posted
If Card thinks that members of this board, in particular, use insults rather than argument (or whatever he said), then members of this board could prove him wrong by using argument rather than insult.
That would be the best possible outcome of this quote here, no matter what was meant by it.
You can claim someone else lacks virtue, or you can exhibit it. No points for figuring out which is most admirable.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Card thinks that members of this board, in particular, use insults rather than argument (or whatever he said), then members of this board could prove him wrong by using argument rather than insult.
I would argue that this has been proven repeatedly, using precisely this method. Which virtues do you believe have been lacking?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I didn't actually see The Dark Knight, but I think that a movie having multiple interpretations is roughly good. A lot of people, for instance, disagreed over what was meant by the last scene in Children of Men.
But this isn't the same. This is OSC saying "this movie is great, because the character did X, and not Y". Well, the character didn't do X. He did Y. It's not ambiguous at all. OSC was just wrong. He missed two places in the dialogue where this fact was laid out.
When OSC says "But no, the movie didn't actually say that, they just extrapolated it because of Batman's reaction when he realized he was at the wrong place, about to save the wrong person." he's wrong. There's no extrapolation. The script and dialogue prove everyone else's interpretaion, and disprove his. In two places.
And surely someone somewhere told him that the dialogue proved he was wrong. He's lying about the motivations and thinking of the people who disagree with him.
And that is the crux of the problem.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2, you're committing the same sin. OSC evidently assumed that people saying the addresses were switched had no proof and that they merely guessed/extrapolated this. If he doesn't understand in detail why they are making this claim, he can be wrong without lying (I know that when I was making a similar argument, I did *not* understand all the evidence that showed I was wrong. When I did, I quit making the argument that Batman was intentionally portrayed as trying to save Dent - but I didn't drop the argument that it'd have been better for him to do so).
Saying Card is "lying" is the same as OSC saying people have no proof that he is wrong. It's the least generous interpretation of what other people are saying, and why. OSC could easily be basing his claim on a single point: what people heard Batman say as he was rushing away from the police station. Different people heard different things. There's other relevant evidence but it's not evident that OSC is aware of it, so it's not clear that he is "lying."
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: swbarnes2, you're committing the same sin. OSC evidently assumed that people saying the addresses were switched had no proof and that they merely guessed/extrapolated this.
Yes, he did. Surely lots of people told him that they did not guess/extrapolate anything, but only listened to what the plain dialogue told them, but he ignored that.
That doesn't count as honest in my book.
quote:If he doesn't understand in detail why they are making this claim,
He'd understand fine if he actually paid attention to someone who told him "the dialogue here and here proves you are wrong, and we are right".
But clearly, he didn't.
quote:he can be wrong without lying
Surely he got at least a dozen people telling him he was wrong, and certainly one of them said that the dialogue, not the reaction on the character's face, was the proof.
I think it's rather extraordinary to believe otherwise.
quote:I know that when I was making a similar argument, I did *not* understand all the evidence that showed I was wrong. When I did, I quit making the argument that Batman was intentionally portrayed as trying to save Dent
You pointing out how you did the honest thing does not help support the idea that OSC has done the same.
quote:Saying Card is "lying" is the same as OSC saying people have no proof that he is wrong.
Technically yes, I have no proof that anyone told him that the dialogue proves his opponants are right, but I think it would be a pretty extraordianry claim to make that not a soul told him so. Certainly, should he happen to read these boards, he would have seen plenty of people arguing just that. 9 out of 10 people would have told him that he misheard, not that the character's facial reaction was the giveaway.
But OSC saying that there's no proof that he's wrong...well, that's provably wrong. It's not even close to being arguable. There's lots of proof. The script, for one. It's not ambiguous in the slightest.
quote:It's the least generous interpretation of what other people are saying, and why.
Sadly, it's the most reasonable.
quote:OSC could easily be basing his claim on a single point: what people heard Batman say as he was rushing away from the police station.
But for his latest column, he had more than one data point to consult, yes? All those e-mails from other people saying "you misheard and misrememebred, the dialogue proves that the addresses were switched", right?
It's the same problem everyone has with most of his columns...for an author who made a big deal about how much empathy his heroes have for others, OSC can't even present honestly and accurately the arguments of people who disagree with him about what happened in a movie.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMG - are you seriously that bent out of shape about an argument over a movie?? Don't you people have lives? If he was rude about it, then he was rude about it, but it's not THAT big a deal. Besides, just because the argument is happening in print doesn't make it any less of a silly argument over a movie. How many times have you sat around with friends arguing about what a character did or said in a movie? Do you call them all liars when they defend their memories even if more people remember it a different way?
