posted
"My understanding of OSC is that he has commented in the past that he is more interested in encouraging and consolidating the beliefs of people who agree with him -- people and beliefs he finds often to be under attack in the mainstream media -- than any other goal. That is, I don't think it is so much debate that is the point of the columns as rallying."
He's also commented that the style of argument he uses (referencing other media sources, not himself) is destroying america. So, apparently he believes its more important to rally people around his causes them to do what he believes is right for america?
The problem I have with the debate style OSC uses is that it draws this big divide between americans. He says "People like me are good americans, people who aren't are terrorists and evil and out to destroy our country."
Not only can you not debate with anyone who believes that, or thinks that... the only way that you can engage that person is through violence, because if you don't kill him first, he's going to kill you. There's no communication possible, only war.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not cheerleading this rhetorical style, just in case that was not clear. I am merely putting the description forward as a rememberance of a prior clarification.
I just think that not only should we not cheerlead for this particular rhetorical style, we, as americans who want to live with our neighbors in peace, should vigorously condemn it.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see you feel passionately about that, and I have no problem with it.
I just wanted to make it clear what I was and was not doing, as you go about doing your thing. Carry on. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. The divide between us and the people who communicate like this should be very great. We should condemn them very severely for condemning the people who they disagree with very severely.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
How would you characterize OSC's articles? Every single one I've read has been extremely condescending and full of ridiculous stereotypes about liberals. He has proven that he would rather incite hate about those whose politcal opinions differ from his rather than actually engage in an honest debate. What do you see in his articles that I don't? When I think of someone whose opinion is worthy of consideration, I think of someone who is fair minded and is able to not only present their own viewpoints but also address the viewpoints of their critics. OSC does none of that.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are aware that trying to draw an equivalence between what I'm doing, and what OSC is doing, makes my point very nicely for me, right?
There is no equivalence between saying "This one person is using rhetorical language that promotes a permanent divide people and causes them to be violent enemies," and saying "Everyone who doesn't think like I do is fundamentally and inextricably evil."
Its not about OSC's ideas, or his vigorous condemenation of those ideas... its the fact that his vigorous condemnation is not of ideas, but of people who believe differently then he, and that the vigorous condmenation implicitly says "its not only ok to remove these people, it is a moral necessity."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, my point is that if you're asking someone else to stop, pause, and consider the humanity of the other person before writing mean things about them, they're never going to feel safe doing that if you aren't stopping to stop, pause and consider the humanity of the person who you're writing about first.
Whether you're trying to save the world from global warming, or trying to save the world from those who are afraid of global warming, or you're trying to save the world from people who write in a way you consider vitriolic, if you believe in starting from a place where you recognize that the other side is just trying to do good, too, then start from that place.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Yes. The divide between us and the people who communicate like this should be very great. We should condemn them very severely for condemning the people who they disagree with very severely.
Your post seems to imply an argument analogous to the "why are you bigoted against bigots" argument.
EDIT because I posted after docmagik's reply:
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Paul, my point is that if you're asking someone else to stop, pause, and consider the humanity of the other person before writing mean things about them, they're never going to feel safe doing that if you aren't stopping to stop, pause and consider the humanity of the person who you're writing about first.
Has Paul violated that principle?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gave OSC two years of the benefit of the doubt. I didn't write mean things about him for two years of him calling me a terrorist, him calling me evil, him calling me all sorts of vile names.
I dont recognize that OSC is trying to do good... its been written in too many places where he could or should have seen that his rhetoric corresponds to the type of rhetoric he says is destroying america. He's even engaged in a thread pointing that out.
I can only conclude OSC thinks, as I stated above, that its more important to rally his side, then to do whats right for america.
I do not think OSC is trying to do good. I did give him that benefit of the doubt, but its no longer possible for me to doubt. With HIM. People who agree with his positions might be trying to do good, and I give those people th ebenefit of the doubt.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a time and place for applying heart, but if what turns up in your writing over and over again is bile, you run the danger of wearing out your liver.
I enjoyed the phrasing on this, Stirling. Nicely said.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those were the relevant comments. I really was confused, and these late posts seemed to sum up what had passed. If you can't conceive of how I may have arrived at my tenuous conclusion, why must you apply malicious motives to my misunderstanding? Is it because you are evil and hateful?
OK then, find me someone saying or suggesting that it would be inappropriate for OSC to use his website for his politics. That is different from saying that doing so would be harmful to the community. If you can't find that for me, kindly just shut your trap and abandon your transparent tricks, OK? At least improve your trolling to not quite so painfully obvious.
