posted
Actually, I was going to make a post similar to tern's this morning, but taking the analogy from the opposite side.
You know how, in the Bronte-esque movie dinner parties, there's always that one lady wandering around during the really awkward, dramatic moment, trying to distract everybody by offering them tea or somehow otherwise pretending there isn't an awkward moment happening?
That's how I see the fluffers.
I'm sure, like the lady who's trying to change the subject while the serious characters are staring daggers at each other, that they think they diffused the situation and that their tea and cookies kept anyone from noticing anything was happening.
In reality, if they were successful at all, it is only in keeping things from being resolved.
It cracked me up to come back tonight to find nearly the same analogy used to argue the other side.
Fluffers fiddle while Rome burns.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Heh. Guess I'm still bitter from my undergraduate years in the CSU system. ;P
Be nice! My mom has been a CSUN lecturer for a number of years (and was at CSULB for a year or two a while back).
And Dags is correct. While I have little taste for conflict, I will fray away when I consider it necessary.
But sometimes I don't. And then I will discuss punch.
And docmagik, sometimes Rome isn't really burning. Pour enough gasoline on it, and that can change, though . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What did your mom teach at CSUN? How long ago was she there?
In all fairness, there are certainly some quality teachers in the CSU system, and even some at the University of Last Resort (CSUN). And I didn't mean to tar every professor with the same brush...just most of them. ;P
Doc, Pelagius isn't a serious character or a main character in this little melodrama. Card is, but Pelagius is just a troll who needed to go back under his bridge, and there was no serious discussion here.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
: Heroically resists urge to mention that his Mom teaches at CSUSB :
Actually, serious discussion has started here--about fluffing.
The whole reason I didn't post this morning was that in the context of the thread as it stood, I didn't think it was worth it, and it wasn't entirely accurate to this particular situation.
But now that the discussion has turned to the virtues of fluffing and everybody's getting all warm and fuzzy about it, I felt that my original thoughts might need to be said after all.
But there are still smoldering embers of grand blazes on this forum that had a deafening accompaniment.
quote:What did your mom teach at CSUN? How long ago was she there?
She is there now. (Well, not this very minute. ) She has taught math classes there for something like 15 years. Um . . . maybe longer. I don't remember what year she started.
quote: In all fairness, there are certainly some quality teachers in the CSU system, and even some at the University of Last Resort (CSUN). And I didn't mean to tar every professor with the same brush...just most of them. ;P
You know, I not only know several CSUN staff members, I know quite a number of current and former students.
All of them are nicer than you are being. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, I believe in trying to treat others with respect, give their ideas real consideration, and respond with the presumption that they've given those ideas at least as much consideration.
But this is a little ridiculous.
Mr. Card, this isn't a "writer's page" like the blogs of Neil Gaiman or Piers Anthony, a place where the author picks and chooses which correspondence he or she will respond to in his own time, perhaps editing said correspondence so his or her response appears in the best possible light. This is a forum, and that means that along with some interesting ideas and undoubtedly a good dose of praise (since virtually everyone who comes here does so out of appreciation for your writing) there will undoubtedly be some comments you find less appealing and critical. When you open the table to discussion, you accept that you relinquish some control in favor of the flexibility to create and throw out ideas. That's the price. Bully to you for showing that much bravery- but accept that that bravery has this cost!
Mr. Card, I have had many teachers who have used the argument- usually when backed into a corner- that they were wise, learned, and well read. That their arguments and tactics should be given the benefit of the doubt because of it. Many of these people were in fact wise and well read, and I'm grateful that I was able to learn from them because of that.
But none of their wisdom or learning prevented them from being, on occasion, dead wrong.
-
To the other respondents,
With Mr. Card responding as infrequently as he does (reasonably enough- he does have to do some of the writing that actually puts bread on the table, now and again), it seems like people trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection. That booming voice from on high- the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax.
Pelagius was ill-equipped to comment on criticism of a book he had not read. True.
But was he wrong? Completely off-base, off-the-charts, wrong? So inherently wrong in every facet that his comments warrant derisive dismissal without examination but for what examination furthers that dismissal?
I'll grant, I certainly have my biases. In some cases I try to overcome them, in others, to justify them.
But what I find is that at least part of what Pelagius says is true: many of Card's articles accept such ideas as a powerful and corrupt left-wing political establishment, a morally bankrupt Hollywood, a uselessly pseudo-intellectual academic structure- without bothering to examine whether the association is appropriate for the given subject, or even true in general. These things have become "givens", self-evident truths that require no examination.