As for Tom - apparently he thinks the "I don't like that argument" statement makes the arguments any less true. I think that's B.S., but anyway... here's another point.
If someone calls me names, I don't go visit them anymore. If you really feel he's calling you names, why the heck are you still here?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for Tom - apparently he thinks the "I don't like that argument" statement makes the arguments any less true.
It's not that I don't like the argument. It's that the argument -- and all the other six hundred permutations of it that I can imagine -- is logically invalid for the reasons I've already explained on this thread.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
And you didn't respond to the more important part of my post... if you feel like he is insulting you, why do you come back for more?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
trick question much? I'm thinking many of the people here, like me, are not coming back 'for more' and my decision to be here doesn't hinge on Card's opinion of me at all. If it (or anyone else's) did that would be pretty weird because at this point according to his words we're The Enemy for advocating gay marriage.
Plus — quite unlike you, apparently? — the response to people insulting me isn't 'leave immediately regardless as to other ties.' Card isn't why I'm here.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And you didn't respond to the more important part of my post... if you feel like he is insulting you, why do you come back for more?
That doesn't even make sense. Hatrack is not the source of the insult. OSC isn't a regular poster here. There's no "more" to come back to.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he did set up this website. Even if he isn't a regular poster, this is still his domain. It just seems incredibly stupid to me to constantly subject yourself to something or someone who insults you or makes you angry. I mean, it isn't as if you have to come to Hatrack to read his books. Even if you come to Hatrack, you don't have to read his opinion articles posted here or elsewhere. So why do it? Do you just like trying to feel smarter than him? Do you like trying to feel more righteous? Do you like trying to convince other people he's not a nice guy? I mean seriously, I don't get it. What was the point of the first post? Why come here and say, "Hey, look at what a jerk he is!"?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Well, he did set up this website. Even if he isn't a regular poster, this is still his domain. It just seems incredibly stupid to me to constantly subject yourself to something or someone who insults you or makes you angry. I mean, it isn't as if you have to come to Hatrack to read his books. Even if you come to Hatrack, you don't have to read his opinion articles posted here or elsewhere. So why do it? Do you just like trying to feel smarter than him? Do you like trying to feel more righteous? Do you like trying to convince other people he's not a nice guy? I mean seriously, I don't get it. What was the point of the first post? Why come here and say, "Hey, look at what a jerk he is!"?
So...what exactly is motivating you to continue participating in this particular discussion?
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the vast majority of Card's acclaim comes from his fiction. Most of his fiction writing is very good.
Because of that acclaim, he has something of a soapbox for expressing opinions. Unfortunately, while his fiction is largely very good, his editorials are, to put it politely, not. I think even many people who agree with the underlying sentiments behind some of them might agree with that. He uses a kind of pseudo-stringency to deny ideas he disagrees with, but accepts other editorials and hearsay as evidence for points he approves of. Some of his statements suggest a failure to do even the most basic kind of research that can be done on Google. And he creates straw men to represent points of view he disagrees with, then vilifies everyone under those points of view with a broad brush.
And yet... His fiction writing is generally very good.
If you came upon someone who made grand, sweeping statements you disagreed with, you might feel somewhat cowed to discover that that person had a hundred thousand fans, or a million fans, or ten million fans. You might worry that you would invite hostility by speaking in opposition to the perpetrator of those statements. You might even begin to say "Well, ten million people agree with him; maybe I'm the one who's in the wrong."
I like Ender's Game, Seventh Son, Lovelock, Enchantment, Lost Boys, and many of Card's other works.
But I think on many of the issues Card brings up in World Watch, he's wrong. Sometimes, destructively, hatefully wrong.
I don't want anyone to think I'm part of a mob behind Card's World Watch columns, just because I love his fiction. And I don't want anyone to think that's a requirement for coming here.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was unaware that being a fan of an author's works implied agreement with all his political positions.
I enjoy OSC's fiction; I read it. I don't enjoy his political columns; I don't read them. I really don't think I'm the only one.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was unaware that being a fan of an author's works implied agreement with all his political positions.
It doesn't, but if one's only exposure to OSC is his columns and one subsequently asks "Well, what qualifies him to write this-"
I want to be clear that I'm not part of that qualification.
I've stopped reading the columns, by and large, except in as much as looking in when someone else refers to them, because I can usually guess what my reaction will be from the title.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time believing that being a Hollywood actor qualifies one to govern California.
