OSC is a great guy and you people pick apart every nuance of everything he types as if you're all engaged in an ever important witch hunt. I mean, some of you in other threads are actually breaking apart words and debating his meaning of individual combinations of letters for heaven's sake!
He's a brilliant man, an inspiring leader, and while this may come as a shock to some of you, a regular human damned being. Not to mention humble and tolerant (yes, tolerant) juxtaposed with his success.
I know this forum is called "Discussion about OSC" but come on, this is ridiculous. I hereby propose dispensation of Sense-of-humor pills for all.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's put it this way, O'douls: do you agree that Card is at times needlessly insulting, a tendency which often detracts (when indulged) from his larger points?
Leaving aside all other considerations -- whether he's a great guy, or humble, or tolerant, or inspiring (most of which I believe, by the way) -- do you agree with this assertion?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
We've got all those condemned of every stripe: Men who don't shave, and boys who don't wipe; Ladies who sing most awfully off key And all of the girls who never say please.
Mothers who throw dishrags into stew, Fathers who pick and flick it on you, Brothers who bathe but just once a week, Sisters who put too much rouge on their cheeks.
We've got them all, come down and see- Nose-pickers, dirt-diggers, by fours and by threes! A gaggle of goosers are there by those flames-- Watch out for them now, they still aren't quite tamed.
Down here in Hades, they dwell and they thrive, Mortality's over, but they're still quite alive. Here they cavort and wait for what's new-- With pleasure we give them the soul that is you. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let's put it this way, O'douls: do you agree that Card is at times needlessly insulting, a tendency which often detracts (when indulged) from his larger points?
posted
Excellent post odouls268 and I agree that I have never found Card to be needlessly insulting either. I should add: if you see something OSC wrote and feel ticked off, please do not create a thread that begins with how much you love Card's ideas EXCEPT for this, this, and this thus making you hate him overall. Rather, just create a post where you ask him to compare what he said with your own experiences or ideas. I'd even propose just one thread where anyone can just ask him such things instead of new threads being created every week.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankie was a good woman, Ev'rybody knows, She gave her man Johnny a hundred dollar bill Just to buy a suit of clothes.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, then, there's why we have conversation on the issue.
quote: Rather, just create a post where you ask him to compare what he said with your own experiences or ideas.
Over six years, I have never seen a thread started in that manner actually receive a response from Card.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:please do not create a thread that begins with how much you love Card's ideas EXCEPT for this, this, and this thus making you hate him overall
I don't think anyone said that we hate him overall. We like him and respect him. We like his ideas too, it's just the extra things he tacks on when expressing them that we feel are less effective.
I don't want to use the same cliche that I read Card's books, and now I come here, and he does this, and says this, and I can't reconcile it, so I'm no longer going to be his fan. I think he is a great guy, with a temper. So he's not perfect, not a big deal.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're wrong. OSC is needlessly insulting, and when he is, it greatly detracts from his larger points, because it turns people off from reading him. If you can't see that he is insulting, I strongly suggest that you are either blinded by the same partisan hatred that seems to blind OSC, or you are not reading his essays very carefully.
Its not really a matter of opinion that OSC is insulting. Almost everyone I've seen comment on the subject, who is left of OSC, has been insulted by OSC, usually multiple times in multiple essays.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems are if people expect OSC to be some sort of god, when he is a human being. Who cares if he expresses his opinion in one way or another, its an opinion and his right to express his how he see's fit.
I honestly feel bad for the people who whine so much about these things, because well, simply you will find no joy in life if you spend all your time arguing about such things rather than spending it on something meaningful.
I am infact extremely "left" or "liberal" in comparison to OSC in many of the things his essays have touched upon, but guess what?! Has he offended me? No. Want to know why? Because its his opinion, even opinions backed up with well thought out reasoning are still opinions. Does it mean that I am less of a person for disagreeing? No.
So why should I be offended?
"Any reviewer who expresses rage and loathing for a novel is preposterous. He or she is like a person who has put on full armor and attacked a hot fudge sundae." -Kurt Vonnegut
I think this also applies to other forms of expression throughts, ala essays. Those who get so mad about these things should reevaluate themselves.