I could be wrong, Pelagius could be wrong. But you'll never know if you retreat from the issues rather than examine them. Now your pardon while I dismount my high horse.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sterling wrote: Mr. Card, I have had many teachers who have used the argument- usually when backed into a corner- that they were wise, learned, and well read. That their arguments and tactics should be given the benefit of the doubt because of it. Many of these people were in fact wise and well read, and I'm grateful that I was able to learn from them because of that. But none of their wisdom or learning prevented them from being, on occasion, dead wrong.
And if Mr. Card's response was at all aimed at the idea that we must believe what he says because of his wisdom, learning, and reading, this might be relevant. Rather, he said this:
quote:Orson Scott Card wrote: And therefore, just maybe, my ideas on other subjects might be worth THINKING ABOUT for a couple of seconds before spitting on them, on the remote chance I might not be an utter fool. And maybe, even if you disagree with me, you could write about my ideas on my own website with ordinary human respect instead of the condescension that began this thread and which permeates it.
quote:Sterling wrote: But was he wrong? Completely off-base, off-the-charts, wrong? So inherently wrong in every facet that his comments warrant derisive dismissal without examination but for what examination furthers that dismissal?
Interesting. You seem to be demanding that we give Pelegius something which you just took OSC to task for when he asked for that himself. And frankly, Pelegius gave us NOTHING to analyze except his word that the Economist reveiwed the book the way he said it did. Mr. Card actually dealt with that argument, quite successfully.
quote:Sterling wrote: But what I find is that at least part of what Pelagius says is true: many of Card's articles accept such ideas as a powerful and corrupt left-wing political establishment, a morally bankrupt Hollywood, a uselessly pseudo-intellectual academic structure- without bothering to examine whether the association is appropriate for the given subject, or even true in general. These things have become "givens", self-evident truths that require no examination.
I could be wrong, Pelagius could be wrong. But you'll never know if you retreat from the issues rather than examine them. Now your pardon while I dismount my high horse.
And we've actually had discussions on these very topics on this very board.
Here's a hint: if you want to actually engender discussion, don't just post your conclusions and expect us to do your analysis for you. Both you nad Pelegius have posted conclusory statements without providing citation or other evidence. There's nothing to discuss here until you do so.
As for retreat and dismissal, why don't you apply that analysis to "the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax."
Sounds like dismissal to me. And if dismissal is retreat, it sounds like retreat.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.
I found this jarring too, but the dictionary lists both spellings.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was young, "cooky" was definitely the preferred spelling. In English, we take many "y" endings and pluralize them with "ies." Occasionally, we back-form and take the plural "ies" and make a singular "ie" ending out of it. I haven't checked recently, but I do believe "cooky" was the original; and it remains the spelling that feels most natural to ME, though I usually bow to current convention and use the now-more-common "cookie" spelling as often as not.
I'm grateful to Sterling for demonstrating exactly the condescension-while-not-actually-paying-attention-to-what-I-actually-said that I have been talking about. Consider his posting to be a "viz.:" footnote to my earlier post.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Random House, both "cookie" and "cooky" were regional spellings derived from the Dutch word "koekie," which was itself a dialectal variant of "koekje," or "cupcake." The "cooky" variant was apparently common in the American West until the late '50s, at which point "cookie" became the generally-accepted standard.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know how, in the Bronte-esque movie dinner parties, there's always that one lady wandering around during the really awkward, dramatic moment, trying to distract everybody by offering them tea or somehow otherwise pretending there isn't an awkward moment happening?
I'm disturbed by this discription, it describes me to a tea.
*takes a bite of her cooky and drinks her tea*
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no desire to condescend to you, Mr. Card. Quite the opposite; I hold you to a high standard. When I compare you to my past teachers, I am not being sarcastic; I hold that you are a person of some standards, intelligence, experience, and reading.
And to berate Pelegius for rudeness and failing to read the book without actually engaging the underlying question of whether there is a prevading right-wing bias is beneath you. That it would have been better informed to have read the book than just the criticism, I've recognized. This does not mean the question of bias is the result of failing to "think about your ideas for a couple of seconds without spitting on them."
You may feel, as Dagonee appears to, that these points have been sufficiently, even excessively, worked over in this and other forums. That's a legitimate point of view, but it's not what comes across in your post.
Dagonee, however one might dislike the phrasing Pelegius' post may have been, it did not dismiss Card's point of view. It stated that there appeared to be a dichotomy between Card's (my terms) "slanted" political writings and his "lucid" examination of the airlines. If I have been dismissive, explain. If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think Dagonee is referring to the comments made by other posters than Pelagius when he refers to dismissive posts that sneer at Pelagius's grammar and style. Like the ones I made. But hey, as has been aptly pointed out, I am mean, and Pelagius is a troll. While trolls might have good points or not, feeding them is still a bad idea.
