And as little as a few years ago, I didn't used to in either case-substance or style. Especially when it comes to foreign relations. But this essay had something in it that really eroded the respect and credibility I have for him as a person, at least as far as I know the man as a person, coming at him entirely from his writing, commentary, and infrequent Internet forum activity, and it did it on a personal level. I'll be the first to admit this could potentially sound a lot worse than it is, because details on the event in question are scarce. Anyway, here's what struck me:
quote:Yes, stupid. I said to them, "I can't possibly know what I think about someone until I make some effort to find out who they are, how they think, what they're actually doing." I did not say: I just learned a lot more about you than you will ever know about Rush Limbaugh.
Right now, Palin's book is accomplishing exactly the same thing that Limbaugh's book did back in the day: You can find out who the stupid bigots are by seeing who hates and despises and ridicules the book without having read it.
Now, I've got a number of friends and family whose politics I, shall we say, disagree strongly on. That list grows larger if we throw in religion into the mix. With both religion and politics in the mix, I'd say that at least half of my friends and family hold beliefs I consider simply incorrect at best or, personally, outright stupid or even hateful at worst.
But I don't publish anecdotes in an essay read by people across the world calling them hopelessly stupid bigots, either. Sure, no names are used, and I don't even know how many people read WorldWatch-but that simply makes it anonymous, not profoundly insulting to two friends of yours.
Still, though...Mr. Card, when this event happened, what did you say after this ugly stupidity by your university professor friends was outed? Did you say, "C'mon, guys, listen to yourselves. You're condemning a man based entirely on hearsay. Let's talk about what you actually know about Limbaugh, from his lips to your ears, especially since he's so prolific getting it from him isn't difficult."
Or did you say, "Forget it. After all, I've learned more about you two than you will ever learn about Rush Limbaugh." Or do you not hold any opinions about anything that are rooted in hearsay? It's a rare human being who doesn't, in my opinion and experience. So rare that a better measure of a person's wit and integrity isn't how many unfounded opinions they have, but what they do when those opinions are challenged with facts or good arguments.
How that problem is handled is also a good measure of the person who encounters the 'hopelessly ignorant'.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uph. I'm not sure if I want to read anymore OSC articles as it's my resolution to try to avoid things that frustrate me. (Which isn't working so far.) I kind of lost respect for OSC some time ago. The thing is, there's many things I don't agree with, but the question is, how do I do this understanding that the person I do not agree with is a human being who deserves respect? How can you do this understanding that this person isn't stupid even if it is someone like Glen Beck or Rush Limbach who says things that are rather rude and cruel and just not respectful? But it doesn't do a bit of good for me to say that this person is an idiot for disagreeing with my point of view because I simply DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING as much as I would like to. It's like someone I like liking someone i think is a total jerk. Chances are, they know more about this person. They see something in them I can't. A person has so many facades and so do so many issues.
(Also, is it just me, but does OSC sometimes do the very same thing he gets mad at these so-called intellectual liberals for? Like dismissing some movie or a person in it based on politics or something? Does he even NOTICE THAT? Arg, I'm going to look at a picture of a moth to get less annoyed.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not sure if I want to read anymore OSC articles as it's my resolution to try to avoid things that frustrate me.
I would guess that I've seen you say this over a dozen times, Syn.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm not sure if I want to read anymore OSC articles as it's my resolution to try to avoid things that frustrate me.
I would guess that I've seen you say this over a dozen times, Syn.
I know, but for some reason, moth to flamelike I am attracted to things that annoy me!
As in reading articles that frustrate me and visiting sites that frustrate me.
Instead I should just look at pictures of butterflies and moths. Which don't annoy me and in fact are adorable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good luck with that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Rush Limbaugh is so full of crap...He's 6 pounds of crap in a 5 pound box.
I'm a little sad for anyone who actually respects Limbaugh. But, you know, whatever.
It takes about 15 minutes of watching his show to realize this, no more. That's ALL it takes, period, end of story. The man's a joke, he's laughable, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. I don't need to read his book to judge him.
