation that it's hard to respond to Scott's points when one agrees with them, and can sympathize with the need to say *something* in response to a short, sweeping, and profound metadiscourse. I've printed out Scott's essay and have read it through a few times, and so far can't think of anything to say that doesn't sound trite. But I submit that a stylistic critique, at this point, however accurate, was worse than saying nothing at all.
As for imputing motives of victimization ... I'm not sure anyone could have calculated a statement more likely to drive Scott away. I don't think that was Tom's intent here. But if Scott does show back up, could y'all please keep the compulsive psychoanalysis to a bare minimum?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ghenghis, who are you? There are very few people, who call OSC in the familiar, and I have to admit I find it rudely jarring when you are a stranger in his living room, unless you have an intimate real life acquaintance with him.
One of the prevailing themes of Hatrack, whether or not OSC is posting, is that how you say something, is of equal importance when getting your point across as *what is actually said*. What you think you say, and how someone else interprets what you say are equally valid realities. The trick to effective communication is to get the two reality gaps as small as possible.
Even if what OSC meant was closer to Lady Dove's interpretation if most people interpret it like tern, twinky, Dagonee and myself, (and among the four of us you've got a huge spectrum of political beliefs so there is no way you could accuse the negative interpretation to be the result of a specific political bias) then effective communication has not taken place. Effective communication has to be taking place, before you are going to change anyone's mind.
If however you think changing people's minds is hopeless, than I can understand a more inflammatory rhetorical position, to attempt to inflame those who might already agree with you to action. However it may weaken the loyalty those who agree with you but are still trying to persuade others through reasoned discourse.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: But I submit that a stylistic critique, at this point, however accurate, was worse than saying nothing at all.
Except that, in the long run, I think that at least part of this conversation is ultimately ABOUT style -- or, rather, tone. Card has a lot of valuable things to say, but a lot of people tune out his arguments precisely because he's deliberately inflammatory and/or insulting. That's the specific point I'm trying to make, and so I can't think of a way to say that without addressing "an ancillary stylistic issue."
In other words, I don't think the "stylistic issue" is ancillary at all. I think the "stylistic issue" (by which I mean a tendency to insult a broad audience for no obvious reason) strongly detracts from the points he's trying to make, and raises hackles where hackles do not need to be raised.
I did not reply to OSC's essay in order to merely say "something" (or "anything.") I replied specifically because his complaints of ill-treatment by his critics ignore (and have ignored in the past) the very real possibility that his tone breeds criticism where there otherwise would be little, and I felt that this possibility was worth mentioning.
Ultimately, I would like OSC to be able to make his best points effectively to the people who might most benefit from them -- and in my opinion, using perjoratives like "shibboleth-watchers" makes this more difficult than it needs to be. For that matter, I think a lot of the frustration he feels about not being understood by his audience would evaporate if he engaged them on a different level, one not as sharply defined by "essays" and responses from the peanut gallery; it's my feeling that his arguments are better-understood (at least by Hatrackers) than he seems to realize.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Or yeah what Tom said... and Tom has learned about the intepretation gap the hard way.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
There are quite a number of people who call Scott in the familliar, and many more who understand the distinction between "familliar" with "intimate." But if it makes you more comfortable for me to call him OSC, I'll do so. I'm not a stranger to him, nor am I an intimate friend, but you are a stranger to me, and I'm not sure why you are dictating the terms of what you call OSC's living room. Who are you to challenge how I refer to OSC?
If things have become as bad as you say on Hattrack, and style has become equally important with substance, then I can understand OSC's disgust with those who have taken possession of his living room.
I have not accused anyone of specific political bias, and yet you are sticking those words into my mouth. Is this what passes for effective communication here?
Since I don't have followers or groupies, I don't worry about weakening others' loyalty with me. I don't intent to change minds, but I do think I can clear a few cobwebs that you have spun around yourselves:
You make up little rules about style and substance, and you might enforce them on each other and on me, like the pissing that Orem got in the cages in Hart's Hope. But OSC, as you call him, owns this site. OSC is not subject to the social rules and pecking order that you have constructed in his living room. Some of us would appreciate it if you would stop demanding that OSC bow to your little tin gods.
I happen to like OSC's style. I can think of a thousand things I'd love to discuss with him, online or in person, and all some of you can do is nitpick and fault-find.
I've had substantive arguments with OSC where we both got red in the face, and neither of us ever bitched about the other's style, or whined that our feelings were hurt.
These stylistic nitpics cause you to miss out on a lot of interesting discussions with OSC. You also squander the opportunity for the rest of us.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote: I think the "stylistic issue" (by which I mean a tendency to insult a broad audience for no obvious reason) strongly detracts from the points he's trying to make, and raises hackles where hackles do not need to be raised.
I agree, but so what? It's still an ancillary point, and your timing really stunk, Tom.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Ultimately, I would like OSC to be able to make his best points effectively to the people who might most benefit from them -- and in my opinion, using perjoratives like "shibboleth-watchers" makes this more difficult than it needs to be. For that matter, I think a lot of the frustration he feels about not being understood by his audience would evaporate if he engaged them on a different level, one not as sharply defined by "essays" and responses from the peanut gallery; it's my feeling that his arguments are better-understood (at least by Hatrackers) than he seems to realize.
May I suggest how to better communicate this idea?
Next time, take the essay, remove parts you consider unnecessary and inflammatory, and repost it as your summary of what OSC said, on another thread. Try to start a substantive discussion based on that summary. If that turns out to be a great substantive discussion, then you've got real fuel for your argument that the phrases you dislike, cause all the ruckus, and you can make that point to him privately, linking to the discussion.
Of course, both of us might be wrong, and everybody might still jump in and shriek about style, in spite of your expurgation.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Genghis, there is a fundamental difference between text, and in person communication. OSC himself acknowledges this, when he talks about how everyone creates a different story, their own unique story, in their minds, even though they are all reading the same book he wrote. He's admitted to being mystifed details people have insisted were in the book that only were in the stories in their heads.
This is why the pen is mightier than the sword.
The interaction in prose in forums happens at a different level of brain cognation than a normal water cooler conversation between people at work.
If I was talking to a grammar nut, and wanted to get under their skin, and provoke them, even if the topic had nothing directly to do with grammar, I'd use oh-so-subtle misusages on purpose. If I was talking to a grammar nut, and wanted them to listen to me and respect what I said, I'd deliberately keep my grammar squeaky clean, and even use a grammatically correct but perhaps slightly more awkward construction, simply because they'd appreciate it.
It's not flattery. It's talking in the way your intended audience is most likely to understand you, in order to get your desired result.
I tutored chemistry for five years. If someone wasn't getting the concept I intended to convey, I *always* assumed the fault was mine, for not finding the correct method of conveying the information for that person. Should I have written them off as learning disabled, because they couldn't understand me? Or should I have used every means at my disposal in order to narrow the commnication gap and increase comprehension?
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just want to add that this is not an issue with which I'm unfamiliar. Fairly recently, I seriously upset Mr. Card by starting a thread on the IGMS -- I'm a subscriber, and love the content -- that expressed my concern about what I considered, very close to its official start date, a worrisomely unprofessional site design. I rather flippantly referred to it, tongue slightly in cheek, as "just shy of eye-crushingly ugly."
In retrospect, it's easy to see why he took offense. And had I approached the issue in any number of other ways, I believe it might have been possible to engage him in a useful discussion on site design; because my approach was so poorly chosen, however, I alienated him and eliminated that possibility. Even an apology doesn't negate the fact that I carelessly, callously, and thoughtlessly insulted his "child," something he'd invested a lot of time and work into preparing. The fact that we both would like to see the site prosper was lost, dismissed as ludicrous; clearly, anyone so hostile had to be an enemy and opposed to his goals or motivated by uncharitable impulse.
So tone is very, very important. In persuasive essays, in Op-Ed pieces, it's practically all you have. And when Card dismisses the life's work of an environmentalist with an accusation of groupthink, or a long-term same-sex relationship with a tossed-off reference to "playing house," he closes doors that might otherwise have led him to interesting places. Clearly, his readers think, anyone so hostile has to be an enemy; they have to oppose your goals. To my mind, what gets lost in the shuffle is that both Card and that same-sex couple probably have surprisingly similar goals and intentions; that they disagree on specific points of policy does not mean that it's safe to assume that one has been misled into or is deliberately attempting to destroy everything the other holds dear.
The kind of language used in Card's essays -- and in some of his posts -- can force people into adversarial relationships with his opinions.
-------
quote:I've had substantive arguments with OSC where we both got red in the face, and neither of us ever bitched about the other's style, or whined that our feelings were hurt.
It's been some time -- and here I mean around five years -- since I've seen OSC engage in a substantive argument with anyone on this site. He just doesn't seem to want to do it much. The last time I saw him reply to someone in this vein was back in 2000, regarding Clinton's missile attacks on Afghanistan. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you; it's certainly not uncommon on authors' websites, which are more often blogs nowadays, anyway. His involvement with us has generally seemed to consist of light (often marvelously funny and insightful) banter sprinkled with the occasional precis. The reason you see only newbies post ill-considered, rambling diatribes about Card's political essays is that it becomes apparent over the course of a few months here that actual dialogue on those essays will not occur; most people who've been here for a while would be absolutely astonished to see Card reply to a specific refutation of a point made by one of his essays. And even calling attention to this is dangerous; the last time I (light-heartedly, even) expressed frustration about the fact that he appeared to completely ignore a point I'd made that seemed to render one of his assertions invalid, it apparently bothered him so much that he decided I was an obsessed fan determined to stoop to lower and lower levels to provoke his attention and reaction.
There's a thick line walked on this forum all the time between people who know the Card family well, people who've run into them occasionally, people who correspond with them over email, etc. And then you have people who know Card only as their favorite author, or that guy who wrote this great (or infuriating) essay they saw linked from Slashdot. In this environment, it would be somewhat unrealistic to assume that Card would necessarily be able -- or want -- to maintain the kind of relationship that would make possible civil but red-faced arguments with every poster here.
So I'm sure we are missing out on a lot of interesting discussions. I don't disagree. But I reserve judgement as to whose choice that has been, or even how practical it would be to expect otherwise.
--------
quote: Next time, take the essay, remove parts you consider unnecessary and inflammatory, and repost it as your summary of what OSC said, on another thread.
This is an interesting suggestion. I think it's worth noting, though, that we've had similar discussions on here -- albeit none that have in essence copied and edited Mr. Card's work for tone without attribution. (I'm not sure, honestly, how he'd react to that attempt.) It's certainly the case that most of Card's most intriguing -- and provoking -- essays wind up producing multiple threads here, many of which generate civil and in-depth discussion of the issues involved. Others start out like Pelegius' did. But it's ALSO the case that, in almost all of those threads, even the people who universally support Card's positions find it difficult to support his word choice at times -- and once the word choice issue is conceded, the discussion tends to become rapidly more civil. (In other words, I think your experiment has in some ways ALREADY been performed.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In the years I have been here, I have consistently observed that OSC won't post, unless there *is* an inflammatory barb somewhere that catches his interest, even if it is negative interest. Remove all the inflammatory stuff and he doesn't pay attention.