I can see where Mr. Card gets his ideas/thoughts usually, and often I agree with him to an extent, and if I don't I don't come slander him for it. I try to think of why he thinks in such a way, and understand him for it. Then, I try to understand WHY I FEEL to the contrary.
This my view of what is the key to being an intelligent person, if you cannot do this first, then you should not be one to argue your opinion with anyone.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does it mean that I am less of a person for disagreeing? No.
Would it bother you if Mr. Card has said otherwise? Because, y'know, he has. In fact, the thought process you just outlined is one that he's confidently declared that almost no one out there ever actually uses.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It seems are if people expect OSC to be some sort of god, when he is a human being. Who cares if he expresses his opinion in one way or another, its an opinion and his right to express his how he see's fit."
Yes it is. And its our right to tell him he's doing so in a manner that is impolite, offensive, insulting, and wrong.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PG-- it's clear from your first post ('you are not reading his essays very clearly') that no matter what OSC might do or say, as long as he holds and espouses the opinions he holds, he is an insult to you.
How can anyone defend against such a point of view? It cannot be done.
Why don't you make us all more comfortable and leave? Its obvious this party isn't your style; and we can't ask the host to leave. Or I guess we could; Heavens knows, *I* would have closed this party down YEARS ago if I'd been slandered the way OSC is slandered on a weekly basis.
"But if only OSC wouldn't say such terrible things!"
Right. And you're a better person for calling him and all those who think like him, "blindly partisan."
Freaking hypocrite. I mean, I've got my moments of hypocrisy, but I don't think I've ever said, "I find this place so revolting, I think I'll hang around and make it worse for everyone who happens to enjoy it." I'm sure you don't realize that's exactly what you're doing-- so consider yourself(ves) informed.
It WAS a mistake for OSC to start posting again, because obviously, some people can't handle it.
I'm so sick of this topic, it makes me cynical. "Waaah, OSC was mean to me after I called him a bigot. Waah, OSC doesn't follow the rules of his own forum. . . Waaah, why doesn't he respect me/agree with me?"
You know what? In real life, you come into someone's home and start violently disagreeing with them, they most likely will not be pleasant to deal with. And you start calling them names, most likely, they'll get defensive.
That's what you folks have done with OSC. I'm sick of it, and no, I can't really blame him for being mean to you, Tom, because you have been here for SIX YEARS. You know the score. Or should. If you don't, I'll clue you in-- you've worn out your welcome. You are like the boor at the party that keeps making jokes about how fat the host is, and some folks think its funny, but the rest of us are just wondering how long it will be until you get tossed out. You keep pressing and pressing beyond all reasonable sense until yes, Tom, it seems like you've got an AGENDA.
So get some sense, and shut up about it. Because you know that OSC WON'T toss you out as long as you're only attacking him. That's the kind of person he is, and you. are. taking. advantage. of. him.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't see that he is insulting, I strongly suggest that you are either blinded by the same partisan hatred that seems to blind OSC, or you are not reading his essays very carefully.
or, a third option, I know him personally, consider him a friend, and think you are likely completely unqualified to make such a distinction about him. And you are DEFINITELY in NO position to make ANY kind of distinction about me.
quote: You're wrong.
Ok. I know you are, but what am I?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know him personally, consider him a friend, and think you are likely completely unqualified to make such a distinction about him.
It would clarify matters a lot, then, if OSC were to post and say, "No, odouls is right, I really didn't mean to insult any of you, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I specifically meant this and this by what I said, and not that at all."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It would clarify matters a lot, then, if OSC were to post and say, "No, odouls is right, I really didn't mean to insult any of you, and I'm sorry you took it that way. I specifically meant this and this by what I said, and not that at all."
I think it is extremely presumptuous to act as though OSC owes you anything of the sort.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's clear he didn't mean Hatrackers won't think.
What he said was that no one he was currently dealing with (particularly the "Orson-despisers," who were clearly the target of his post) had showed signs of having questioned their own beliefs.
I mean, seriously. His kids post here. His friends and family post here. His employees post here. People who he respects enough to purchase their work post here.
OSC has already dismissed the need to reply to this accusation. It's silly and baseless, and I really don't feel he should contribute to its further discussion by making another post that people will find tiny peices of to distort and twist rather than listen to the whole of what's actually being said.