I don't think that Card was wrong to call out Pelagius nor was he out of line in the manner that he did. I don't think it was useful, because if it registered at all on this Pelagius character, it probably was to give him satisfaction that he got a reaction.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, you seem to have an interesting and inconsistent idea of dismissive. Here's what Pel said about OSC's review of the book:
quote:Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst, praising a book entitled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." In fairness, I have not read it. However, even the conservative Economist thought it to be tasteless and, of course, blatantly partisan, comparing it with Michael Moore's work. He played is overused card (no pun in-ten-did), of pointing out the flaws of the United States Left, I use the term loosely, while ignoring the flaws of the Right.
In other words, he said this was Card at his "worst" because Card liked a book the Economist did not.
That's not analysis. Card wrote a couple of screenfuls on this topic, and Pelegius dismissed it with a reference to a single article in a magazine, with no particular reason why we should credit the Economist's view over Cards.
That's dismissive.
As for you being dismissive, we see it in your most recent post: "If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest." You were also dismissive when you posted: "the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax."
A whole bunch of people posted different thoughts on Pel's comments, and you summed them all up and assigned them the motive of currying favor. That's dismissive.
tern, I have not commented on the dismissiveness of anyone's posts toward Pelegius.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My bad, I just reread the post. You're absolutely right, that was Sterling. *checks eyeglasses*
So, Sterling, why should we take a troll like Pelagius seriously? Do you feel that he in any way showed an interest in a serious discussion?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Economist isn't what I would call a conservative magazine. They aren't liberal either. Like, you know, the vast majority of people or groups, they can't be simply given an overarching label of one or the other. On one issue they may take the "conservative" view (such as monetary policy) and on another the "liberal" view (like the War on Drugs).
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In other words, he said this was Card at his "worst" because Card liked a book the Economist did not.
That's not analysis. Card wrote a couple of screenfuls on this topic, and Pelegius dismissed it with a reference to a single article in a magazine, with no particular reason why we should credit the Economist's view over Cards.
That's dismissive.
Having failed to read the book (shame), Pelegius took a single review (a regrettably narrow sample) as context to the premise that Card in particular approved of the book, above and beyond a general concensus of others whose points of view are typically classified as "right wing" (The Economist) and might thus be expected to approve of a book such as _The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy_.
However, given Card's willingness to, among other things, refer to the "Clintonistas" (a term I'm going to presume was not present in the book), perhaps Pelegius has some grounds to suggest that Card's comes from a point-of-view that is right of center, and that this may have influenced his favorable review of said book. His grounds to criticize the book itself are sketchy; his grounds to judge the lens through which Card observes that book, less so.
quote:As for you being dismissive, we see it in your most recent post: "If you're just playing to the bench, give it a rest." You were also dismissive when you posted: "the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry! Suddenly Pelagius is a troll, and people look for quotes that allow for his ideas' dismissal, and sneer at his grammar and syntax."
A whole bunch of people posted different thoughts on Pel's comments, and you summed them all up and assigned them the motive of currying favor. That's dismissive.
I can't quote every single post in the forum every time I make an argument; no one would read them. And I can't speak for every post that is made, but I can point to a tone. That's shorthand, it's not dismissive.
Before Card's post, there was a combination of banter and serious discussion:
quote:SO SAYS BARON VON DOOM PELEGIUS, AND SO SHALL IT BE!
quote:I'm not sure that the opposite of the word "conservative" is "socialist."
quote:I'm not sure how him expressing his opinion of a book you haven't even read is an example of his "worst". Seems a little uncalled for, to me.
If you don't agree with him, then that's fine. But criticising his review because he didn't draw the same conclusions as some other reviewers is just unnecessary.
quote:The odd thing about conservatives...they actually think that being partisan is tasteless.
-Being a few examples.
After Card's posting:
quote:I think it's absolutely awesome that yours is the ONLY author's website where people come to frequently trash the author.
quote:I tend to ignore idiots of all stripes. And anyone who comes to an author's website just to heap contempt upon them is an idiot.
quote:Please don't take our silence to mean that we support the disrespect of others. We'd just rather ignore the meanyheads as best we can.
quote:Saints will always be my favorite novel, although, I have yet find a book that you have written that I dislike. Your writing books and articles are some of my most treasured possessions.
quote: I've been around long enough to know a troll when I see one. El JT de Spang (and, to some extent, Survivor and a few others) made some obvious and true comments near the top of the thread, and I don't think I could have added anything to them. I could have tried, but people like Pelegius make their deliberately stupid posts because they feed on the inevitable smack-down and the chaos that ensues.
quote:People earn their right to be here and to be heard, I think. This Pelegius guy hasn't earned that right, so hardly anybody takes him to task. It doesn't help that he makes threads like this one with such profoundly stupid suppositions.
quote:It's not that we don't want to defend the artist, it's just that we don't take the offensive guy seriously. There is condescension in the conversation, but we're condescending to the offensive guy, not the artist.