------------------------
Paul,
quote:The problem I have with the debate style OSC uses is that it draws this big divide between americans. He says "People like me are good americans, people who aren't are terrorists and evil and out to destroy our country."
Wow.
Seriously, what are you still doing here then? You've openly stated now that Card is a hateful demagogue deliberately harming the nation for his own ends. I would imagine, then, you might feel at least some discomfort helping his website out on a weekly basis, basically helping to pay for Card's upkeep.
Or is it that you don't feel the community he pays to support is as worthy of contempt as you are convinced he is, and thus what does that say about your ridiculous, over-the-top claims about him?
Or can you, in what must obviously be a detailed and complete knowledge of his political writing, find for me where he says that people who don't think like he does are terrorists out to destroy the United States?
I haven't done more than partially, conditionally agree with his political writings in a long time, and I think I would remember that. If you can't find it, then just take a deep freaking breath and chill. out.Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
hrm. I think the numerous lumpings of the left with "terrorists" "the taliban," as "evil," "unamerican," "hating america" etc do exactly what I say.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I know you are problably feeling very, very hurt. You see a lot of potential evil in what Card is doing.
Now stop and ponder--can you see that you've come to feel the same way about OSC that you were so upset that he had come to feel about you?
When he looks at you and your position towards him--that he's an evil man (or at least a man you do not think wants to do good) who can only be dealt with "with violence"--then he (or maybe I should make this less personal, and say, someone who disagrees with you) will say, "See, I told you--terrorist."
It becomes a cycle. One side reacts defensively against the attacks that they see coming from the side. They defend themselves vigorously.
But it's so vigorous, that the other side sees it as an attack. So they react defensively, and also defend themselves vigorously.
So vigoursly, that the first side sees it as an attack.
And this eventually escalates to the point where one side sees itself as being in such danger that they really do attack. And then the other side really attacks.
And thus we have war. Even though when we started out, everybody just wanted what was good for everybody.
Let's go ahead and evoke Godwin's law early, and bring up Hitler. The name of Hitler's book, translated into english, proves that even the greatest agressor of all time saw himself as a victim. It was called "My Struggle."
This is what happens when people are considering only themselves. Hence why people take OSC's columns very, very personally and cry for him to change his tone and be more understanding and patient with them, while simulaneously demanding he have thicker skin and be more open to people's criticisms of him.
While it is easy for them to see his hypocrisy, thier own is far harder to percieve. Never mind that it is Card who is completely unfamiliar with them, personally, and has never actually met them, and hence his attacks are anything but personal, while theirs are directly aimed at the heart of one man. Becuase they're motivated by their own self-interest (wanting respect, wanting understanding, wanting compassion), they're defensively looking out for themselves.
I know some people don't actually care about the idea of communicating in a way that increases peace. The name of this thread inherently shows that. I'm not really aiming this post at those people--I'm not trying to sell them on why increasing peace is a good thing.
But to Paul, and to others who believe in promoting peace, I would implore you--it has to start with you. Violence comes when you try to make someone else become what you need them to be.
Peace comes when you allow others to be different from you, and respond to them out of their interests rather than your own. And when your heart is at peace, you're not expecting anything of them, anyway, so why not respond out of their needs?
You said--"I do not think OSC is trying to do good." This is what you are upset he is thinking about you. He has his reasons for thinking that, related to lines he feels you or your party has crossed that he feels pass the boundaries of "good." You have lines you feel he has crossed that you feel pass the bondaries of good.
I honestly and truly believe what you've said about vindictive and divisive writing, Paul. But I also believe that it is so true that it even applies to vindicitve and divisive writing about vindictive and divisive writing.
I would also say that I even believe it applies to vindicitive and divisive writing about vindicitve and divisive writing about vindictive and divisive writing, but that would be going a bit too far, don't you think?
Because really, the problem, at it's core, isn't about writing, but about attitude. It's the vindicitve and divisive attitude that's the dangerous one, the one that leads to increasing tensions and increasing violence.
And the opposite attitude is the one that recognizes that the person on the other side of me is a person. A person with wants and needs and desires and fears and loves and hopes and insecurities. Wants, needs, desires, fears, loves, hopes, and insecurities that are every bit as valid as mine, because they are every bit as human as I am.