Edit: I do think it's jumping the gun to judge him without actually at least watching/listening Limbaugh before you form an opinion. He is full of it, repugnant, and either laughably insincere or a total moron, though, just to make that clear.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I cannot take him seriously. Ever since I saw some of his show and he said something that just made me so angry. Sadly he continues to say such things that are not... very.. subtle. It's sledgehammer surgery. Plus, is he even AWARE of what some fraternities do in the name of hazing? It's some disturbing stuff. Not fun and games at all.
And it's not as if Orson Scott Card hasn't done the same sort of I've heard about this person and will now dismiss them thing. Urg. Hypocrisy annoys me. I wish giant Calanthe the hermit crab was up so he could distract me with his hermit crab cuteness.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Even if you've read 20 books by OSC, plus scores or even hundreds of his articles on every subject imaginable, if you disagree with him fundamentally, rather than respect that opinion, he'll just come up with some fault in your understanding of him that negates your ability to argue. Note- according to him you are now not qualified to speak about Sarah Palin if you have not read (and one might assume paid for) her book. I know who she is, I know much of what she's said in public, and like with Limbaugh, who I also have reasonable knowledge of, I choose not to subject myself to her literary efforts. That doesn't exclude me from a discussion of any of her opinions, nor from anything stated in the book, if someone chooses to mention it. This is the kind of crap you run into so much in the information age, where in order to stop you even arguing a point, your credentials and experience are called into question: "you haven't read this book? Then uou have no idea what I'm talking about!". In fact, it's the kind of crap that OSC has himself railed against in the past.
Fine, I get the point in specifics: don't trash the book before you read it. But I was trashing Palin a long time ago for crap she has said and done before the book came out. I plan to continue. The book, as far as I am aware, doesn't change the fact that she still did and said all those things. They are not only valid if she chooses to talk about them. But I think that's a bit of the problem with OSC these days- he seems to subscribe to the idea that he has Word Of God powers in the interpretation of anything he has ever said, and perhaps he believes this should apply to all those people he supports politically. Never mind the ones he doesn't, who are lying through their teeth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I was angling more for a discussion about what happens when friends disagree sharply over politics, but *shrug* can't control a thread once it's started.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I think if you're friends, you would hopefully have enough in common that you can easily reach a mutual understanding without agreeing. I think it's a bit pompous when people boast about their friends of very different political views, as if it's an accomplishment that you can actually stand someone who disagrees with you. But when you really think about it, most people don't establish friendships based on political ideology anyway, so why would that be a strain on friendship? People only consider it a slight oddity because usually one's politics is connected with one's nationality, region, class, education, and profession. So the politically a-typical friend is in fact not really that different in most ways, but is perhaps just politically a-typical.
I'd find it much more interesting if people would boast about their friendships with people of different nationalities, regions, classes, levels or types of education, or professions. Except it isn't acceptable to say: "I've got a Japanese friend," or a "poor friend" or "an illiterate friend," and act as if that is an accomplishment on your part, even if it is in fact something about the person that makes them much more significantly different from you. I studied music with a fairly surprising (for the area) number of evangelical Christians with conservative social values- people who didn't drink, who went to church and belonged to church clubs, etc, and were mostly Asians. And the thing that actually distinguished us most noticeably was not our religious or social values, but our tastes in food, or in cultural picayunes like hello kitty, boba tea, coffee, and movies. As much as I had in common with these people, their religious views had no important bearing on our relationships as they were. What was important was where somebody wanted to eat lunch. I might as well brag about having friends who like to eat at Baskin n' Robbin's, while I prefer Ben and Jerry's.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It isn't usually a strain on friendship because it's a barrier at the start, when establishing who one will be friends with. When it is a strain, I think it's likely because of what happens when the disagreement is discovered-calling or being called a stupid bigot, for example.
