posted
EM goes wrong when he equates capability in fantastical, imaginitive storytelling (you know, sci-fi) with an entirely subjective, and wholly at-his-own-will definition of closed/open mindedness.
We get such statements as the following:
"OSC's views come off as so rash and laid in stone that he seems to have closed his mind to other possibilities. As a sci-fi writer of such talent, I did not expect that out of him. By definition, you have to have a very open mind to design pretend worlds in your head."
"If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on."
This is, of course, ludicrously arrogant. Belief in a certain set of ideals does not restrict or empower imagination. Rather, the natural powers of imagination will channel through the ethics of the possessor. CS Lewis believed similarly as OSC; so did Tolkien; on the other end of the spectrum, is Wagner, and Burroughs. All of them had vital, vibrant imaginations, despite their various ethical holdings.
quote:Isn't ethics based on empathy for others? And doesn't that require a certain amount of imagination, in order to understand their situation and view?
Understanding does not equal acceptance. It may equal love, but love does not require one to submit their intellect to someone else's wishes.
quote: I admit this doesn't apply to rules you follow because they were handed down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone, but then, that's not actual ethics anyway, that's fear of punishment.
Deja vu, KoM. Haven't we burned out your misunderstanding of religious motivation yet?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
You go wrong when you state that "ideals do not restrict or empower the imagination." I feel that a human being's capacity to function is influenced subconsciously by the morals and ethics they live by as well as the rest of their personality, otherwise those morals and ethics are just a front that means nothing; all smoke and mirrors. Your statement of: "the natural powers of imagination will channel through the ethics of the possessor," states just that. Ethics has an effect on the writer. Unless you meant 'channel around the ethics of the possessor.'
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I half-agree with Scott. I think ideals do empower the imagination, but I don't think that ideals restrict it - except in the sense that ideals won't empower certain imaginative paths that are contrary to them. But the possessor is certainly capable of going down those paths.
Remember, temptation by its nature involves thoughts of actions contrary to ones ethics and morals. People are innately capable of imagining things contrary to their ethics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I fear you are responding to a different argument than the one I was making. I am not talking about any complicated disputes about gay marriage or such, but rather the very most basic ethical conundrums, of the style "Should I share my blocks, or keep them all to myself to play with?" I don't know about you, but my mother, when she was civilising me, would always tell me "How would you feel if X did that to you?" That is the kind of empathy I'm referring to. And I do think that requires a certain amount of imagination.
Further, my remarks on tablets of stone were perhaps a bit unfortunately phrased. Continuing with what my mother told me, it did occasionally happen that she would get exasperated and just say "No! Don't do that!" If that had been the only thing she ever said, I wouldn't have ethics, just ingrained reflexes, which indeed do not require imagination.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think ideals do empower the imagination, but I don't think that ideals restrict it - except in the sense that ideals won't empower certain imaginative paths that are contrary to them.
Remember, temptation by its nature involves thoughts of actions contrary to ones ethics and morals. People are innately capable of imagining things contrary to their ethics."
Well put.
I think my initial statement may have been too strong using the word "control" as if the possessor had no ability to create beyond their own ethical limitations.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, I keep forgetting how much can happen if I don't log on for whole day here. Rather than read through everything here I am just responding to the direct responses to my post, way back on page one.
I see no reason to believe that my way of looking at things is dangerous. I never said I condone what a person does if their intentions are good. Quite the contrary, I would like to think that were I alive at the time I would have fought against the Japanese interment, but I would not have fought against it in the mindset that FDR was an evil man for it.
Rather if I see someone who disagrees with my opinion I figure out where they are coming from and try to convince them of my opinion from their point of view, something I would not be able to do if I did not first consider their intentions. For a quick example take the debate on abortion, if you are pro-abortion and are trying to debate with someone who is anti-abortion, how can you expect to convince them of anything if you simply label them as anti-feminist and repeat the same aurgument over and over (something I see almost anytime the debate arises). Conversely if you are anti-abortion trying to convince someone of your side you can't simply assume that they want to kill babies and then aurgue from that point of view (also something that seems to come up more often than not). Instead you should realize that both sides are coming from they believe to be the moral high-ground and are not in fact evil for disagreeing with you. Otherwise you can sit and repeat retoric back and forth for as long as you want, but you won't be convincing anyone.