So, if the desired result is actually *to* get OSC to respond an inflammatory barb is quite handy. For example. I wrote a very mild mannered post, with gentle concerns about Enderverse timeline, in a thread where he had previously posted in hopes he'd see it. I waited a month-ish, and went to a signing where I hoped to have my fears assuaged.
Instead, I found out he didn't know how glaring his own timeline holes were. So I wrote a thread, pretty much tearing him a new one over his timeline inconsistencies. I felt bad about it at the time even though the facts backed me up, and I quoted page numbers etc. Guess which one got responded to?
AJ
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Unfortunately, it really does matter how you say it, as well as what you say. It is the nature of all people, I believe, that when they read something which contains negative comments, that they will focus on the negative and ignore everything else, no matter how reasoned the rest may be.
quote:Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Alas, it's this kind of comment that makes me less willing to jump in and defend OSC from posters like Pelegius. In many respects, I'm one of those who agree with Card. We are both active and experienced members of the same religion, and I cannot understate the influence that the beliefs of the LDS religion have upon it's members. I think he makes many good points, and I enjoy the way that he lays out his support for his views. But when I say this, am I being lumped in as some sort of mindless yes-man? Do I get looked at as if I am clueless as to what Card said?
I doubt that Card meant to come across that way. Most importantly, I think that this could have been phrased much better, so that this wouldn't detract from his real point.
I remember Geoff Card posted that Card and his family deal with a tremendous amount of abuse, and most of it is behind the scenes, where we never see it.
I believe it. From what I've seen on this forum, he's taken quite a bit of abuse. I can only imagine how much nasty unfan (e)mail gets sent, etc...
But I didn't do it. And I didn't deserve this. Neither did many other people that seem to have been lumped in under this description.
And again, I don't think that Card meant to come across that way. Now, perhaps it will be taken as if I'm trying to read his mind and assign motives to him when I have no idea. But I say that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps my comments will be taken as a personal attack, or a contemptous comment, or a pretended understanding. If so, then at least understand that I don't mean it that way.
I percieve that there is anger and frustration in these posts. I know that there is a reason for it, and if our places were switched, I think that I would likely be angry and frustrated as well. But it doesn't help. All it does is detract from the message.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
BannaOj, I'm not sure how the difference between text and in person communication, remotely relates to what OSC said about construction of stories. We all construct our living experiences differently, just as we construct our textual readings. God himself is probably mystified at the meaning that certain people ascribe to their real life experiences, and Card is probably baffled at the rules you impose in his living room.
The pen is mightier than the sword for some purposes, and the sword is mightier for other purposes, as you will discover if you ever draw a bic on me and challenge me to a swordfight.
quote: I tutored chemistry for five years. If someone wasn't getting the concept I intended to convey, I *always* assumed the fault was mine, for not finding the correct method of conveying the information for that person. Should I have written them off as learning disabled, because they couldn't understand me? Or should I have used every means at my disposal in order to narrow the commnication gap and increase comprehension?
That's marvelous. I wish I'd had you instead of my organic Chem TA. But consider this: if I had started my response to your post, by pointing out that you'd mispelled my screen name, that would have been pissy. It is a little pissy for me to mention it even now, even though I'm only doing it to point out how pissy it is to do so. If you blamed yourself for me not getting your point because you had misspelled my screen name, you would be putting yourself through unnecessary hearteache.
Consider this as well: This wasn't a case of Tom not getting the concept that OSC meant to convey. Tom understood, but responded with a stylistic critique.
One last thing to consider: This isn't the first time that some of you have lectured OSC about his style in his own living room, rather than replying to the substance of what he said. By your own principles, perhaps you should look for alternate means of communicating your point, such as the one I suggested above to Tom.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Perhaps it is bad timing to get on Card about stylistic issues. But when is a good time? And if we wait until everything's cooled down, then it's going to look like we're just digging up old bones better left buried. Better to strike the iron while it's hot.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I should also mention that critiquing Card's stylistic issues is not a personal attack. We're not calling him any names or labeling him, we're just suggesting that he's being less effective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: This wasn't a case of Tom not getting the concept that OSC meant to convey. Tom understood, but responded with a stylistic critique.
This is because I perceived the larger issue not to be a question of how it was possible for someone to hold Card's opinions -- because, after all, Card's quite capable of holding his own opinions -- but rather why people didn't know how it was possible for Card to hold the opinions they assume he holds. And my conclusion there is that, by and large, they attribute to him opinions -- and especially motives -- he does not have, based on his adversarial tone. They misunderstand what he intends to say and do not give his logic the benefit of the doubt, perhaps because he doesn't appear in his essays to respect their own life experiences or conclusions. And I wouldn't've even mentioned that -- would have left it, in fact, with my original defense of his logic and good intentions -- had he not posted a response that contained exactly the sort of thinly-veiled attack I believe produces threads like this one.
So my observation was not, as far as I can tell, even slightly off-topic. It was not a left-field digression.
quote: The pen is mightier than the sword for some purposes, and the sword is mightier for other purposes, as you will discover if you ever draw a bic on me and challenge me to a swordfight.
Perhaps the problem is that not everyone realizes that ALL the "fights" on here are conducted with pens.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
GhC,
I also thought I might have had a bit of credibility with OSC as far as considering the initial gentle post about timeline discrepancies, as he chose me to be a proofreader for Crystal City and I am included in the book credits. Turns out he didn't remember me. Which is ok, he can't remember everyone nor should he have to. However, it's also why I'd never presume to address him in the familiar.
I don't know, if we all started calling him Scott then every newbie that came along would call him that. The rest of his own site generally referst o him as OSC. As a more personal friend do you think everyone calling him Scott would bother him? His own and generally his wife call him OSC, when referring to him on this forum. It seems to me he probably needs both the distance and respect because of all the nutcases out there.
For that matter, what if I am one of the nutcases? Would you want me calling him Scott?
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For my part, I used to call him Scott because a) I was aware that this was the name he generally used in casual conversation; b) it was how he'd signed a few emails to me, back in the day, and he'd never expressed any displeasure when I addressed him by that name in my replies; c) it was how his wife referred to him. But when Geoff -- who even calls him "Card" here -- mentioned how much it creeped him out to see people call his dad "Scott" on Hatrack, I stopped. Actually, I think OSC's one of only two people on this board for whom I do this; I tend to use people's names when possible, unless specifically asked otherwise.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry for misspelling your mispelling, GhC. Had I been deliberately trying to be controversial, I would have linked to this
and made a few snarky remarks about spelling bees and Outer Mongolia.
And if you had your wits about you to be snarky back in return... (which can be fun if done in good humor:)) no, BannaOj is not a mispelling of fruit, it is a convolution of my actual name.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's my secret hope that Genghis Cohen is actually Terry Pratchett. I like the idea of Pratchett and Card hanging out and yelling at each other about their very different politics. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I'm not sure how the difference between text and in person communication, remotely relates to what OSC said about construction of stories.
Um... stories are READ. Communication in prose is READ. Reading a sentence is reading a sentence. It's the same basic cognation process in the brain, and therefore subject to the same sort of interpretation problems between different people's brains. All things considering, it's pretty amazing that any human communication on remotely the same wavelength takes place at all, considering how abstract the silent reading process is.
AJ
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: I should also mention that critiquing Card's stylistic issues is not a personal attack.
It's a bore, that's what it is.
I've already said that I don't think Tom intended a personal attack. Tom was just playing with your house rule that places substance and style on equal levels.
Substance is far more important than style in some situations; in others, style is more important than substance. The only situation I can think of where they are exactly equal in importance, is when you are writing a postmodern essay.
If you were in grammar school, and your grade school teacher was reading you about the wild exploits of Dick, Jane, and Spot, and you lurched into a substantive critique of Dick's choice of activities for the day, I think your teacher would scowl at you. You have injected unnecessary substance into a discussion that focuses on style.
Here, OSC took the trouble to write what I thought was an insightful and compelling essay, and rather than responding substantively, or waiting for someone else to do so, you changed to a discussion about style.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's my secret hope that Genghis Cohen is actually Terry Pratchett. I like the idea of Pratchett and Card hanging out and yelling at each other about their very different politics.
I'm not a VIP, Tom; I've never sold a book. You know me by the name "Pete at Home." Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know it's a travesty, but I have never read a novel by Terry Pratchett. Maybe when I get another library card, but I've been avoiding getting a library card, because if either Steve or I have one, we'd spend way too much time there, and never get anything fixed up on our fixer-upper. It would be raining buckets through the roof, and we'd ductape a waterproof tarp over our bed with a spout to direct it back out the window and keep on reading.
Steve's reading habit and our continuing accumulation of bookshelves is the only character trait of his that my mother has ever given her approval to, and even that was grudging. AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
See, Pete, I didn't interpret this thread that way. Here's a tongue-in-cheek summary:
Someone posts "How is it possible that I agree with Card on so many issues, when he relies on some silly religion to reach his conclusions?"
People reply along the lines of "Religion isn't silly, and Card uses more than his religion to reach his conclusions."
Card replies, posting "I do a lot of reading and research to reach my conclusions, and believe that religion and logic not only coexist but must coexist as they approach Truth. Oh, and incidentally, I can't stand all of you stupid people."
I reply "You know, that last part was unnecessary and more than a little inaccurate."
Discussion occurs.
You post "I know OSC personally, and he really enjoys a lively argument. I don't see why you should mind being called stupid, or think it's appropriate to complain about it when he does it."
---------
I know this is an oversimplification, but I think I've hit the high points. Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
If OSC wants to be called OSC on Hatrack, then of course I'll defer to his wishes. Thanks Tom for letting me know that.
Regarding your vicious cycle ... don't you realize that you can't control what he does, but only what you do? If you keep doing what you are doing, why do you expect to get anything other than what you're getting?
I'm sorry that you've reverted to distortion, Tom. I didn't say that your complaint was innapropriate. What I actually said is that your timing, style, and delivery sucks. Once again, Tom writes a polite, thoughtful, and accurate complaint, and then tosses it through someone living room window, tied to a rock, and cries "why does this always happen to poor me" when someone critiques his delivery.
BO, do you don't understand what I mean by track-switching? Sigh. OK. Have it your way:
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 279,000 for ghengis. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for gengis.
That suggests that Gengis 1.76% more common of a spelling than Ghengis. You want to make an issue of how I chose to spell my sig, or can we move on? Have we genuflected enough times to the tin god of style, and can we move on now?