It's tough to be friends with a dude who calls you a stupid bigot. It's tough to truly feel friends with someone you call a stupid bigot. Obviously I'm talking about the really sharp, divisive disagreements here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, hmm. I suppose if your initial meeting or introductory phase of a relationship with someone gives you the sense that they are abhorrent person, undeserving of your time or respect, then their politics shouldn't matter. I like to think that our instincts about people are what we act on, while their stated attributes (like their politics) are only things we use to justify our feelings. Because I think someone can state a belief for various reasons, and just because the statement is the same, say: "War in Iraq was the right thing to do," doesn't mean they are thinking it in the way that you might imagine. They might be applying a system of thinking that is very compelling, and may have arrived at the conclusion even against their own will or predilection. So their views are not always held for the reasons that you may think, and that has everything to do with who they are- much more than just the opinions themselves. Opinions can be so binary, when in fact they come from so many people and for so many very different reasons.
I have the uneasy and unsettling experience on occasion of meeting an abhorrently dogmatic "liberal" who spouts nothing but left wing propaganda not fit for a pig to eat. I'm a liberal, pretty much, but these people are just as bad as any nutball anti-science factual-relativist I've ever encountered. In fact, they're *more* annoying, because they're slightly more apt to play the victim in some great sex or class or race drama. The thing *all* these extreme people have in common is their utter contempt for the idea that any other individual they meet is a thinking, intelligent being with a real ability to observe and understand the world around them. These are people with defense mechanisms so strong they can actually convince themselves that the people who disagree with them are themselves victims of a global conspiracy, or members of it. It pains me just as much to sit through diatribes about the Bush administration and the masons and the Catholic church, etc, as it does to listen to anti-science prattle about global warming "deceptions."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Post #1: the more serious post.
Simply by reading the tone of Card's essays, one can easily deduce that there is not much to be achieved by engaging him directly. He does not compose himself — or portray the people he disagrees with — reasonably. He will claim and truly believe that he is fair and open to direct dialogue, but his composure and his portrayal of his political opponents renders that an open hypocrisy.
Whether he realizes it or not, he has elected to manage dissonance by constantly presuming motives, mentalities, and shortcomings on the part of people he opposes, and will stick to them regardless of the fairness of the accusations or the indiscrimination of his generalizations.
He is self-consistent with his doctrine. It will not change, so the point of caring about his doctrine is limited to discussing it with his audience. He is so committed to it that he will not even rework or clarify his positions when they expose a clearly and demonstrably incorrect view of things like law, culture, biology, or history (he has done this most openly with his erroneous interpretation of the judicial system and its role in 'ending' american democracy). It is important to address his arguments and expose their factual errors and their logical sleight of hand, but there's no more benefit you can offer to him, or to your potential 'relationship' with him. He, personally, offers no reason to be engaged. He will provide neither you nor himself any benefit to the act. He should be ignored, but the way to achieve that is to discredit his arguments. It's his audience that needs to be engaged with the facts. Where possible, bring his points up and point out their flaws, so that others can see that the doctrine he espouses is not sensible or, ultimately, acceptable.
And just in case anyone is still questioning whether his doctrine is acceptable, I want to remind you that he sincerely wants homosexual acts to be kept illegal; to use the justice system to threaten gays into concealing their lifestyle, because he does not believe that they should be afforded the privilege to express that lifestyle as openly as heterosexual couples. He states brazenly that any government that would allow gays to marry is his mortal enemy and unambiguously advocates destroying such a government.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Post #2: the less serious post.
quote:After all, even though I'm a moral conservative, I am a Democrat and for good reason, as long as you define "Democrat" the way it was defined in 1977.
Every time Card makes sure to assure people that he is a Democrat, I agree that he is, in much the same way that Uncle Ruckus is a black man.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Post #2: the less serious post.
quote:After all, even though I'm a moral conservative, I am a Democrat and for good reason, as long as you define "Democrat" the way it was defined in 1977.
Every time Card makes sure to assure people that he is a Democrat, I agree that he is, in much the same way that Uncle Ruckus is a black man.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's even funnier when you consider one of the messages of Boondocks is that Uncle Ruckus is actually a black man:)
quote: Simply by reading the tone of Card's essays, one can easily deduce that there is not much to be achieved by engaging him directly. He does not compose himself — or portray the people he disagrees with — reasonably. He will claim and truly believe that he is fair and open to direct dialogue, but his composure and his portrayal of his political opponents renders that an open hypocrisy.