The point about Hitler was bound to be made. I don't think Hitler's intentions were at all good. He wanted power for himself and maybe even his people, but he didn't care at what expense. That seems a bit more self serving than altruistic to me.
Intentions do not condone actions, but they are what make a person who they are, you are right that in the long run intentions mean nothing, but at the same time in the long run your opinion about a person means nothing either so I would rather make that opinion based on who a person is and not what they do.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: Yes, my parents told me the same thing-- oddly enough, JESUS says the same thing. (eg, 'The Golden Rule') Maybe you're more religious than you've been lead to believe.
EM, I feel like you're changing your position-- in the bits I quoted, you state that in order to be able to be creative enough to create fantastic worlds, one must be "open-minded." Do you believe this or not?
Perhaps if you could define what you mean by open minded and closed minded? What ideals does an open minded person subscribe to that allow him to be more creative than his closed minded counterpart?
Dag, I can think of one particular, personal example that may run contrary to your opinion-- but it won't be published until mid-August. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't see how there can be a counterexample to my opinion - I leave the bases open for any imaginative output. So the existence of any particular story from a person with any particular set of ideals, ethics, and morals is totally possible.
But I still want a signed copy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, duh, Confucius says the same thing. 600 years or so before Jesus. So do all the humanist philosophers. Neither Christians nor theists have a monopoly on the golden rule. The point I'm trying to make is that you need a certain amount of imagination both to apply it, and to see why it is necessary. Not very much, admittedly, certainly not as much as you need to be a successful author, but more than zero, as you were asserting.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're talking past one another, KoM-- I wasn't saying that ethics required no imagination, just that creative imagination doesn't require ethics.
That's why so many artistes are irredeemable scum.
Dag-- you shall have it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not really changing my opinion, but some others here like you and Dag are helping me to make what I meant come out more clearly.
I do believe you have to have an open mind if you want to be able to fully open up your imagination. Our own personal beliefs can limit the ways in which we use our imaginations if we do not entertain possibilities beyond our own personal values. I'm arguing that a stubborn, closed-minded approach to any creative project a person might want to take on could have the potential of eliminating, or at least restricting creative possibilities that the person could have otherwise had.
Lucas is a good example of this on a conscious level. He is a proud Christian that makes no apologies for the way in which he presents the Star Wars universe. Cool, no problem. However, it is his strict adherence to his ethics that limits his creative potential. For example, because he is so conservative about sex, love, and marriage, his characters and story suffer for it. The romantic elements are weak and totally unbelievable. And before you say: “Yeah, but Han and Leia’s romance was okay,” know that Ford, Fisher and their directors did a lot of modifications to Lucas’ original concepts.
What I am saying is that our personalities (including our own personal ethics) affects what we are able to create too some degree whether we want it too or not.
So when I said I could not believe Card could seem so open to other possibilities in a fantasy world but was stubborn in his real world views I was not expressing well the fact that it is possible to suppress personal ethics to a great degree to write other worlds. I was just totally blown away that Card was like that. I assumed (my mistake, I know) that the writing I saw in his fiction and essays was a reflection of what kind of a person he was. Live and learn. Card is the first author I had ever held in such high regard.
I will admit my opinion on the ethics in creativity has been reshaped a little by all of you though. But I feel the same as I did before for the most part.
posted
Oh, I missed the second part of your question. I feel it's like this. Tell me if you agree or not:
Open-minded: To entertain other concepts ideas that do not mesh with your own beliefs or values, and to be able to concede your values for diffrent ones if you feel the new concepts have enough merrit to do so.