When we deny them this--when we see them only in terms of what they think of us, or how they are either facilitating or debilitating our own wants, needs, desires, fears, loves, hopes, and insecurities--for any reason, we set our hearts at war with theirs.
And we become, in effect, missile-seeking targets, looking for the worst way everything they do could effect us and taking the pain from it, rather than dodging the missles and either working with the person behind them or leaving them alone so as not to be shot at any more.
There are points when this becomes impossible, of course. But even true war is more effectively waged by people and nations whose hearts are truly at peace, who have nothing to prove, and who see the humanity of the other side as much as their own.
But political columns hardly qualify as such an extreme. To those who truly feel that OSC's greatest offense in these columns is failing to grant others their humanity, I would implore you to look inward and see whether you've allowed yourself to react to him the same way you're upset that he's reacted those who he's been in opposition to.
And then, rather than insisting he change, recognize that he's just a guy who's given in to the same kind of feelings and reactions that all of us have.
As I've said before, since this is his community, it means that his voice often reigns down like thunder on Mount Olympus. But he's not really writing these columns for us. I'm sure on the national stage he's felt like a mouse squeaking from a corner, struggling to make his voice heard. Small wonder he's felt the need to shout so loudly, though it's been so deafing to those of us in a place like fleas riding on his back.
He's no different than any of us. But if you do stop and look at the man, I think you'll find he actually is well read, well studied, and has opinions that are well thought-through.
Please try to see him as a person again. And grant him the same right to think differently about things and to be passionate about it that you want him to grant you.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember being uncomfortable with Card's posting style the last time he participated significantly on this side of the forum. I wish he'd stuck around and gotten a feel for the community. I honestly don't think he was unwelcome because of his ideas. As I recall, he was a bit rude in his posting style, and that got a bad reaction. I think we were a little hard on him because we expected him to know the rules because it's his community -- but the truth is, he hardly ever posted here, and we probably should have been more patient with him, like we're patient with other new people. Unfortunately, he wasn't patient either, and just left. Although, there may have been other things going on in the background that I didn't notice, so maybe I have it all wrong.
It's funny -- I've also met OSC in person, and he was quite friendly and good-natured. I suspect that the things he writes in his columns are a bit exaggerated for effect, and some are painting groups with a broad brush. I find it hard to believe that he would honestly consider The Rabbit part of the Leftaliban, or not a serious scientist, because she accepts anthropogenic global warming based on her examination of the evidence.
Having said that, making such an accusation of outright fraud (rather than simply being honestly mistaken) is a serious charge to a scientist. Imagine if I claimed that some science fiction authors had plagiarized a short story or two. That would be a very serious accusation, and one which I wouldn't make without some good evidence.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh OK then, find me someone saying or suggesting that it would be inappropriate for OSC to use his website for his politics. That is different from saying that doing so would be harmful to the community. If you can't find that for me, kindly just shut your trap and abandon your transparent tricks, OK? At least improve your trolling to not quite so painfully obvious.
That was how I interpreted those two sentences. It's really not a big deal. My point was that you don't need to be attributing willful malice to how I interpreted it.
And could someone pleeeeeeease tell me how I'm trolling? I still don't know how it's defined here. As best as I can tell, if someone posts something you disagree with in a manner you dislike, you can say that person is trolling. You seem to be implying that my presence here is less than welcome.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was how I interpreted those two sentences. It's really not a big deal. My point was that you don't need to be attributing willful malice to how I interpreted it.
Then your 'interpretation' is simply this: you believe that people who disagree with what Card is saying also feel it is wrong or 'inappropriate' of him to say those things they disagree with on his own website.
'Foolish' or 'malicious' are really the only two conclusions I can draw about someone arriving at that interpretation. Either you don't understand how someone can disagree with someone's opinions without believing they shouldn't say them, in which case your thoughts are very foolish, or you can understand that and are simply ignoring it in which case your 'interpretation' is malicious.
As for whether or not you're welcome here, well, I'm not the one who decides who's welcome and who isn't. But I can't remember the last positive thing you contributed to the community. Your politics don't count, because you present that as you have in this thread here: maliciously.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You sound like you need a nap. And if foolish and malicious are the only two things you can come up with, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit.
By the way, "This is just your way of saying, 'He didn't say what I said he did, he just really pissed me off,'" well, that's what I call a real contribution to the community. So you might want to take the log out of your own eye before telling me about the splinter in mine.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The thing is... Card has a certain ethos that causes some people to recognize that what he says merits some consideration, and might possibly even cause one to think, "hey, maybe there isanother way of looking at this besides the way it's portrayed in the media."
