Very odd reading the last WW, which will be the last one I read.
I found this site through a series of links and became a lurker/reader and hanger-on because of the reviews and the op-eds. I hadn't heard of Ender's Game, which I recently read and enjoyed.
But I gotta part company now. It's just very hard to swallow so many doses of narrow-minded, partisan claptrap that purports to harangue n-mpc from the other side. Some of the points are no doubt correct, but in painting the opposition (the so-called intellectual elite establishment) with such a broad brush, OSC is using the tactics he ascribes to them.
I was an enlisted soldier, circa Gulf War 1. And yes, OSC, many enlisted soldiers are patriotic, but it was not then (and I doubt it is now, the case that patriotism is the main, or even a major, reason people enlist. They do it for a job, for college dough, for a lack of other options, or other assorted reasons.
If patriotism and a belief in the current cause were a major reason, recruitment wouldn't be suffering, nor would the armed forces have to keep hiking bonuses and the GI bill.
And why would the ranks skew so sharply toward the poor and minorities?
Card disarmingly says he's no expert, and out of place at the think tanks he attended. I'll grant him the first while lamenting that unfortunately the second is false.
He has displayed a tendency to hold silly ideas and look for complicated explanations to seemingly simple situations (ie Ken Jennings lost the tourney of champions decisively not because he was bested, which would fly in the face of Card's presumption that he was the best contestant, but rather because he lost interest.)
It is certainly possible, as Card asserts, that Generals hated Rumsfeld because he looked to reshape their Army and posed a threat to them.
But while Card ascribes selfless patriotism to the enlisted troops (and what 18-24 year old doesn't act out a of high-minded belief system?), he paints these generals as self-serving, though they've spent their entire careers serving their country.
OSC says "Rumsfeld is no fool." I think Rumsfeld certainsly is a fool, as are all the other signatories of the '98 letter to Clinton from the Project for a New American Century. He was a fool to think Democracy could be installed from without, a fool to believe the first step in calling the bee-hive to order was to whack it with a stick. And he was a fool not listen to dissenting views, dismissing them as clamor from self-interested partisans. In that way he is the same sort of fool as Orson Scott Card.
(former) Spc Jeff Fennema
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
What does that say about a person who feels the need to explain himself to a fool before he leaves the room?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So wait ... you're not starting a dialogue ... you're just mooning us on the way out? Very high-minded of you.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
There's nothing wrong with Jeff's statements.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nor with Geoff's.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
If he'd stuck around this would have made an interesting discussion. I'd like to hear OSC's response.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Yeah. Six generals out of hundreds. Nor did I claim that the motives of every soldier were pure.
I talked about soldiers as a group, but the actions of a handful of generals who set themselves apart by their statements about the war. I did NOT speak about generals ... in general. If you seriously suggest that ALL generals, as a class, are selfless servants of the public, you have clearly spent no time in the military. Human nature is available in all its stripes in every community of any size.
Such silliness. But when you're determined to think that the other guy's an idiot, and not try to consider what he actually meant to say, then you're ready for debate class, but not for serious discussion. The idea is not to score points and win, it's to achieve a mutual understanding of the issues in order to illuminate the reasons for differences in judgment.
Posted by Son of John (Member # 9263) on :
What is World Watch?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
i don't understand why people can't respect other people's opinions....joeyconrad may disagree with OSC's OPINION, but that is no reason to call him a fool..you obviously have your own opinion and it just makes you look like the jackass when you publicly bash others for having their own. think before you write.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
World Watch isn't presented as an opinion, which is where the problem comes in. joeyconrad's statement was certainly no more inflammatory than your average WW column.
Berating someone simply for disagreeing, however, is certainly jackass behavior. You'd be well served by your own advice.
quote:i don't understand why people can't respect other people's opinions
Oh, the irony. Tis a beautiful thing.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
World Watch has very little to do with this post. Using WW as the topic is purely incidental. It is a simple trolling technique used to bait and switch this community into satisfying alternative motives of joeyconrad. The fact that OSC actually replied to him, probably satified his most urgent motivation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's far too easy to err when we ascribe motives to anyone, be it our host or our fellow posters.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
We all ascribe motives whether we know it or not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. But that's like saying we men look at attractive women. It's TRUE, but only SOME men feel the need to call attention to it at the time.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
You can't interact (or more specifically, post in these forums) without making some basic assumptions about other people's motives.