Closed-minded: To hold on strictly to a certain set of values and beliefs no matter what anyone else may have to say to the contrary. To close yourself out from any concepts or ideas that you do not agree with.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alistair: I see no reason to believe that my way of looking at things is dangerous. I never said I condone what a person does if their intentions are good.
Okay, that's cool. I took it that you did think that way, which is a scary and dangerous way to view things.
posted
I investigated the claim that Lucas is Christian. Here's Lucas's statement in an interview (http://www.adherents.com/movies/Film100.html#Lucas ):
Q: What religion are you?
A: I was raised Methodist. Now let's say I'm spiritual. It's Marin County. We're all Buddhists up here.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I just realized how irrelevant that was in my statement though. Him being Christian has nothing to do with his conservative values. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it odd that someone who disagrees with you can seem "closed minded" because he doesn't immediately change his mind after being exposed to your more enlightened opinion.
Actually, I change my mind quite frequently - when I get better information. One can search the complaints about me on this thread from beginning to end without detecting a single idea that would lead anyone to change their mind about anything.
Plus, I find it amusing that the primary attackers of my views on this thread find it necessary to grossly misrepresent my views in order to attack them. While I'm as capable as anyone of misstating something, as a general rule my statements come in a context that should govern the reading and interpretation of them. For instance, when I call myself a communist, I almost always remind people I'm speaking of the small-c communism that predated Marx; so it seems borderline deceptive for someone to pretend to find a contradiction between my being a small-c communist - or call me a communitarian, if you will - and ALSO thinking that it is a generous country that spends its wealth and sacrifices lives of its own soldiers to protect small countries far away from some of the most vicious dictators known to recent history.
Are you REALLY saying that you think KOREA was an unjustified, immoral war? Are you REALLY saying that we should have let South Korea fall to the North Korean invasion? Do you REALLY think it was not worth the sacrifice that led to the South Korea of today, compared to a peninsula-wide NORTH Korean style of government?
This is what I'm talking about. Someone capable of such a historically ignorant attitude should not really consider me closed-minded for not changing my mind to fit such hopelessly ignorant views. NOBODY who is serious about understanding history and the morality of international behavior would equate the Korean War with the Vietnam War in that way. I only equated them in the sense that the intentions of the U.S. PEOPLE were honorable as they supported both wars.
As for Tom Davidson, I am astonished at your remarks early in this thread. Dodging you? Why would I do that? I wish people wouldn't assume that there's something personal going on. Sometimes, you know, when I'm posting something and don't refer to someone by name it's because I DON'T REMEMBER WHO POSTED THE REMARK I'M ANSWERING! So shoot me for having a bad memory. (It helps that the new forum software leaves at least the most recent page of a thread visible while we write out replies.)
TomDavidson, I believe I have answered you fully and civilly whenever it seemed appropriate, and otherwise I've left you alone. Please don't interpret this as some complex relationship. There ARE people I dodge, but none of them are on any of these forums....
Folks, the fact is that my rhetoric is not extreme. The statements of Howard Dean about President Bush: THOSE are extreme. The statements of Pat Buchanan about illegal immigrants and free trade agreements - THOSE are extreme.
And when I use the word stupid, I use it with precision. There is such a thing as stupidity - the inability to form a coherent thought or comprehend a simple concept. There is a great deal of it in this world. I find it odd, though, that the people who criticize me for being so candid in my columns often couch their criticisms of me far more harshly than I would ever write about any individual person.
You know what conclusion I've finally reached about the kind of carping that this thread contains? That attacking me for being so "closed-minded" or "stubborn" or "harsh" is a substitute for having no answer to the points I make. And it's a pretty poor one, in my view. Ad hominem attacks are usually the last resort of the desperate rhetorician. May I suggest that before you dismiss my ideas as "reactionary" (a meaningless word, by the way, used merely as an empty pejorative - though useful for that purpose! <grin>), perhaps you should make some small effort to duplicate my research on the topic to make sure you know what you're talking about.
I mean this, of course, in the nicest possible way.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't ethics based on empathy for others? And doesn't that require a certain amount of imagination, in order to understand their situation and view?