I think his analogy about not being able to see the quicksand because of some need to find some way, any way, to be more right than he is was succinct and astute.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think it is extremely presumptuous to act as though OSC owes you anything of the sort.
I never suggested it was owed. I suggested, however, that we might be more likely to believe him when he clarifies these misunderstandings than to believe an anonymous third party who is unlikely to have received independent clarification on that specific point. We're not all his close friends, you realize, and consequently have no way to determine what he means by what he says beyond what he actually says.
quote: What he said was that no one he was currently dealing with (particularly the "Orson-despisers," who were clearly the target of his post) had showed signs of having questioned their own beliefs.
Do you disagree that I was being lumped in with that group? I felt it was rather clear.
And would you agree that I have never shown any signs of questioning my own beliefs?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
" it's clear from your first post ('you are not reading his essays very clearly') that no matter what OSC might do or say, as long as he holds and espouses the opinions he holds, he is an insult to you."
I'm glad thats clear, but its also completely false. I find PLENTLY of people who disagree with me that don't insult me. But EVERY TIME I read one of his essays, he insults me. Me personally. Not because of his opnions, but what he says about MY opinions, and my motivations.
If you don't want to understand that, thats fine.
"Right. And you're a better person for calling him and all those who think like him, "blindly partisan.""
Yup. People who automatically assume the motives of those they disagree with are evil motives, are blindly partisan. OSC does it, in almost every essay. I'm sure he's written one or two where he isn't needlessly insulting, but if he has, I haven't read those essays.
" "Waaah, OSC was mean to me after I called him a bigot. Waah, OSC doesn't follow the rules of his own forum. . . Waaah, why doesn't he respect me/agree with me?""
No Scott, OSC was mean for, consistently, 2 years before I started questioning his motivations. Though, I questioned his motivations... OSC told me, for the two years prior to that, that I was trying to destroy civilization.
"You know what? In real life, you come into someone's home and start violently disagreeing with them, they most likely will not be pleasant to deal with. And you start calling them names, most likely, they'll get defensive."
If I am invited into someone's home, who I respect from the works I know of his, and stay for the polite conversation of his other guests, but periodically he comes into the room and insults me, as a person, 2 or 3 times, after a while I might start shouting back, wondering why he invited me in the first place, and, eventually, thinking that he's not really a man worthy of my respect. Maybe still a writer of fiction worthy of my respect, but not a writer of political commentary.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Card needs to post a reply to this topic, either. I would be happy, however, if he would make a few adjustments in how he writes as a pundit. But when it comes down to it, that's my opinion and that and a little over four dollars will buy you an overpriced and overcaffinated beverage at Starbucks that is sure to break the Word of Wisdom.
So here's the main points, as far as I can tell:
One side says that Card is needlessly offensive, and wishes that he would be less offensive.
Another side says that those who are offended are too easily offended, and are reading things into Card's posts that aren't there.
And we've gone 'round and 'round on this, and nothing has been resolved, and nothing can be resolved by us anyway. This horse is done wore out. I say, let's let this topic die. Who's up for some punch? I've got the 7-UP to add to it...
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK here's a perfect example of one of the reasons why I think people like Paul Goldner are angry. He claims OSC said that Paul is trying to destroy civilization, and now Paul is angry because he's not trying to destroy civilization. The thing is, there's a difference between doing something and doing something for a purpose. Say I drive to the gas station and spemd more money on gas than I need, then I have a few minutes to get to the bank so I run a red light.
All of those things I did are exactly the type of everyday things that destroy a civilization. When people do not feel the guilt or responsibility to follow the rules everyone else must, civilizations will break into tribes. Card himself wrote about this. He would claim I'm destroying civilization.
But running a red light and getting some extra gas , that doesn't mean I'm on a campaign to destroy our society! The same for having an opinion contrary to what Card thinks! But that's not what Card meant. He didn't say my conscious goal was to destroy civilization, he was just pointing out that I was destroying civilization, which indeed I was (albeit for the example the crimes are mild but same point). Sounds harsh, but wasn't it true? If there's an insult then it's in the fact that Card tells the truth straight up and all out, and we just don't like for two reasons.