EDIT
What are you having difficulty believing: that people would feel a large writing fanbase is a qualification to writing other forms, that people would come upon Card's editorial work before his fiction, or that those who read Card's work might not recognize that his fanbase is strictly limited in the work it acclaims?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have a very hard time believing in the existence of this mythical person."
Actually, many of the longtime regulars on Ornery and AI Jane have never read his fiction. I think they are in the minority, but I do think that the gap in size between the two groups, those who read his fiction first, versus those who read his columns first, is closing.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, I'm with you 100% on your first point.
As for the rest, clearly people do think it is a qualification, at least in that it implies a built-in potential readership. "Come across", maybe; think that it is endorsed by his fans, why?
I don't think everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist (or v.v.); why should I (or anyone else) assume that everyone who liked Ender's Game agrees with OSC's politics? That's exceptionally sloppy thinking, and I just don't buy that when you attack OSC's politics or columns that you are really just defending yourself from this mythical mistake that someone might make.
You want to attack OSC's politics or column writing, and I obviously cannot stop you. (I could wish you'd take it elsewhere, but that's another conversation. Mind you, I said take it, not you, before someone jumps on me.) But don't pull this "I'm just making sure no one think I'm endorsing him!" nonsense. Because it just doesn't fly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say it's the only reason, and I regret if it disturbs you. But to some extent (and I recognize, it's a tiny one), I do feel I have some responsibility for Card's work being recognized as popular, and Card himself as famous.
To site your example, no, it's probably not the case that everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist, nor that all Scientologists like BE. But I don't doubt that some people wouldn't have taken an interest in Hubbard's other work had they not been Scientologists, and some people become interested in Scientology because something like BE intrigued them and they decided to look at Dianetics.
I'm not sure I'm quite getting across here. It may well be that only the tiniest of fractions of people actually take readership of an author's work as endorsement of everything else an author says. But a much greater number of people just get that "Whoa, listen to this guy, he's famous!" vibe... That causes people to elect strange people to governorships. Or assume that football players know a lot about beer. Or musicians have profound insights into automobiles.
To make a really ridiculous analogy, one day the CEO of the company that makes the best shoes I've ever worn announces that when he's relaxing, there's nothing better than to put on a pair of his shoes and stomp on kittens. I can stop buying those shoes; either this will have no effect whatsoever, or a lot of people will follow my example, and then the best shoes I've ever worn will stop being made, and a lot of people will have to wear shoes that aren't as good. Or I can continue to wear those shoes but make it clear that the CEO is wrong to stomp on kittens and a lot of people who wear his shoes strongly disagree. But if I do nothing, I'm reasonably sure that somewhere, someone is going to say, "Hmm, I've never tried stomping on kittens before... And this famous guy who makes the great shoes says it's great!" And maybe it's ridiculous, or maybe I have a lower opinion of human nature than I should, but I do feel some responsibility for that.
(And to be clear, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Card is perfectly kind to kittens.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only other scifi author whose political opinions I have a passing familiarity with is David Brin. And he holds that the Bush administration is an actively evil, conspiring, bribing, soulless monster of corruption. I think he shows at least as much enmity here as OSC does toward the "intellectual elite."
I don't, however, see a lot of disagreement with his opinions in responses to his blog posts. (I haven't looked all that carefully, actually, but it hasn't jumped out at me - unlike disagreement with OSC.) Nobody seems to bother to say "what? this isn't the Brin I respected."
What's the difference? I don't think it's that Brin has no conservative fans or anyone who disagrees with his view of the Bush administration.
Probably that Brin, as over the top as he is with regard to the Bush administration, has defined his target narrowly. A Republican party member or conservative has no reason to feel attacked, unless they happen to be a Bush crony. Whereas a bunch of people feel attacked by OSC.
(I guess OSC would probably take it as evidence that Brin aligns with the "intellectual elite" and the stranglehold they have on public discourse.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's the difference? I don't think it's that Brin has no conservative fans or anyone who disagrees with his view of the Bush administration.
Aside from brin narrowing his target, as you noted:
- Internet skews young and progressive - Internet skews liberal - Internet skews towards tolerance of gays - Internet communities, especially political ones, are greatly intolerant of anti-gay talk - Bush has curried large disfavor - The gay-rights agenda has curried favor
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I be a stupid Polish boy I dont speak english and all, but OSC once criticised me as well. I started a very short thread about dialogues in his books. I wrote theyre very unnatural. And he had a go for me. Somebody hug me...