I don't think anyone can claim to know what Card 'truly believes', and I also don't know - still - that his public political stance isn't some sort of put-on, or at least show. It's so incredibly at odds with the way he used to write, for example, that it astounds me still times I've read his older stuff, such as (recently) the Worthing Chronicle. Even in that story, there were characters who were making tragically stupid, self-destructive decisions - use of Somec, mostly - and yet the protagonists involved weren't as...vindictive as Card comes off these days.
-----------
quote: I suppose if your initial meeting or introductory phase of a relationship with someone gives you the sense that they are abhorrent person, undeserving of your time or respect, then their politics shouldn't matter. I like to think that our instincts about people are what we act on, while their stated attributes (like their politics) are only things we use to justify our feelings.
Well, unless the introductory phase includes stumbling onto a person while they're kicking puppies, it really might not come up, y'know? Deeply distasteful political opinions, that is. What if it hasn't come up? What if you've been carpooling with these two buddies of yours for months or years, have had dinner with each others' families, been good friends, and then one morning on the way to work, your two buddies find a copy of Rush Limbaugh media on your dashboard that you'd been examining to see what all the fuss is about?
If they turn out to be incredibly and foolishly intolerant then, how do you handle it? And if that handling doesn't go well, what then? Do you write off the friendship? I ask because if the anecdote that prompted this thread was real, well, it certainly sounds like these two university professors were written off as friends. Or at least the rhetoric Card used to describe them sounded that way to me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think anyone can claim to know what Card 'truly believes'
No, but you can operate on suppositions of general honesty on his part, then combine that with both his stated desires and his ideals.
Most actual homophobes will object to being called homophobes. They honestly don't think they are. And it's not that they don't care about the technical definition, they just honestly think the term does not apply to them.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
There is a truly awesome level of double standard and intellectual disconnect at work in Card's political essays.
I suppose you can learn this much about dealing with friends with differing views: if you congratulate yourself on your unwillingness to define others as stupid on what you see as a shallow, biased, knee-jerk reaction, and then proceed to call someone stupid based on a shallow, biased, knee-jerk reaction, you have succeeded in showing those you define just about all they need to know about whether they should continue to engage with you. And how much they should value your peerless standard of insight.
But more seriously and with less snark, I think many companies of friends and families that really have affection for one another either learn to simply not tread on certain subjects or to feel out common ground by not leaping onto stereotypes and absolutes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: But more seriously and with less snark, I think many companies of friends and families that really have affection for one another either learn to simply not tread on certain subjects or to feel out common ground by not leaping onto stereotypes and absolutes.
This reaction is understandable to me. I think it's appropriate, too, as it puts a higher priority on friendships than on politics-unless the politics are so odious that they indicate really serious character defects, like neo-Nazism or something that extreme.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, unless the introductory phase includes stumbling onto a person while they're kicking puppies, it really might not come up, y'know? Deeply distasteful political opinions, that is. What if it hasn't come up? What if you've been carpooling with these two buddies of yours for months or years, have had dinner with each others' families, been good friends, and then one morning on the way to work, your two buddies find a copy of Rush Limbaugh media on your dashboard that you'd been examining to see what all the fuss is about?
If they turn out to be incredibly and foolishly intolerant then, how do you handle it? And if that handling doesn't go well, what then?
My point was that I don't think it's very likely that you could first know and like someone, truly, and then later find out they are a terrible, unlikeable person with disgusting views. It's a very popular tv and film trope- beloved by mystery writers granted, but it's not something that has ever happened to me. Yet I have found out surprising things about friends after a long period- and yet because they were my friends, it didn't seem to matter very much, and it didn't do much to change the relationship. Though it's a surprising realization, I include things like homophobia, and racism. I have had friends who were homophobic, and some who were racist. For whatever reason, I remained friends with them despite something I consider to be a serious stumbling block- there must have been something about them that I felt was equally redeeming.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But more seriously and with less snark, I think many companies of friends and families that really have affection for one another either learn to simply not tread on certain subjects or to feel out common ground by not leaping onto stereotypes and absolutes.