I don't think it has to be. Ethics can be cold, too. You can say that it is wrong to lie because it would hurt the feelings of the person you are lying to. But you could also argue that it is wrong to lie simply because doing so impedes communication in general.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to apologise to you Mr. Card since I only said I was sorry to the other forum members for the way in which I expressed myself in the beginning. I acted out of partial information and an emotionally charged reaction to something I perceived in a certain way. Others pointed this out to me and I shifted out of angry rant mode and into debate mode as I probably should have been in to begin with.
I don’t know you on a personal level and thus can only draw conclusions based on the partial and imperfect information that is at my disposal. When I say conclusions, I mean on a social/celeb level, as this is the only way in which I know you. The problem is that I used my experiences with your works as a basis for getting an idea of the type of person you might be. As I said earlier, this was a bad move on my part. While all authors probably translate some of themselves into their work, I operated on the false premise that there was more of you in your books.
I too, much like that unprofessional journalist in the ’00 interview, had a bad case of hero worship. Over the past several weeks though I had noticed how bitter and dismissive many of the articles in your column appeared to me (I had been reading several of the older ones as well) and I began to wonder if my high regard for you had been misplaced. In short, the image of my hero had become tainted which upset me.
So I hit on the ‘Trek’ article with several people going off on how they considered you an elitist snob for the way you expressed your opinions. As much as my inner fanboy wanted to defend you I found myself quietly agreeing with them because I noticed the same kinds of speech in your column.
When I came in here to discuss things I did so in an unacceptable manner by personally attacking you. However, I still feel my complaint as to how you express your views comes off as pretty harsh is still valid. Now that of course doesn’t mean OSC is supposed to jump just because a disappointed fan says he should. That’s just plain silly. You express your views the way you want to just like everyone else; but that does not mean I agree with it.
My problem was that it totally freaked me out that you seemed to be like that on a regular basis! Here I was preaching to my friends about how awesome your character driven stories are, and how I’d love to take a writing class from you, and blah, blah, blah, but then I start seeing this grumpy guy who seemingly thumbs his nose at people and their values if it does not fit his own.
As others talked with me in here I began to understand that I was disappointed more than anything that a person I held in such high regard was like that. This has been a problem for me over the past few years with people more directly connected to me showing themselves to be different that what they presented themselves as. I guess you could say a portion of my world has crumbled around me and shown itself to be something that it wasn’t. This is no responsibility of yours or even the others I held in high regard, it’s just been a learning experience for me that culminated up to this point.
I still think you come off in your articles as a harsh, grumpy guy though!
In regards to the communism remarks: I have no problem with your beliefs there. In fact, given time, I could find both the good and the bad in almost any form of government. I disagree with any major expansions of government though. It has the potential to violate many of the liberties that our nation was founded on. Things like the Patriot Act scare the [bleep] out of me, and no I am not a paranoid schizophrenic either. LOL I wasn’t trying to imply you were attached to Marxism though. I just found it really odd at first that someone could call Korea and Vietnam just wars but then elaborate on how they embrace certain aspects of communism. Again, this is me jumping the gun. I find Korea to be a very important war because it enabled us to maintain a presence in a region that was almost dominated by one form of government. It helped maintain the balance of power and it has allowed us to keep the North Koreans in check up until recently. I find Bush’s poor performance in this region to be totally unacceptable (but that’s a totally different thread).
But anyway, this is where I was coming from. I have to give you credit strongly in one area though no matter what: You can accept criticism no matter how much you disagree with it. I have been to many other forums where a disruption in the status quo equates to the ejection of the individual(s) that don’t buy into the values of the forum’s masters.
So my hero turned out to be a human being after all. I’ll get over it. LOL
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of my heroes are writers. Even though I may love their writings and even agree with some of them in most particulars regarding politics and religion, etc..., I don't agree with them in everything. Nor do I feel that this is necessary to see them as my heroes.