I'm not sure I follow your attactive women analogy. Are you suggesting that SOME men whistle at pretty women or make a polite compliment or what?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
World Watch isn't presented as opinion? Really? It's an opinion column.
Posted by hatrkr81 (Member # 9317) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: World Watch isn't presented as opinion? Really? It's an opinion column.
thanks will b, i thought the same thing
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: But when you're determined to think that the other guy's an idiot, and not try to consider what he actually meant to say, then you're ready for debate class, but not for serious discussion.
In defense of the NFL(National Forensics League) as a highly active member of a debate team, not all of us have that mindset of 'the other is an idiot, let's only hold to my perspective.'
For me, the reason I debate is to learn of new ideas and what people think on topics. One of the key things my debate coach teaches is not to view debate as just a game, that's one of the worst things you can do, but rather learn from it and try to become better people.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I'm astonished that someone here thinks that World Watch is "not presented as opinion." It is absolutely opinion. Op-ed. But since it's MY opinion, I feel no need to apologize for having it. I state what I believe to be true. Those with other opinions can state what THEY believe to be true. In what sense is my presentation even slightly different in its presentation-as-opinion from anything on the op-ed page of a newspaper? Which columnists constantly remind you that it's just their opinion and they're probably wrong? When you say that my writing isn't presented as opinion, what do you mean? That I don't admit that you're actually right and I'm actually wrong, but I stubbornly cling to my views anyway?
As for debate societies - of course I paint with a broad brush. But I also remember from debate that it's like a courtroom - it isn't a neutral conversation for the discovery of truth, it's a contest in which you endeavor to sway an audience no matter which side of the argument you're on. If it were not so, then debaters would not pride themselves on being able to take either side of a proposition.
You had a great coach who wanted you to get real-life lessons from debate. There are athletic coaches like that, too. But the prevailing culture of high school debate is one of contest, not cooperative discovery through comprehension and contrast. How often in a debate will one side say, "We didn't see it that way before, but I realize that on this point you're right, and we withdraw from our side of the debate"? Yet in a real conversation, that kind of thing CAN be said - and I have said it on numerous occasions. "Cool. I learned something today." Which is the opposite of "I caught you in a contradiction, haha!" when in fact the contradiction is only cosmetic, not substantive ...
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I can't really argue against that, you're right. That is how a debate tends to function most of the time. It's also true that it is the prevailing culture to be of great competition.
I could give example of times where debaters have said that kind of thing, especially when you get in critical debates which focuses not on trying to get a person in a contradiction, but who can teach the most about a critical idea. But... in the end, it's still a contest in which you're trying to prove your side correct, even if you don't believe in it.
I just wanted to point out that at least in debate, we don't always resort to 'capping' the opponent by trying to call them an idiot and say they're wrong. Often times we do hold great respect for our opponents in round, think they're right, even say they're right in round. Then we have to start fighting for either a permutation of what they say or try to prove that we're better, despite they're being correct. But in the interest of trying to see your what you mean, I don't think that provides much of a defense for us. It is still a contest in the end, we will be arguing for one side, even if we don't believe in it, we still will try to be persuasive. And that is not the... highest form of argumentation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the prevailing culture of high school debate is one of contest, not cooperative discovery through comprehension and contrast.
Would you say that the language in your World Watch articles is intended to promote cooperative discovery through comprehension and contrast?
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Well, it certainly incites discussion. How one presents a counter-argument is entirely up to that person.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote: What does that say about a person who feels the need to explain himself to a fool before he leaves the room?
What does that make us, in turn?
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
quote:What does that make us, in turn?
Apparently, that makes us fools talking amongst ourselves. The troll has left the building, people! :-/
Btw, does anyone here have access to his login records? Can we see if he is lurking around or not?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Would you say that the language in your World Watch articles is intended to promote cooperative discovery through comprehension and contrast?
Would you say your ongoing style of cross-examination is intended to promote cooperative discovery through comprehension and contrast?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ironically (or, rather, anti-ironically), Dag, my answer to that specific question is "yes" for almost all particulars. Which is almost a shame, because your larger point is well-taken. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: How often in a debate will one side say, "We didn't see it that way before, but I realize that on this point you're right, and we withdraw from our side of the debate"? Yet in a real conversation, that kind of thing CAN be said - and I have said it on numerous occasions. "Cool. I learned something today." Which is the opposite of "I caught you in a contradiction, haha!" when in fact the contradiction is only cosmetic, not substantive ...