-And yes, I understand when he spoke of "the artist" he was speaking metaphorically.
quote:If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.
That's not all of the posts, but it's a large sample. And most of those not in that line were, as has been discussed, "fluffing", which while it doesn't imply attempting to curry favor, certainly suggests an attempt to mollify the author's sudden and unexpected flare. Card posted, and things changed completely. And while some would argue that the tone before Card's post was lightly contemptuous of Pelegius, the tone afterward was openly and venomously so, and certainly no one saw fit to speak in a fashion *contrary* to that tone.
I asked, seriously, if you weren't "playing to the bench" that you illuminate what you found dismissive in my post.
You have attempted to do so. Thank you. If you found the manner of my posting abrasive, I would say likewise of your suggestion I "take a hint" as to the "proper" manner to engender discussion and your supposition as to what the [royal?] "we" see in my prior post.
Tern, we may well have different impressions of what defines a troll. But most of the internet posters I would consider trolls don't praise their targets as they rake them:
quote:But then, he hits home with his very accurate picture of Airlines and air-routes.
...
Don't worry OSC, thats why we love you, even when you make us angry, becouse you are human like us.
And if they bother to post again at all, it's usually only to pour more fuel on their own fires and insult people who post to the contrary. Admittedly, Pelegius hasn't posted back to this topic recently, but then, I can't exactly blame him for that.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, you seem to be under the impression that I've claimed Pelegius wasn't dismissed. I haven't.
quote:And I can't speak for every post that is made, but I can point to a tone.
But you didn't point to a tone. You stated what the motives of the posters were when you had no way of knowing that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Reading books by the U.S. right is pointless. They all say the same things about how terribly persecuted they are, only controlling all three government branches, and how evil liberals hate America. Most a racists, OSC thankfully is not, all are militaristic. All believe in things that would embarrass even the most conservative European.
Yep, that's a troll post.
I will grant that there are far worse trolls, but little gems like that are what it's all about, saying something incredibly inflammatory in order to elicit reactions.
quote: And if they bother to post again at all, it's usually only to pour more fuel on their own fires and insult people who post to the contrary.
Yes indeedy, see the first quote.
quote: And most of those not in that line were, as has been discussed, "fluffing", which while it doesn't imply attempting to curry favor, certainly suggests an attempt to mollify the author's sudden and unexpected flare. Card posted, and things changed completely. And while some would argue that the tone before Card's post was lightly contemptuous of Pelegius, the tone afterward was openly and venomously so, and certainly no one saw fit to speak in a fashion *contrary* to that tone.
Fair enough, the tone certainly did change because of Card's post. Before he posted, nobody was really taking the thread seriously. However, we all take Card seriously. So the posts after Card's post were a response to Card's post, even when they were talking about Pelegius.
So if our "fluffing" was an attempt to mollify Card's flare, what is so bad about that? Were we required to continue on in the same lightly contemptous vein? Why not lighten the tone? It's kinda like we're with friends, and everyone's joking around, and suddenly one of the guys gets mad at what was said. So we're like whoa, didn't know that bothered you so much, let's talk about something less charged.
You used the Bronte movie analogy. It falls apart, because there weren't any "main characters" who were staring daggers at each other. This wasn't a discussion between say, Pelegius and Card. Pelegius made three posts before Card replied to him, and Pelegius never replied to that. There was no back and forth between them, and the vast majority of the posts were other people including the fluffers. There wasn't going to be any resolution, either. What, you think Pelegius was going to post back that he was wrong, maybe he should have read the book? Several other people called him on it before Card, and he told them that he was firm on the fact that he didn't need to read it to judge it.
Again, when we changed our tone after Card's second post, what was so bad about that? I rather think that the "venomous contempt" was what we felt beforehand, but we didn't have a reason to post it. I felt he was offensive and idiotic beforehand, but I try not to haul out the artillery right at the start.
So yes, Card's posts changed the tone of the discussion. After all, this is the Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card. At least on this side of the forums, everything really does revolve around him.
I think you do us a disservice by implying that we changed our tone in order to suck up to Card.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Having failed to read the book (shame), Pelegius took a single review (a regrettably narrow sample) as context to the premise that Card in particular approved of the book, above and beyond a general concensus of others whose points of view are typically classified as "right wing" (The Economist) and might thus be expected to approve of a book such as _The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy_.