[ November 03, 2005, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: Ghengis Cohen ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote: Google Results 1 - 10 of about 279,000 for ghengis. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 284,000 for gengis.
That suggests that Gengis 1.76% more common of a spelling than Ghengis. You want to make an issue of how I chose to spell my sig, or can we move on? Have we genuflected enough times to the tin god of style, [Hail] and can we move on now?
Google Results 1 - 10 of about 2,010,000 for genghis. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Google results for "Genghis": 2,010,000. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Back in the day, Pete at Home was one of the reasons why I stopped reading Ornery. It was his tone, as much as what was said that made it a less pleasant online place for me to habitate.
I wish I didn't know who you were now, the previous negative opinion destroys my objectivity. However that was long ago and far away, and as I will attempt to consider Ghengis Cohen a separate Hatrack entity, to be as fair to you as I can be.
AJ
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that it's actually a misnomer to claim that we're critiquing Card's style as if we were disagreeing with how he uses grammar or the English language.
We're not. We're disagreeing with the unnecessary negative comments, which is more of a substantive issue. It is both style and substance.
Perhaps this might be taken as if we am misunderstanding and moving the discussion on a tangent that has nothing to do with OSC's real point. I think we are. But so what? The fact is that presentation matters. I find it very difficult to focus on the message when there are unnecessary negative comments in it. As I have said, one tends to focus on the negatives. Instead of thinking, is this how Card forms his beliefs, I end up thinking, is he referring to me when he talks about those who are on his side and don't have a rudimentary understanding?
I'm sorry, but it just wasn't needed. I'm not a fan of political correctness - at all - but it is still important to avoid comments that detract from the message.
I'd really like to know what Card thinks about our reaction to the negative comments in his precis.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Why are so many people taking some statements of OSC personally? For example this statement:
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
When I read this I didn't take this personally in the least. I don't agree with him on this particular topic of "the possible consequences of redefining marriage" at a gut level and he's also right that I don't even understand the rudimentary principles. Wouldn't anyone entering into a debate be frustrated if the opponents of the debate were not educated on the points of a particular topic? Why should this be an insult to me? I personally would be interested in knowing more about the principles he is talking about first. I understand that he has done a good deal of research and I would like to know what he has found and why he comes to the conclusions he does. He further explains that many people who agree with him are simply of the same mind but haven't really learned about the principles either and so their motives appear to be more or less just as unsubstantiated. So on both the pro and con sides of the issue he has said people are not really talking about the issues or learning even the rudimentary principles.
and
quote: (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that, I'm speaking of our embrace of divorce, of abortion at the woman's sole option, of extramarital mating, and many other experiments that have collectively weakened reproductive security and intergenerational cultural transmission)
He is expressing that there are a group of people who have a knee-jerk reaction to something he says. Again why is this an insult, and why would you take it personally unless you were a knee-jerk shibboleth watcher? And even if you were, are you really insulted? Doesn't this simply state that there are people who instantly reply to his statements and accuse him of having a particular motive or agenda? In fact I'm sure a group of people do exist which have a knee-jerk reaction to many statements he makes.
I would very much like to learn what things OSC has found regarding this issue, and see a real debate on the issues.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Why are so many people taking some statements of OSC personally?
Maybe because I'm really insecure? No, I don't think that his statements accurately describe me. But what I wonder is, does he see me that way?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ghengis Cohen, there are people who habitate here, who use spelling and grammar checkers on every post they right. I am not one of them. I rarely use my backspace key, and what you read from me is pretty much a direct stream of consciousness.
I have actually been complimented on my spelling and grammar errors by those same sorts of people. Because, even when I make errors, they generally do not detract from my actual points. In fact the errors are often plays on words that enhance my point. See "right" above. However all such mistakes (including that one) are entirely subconscious and not deliberate whatsoever at my end. And, my comma usage is always a bit sketchy, but they don't seem to mind too much.
AJ
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
@tern
Consider that perhaps the nitpicks might be as unnecessary as his sideswipes.
It seems hypocritical to vent about someone else's venting.
Tom might come back by pointing out that I'm venting about his venting about OSC's venting. The difference is, OSC had other significant things to say, and you ditched that whole aspect of his argument. I haven't pissed on any masterpieces here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Wouldn't anyone entering into a debate be frustrated if the opponents of the debate were not educated on the points of a particular topic? Why should this be an insult to me?
Because there ARE people who are educated on this topic who are being rhetorically lumped into that same category.
Consider this sample phrase, which I've exaggerated to make the rhetorical device more obvious:
"Now those of my opponents who disagree with me, those people who have failed to understand even the most elementary mathematics and are even as we speak scheming to tear down the fabric of society, will tell you that these numbers are wrong."
You can make the point that perhaps some of the people who disagree with the author are bad at math and are seeking to destroy society. But the implication here is that all people who disagree with the author fit this category. It's up there with "how long have you been beating your wife," in that it practically forces someone to address and deny the rhetorical device before anyone can continue, instantly putting the target on the defensive.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Good heavens, BO, you missed my whole point! Will you stop talking about spelling already? I only brought it up as an ILLUSTRATION of how annoying and pissy it is to switch tracks on a discussion, from substance to rhetorical style, from rhetorical style to spelling, or whatever. It's pissy and breaks up the discussion. Your spelling is just fine, man. Don't sweat it.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. I also recognize in myself all the natural human tendencies - to look with favor on new ideas that seem to buttress ideas I already hold; to be especially skeptical of ideas that seem to challenge cherished beliefs; to have a harder time listening to those who are attacking instead of discussing rationally; and so on.
I saw this confession of shortcomings as Card showing that he knows his weaknesses, acknowledges them and includes this knowledge when he tests his own beliefs. In other portions of the essay, he explains that his beliefs are built on research and experience, though, at times, he will draw a conclusion with less that perfect understanding.
I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
My difficulty with finding offense in this very thoughful essay, is that Card was asked the question, "Who are you? Why can you both enlighten me and enrage me?"
He answered. He put himself out there. Her gave an explanation and he gave some emotion.
And some of the people here made it all about themselves. I don't get it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pete, I think your use of the term "rhetorical style" is a bit vague when what we're actually talking about is veiled insults and broad ad hominems applied to entire sections of the population. If you concede that these are indeed problematic, and your only observation is that it's perhaps inappropriate for me to be bringing it up at this time, I'm afraid I have to ask whenyou -- as a friend who's happily argued with OSC until you were both red in the face -- were planning to have that talk with him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
No. It's quite specifically directed at "anyone here." I don't know if you consider yourself "here" or not, but you're otherwise clearly included in that list.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
I posit this might be the interpretation if you are already in a defensive position, I'm not and therefore don't see the insults, rhetorically lumped or by implication.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually it isn't changing the point at all. It was illustrating another facet of the same broader point. How you communicate is just as important as the message. And there are people on this forum who are most likely not awake right now, who are far, far pissier than I, about such things. I was using myself as an example because it was kindest.
Now if you don't care what they think of you, that's fine. But why are you posting on a forum at all if you don't care about what the people reading it think? If you do care, then you try to communicate in the form which will make them the most receptive to your ideas. If you don't actually care, then it's useless verbal masturbation. I believe that masturbation, of any kind, should generally be kept as a private activity for the good of society.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That particular sentence doesn't even imply, Tim. It outright states that he believes he's rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own -- although I'll concede that grammatical vagueness makes it possible that he meant he's considered his own beliefs more than anyone else here has considered his beliefs. But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense, most of the people who've read that sentence appear to have interpreted it the first way. And if so, that's an outright statement of moral superiority.
I do not automatically concede, for example, that OSC has necessarily considered his beliefs more than I have considered my own. I'm willing to grant the possibility, but I consider it a little uncharitable of him to take that as a given.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Actually it isn't changing the point at all. It was illustrating another facet of the same point. How you communicate is just as important as the message. And there are people on this forum who are most likely not awake right now, who are far, far pissier than I, about such things.
Now you interpret me as calling you "pissy."
I don't think you're pissy at all. I think you are a nice, polite, well-meaning and reasonably intelligent person who is operating on grossly flawed premises about how language works. Like this
quote: How you communicate is just as important as the message.
Because of false premises like those, you continue to misunderstand me, and Card, and others. You start by equating substance with style in importance, and you end up confusing substance with style.
I said that Tom's delivery had a pissy effect, and you disagreed. I tried to illustrate to you how pissy it would be for me to track-switch on you like Tom did on me, and you thought I was actually critiquing your spelling, and defended yourself. I then told you your spelling was fine, so you thought I was accusing you of being pissy. Look -- you might have a horrible opinion of me as a person, but I don't see you that way at all. I'm sorry if I offended you on Ornery, and I really appreciate your giving me another chance here. I think you're dead wrong about equating style to substance, but please don't take my disagreement personally.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Tom,
I only take offense when it is directed at me.
There are only a few people here who know me well enough to define what I believe in or what response I'll have to any given situation or comment. Card isn't one of those people. How could I assume that he was targeting me? It would seem to me to be either paranoid or self-agrandizing.
So while I do consider myself a part of the community, I don't pretend to speak for the community, nor do I expect the community to speak for me. I love this community specifically for the fact that it is so diverse, yet so cohesive. And, IMO, the glue is the concept that we all secretly or openly want to be "Makers".
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense, most of the people who've read that sentence appear to have interpreted it the first way.
Now Tom, you could have completely left out the "But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense" and said the same thing.
Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume that you aren't calling me an idiot. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Now Tom, you could have completely left out the "But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense" and said the same thing.
Unless you tell me otherwise, I'll assume that you aren't calling me an idiot.
Ping! You noticed that, you note, enough to reply. And yet even then it still wasn't as blatant as "people who are unfamiliar with human nature will tell you that this sort of comment isn't meant to be insulting," which is roughly parallel to the quotes in question.
(And no, I don't think you're an idiot. I'd appreciate it if OSC, now that we've questioned him about it, would clarify his own statements that way.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ghengis, you didn't call me pissy. I called myself pissy and only in a relative sense to others that frequent this forum.
There is an entire thread on the other side on Grammar Nazism and how judging people on incompetent grammar may be a less than ideal character trait. Those who would like to change their judgementalness discuss how it is also a hard habit to break. But, more frequently than not in Real Life their prejudgemnts of character based on grammar turn out to be true, even though they feel guilty for the genuinely nice people they accidently misjudged.
AJ
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Tom, I don't think you grasp what an ad homeniem is. An ad homeniem is not equal to a personal attack. It's the subset of personal attacks used to dismiss the substance of what someone is saying. Like the way most people use the word "bigot," as "a dangerous person whose views must not be listened to."
OSC does sideswipe, and you could reasonably take some of the remarks personally. But he isn't using those insults to dismiss the substance of what anyone is saying.