The first is that his conclusion doesn't coincide with our emotional or past experiences and we get angry.
The second is that our brain is frozen in a certain intellectual stasis and we can't even think about what he's saying, we just respond with something we think is more intelligent and we disregard the fundamental basics and research Card has done.
Edit: Sorry Tern, I was writing this while you posted but you know what the problem of just letting this go is? It's going to come back. Because it already has like twenty times.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you disagree that I was being lumped in with that group? I felt it was rather clear.
And would you agree that I have never shown any signs of questioning my own beliefs?
Tom, I'm going to say this with all respect. I sincerely hope you can take it in the spirit in which I offer it. I don't mean to offend or target you. I am going to talk specifically about you only because you ask specifically about you.
I submit to you that OSC, if he feels this way about you, personally, does so largely because of your having done things that are largely similar to what you are criticizing him for.
I know that's the opposite of what you asked. You asked whether you'd ever showed signs of questioning your beliefs. Instead, I want to offer some thoughts on why people might think you don't.
Whether you intend it or not, many of your posts do come across condescendingly and dismissively. And while you may be fond of defending OSC to your friends, here you're often in the role of devil's advocate.
I'm sure that makes you feel like you're in the middle of everyone, and that feels like a comfortable spot for you, because it makes you feel like you're in a measured spot between everyone. A spot that makes it clear to you that your beliefs are well reasoned and rational, accepting the good points of all sides.
However, the way it could come across to some people is that, no matter what the issue, there will always be some way in which you are in dissagreement, and this point will be pounced upon.
This can leave a host of impressions upon people. One is that you're just stewing for a fight--hence why you often encounter posters who call you a troll. Another is that you think you're smarter than anyone--hence the posters who you've encountered who have called you condescending or arrogant.
And of course, there is a certain degree of what I can only think to call "flippancy" that underscores much of what you've posted.
For a long time it seemed that was all you would post. Quick, clever, bumpersticker-esque zingers that did what most bumperstickers are good at--earning high-fives and snickers from those who support the idea and anger and offense from those who oppose the idea.
It might also leave the impression that you're not open to or receptive of new ideas. I'm not saying you aren't receptive. I'm just trying to help you see why some people reading your posts may be left with that impression.
You've repeatedly claimed to be ignorant of this, and I really, really want to believe you. But I would encourage you to give the same long, hard look at some of the posts you've made that you're asking OSC to give to his essays. Just like you feel you've found the answer to how OSC could help people be more receptive to his essays, there is much to be found in analyzing what you're posting to see why so many people are reading things into your posts that you honestly seem to feel you didn't mean.
I might even be wrong about the reasons--it's actually pretty likely. I'm not exactly a shrink or a philosopher.
But I do think that there are reasons, even if these aren't the ones, and if you want to stop being misinterpreted so often, you could do the same kind of self-analysis you're asking OSC to do.
I apologize if any of this comes across offensively. That's really not what I'm going for. I'm actually trying really, really, hard not to, but I have terrible problems with coming across as smug myself, and this post probably still reeks of that despite my efforts.
Please believe that smugness was not what was in my heart as I posted it.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And while you may be fond of defending OSC to your friends, here you're often in the role of devil's advocate.
You know, I honestly don't see that. Where, in fact, have I ever debated OSC's actual political opinions? My one complaint is -- and has always been -- his tone. I've never been anything but respectful of his actual thoughts. The perception that I'm somehow "anti-OSC" is, like the perception that I'm somehow "anti-Mormon," the misconceptions of a small group who have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness, when offended, to stop and ask me what I mean to say. It frankly irritates me beyond all words to see that kind of thing repeated as if it were unquestionable fact, because I don't think there exist any sensible grounds for either belief.
My posts "come across" as condescending and dismissive, I've noticed, to people I simply don't understand; I believe that there are cultural differences that account for discrepancies in tone. But I've repeatedly expressed my willingness to both privately and publicly work to resolve any miscommunication, and I quite firmly believe that those people who've taken the time to clarify my opinion on any given issue do not leave with the impression that I ever intentionally spoke down to them or dismissed their points. (Caveat: I do tend to dismiss obvious trolls. I probably shouldn't, and I know Anne Kate is dismayed by this. But I'm not exactly a perfect human being, and this is a failing I'm willing to work on later, after I get more crippling ones sorted out.) I am helpless, however, in the face of determined resentment -- and am therefore, believe me, not in the least unsympathetic to OSC when he complains of the same problem.