This reaction is understandable to me. I think it's appropriate, too, as it puts a higher priority on friendships than on politics-unless the politics are so odious that they indicate really serious character defects, like neo-Nazism or something that extreme.
Agree entirely.
Whenever possible, I avoid discussing politics with my siblings (although it's safe with my parents -- go figure!) and my boss. With many of my friends as well.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I don't think anyone can claim to know what Card 'truly believes'
No, but you can operate on suppositions of general honesty on his part, then combine that with both his stated desires and his ideals.
Add to that the fact that he is a writer. It's his profession, and has been for years, to present his ideas clearly.
If you read his articles, and conclude that his ideas are icky, it's not because he is presenting them incompetantly. If you read his articles, and come away with a highly disagreeable impression, that's not an accident.
Posted by Clumpy (Member # 8122) on :
Honestly, I had thought that these types of arguments and demeaning of opponents were limited to his columns, but I've started to see it in his fiction too. Most of the characters who oppose our heroes (usually super-analytical geniuses) do it because they're short-sighted, stupid and political rather than thoughtful.
The analysis of the protagonists is almost ALWAYS correct, and when they make a mistake they immediately realize the information which should have allowed them to make the correct decision. It isn't because they're really concerned about balanced truth and analysis - it's because their straight-ahead, headlong analysis is usually correct.
There are exceptions, I would say - the brilliant shift of Han Qing-jao, for one, and I enjoy Lost Boys partly because he has the main character actually make a mistake when he hurts these shortsighted people - but it's hard not to catch now.
All of this would be fine if OSC didn't believe irrevocably that Bush and Cheney were absolutely right in their actions on the War on Terror and those who oppose them on Constitutional or ethical grounds are just... I dunno, pot-smoking freedom-haters or something. He really should be smarter than this.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: All of this would be fine if OSC didn't believe irrevocably that Bush and Cheney were absolutely right in their actions on the War on Terror and those who oppose them on Constitutional or ethical grounds are just... I dunno, pot-smoking freedom-haters or something. He really should be smarter than this.
Maybe I am missing something or misreading something in your post, are you saying that you would enjoy Mr. Card's writing more if Mr. Card believed President Bush and Cheney were wrong about the War on Terror?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Most of the characters who oppose our heroes (usually super-analytical geniuses) do it because they're short-sighted, stupid and political rather than thoughtful.
I don't know about that. The tone I get is that the protagonists believe certain things - commonly dealing with family, sexuality, and civilization - and those who stand in opposition to the protagonist disagree with one or more of those beliefs. And eventually the protagonist makes, for lack of a better word, a speech enumerating what they believe, and why they believe it. Implied is that those who disagree with the protagonist are fundamentally, drastically stupid - at best - when it comes to questions of family, sexuality, and civilization.
The answers to deep questions about what it means to be a human being have gotten a helluva lot simpler in Card's writing than they used to be.
quote: There are exceptions, I would say - the brilliant shift of Han Qing-jao, for one, and I enjoy Lost Boys partly because he has the main character actually make a mistake when he hurts these shortsighted people - but it's hard not to catch now.
I think his earlier work is characterized, not just demonstrates, by the mistakes his protagonists make and their involvement with complicated, often agonizing situations which they try desperately to navigate, often with mixed success at best. I don't think the criticisms you're making are found in all of his stories.
I do think they're prevalent in his most recent work, though.
quote: All of this would be fine if OSC didn't believe irrevocably that Bush and Cheney were absolutely right in their actions on the War on Terror and those who oppose them on Constitutional or ethical grounds are just... I dunno, pot-smoking freedom-haters or something. He really should be smarter than this.
I don't understand this either, like DarkKnight said. Why would the criticism you've made be 'fine' if his politics were more in step with yours, Clumpy?
I think what you meant was that if his current political mindset wasn't such that disagreement often went hand in hand with despising America and Americans, the things you object to in his stories wouldn't be there, because his thinking would be profoundly different and thus so would his writing.