However, given Card's willingness to, among other things, refer to the "Clintonistas" (a term I'm going to presume was not present in the book), perhaps Pelegius has some grounds to suggest that Card's comes from a point-of-view that is right of center, and that this may have influenced his favorable review of said book. His grounds to criticize the book itself are sketchy; his grounds to judge the lens through which Card observes that book, less so.[/QB]
Translating Leftspeak into English:
quote:"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.
posted
In the final analysis, Sterling, that's not that different than the Ayatolla Khomeni school of thought, where all you need to act as judge, jury, and executioner on any matter is a penis and a Qu'ran. You've essentially said, like Khomeini, that all you need in order to proclaim your authority on any matter, is ideological correctness.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's get this straight -- anyone who dislikes Clinton is right of center?
Oh, let's not get this straight. It might prevent the grinding of axes, and nobody wants that.
Translating what I actually said into a straw man argument:
quote:"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.
You can dislike Bill Clinton or the Clintons in general without referring to them by defamatory nicknames. God knows I don't like everything he did in office. It was, as I said, one example among other things, which spares me from having to quote the entire article in every damn post.
If the topic was the book, he was insufficently informed. However, if you will look at the topic line, it isn't talking about the book, it's talking about Card and the point of view from which he reviewed that book and other things.
And even IF someone is to the right of Genghis Kahn or to the left of Karl Marx, that doesn't mean their point of view should be dismissed out of hand. Nor did I say anything of the sort. It just means you consider that they're coming from that perspective when they venture an opinion.
I'll thank you not to think to put words in my mouth again.
Moving on...
quote:But you didn't point to a tone. You stated what the motives of the posters were when you had no way of knowing that.
I just _did_ point to a tone, but putting that aside for a moment, what I said was
quote:it seems like people trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection
That's my personal interpretation. That seems to be the goal of many of the posters. Do I look into their brains to dredge out the absolute basis of the reasons of their posting? No, and no one does. That doesn't prevent me or anyone from interpreting the intentions of a post. If it did, no one could call Pelegius a troll in the first place.
Beyond that, I said that people were calling Pelegius a troll (they were), referencing quotes they claimed typical of his prior behavior (they were) and criticizing his spelling and grammar (which may have been a slight mis-reading of one of Tern's posts.)
Mmm, actually, come to think of it, "curry favor" was actually _your_ term.
Okay. Tern? Have a seat.
quote:Yep, that's a troll post.
I will grant that there are far worse trolls, but little gems like that are what it's all about, saying something incredibly inflammatory in order to elicit reactions.
That's one interpretation, and I won't deny that it has a certain validity. Personally, I find that when someone makes a statement that is so obviously false by way of over-generalizing, I presume they're exaggerating for the sake of effect. Which may or may not be troll behavior. I just can't take a post that says *all* works from the left and right are useless seriously... Until I see a pattern of such comments, at which point my mindset goes from amused incredulity to the dread that comes from realizing you're sitting on the bus next to a crazy person.
quote:Yes indeedy, see the first quote
Yeah. But... That's one quote. In every other quote, Pelegius is at pains to mollify his statements (Card isn't a racist, of course I wouldn't condone censorship...) If he's a troll, he's a peculiarly Hatrack variety of troll.
quote:So if our "fluffing" was an attempt to mollify Card's flare, what is so bad about that? Were we required to continue on in the same lightly contemptous vein? Why not lighten the tone? It's kinda like we're with friends, and everyone's joking around, and suddenly one of the guys gets mad at what was said. So we're like whoa, didn't know that bothered you so much, let's talk about something less charged.
Hmm.
Blast it, tern, you're so reasonable.
I guess it depends on whether what was happening before had, or could have had, some value. I like to imagine it could have, but that's kind of spilled milk. I think what's here now is probably going to disintegrate once this segment of the discussion is done, for better or worse.
When Card interjects opinions in the general course of things, offers an insight, shares some bit of personal experience- it's great. It _is_ like being among friends, and pretty cool friends at that.
The Card who showed up here was more like the father yelling "You live under my roof and you will obey by my rules, or you will leave!" I'm not saying he explicitly threatened anyone- he didn't. But it was a reminder of The Owner, The Authority Figure, The Looming Presence. Or to use another inapt metaphor, it's like having a joke with someone over lunch and then suddenly being forcibly reminded that the person you're having lunch with is your boss. Watching the effect of that here has been eerie. It makes me hope it doesn't happen often.
quote:You used the Bronte movie analogy
Uh, I'm sorry, I can't comment on this, because I _didn't_ use the Bronte movie analogy. That was... Lemme see...docmajik. I haven't even touched on that one.
quote:So yes, Card's posts changed the tone of the discussion. After all, this is the Official Web Site of Orson Scott Card. At least on this side of the forums, everything really does revolve around him.
I think you do us a disservice by implying that we changed our tone in order to suck up to Card.
"Suck up" is too harsh. To your point of view, you moved to soothe the ruffled feathers of an offended friend so the party could continue (I guess I am moving into Bronte territory. <sigh>) To mine, the entire conversation took a dip and a swerve because of one poster, probably heading towards a dead end. In most cases, that wouldn't happen. But the poster was Card. Would anyone else's indignation be treated so?
