posted
Exploding Monkey Please stop swearing I have gone to many forums on the web but this is the only one I frequent due to its cleanliness, opiness, and intelligence. I swear a lot in my everyday life but find this forum to be a nice clean place where I can express my opinions and talk with other intelligent people your swearing, put downs, and attitude I find very frustrating. I am attempting to post this in the nice possible way so please take it too heart and stop sentances like the one above. And if you won't why don't you find a Forum that finds you entertaining because I don't. P.S. I am typing this at school and it gets out in five minutes. So I'm not DODGING you if you answer this and I don't respond till tomorrow. Thanks
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I said was and implied, in my opinion, awful. Were someone to make arguements here in that style, I'd be quick in opposing them. I think that positing that nearly any group of people are harmful by the very nature of belonging to the group speaks strongly of irrational prejudice. However, on the third page of the Salon interview, OSC says:
quote:"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone.
and people, many of whom I'd expect would object to my transformed version of this, were talking about how OSC came across as reasonable. Obviously, I disagree. I figured, divorced from name and an acceptable group to hold prejudices about, most everyone else would too.
---
Zal, Sorry, I thought you had figured out this connection and were yawning about the comparison.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am coming into this forum a bit late and I apologize but I find myself having some strong opinions about this thread. First off for a man to openly state his opinios I find to be an open positive thing. OSC doesn't put people down, use insults, are blatantly obsene statements but simply states his opinions. In the interview I found him to be polite and curteous in his answers. In regards to communism. What happened in the cold war was not true communism. It was in fact a dictatorship under lenin, stalin, etc. where they ruled everything and tried to convince everyone that it was communism. As to Vietnam and Korea the problem was not was the war right. The problem was that it wasn't RUN right. The leaders tried to run Vietnam like WWII and that just couldn't work. Also a war is a terrible thing. I hate and I do mean HATE it when people back in the USA in a peacefull situation pick apart what is going on in a terrible place under terrible conditions. THey weren't their so who are they to judge. That is partially why I stronly disagree whith the extended media coverage of the current war. With Homosexualness to be against homosexual marraiges is not neccessarily to be against homosexualness. My personall stance on Homosexualness is the same as my stance on smoking. I don't agree with it, I won't support it, but neither will I hate or try to stop it. I think thats all my thoughts for now. School ended so tha, tha, tha, thats all folks. (For now anyway) P.S. I haven't been on for a couple of weeks when did this new quick reply thing start? I really like it.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to assume poor delivery rather than poor intent, Squick. I tried to form my response avoiding the term "bigot," partially because it is such an emotionally loaded word, and partially because if that wasn't what you intended I didn't want to accuse you of it. I suppose I could have expected from you a reverse approach, a la your "Council at Jerusalem" object lesson from however long ago.
From a strict reading of what you wrote, yes, it's bigoted, and the sentiment is deplorable. However, I would contend that it's not entirely analagous to OSC's comment, unless you start from a couple of premises I may not (and OSC probably does not) agree with.
Originally I would have considered Mr. Card's comments simply incautious -- a very reasonable thing in an oral setting, imho -- and that the words didn't express what he really meant. After reading similar statements in his columns, though, I conclude that his comments incorporate some unstated assumptions that he doesn't want to bring up again and again and again. But if one hasn't read all his columns/books/essays/speeches, one won't necessarily know what those assumptions are. He feels he's already proven them, but even those proofs may rest on postulates with which the reader may also not agree.
Unsurprisingly, this reminds me of something from one of his books (Children of the Mind): "Malu isn't stupid enough to think you can isolate facts from their context and still have them be true." And I don't think Card is stupid in this, but simply that a weekly newspaper column can't include that information. If he has written 1,000 columns so far (this is an exaggeration), then the next column I approach as 1/1,001st of the whole, rather than a new solo column. Takes longer that way, though, so I don't usually comment on them all that much.
quote:Originally posted by 0range7Penguin: Exploding Monkey Please stop swearing I have gone to many forums on the web but this is the only one I frequent due to its cleanliness, opiness, and intelligence. And if you won't why don't you find a Forum that finds you entertaining because I don't.
Okay, you are the second person that's called me on this. I will discontinue it. However, I must point out a couple things:
1. I tried to phrase the few curses I used with dashes and alternate symbols so they were not so blatant. I thought this would be acceptable under certain conditions but apparently it is not. On most forums that frown on cursing, it is acceptable in the way I just explained as long as it is not done too often. So understand where I am coming from here. I was not trying to offend nor entertain just for the sake of doing so. I was trying to lighten the mood slightly which often makes people more receptive to each other.
2. I am a cursing wreck. It’s very natural to me. While even Stephen King calls cursing ‘the language of the uneducated,’ he himself concedes how useful it can be to drive home certain ideas because of it’s shock value. He also advocates that you be true to yourself when writing; be who you are and write from that. I live by this in both my fiction writing and my everyday life. So you have to understand that I don’t curse just for the sake of it. When I use it in places like this (that restrict it) it is often to drive home a point, but also it’s just because that’s who I am. So please, before you insult me try to see things from my perspective. I am not trying to be disrespectful, I’m just being me.