See Scott as a hero because of his fiction, if you can't agree with his beliefs. Regardless of his personal beliefs, it takes a tremendous amount of talent and empathy to write the way that he does.
I don't agree with Scott on some of his beliefs or even some of his writings, specifically Saints and Songmaster. I love C.S. Lewis, although his particular brand of Christianity is not mine (albeit similar), and on the extreme, many of my favorite writers have come out as hard core Leftists and militantly anti-Bush. That's their deal - regardless of these things, I still see things in their writing that I greatly admire.
I would suppose that I consider the individual reader's interpretation of a book to be the valid one. Looking at it in that way, the author really is how I imagine him to be, and that's what causes me to see them as heroes - regardless of how full of warts they are in real life.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tern, this wisdom that you continue hand down to me, of what tree do you pluck its sweet fruit?
Serious though, I was unaware that I had made Card a hero within my own mind until recently. I've had a bad habit of holding people to a much higher standard than is fair, all the while being just as much of a screw-up as everyone else is.
My wife has often pointed this out, but I am just now starting to see it. It's just too bad that it manifested in me the way it has. I am not proud of the way I treated those that did not live up to my expectations. But on the good side, I am learning from it.
Sheesh I'm tired. Off to bed.
Blessings to you my friend and thank you for your personal insite, it's helped me a lot.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my columns, I try to be vivid, entertaining, clear, and, where possible, funny. For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme. Is it not possible that you're simply not USED to hearing views that disagree with you as colorfully expressed as views that do agree with you?
The fact is that my views are carefully nuanced with plenty of allowance given for views other than my own. And, in fact, my columns are full of empathy. Maybe, though, I'm showing empathy for a group of people that you don't feel any need to feel empathy for - like, for instance, "closed-minded conservatives," and not feeling sufficient empathy (meaning: agreement) with groups that you feel MUST be shown great favor.
Also, it is possible to feel empathy and still disagree; to feel empathy and still believe that a certain group's positions or actions or whatever pose a threat and must be countered.
But what may be going on is something much simpler. The extremist Left in America has hijacked "empathy" and treated it as a private possession. Those who disagree with them on matters like gay "marriage" obviously lack "empathy," even though in fact the extremist Left utterly lacks empathy with the concerns of MOST Americans who find the idea of gay "marriage" both unnecessary and potentially dangerous to the institution of marriage. The views that are still the majority view and that until ten years ago were OVERWHELMINGLY the majority view even on the left (i.e., that gay marriage was ridiculous and unthinkable - read the press from the early nineties if you doubt me!) are treated today as if they were some weird form of madness and proof that the holders of that view are benighted bigots. But since that has been the view of almost all of humanity throughout almost all of history, one would think that the Left would pause to try for a tiny, tiny bit of empathy with people who don't understand why using the word "marriage" to have the same meaning it has had ever since the word was invented somehow makes them bigots and oppressors.
How are you using the word empathy? Do you really mean empathy or agreement or consent or submission?
Why doesn't it seem to occur to you that maybe I am EXACTLY the man you thought I was from my fiction, and that the positions I take are precisely the positions that a person of empathy, understanding, experience, and balance would take? In other words, why do you immediately assume that all the evidence about me that you have from my fiction must be wrong, because you automatically associate those views with "lack of empathy" and "bigotry"? Maybe it's your assumptions that are wrong; maybe instead of condemning me you should take the challenge of empathy and try, just a little, to understand what I'm actually saying instead of dismissing it as "grumpiness" instead of the well-reasoned arguments that I actually have written.
I know I'm wasting my breath, of course. But it's just a little frustrating to be accused of bigotry by people who automatically assume that because I believe X I must be Y and Z. To me, THAT'S what sounds like prejudice, lack of empathy, and intolerance ...
But of course, that's just what a grumpy person would say.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not wasitng your breath on me at all. When I said I am open-minded, it means just that. I will concider other's remarks no matter how I initially feel about their beliefs (unless of course they're being totally unreasonalbe, i.e. flame fests).