How would you characterize OSC's articles? Every single one I've read has been extremely condescending and full of ridiculous stereotypes about liberals. He has proven that he would rather incite hate about those whose politcal opinions differ from his rather than actually engage in an honest debate. What do you see in his articles that I don't? When I think of someone whose opinion is worthy of consideration, I think of someone who is fair minded and is able to not only present their own viewpoints but also address the viewpoints of their critics. OSC does none of that.
I think it may have to do with perspective. Perhaps his column are a bit harsh, but I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are. Perhaps, though not necessarily. It's hard for me to tell because I generally agree with his positions, and so when I read them, my reaction is usually along the lines of, "yep, that's true."
As for him wanting to engage in honest debate; his essays aren't a conversation. They are a statement. I guess you could say they are a part of the public debate as a whole. But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You sound like you need a nap. And if foolish and malicious are the only two things you can come up with, you might want to broaden your horizons a bit.
Then how's about you enlighten me, Reshpeckobiggle? What other possibilities are there for someone who insists that there is no difference between disagreeing with what someone says, and whether or not they should say it?
As for what I said to Paul, the difference is that I ended up there. You start there, in every conversation I can remember you having. And anyway, I never said that I never behaved that way. With you it's a default position, as exhibited in this (and other) threads.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
Perhaps. But I think what does the most to draw ire against Card is his utterly baffling belief that he is somehow a moderate, that everything he says is the result of a careful and unbiased appreciation of the facts. For example, how he somehow believes Empire doesn't vilify liberals.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I think it may have to do with perspective. Perhaps his column are a bit harsh, but I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are. Perhaps, though not necessarily. It's hard for me to tell because I generally agree with his positions, and so when I read them, my reaction is usually along the lines of, "yep, that's true."
Maybe it depends on what part of his writing you focus in on. For example:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Global warming: It runs in cycles. No serious scientific evidence indicates, let alone proves, a human cause for it. In fact, the evidence indicates the opposite, since global temperatures fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when global emissions were certainly not in retreat.
All the real evidence is supportive of solar and astronomical cycles as sufficient explanation of global warming and cooling patterns. At the very most, human-generated greenhouse gases are a small contributor to the greenhouse effect, and the greenhouse system seems to have methods of venting excess heat built in.
Not only that, but the close investigation suggests that one of the favorite "proofs" of global warming, the so-called "hockey stick," is downright fraudulent -- rather like the so-called "Ophelia complex," which turns out to be based on "evidence" that has not been made public by its primary claimant and cannot be replicated by reputable scientists.
As a whole he makes claims rather than present evidence so he's really preaching to the choir here. Regardless, I can easily see how those could evoke a "yep, that's true." reaction from people on his side of the fence.
Here's another example:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Global warming is, in other words, somewhere between Piltdown Man and cold fusion on the scale of fake science.
But when I say this, the true believers become angry. Not because they can contradict my statements -- they can't. Every word I just wrote is consonant with the evidence as it now stands.
They become angry because Global Warming has become the vengeful, punitive deity of a new fundamentalism: Fanatical Environmentalism. Global Warming is rather like the idea of biblical infallibility or creation science -- impervious to evidence or logic. It is part of a faith, and creed, and the true believers feel about people like me rather the way the ayatollahs feel about Salman Rushdie: Death! Death!
It should be pretty clear how OSC's statements in those paragraphs go beyond the realm of criticism and into the realm of offensiveness. He is basically saying that people who "believe" in global warming are tools who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject. Even worse, he accuses all scientists who publish evidence supporting global warming as frauds. The whole ecotheist argument that he's using is irrelevant anyways (and, if I may insert a tu quoque, one that could easily be reversed).
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: As for him wanting to engage in honest debate; his essays aren't a conversation. They are a statement. I guess you could say they are a part of the public debate as a whole. But I daresay they are less incendiary than many other conservative columns, and certainly less than most liberal columns.
My point was that, in general, if you want people to understand your viewpoint then you need to address the talking points of your critics, not dismiss them.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think if you are on the receiving end of his admonitions, you going to perceive them to be much worse than they are.
Or, perhaps, that you perceive them accurately, and those who are not "on the receiving end" do not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or can you, in what must obviously be a detailed and complete knowledge of his political writing, find for me where he says that people who don't think like he does are terrorists out to destroy the United States?