Quite often here, and in other parts of my creative life, I have allowed others' opinions to influence the way I think and react. Taking those lessons as assumptions and forming new ideas has led some (like my family members) to accuse me of lying and manipulating (not in such harsh terms though) because my ideas have changed, and I don't claim my old opinions anymore.
I don't want those old opinions because they were misinformed and stupid, but some people think you're lying or cheating if you abandon a line of thinking that doesn't go anywhere. They also feel that this wins them a point in some life contest, where really the only winner is the one who's outlook has changed for the better.
Why do we live in a society where we desperately want leaders and friends to "change things for the better" and at the same time we sabotage any change, or accuse the people who evolve their viewpoints of "flip-flopping." Surely any conservative or liberal could see that this was one of the stupidest debates ever in a political campaign, because "flip-flopping" was termed as a negative when it is exactly the kind of thing that we need more of. People shouldn't be forced by society to hold all their views in some sort of "my opinions codex" and look at it every time they say something new and different.
This is actually why I like that OSC's interpretation of his own universal rules seems to change with every book. Some people call it inconsistent, but I call it consistent with the needs of the story and the author.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So far as I've seen it, the Generals in question have presented at least three cogent arguments for saying Rumsfeld screwed up. 1) The number of troops sent was obviously insufficient for the task. 2) Disbanding the Iraqi Army in the manner it was done was an enormous mistake. 3) The failure to plan for an insurgency prior to invasion and then denial that any such insurgency existed for long after the invasion and suppression of even hypothetical discussions of how to handle an insurgency was...well, not really a mistake, more of a willful screwup.
As far as I can tell, those three reasons would provide adequate reason for these generals to speak up. I think rather than the rash of character assassination based on nothing more than uninformed speculation, a more responsible and ultimately telling defense would be to refute these criticisms.
From what I've seen, those speaking in defense of Donald Rumsfeld have yet to mount this refutation, which, given the circumstances, calls into question their ability to do so. I don't think it's responsible nor supportive of the troops to dismiss without consideration expert criticism of those who lead the troops based on the assumptive bad character of those making the criticisms. This seems especially irresponsible, because, as far as I can see, the only justification people have for calling these generals character into question is that they've made these accusations.
Assuming someone you know nothing about is a bad person because you can't refute what they say any other way doesn't seem to me to be acceptable behavior. If someone credible says something you don't agree with, I think the acceptable thing to do is to refute what they said, not make up stories about how they are only saying these things because they're bad people.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Insofar as I know any of the six generals in question, each is a bona-fide idiot based on evidence unrelated to speaking against Rumsfeld.
Does that make them bad people? I don't care. It just means that I'm not inclined to believe their assessment of Rumsfeld without convincing argument.
Are your reasons convincing? Not to me. The number of troops has been more than equal to the task, by any reasonable standard based on a study of history and current events. The Iraqi army had to be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up, if an obviously superior method were presented beforehand and rejected, then you might say that the particular method used was an "enormous" mistake. But there wasn't an obviously better plan available beforehand, and I haven't seen one presented in hindsight either. And the "insurgency" isn't one except in the minds of the media. It's just a bunch of terrorists committing acts of violence. The vast majority of these guys aren't even from Iraq. It's true that they have the advantage in terms of initiative, terrorists always get the advantage in initiative, that's the whole point of turning to terrorism as a strategy.
So...are these reasons "cogent"? Not to me. They're demonstrably based on outright falsehoods. But if you don't accept that those premises are false, I suppose that's your loss.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
World Watch is unique in that OSC doesn't have a job to worry about, and can thus say what he wants. The Rhino Times is, as I am sure the entire staff would admit, an unorthodox newspaper which benefits enormously from having a famous writer on staff. If OSC were simply Mr Card, a no-name columnist for a local paper, the paper would be flooded with letters demanding that such an outspoken columnist be fired. This happens frequently as it is with columnists far less outspoken than OSC, of all political stripes.
Americans want their newspapers unbiased, as long as they are unbiased in the right way.
Posted by IB_wench (Member # 9081) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Americans want their newspapers unbiased, as long as they are unbiased in the right way.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)