I accept your challange (DRAW SWORDS! ) and will concider your position as well as your opinions on mine as well. Give me some time to think on it. Off the hip, I'd have to say I agree with this statement:
"But it's just a little frustrating to be accused of bigotry by people who automatically assume that because I believe X I must be Y and Z. To me, THAT'S what sounds like prejudice, lack of empathy, and intolerance ..."
I'm an insomniac so I stayed up longer than I should. I've got a long shift to pull tomorrow and am totally fried now. Time for bed.
quote: That attacking me for being so "closed-minded" or "stubborn" or "harsh" is a substitute for having no answer to the points I make.
Speaking for myself, the reason I've called you both stubborn and harsh has nothing to do with the points themselves -- which, while I disagree with them, I believe are grounded in your personal morality -- but rather the fact that you do indeed come off as stubborn and harsh in everything but your fiction. You're kind of famous for it.
There are of course more diplomatic ways I could have put it. "Straightforward," perhaps, or "brutually honest." I could have said that you've reached your opinions through dint of long self-examination and are therefore highly unlikely to have them changed by criticism.
I did not put it this way, however. Perhaps you might say that my delivery was lacking in some way.
Which is kind of my point.
When you insult homosexuals who're interested in marriage by calling their long-term relationships just a form of "playing house," or say that all Star Trek fans don't do enough reading or fear change, or insinuate that Democrats are working hard to destroy America by undermining its institutions, I am forced to conclude that you are deliberately painting with a big and ugly brush.
Because I do not believe for a second that you would tell KarlEd, who just recently bought a home with his boyfriend, that you think he's "playing house." I don't believe you would contradict anyone who insisted that, no, although they like Star Trek, they'd actually prefer if the characters changed. And so forth. I suspect that you generalize about groups in a far more insulting and derogatory way than you would consider depicting the individuals who make up those groups.
And in this, I find nothing inconsistent with your fiction -- which is all about the individual, and very critical of groups whenever they appear.
If you honestly don't think you come off "stubborn" or "harsh," if you really believe that your critics here (and here I make a distinction between people here and people who've just read a few books, came to the conclusion that you were an atheist cannibal or something, and are shocked to find out otherwise) are concentrating on your issues and not your delivery, I'd be glad to refer you to a few quotes from your essays which have certainly created the opposite impression for many people. To be honest, I have always assumed that you have in your essays cultivated this tone -- but if not, if this is in fact something you're trying to avoid, maybe it's all just down to misunderstandings.
See, while I disagree with you on a number of issues, none of your positions really strike me as that extreme or ridiculous. When I'm taken aback by something you've written in an essay, it's one of those broad, nasty generalizations -- "all liberals hate America," or (as we've seen in this thread) "people who criticize me don't know how to address my points."
Trust me, Scott, I can address your points.
That said, I understand your frustration; if you recall, I was the first person to link to that ridiculous Salon article years ago -- in your defense. You DO get slandered by people with barely-focused, narrow minds who, upon learning that you do not share their opinions on "dogma," suddenly conclude that you're a loud-mouthed bigot. I don't know how you put up with it, actually; it seems like you spend a lot of time being accused of bias by people who are blinded by their own biases.
Now, that's not to say that you're neither stubborn nor harsh. But I think it's safe to say that you're not a close-minded bigot. There's a pretty huge grey area between those two positions, and I think you fit comfortably in there. (On the opposite side of the spectrum, we have shy, retiring, and diplomatic wafflers; you are clearly not of that ilk.)