(Edit for minor spelling/UBB error)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can dislike Bill Clinton or the Clintons in general without referring to them by defamatory nicknames.
Defamatory nicknames?
As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.
Not defamatory. Descriptive.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry - it looks like it's my day to mis-attribute people. Probably because we covered the correct way to do citations in class recently, brain hurtssssss.
quote:But the poster was Card. Would anyone else's indignation be treated so?
This is something I've been thinking about ever since Card posted. I believe I have an answer.
No. Nobody else's indignation would be treated that way.
A polite fiction is maintained at times, that Card is just another poster and should be held to the same standards (good and bad) that apply to all the other posters. Is Card just another poster?
No. He's not.
There - I've said it. The way I see it, Card is unique on Hatrack. He is special. Card is the common thread binding all of us here. He's the reason for the season, if you will pardon my blasphemy. Why do most of these political discussion threads get started, on both sides of the forum? In response to Card's essays. Why is there a forum labeled "Discussions About Orson Scott Card"? He is the topic of the discussion in every thread on this side. This is Card's official website. He pays for it and he provides it. Regardless of anyone's opinion of him or his beliefs, he is the central figure on Hatrack. He has authority and influence here. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but almost everyone comes here because of Card. Nobody comes in the beginning because of me, nobody comes in the beginning because of anyone else on this website. Just Card.
The fact is, almost everyone here cares about Card. We want his approval, we want his comments, we want him to be happy, we want him to write many more books. Especially if they are like Enchantment or Pastwatch.
And so, for these reasons and many similar reasons, Card is treated differently and percieved differently. There are different standards for Card. And rightly so.
So should Card avoid posting in the forum?
Absolutely not. He's different, and he's special, but it's not a bad thing. It's just a different thing. He should continue posting, and we all, including Card, should remember that there are different rules for him.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Translating what I actually said into a straw man argument:
quote:"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which proves that he's right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that dismisses Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the topic to dismiss an argument, once you know that the argument was written by a <gasp> conservative.
You can dislike Bill Clinton or the Clintons in general without referring to them by defamatory nicknames. God knows I don't like everything he did in office. It was, as I said, one example among other things, which spares me from having to quote the entire article in every damn post.
If the topic was the book, he was insufficently informed. However, if you will look at the topic line, it isn't talking about the book, it's talking about Card and the point of view from which he reviewed that book and other things.
And even IF someone is to the right of Genghis Kahn or to the left of Karl Marx, that doesn't mean their point of view should be dismissed out of hand. Nor did I say anything of the sort. It just means you consider that they're coming from that perspective when they venture an opinion.
I'll thank you not to think to put words in my mouth again.
Oh, I'm not putting any words into your mouth. Just trying to get the English meaning of what you said.
quote:"OK, so Pelegius reviewed a book review without bothering to read the book. That's not good. But Card uses words like "Clintonistas" which is somehow "defamatory," proving that Card is unapologetically right of center. So it was good for Pelegius to start a whole thread that critiques Card's review. You don't have to know anything about the book to criticize the book review, once you know that the book was reviewed by someone whose point of view is so twisted that he commits atrocities like put a Spanish suffix on Clinton, and to say other awful things that I don't want to go into here."
Does that cover it, or am I misunderstanding you still?
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.
Well, no. I'm aware -- and I'm sure that Card is aware -- of the connotations of "-ista" in English. "Clintonista" is almost as loaded as the term "feminazi."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.
Well, no. I'm aware -- and I'm sure that Card is aware -- of the connotations of "-ista" in English.
Really? Please illustrate, other than "Clintonista," where that's been used as a pejorative.
quote:"Clintonista" is almost as loaded as the term "feminazi."
If that's true (and that's the first I've heard it), it's probably because after Clinton was out of power, many of the people who screamed and rallied to support and protect him, now want to deny that they ever did such a thing. The pejorative, if any, probably has more to do with the "Clinton" than the "ista." Although to be fair, these fair weather friends seem more contemptible than Clinton himself, who had his strengths as a president as well as his weaknesses. I'll never understand OSC's loathing of Clinton, but I find Clinton's fair weather friends far more disturbing.
In LDS American culture, I've heard folks who like to argue with anti-mormons refer to themselves as "zionistas." Maybe it's because we're more friendly with Latinos rather than dispising them, that we don't see "ista" as innately pejorative.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I grew up in a hispanic community. To me "-ista" generally implies militarism, as a result of the widespred usage of sandinista and the connotations thereof.