Your little victimization psychoanalysis, however, does dismiss the substance of his remarks, in context, when you don't otherwise address the substance. *That* is an ad homeniem.
If you had made a coherent substantive response to OSC's remarks, and then, at the end, made your complaint about his style, I don't think his response would have been hostile. The problem was that your rhetorical critique came in lieu of a substantive response. That is track-switching, and like I said, it's a bore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pete, did you see my little summary of the thread above? Go back and read it. What you consider "substantive" and what I consider "substantive" for the purposes of this thread are two different things, as we clearly disagree on what the substance of the thread actually is.
And, again, I'm perfectly willing to drop out of this conversation if you'll tell me when exactly you planned to bring this up with OSC. Unless of course you don't think we should ever mention it -- which kind of puts the lie to your whole "timing" bit.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Sure I noticed it. And I only pointed it out to tweak your nose, as you probably also guessed.
Tom, I used to find you insufferably rude and dismissive until I realized that you aren't... if that makes any sense. Now, I don't focus on the flack, I focus on your substance. For me, the turning point was when I was faced with a situation where I was 100% sure you were not trying to be a dick. You were simply trying to help me understand and the subject was close to your heart. (False sexual harrassment charges in the workplace.)
At that point I realized that your writing style is part of who you are, not an indictment of me. I'm a much better and appreciative reader of TomDavidson since that time.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I guess what it comes down to, is the question of "Is Appearance Reality?" which is what I was trying to get at by my grammar discussion. Considering what percentage of the human race runs their lives on the premise that appearances are reality, I think it can be taken as a working fact.(the statistics on beautiful people being sucessful in the workplace are only the tip of the iceberg)
It doesn't mean it's actually true, because appearances aren't necessarily reality. But so many people act as if they are, you are stuck with it. Even those of us who try not to succumb, still do in certain areas. Maybe it's just plain human nature.
Either way This is why the appearance is as important as the message if you want the message to be interpreted correctly and marketing is a gazillion dollar industry.
AJ
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
In certain contexts, appearance is reality; in others, appearance is not reality. In some contexts style is more important than substance; in others; substance is more important.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Will you concede, Pete, that style is pretty darn important in a persuasive essay? Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Wow, that's a loaded relativism. So, in your opinion, what makes an internet forum fall into the latter category?
AJ
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
This sentence?
OSC Wrote
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Tom Wrote
quote: That particular sentence doesn't even imply, Tim. It outright states that he believes he's rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own -- although I'll concede that grammatical vagueness makes it possible that he meant he's considered his own beliefs more than anyone else here has considered his beliefs. But since that interpretation doesn't make much sense, most of the people who've read that sentence appear to have interpreted it the first way. And if so, that's an outright statement of moral superiority.
This sentence does not "outright states" that he "rigorously considered his own beliefs in more depth than anyone on this board has considered their own", otherwise there wouldn't be any discussion. And we have no way of knowing how many people have interpreted this to mean your first or second interpretation but I'm sure you would agree that if you are defensive you will be offended more easily than if you are not. Ultimately, I wonder why you would chose to be offended rather than not? Wouldn't it be the most prudent to give the benefit of the doubt, if you in fact have doubt?
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Will you concede, Pete, that style is pretty darn important in a persuasive essay?
I already did, when I agreed with what you said.
I merely suggested that you should have delivered it in a useful way, rather than tying the message to a brick and pitching it through his window.
Note that when I critiqued your delivery, that I at least took the trouble to address the substance of what you said first.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I translate it as, those who disagree with me are uneducated idiots and those who agree with me are uneducated idiots.
Kind of insults everyone and puts himself in a nice little ivory tower, even though he purports to hate ivory towers. Follow that thought through to its conclusion and it makes him a hypocrite.
OSC isn't a hypocrite, but he sure leaves himself wide open for the interpretation. And when a good writer leaves himself that wide open, you wonder if he really might have meant it that way, since you know he could write well enough to avoid that interpretation if he'd felt like it.
AJ
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
No, Tim, this sentence:
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
Much of his essay is a diatribe against people who don't question their beliefs, but rest complacent in their own little ideological ghetto. So in context, it certainly seems that he is referring to people questioning their own beliefs, not his.
Look, these sort of unnecessary and negative comments are like waving a red flag at a bull. It's bull nature to charge at the flag, and it's human nature to charge at the comments. Yes, the bull will soon find out that the point isn't the flag, but the sword that the bullfighter has, and we already know that Card's point isn't those negative comments, but if you are writing persuasively, or even expository, you don't want to detract from your point with red flags.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
We're not track-switching. Card has left us with two tracks, and there is more to debate about on this track.
There are accusations that we are deliberately missing the real point by focusing on these issues. Well, there was more than one point to that essay.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Just because he does it for a living, doesn't mean he won't make mistakes or be misinterpretted.
I'm having a hard time understanding all the venom. Maybe I'm just not emotionally invested enough to find offense.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
My venom and offense have passed. What remains is a mystification: Why does someone of such talent and understanding choose to dilute his message? For heaven's sake, I agree with almost everything he said, but there is enough in there that is distracting to make it less convincing.
How can I point people, especially not on Hatrack, to this when the tone will drive them away? I want to convince people, and Card is a much better writer than I am, and his logic is better than mine as well. But it's the packaging. Okay, Card is acting as a pundit, not as an author here. But who is more convincing: Doug Giles or Charles Krauthammer? Packaging does affect effect.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Incidentally, accusing those who disagree with Card or his methods as "Card-bashing" is a "poisoning the well" argument.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
I think that's careless interpretation on your part.
quote:So when I address, for example, the possible consequences of redefining marriage in a way that I think poses a serious threat to our ability as a community to provide the reproductive security that a civilized community absolutely must provide to survive (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that
Those not reading what he said in a self-centered way, notice that his barb goes BOTH ways, not just to pro-ssm folk, but to anti-as well. That's more obvious when he says:
quote:But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues. No; this isn't about you. OSC is talking about tribalism, and that cuts both ways.
Over the years, OSC has zinged me more than a few times. Sometimes it annoys me, and sometimes it outright angers me, but never has it dulled my senses to the point where I started whole threads about my wounded feelings and about how OSC ought to change his ways in order for my sake.
For example, I'm pro-choice, meaning that I don't trust the government with sovereignty over a woman's body. I consider abortion a horror, but giving government right to make reproductive choices on our behalf, for me is a greater horror. OSC appears to consider my position monstruous. Why would I want to respond "how dare you call me a monster," and all that gas? OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments.
Much easier to converse with someone who thinks me to be an interesting monster, than to try to reason with someone who dismisses all of my arguments and perceptions, because of my religion, and treats me like I'm not a real individual, but just a mindless spokesman for my church.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Incidentally, accusing those who disagree with Card or his methods as "Card-bashing" is a "poisoning the well" argument.
And arguing against a statement that no one on this thread made, is a "straw man" argument.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Um, Card did.
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
OSC Wrote
quote: I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
tern Wrote
quote: Much of his essay is a diatribe against people who don't question their beliefs, but rest complacent in their own little ideological ghetto. So in context, it certainly seems that he is referring to people questioning their own beliefs, not his.
Again, it would appear this is a matter of personal interpretation. I do not take offense to this statement. I have not even debated on this forum with anyone about knowing how to question my own beliefs. How would the signs be known to him then? Why would I be personally insulted? In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent? When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
I guess I choose to believe the statements are not personal attacks. And your right OSC is a great author.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Um, Card did.
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
Card did what, other than accurately anticipate some of the responses here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Tom was just playing with your house rule that places substance and style on equal levels.
Substance is far more important than style in some situations; in others, style is more important than substance. The only situation I can think of where they are exactly equal in importance, is when you are writing a postmodern essay.
But it's not just stylistic: OSC made some pretty bad accusations, and he made them about pretty much everyone here. Responding to that is substantive.
It's not related to the substance of what OSC was trying to say. But it is related to the substance of what he said.
quote:I see that there is a bit of name-calling, but it is minor and it is directed at an undefined "them".
It's also an attempt to claim sole possession of a credential that I know for a fact he does not uniquely possess, especially when the "them" he claims does not possess it includes the posters of Hatrack.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ghengis Cohen:
quote:Originally posted by tern: Um, Card did.
quote: I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
Card did what, other than accurately anticipate some of the responses here?
OSC pretty much accused all of us of being masters of self-deception. I've seen OSC use his perception of someone else's "real motives" to seriously insult him.
Either OSC doesn't think these are wrong (which I don't think is the case), or he thinks it's appropriate to comment on people when they do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues.
I don't. I'm not complaining about his partisanship. I'm complaining about his use of insults. That he insults a whole bunch of people does not in fact negate my argument.
quote: OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments.
I have trouble understanding why you believe this. I believe he can call you a monster and still contemplate your arguments, but I think it's very unlikely that they'd get a fair shake if he actually considered you one.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Part of the substance of OSCs post was that communities that thrive will have values that benefit the community.
The reasoning OSC asked us to follow was as follows: Many / most / at least my religion require their members to adopt certain beliefs about marriage, divorce, promiscuity, extra-marital affairs Many / most / at least my religion can be deemed to be a successful community due to the size and cohesiveness of the society. Other communities that do not adopt these beliefs can be shown to be unsuccessful (ie decline and fall of Rome)
Therefore the beliefs that many / most / at least my religion regarding marriage, divorce, promiscuity, extra-marital affairs are fundamental cornerstones of community / society and civilisation. These beliefs are important and true and because they are important and true they are part of our religion.
So, to my question: 1) Is Hatrack a successful community? 2) If so what are our values and beliefs that make it successful?
My take on this: 1) Yes it is a successful community. There are many REAL (see other thread) Jateraqueros (sp?), many Jateraqueros invest a lot of time in this community, many of us care about each other deeply 2) Well to answer this we have to look at our behaviours, how they have changed, how we police ourselves in order to get an indication of what behaviours are sufficiently disruptive to be seen to be disruptive to our society.
Possible Behaviours for analysis 1) Using OSC rather than any other name to refer to our host 2) Not flaming our host 3) Being able to politely disagree with our host 4) Understanding that style and substance are equally important 5) Understanding that any failure in our communication is always the fault of the party that posted and not the fault of the person reading it 6) Ascertaining that Jateraqueros are real 7) Having a number of ‘fluffy’ threads 8) Sharing out problems 9) Landmarks 10) Not posting ‘I agree’ and then reiterating all the same points 11) Back up arguments with evidence 12) Requiring sources 13) Not expecting our status in the real world to carry any weight here
Please add to the list and let me know which of the above you think are intrinsic to keeping this community together.
One difficultly however, is that OSC has more latitude when it comes to breaking the Hatrack social norms ....