--------
quote: But I would encourage you to give the same long, hard look at some of the posts you've made that you're asking OSC to give to his essays.
Ironically, I did this exact thing a few months ago. I personally don't mind the whole "bumper-sticker" style, even in other people, but one of my New Year's Resolutions was to deal with people on a deeper, more sincere level -- and I've made a genuine effort to do so (both on and off-line), an effort that in fact I'm reasonably confident has been noticed by a number of the regulars both here and on Ornery, not least because they've mentioned it to me. I'll freely admit to being better at one-line zingers than windy analysis, but I've been doing a lot more of the latter over the last few months -- to precisely address this tendency.
Oddly, it's exactly the people who most complained about those zingers who have not remarked on the difference. So I have little hope that this will make me popular with a whole new crowd -- but, then, I wasn't doing it for them, anyway. *wry laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PG- then the only sensible thing (I CAN'T imagine why you haven't thought of it) is for you to leave.
If I found OSC so unpleasant, if I felt so repressed by his expressions, if I felt so insulted, I'd be gone. And I wouldn't read any of his essays, either. Suprisingly, a good many people out there in the world have stumbled on this solution to unpleasantness-- they stop interracting in the place where they find the discomfort.
But you and those like you continue hanging around here, making your little attack threads or posts, and for what reason? You can't possibly hope for civil conversation by calling OSC an ignorant, bigoted, blind, stupid, or <insert term of choice here>. And OSC has stated he's not going to change. . .
So. Leave. I realize that it's a serious breach of Hatrack etiquette to ask this, but Hatrack etiquette has apparently been suspended when it comes to conversations about OSC. Stop making this forum an unpleasant place to be. What kind of pathetic creature are you that you insist on being someplace distasteful to you?
Go on. Throw your little tantrum thread about how unfair and bigoted OSC is, how he's attacked you personally, what a monster he is, or whatever. Get it all out, every last shred of your tiny little hurt heart. You can even imagine that when you're gone, Hatrack will have "changed" and that's another reason you've left.
But for your psychological integrity, do leave. Only crazy people or politicians stay around people they despise.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I can't speak for Paul, I point out that I most definitely do not "despise" OSC, and feel that your assignment of motives is almost entirely inaccurate, Scott. And don't get me started on your tone. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, obviously he (TD) is enjoying it, or else he wouldn't stick around long enough to reiterate points two times (by his count). Asking him to leave would only make sense if his outrage were genuine and not an exercise. If you want to nip this thing in the bud, (okay, nip it 30 feet up the stem) I'd recommend not replying and thus giving him reason to keep going.
Does a histrionically banged head make a sound if no one clicks on it?
Of course I am revealing my motivations by replying to the post myself.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: obviously he (TD) is enjoying it, or else he wouldn't stick around long enough to reiterate points two times (by his count)
That would be one obvious possibility. Unfortunately, it's also the wrong one. Please consider that there are likely to be plenty of reasons for me to hang out at Hatrack that don't involve a desire to repeat myself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I tried in the topic OSC-the cypher to meet Mr. Card's challenge. That challenge was to post thoughtful discussion of the issues brought up. The challenge was not to start picking apart his posts for tone of voice and potential insults. I am in awe at how poorly this forum has met his challenge. That thread was near entirely about someone or other being offended by something he wrote. Then, even my attempt to restart discussion on the pressing issues he addressed went largely unnoticed.
There have been many many posts in the last few days about how Mr. Card might have offended some people. The Cypher topic alone grew rapidly following Mr. Cards post on the first page. But all of that discussion ignored his arguments and conclusions; focusing instead on whether his tone was insulting. When did the rapid growth of that thread stop? When I made a post that responded directly to the arguments he made. Real discussion it seems, is beyond so many of you.
I like the way Mr. Card writes. If he did not pour emotion into his writing, it would not be nearly so enjoyable or thought provoking. I lurked in this forum for years because I enjoy reading his writing. I do not always agree with it. But even then, I did not feel the urge to call him names and attack him on his own website. When i disagreed with him, I would send the column to my friends, think about it myself, and then discuss it with them. Think before you post! Please!