--------
Guess it's a lost cause for this thread to be more about dealing with friends and family when you disagree very strongly with them on things like politics and religion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I say in those cases, why talk about politics in the first place? I don't know how many times I've gotten into fights with relatives trying to be honest about religion and the like. These folks don't want honesty, they want you to either not mention these hot button issues and just talk about things you can talk about without hurling fire balls at each other or they want you to lie. Of course, there's always getting friends who agree with your politics and religious point of view or moving away from these relatives, but, it wouldn't be as fun if everyone agreed with you about everything. It would be nice to just treat these people with respect. To realize that their point of view is important to them, like it is to you. You don't have to agree, just respect them.
But OSC frustrates me because he expects people to respect his point of view when he is pushing it in a rude way and not respecting people who have a different point of view. Hey, this is the side for discussing OSC so of course it will be more about him then dealing with friends and family, but the key is respect and not demonizing them. Realizing that conservatism and liberalism are useful concepts. It's about really listening to the other side and treating them as people and not as demons.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, Synethesia, lemme just say that having heard you talk about religion in the past on this forum...you sometimes get pretty emotional about it, too. I suspect the fights aren't as one-sided as you're suggesting in this post (I don't suggest that you're to blame for them, though-I couldn't know that).
I don't think that not discussing politics and/or religion at all is the best choice in cases of really divisive opinions. I think the best one would be to come to an agreement to simply hear out and discuss the disagreements, but that won't always be possible, human beings being what they are. I think not talking about it is, though, the second best choice.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, religion does frustrate me, but other folks find it sacred and stuff.I'm on another forum called Gentle Christian Mothers (I'm not a mother yet, or a Christian, but they are nice women) and they have rather civilized discussions about religion and stuff I don't always agree with but they believe in being gentle and patient with children and I definitely agree with that. So it doesn't hurt to focus on what folks agree on more than what they disagree on. Kind of like how I'd rather eat sushi than eat beets but other people like beets and that's OK, but they must learn that sushi isn't just raw fish and that there's subtlety to it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How on Earth did you find yourself at a forum for Gentle Christian Mothers, Syne? *laugh* It's like discovering that I'm a regular on a forum for Nudist Survivalist Birders.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, not totally. I was reading about how bad Ezzo's advice is and stumbled on to the site. It has nice women and they believe in attachment, which I believe in too.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How on Earth did you find yourself at a forum for Gentle Christian Mothers, Syne? *laugh* It's like discovering that I'm a regular on a forum for Nudist Survivalist Birders.
Why must you hate the birds?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: How on Earth did you find yourself at a forum for Gentle Christian Mothers, Syne? *laugh* It's like discovering that I'm a regular on a forum for Nudist Survivalist Birders.
LOL - I once "stumbled" across a very nice web site and forum of females discussing a few topics of interest to me. Took me a few days to realized I had basically done the internet equivalent of innocently strolling into a gay bar Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, maybe I'm missing something, but the article that prompted this discussion seemed to say a few key things:
1. OSC is currently reading the S.P. book. 2. He has no plans to review the book, because someone else did it better than he could. 3. He is upset by how S.P. was treated by the press (which he has for years now labeled as ultra-liberal, so that should come as no surpise to anyone. *shrug*) 4. Regardless, he still disagrees with 50% or more of S.P.'s platform. 5. And relates a story wherein he felt treated poorly by colleagues offended because he was willing to at least give the opposing side (Rush) a fair hearing before judging and they were just judging and criticizing -- and then links this personal experince to the poor treatment he observes by those who criticize the book without actually having read the book.
Hmmmm.
I'd say that starts to explain some of the vitriol leveled at "liberals" by him. Says nothing for letting bygones be bygones -- but who really does that, anyhow?
And I have to say, having witnessed "liberals" be at least as judgemental and hateful to those people who didn't subscribe to their particular POV (read: conservatives), I wonder if the polarization of this country is brought on equally by just about everyone. I think we all play a part.
None of us listen very well or thoughtfully, as far as I can tell. In any arena. And look where it's taking us. The conversation on the other isde about the lack of civility in recent years is just a microcosm of what the wider world is experiencing. *sigh*
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)