...
quote:I think the numerous lumpings of the left with "terrorists" "the taliban," as "evil," "unamerican," "hating america" etc do exactly what I say.
This is just your way of saying, "He didn't say what I said he did, he just really pissed me off."
quote:Yet these are, by and large, the very people who hate traditional American values, who deny the value of America in the world, who have complete contempt for ordinary Americans and especially for the ordinary Americans who volunteer for military service. - Well, in the run-up to World War II, Neville Chamberlain had the complete complicity of Britain's national media and it worked for a while... - That's why the politically correct are the main censors and suppressors of free speech in our country today, the deniers of diversity and the elitist enemies of democratic process -- and yet are able to claim credit for their tolerance and love of freedom, and the media, which they control, does not expose their shame.
Because they have no shame. - Even if the Democrats fail to force President Bush's hand, they are already arming our enemies with their most powerful weapon: The belief that America will act dishonorably. - But what am I thinking? Because even when Al Gore is forgotten as a prophet, the Leftaliban's devil will still exist. - If you do the slightest thing that smacks of political incorrectness, they're out for your blood, howling that you must lose your job or your business has to be boycotted, for the American Leftaliban is the most intolerant group that has ever had control of the American establishment.
In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
The distinction is there, but I wouldn't lay excessive blame on someone who didn't notice it, or felt it was a fine one. The much-overused Neville Chamberlain analogy could easily be misinterpreted.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Card meant everyone on the left is in the leftiban, anymore than all muslims could be equated with the Taliban.
He believes in conservation, just not because of Global Warming.
That said, I was rather puzzled that the column did not actually discuss the prize for literature.
I think there are a lot of folks around here who are regularly as withering as Card. And if you read all of his reviews, including the albums, mystery novels, local zoning and politics (and, I guess I could add TV to items I tend to skim) he really isn't contumacious more than 10% of the time. Also, he doesn't post a World Watch every week -- they sometimes don't change for months.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
Seriously, that's weak. That distinction is so fine as to be pointless.
I think OSC does wish to do good, and I think that he thinks he's doing something good for America. But he's going about it in an incredibly damaging and negligent way. I don't think he's knowledgeable enough about the subject, and I don't think he fully thought through that article before it poured onto the page straight from his ire without taking a pit stop at his brain. I can forgive a one off rant, we all do it from time to time when the mood hits.
But I'm surprised that someone who wants good things for the country would choose villification over dialogue. What does he seriously expect will happen when someone reads that? It's either going to reinforce the beliefs of someone who already agrees with him, or it's going to seriously piss off someone who disagrees.
You don't write an aticle like that to try and chance minds, you write it to poke the bear. I would love to have a dialogue with OSC on America and our relationship with the environment around us. I don't think I could convince him that global warming is real, but I have little doubt that I could convince him that the argument is useless, and that everything done to fight global warming is actually good for plenty of other reasons that justify doing it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still think it's a generational thing. At the last signing I went to, and I go to a lot, because I live 30 minutes from Greensboro, some guy actually starting arguing with OSC about WMD in Iraq; he basically tried to hijack the signing. I don't see members of my generation being nearly as likely to be as divisive or frothing-at-the-mouth. But that's just me.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In fairness, Card has never, to the best of my knowledge, said the Left was terrorists, or that they were actively out to destroy the United States;
he has merely rhetorically equated the Left with terrorists, in a somewhat sardonic way, and said that their actions are likely to be the downfall of the United States (for reasons that range between lust for power and sheer stupidity.)
Seriously, that's weak. That distinction is so fine as to be pointless.
As promised, I won't lay excessive blame.
Honestly, I would tend to agree, but as I said I'm trying to be fair and offer a fairly liberal interpretation. I suspect Card would say the "Leftaliban" shot was more meant as a description of the Left as a tyrannical system demanding conformity from its members and punishing those who depart from the fold than, say, suggesting the Left is actually supporting terrorism.
'Course, that's the problem with inflammatory metaphors- you're kind've stuck with the implications, even if you haven't considered them very broadly.
Let's just say, take that "merely" in my earlier statement with a significant grain of salt.
As someone whose immediate family has several members in academia, I'll be more than clear that Card's tendency to villify and plant cardboard motivations on large numbers of people he's never met in the name of making scattershot condemnations easier is not something I find easy to treat gently. Some of Card's past rhetoric raises my ire to a point that my own displeasure begins at the description "ignorant" and goes downhill like a ski jump.