At first, I was upset at Mr. Card not replying to my post in that other thread. I checked back here more often than I ever have before to find out if he would respond to my attempts at thoughtful discussion. At the very least, I hoped he would do so in order to encourage that sort of posting.
As I checked back here, so often, though, I realized that this can be a horrible, revolting place. I feel smothered by the sheer number of posts complaining about Mr. Card and overwhelmed by the amount unthinking-vitriol-dressed-as-respectful-criticism in this forum. If this place makes me feel so gross, I cannot imagine what it must feel like for Mr. Card.
Mr. Card wrote in that Cypher thread about the importance that the "perception of monogamy" has. Well, perceptions are important in other ways as well. You can all go ahead and reply to this post by repeating your same arguments and bringing the same evidence that Mr. Card does the same thing he accuses you of doing. But that does not matter to me one whit. Every time you do this, you create a perception that this forum is full of fools and hate-mongers who are all too happy to ignore the point of what Mr. Card writes and focus on the way he writes it.
I did not come here to read what you have to say, TomDavidson. You have over 22,000 posts on this forum. Mr. Card does not even have 1500. I don't have the time to read you constantly reiterating the same point about how Mr. Card offends you with his writing style. I try to ignore your posts because I know exactly what you will say. I think by now we all know exactly what you will say. And unlike Mr. Card your evidence and arguments don't show much evidence of research or thought. But most of all, your posts show very little respect. The fact that you post so much about this stupid, inane topic shows very little respect. You create a perception that it is OK to post constantly, and only, about what Mr. Card does to offend. If you aren't a troll yourself, you certainly are feeding them.
Every post of yours, makes this place less friendly to me. I didn't want to post this because I hoped to make friends here and stay around when I could. I am tired, however, of reading your posts and the sheer magnitude of them makes them difficult to ignore.
So, I'm leaving. I suspect that this will not upset so many people as when it is thought that Mr. Card is leaving. I just feel filthy surrounding myself with such disrepectful foolishness.
posted
Gansura -- I have considered you a bright light in the hope for a thougtful forum. I don't post much myself, but I will miss you.
Posts: 780 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I thought of you today in church. The lesson was about Ruth and Naomi and the love that held them together. Without that love, King David may have never been born.
Thank you, again, for your insights.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm tired of seeing all the arguing about his nonfiction writing style, too, so I'm only going to say this once.
It is dishonest to ignore the manner in which something is written. It isn't a courtesy that is extended to anyone else on this forum. So, I think all 'liberals' should ignore OSC's nonfiction. They certainly should not post about it on Hatrack. As evidenced by these most recent threads and the other million threads along these lines in the past, it accomplishes nothing to argue about the manner in which his stuff is written. It just makes people angry. You know he's not going to listen. You know 99% of his supporters aren't going to listen. Neither of them can see things from your perspective when it comes to this, and you're just going to piss OSC and others off so much the forum is going to be shut down. You're going to lose the chance to discuss things with your friends that it is possible to have a discussion about.
Enjoy the forum for what it is and move on. Just ignore. Honestly, you'll be a happier person for it.
'OMG, Storm! You are being totally hypocritical to stay on this forum and not like the host!'(edit: I should say 'host's nonfiction' here. I haven't met the man, so I can't say that I don't like him personally.)
Possibly. However, I think as long as I don't badmouth him, I don't think anyone will care.
I recognize that I am, to OSC and others, badmouthing him in this post. I am sorry. This is the last time I will say anything like this about him on this forum. From now on, if someone gets offended by his nonfiction writing style, I will, I think, just send them an email and repeat what I have said here.
By the way, I am not saying that all his stuff is inflammatory and insulting and rude. He certainly has some interesting and thought provoking things to say, sometimes without being rude and insulting, but I'll be damned if I'm only going to say nice things about the good stuff and ignore the other stuff, because I believe that would be dishonest.
OSC, thank you for hosting this forum. Sorry you have to get so much flack from people. Sorry that there can't be some kind of meeting of minds.