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think someone being famous gives their opinions more weight. Look to country music for an example... Willie Nelson is on record as having said 9-11 never happened. People just roll their eyes and say, "Well, that's Willie for ya" and move on with their lives. No one says, "Wow, he writes great music so 9-11 must have been a hoax". Similarly the Dixie Chicks actually lost almost their entire fan base because of their opinions on the world. No one said, "Wow, they think this, I'm going to think it too". Instead, people stopped supporting them (which makes very little sense if you like they're music, but still).
People do take their leads from certain things from what they see society as a whole doing. Sometimes famous people are more easily seen and have a bigger influence. However, few people will drastically change their own opinions just because a famous person says it.
As for why I read this thread... well. I usually don't. Most of the time I see titles about his articles and I just ignore them. Here, though, someone was claiming that I was being insulted. (At least, if he didn't qualify "us", then I have to assume that he intended "us" to mean anyone who would read his thread). I didn't feel insulted by OSC's quote, but I DO feel insulted that someone thinks I need to be included in the people he was talking about. I probably won't read any more of this thread though. It's getting nowhere.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
To site your example, no, it's probably not the case that everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist, nor that all Scientologists like BE. But I don't doubt that some people wouldn't have taken an interest in Hubbard's other work had they not been Scientologists, and some people become interested in Scientology because something like BE intrigued them and they decided to look at Dianetics.
I never realized that Battlefield Earth was more than tangentially related to Scientology by way of the author. Would this be the same as saying that Ender's Game is more than tangentially related to Mormanism? I can see the obvious connections, but I'd be wary of claiming a direct "intent" of recruitment or the conveyance of specific ideology if I wasn't sure.
Art is still art no matter who makes it... although in the case of BE, crap is still crap.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: think he shows at least as much enmity here as OSC does toward the "intellectual elite."
I don't, however, see a lot of disagreement with his opinions in responses to his blog posts.
That might have something to do with the Bush administration being pretty goldarn awful.
---
I can't think of any honest use of the term "intellectual elite" that doesn't include me. I'm pretty okay with that.
You may or may not like me or what I have to say, but I really doubt anyone here can honestly say that OSC's characterizations of the intellectual elite can be accurately applied to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
More correctly, the Internet skews libertarian. There's a difference.
The libertarian percentage in the general population is so small that the tubes can without difficulty do both.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Yes, we're all very impressed with you.
I'm not sure you get what I'm saying.
My whole point is that you don't have to think well of me to realize that OSC's insults are off base when applied to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely. Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well. Trying to prove otherwise by citing a single individual is just weirdly pointless.
So it's an unpersuasive argument that carries the unfortunate baggage of also being self-aggrandizing When the argument falls apart, all that's left is the self-aggrandizement, which feels weirdly out-of-place. Sort of Tyra Banks-y.
I don't post much these days, but I had trouble leaving that one alone I'll now return you to your regularly-scheduled Card-bashing.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I get where you're seeing self-aggrandizing.
Also, I'm not sure you get my point. People have said "He's not talking about us. He's talking about the 'Intellectual Elite'." I'm pointing out that I am actually part of the 'Intellectual Elite', so he is talking about me.
I'm also pointing out that it's pretty obvious that the things he is saying about me are wrong.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well.
Then he should not write as though he did.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe if he wrote on a site called "Empathy.org" a different tone would be appropriate, but the column is on Ornery.org. It's his job to be ornery on that column.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
I don't post much these days, but I had trouble leaving that one alone I'll now return you to your regularly-scheduled Card-bashing.
Sorry to diss your dad, but he's smart too, right? So maybe he's one of the elite as well? I don't FEEL elite. But I do dig opera and some occasional foreign movies but not Magnolia or Happiness because they are annoying movies about annoying miserable people who need to STOP being so miserable already.
In fact American Beauty is better than those movies, but one has to admit Lester is a bit immature, and what do they have to complain about? Not much really.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Four members of my immediate family are, or were, faculty of colleges or universities.
When Card demonizes "intellectual elites" (or other similar phrases), it's difficult for me to forget that, while he has never met my family, to many, his words would still include them.
Quite frankly, I don't care what his intent was in that regard. That's as kindly as I can put it, and a lot more kindly than some of his rhetoric deserves.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely. Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well. Trying to prove otherwise by citing a single individual is just weirdly pointless.
Yes, it is pointless. Constructing an argument that cannot be answered reasonably is not necessarily a sign that one's argument is the epitome of reason. OSC steeps his diatribes in generalizations so that you get to say this. It changes nothing. "An entire broad class" of people can't answer for themselves (much less be defined intelligibly), and that's exactly why Card addresses them as he does. His arguments are, for this reason, blunt instruments with which he bludgeons people of different faiths, attitudes, and values.