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
This is an utterly useless statement, one whose only possible intention could have been to insult everyone who read it. It essentially said, "If you disagree with me, you don't understand what we're arguing about, and if you agree with me you also don't understand what we're arguing about, but you're happy we have same opinion."
That said, I didn't take offense, because the best way to respond to blanket statements that are meant to provoke is not to.
GhC -- Your assertion that Tom's critique was stylistic in nature and poorly timed is foolish.
He has a valid criticism of OSC's op-ed style. OSC does fireball and alienate whole groups of people in his essays, and everyone in this thread seems to take that as a given. So no matter when or how this is brought to his attention it'll be a stylistic critique.
And by whose definition of 'poorly timed' are we going? Yours? I can't see why. Bottom line, most of the regulars know that OSC swoops in, posts back to back on the threads he feels like posting in, and disappears for weeks. So if the goal of the "stylistic critique" is for the person at whom it's directed to actually see it, then it was perfect timing. And OSC did see it, which bears out my postulate.
quote:How you communicate is just as important as the message.
This is not a false premise. This is a widely held theory that's backed up by numerous studies. Most prominently here: Mehrabian, Albert. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Oldie Atherton, Inc.
This is the theory that says that face-to-face communication is divided into three components:
The words themselves which communicate 7%
The tonality used in delivering those words which is meant to convey 38%
The body language accompanying the other two, which is said to convey 55%.
Now obviously there's no body language in an online forum, which is why most of our miscommunications occur. But that doesn't change the fact that how you say something is roughly 5 times as important as what you say.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Orson Scott, the man, confuses the hell out of me. He does not fit into my usual human classification scheme
Imagine that... a playwright / poet / sci-fi author / performer who is a little quirky.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent?
No, at least not here.
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
It happens all the time on the other side. It is the most evident when someone posts a belief or questions their belief, reads some responses, and then reconciles the belief with the new information.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Well camus, if what you claim is true then this is really a very spectacular and unique place. In my experience people's beliefs are rarely changed and in fact held to more tightly when challenged. I think I'll post a new topic asking for testimony to the transformation of beliefs. I hope your right.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: There are more of them in his essay. I don't get how you and Tom miss these clues.
I don't. I'm not complaining about his partisanship. I'm complaining about his use of insults. That he insults a whole bunch of people does not in fact negate my argument.
I never said it did. Again (4), I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
quote:OSC can consider me a monster, and still contemplate and respond to my arguments. ---- I have trouble understanding why you believe this. I believe he can call you a monster and still contemplate your arguments, but I think it's very unlikely that they'd get a fair shake if he actually considered you one.
As far as I can tell, OSC listens to monsters. So do I. You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs?
For one very good example, do a search for threads started by KarlEd.
quote:In my experience people's beliefs are rarely changed and in fact held to more tightly when challenged. I think I'll post a new topic asking for testimony to the transformation of beliefs.
It should be noted that changing ones beliefs is very different than questioning ones beliefs.
One can change ones beliefs without ever questioning them, and one can question ones beliefs without ever changing them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I never said it did."
I'm sorry, then. By saying "I don't know how you missed these clues," you appeared to be implying that his selection of targets might be relevant to my argument.
"You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing."
I disagree completely. This is practically my definition of trust.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
So, Mr. Cohen. If discussion of Card's style is pointless, a discussion of discussion of Card's style is pointless squared. Talk about the quicksand if that's what you really want.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Again, I'm running into your binary reasoning, Tom. Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it.
quote:"You don't have to trust someone in order to give their reasoning a fair hearing."
I disagree completely. This is practically my definition of trust.
Yet another example of the contrast between your absolutist world view, and my relationist world view. To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius: So, Mr. Cohen. If discussion of Card's style is pointless, a discussion of discussion of Card's style is pointless squared. Talk about the quicksand if that's what you really want.
Card was trying to make a point, not score one. If you call that pointless, then sink in the quicksand while scoring points, if that's what you really want.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it."
My assertion here is that whether or not Card insults liberals as much or as often as conservatives is completely irrelevant to my reasoning. Can you explain why I should consider it even slightly relevant?
"To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust."
I may have been unclear. In a communication about values and opinions -- which this has so far been -- trust is absolutely essential. It's not necessary that you trust me in order for me to tell you to buy me a pizza. It's necessary for you to trust me in order for us to engage in a fruitful conversation about abortion, however.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:In general though, I have to admit I hardly see anyone, anywhere questioning their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree that this is rare to non existent?
No, at least not here.
quote:When was the last time you saw someone question their beliefs? And how was that shown to you?
It happens all the time on the other side. It is the most evident when someone posts a belief or questions their belief, reads some responses, and then reconciles the belief with the new information.
the other side? Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Card was trying to make a point, not score one. If you call that pointless
He didn't call it pointless.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Other = Books, Films, Food and Culture
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Something can be relevant to your reasoning without supporting it or completely negating it."
My assertion here is that whether or not Card insults liberals as much or as often as conservatives is completely irrelevant to my reasoning. Can you explain why I should consider it even slightly relevant?
"To me, communication benefits from trust, but many communications do not absolutely require trust."
I may have been unclear. In a communication about values and opinions -- which this has so far been -- trust is absolutely essential. It's not necessary that you trust me in order for me to tell you to buy me a pizza. It's necessary for you to trust me in order for us to engage in a fruitful conversation about abortion, however.
I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
Same happened with hate crime laws. The woman who explained the laws to me had opinions that made her repugnant to me. It horrifies me that a person with her agenda is in a position to influence lawmakers. (For example, she said that rape is not a hate crime, because that would "trivialize" hate crimes. ) But she clarified some of my concern about hate crime laws, and her factual claims checked out, so now I tentatively support them.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
I think this point has been thoroughly disproved. Just because you refuse to acknowledge this doesn't make it any less true.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Card was trying to make a point, not score one. If you call that pointless
He didn't call it pointless.
I didn't say that discussion of Card's style was pointless, either. I said that the timing and delivery sucked, resulting in OSC leaving the discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
I'm curious as to why you would even consider an argument from someone for whom you held no trust whatsoever. I submit that there must have existed at least a basic level of human respect -- one that denies the possibility of "monstrousness" -- before you would have done this.
----
And I'll freely concede that my timing -- if not my delivery -- may have been bad. When had you intended to bring the subject up in conversation? IMO, no "ideal" time was ever likely to present itself.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I tentatively agree with your argument; it was your timing and delivery that sucked.
I think this point has been thoroughly disproved.
The point hasn't even been discussed, let alone disproved. I made specific suggestions about how the point could have been timed and delivered better, and NO one has even responded to those points.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Wrong again. See my post on the previous page; this is specifically addressed.
<edited out of a conscious decision not to stoop>
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I didn't say that discussion of Card's style was pointless, either.
No you didn't, but you did completely misrepresent what Sartorius said.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
I don't thing that it was necessarily the timing of Tom's argument that made OSC leave the discussion. That's basically his stock response when anyone on these forums refutes something he has written, or have tried to discuss anything with him. He almost always ignores them, especially (or so it seems to me) if the refutations and arguements made are well thought out, in a calm, collected manner.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I disagree. I changed my own position from pro-life to pro-choice, based on arguments made by people for whom I have no trust whatsoever. I simply thought over the new arguments that I had not seen before, made a few mental connections, and realized that I could no longer hold the same position.
I'm curious as to why you would even consider an argument from someone for whom you held no trust whatsoever.
Curiosity, Tom.
quote:I submit that there must have existed at least a basic level of human respect -- one that denies the possibility of "monstrousness" -- before you would have done this.
Naw. If Koko the talking chimp, or a clump of morse-code communicating bacteria, or Moby Dick the great white whale, popped up with something to say about abortion or same-sex marriage, I'd listen to what they had to say, out of sheer curiosity.
One label that would get me to stop listening to someone, is "BORE."
----
quote: And I'll freely concede that my timing -- if not my delivery -- may have been bad.
[side gesture to El JT de Spang! ]
Hey, Tom, it happens to all of us.
quote:When had you intended to bring the subject up in conversation? IMO, no "ideal" time was ever likely to present itself.
I wasn't around for the conversation, Tom; He'd split before I signed up here.
Better timing would have been to drop it into the conversation *after* discussing his material points. If you read his response to your critique, I think you'll see that was his real complaint -- that your critique bypassed what he saw as the core of his argument.
Framing your critique as an ancillary side point to your response, rather than the entire response, would have been better delivery.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:I didn't say that discussion of Card's style was pointless, either.
No you didn't, but you did completely misrepresent what Sartorius said.
Guilty, but unintentionally. I misunderstood what he said, just as he appears to have misunderstood what I said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Better timing would have been to drop it into the conversation *after* discussing his material points.
But I had no issue with his material points. And his material points were largely his opinion of his own thought process, anyway. How could anyone take issue with -- or even discuss -- what he thinks about the way he thinks?
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Hmmm... Is this a trick question? Didn't serveral people take issue with what was said?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not to my recollection -- or, at least, not with what he said about his "material points." People took issue with his ancillary point, which was the belittling of his audience.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish, because ...
That makes your message,
1. I agree, and now I'm applying those principles to what you said,
rather than
2. you hypocrite, you're not living up to your own principles.
I think that you meant #1, but the message actually conveyed was #2.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish....
This approach never occurred to me, and I disagree with you about its potential effectiveness; frankly, if someone were to parrot back my words to me with selective edits made to point out what they think I should have done better, I would be more offended than if they took an alternative approach. But I appreciate that you are certainly closer to Card's culture than my own, and perhaps this is just another cultural distinction. I seriously hope you'd never consider doing it to me, though; where I'm from, it would be a particularly deadly insult.
I also feel compelled to point out that this is exactly where trust becomes an issue. I'd like to believe that if Card trusted my motives, he'd understand why #2 is an unthinkable possibility.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
I am an alien therefore aliens exist ....
You don'tg trust me? Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Does the typo make it more authentic or less so?
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
quote:Originally posted by firebird: Does the typo make it more authentic or less so?
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Then again, Tom, your alternative would be to quote back all that OSC said, with the offensive parts omitted, and say that you agree with what you reprinted, and that the parts that you omitted seemed to work against what he was trying to accomplish....
This approach never occurred to me, and I disagree with you about its potential effectiveness; frankly, if someone were to parrot back my words to me with selective edits made to point out what they think I should have done better, I would be more offended than if they took an alternative approach. But I appreciate that you are certainly closer to Card's culture than my own, and perhaps this is just another cultural distinction. I seriously hope you'd never consider doing it to me, though; where I'm from, it would be a particularly deadly insult.
Really? Why?
I thought that restating what someone else said was considered universal good communication.
The point is this -- if it seems like the only reason that you are responding to him is to criticize his style, then he's going to blow you off.
quote:I also feel compelled to point out that this is exactly where trust becomes an issue.