I know what I'm writing is presumptuous. And so, since I've gone out on a limb already, perhaps I can presume even further by making two suggestions:
1) In your essays, perhaps people would find you less abrasive if you avoided attacks on the "cultural left" or, say, Mac users, and instead concentrated your criticism and your solutions on the problem you're addressing in your article. Frequently, I've found myself reading one of your pieces and thinking, "Hey, this isn't a bad idea," only to hit a line like "and this is exactly the problem with cultural leftists, who although the issue we're discussing here has nothing to do with culture or politics are self-evidently the single greatest threat to the planet." And speaking as a cultural leftist, it feels as if we're going along, hand-in-hand, and then you turn around and sucker-punch me. Whether you feel it's "justifiable" or not, and whether it's part of a larger goal to discredit cultural leftists at any opportunity, let's face it: it's going to make me considerably less charitable towards you. Heck, even prefacing a few of those comments with an "I believe" or "in my opinion" or two might help, if only to make it possible for me to believe that we manage to share the same reality without agreeing on anything.
2) I think you could do worse than to write an article explaining -- in diplomatic non-absolutes, if possible -- why it's possible to be both open-minded and reasonable and, say, believe homosexuality is immoral. I would avoid digressing into criticisms of moral relativism and warnings about the evils of the cultural left, since I'd like to think that your audience for this one, outside the Rhino Times demographic, would be the cultural left itself. Because -- and you're a living example of this -- it IS possible to be compassionate and fair and oppose homosexual marriage, sometimes for some very good reasons. You've written articles critical of homosexual marriage before, and you've written articles critical of advocates of homosexual marriage, but you've never really taken the time to explain to the people who'd most benefit from your example why you've reached the conclusions you have. (Oddly, I think you came the closest in that Salon interview, but her ridiculous framing device and leading questions didn't give you a chance to flesh out your reasons.) I don't for a moment believe that such an article would convince anyone that homosexual marriage is indeed a bad idea -- but, then, that wouldn't be the point of the article; the point would be (and here I think is a way for you to strike right at the heart of what you consider leftist dogma in a way that might be more effective) that someone can be critical of a culture or a behavior without being dogmatic. It would be tempting in such an article to bring up examples of leftist dogma and bias, like our aversion to cowboy hats and country music. But, again, I wouldn't.
These won't stop people from learning about your politics and recoiling as if bitten -- because, let's face it, some people are going to find those opinions odious no matter what you do, and they'll be temporarily disillusioned -- but I think it'll create a powerful example of how it's possible to be firmly opinionated without being hostile to the other side, something that I think leftists need to learn; as it stands, you just prove them "right" by taking the hostile tone you do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme.
I agree with you far more often than I don't. In fact, there's really only one issue you've published on significantly that I disagree with you. I don't find you extreme, but I often find you grumpy. And I find you grumpiest on the issues I agree with you most strongly (Foreign policy and the hypocrisy rampant in much of the criticism of Bush.)
It is precisely in those areas where your grumpiness was most justified, I think. I also think that on any fair range of grumpiness, your far closer to the middle than many "mainstream" commentators.
But I like grumpy. I'm definitely grumpy.
quote:why it's possible to be both open-minded and reasonable and, say, believe homosexuality is immoral.
As someone who did that very thing and posted it on the board (well, about homosexual actions being immoral), I can attest that no matter how reasonable one is, one will still be called a bigot, and one will still be told what ones "real" motivations are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of empathy, let me once more point out that I was not, in fact, saying anything about gay marriage. (Nor, indeed, am I on the American left; rather I'm on the Norwegian right.) You don't need empathy to support gay marriage, you just need to free your mind from Bronze Age tribal rules; but that's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Again let me direct you to the example of sharing the blocks : That's where empathy comes in, at the most basic level. "How would you feel if someone else took all the blocks away?" I am not doing any kind of metaphor here, with the blocks equalling marriage. I'm saying that a completely un-imaginative person would be unable to comprehend the ethics we give to five-year-olds.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can attest that no matter how reasonable one is, one will still be called a bigot, and one will still be told what ones "real" motivations are.
Oh, absolutely. (I remember that thread.) You'll never reach everyone. But if you assume it's possible to reach anyone, at least that's a start. And you get used to it, I'd imagine; I mean, I know I still smart when someone tells me that I want to destroy America because I support same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of most drugs, but I haven't had as much practice.
In my columns, I try to be vivid, entertaining, clear, and, where possible, funny. For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme.