Please don't think for a minute that simply explaining the fallacious quality of the argument somehow excuses it. I have seen you defend him against broad and generalized criticism by saying that his critics can't read his mind. Well, I fail to see why you find this situation so very different. In the OSC universe, apparently, there is only person who is above reproach.
As for "Card bashing," you're being obtuse and cheap, and that doesn't reflect well on either you or OSC. If he claims to invite challenges that are legitimate and well-intentioned, he will find many of those here. But you call it Card Bashing. Very cute, I'm sure.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OSC steeps his diatribes in generalizations so that you get to say this.
I honestly don't think that Puppy's point here was legitimate. It boils down to "OSC doesn't really mean it when he says 'They never respond with reasoned arguments'." (emphasis is OSC's)
I did actually respond with reasoned arguments, as, if they cared, could a large majority of the "Intellectual Elite". OSC's insults don't fit me, as they don't fit a large majority of a group that I am in many ways a fair representation of.
If OSC is trying to describe a vocal minority of the "Intellectual Elite" with his statements, he's doing a terrible job.
Although, if Puppy regards what has been said as just "OSC bashing" maybe he agrees that there is never any reasoned argument being made. I think that might be more due to his errors in perception than this being absent, however.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I did actually respond with reasoned arguments, as, if they cared, could a large majority of the "Intellectual Elite". OSC's insults don't fit me, as they don't fit a large majority of a group that I am in many ways a fair representation of.
I missed your arguments. Where are they located?
EDIT: Do you mean your arguments about OSC's points about homosexuals, or your arguments about the intellectual elite not being what OSC says they are?
I'm interested in hearing about the latter...
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really make arguments about the latter, although you could tease them out of the APA 1973/74 change on homosexuality thing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely...
I'm not sure I understand this defense, given that people are complaining about the hyperbole (and, more appropriately, that the hyperbole is being used to justify some of the later conclusions in the article.) If you concede that the statements are hyperbole, the article falls apart; where, then, does the point remain?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does this just seem to the same dailogue over and over?
"You get angry and confrontational too easy" "No I dont" "See, there it is" "Well your just a smarmy half educated hang on using his position to make himself feel better" "We havent truely dealt with your arguementitive problem, let me tell you whats wrong"
Isnt it a bit dizzying to see words on a screen stay in place and yet they go around and around?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I've argued before that OSC's generalizations are so completely a part of his own willful misperception of the world around him, that his descriptions and accusations could never really be pinned on any particular human being.
Now to me, that is a sign that his arguments are flawed. It isn't that I can present a "single" example, but that I feel I could present single examples until the end of time. I know his argument is fallacious because this wouldn't matter, his generalizations would be immune to specific evidence, because that's how he seems to want them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've pointed out before that OSC has a current and ongoing dialogue with academia through both experience and acquaintances. I don't think he's talking about things he doesn't know about.
'Willful misperception' is a tricky word to argue against, though. I've no interest in attempting it-- suffice it to say that I believe that OSC is speaking truthfully about things he's thought through carefully. I'm not willing to assign dishonesty to him based on what I've heard from his opponents. Neither am I willing to swallow his arguments whole.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've pointed out before that OSC has a current and ongoing dialogue with academia through both experience and acquaintances. I don't think he's talking about things he doesn't know about.
'Willful misperception' is a tricky word to argue against, though. I've no interest in attempting it-- suffice it to say that I believe that OSC is speaking truthfully about things he's thought through carefully. I'm not willing to assign dishonesty to him based on what I've heard from his opponents. Neither am I willing to swallow his arguments whole.
That's more or less my attitude as well. In nearly every view there is some merit. I don't doubt he's been treated badly by different people throughout his life. I myself have reasons to dislike aspects of academics- I've had a teacher sit me down and explain to me why I shouldn't be a composer, but I've had 5 teachers do the opposite, and more importantly, I've had constructive relationships with those people, and I've learned something.
Now, I feel like OSC would look to that one teacher, and say, "aHAH!" Well, if you're going to do that, and use your personal experiences as the basis for sweeping generalizations, then there's really no stopping you. This is why OSC maintains the double speak of "I've got friends who are gay," or "I have known enlightened people in academia, and they're the exception."
That all boils down to perception, and OSC doesn't seem to spend much time considering that his own bearing, his own ego, his ambition, his talent, has created social or professional difficulties for him. He doesn't ever seem to acknowledge that his experiences are his own, and not universal experience. I can relate to that kind of monomania, but I can also recognize it in another.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
When the argument falls apart, all that's left is the self-aggrandizement, which feels weirdly out-of-place. Sort of Tyra Banks-y.