Agreed. I may be interested in what Moby Dick or Koko have to say about same-sex marriage or abortion, but if they were to criticize my table manners, I'd probably give them the finger.
So if Moby Dick or Koko want a conversation with me, they probably should stick to subjects where we have mutual interest, rather than lecturing me about my table manners.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Agreed. I may be interested in what Moby Dick or Koko have to say about same-sex marriage or abortion, but if they were to criticize my table manners, I'd probably give them the finger.
Which means something ENTIRELY different in chimp sign language. I'm not sure what it means to a great white whale. Maybe "eat me!"
quote:So if Moby Dick or Koko want a conversation with me, they probably should stick to subjects where we have mutual interest, rather than lecturing me about my table manners.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Here's an example of a monster who incites my curiosity:
I have no trust for him at all. I consider Hugo Chavez every bit as personally dangerous as Pol Pot. But I'd love to have a conversation with him, and I certainly would not squander it on some petty issue of style.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:I thought that restating what someone else said was considered universal good communication.
Restating what someone else said for the purpose of being clear that one understands it correctly is generally good communication. But I doubt Tom believes what you described above to be the same thing. I know I don't.
--Pop
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I'm not sure that i have ever seen so much over-analyzation of a hyper-analyzed analyzation of someone's analysis of an analyzed analysis.
I think some sphincters need relaxing.
And day jobs, day jobs for everyone!
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
roflol
odouls Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to read through everything in this thread since Mr. Card's long post on page one. Forgive me if I repeat anything. I intend to reply directly to that post by Mr Card, specifically two of his points, though I will touch upon a third. First, his views on investigating beliefs and scientific understanding. Second, his short comment on the understanding the role of marriage. The third point on tribalization and civilazation I did not understand, though the line about truth and importance with respect to God I find interesting.
1) It seems to me that there is something important being left out, or left unsaid, in the discussion about critically examining our own beliefs. In my own experience, there does come a time when my religious beliefs come into conflict with my understanding of science. In your post above, Mr. Card, you claim that you hold "all conclusions in abeyance while [you] explore an idea..." As far as I understand abeyance, it refers to leaving something unacted on. There are many ideas that I can leave in abeyance as I explore them more fully. Then, there are times when I must act upon one if these ideas, the "urgency of action" as you put it, though I must act at a point during which I have yet to gain any deeper understanding. It occurs to me that in these and other situations, I act on certain ideas only because of faith or that I have always done things this way.
For example - I keep the Sabbath quite strictly. My family kept the Sabbath, since I was born, at a level of observance similar to that which I continue to keep. I often question why I keep the Jewish Sabbath and so many of the restrictions that come along with it. There are a number of justifications that I have come up with, but none of them seem satisfactory; it holds the community together, it soothes my mind to not be able to do work for a day and so not need to think about it, it gives me an opportunity to focus and learn about all aspects of my religious life, and so on. Even so, I have a friend who keeps the Sabbath in a manner similar to mine, but has no qualms about taking a shower on the Sabbath. I consider cooking, including heating up water, forbidden on the Sabbath so I do not shower during that 25 hour period. I cannot imagine, though, how his showering contradicts any and all of my reasonings for keeping the Sabbath and its laws. I cannot leave this thought in abeyance because I am confronted with it weekly. I am forced to act, but the only reasons that I can determine for my not-showering are these: I have never done it, I have been taught that it is wrong, and I have faith that there is a reason for it.
I find that if I look deeply enough into many of my beliefs, not only examples similar to the case above, these are the reasons I do and do not do a whole host of things. And yet, I don't think this conflicts with my intention to critically examining all that I believe, scientifically, rationally, and religiously. Faith, as religion is sometimes called, is just that. It is a reliance on what my parents and teachers taught me. It is the belief that I don't know everything but everything has a reason. It is a trust given to some authority, be it God or a teacher, that the course of action I take is reasonable even if I am not in possession of that reason myself. Each belief that we hold, be it scientific or religious, explored or unexplored, has an effect on decisions that we make. So, I don't think that most situations allow us to put our beliefs aside while we explore them. The best we can do is admit that some of our beliefs are accepted on faith, for the time being. In turn, we are determined to investigate each of them.
"Just because what I believe coincides at some points with the common understanding of Mormon doctrine does not mean that my process of arriving at my conclusion began with the Mormon doctrine and then bent everything else to fit it." While your intention here, I think, was that you do not bend things to fit your beliefs, I want to comment on where the process of arriving at our conclusions begins. Investigations into many of our beliefs do start with some doctrine. I do things because I was taught or told to do so. When enough evidence weighs in favor of changing that behavior, I hope that I am and will be able to change it. Or, when the evidence weighs in favor of continuing with my practice, I'll continue doing so. In both cases, though, the process of arriving at my conclusion did begin with some doctrine. Even so, it did not begin with bending everything else around that doctrine.
2)"who don't even understand the role of monogamous marriage (and, just as importantly, the perception of universal monogamy)" In regard to this and your comments about the intellectual elite, I have a short anectode. A couple of years ago I took a course in Evolutionary Psychology. (Whether or not this is a productive discipline is beyond the scope of my post here). Following a lecture on the mating habits of several animal species, some being mongamous and others very much not, he asked us whether humans are monogamous. His answer was that we are not.
It struck me, though, that this was entirely the wrong sort of question to ask. The teaching staff reminded us many times not to make the "Naturalistic Fallacy" that the way things are implies that things should be that way. The more important question, then, is whether humans should be monogamous. I have a feeling that his answer would still be no. I also have a feeling that his answer to both questions would have been different not too long ago. Society's acceptance of divorce (resulting in serial monogamy as he put it), abortion, contraception, sex without marriage, etc. over the last hundred years have fundamentally altered, not only the way many people do relate to marriage and sex, but the way they think we ought to relate to them. Now, I don't think that all of the items in the list above are bad and evil. I think that there are benefits and disadvantages to each, I even think that some (contraception, for example) have done wonderful things for individuals, communities, and society.
I do, however, think that combined these contribute to a big problem in our culture. That is, the shrinking of any non-sexualized space. (This is not an idea I have fully developed, but I thought I would try some of it out here). One role of monogamous marriage, I think, is to confine sexualized space to a raltionship between two, presumably mature, individuals. By sexualized space I mean any situation where people look to each other as potential mates, a sexual tension in some sense, feelings of sexual attraction perhaps. A non-sexualized space, on the other hand, is none of that. In non-sexualized situations we can create friendships without the underlying feeling that you or the other person is looking for more in that relationship. A friendship based entirely on mutual understanding, respect, trust, and the pleasure of each others company rather than one based on physical attraction. (The most successful marriages would have both, presumably). I have friends that claim there is no such thing as non-sexualized space. They point to testosterone filled locker rooms and say that even between the close friends of a sports team there are sexual undertones. My friends say that it is impossible to have friends of the opposite gender without any sexual tensions. I, however, point to friendships of my own with members of both genders that are not based at all on sexual attraction. I do not believe that these friends would have had the same perspective two generations ago. Their comments, I propose, are the result of a culture that has accepted sex as something to casually partake in.
Two years ago, I knew someone who was writing a paper about the Biblical relationship between David and Jonathan (Saul's son). His thesis was that the two were lovers. He presented evidence of their close relationship and analyzed the language that the Bible uses when discussing their covnersations and interactions. I found it all a little sad, though. Sad that he could not fathom for a moment that two people could have so much respect for each other that the the friendship they form is at least as strong as the relationship between a long married couple. It never occured to him that two people could become so close to each other and never become interested in or attracted to each other sexually.
The problem, I think, is that two different referents of "love" have been conflated. On the one hand, there is a sexual partner. We commonly call intercourse, "making love". Love, in this case, is intimately tied to the sexual relationship. On the other hand, I can love a friend. The love of a friend can be so much more intense than the love of a sexual partner. It is an love based upon emotional support and expressed by mutual generosity. The hope is that a person can find both types of love within a spouse. The two can and often are seperated, though. However, the first love is shallow, and ultimately meaningless, without the second. The second, though, provides meaning to life, gives it value.
"Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival." -C.S. Lewis
One more thing about this topic. Mr. Card commented on the importance of the perception of monogamy. I agree with this, I think this is more important that monogamy itself. I cannot give this subject the treatment it deserves, so, briefly... My Rabbi once commented that there is a real value in having laws that are not enforced. They can be unenforcable or left unenforced by choice of the legislature. It is important because having the law supports certain perceptions about what is right and wrong. He gave examples from both civil and Jewish law, but I cannot recall any of them. I'll ask him as soon as I can, and will hopefully get back to you all here.
3)"God's statements aren't important or true because God said them, God said them because they're important and true." This is actually an example of something that I have "put into abeyance". I find it awkward to limit the power of God and say that God could not have made other things important and true. But on the other hand, I cannot imagine a universe in which truth is not conceptually universal. When I say that God is good, I must mean something by it. Were goodness something that God could or would arbitrarily alter, then it is a foolish statement to make.
As for the rest of that last section. I'm not sure I understood it.
Sadly, I don't expect that I will be able to post much more in this thread. It is hypocritical of me to write this intending to continue or start a conversation and then up and leave. I tried keeping up with forum discussions for a while and tried respond. However, as my time is needed elsewhere, I can't really put my thoughts down the way I intend them to be. Even this, I would prefer to proofread another time or two. So, I feel as if I'm cheating myself when I rush through responses and don't add adequately to the discussion. Alas...
[ November 03, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Gansura ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: My Rabbi once commented that there is a real value in having laws that are not enforced. They can be unenforcable or left unenforced by choice of the legislature. It is important because having the law supports certain perceptions about what is right and wrong. He gave examples from both civil and Jewish law, but I cannot recall any of them.
Ben sorer u'moreh comes to mind almost immediately. (And if you think I am trying to explain that one, you are NUTS. ) So do death penalty crimes (I'm talking about Jewish Law). The restrictions in terms of witnesses and warnings made actually putting someone to death exceedingly rare; but the fact that certain violations are death-penalty-worthy does make it clear that they are considered pretty important.
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Gansura-
Please forgive me that I don't have time to go through your post and pull out all the specific points that piqued my interest. I'd like to thank you for the idea that a non-sexualized space being enforced and accepted would strengthen communitites. That is a concept I've never heard before and I'll enjoy pondering it.
BTW, wonderful post.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
bump
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
Insufficiently ambitious to take on all of Gansura's wonderful substantive response to OSC (at last!!!), I'm going to pounce on the one part where my reading differs most from Gansura's.