...
But of course, that's just what a grumpy person would say.
I often agree with you, Scott, and I generally will not read your columns specifically because I find them frequently vitriolic and intermittently extreme.
I find enough of those traits in myself. I prefer to read columnists who are calmly persuasive -- both when I agree and when I don't, but especially when I do.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this interviewer of OSC to be a waste of the electricity that powers my PC. She didn't just miss the boat, she was standing beside the wrong frickin' ocean.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
More specifically, I found the comments OSC made when elaborating or answering her questions to be sincere, believable answers. Her commentary between questions was shocking and quite disturbing. Once she realized that this author differed in opinion on several issues, she labeled him an @$$hole and began asking deceitful questions. What a farce!
I think her entire modus operandi backfired. What I had the opportunity to read was a review of a man with conviction, whose answers are his own, whose opinions are his own. Strangely, his answers made sense, and her misinterpretations and misconceptions kept offending me more and more.
Sure, hanging out here for about 2 years makes a difference, especially in digesting OSC comments. But...
As for fanboy status, I just had a thread on the other side with me scratching my head over OSCs rip on Apple. I still think he is an AWESOME author, and I find his views on politics and culture to be refreshingly...unHollywood (difficult to describe, really). And anyone who hangs on the other side knows that Tom Davidson and I are on different planets when it comes to guns, but Tom is a heck of a guy too.
I never read this the first time around. I suppose this is the sad reality for someone famous to endure. Too bad, because OSC deserves better than this tripe.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't impressed with either of them here, but it's important to note the differences. She's Jewish and he's LDS, and you can't necessarily compare them because a Jew doesn't harm anyone by being Jewish.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, That's what I thought too. And I think people will no doubt agree that there's nothing wrong with saying that. Zal obviously does.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, when I wrote that, "A Mormon causes harm to others just by being Mormon" is exactly what I meant to come across and exactly what I thought would come across.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think people will no doubt agree that there's nothing wrong with saying that.
Some people, sure. Some people probably also believe that MrSquicky causes harm to others just by being MrSquicky. Doesn't mean it's a necessary or appropriate thing to say.
And Zal, just because he yawned, doesn't necessarily agree. Perhaps he finds it fruitless to discuss (again), or because you've expressed similar sentiments before he simply finds himself bored at a one-note symphony. But far be it from me to speak for Zal.
posted
Whoa! The worst thing a Mormon is likely to do to you, as a Mormon, is politely ask if you would have a conversation about God. Or you might see an ad on TV asking you to love your children. These actions hardly constitute harm. (And no, I'm not LDS.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say wrong. Seems to me that the reason for saying it is so someone will ask what you mean so you can get on your soapbox again, but that won't seem as bad since someone actually asked you. There are times you remind me a lot of Tom Bailey from Ornery, though his catalyst was the term "demopublican" (or, admittedly, OSC and his "extreme leftist" or "liberal elite"). All of you have deep and interesting thoughts about many things, but at times I tire of hearing the same thing over and over, regardless of whether or not I agree.
However, depending on context, I think it can be wrong. You want to express something negative about Mormonism, or a specific action related to a belief, or the LDS church as a whole, that's one thing. When you say "Mormons," you're then likely generalizing something that simply isn't true, because there isn't much of anything that all Mormons agree on.
posted
I understand why Squicky would use the word 'harm.' And, yes, we've all had this discussion on this topic before so, yeah, I don't see it as being fruitful.
However, I was specifically yawning at the flagrantly silly attempt at Mormon baiting. At first I was amused by the Jew/Mormon thing, but then realized that as a cross-ethno-religious comparison, it really isn't as interesting as it appeared to be on the surface and decided not to engage it.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or to frame it somewhat positively [and I'm sincere in this re-framing]:
I was a little surprised. I generally expect to find more 'there' there in your posts, Squicky, and was disappointed when I unpacked it.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Deja vu, KoM. Haven't we burned out your misunderstanding of religious motivation yet?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