It isn't a complimentary familiar form to my knowledge. I think any one who would choose to self-identify as a Zionista is sadly unaware of larger scale marketing implications and/or linguistic derivations outside of Utah. To me it immediately implies someone in a militaristic quasi-christian looney fringe such as Fred Phelps. But with guns.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I grew up in a hispanic community. To me "-ista" generally implies militarism, as a result of the widespred usage of sandinista and the connotations thereof.
It isn't a complimentary familiar form to my knowledge. I think any one who would choose to self-identify as a Zionista is sadly unaware of larger scale marketing implications and/or linguistic derivations outside of Utah.
BO, I grew up in Mexico, DF, and I also lived in Spain. I don't know what the suffix means in "hispanic community," USA, but I do know what it means in countries that speak real Spanish. People in Utah are more familiar with what the word means in Latinoamerica, since most in Utah has either been to Latinoamerica or has a close friend who has been there. So please don't make presumptuous, condescending, and innacurate remarks about the state with the highest number of advanced degrees and the greatest familiarity with foreign cultures.
posted
Sterling, if you're going to read that much into "Clintonista," then surely you're capable of realizing the obvious insulting connotations of "eople trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection. That booming voice from on high- the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might I suggest that way too much attention is given to the sterlings and pelegiuses of the world?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't concerned about what "Zionista" was taken to mean in actual spanish speaking countries. I was more concerned about how it would be interpreted in the rest of the US, since, you know, they generally live in the US for most of their lives dispite possible missions elsewhere.
In some hispanic communities in CA it is actually pretty sad, because the parents don't teach their kids Spanish because they want them to learn English, but only know broken English so the kids aren't really fluent in either language, but a wierd bastardized English is all they've got. If someone I knew called themselves a Ricardo-ista it would probably mean that Ricardo was their local gang leader, and I'd double check their shoes to find out which gang they belonged to.
I realize Zion-ist has already been taken. I don't know if Zion-ite has. I am just amazed anyone would chooose to self identify as a Zion-ista, because the PR problem is the same as Clintonista, Bushista, or anything else. In common US journalistic usage, that I have seen, it implies one is militant follower of whatever is in the noun being modified, and is very rarely self-chosen by the group.
Someone who was a Clinton follower would generally *not* self-identify as a Clinton-ista or a Gore-ista any more than a Bush follower would call themselves a Bush-ista, or a Rove-ista. They would likely self-identify as liberal in the former and conservative in the latter, and be insulted if the adjective was thrown their direction. Neither would be conducive to productive dialog, if your goal is actually productive dialog.
As a non-LDS if I met an LDS that self-identified as a Zionista, I would tiptoe away. Very Carefully.
posted
The term Zionista is self-deprecating, but that's not quite the same thing as derogatory. And it's not a common phrase; just a self-deprecating joke among a few LDS internet warriors. I used to be zionista myself until the late 1990s when political discussions became more interesting to me than being a religious apologista. All it entailed was refuting ridiculous anti-LDS rumors like orgies in LDS temples, that we believe bizzare things about Mary, and other nonsense. Nothing particularly dangerous or militant. Just humilliating people who circulate falsehoods about LDS beliefs and practices. It was a hobby of mine for a couple years after my sister's life was threatened in Bulgaria because of such rumors.
In Mexico, -ista identifies members of the major political parties. Panistas are members of the PAN, and Pri-istas (that's how they say it; I don't recall how they say it) are members of the PRI. It's no more derogatory than "democrats" and "republicans."
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we aren't talking about Mexico. We are talking about how the appelation -ista has been used in US journalism. And if, you are actually comparing a US polititical group using the mexican suffix as you defined above I think it is even more derogatory and insuinating of corruption and groupthink loyalty, given the level of political corruption in Mexico vs. the US.
I think the militarist interpretation is actually kinder than the corruption implications in your definition above.
quote: Just humilliating people who circulate falsehoods about LDS beliefs and practices. It was a hobby of mine for a couple years after my sister's life was threatened in Bulgaria because of such rumors.
I'm sorry about your sister. Do you really believe humiliation produces a productive change in attitude at the individual level? I tend to think it leads towards resentful bitterness in the main.
quote: The term Zionista is self-deprecating, but that's not quite the same thing as derogatory.
And if someone called himself a Clintonista, it would also be self-deprecating. Calling someone else a Zionista or a Clintonista or most sorts of -ista is therefore merely deprecating. Which is pretty close, IMO, to being derogatory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: But we aren't talking about Mexico. We are talking about how the appelation -ista has been used in US journalism.
We are? I thought we were talking about how Card used it. Card is not a journalist.
quote:And if, you are actually comparing a US polititical group using the mexican suffix as you defined above I think it is even more derogatory and insuinating of corruption and groupthink loyalty, given the level of political corruption in Mexico vs. the US.
America's far worse than Mexico on the groupthink front.