I think that OSC was speaking against bending his inquiry to fit his faith. I think that's entirely different than the idea of living a religious principle that you're not sure that you agree with. It's one thing to submit yourself to the laws of the Sabbath, while wondering what the purpose is, and quite another to try to persuade others to submit to the Sabbath, or to argue that Sabbath observance is needful, when you honestly don't know what that need is.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Bah, I think I'm heading back to lurkdom now, if I stay around at all. I am tired of being surprised by the way OSC is. Before I came here, I only read his novels and thought... Well, it does not matter what I thought. I just hate feeling this way about him. I'm not saying he's a monster or a bad person, I just thought he was something different than what I am seeing lately and I want to stop reading his posts before I dislike him. Maybe this is not goodbye. Maybe I'll lurk and post occasionally but I don't really want to spend so much time here anymore. I really had a great time with all of you. It's probably because I had expectations of OSC that were not correct that I feel this way. I had no knowledge of the rest of you before this and so learned who each of you were gradually with no preconcieved notions. I'll miss you. Nikki
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Just to clarify: I only read the first page of this thread. If OSC apologized or changed his mind later or something I am going to feel like a real idiot.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
No, I'm good. Read the rest.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
At first when I read the part where OSC seemed to mock those that disagree and agree with him, I was a bit hurt. Then I thought about it. Then I thought about it some more. I came to the conclusion that he is not frustrated by those that disagree with him, nor is he calling all those who agree with him sheep. I see his point as being that he is frustrated with blindness.
OSC doesn't seem to want people agreeing with him or disagreeing with him because he's OSC, or Mormon, or Democrat, or championing a cause of the Left or Right. Very simply, all he's asking is that his ideas merit the serious discussion and respect due to someone who has searched, read, pondered the great questions of life, independent of his religious beliefs. Instead, he gets dismissed with every article he writes as simply being a political hack of the religious Right or Bush or simply brushed off as living in an alternate reality. For someone who has actively studied and wrestled with questions his entire life, these dismissals probably seem like the ultimate insult--in essence calling his very life and everything he's worked for and believes in a lie.
Yet he obviously cares so much about people and this country that he does it over and over again, taking the pain to try to make a difference. I really respect him for that.
And from over a two years of lurking, I've seen he's right. You get to know people on here so well, that you can predict their responses. Those who agree with Card often do so because it confirms what they already believe. When asked to back it up, they are unable to respond with anything other than 'Go Orson'. There are also those that simply go out to find whatever evidence they can to refute his articles, again not attempting to find research supporting his point or actually considering it.
So my conclusion is that OSC is not frustrated with disagreement nor agreement. It's ignorance, close-mindedness, and refusal to really consider the issues that seem to really burn him up. I'm a young man. I only hope that I have the courage, persistance, and intelligence to examine myself as he has obviously done. People like Treason just show that they have so far to go; they who come here with expectations of what he is like, and when he turns out to be different and disagrees with their own cherished beliefs, they decide to leave. He is asked to do what people will not do themselves.
I apologize, I'm sure this is poorly written with many spelling and grammer errors. My thoughts are not phrased eloquently, I make no great objective arguments like so many of you here. I'm just trying to speak my heart. Unfortunately, as an electrical engineer, writing is not my strong point.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Gansura, that was singularly one of the best posts I've ever read on Hatrack. I hope you continue to come back and post, as time permits.
I especially like your discussion of non-sexualized space. It articulates what I've observed in the course of my life, having gone from promiscuity to monogamy in the space of just over 20 years. Monogamy is much better, IMO, as it allows space for the kind of love that feeds the soul. It is somewhat counterintuitive to say that by restricting love, you create space for more of it. Until you define love as sexualized or non-sexualized, at which point it makes great sense.
I agree with you about disappointment in a viewpoint that can only view close personal relationships through a lens of sex, either expressed or repressed. The same analysis has been made of Jesus and the disciples. But I find it saddest of all, sad as in sorrow, not sad as in condemnation, that close friendships today often leave people humming behind their hands, speculating that there is more to it that meets the eye. That speculation is so limiting.
So thank you very much for that clarity. I'd love to see it discussed more fully.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
BaoQingTian I thought your post was very insightful and well written. I very much agree with your sentiments.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Instead, he gets dismissed with every article he writes as simply being a political hack of the religious Right or Bush or simply brushed off as living in an alternate reality. ... You get to know people on here so well, that you can predict their responses. Those who agree with Card often do so because it confirms what they already believe.
It appears to me that you commit here -- and, if you're right, Card also commits -- the same sin about which you're complaining. What grounds do you have to believe that while Card's opinions are based on years of research and introspection, those who disagree with him do so because they're stuck in a mental rut?
You may as well say that I have come to my opinions after years of soul-searching, and that Card -- by disagreeing with me -- demonstrates close-mindedness. After all, it's certainly the case that Card's as predictable as any of us on certain topics. Perhaps he's just confirming what he already believes?
No? Nah. I don't think it's likely, either. I think it's far more likely that most of us on Hatrack have opinions that are based on at least some level of observed reality, and that it's offensive to imply otherwise. That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts. Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts.
That's true - it's not just the facts that you have, it's also the lens of experience and belief through which you interpret them.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Tom earlier I asked you a question that you have not yet replied to:
Ultimately, I wonder why you would chose to be offended rather than not. Wouldn't it be the most prudent to give the benefit of the doubt, if you in fact have doubt?
What is your goal? You appear to go out of your way to dilute a debate by focusing entirely on a couple of statements which you assume to be insulting. Is that your goal?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For one thing, there was no debate occurring on the thread in which I posted. No one was debating whether or not Card had opinions, or reached them through some process. I don't exactly feel guilty for pointing out that it was unnecessary to litter his description of his thought process with digs at people who disagree with him.
For another, some of those digs were quite specifically aimed at me. While I could have denied him a reaction, I would feel terrible about forcing Mr. Card to waste an insult.
As a third reason, I do think OSC has a number of good opinions, and tire of having to explain this to acquaintances of mine. His political opinions are summarily dismissed by a lot of people I know, and the reason they do this is because they hit one of his jabs and take offense -- and don't bother, once they've been insulted, trusting anything else he has to say. Since I'd like his better opinions to get wider play, it's my hope that he'll start winnowing down the overgeneralizations -- especially the apocalyptic ones, like "the group who believes X does so for silly, selfish reasons and is going to destroy the universe if they succeed" -- in order to actually reach a broader audience of people who don't already agree with his premises.
Fourth reason: fewer insults would result in fewer trolls coming here only to complain about his insults.
And for the fifth reason: ignoring an insult when it's clearly offered -- since I think it's disingenuous to claim that one can easily choose to interpret Card's remarks as non-offensive; I think that approach is pretty much limited only to people who don't actually hold the opinions he insults people for having -- is, indeed, the bigger thing to do. One can always walk away from a fight. But it's quite plainly exhausting to do so, and I don't think anyone should be routinely expected to turn the other cheek, when you could ask the other person to stop hitting you now and then. Most of the people I know who've chosen to take this approach actually left Hatrack for exactly this reason, and I think we're worse off for their absence.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Tom, I have a couple of responses on what you've posted that I'll try to comment on when I have a chance but I wanted to ask if you can conceive the alternate interpretation of the statements? ( Please know I in no way mean this as offensive I'm curious to know if you see something that I see. )
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I am able to see the alternate interpretation of the statements. However, the most probable interpretation of the statements is that they were intended to be offensive. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a good thing, but not at the expense of ignoring the most likely option. And it's not that I think that Card intended to be mean, but his anger certainly came through. I don't cavil at anger, either, but it's pointless and misdirected.
Look, even a dog can tell the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, I have a couple of responses on what you've posted that I'll try to comment on when I have a chance but I wanted to ask if you can conceive the alternate interpretation of the statements?
I can conceive of them, absolutely. And if it were all down to a misinterpretation, I'd hope that OSC would see fit to post and say, "No, that isn't what I meant at all."
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Thank you to those who have complimented me on the post above. I am vain enough that such praise goes directly to my head.
Rivka: Ben Soreh u'Moreh was exactly the example I was given. Thank you. I won't go into the exact details of this for everyone, but the basic idea is that of a rebellious child. There are restrictions upon what sort of child fits the description of a Ben soreh u'moreh that make it impossible to ever charge someone with it.
Ladydove: I'm glad to have given you something more to think about. The more deeply anyone looks into these issues, the more complicated they most certainly become.
Ghengis: Point taken. Though, in my personal experience I cannot claim to be so honest. I DO argue that observance of the Sabbath, and certain of its laws, are needful even though I do not know now why they are needful. I do not argue it to strangers or even friends, but I argue it to my family. I think I do so because I wish my family to keep the same restrictions that I keep. I want them to validate my observance by accepting it as their own. I also hope that together, we can come to a greater understanding of many more observances that we keep; for there are far too many for me, alone, to examine each properly over my lifetime.
Jeniwren: Thank you for your comments. I particularly like your phrasing of restricting love to make space for it. I think that is an important concept that applies in a number of situations. Free speech and hate crime legislation, for example. It can be argued that restricting certain speech creates space for more speech and more equal speech.
Also, The sadness I expressed for this persepective is also (mostly) that of sorrow. I do condemn those who should know better, though, than to regurgitate what they hear from their professors and teachers without examining it critically.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Ghengis: Point taken. Though, in my personal experience I cannot claim to be so honest. I DO argue that observance of the Sabbath, and certain of its laws, are needful even though I do not know now why they are needful. I do not argue it to strangers or even friends, but I argue it to my family. I think I do so because I wish my family to keep the same restrictions that I keep. I want them to validate my observance by accepting it as their own. I also hope that together, we can come to a greater understanding of many more observances that we keep; for there are far too many for me, alone, to examine each properly over my lifetime.
I respect that, although I recognize you do not need my respect. Togetherness is reason enough to go through such minor but continual hardship. Perhaps you have your answer right there; your God wanted you to be One, and your observances draw you Together. If that is not enough reason to you, then I wish you good luck in your search for better answers.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Good, I'm glad to see there is common ground. So tern & Tom, with this alternate concept in mind how would you write these concepts so that it was no longer possible for anyone to be offended by the statements.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
If you're really, really desperate to hear how I would have made the same points that OSC made, contact me via email and I'll drop you something. Privately. But I'm baffled that anyone would believe that this would be acceptable.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I took some time yesterday to remove everything I considered extraneous out of OSC's essay. Then I looked at it and I realized two things: First, who am I to edit Card, and second, how do I know that I represented his thoughts accurately?
I'm nobody, and I have no way of knowing if I edited correctly. In fact, looking at it, it was very presumptous of me to make the attempt.
If there is a solution to this, a workable one (which doesn't include rewriting OSC), I'd like to know what it is.
Just as a general rule, I recommend counting to 10 backwards before posting something when writing while irritated.
I remember when I first started participating on boards - it was on Beliefnet - and some things really made me mad. So I'd post these huge long screeds full of vitriole. All fairly good and logical points, and containing sentiments that I rather think I would still agree with today. But what kind of response do you think I got? Did I change anyone's mind, anyone's behavior? No. So now I try to moderate my tone (and occasionally fail badly) and if I don't convince anyone, at least I'm not doing more harm than good to my cause.