Gansura, I'm sorry you feel you need to leave. I enjoy thoughtful posters such as yourself. But I understand that you absolutely have to do what is best for you. Be well.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where, in fact, have I ever debated OSC's actual political opinions? My one complaint is -- and has always been -- his tone. I've never been anything but respectful of his actual thoughts.
This is not true. You post stuff like this:
quote:keep in mind that when OSC says things like "us" or "we" or "our," he's really talking about life on Bizarro World, where up is down and black is white and mice eat cats and he is one of the bravest members of a mostly silent majority of people possessed of his particular form of moral rectitude.
"His world" is not our world. His articles make a lot more sense when you remember that he writes speculative fiction and alternate histories.
Unless I'm REALLY missing something, this is not a criticism of his style. It's a declaration that his opinions are invalid.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gasp! That's almost the same insulting tone that Tom Davidson has been accusing Card of having! Almost...
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) Read a book that, from your point of view, reinforces one of your existing biases. Call it brilliant and present it as a revolutionary new blow for underdog truth.
2) While discussing the brilliance of one of the points "proved" in the book, briefly mention one of the other largely unfounded assumptions you hold to be fact and cite it as yet another example of the way the liberal elites keep "truth" from the ears of the people, even though there may not in fact have been any real controversy (much less suppression) regarding the first point, the one made by the actual book being "reviewed."
3) Find a way to insult the Baby Boomers.
"One of the other largely unfounded assumptions you hold to be fact?" Tom, do you really expect me, or anyone, to believe that "My one complaint is -- and always has been -- his tone?"
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, almost. I've emailed Yozhik about this, though, because as Gansura has correctly pointed out, the conversation is tiresomely circular and doesn't have to occur publicly. If you're sincerely interested, drop me a line at my email addy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the issue I raised is not related to what Gansura pointed out. He was lamenting that the impression he gets from the forum is that you (and others) are "all too happy to ignore the point of what Mr. Card writes and focus on the way he writes it."
I'm not focusing on the WAY you post. I'm presenting examples of WHAT you say. In these examples, WHAT you say is that OSC's opinions are invalid, unfounded, and self-important. And although you say in your e-mail that your comments about Bizarro Land were in response to specific claims in OSC's essays...well...
... you don't put qualifiers on them. For example, you don't say "Card is incorrect on the issue of whether most people don't have premarital sex." Instead, you imply that he's just a ridiculous crank whose opinions are irrelevant. And self-righteous to boot: "he [considers himself to be] one of the bravest members of a mostly silent majority of people possessed of his particular form of moral rectitude." (And then you wonder why in the world he might suspect that your attitude toward him is malevolent.)
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:I tried in the topic OSC-the cypher to meet Mr. Card's challenge. That challenge was to post thoughtful discussion of the issues brought up. The challenge was not to start picking apart his posts for tone of voice and potential insults. I am in awe at how poorly this forum has met his challenge. That thread was near entirely about someone or other being offended by something he wrote. Then, even my attempt to restart discussion on the pressing issues he addressed went largely unnoticed.
I'd just like y'all to know that I'm working on an extended essay in response to OSC's post in the "cypher" thread. Unlike my earlier post on another thread, it will neither be reactionary nor inflammatory - but rather quite methodical.
I've been sick this weekend - as in, major sinus infection - or the thing would be done now as opposed to half-done. Give me a day or two, and when it's done I'll post it at the start of a new thread.
You'll have to bring your own popcorn, though.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, the issue I raised is not related to what Gansura pointed out.
Check your email. As I understood Gansura's complaint, his "point" was that he found the whole discussion rather tiresome; since I can sympathize with that view, I'd prefer to move this offline.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you misunderstood Gansura's "point". He finds your contribution to the discussion rather tiresome.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ok. I know you are, but what am I?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I personally don't mind the whole "bumper-sticker" style, even in other people, but one of my New Year's Resolutions was to deal with people on a deeper, more sincere level -- and I've made a genuine effort to do so (both on and off-line), an effort that in fact I'm reasonably confident has been noticed by a number of the regulars both here and on Ornery, not least because they've mentioned it to me. I'll freely admit to being better at one-line zingers than windy analysis, but I've been doing a lot more of the latter over the last few months -- to precisely address this tendency. 