PANistas have done more to end corruption in Mexico than any other group -- DESPITE the efforts of Clintonistas like Carville who personally went down to try in vain to stop the corrupt PRI from losing the first free and fair presidential election in 70 years.
quote:I think the militarist interpretation is actually kinder than the corruption implications in your definition above.
You know, just after I said all those nice things to me, you thow out Utah = Ignorant, and now you're saying that Mexican = corrupt. Please understand these stereotypes of people I know and lived with really try my patience. I don't think you're intending to offend me, but please go easy on the regional/cultural slurs, OK?
quote: Just humilliating people who circulate falsehoods about LDS beliefs and practices. It was a hobby of mine for a couple years after my sister's life was threatened in Bulgaria because of such rumors. ------ I'm sorry about your sister. Do you really believe humiliation produces a productive change in attitude at the individual level? I tend to think it leads towards resentful bitterness in the main.
I don't think that humilliation produces any productive change in attitude at the individual level. It's PR. If I just correct the error, people have a better chance of remembering the colorful lie, than the dull boring facts. To counter a colorful lie, you need to present something that people are going to remember. I'm fairly creative, but with a really pernicious liar, I'd eventually run out of time, patience, and mental energy, and so I'd humilliate them, make clear why their idea was rediculous, their sources corrupt and bankrupt.
It wasn't much fun, and after a while, I moved on.
And mildly deprecating is a LONG way from derogatory. Hell, man "zionista" is affectionately deprecating, like "little brother."
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If *I* was going to start a petty, pointless thread bashing OSC's writings on his own site, I'd definitely complain about his use of the spelling 'cooky' instead of 'cookie' in his recent essay. I still can't stop shuddering.
quote:As anyone with minimal knowledge of Spanish (e.g. has eaten twice at a Mexican Restaurant) knows, -ista means "supporters of." Clintonistas means supporters of Clinton. Bushista would mean supporters of Bush.
Took Spanish to mid-level in college, thanks. And that doesn't change that the group most familiarly referenced by the -ista suffix in the United States is the Sandanistas, a paramilitary Marxist group. Effectively, calling them "the Clintonistas" is implying that that they're marxist in their leanings and boderline violent in their fanatacism. Which might be why, strangely enough, you wont hear anyone referring to "Bushistas", let alone from within the group of Bush supporters. And, gee whiz, you could even know that without having ordered food in a Mexican restaurant!
quote:Oh, I'm not putting any words into your mouth. Just trying to get the English meaning of what you said.
And either failing miserably, or not trying.
quote:Sterling, if you're going to read that much into "Clintonista," then surely you're capable of realizing the obvious insulting connotations of "eople trip over themselves in placation at this kind of interjection. That booming voice from on high- the creator is actually paying attention, scurry, scurry."
First, the "Clintonista" thing was one example. I'm not reading everything into that alone, but as I said, I'm getting a little tired of postings that consist largely of quotes, especially if I'm going to have to reply to multiple people each time. I'll provide more examples if you really want, but I don't think this topic is moving that direction.
People _did_ trip over themselves in the attempt to placate Card, in the sense that all conversational momentum swung in that direction.
The "the creator is paying attention, scurry, scurry" comment was intended to be dramatic, perhaps was excessively so, but was not intended to be insulting. You recently chided me to not presume to know the motives of my fellow posters, so I'm going to ask you take my word for it on my motive for this one.
quote:Might I suggest that way too much attention is given to the sterlings and pelegiuses of the world?
You may, but if all you have to contribute is lumping us together (under "trolls", I presume?) and vaguely wishing I'd go away, I wish you wouldn't.
quote:The fact is, almost everyone here cares about Card. We want his approval, we want his comments, we want him to be happy, we want him to write many more books. Especially if they are like Enchantment or Pastwatch.
And so, for these reasons and many similar reasons, Card is treated differently and percieved differently. There are different standards for Card. And rightly so.
So should Card avoid posting in the forum?
Absolutely not. He's different, and he's special, but it's not a bad thing. It's just a different thing. He should continue posting, and we all, including Card, should remember that there are different rules for him.
I wouldn't be here if I didn't like his writing (well, his fiction writing, and his writing _on_ writing, anyway) either.
And, no, I wouldn't want him to stop posting. But I worry about the effect of posts like the ones here on the forum as a whole. It would be a pity for someone to see that and leave, thinking this was only a place for people who were in lockstep with Card. He didn't demand such submission, but growling anger provoked a reaction like screaming violent retribution.
It's unnerving, to see the very thing that unites us, divide us.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You may, but if all you have to contribute is lumping us together (under "trolls", I presume?) and vaguely wishing I'd go away, I wish you wouldn't.
Instead of lumping us together?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Maybe it's because we're more friendly with Latinos rather than dispising them, that we don't see "ista" as innately pejorative.