As a Mormon, the whole thing boils down to 3rd Nephi, Chapter 11, verse 29:
quote:For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
In my opinion, anger harms the one who expresses it more than it harms anyone else.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Tom wrote:
quote: *beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
*places cushion on wall to keep Tom from injuring himself *
tern wrote:
quote: I took some time yesterday to remove everything I considered extraneous out of OSC's essay. Then I looked at it and I realized two things: First, who am I to edit Card, and second, how do I know that I represented his thoughts accurately?
I understand your points. However, I'm not asking that you rewrite or edit someone else's words, I'm asking how you would express the concepts in your own words in such a way that no one would be offended.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
There isn't much difference. Either way, I'm rewriting Card.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
tern wrote:
quote: There isn't much difference. Either way, I'm rewriting Card.
Hmmm... If I made the statement:
Abortion is bad.
And then asked you, please express the concept from this statement in your own words. Are you then saying that you would be rewriting me? Is this really what you believe?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I want to get back to Marc's original topic, and do some conservative (as in, only saying things I'm sure of) reasoning.
If someone does not fit into my classification scheme, here are the possibilities: * I'm fitting him the wrong way. As in, I thought he said "Grey drapes live in Africa," but he actually said, "Great apes live in Africa." Misperception. * My classification scheme is wrong.
Fixing problem one could simply be getting more data or paying more attention. I think it often requires not misinterpreting things, as in, interpreting "I support position X" means "I am an evil idiot."
Which is a classification scheme: people who support position X are evil idiots.
So, since OSC spends a great deal of time clarifying his positions, I'd say it's the classification scheme that needs amending. It's like science: your theory makes the wrong prediction, you have to throw it out, or at least change it.
Your classification scheme, Marc, seems to say that people who have one set of qualities (religion, opposition to gay marriage) don't have another set of qualities (admirable, thoughtful) and do have a third (herd mentality, dodging questions). Here's living proof this prediction is flawed; so naturally it's out. What will it have to take with it?
I sometimes have to amend my classification scheme, but it's in personal life, not political discussions, and there, it often hurts like hell. I'm guessing (am I wrong?) that it's not too costly for you, emotionally, to discard your model for a new one, provided the new one fits the facts better. It sounds like fun. Even if not fun, it sounds well worth doing.
Kudos to you for bringing up what's obviously a powerful topic.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
But OSC isn't writing a three word sentence. He's writing an essay. Completely different. It is not my business to rewrite Card. I just don't have the right. And "writing the concepts in my own words" amounts to a rewrite.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote: I think it's far more likely that most of us on Hatrack have opinions that are based on at least some level of observed reality, and that it's offensive to imply otherwise. That, in other words, it's possible for someone to disagree with me -- or Card, or Joe, or you -- for perfectly good reasons, even knowing all the facts.
quote:keep in mind that when OSC says things like "us" or "we" or "our," he's really talking about life on Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white and mice eat cats and he is one of the bravest members of a mostly silent majority of people possessed of his particular form of moral rectitude.
"His world" is not our world. His articles make a lot more sense when you remember that he writes speculative fiction and alternate histories.
And then you write:
quote:I do think OSC has a number of good opinions, and tire of having to explain this to acquaintances of mine.
I've never, in all my reading of your posts, gotten the impression that you respect ANYTHING the man has to say in his political columns. So I don't believe you when you say this.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
I see tern and that's fine. I respect your desire not to do it. I really didn't mean for you to rewrite the entire essay, simply the two or three concepts in which you felt insulted but which could also be alternately interpreted. I was essentially hoping that you would go through this process so that you would see how the alternate wording would affect you. Posting it is unnecessary.
My goal has been to try and bridge the places from which we find ourselves. I think that there has been fantastic dialog here in the Hatrack community and for me, in my life, it's unique. I very much hope it continues. I know (from the Transformation of Beliefs thread) that many of us have grown as a result of these discussions. There is one aspect [though] that seems to derail the dialog and the debates. It's a singular focus on the conveyance of an idea. It's this focus that seems to dampen the discussion and any debate of the material points.
The spirit of debate is essentially what I'm speaking of. When an essay is put forth, parts of the essay will hold important pieces for us to analyze, parts of the essay may cause us to feel insulted and in some parts of the essay we may find ourselves in complete alignment. I submit, the statements in question do get some people's dander up. However, isn't this the spirit of debate. In the "Transformation of Beliefs" thread it was clear to me that in order for people to make changes to their beliefs it was essential that they have a jarring experience.
I further submit, it is essential that people open themselves up if in fact they are to make changes to their belief system. If the concepts behind the statements in question were made using words which didn't challenge anyone would most people really pay attention? Honestly, I don't think so. Just take a cursory look at the threads. One thing is very clear. When there is opposition (or complete agreement however that's not pertinent here), there is a debate, a lengthy, heated debate which goes on for pages. And these topics grow very quickly. Just look at the Relax thread for example.
I think that, in the spirit of debate, we need to evoke in the opposition their passion on a subject or else there is no debate. Furthermore, isn't it true that when someone reacts strongly to a topic that they will in fact take time and effort to analyze what they feel and think?
I posit that when someone [reacts] strongly to something they then have something they need to understand within themselves. We need to explore that and uncover what it is because, and I firmly believe this, people who are sure of and comfortable within their own mind, body and soul will not be insulted by anyone's generic comments.
The act of focusing on a couple of the statements which may be interpreted as insulting is anemic to the debate. Just as anemic to the debate as soft speaking every point in the essay. I assert, that the act of pouncing on a couple of statements, in fact, does more to dampen the spirit of debate then the very statements some find to be insulting. For example, if we looked at the following:
There was man driving a sports car very fast down a small side street . A large dog ran in front of the car and the man swerved to avoid the dog. The man lost control of the vehicle and the car careened as it smashed into the corner of a building and burst into flames.
Now a pedestrian stands in front of the burning vehicle frantically waving his arms and shouting "Wow! Did you see that big dog!"
We can easily see this misses the entire point of the event. I believe that redirecting the thread to be about interpreted insults is tantamount to derailing the debate. Instead of the participants expressing their ideas and concepts they have already been led down a decided path, one that some have well thought through and ultimately rob the participants of their own experience.
I used to believe that SSM were about two people of the same sex getting married. Now I know that SSM is about the community at large, not just the people getting married. My eyes have been opened and I'm very thankful for that knowledge because I believe we all benefit when we know and understand more, when we are all more enlightened. If the thread which talked about SSM instead focused on a statement which some found insulting I am sure I would still be in the dark. If anyone feels jarred by something they've read, why not construct an opposing essay in response, in hopes of enlightening the world?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think that, in the spirit of debate, we need to evoke in the opposition their passion on a subject or else there is no debate.
I think you write here an erudite defense of trolling. What is the distinction between "evoking passion" and "insulting?" Is it the motive behind the act, or is it the way the reader chooses to interpret the words? (And if the reader is capable of making that choice, has passion really been evoked?)
I want to clarify that I don't disagree with the basic premise: that essential to the act of persuasion is engagement of the reader. I'm uncomfortable, though, with the subtext I'm reading into what you've said.
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
quote: What is the distinction between "evoking passion" and "insulting?" Is it the motive behind the act, or is it the way the reader chooses to interpret the words?
Both.
quote: (And if the reader is capable of making that choice, has passion really been evoked?)
For some yes, for others no. Doesn't it depend if they have questions in their own mind about what is being debated? Especially questions which they may not yet have, until that very moment, even realized they had.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the problem I'm having here is the default assumption that the primary purpose of discussion, even debate, is persuasion, and that therefore persuasion at all costs is a valuable goal in and of itself. Am I correctly interpreting you on this one?
Posted by Tim (Member # 8657) on :
Tom wrote:
quote: I think the problem I'm having here is the default assumption that the primary purpose of discussion, even debate, is persuasion, and that therefore persuasion at all costs is a valuable goal in and of itself. Am I correctly interpreting you on this one?
The primary purpose of debating, not discussion in general, IMO, is for people to seriously consider the topic at hand. So seriously that it challenges their beliefs. This will make them either change their beliefs or it will make their beliefs even stronger and most importantly they will know why they think and feel a particular way. Why they believe what they believe. The people who go through this process will have improved their integrity. Vis-à-vis people who fail to go through this internal debate will not have improved integrity.
Then when posed with a similar statement which may be interpreted as an insult, those who have the improved integrity will be able to say "Nope, that's not me." because they know full well, intellectually and emotionally, why it's not them. The words no longer hold any power against them.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
Please, people, cut the man some slack. If every post I wrote was dissected, argued about, re-dissected, chemically analyzed, poked, prodded, and finally converted to a field for open nuclear warfare, I'd never post *anything* here.
Yes, this part was poorly phrased. I misunderstood it myself:
quote:I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
Oh well. We're talking about a post here, not the fourth draft of a master's thesis. He made a phrasing mistake. Give him the benefit of the doubt. This could have been kindly pointed out, as in "Some people might take this to mean...." And we could all perhaps lighten up a bit. I find that giving the benefit of the doubt can do wonders, even in those cases where it isn't necessarily deserved. And Card, I think, deserves it.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tim: (snip) I used to believe that SSM were about two people of the same sex getting married. Now I know that SSM is about the community at large, not just the people getting married. My eyes have been opened and I'm very thankful for that knowledge because I believe we all benefit when we know and understand more, when we are all more enlightened. If the thread which talked about SSM instead focused on a statement which some found insulting I am sure I would still be in the dark. If anyone feels jarred by something they've read, why not construct an opposing essay in response, in hopes of enlightening the world?
I assume you are talking about a previous thread here about SSM - do you have a link for that specific discussion? I'm new here and I am curious about what has been said in the past and the conclusions reached, if any.
Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
BTW, as a newbie I found this thread very interesting. I came over from Ornery.
My two cents worth:
The hardest part of this thread was the personal dialog between old adversaries. That added nothing to the discussion and was difficult to slog through in looking for the meat of the debate.
Otherwise, thanks for the brain food.
Posted by Ghengis Cohen (Member # 8813) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *beats head against wall* Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer, but I've said it three times now: I consider it enormously offensive to rewrite someone else's words for them. It's quite possibly the most offensive thing I can imagine doing to a writer.
If you're really, really desperate to hear how I would have made the same points that OSC made, contact me via email and I'll drop you something. Privately. But I'm baffled that anyone would believe that this would be acceptable.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
would help alot, even though I am sure you share some of the sentiments I feel.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
and can we move on now?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
) But she clarified some of my concern about hate crime laws, and her factual claims checked out, so now I tentatively support them.
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
]![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)