But since you are the second person to mention it, and because I respect your wishes on the matter, I will discontinue.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
No worries. And I can understand and engage with your reasoned explanation much better than the rhetorical stunt.
And I agree with some of TomD's criticism of OSC on the previous page [esp. the bit about painting with a big brush].
But then that's just me and, I suppose that I may be wrong to let classical liberal ideas about reason and civility be the grounds on which I think debate and public discourse should occur. .
----- In regard to Squicky's actual point. And since we're painting with large brushstrokes....
The difficulty I have with the left is its tendency to not be able to separate their arguments in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. Each of those categories contains various issues and grounds for reasoning. The fight for civil rights is not the same as the fight for gay rights, and it is sloppy rhetoric to throw that in the faces of those who oppose sexual-preference-based rights. To suggest that someone who is a "homophobe" must needs be "racist" as well.
The problem I have with the right is that it tends to dismiss those categories, and it does seem to show any (positive) interest at all in those who see those categories as valid.
In terms of the actual "Mormons harm" thing -- the problem is that there is a segment of the left who is as hysterical about religion as the cultural right is about the GLBT community. Who are convinced that Evangelicals [whom I have my own issues with] are hell bent [pun intended?] on creating a theocracy. Of course, the absolutely most annoying thing is the right complaining about and trumpeting and going on and on about the hysterical left. Talk about yawn.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think manipulation belongs on the list of means justified by their ends - not when there are alternatives. The end goal may not have been jollies, but that particular method was not the only way to get there.
posted
Agreed -- and I never said I approved of his methodology -- but that still doesn't make it trolling.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have several, Katie -- yours works well enough in this instance. But I still don't think Squicky's actions fit it.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It thought it was effective rhetoric that Squick used, whether baiting or trolling. The point was to highlight OSC's original quote from another POV, and it worked.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you tell me a different definition? I believe you that you don't think it was, but I haven't seen why it wasn't.
The same action may or may not be trolling depending on the motivations behind it. I think our disagreement is in our assessment of his motivation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not like I keep a list of definitions I use, Katie. But I think the key aspect of "trolling" is the jollies part, not the baiting part. So someone could be trolling without baiting (a couple Hatrackers come to mind, in fact).
Squicky told us what his motivation was. If you disbelieve him and still think his purpose was jollies, then you believe he's a liar and a troll. But based on his past behavior with this reverse-psychology type thing, I believe him. So yes, our disagreement appears to be our assessment of his motivation.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Instead of accusing people of trolling, how about responding to the actual argument? I've noticed this in repsonse to me also : People tend to cry "Troll! Crucify!" when they aren't sure how to respond. If your beliefs cannot be defended without a smokescreen of derails, what does that say about their rationality?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pop, See that's the thing for me though. OSC sounds an awful lot like a bigot, especially to people who don't have a background into the framework he's talking in (incidentally, I've read some - maybe even most - of it and I lean towards his attitude as coming more from irrational prejudices - although those towards homosexuals is largely secondary - than well reasoned arguments). And yet people are not even batting an eye at it.
OSC has claimed that that people who disagree with him are going to label him a homophobe and be done with it. I agree that this is true in many cases. What he didn't say is that many of the people who agree with him are going to see that he's saying bad things about gays and agree with him without any more thought. I'm not saying that people are all wrong for agreeing with him, but I don't think that characterizing an exchange where he clearly implies that gay people are harmful just for being gay as clear and well-reasoned without somehow dealing with this gaping problem is responsible.
People are going to read that and think that he's a bigot, because that's how it sounds, as does (taken in this context) his other statement about not knowing any gay people who are made happy by carrying out gay activities. I'm not saying he is, but even to people who support him because of his unbigotted stance on homosexauls should, if not find these statement troubling, at least acknowledge that they are very open to negative interpretation.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, Ehhh...I'm a veteren of this sort of thing. I'm comfortable with my choice.
The linkage of civil rights and homosexual rights isn't, at least in my experience, used to imply that anyone who is against gays is also a racist. Rather, it's to highlight on many of the similarities. As I've said, anti-gay prejudice is still acceptable in our society in levels that racist prejudices aren't. Also, the issue of marrriage is directly relevant as the same arguments about the destruction of marriage and not changing the definition of marriage were part of the effort to keep races from intermarrying. In this particular case, OSC's comparision is poorly chosen as not only were they plenty of people during the civil rights era who considered blacks to be harmful just because they were black, but also considered blacks being upity and demanding equal rights with white folks to be trying to bring about the destruction of society.
As for the religion = harm thing, I have little patience for those people. However, as I've said, I find a lot of the religious activists to be relatively bad people, in part because of their immature actions and beliefs, in part because they tend to campaign against the principles that I think are so important for our country, and in part because they hold as OSC does:
quote:In our culture today, there are a lot of people who use the fundamental Christian doctrine -- to love your neighbor, to forgive all men -- only as a weapon to silence Christians! The effort to hold Christians to this particular standard is very unfair.
quote: People tend to cry "Troll! Crucify!" when they aren't sure how to respond.
There are some things that you cannot respond to, such as the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
. 