However, whether it's a desire for peace or a less admirable quasi-vengeful wish to rise above the level of the one with whom one disagrees, I *do* try.
I can recognize, and even sympathize, with the fears that might cause one to distrust the climate change faction; likewise those that cause one to believe that the U.S.' actions in Iraq are necessary to defend itself, though I disagree.
But as I think we've said many times at this point- Card's methods are probably not helpful to dialogue.
quote:Originally posted by steven: I still think it's a generational thing. At the last signing I went to, and I go to a lot, because I live 30 minutes from Greensboro, some guy actually starting arguing with OSC about WMD in Iraq; he basically tried to hijack the signing. I don't see members of my generation being nearly as likely to be as divisive or frothing-at-the-mouth. But that's just me.
I can't help but wonder if, for some, that might be the result of a combination of apathy and perceived powerlessness.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are apathetic, because we are largely, relatively, powerless. 3.4 million Americans were born in 1975, my year. OTOH, from the early 50's to about 1960, the average was close to 10 million each year. It made it up to about 12 million one or two of those years. Theyv'e got us outnumbered, at least until they start getting too sick to do much. For better or for worse my generation is along for the ride, largely...
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lyrhawn: "I think OSC does wish to do good, and I think that he thinks he's doing something good for America." This is a terrific attitude, and illustrates my contention with Rakeesh (at the moment.) It does wonders if you start with the assumption that people are trying to help, no matter how ignorant or ill-advised you believe them to be.
Tom: Yes. I would say that is just as valid a possibility.
Threads: Excellent example. There are definitely two Cards at work there. So here is an opportunity for insight into the mind of the "choir." I don't really notice the offensive parts because he isn't telling me anything new. And I don't really remember what he writes because usually it's nothing new. So when people get all bent out of shape, I don't know why. But, yeah, I can see how one might be offended at a statement like that. But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
"He is basically saying that people who 'believe' in global warming are tools who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject."
I personally don't think it has so much to do with educating oneself on the science so much as it has to do with having a finely-tuned b.s detector, complemented by a healthy skepticism that stems from an understanding of history. That's where I'm coming from, and I think that's where he's mostly coming from. Might I recommend a man with an incredible b.s detector? John Stossel. Read Myths, Lies, and Outright Stupidity.Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I personally don't think it has so much to do with educating oneself on the science so much as it has to do with having a finely-tuned b.s detector, complemented by a healthy skepticism that stems from an understanding of history."
This makes me smile, for some reason.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
President Bush has done well with his gut-based BS detector and ignorance of science. Think how much better off Resh is with his understanding of history added to that skill-set.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It does wonders if you start with the assumption that people are trying to help, no matter how ignorant or ill-advised you believe them to be.
Here's the trick, though: with any given person you don't start out every single conversation as though it was the first one you've ever had with them, and give them complete benefit of the doubt. Your credit score in that particular area is pretty crappy, and no matter how many times you refuse to address the points I brought up about your posts, that's still true.
quote:But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
Is that why you showed up here with such a chip on your shoulder, slinging as much insult as you receive?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you need to understand: I am on the receiving end of a constant barrage of offensiveness because of the differences between my belief system and that of the popular culture (especially since I am a college student). So take that as you may.
Do you usually mine the Principal's office for your wilting rhetoric?
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't talking about every single person, Rakeesh. I was talking about people in general. As it pertains to you, I was just offended that you automatically assume willful distortion of the conversation even though I came right out at the beginning and said I didn't know what the conversation is about. No, you were just picking a fight. So can I call you a troll now?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For anyone who doesn't visit the other side, OSC will be interviewed tonight on a podcast over at All American Blogger specifically about his global warming rant.
You can call in to ask questions, and I personally plan to listen and hear what he sounds like when he isn't foaming at the mouth. I hope to find a perfectly reasonable person with perfectly reasonable thoughts.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to be able to listen, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts after you have, Lyrhawn.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm listening to it now. I'm still not finding Card's arguments on this convincing. However, I am glad to hear Card talking about falsification and the scientific method. He does seem to have a reasonable grasp of how science should work.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not enthused about his approach to this discussion.
But that may be because I disagree with his conclusions.
If he were to turn his scorn on the board of supervisors here where I'm located (proudly voted to make English the official language! considering what can be done to make children of illegal immigrants ineligible for welfare!) I doubt I'd have as much of a problem.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annnd I did...did I sound like an idiot? I'm Adam, but apparently not the Adam he thought I was.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
